Which tells me precisely jack about which character was the one taunting. Remember that issue about details?
1. the knight class has a mechanic. It was used. It failed.
2. Goading something into attacking requires the DM buy into it. Despite the quality of his RP- as mentioned, the player had the room enjoying his antics- the DM didn't have the dragons attack. You want to blame someone in this case, blame the DM, not the player.
1) Irrelevant. You could have still tried distractions that don't rely on a friggin' mechanic.
2) Except that your inability to provide
any actual detail what those antics were gives credence to the idea that they were not that creative to begin with. After all, if they are so enjoyable, then why can't you remember them?
You were wrong about the knight player's quality of RP.
You were wrong about the efficacy of the AoO build...and which character it was.
You were wrong to assume the choice not to select a single high quality spell out of several implied poor prep.
1) You have provided nothing that shows I am wrong beyond your claims I am wrong, and every time I press on some detail to support your evidence you avoid it.
2) You are wrong about me being wrong on the second one. I acknowledged at one point that it was normally an effective build. Just suggested one situation it was not, and was wrong about which character was using it due to your lack of details. Here's where I said it:
"Basically, you had someone who relied on overspecialization
that works most of the time, but ended up crippled in a situation where it wasn't as useful."
Source
Note the bolded part.
3) You actually said your group didn't take that spell. Proof:
"2. Because the adventuring group was a trio, my PC and the arcane spellcaster were multiclassed- he had a good array of spells,
but Fly wasn't one of them. With the foreknowledge we had of the game, both fireball and lightning bolt were solid choices, and that was proven in play."
Source
Note the bold. You outright admitted that one powerful spell wasn't among the list of ones picked. And since we're talking about a melee character fighting a flying creature and unable to do so, it was poor prep. There was nothing done to enable the melee-only character to close the gap.
It was 10 years ago. But the details beyond the fact that several people in the room enjoyed the RP are largely immaterial.
Still...yes, ancestries were questioned, hoards were threatened, etc.
Dragons made their saves; DM felt uncompelled to have them be sufficiently provoked by the RP to attack him.
(Dropping trow was NOT done, probably because trying that move in combat while in full armor is both time consuming and stupidly dangerous.)
A simple "I don't remember" instead of saying something I suggested multiple times would have been better; repeating someone else's vague suggestion does a lot towards making one look dishonest. After all, I know how human memory works; it can be altered by providing a suggestion of what happened, especially when what happened is already vaguely remembered. This happens all of the time, and there's part of the brain basically devoted to filling in missing details (it's why there's no gap in our vision, despite how far apart our eyes are).
I mean that would have left the dragons with a completely clear path to attack the arcanist simultaneously from 2 different angles- remember flanking? The arcanist would have been dead by the time I had a chance to grab the knight and throw him.
That would have meant the #2 biggest source of damage- and the one with the greatest range- in the encounter would be gone, leaving me as the only character able to hit the dragons in flight.
After they finished me off, the knight would have been easy pickings.
Given your own posts about how the dragons basically ignored you, I'm failing to see how this is a point. Given how you failed to distract them from one person, what makes you think you could have stopped them from killing the arcanist if they decided to focus on him? You still wouldn't draw their attention with the tactics chosen, they still would have flanked him, and he still would have died. The only difference is whether or not you would have had the one character who couldn't attack possibly in position to attack.
Since the dragons were ignoring your efforts anyway, why not take advantage of it?
Conclusions! It helps if you don't jump to them!
If all you give is poor details, you really shouldn't be surprised if others come to conclusions you don't like or which cast people in bad light.
You'd have to ask the guy who played the character.
Fair point.
In a one-shot with only 3 PCs, hard decisions about your build have to be made. Some will probably be bad, or at least suboptimal.
The knight was able to contribute directly to every combat save the last. His decision to eschew ranged weapons was based on RP- he found them dishonorable- and he preferred the classic 2-hand sword over a polearm.
The arcanist used most of his resources, and we won the final battle. So it's hard for me to argue the player chose poorly.
He had RP reasons for it. Honestly, that shifts the blame more towards the arcanist for not being properly prepared.
Besides, as you said:
Yet you simultaneously insist the knight should have distracted them with taunts? Really?. That's the hill you want to plant your flag on?
I planted my flag on the hill of "there wasn't any creativity in how you tried to distract the dragon." So far... I'm seeing there was no creativity in how you tried to distract the dragon, and you were too reliant on game mechanics to aid you in a contest of wills, where dragons normally have the advantage.
And:
Insulting someone sufficiently to attack you while they're already engaged in combat with someone else is a lot harder than you think.
When I was in the public defender's office, I never heard one gang member confide in me that he changed targets mid-shootout from the guys with guns to the unarmed dude shouting mean words at them. IME, most violent types can shout "I'll deal with you later!" at their hecklers without abandoning proper violence on those they deem clear & present threats.
Your experience as a public defender doesn't apply, if that is the only example you can give. The characters were not unarmed; any dragon would be an idiot to discount swords and other items, and at least one species is noted for impulse control problems when angered. So far, there's only one idiot species noted, and even that one has a write-up that indicates they wouldn't ignore someone dangerous.
So, it would be like switching from one guy with a gun to another guy with a knife who is actively threatening you or actively insulting you. Did that ever come up?
