You make the call: Spreading the Pain

[billd91]

I think the answer is the same in any edition. Get into the head of the NPC and figure it out from there. Would it recognize that the character at its feet has been healed and getting ready to get back up or will it perceive the character as still being down until it actually gets back up? Does it realize which PC might be the most dangerous for it and continually work to keep that PC out of the action while others pound away at it? Or will it react to whichever enemy hit him last or hardest?

I think this is the difference between playing a role playing game and playing a tabletop board game. Playing from the point of view of the creature you're playing rather than playing just to the rules or from an omniscient viewpoint. The DM sits in a space where he can use the omniscient viewpoint, but I think the game suffers as an RPG when he does so.

 

[FireLance]

I think the answer is the same in any edition. Get into the head of the NPC and figure it out from there. Would it recognize that the character at its feet has been healed and getting ready to get back up or will it perceive the character as still being down until it actually gets back up? Does it realize which PC might be the most dangerous for it and continually work to keep that PC out of the action while others pound away at it? Or will it react to whichever enemy hit him last or hardest?

On a slightly related topic, how many of you would allow a PC who was healed to make a Bluff check vs. the monster's passive Perception as a free action to feign that he was still unconscious in the hopes that the monster would target someone else?

 

[Bold or Stupid]

On a slightly related topic, how many of you would allow a PC who was healed to make a Bluff check vs. the monster's passive Perception as a free action to feign that he was still unconscious in the hopes that the monster would target someone else?

I'd allow it, but then in the past I've allowed pcs to fake KO when reduced down to 1-3 Hp.

 

[ArcaneSpringboard]

Why the hell did the other PC heal you a second time immediately after seeing that the monster had no problem with smacking you back into unconsciousness after the first try? A better choice would have been for another PC to use a round to drag your character out of the fray before patching him up. The problem in this case wasn't bad DMing, it was a dumb move on the healing PC's part.

Thanks for your response, though I could have done without the contempt.

If wee'd thought about delaying at the time, yes, that would have solved the problem.

However, that doesn't actually address the issue I posted about. I'm trying to go over the generality, not the specifics. This issue would apply to stunning a single PC repeatedly, or stunning him again immediately after he finally makes his save and such.

Do you pick on a single PC if it's the tactically best option, even if that effectively removes him from the combat for as much as 30-45 minutes.

Or do you spread the hurt around?

I never for a second wanted to imply that this was 'bad DMing'.

However, in this situation, where we were vastly outgunned (an effective Level +5 encounter), when through a combo of bad luck via dice and a difficult to-hit # I had hardly done anything in the combat for about 8 rounds, that gets followed up by four rounds of constantly being knocked Unc, with the DM laughing about it while doing so.

Bottom line was that session was Not Fun [tm] for me.

But I wanted to get a feel for what other people thought.

 

[ArcaneSpringboard]

On a slightly related topic, how many of you would allow a PC who was healed to make a Bluff check vs. the monster's passive Perception as a free action to feign that he was still unconscious in the hopes that the monster would target someone else?

That's actually what I wanted to do. Normally I would have thought that would require a Minor action, which was why I was waiting for my turn to try it...then never got to.

I should have piped up regarding the possibility of a Free Action, but didn't do so.

 

[fuzzlewump]

During this combat she attacked my sorcerer, and knocked him Unc, only a couple hp from death. The Artificer then healed me, making me concious but still prone at the feet of the Solo. So the DM attacked me again. Unc, a few hp from death. The Artificer then got me to use my Second Wind, so I was again concious at the feet of the Solo, but prone. Wack. Unc again.

So the question is this...even though it is tactically smart to try to kill the character, is the right 'game' move to do that? Effectively I spent the last four rounds of the combat not able to do anything, and compeletely unable to improve my condition.

I'm going to go with yes, it is the right game move. The Artificer should have delayed or readied his heal in such a way so that you were healed right before your turn so that you could do something. It was a bad decision on the Artificers part, especially after the first time. Also, your party needed to feel the pain of not having a defender or a controller to keep the monster from killing you. What's the point of having a defender or a controller if the monster won't bother killing the glass-cannons/healers anyway?

The right game move, in my opinion, is to create a challenging situation for the players to overcome in some way. A challenge is cheapened when it is made easier because someone else thinks you can't handle it. For instance, if a 3.5 party lacks a rogue, it seems lame to me that anything locked or trapped disappears from the world. You should have consequences for your choices, including class choice. You should feel your lack of defender but enjoy your abundance of strikers, or whatever.

You should miss not being able to open that chest without the rogue, but be glad you now have the barbarian to bust open the secret door.

This breaks down at a point, if the DM is clearly trying to make you fail by placing an impossible to kill monster in an impossible-to-run-from area but before that it is fair game. (Or having an easy to disable auto-kill trap or locked door that is required to advance the game, etc etc for any challenge.)

 

[ArcaneSpringboard]

So, just to be clear...

If you believe that the tactically smart thing to do is stun-lock one of the players for the entire combat...that's okay, despite the fact that that player is going to have zero fun at all?

Let's then pretend it's the same character for all three combats in a session. Is that still okay?

I probably shouldn't have mentioned the specific scenario, since it's obfuscating things.

Bottom line...it it okay to sacrifice the fun of a single player in order to do the tactically smart thing?

 

[ArcaneSpringboard]

Actually, just to clarify on the party composition...we _do_ have a Defender...but he wasn't at the game that night. We also had an Invoker, who was not able to do much hitting due to his rolling being as atrocious as mine.

The irony is that I wouldn't have felt nearly as bad if my character had just died right on the first blows (I was only 2 hp away).

 

[Saeviomagy]

If you, as a DM, have already chosen to use stunning monsters in back-to-back combats, then in my opinion you've already made your mistake.

Stuns are ok in moderation, but overused (which is a pretty low threshold: I think that stunning a given character for 2 rounds in the average fight is probably too much) they're just fun suckers. Note: I don't consider a single save-ends stun to be breaking this rule - a party has plenty of ways to remove save-ends effects, even if none of them are leaders, so it adds tension. Multiple save-ends stuns however is definately a violation.

If the best tactic for your monsters is to overuse stun, then rebuild the encounter so it's going to be fun.

Being KOed is different. As others have pointed out, it was terrible tactics on your party's behalf to wake you up immediately before the monsters go, and mind-blowingly bad tactics to do it twice in a row.

In fact, if I were you, I would have refused to accept the heal.

 

[Mengu]

Let's then pretend it's the same character for all three combats in a session. Is that still okay?

There is something suspect with the DM's motives if you are facing monsters that can stun at-will for 3 encounters in a row.

Bottom line...it it okay to sacrifice the fun of a single player in order to do the tactically smart thing?

Yes of course. Playing D&D should absolutely be more frustrating than our day jobs. Otherwise what would be the point? It's the only way to look forward to a good Monday at work.