You make the call: Spreading the Pain

[Squire James]

It appears this thread is going to wind down since the OP has "left the building", but I guess I'll comment anyway.

Looking at it from a monster's point of view, seeing an enemy they took so much trouble to put down get back up right afterward TWICE would probably be pretty infuriating! It is unknown whether the sorcerer pulled off one or two really effective attacks early on that painted a bulls-eye on him. Again, if I were a monster and I just saw someone deal lots of damage early in a fight, I'd make it a priority to put that guy out of the fight ASAP. It is just common sense.

That being said, if that character has really been ineffective that combat, the monsters really ought to be picking on someone else. Picking on someone who's been successful is fair play - at least that player had fun at some point with his success. In an optimal situation, the other players should be stepping in help make the game fun for everyone - it shouldn't be all on the DM's shoulders!

 

[Garthanos]

I have an idea for powers that can be used only when a character is stunned etc... the idea is a little like ... allow them warlord like inspirational effects this can still represent there heroic luck influencing the scene it is not them actually doing anything .. it is still there player doing something... perhaps one of these allows the player to choose an ally and inspire a charge to get them to your side (and gives them bonus armor class against opportunity attacks while doing it.) or they might inspire a frenzy in another ally... similar to a warlords direct the strike.

Shrug this would mean a disabled state on the character doesnt necessarily mean the player doesnt get to make choices and be a part of the game.

In combination with the above the choice to have ones luck influence the fight even though the character is disabled might impede recovery. This might allow some interesting protracted unconsciousnesses or other disablements perhaps.

 

[Tewligan]

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

Ah, that wasn't quite contempt - just expressing my surprise that the healing PC did the exact same dumb thing two rounds in a row.

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.

If it makes sense for the attacker, sure. A flail snail will probably just randomly whip his flails around at whatever's in front of him, but a vampire's going to make intelligent choices, even if that keeps a player out of the loop for a half hour. It's up to the players to up their game and react accordingly to get their fallen comrade out of the way so he can be tended to without getting another facepunch mid-healing. My players would not be pleased with me if I intentionally made poor choices for clever monsters just to spare them the heartbreak of being out of action for a few minutes.

 

[ArcaneSpringboard]

It appears this thread is going to wind down since the OP has "left the building", but I guess I'll comment anyway.

No, I'm still around, and reading but I was starting to repeat myself and didn't have anything additional to offer.

Looking at it from a monster's point of view, seeing an enemy they took so much trouble to put down get back up right afterward TWICE would probably be pretty infuriating! It is unknown whether the sorcerer pulled off one or two really effective attacks early on that painted a bulls-eye on him. Again, if I were a monster and I just saw someone deal lots of damage early in a fight, I'd make it a priority to put that guy out of the fight ASAP. It is just common sense.

That being said, if that character has really been ineffective that combat, the monsters really ought to be picking on someone else. Picking on someone who's been successful is fair play - at least that player had fun at some point with his success. In an optimal situation, the other players should be stepping in help make the game fun for everyone - it shouldn't be all on the DM's shoulders!

Actually, my sorcerer didn't even get the opportunity to get up. The sequence of events was:

Solo slams sorcerer Unc.
Sorcerer makes death save.
Artificer heals sorcerer, who becomes concsious but prone.
Solo slams sorcerer Unc.
Sorcerer fails death save.
Artificer grants sorcerer ability to use his Second Wind. Sorcerer becomes
conscious but prone.
Solo slams sorcerer Unc.
Sorcerer fails death save.

Admittedly, we didn't think about having the Artificer delay, which would have solved this, but hadn't thought of that at the time.

As for my effectiveness, it was bad. Horrible even.

Around 8-10 rounds, one hit with an Enc, one hit with an at-will, one failed Intimidate to surrender.

 

[LostSoul]

RPGs are fun because players get to make decisions that have consequences.

That is the principle from which I am proceeding. Disagree? The rest of the post will make no sense. (And there are ways of playing RPGs where there are no consequences to player choice.)

The question is, then: Was AS screwed because he was unable to make any choices?

It's not so simple a question. Frustration is a big part of fun - if you can't lose, who cares if you win? Frustration is a real-world penalty; that gives "winning" a real-world value.

Was AS able to pick and choose the fight or not? Did he know that he was heading into an encounter that could end up with him being "stunlocked" for an hour? That's an important question.

Why is AS playing the game? Does he want to be a hero, like the advice in the DMG and all the text in the PHB suggests? Or did he want to engage in a duel of wits with the DM? Or something else?

Who knows? Only AS, and he hasn't revealed this.

AS brings up some very interesting points about how to run the game. Depending on the metagame goals for play (that is, what the players want to do, why they are at the table in the first place), you're going to get different answers.

AS should start by telling us why he and his group are playing D&D 4E. Only once we know why they are playing the game can we say if it was a bad move by his DM or not.

If AS has no opportunity to make choices except in combat, it's lame. He was stripped of the opportunity to make a meaningful impact on the game. However, if the game is about other things - exploring the setting, getting into character, exploring the personal issues of the PCs, or anything else - it's not that big a deal.

In the end there's no one answer for all groups. You have to look at why each person is playing and deal with that.

 

[ArcaneSpringboard]

Was AS able to pick and choose the fight or not? Did he know that he was heading into an encounter that could end up with him being "stunlocked" for an hour? That's an important question.

Beyond deciding to go through a portal without any idea what was on the other side, no we didn't get to choose the fight or not. The portal was also one-way, so we couldn't go back if we'd wanted to.

We certainly didn't know we were about to take on the BBEG.

Why is AS playing the game? Does he want to be a hero, like the advice in the DMG and all the text in the PHB suggests? Or did he want to engage in a duel of wits with the DM? Or something else?

Who knows? Only AS, and he hasn't revealed this.

I'm a Storyteller/Tactician to nearly equal degrees when taking online tests. But yes, I like being a hero. I like the challenge of tactical combats and puzzles too, but I'd take a good story over a good combat any day.

I think I'd mentioned it in passing, but thought I'd bring it up here. I'm usually the DM for our group, and I think a large part of my issue here is a difference of DMing philosophy. Scott (the DM on the night in question) I think does go with more of a Tactician philosophy. He mentioned in an email exchange we had that he wants to take the PCs to the limit, to a TPK if necessary.

I'm again, more of a Storyteller type DM (though admittedly I have a lot of combats). I like to give my players a chance to shine, even if the rules don't really allow it.

For example, in our session on Friday (I'm back as DM) the Artificer used Thundering Armor which he'd boosted using a Master Wand to hit a Harpy that was standing on a 5' tall obelisk and pushed it 6 squares. Now, I thought it'd be cool if that just bowled the Harpy over so I made a quick decision, had the Harpy do an Acrobatics check (it failed) and ended up having it go prone.

I do want them to feel scared at times though, which is why I'm really happy with the new Paragon/Epic damage tables.

AS brings up some very interesting points about how to run the game. Depending on the metagame goals for play (that is, what the players want to do, why they are at the table in the first place), you're going to get different answers.

AS should start by telling us why he and his group are playing D&D 4E. Only once we know why they are playing the game can we say if it was a bad move by his DM or not.

If AS has no opportunity to make choices except in combat, it's lame. He was stripped of the opportunity to make a meaningful impact on the game. However, if the game is about other things - exploring the setting, getting into character, exploring the personal issues of the PCs, or anything else - it's not that big a deal.

No, not a lot of non-combat stuff going on in our first two adventures, but Scott is a new DM.

Then again, I'm pretty guilty about that myself...which has just inspired a new thread subject...

In the end there's no one answer for all groups. You have to look at why each person is playing and deal with that.

Best answer so far I think.

 

[Squire James]

I suspect what the DM was doing to you was almost exactly the same thing his PC would have done if he had stun-locked a monster back when he was a player. A new DM that used to be a player could easily make that kind of mistake without any malice or even awareness of what he is doing.

Everyone's going to have an unluckly and/or unfun day once in a while, and sometimes it is best to consider a campaign arc as a whole rather than focusing on a single session. If you have several such sessions in a row, then it's a problem.

 

[KarinsDad]

The thing about challenging encounters is that the DM has to play reasonably intelligent and extremely intelligent monsters the exact same way the players are playing their PCs, to the best of their ability.

Some players have their PCs do purposely stupid or random things, but the vast majority of players I have ever gamed with have their PCs do the smartest tactical move that they can think of (sometimes with table talk which pits multiple brains against just the DM).

If the DM does not do the same (with some nod to the intelligence of the monster), then he won't be challenging the players. And, players can typically tell when the DM is holding back. Some players are ok with that, some of us are not. We want to win with our wits and our abilities, not with the DM fudging decisions and/or dice in our favor. The victory is hollow if the DM throws the PCs a bone and DMs who do that tend to mostly do that when it is a close call or looking grim for the PCs. But, the victory is the sweetest if the players do succeed on their own.

If the PCs can tell what the monsters are doing, then the monsters can tell what the PCs are doing (like healing an ally). And just like it is a good tactic to focus fire on NPCs, it's a good tactic to focus fire on PCs.

Spreading the pain is for when you're teaching a new player how to play the game. Once they become a somewhat established player, the kid gloves should come off.

And yes, stun or unconsciousness or even blind sucks. We've all been there. Either one gripes about it, or one sits and enjoys the show.

Note: The one exception to this is if the DM has a monster attack an unconscious PC while other PCs are still conscious and in the fight. That's almost always just being a rat bastard DM because there are obviously bigger fish to fry at that point, even if the PC was unconscious multiple times. But if the PC is conscious, the PC is fair game for any attack.

 

[Angellis_ater]

Even having weighed in on it being the, at-the-time, most strategic and challenging choice to pound on your character, I believe it is also the DMs job to make sure the entire adventure is fun. If you were targeted for stunlocks for three encounters in a row, or KO'd then I'd say that the DM is either targeting you for personal reasons, OR because you guys are presenting said sorcerer as either the highest damage dealer and thus an important target, or leaving your sorcerer out in the open and "easy to hit and kill".

I'd suggest discussing tactics with your group, as well as asking the DM if the reason you were targeted were tactical and what you can do better in future encounters.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Even though you're somehow right I don't fully agree with you. You can do something while you're stunned b/c the RL you is not stunned. Therefore, as you said you can "manage" as things meanwhile. But you probably don't play D&D to "manage" other things, you probably play D&D b/c you want to play that char.

You are right, the players generally are there to enjoy playing a PC, and I stated that "I do think its the GM's job to present a challenging, entertaining setting in which the Players run thier PCs and have fun."

But what I was trying to get across is the question of whether a PC being stunlocked or KO'd in one encounter is something the DM should work to avoid in an attempt to keep it fun for the player, or if its something that can happen in a difficult encounter and the player should work to handle the event and help move the game forward to the point where they can play thier character again....

Yes, this delves into the question of what role the GM plays in the game and how much the players have a responsibility to the groups enjoyment, along with a bunch of other table specific issues...
Just wanted the OP to consider that stun-lock and/or KO may not be the GM's responsibility to worry about.