You win some, you lose some

[S'mon]

Why were they mad? Was there something unfair about the fight, in their perception? Are they mad at you for treating them unfairly, or at themselves for losing?

 

[S'mon]

As for how it went, the witch provoked the monk into combat with a lightning bolt, but the monk avoided the spell entirely thanks to evasion. The monk then punched the sorcerer first, taking him down to 0HP, he attempted to blast her with a fireball (which was avoided with evasion) and knocked himself to -1 by doing so. The alchemist and fighter began attacking her in melee and range respectively while the witch moved to cure the sorcerer, but the witch provoked an AoO from the movement and was taken down from the hit before she could get to the sorcerer. On the next round the alchemist was struck by both hits of the monk's flurry of blows for close to max damage, which dropped him slightly below 0HP. The fighter then surrendered.

It's almost incredible that the party could lose. I'd expect a 6th level Fighter PC alone to match a 7th level NPC monk one-on-one, never mind the whole party, even at reduced hp. It sounds like they are truly appalling at tactics, whereas the adventure is written for an average group - it doesn't sound like a meatgrinder adventure. I don't think either the module author or the GM can be blamed, given normal expectations. They should be annoyed at themselves - not for fighting an unwinnable battle, but for losing an extremely winnable battle. Personally if I were GMing I have to say I might feel a bit annoyed at experienced players who managed to perform so poorly.

Maybe they should ask you to run adventures written for ca 3rd-4th level PCs, not 6th. Then they might have a chance.

 

[fireinthedust]

Looking at the tactics of the fight you gave, they didn't play their hand well.

1) Sorcerer throws an area effect spell at a Monk with Evasion!

2) Witch threw an area effect spell at a Monk with evasion

3) Witch gives herself an AoO by moving through a threatened space.

A few bad die rolls and the party goes down.

On top of that no primary healer, and it seems no one thought to buy a potion of healing or five, or a wand of Cure Wounds, or any other such item. I don't know why the Alchemist doesn't have loads of potions of healing, considering iirc he gets that feat for free (yes, Potions are a cash drain, but they opted not to have a Cleric; drain only if you HAVE a Cleric, worth it if you don't).

A solid PC group could have mopped the floor with your "boss", and a medium group could have done fine. They just made some tactical errors on top of not having the right resources or item investments.

What module is it? AP?

 

[SnowleopardVK]

[MENTION=6677945]SnowleopardVK[/MENTION]

Or we could be going about this wrong... How about instead you invite over a guest DM to run a one-shot game? A real killer rat bastard old school DM. Then they'll run back to you with open arms.

Haha, I wish I could XP you for this, but I need to spread it around.

Why were they mad? Was there something unfair about the fight, in their perception? Are they mad at you for treating them unfairly, or at themselves for losing?

Seems like they're mad at themselves for losing and me for not giving them PC immunity.

What module is it? AP?

Pathfinder's Jade Regent, Night of Frozen Shadows. The number of monk minions varies from 3 to 9 depending on how much time they've allowed their enemies to spend reinforcing. 6 was the number they were at.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Tell your players that you were wrong to capture them. Announce that they were executed instead and the bad guys just got on with their plans.

 

[tomBitonti]

Late-ish, but, play style matters a lot here.

One style has independent encounters of fixed difficulty. Critters next door will do nothing, might have no awareness at all of a fight. Players have little need to plan out resources beyond the first encounter. Fights are expected to follow a preset distribution of CR relative to the party, with the big fight at the end.

Another style mixes that up: Enemies gain information, and use it against the players. Critters next door do notice what is happening, and react. Opponent CR doesn't always follow a preset distribution, meaning, players should size up opponents, and know when to back away, or run, from certain encounters.

TomB

 

[korjik]

That's a bit harsh... I didn't use the words "suck it up" at any point, I just feel that they took the loss worse than they should have. Anyways, from their conversation afterwards (what I've heard since posting this topic) they seem to have decided this result was their fault and that they made poor decisions in an encounter that they should have been able to handle. They're still mad at me, though apparently they don't believe I gave them an unfair encounter.

Then you should be fine. You may think that they are taking the loss worse than they should but they may just need a bit of cooldown. Having a TPK that was cause I messed up as a player would be more annoying than, well, pretty much any other kind of TPK. It would leave me a bit grumpy too

 

[Elf Witch]

I am still not clear why it was a TPK. Did the PCs fail every stabilizing roll? Also if the sorcerer went to -1 because they did a spell they should not be bleeding out they should have been unconscious but stable.

Also if the fighter surrendered why is he dead?

So unless the monk went killed everyone who was down at least two of the party should still be alive.

I am fan of Pathfinder's AP but they are tough and have a reputation of being meat grinders. They require the DM to tweak them especially for a party that does not have a lot of healing or a party made up of different classes than the standard fighter, healer, skill monkey and mage.

 

[fireinthedust]

I am still not clear why it was a TPK. Did the PCs fail every stabilizing roll? Also if the sorcerer went to -1 because they did a spell they should not be bleeding out they should have been unconscious but stable.

I don't think it was a TPK, I think the boss just knocked them out and captured them. once they're all down it's effectively that, but in this case he told them they're captured.


Personally, I only really let them "die" if it's their fault, or if the stakes are high. Minor things and I'll use the defeat as part of the story. ...or I say this, and that's the goal. Hopefully that's what happens, right?

 

[prosfilaes]

Another style mixes that up: Enemies gain information, and use it against the players. Critters next door do notice what is happening, and react. Opponent CR doesn't always follow a preset distribution, meaning, players should size up opponents, and know when to back away, or run, from certain encounters.

That's a very binary split. And let's be honest; if you take the second style hardcore enough, there's 100% chance of a TPK. That's what happens to people in real life; even though the CR range is a lot lower in real life (there's probably no one more than a CR 6 in real life), if you start too many fights, one day you find someone is tougher or better connected then you thought or you're just unlucky and you die. In a D&D world? How exactly do you size up an opponent and tell whether they're first level or tenth? If the odds weren't weighed heavily towards the PCs, they'd never reach high levels.

And let's again go back to the scenario at hand. They've defeated a bunch of monks and an invisible monk they didn't know existed appears in front of them, so they couldn't have appropriately sized the opposition. They couldn't make a full retreat; they could have tried for a better position, but they couldn't have gotten away. If the DM hadn't pulled his punches, if they failed to defeat the monk, the monk was going to kill them.