|
4 years ago ::
Dec 28, 2008 - 9:17PM
#351
|
Date Joined:
Aug 20, 2008
|
Actually, tactically the best decision in that circumstance would have been for the CdGing Ghoul to hold his action, have the second two Ghouls come up and hit the Barbarian, and then have the CdGing ghoul CdG the Cleric.
Optimal tactics, I agree. I would probably have still had the ghoul drag the Cleric back before performing the CdG, tho. Dragging the victim back from the fray just feels right to me. Even if the DM had rolled the minimum for the Para duration, the ghoul had time to drag its prey back and enter the prey's hex, standing over him, with a full attack on the way.
For clarity:
Rd 1
Ghoul: hits cleric.
Cleric: paralyzed
Rd 2
Ghoul: drags cleric back, drags cleric back to its square, or both.
Cleric: paralyzed
Rd 3
Ghoul: CdG's, if possible, otherwise full attack plus AoO if cleric tries to crawl or stand.
Cleric: croaks unless he's really lucky or PC's really good.
As I've said before, I don't have a problem with the CdG. I just think the ghouls were a little too brutally efficient for...well...ghouls. Optimum tactics should be reserved for elite/fanatical troops.
MrJake
MrJake
"This forum is madness!"
"No! This. Is. WIZSPACE!!!"
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Dec 28, 2008 - 9:33PM
#352
|
Date Joined:
Mar 16, 2008
|
Optimal tactics, I agree. I would probably have still had the ghoul drag the Cleric back before performing the CdG, tho. Dragging the victim back from the fray just feels right to me. Even if the DM had rolled the minimum for the Para duration, the ghoul had time to drag its prey back and enter the prey's hex, standing over him, with a full attack on the way.
For clarity:
Rd 1
Ghoul: hits cleric.
Cleric: paralyzed
Rd 2
Ghoul: drags cleric back, drags cleric back to its square, or both.
Cleric: paralyzed
Rd 3
Ghoul: CdG's, if possible, otherwise full attack plus AoO if cleric tries to crawl or stand.
Cleric: croaks unless he's really lucky or PC's really good.
As I've said before, I don't have a problem with the CdG. I just think the ghouls were a little too brutally efficient for...well...ghouls. Optimum tactics should be reserved for elite/fanatical troops.
MrJake
A coup de grace is not a complex tactical maneuver. The cleric is paralyzed, bite his adams apple out. Dragging the cleric back to the other ghouls or holding your actions so the other ghouls can cover you would be to advanced for nontactical monsters.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Dec 28, 2008 - 9:48PM
#353
|
Date Joined:
Aug 20, 2008
|
Waiting to see what your buddies are going to do seems kinda border line to me. I think it could be justified either way.
As for dragging the Cleric back, well, I'm fully willing to admit that I may be indulging in a trope there. But I do think it makes for a better scene. It also has the advantage of allowing the DM to save truly efficient tactics for more appropriate adversaries and softens the blow for the player, somewhat. I would much rather have my players trying to figure out what they could have done in that round to save the Cleric, than thinking that I was out to get them.
A conversation, btw, that most assuredly would have begun with "Use better tactics at the start."
A one round delay in the CdG seems like a reasonable compromise between lethality and coddling, imho.
MrJake
MrJake
"This forum is madness!"
"No! This. Is. WIZSPACE!!!"
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Dec 29, 2008 - 12:51AM
#354
|
Date Joined:
Sep 29, 2008
|
Optimal tactics, I agree. I would probably have still had the ghoul drag the Cleric back before performing the CdG, tho. Dragging the victim back from the fray just feels right to me. Even if the DM had rolled the minimum for the Para duration, the ghoul had time to drag its prey back and enter the prey's hex, standing over him, with a full attack on the way.
For clarity:
Rd 1
Ghoul: hits cleric.
Cleric: paralyzed
Rd 2
Ghoul: drags cleric back, drags cleric back to its square, or both.
Cleric: paralyzed
Rd 3
Ghoul: CdG's, if possible, otherwise full attack plus AoO if cleric tries to crawl or stand.
Cleric: croaks unless he's really lucky or PC's really good.
As I've said before, I don't have a problem with the CdG. I just think the ghouls were a little too brutally efficient for...well...ghouls. Optimum tactics should be reserved for elite/fanatical troops.
MrJake
Dragging the Cleric back might have a nice flavour to it, but it has no actual tactical benefit.
I also notice that everyone seems to feel that Ghouls shouldn't make use of basic tactics. Why is this? They're certainly smart enough to do so and i can't find any fluff reason why they wouldn't use tactics. Indeed their goal is to kill and chow down on as many people as possible in the shortest possible period of time, i would have thought they'd be fully justified in using the most lethal tactics available to them in a given situation.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Dec 29, 2008 - 1:07AM
#355
|
Date Joined:
Nov 23, 2007
|
One other thing to take into account is the fact that this is all supposed to be real time...so it would be more like as the barbarian is retreating after the ghoul attacked, he then proceeds to chomp down on the injured cleric and kill him, I mean it is more of a reflex then anything else. Whenever I feel myself thinking too deep into things during combat, I immediately stop and do the first thing that comes to mind because I think that's how my character would respond...otherwise it sort of becomes metagaming in my mind, especially when you start to consider things like the other players hps and acs which I unfortunately always find myself doing as a reflex.
I don't quite remember the situation perfectly, but the party wizard had started arguing with I think the cleric on my turn about my position, I think they both basically wanted me to either move to help them/defend them or so they could do some sort of spell combo...before the argument got full on, I just charged the creature attacking the other cleric who was quickly being overwhelmed and also happened to be the one my character was closest with...we had the same deity plus they just happened to bond, it wasn't the most tactically sound decision but I felt it made the most sense for what my character would do with just a few seconds to react.
Its not the answer that matters, its the questions.
This is the sarcasm point ---> {.) the period can be substituted for whatever punctuation mark is appropriate. Use it so show sarcasm in written text.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Dec 29, 2008 - 4:09AM
#356
|
|
|
Actually one of the players in his campaign came here and posted, so between the two of them we do have the entire story.
No, you have their versions as they saw it. Again, it's all perspective.
In the end, it comes down to this. The DM decided to go for the kill. The cleric never had a chance to recover or escape or anything. Round one, down, round two dead. End of game for cleric. Wee that was fun!
The whole party turned against the DM. Enough so that he came here seeking justification. Which honestly, what's he going to do with that justification, go back to his friends/party and say, a whole bunch of strangers on a forum said I'm right and you are wrong.
It doesn't matter what kind of game people are expecting. In the end, no one had fun because of this.
So now the OP isn't DMing any more, and the group has adopted the same tactic, incapaticate all foes and coup de gras them.
/clap sounds like a great campaign that's going to quickly get boring, because it's always the same, until the DM starts throughing in all sorts of monsters that can't be incapaticated or coup de gras, which will of course upset the players, because they will have built characters around this idea.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Dec 29, 2008 - 5:37AM
#357
|
Date Joined:
Mar 16, 2008
|
No, you have their versions as they saw it. Again, it's all perspective.
In the end, it comes down to this. The DM decided to go for the kill. The cleric never had a chance to recover or escape or anything. Round one, down, round two dead. End of game for cleric. Wee that was fun!
The whole party turned against the DM. Enough so that he came here seeking justification. Which honestly, what's he going to do with that justification, go back to his friends/party and say, a whole bunch of strangers on a forum said I'm right and you are wrong.
It doesn't matter what kind of game people are expecting. In the end, no one had fun because of this.
So now the OP isn't DMing any more, and the group has adopted the same tactic, incapaticate all foes and coup de gras them.
/clap sounds like a great campaign that's going to quickly get boring, because it's always the same, until the DM starts throughing in all sorts of monsters that can't be incapaticated or coup de gras, which will of course upset the players, because they will have built characters around this idea.
I am pretty sure if the barbarian say he moved away to defend the ranged attackers that is what he did. There really is not to much to perceive. You said we don't know what happened as in what actions took place. Now it seems as though you are arguing a different point
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Dec 29, 2008 - 12:09PM
#358
|
Date Joined:
Apr 13, 2007
|
I doubt you don't care what your players think about you.
Actually, I don't. If they leave, or give me problems, I'll recruit new players.
It's always been that simple. I'm not gonna compromise my rulings, just to keep players happy, if the ruling goes against the tone of the game as laid out when they joined, as described by me, well in advance.
If I tell players "This is a RECON scenario where fully 30% of the guys going in to the POW camp to rescue the good guys are expected to die" and then 2 or 3 guys out of a team of ten don't make it for various reasons.. they know what they were getting in to, when they signed up.
If they want to complain about me being a bad DM, have at it...the other players at the table who want to be there will tell them to get lost.
lol
A DM's job is not to keep the players happy, it is to keep them challenged, because a scenario can equally end happily, on a comedic note or tragically.
If a TPK happens, and the game ends and players bail because of it, they weren't the right players, I'll find new ones.
Fully over 300 players have played on my NWN server, and LEFT. I run it for the 30 odd who have stayed.
So 90% of the NWN community thinks I'm a bad DM.
Only...
Um, when it comes to perception, truth seldom is a factor.
What's the truth? 9 out of 10 met say Bad DM. 1 out of 10 say "Sign me up."
Again, there is no finer point to put on it:
just because they think he didn't play fair, doesn't make it the truth.[/quote]
I like the hard core scenarios better. I'm not alone in stating that.
Wow, people who play Magical Teaparty Make-Believe Time bashing people who play Magical Live-Action Make-Believe Time? It's like I'm really on the Internet! - Rustmonster, commenting on RPGers vs. LARPers
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Dec 29, 2008 - 2:38PM
#359
|
|
|
Actually, I don't. If they leave, or give me problems, I'll recruit new players.
It's always been that simple. I'm not gonna compromise my rulings, just to keep players happy, if the ruling goes against the tone of the game as laid out when they joined, as described by me, well in advance.
If I tell players "This is a RECON scenario where fully 30% of the guys going in to the POW camp to rescue the good guys are expected to die" and then 2 or 3 guys out of a team of ten don't make it for various reasons.. they know what they were getting in to, when they signed up.
If they want to complain about me being a bad DM, have at it...the other players at the table who want to be there will tell them to get lost.
lol
A DM's job is not to keep the players happy, it is to keep them challenged, because a scenario can equally end happily, on a comedic note or tragically.
If a TPK happens, and the game ends and players bail because of it, they weren't the right players, I'll find new ones.
Fully over 300 players have played on my NWN server, and LEFT. I run it for the 30 odd who have stayed.
So 90% of the NWN community thinks I'm a bad DM.
Only...
What's the truth? 9 out of 10 met say Bad DM. 1 out of 10 say "Sign me up."
Again, there is no finer point to put on it:
I like the hard core scenarios better. I'm not alone in stating that.
I wouldn't say you are a bad DM, I would say there is another issue going on if only 10% of the people you meet want to continue having anything to do with you.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Dec 29, 2008 - 2:43PM
#360
|
|
|
I am pretty sure if the barbarian say he moved away to defend the ranged attackers that is what he did. There really is not to much to perceive. You said we don't know what happened as in what actions took place. Now it seems as though you are arguing a different point
No, I'm saying every person has their version of what happened. I'm not disputing the facts and how the rounds played out.
I'm talking about how the playing was perceived. Even just taking the DM's version, it still see it as unfair to the player.
We weren't there, we are getting told what happened...but in the end, the results were the players were unhappy, the OP stopped DMing, and now the group is using the same tactics on the new DM.
|
|
|
