Consecrate Conundrums [Archive] - Wizards Community

Consecrate Conundrums [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Divine_Spark
06-24-07, 07:41 PM Just a quick question: I had my PCs run up against a vampire and the resident cleric decided to cast Consecrate into his ring. This felt a little unusual, so I re-read the PHB entry and came to the conclusion that the emanation was centered on a point in space and would function much like the Alarm spell, meaning that it is tied to a fixed area. After some grumbling and an eventual 'DM's Decision' it passed and he cast it into the middle of the room instead. Now my vamp was not a spellcaster and did not know the first thing about spellcraft, but he did see the cleric cast a spell and felt the minor disruptive effects of it, so I kept him out of it's area for the duration of the encounter. This caused no amount of controversy, as our cleric didn't seem to think a -1 to a couple of rolls would be enough to deter said vampire.

This may look like I'm asking for vindication here, and I guess I am as it put a huge stick in the spokes of the party and turned what should have been a grand finale into an agonising stalemate, as the party hedged itself inside a magic circle within the consecrated area and attempted to play the waiting game (!) with an undead superspy. Did I do the wrong thing by my players, or should they suck it up and start playing smart?
Talisman
06-24-07, 10:16 PM I agree with your reading of consecrate; there's nothing in the description that indicates it can be tied to an object. Compare it to silence, which explicitly describes the area as an "emanation centered on a creature, object, or point in space."

As for the vamp's perceptions...if Bobbie the 1st-level commoner sees a man in priest's robes and wearing a big holy symbol sprinkling powdered silver around and muttering "Bless this area, oh Pelor!", he's going to know something's up.

This caused no amount of controversy, as our cleric didn't seem to think a -1 to a couple of rolls would be enough to deter said vampire.

Depends how badly the vampire wanted whatever was inside the circle. As you pointed out, the undead have nigh-infinite patience, and a smart vampire might see no reason to risk even the most minor irritation if he doesn't have to. Would the PCs deliberately place themselves in a desecrated area that they could avoid? I think not.

the party hedged itself inside a magic circle within the consecrated area and attempted to play the waiting game (!) with an undead superspy.

Now that's just stupid...unless you presented the vampire as an unstoppable foe who would surely kill them if they engaged him. If they thought they had no real chance and were desperately scrabbling for every possible edge...it was still a poor decision tactically, but it becomes more understandable.

Did I do the wrong thing by my players, or should they suck it up and start playing smart?

This depends heavily on your party. Are they 13 and 14-year-olds? Are they new to RPGs? Are they just lousy tacticians? If the answers to any of these is yes, go easy on them until they figure things out. I don't think you "did wrong," but you have to adjust your level of opposition not only to the power of the PCs, but also to the strategic ability of the players.

I play with a group of 20-year veterans, and if I used the same GMing tactics I use with them, with a group of newbies (even assuming identical characters), the newbies would be dead by the second combat. No question.

On the other tentacle, if the players have a decent grasp of the rules and combat strategy in general, hit 'em again. Make sure you're describing the situation adequately, then play the bad guys smart (or dumb, depending on who they are). If a tactic seems unfair, ask yourself of the PCs would do this to the bad guys, given half a chance.
Divine_Spark
06-24-07, 10:35 PM I think I've just been treating my PCs with kid-gloves up until now. The gloves came off and the threat-o-meter went from 'moderate' to 'significant' and the party made some silly decisions in the name of self-preservation.

I guess I was just annoyed that a group that is usually pretty solid got so upset when poor planning led to a difficult situation. They could have taken him down in two rounds, but opted for a much more complicated way of doing things instead.

I appreciate the constructive response to both the obvious and the underlying question Talisman :)

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Divine_Spark 06-24-07, 07:41 PM	Just a quick question: I had my PCs run up against a vampire and the resident cleric decided to cast Consecrate into his ring. This felt a little unusual, so I re-read the PHB entry and came to the conclusion that the emanation was centered on a point in space and would function much like the Alarm spell, meaning that it is tied to a fixed area. After some grumbling and an eventual 'DM's Decision' it passed and he cast it into the middle of the room instead. Now my vamp was not a spellcaster and did not know the first thing about spellcraft, but he did see the cleric cast a spell and felt the minor disruptive effects of it, so I kept him out of it's area for the duration of the encounter. This caused no amount of controversy, as our cleric didn't seem to think a -1 to a couple of rolls would be enough to deter said vampire. This may look like I'm asking for vindication here, and I guess I am as it put a huge stick in the spokes of the party and turned what should have been a grand finale into an agonising stalemate, as the party hedged itself inside a magic circle within the consecrated area and attempted to play the waiting game (!) with an undead superspy. Did I do the wrong thing by my players, or should they suck it up and start playing smart?
Talisman 06-24-07, 10:16 PM	I agree with your reading of consecrate; there's nothing in the description that indicates it can be tied to an object. Compare it to silence, which explicitly describes the area as an "emanation centered on a creature, object, or point in space." As for the vamp's perceptions...if Bobbie the 1st-level commoner sees a man in priest's robes and wearing a big holy symbol sprinkling powdered silver around and muttering "Bless this area, oh Pelor!", he's going to know something's up. This caused no amount of controversy, as our cleric didn't seem to think a -1 to a couple of rolls would be enough to deter said vampire. Depends how badly the vampire wanted whatever was inside the circle. As you pointed out, the undead have nigh-infinite patience, and a smart vampire might see no reason to risk even the most minor irritation if he doesn't have to. Would the PCs deliberately place themselves in a desecrated area that they could avoid? I think not. the party hedged itself inside a magic circle within the consecrated area and attempted to play the waiting game (!) with an undead superspy. Now that's just stupid...unless you presented the vampire as an unstoppable foe who would surely kill them if they engaged him. If they thought they had no real chance and were desperately scrabbling for every possible edge...it was still a poor decision tactically, but it becomes more understandable. Did I do the wrong thing by my players, or should they suck it up and start playing smart? This depends heavily on your party. Are they 13 and 14-year-olds? Are they new to RPGs? Are they just lousy tacticians? If the answers to any of these is yes, go easy on them until they figure things out. I don't think you "did wrong," but you have to adjust your level of opposition not only to the power of the PCs, but also to the strategic ability of the players. I play with a group of 20-year veterans, and if I used the same GMing tactics I use with them, with a group of newbies (even assuming identical characters), the newbies would be dead by the second combat. No question. On the other tentacle, if the players have a decent grasp of the rules and combat strategy in general, hit 'em again. Make sure you're describing the situation adequately, then play the bad guys smart (or dumb, depending on who they are). If a tactic seems unfair, ask yourself of the PCs would do this to the bad guys, given half a chance.
Divine_Spark 06-24-07, 10:35 PM	I think I've just been treating my PCs with kid-gloves up until now. The gloves came off and the threat-o-meter went from 'moderate' to 'significant' and the party made some silly decisions in the name of self-preservation. I guess I was just annoyed that a group that is usually pretty solid got so upset when poor planning led to a difficult situation. They could have taken him down in two rounds, but opted for a much more complicated way of doing things instead. I appreciate the constructive response to both the obvious and the underlying question Talisman :)