Yesterday, my DM killed all members of our group...
The group was formed by:
2 Defender (2x Fighter - Dwarf)
2 Striker (2x Barbarian - Dwarf)
1 Healer (1x Cleric - Dwarf)
1 Controller (1x Wizard - Eladrin)
chars lvl 5
look the encounter and tell me: anyone have a DM killer like my?
Encounter Level Difficulty: Too Hard (5280)
6 PCs
Party Level 5
Setup
This encounter includes the following:
3 Hobgoblin Archer
2 Hobgoblin Warcaster
35 Hobgoblin Grunt
4 Hobgoblin Soldier
38 Goblin Cutter
2 Hobgoblin Soldier (Level 5)
1 Young Blue Dragon
3 Hobgoblin Archer Level 3 Artillery
Medium natural humanoid XP 150 each
2 Hobgoblin Warcaster Level 3 Leader
Medium natural humanoid XP 150 each
35 Hobgoblin Grunt Level 3 Minion
Medium natural humanoid XP 38 each
4 Hobgoblin Soldier Level 3 Soldier
Medium natural humanoid XP 150 each
38 Goblin Cutter Level 1 Minion
Small natural humanoid XP 25 each
2 Hobgoblin Soldier (Level 5) Level 5 Soldier
Medium natural humanoid XP 200 each
1 Young Blue Dragon Level 6 Solo Artillery
Large natural magical beast (dragon) XP 1250
What was the terrain? I could see this almost working in a narrow dungeon corridor, if the battlerager dwarves stood in the front while the cleric and wizard blasted, but 70 minions is too much. Even in waves. Even without a level +1 dragon included.
Did you ever talk to your DM to find out why he had such a burning need to TPK you guys?
--
Killer encounters. Our DM loves 'em, but we have 7 guys and 3.5 healers, so it's only fair. Our group takes forever to get through combat anyway, so may as well make 'em +2s and +2.5s.
He seems to be getting smarter, though...
"So, did you enjoy the encounter with those wights? Fighter, how many healing surges do you have left? Well, you're going to love these...Battle Wights!"
look the encounter and tell me: anyone have a DM killer like my?
To me, this looks like less of a case of a killer DM and more of the case of a party which failed to properly scout out its opposition and come up with a sensible battle plan. Basically, what led up to the battle? What did the party do to prepare for the battle? What did the monsters do to prepare for the battle?
Did you guys trashed his place or something?
Or you looked at the oncoming hoard, said "Gee I think we're outnumbered." & didn't have the sense to retreat?
Or maybe you looked at all that & said "Never tell me the odds".
Or you foolishly believed that:
A) most of these are just minions....
B) the DM wouldn't dare actually kill you - because you're the PCs.
(if either of these thoughts went through your head; HaHaHa, LOL, HaHaHa.....)
Whatever the case, I'm SURE your own actions were the biggest cause of your demise.
Setup:
This encounter includes the following:
3 Hobgoblin Archer
2 Hobgoblin Warcaster
35 Hobgoblin Grunt
4 Hobgoblin Soldier
38 Goblin Cutter
2 Hobgoblin Soldier (Level 5)
1 Young Blue Dragon
3 Hobgoblin Archer Level 3 Artillery
Medium natural humanoid XP 150 each
2 Hobgoblin Warcaster Level 3 Leader
Medium natural humanoid XP 150 each
35 Hobgoblin Grunt Level 3 Minion
Medium natural humanoid XP 38 each
4 Hobgoblin Soldier Level 3 Soldier
Medium natural humanoid XP 150 each
38 Goblin Cutter Level 1 Minion
Small natural humanoid XP 25 each
2 Hobgoblin Soldier (Level 5) Level 5 Soldier
Medium natural humanoid XP 200 each
1 Young Blue Dragon Level 6 Solo Artillery
Large natural magical beast (dragon) XP 1250
:heehee This guy is out of his mind.
There are a few flaws with this encounter, but the biggest problem is that there are so many hobgoblin non-minions. DMs should be careful of non-minions, regardless of encounter level, because they bog down combat. More than 5 or so (excluding big bosses, like your dragon), and you're looking at a lengthy combat, and what that means is more likely to kill you than usual, because these monsters are only supposed to last so long.
For example: let's say an orc is meant to last 2-5 rounds on his own, and how long they last is intrinsicly connected to their potential as a threat, because it dictates how long they continue doing damage, taking up space on the battlefield, etc. If there's 3-4 of them, they're more likely to end up lasting 5-8 rounds, which is reasonable. But in the case of 20 of them, the orcs get a lifespan that could go on 25+ rounds, which make them individually much more of a threat than the orc who only lasts 3-4 rounds.
This battle would work in short waves if he did 2 things: cut down the non-minion hobgoblins, and gave the PCs something like a fortified objective, like defending a gate, etc... but that still leaves a problem: the Dragon.
That many monsters is going to create space between your PCs and the dragon. Which is normally not that bad, but it's a BLUE. Those things pack a nasty punch with the advantage of distance. And a fortified encounter scenario is only going to condense the PCs in his burst attack. Any kind of dragon would have been much better, but a Blue caps the whole damn thing off.
Looks like you have a DM with a murderous streak.
except the minions, the average damage of monsters was 10 ~ 14 per hit
@OleOneEye
This monsters "2 Hobgoblin Warcaster" can slide any char 3 squares... many tactics were destroyed...
The most important part of every battle is what happens before initiative is rolled. What happened? How did this battle get set up?
What is the deal with the cave you were in? Just a shallow hole in the wall? A deep, inter-twining complex? Any other ways out?
You could have run away. :D
Not if the only option was to head back into the cave, where I assume the goblins would follow and possibly corner them.
How the heck did you guys stumble on THAT many monsters all at once?
I'm sure the DM had some reason.
Not if the only option was to head back into the cave, where I assume the goblins would follow and possibly corner them.
Better to be a cornered mouse than a dead tiger.
If the DM had a bad day and went emo on you, well, stop play with him or give him a slap to behave for the next session.
Why they expect not to be killed and allowed to do all kind of stupid things without consequences. If you ****ed up during the adventure - you deserve to die.
There is no indication that this is the case. Also, it is necessarily aggressive.
The DM shouldn't be tailoring the adventure everytime to keep you alive, if you make stupid mistakes every corner.
Again, no indication. And that encounter isn't just difficult, it is entirely unreasonable. The DM shouldn't necessarily tailor his encounters around keeping the players alive, but he should absolutely tailor it around the party level and common sense.
I don't know where you're getting all this from.
And that encounter isn't just difficult, it is entirely unreasonable.
You are jumping to conclusions, there isn't enough information yet to make that determination.
His response seemed perfectly reasonable to me
starting the battle
in the middle of battle
So far seems that you picked a wrong battle to fight.
Not if the only option was to head back into the cave, where I assume the goblins would follow and possibly corner them.
Interesting assumption that you made, but there was no indication that they would have been cornerered had they retreated into the cave.
And, based on the original poster's subsequent diagram they could have ran away into a dwarf village! It is easy to assume that there would be at least a couple of dwarven warriors within the village who could have helped out. Surely there should have been guards at or near the gate?
Why your group didn't retreat to the village? The dwarves could easly help you defending the passage or even show you secret way to escape?
And how did the hobgoblins get in the middle of your party in the second map? Did they come storming out of the dwarven village or something?
So far seems that you picked a wrong battle to fight.
Apparently. Looks to me like they could have taken the dragon out of the fight for a fair while just by backing into the cave/village, at the very least.
Was this the first encounter of the day, or had you already spent surges/dailies/etc in earlier fights?
What type of prior warnings did the party have of the horde?
Did the DM just say roll initiative and plop the party and monsters down on the map? Did the party open the gates and charge the horde without heed for their own survival?
Did the party notice nearly 100 units were outside of the gate prior to the initial placement of units and initiative being rolled? If not, how did such a large force remain stealthy? Any of the party members have a decent Perception or did you all dump that skill?
What is the state of the dwarven village? Any warriors that could have been recruited to aid, or were they all defenseless peons totally depending on the party's protection? Did the village have another exit that the villagers and party could have used to escape?
There are metagame concerns. Has your DM always built level appropriate encounters every single other time for a year of campaigning prior to this battle leading the players into reasonably assuming every encounter will always be level appropriate? Or does the DM sometimes throw in encounters that are way too powerful from time to time leading the players into reasonably assuming they will need to retreat from time to time?
What type of play style do the players enjoy? Do you always like to kick in the door and hack what is behind it? Do you like to be cautious and stake out the enemy prior to battle? Does the DM know what play style the players enjoy?
I do have one bit of advice so far. It appears your group may have missed a prime role-playing opportunity for one of the players to sacrifice himself holding the line to allow the others to escape down the tunnels into the dwarven village. Such opportunities don't present themselves too often in a typical DnD campaign, and I would suggest to take it when you can.
At one point the party of level 14's was talking to a very cranky, short tempered Wizard who happened to be a headmaster at the arcane collage in an enemy country (they were behind enemy lines stirring up trouble insurgent style). Once they figured that they could not convince this powerful wizard to help them the players started discussing that they should just kill this guy, to which I casually asked for a Players Handbook to "double check on the damage on a level 25 wizard's magic missile". This reminded them that this arcane collage headmaster was in fact a very powerful wizard. This lead them to change their plan that lead to them creatively assigning blame to the wizard for what they initially wanted him to do (turn against the current government).
If they chose to fight that wizard they would not have had a chance, and they should not have had much of a chance. Even if they wanted to assassinate him, they shouldn't be able to just walk up to him and expect a level appropriate fight just because they are PC's.
Long story short: PC's still have to be responsible for their actions. Sometimes it is better just to walk (run) away.
I of course, would have been the eladrin wizard -------- fey-stepping my arse out of there or seeing if the rampaging horde needed a new caster.
Just my thoughts.
I've never seen people so eager to be naysayers.
I've never seen people so eager to be naysayers.
That sounds like a fairly enormous assumption.
Most of the naysayers are objecting to the player's hubris, that they chose to fight so many hobgoblins with artillery/solo support.
It's presumptuous and condescending to say that it was hubris, and not simply trust in the DM. We would need more information.
Hi,
Yesterday, my DM killed all members of our group...
The group was formed by:
2 Defender (2x Fighter - Dwarf)
2 Striker (2x Barbarian - Dwarf)
1 Healer (1x Cleric - Dwarf)
1 Controller (1x Wizard - Eladrin)
chars lvl 5
look the encounter and tell me: anyone have a DM killer like my?
Encounter Level Difficulty: Too Hard (5280)
6 PCs
Party Level 5
Setup
This encounter includes the following:
3 Hobgoblin Archer
2 Hobgoblin Warcaster
35 Hobgoblin Grunt
4 Hobgoblin Soldier
38 Goblin Cutter
2 Hobgoblin Soldier (Level 5)
1 Young Blue Dragon
3 Hobgoblin Archer Level 3 Artillery
Medium natural humanoid XP 150 each
2 Hobgoblin Warcaster Level 3 Leader
Medium natural humanoid XP 150 each
35 Hobgoblin Grunt Level 3 Minion
Medium natural humanoid XP 38 each
4 Hobgoblin Soldier Level 3 Soldier
Medium natural humanoid XP 150 each
38 Goblin Cutter Level 1 Minion
Small natural humanoid XP 25 each
2 Hobgoblin Soldier (Level 5) Level 5 Soldier
Medium natural humanoid XP 200 each
1 Young Blue Dragon Level 6 Solo Artillery
Large natural magical beast (dragon) XP 1250
I don't know the full story.
But, as a player, I would've done my best to encourage the party to leave and run in the general direction of away. If the party was trapped or pushed by the DM into fighting that encounter, I as a player would gotten up and left the table. The reason being that that encounter is nowhere near scaled like it's supposed to be and was clearly meant to overwhelm the party. As a DM, I try to balance the fight as much as possible so the odds don't favor the monsters or the PC's. If I did decide to throw this much firepower at a party, it would have been in waves and not all at once.
Perhaps you should consider talking to your DM about this if he's having problems scaling encounters and if that fails, finding another DM or group to game with.
Sorry about your misfortune, hope things turn out better in the future.
I have used large numbers of enemies in past games, but always for specific purpose. Generally it's obvious if the players need to run (I've only used this as a result of player actions, wake up the camped horde and yes, they are going to chase you). Other times I have used waves or yesterday they had to deal with a 40 strong elven raiding party, but they had a day to prepare strategy and didn't actually have to kill them all, just accomplish a goal.
I guess to sum it up, there are definitely ways to use large numbers in a non-insane manner. However with the info you have given, it just looks like overkill to me.
I don't know the full story.
Amen.
For all we know, the Blue Dragon has an enemy near by and the players just had to depopulate you his supporters enough for the players to try talk it into seeing that anymore casualties and the Blue Dragon would be weakened enough to get its territory taken. Maybe the players were supposed to collapse the cave entrance. Maybe they were supposed to die so the campaign could move to the Shadowfel, gain more XP, level up, come back to life and mow through that army. We just can't know what the DM was thinking.
I don't know the full story.
But, as a player, I would've done my best to encourage the party to leave and run in the general direction of away. If the party was trapped or pushed by the DM into fighting that encounter, I as a player would gotten up and left the table. The reason being that that encounter is nowhere near scaled like it's supposed to be and was clearly meant to overwhelm the party. As a DM, I try to balance the fight as much as possible so the odds don't favor the monsters or the PC's. If I did decide to throw this much firepower at a party, it would have been in waves and not all at once.
Perhaps you should consider talking to your DM about this if he's having problems scaling encounters and if that fails, finding another DM or group to game with.
Sorry about your misfortune, hope things turn out better in the future.
But could not the encounter have been designed to make the characters run away? As a DM I have, on more than a few occasions, thrown against the group an encounter that then have no hope of winning (and a few times they have actually won!). Sometimes the group does not realize it and there are deaths. Sometimes they realize the situation and run for their lives. I firmly believe that the characters should not always have to win. Getting their butts kicked around every once in a while builds character (unsure if pun is intended). Unless the DM weighs in on this we cannot fully know what he was thinking. And without further examples from the original poster we cannot know if this was an atypical or a typical encounter.
Also, surrender is always an option for the players and their characters.
I'm suprised so many people showed up to tell the original poster that it's likely his fault, and that his DM shouldn't have to adjust to "stupid" players, which is an enormous assumption.
I've never seen people so eager to be naysayers.
It's always DM's fault :P
There was probably some solution - flight, surrender, or whatever - and your DM probably blames the TPK on the party's failure to find the solution. That's a crock, imo, but it's the rationalization here.
Putting the players in a situation where they only have one way out is railroading of the worst degree, and killing them off when they don't choose that option is even worse. If it were me, I'd be looking for a new DM.
On the face of it the encounter is not balanced and is plainly unwinnable just taking into account the normal abilities of a 5th level party. There could be any number of reasons why the DM would use this encounter though.
1) He may have intended for story reasons to face the party with a no-win situation where they were supposed to retreat.
2) He might have provided some sort of way for the party to trigger an effect which would even the odds or thwart the attack, like collapsing the bridge.
3) There may have been some non-combat way for the encounter to be resolved. Maybe the dragon could be bribed to switch sides or the dwarves could surrender all their treasure and be left alone.
4) It could have been a "going out in a blaze of glory" type situation where the party is simply supposed to die bravely. Generally this would be followed by some sort of after the fact reversal like the party somehow gets resurrected or "it never really happened", etc.
5) The party may have brought this down on themselves. Perhaps they went out and provoked the hobgoblin king and this is the logical consequence of their actions. This encounter could thus be the total inhabitants of a large hobgoblin warren assembling into an army.
I would tend to think there should have been some sort of escape clause for the party. Not knowing the DMs intent however it is impossible to say for sure. On the other hand I've seen DMs do all sorts of things for various petty reasons.
Again, no indication. And that encounter isn't just difficult, it is entirely unreasonable. The DM shouldn't necessarily tailor his encounters around keeping the players alive, but he should absolutely tailor it around the party level and common sense.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with an "unreasonable" encounter, so long as there is a way to avoid it, escape it, or interact with it in a manner that doesn't involve fighting. We don't know enough about this encounter to know if it was a death trap or if it was just an encounter the PCs weren't supposed to fight.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with an "unreasonable" encounter, so long as there is a way to avoid it, escape it, or interact with it in a manner that doesn't involve fighting. We don't know enough about this encounter to know if it was a death trap or if it was just an encounter the PCs weren't supposed to fight.
It's unreasonable to design an encounter as such that it TPKs the party if they don't do what they're "supposed to."
Putting the players in a situation where their only viable option is to follow the prescribed course of action that you've plotted out for them is railroading. It is, if I'm not mistaken, the definition of railroading.
It's unreasonable to design an encounter as such that it TPKs the party if they don't do what they're "supposed to."
Putting the players in a situation where their only viable option is to follow the prescribed course of action that you've plotted out for them is railroading. It is, if I'm not mistaken, the definition of railroading.
So are you saying that every encounter should be designed so that the players/characters will "win"?
So are you saying that every encounter should be designed so that the players/characters will "win"?
That would be a strawman - one of the clearest, most beautiful examples of such I've ever seen.
That would be a strawman - one of the clearest, most beautiful examples of such I've ever seen.
It is a valid question. And note that it is in fact a question. It is NOT a declaration. A strawman would have been me saying, "So you are saying that....will win." That would be a strawman. I asked a question.
Koradzi said, and I quote, "It's unreasonable to design an encounter as such that it TPKs the party if they don't do what they're "supposed to." " To me this statement comes across as saying that it is unreasonable to design any encounter that is beyond the power of the group, and I disagree with this idea. So I am seeking clarification. I have sometimes desinged encounters that were beyond the power of the group, where the group's only options were to retreat, surrender, or die. The encounters were NOT designed to kill the group, but designed to defeat the group. There is a big difference between the two. To me it seems that Koradzi would not see a difference between the two, so I am seeking clarification.
It's unreasonable to design an encounter as such that it TPKs the party if they don't do what they're "supposed to."
I'm not saying that this is the case here, but expecting your players not to be stupid =/= "supposed to". If you're a 3rd level party and I place an ancient red dragon sleeping on a nearby hill, you deserve to die if you approach it.
Putting the players in a situation where their only viable option is to follow the prescribed course of action that you've plotted out for them is railroading. It is, if I'm not mistaken, the definition of railroading.
We don't know that this did or did not occur here. From the map, it appears that they could have easily gone to a dwarven village where there would be much support. If they could have done so and stupidly stayed to fight a horde of hobgoblins, then the death was deserved. If they could have scouted out the area before hand and didn't, then the death was at least partially their fault. There are too many unknowns.
It is a valid question.
Koradzi said, and I quote, "It's unreasonable to design an encounter as such that it TPKs the party if they don't do what they're "supposed to." " To me this statement comes across as saying that it is unreasonable to design any encounter that is beyond the power of the group, and I disagree with this idea. So I am seeking clarification. I have sometimes desinged encounters that were beyond the power of the group, where the group's only options were to retreat, surrender, or die. The encounters were NOT designed to kill the group, but designed to defeat the group. There is a big difference between the two. To me it seems that Koradzi would not see a difference between the two, so I am seeking clarification.
I don't think that it's necessarily unreasonable to design an encounter that the party can't win. The issue is that you're counting on your party to get the message - that this is an unwinnable encounter, and that they should be fleeing.
It's an issue that every DM has to deal with: what seems obvious to you might not be obvious to your players. Whenever you write yourself into this position, there's a given chance that the party won't take the hint; they'll think that the encounter's supposed to be winnable, and insist on fighting it out to the bitter end.
I think that it's unreasonable to TPK a party for trying to stick it out; it amounts to slapping them with a heavy-handed punishment for failing to read your mind. There's no real justification for that - especially in 4e, where enemies can knock players unconscious (and take them captive) just as easily as they could kill the party.
Honestly, though? I'll take the bait.
No, I don't think that you should set the party against unwinnable odds. It's not necessarily wrong, but I don't think that you should.
No scenario that you put the party into should be scripted; no encounter should have a single, predetermined outcome. A fight that leaves the party with no choice but to flee or surrender would be better handled by a cutscene. It's controlling, and I don't see the value of it.
No, I don't think that you should set the party against unwinnable odds. It's not necessarily wrong, but I don't think that you should.
No scenario that you put the party into should be scripted; no encounter should have a single, predetermined outcome. A fight that leaves the party with no choice but to flee or surrender would be better handled by a cutscene. It's controlling, and I don't see the value of it.
That's fine. There's no wrong opinion here. Mine? I think that unwinnable encounters are okay, but should be obvious if it can result in death for the party. This extends to other types of challenges as well. It's okay to have a lock that is so hard, no one in the party can pick it. Or be put in front of an angry noble that cannot be talked down through skill checks.
Koradzi said, and I quote, "It's unreasonable to design an encounter as such that it TPKs the party if they don't do what they're "supposed to." " To me this statement comes across as saying that it is unreasonable to design any encounter that is beyond the power of the group, and I disagree with this idea.
The two are clearly not the same thing at all.
Koradzi is saying, for instance, that you shouldn't do the following: Put together a combat encounter against odds which will invariably destroy the players. Add a "trick" to it, wherein the players can "win" the encounter - like, for instance, the enemies will all take 100 points of damage if a player pulls the gemstone eye out of a statue and drops it into the pool of acid (killing most of them, heavily wounding the few left over).
Then, and this is the important part, deny the players any other way to survive the encounter, such that if they don't do the eye trick, they get TPK'd.
There's also another scenario here. Maybe the PC's were supposed to lose and get captured, which in turn would lead to the next chapter. A little bit of the old scourge of the slavelords action.
I don't think this was the way it was supposed to be. Otherwise, they'd have been captured and not killed when they lost the fight. ;)
The DM shouldn't necessarily tailor his encounters around keeping the players alive, but he should absolutely tailor it around the party level and common sense.
I have to agree with you, but I feel compelled as well to bring up something that drives me slightly nuts with D&D, both in 3 (with CR) and 4 (with the WoW-esque problem of defenses-vs-attacks[1]).
I find a lot of players and a lot of DMs have this attitude that every encounter *must be something the PCs can fight and win against*.
I don't see this encounter as any different than if they'd been tossed up against an L11 Solo Soldier or something, with one exception: This is not a winnable combat encounter, but at least none of the creatures involved are completely untouchable the way the L11 Solo would be. As such, it is, I think, *the best kind* of unbeatable encounter: One made up of all kinds of things you can fight individually, if only you can get away from the big group.
But yeah. If I'd thrown this fight at the PCs, I'd have been careful to point out *just how many* enemies there are and how badly outclassed the group is, and my group would have immediately started thinking in terms of bottlenecking, covering their escape route, blocking the tunnel, having a rearguard make a fatal last stand to protect the others.... or surrendering, because my group understand that some fights are simply not winnable, and they trust that I'm not going to just kill 'em by putting in an unavoidable, unwinnable fight with no way to retreat, escape, or surrender.
But I've seen players and DMs who'd think that this is "cheating" somehow - that making a truly impossible encounter, like L3 PCs versus an Ancient Black Dragon, is totally unfair and Not Allowed, even if the intention is to have the PCs negotiate or avoid the encounter in the first place. No, if they *can't* start a fight and win, that's just not fair!
I don't get that.
And I see some of it in this thread.
We don't really know if the DM was being unfair, or if the party would have been able to handle things differently, or if the DM really expected them to be able to handle this fight. All we know is that he put in an encounter that was completely unwinnable as a fight, and the PCs fought it.
[1]: A monster 6 levels above you is likely to be unhittable and incapable of missing you in return. A monster 6 levels below you is likely to be unmissable and incapable of hitting you.
No, I don't think that you should set the party against unwinnable odds. It's not necessarily wrong, but I don't think that you should.
No scenario that you put the party into should be scripted; no encounter should have a single, predetermined outcome. A fight that leaves the party with no choice but to flee or surrender would be better handled by a cutscene. It's controlling, and I don't see the value of it.
But I don't think we're necessarily discussing that - at least, not exactly.
Sometimes the party Rogue will think it's a great idea to try to steal from the Dragon's hoard during negotiations, and to sneak attack the hatchling that's playing in the pile of CP while he's at it[1]. And at that point, it's entirely possible that "Oh great and powerful Ralas, destroyer of intruders and mighty great wyrm, we bring you this pile of tribute because we want to trade for a legendary plot-critical sword you've got in the hoard over there" turns into "You're doing WHAT to the beloved child of the level 18 Solo?" in about one round, which leaves the party with the choice of running, dying, or all jumping in to *help* the Dragon kick the crap out of the Rogue.[2]
But the point is, the dragon encounter wasn't intended to be a fight, nor was it intended to be a "cutscene" where the players had no options at all. It's just that "fighting" was never a good option to end the encounter, and the village idiot started one. In the same way, it's *possible* that this encounter with the crazy army of goblins and hobgoblins wasn't intended to be a *fight*, exactly.
[1]: No, no, I'm not talking about a real incident, not at all. Absolutely not.
[2]: Not that the dragon NEEDS the help, but you're demonstrating good faith, you're tossing healing magic at the squalling infant, and you're adding the rogue's stuff to the bribe while protesting that you had NO IDEA he was going to do that, really, and leaving his body behind so the dragon can eat him at it's leisure. Because that seems like the most likely way you can get back on track.
lots of stuff
This.
As a player I see nothing wrong with being put in an unwinnable combat. Sometimes that's how things are. Dieing heroicly in a last stand sounds suitably epic to me.
What we don't know is weather there was another way out. There may not have been, but if there was then it's not automaticly the DMs fault that the players didn't find it.
The attitude that the players must always suceed no matter what annoys me to no end. If it's impossible to loose then what's the point of playing? I'm not advocating that the DM should randomly drop unwinnable encounters, but there's nothing wrong with including them if the players did something terminaly stupid.
The two are clearly not the same thing at all.
Koradzi is saying, for instance, that you shouldn't do the following: Put together a combat encounter against odds which will invariably destroy the players. Add a "trick" to it, wherein the players can "win" the encounter - like, for instance, the enemies will all take 100 points of damage if a player pulls the gemstone eye out of a statue and drops it into the pool of acid (killing most of them, heavily wounding the few left over).
Then, and this is the important part, deny the players any other way to survive the encounter, such that if they don't do the eye trick, they get TPK'd.
The players, upon seeing the forces arrayed in front of them, could have run away. It does not require a trick to make that decision. We still do not know the intent of the DM in this situation, and therefore we do not know if there was a trick to win the battle. It could have been set up as a no-win situation, and no-win does not automatically mean Total Party Kill.
I'm not advocating that the DM should randomly drop unwinnable encounters, but there's nothing wrong with including them if the players did something terminaly stupid.
Forget "terminally stupid" - there are situations that call for an unwinnable fight, even if the PCs are doing everything right. The trick is to make sure that those are both clearly marked as such AND that there's a way out. If there's no escape and the fight is unwinnable, why roll dice? Why not just explain "Oh, dude, despite a dozen warnings you just attacked the God-Emperor, in the heart of his great palace in his home plane, while surrounded by his Legions, at level 8. He waves his hand and you fall to your knees begging for his forgiveness, which he casually grants as his servants slit your throats and use your blood to fuel his phenomenal Engine Of Faith."
I mean, seriously. Don't reward truly terminal stupidity by giving it dice to roll.
Also note that MOST of your players probably won't be terminally stupid all at once - so only punish the ones that are being dumb. If your entire group does something terminally stupid all at once, pause and talk to them OOC for a moment to make sure *you* didn't miss something. It's possible you ****ed up and they don't think this is terminally stupid, and it's possible you have the seeds of a rebellion on your hands because the players are mad as hell and not going to take it any more, and have picked here as their time and place.
Both of those are worth resolving *first* before you go any further.
I've had a look at this, and discussed it with my players. Whilst I don't have enough information to completely replicate this particular example, there's a number of ways out of it I can see off the top.
1) Run away.
This one's a no-brainer. Close the gates, bar them, and evacuate themselves and as much of the population as possible to safer ground. No Dwarf worth his beard hasn't considered this situation or one like it, and built in a way out the back. Certainly no Human with two neurons firing thinks they're invulnerable in their little feifdom. Dwarves would think farther ahead than any Human anyway. Comes with living longer.
2) Make the terrain as dfficult as possible to traverse.
Another fairly obvious solution. If the cave mouth is undefensible, there's no reason the Dwarves would be living there. Collapse the bridge, and deny the Hobgoblins a way across (and remove them from the encounter). Looks to me like a third of the Minions were on the bridge anyway when the encounter started. The path on the Village side was crawling with minions(and just minions), and they'd die fairly quickly with clever-ish tactics.
3) Stand and fight
If they can't take out the bridge, next would be to use the gate as a chokepoint. Minions die in one hit, and Opportunity Attacks from them pushing through would take care of many of them off the top. They're all level one and three minions, they should be easy to hit for a level 5 party of nearly any configuration.
Automatic damage Daily powers would come in handy here as well. Either way, your nastiest problem in this scenario is the Level 6 Solo artillery with nearly 300 HP. If you can find a way to nullify it's advantage (cover, anyone?) you can rip up the minions with ease, and give ground to force the dragon to come to you. Once you can surround it and limit it's mobility, it's just a slog, and hoping the Cleric can keep up with a rechargable breath weapon. Either way, bottle them up and life gets lots easier. If it's a ten-foot cave mouth, as is most likely, you can just put your defenders up front and keep them healed. If there's space, you can use the mobility of the Barbarians to get them in and out, making little raids to give the fighters some relief.
4) Call for reinforcements
This one would go great with 2) above. I doubt seriously, given the nature of Dwarves, that the people in this encounter are the only ones capable of swinging an axe. Get some of the Village People to absorb some of the hits, and save the Defender's Healing Surges. Even if only 10% of the population is capable of fighting, you could field an extra ten to one hundred minion-style dwarves to beat back 85 monsters. You'd be amazed how well that works.
If the village was abandoned, and that seems unlikely, then there's no reason not to retreat into the caves, and take the monsters on in waves. For that matter, there's no valid reason for the party to stay and fight at all, and we go back to 1) above, and wait for the monsters to settle in, maybe a couple of weeks. Then that huge encounter turns into a more traditional dungeon crawl, and the group is out nothing but two weeks of roughing it in the mountains.
Mind you, all this assumes a party of adventurers kitted out for their level as if they'd been adventuring the whole time, and had gotten an appropriate number of magic items and cash, and that the invasion force had managed to somehow gain complete Strategic and Tactical surprise. I find the first rather likely, and the second extremely unlikely. You don't hide that much general rabble without making at least some noise.
Besides, Goblins, like Kobolds, are natural cowards. They'll run if they can at the first sign of a stiff resistance. Many's the time my group has had to chase down Cutters that broke.
I can see where this encounter can kill, readily. With some forethought, and a little luck, it is winnable. It's not necessarily likely, but it can be done. Stand and Fight is the least likely method to produce a good result. Sure, you might lose a couple of PCs, but a TPK is by no means assured.
That said, the DM could have been somewhat more clear that stand and fight is mildly unwise. An unwinnable encounter can happen, and acting intelligently from the standpoint of enlightened self-interest would probably be the best way to go. Fighting a holding action to let the population escape is a viable option, so long as they know how to get out whence they'd saved most.
As a DM, I would expect that my players would have the sense to look out at the field, and realize that whilst it was mostly a pile of low-level nastiness, that sheer numbers could eventually win the day, then sound the alarm, and fight until they were forced to retreat, and then do so. Leading the gobbies on a merry chase and fighting house to house in an urban environment can also be a nice equalizer.
Bad choices by the players? Probably. Bad choices by the DM? Likely. I don't think there's a fault here honestly, but a significant challenge by the DM, and players that dropped the ball.
So then why was the OP in here whining about it rather than asking his DM what was up?
Without knowing what the DM was thinking and left with just the numbers there's only a few conclusions we can come to. By the numbers this is basically the Kobayashi Maru, its unwinnable without some sort of extraneous thing going on (even if its just lucky dice). Maybe the DM intended the group to run, maybe he has plans for a dead party, maybe the characters brought these enemies on themselves, maybe there was a crucial plot element that was missed. There's no way of knowing.
So, by the numbers, it looks unwinnable and unfair. At least to me. What we don't know is why.
Problem is, GG, we may never know. The OP seems to have wandered off.
OTOH, the discussions I had with my team are going to turn into a full-scale playtest, Mythbusters(c) style. Their toons are all about the right level, and they're one short, but they're bright. See if a straight-up fight can be done. I'll get back to this one after the test.
Test complete, and my team won, if only barely. assuming that the Gate is 20' wide. They retreated into the gate as the OP's party did, and slugged it out with burst attacks and OAs doing the bulk of the damage. The Dragon was a complete pain, but they managed to hold it at bay.
Mind you, it got bad rolls for recharge, but they still managed to take it. The Dice Gawds smiled on them this day.