I think I'm dead... - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

I think I'm dead...

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
Oni-Tekki-Maru
Aug 11, 2009 15:59:10 (Sorry this is such a long read, but its essential to at least skim it to make an insight on the situation)

Last play session I was playing my level 2 Tomb-tainted soul Dread Necromancer and I was dropped to -2 hit points mid-fight. I became unconcious but on my second bleed roll I stabilized at -3. So, while I laid there, my friendly Cleric of Pelor in the party used a Potion of Cure Light Wounds on me to wake me up. Now, does this constitute as positive energy? I find it a violation of common sense that a vial of healing liquid channels the power of good gods into the imbiber as a healing mechanism but I am probably wrong. If it does, am I allowed a will save as the spell would? Also, how the hell am I supposed to wake up from being wounded? Will it take days just for my character to wake up via natural healing? That seems incredibly gimped and unfun to play.

Now, before you tell me to tell the cleric to prepare Inflict spells, keep in mind that he is a cleric of pelor, and should my secret be revealed that I am healed the same way an undead creature is, he'll probably vanquish me in the name of his undead-hating god. On top of that, he refuses to prepare Inflict spells on account of them being "evil". Yeah... sure they are...

Lastly, this is even more important of a question because our DM has an uncanny knack for killing the party. The first time he DM'd, he killed my Bard and our Warmage in a spectacular display of unrestrained focus fire in the second encounter of his campaign (There are a few more details on that and why it was poor DMing if you care to ask). There's already been an entire TK of our party in this campaign before, and he bull****ted us into prison cells when it was clearly obvious we just died. Lastly, the encounter right after the one I fell unconcious in, his Double axe-wielding Orcish soldier dealt a whopping 23 damage (Without a crit, mind you) to our poor dwarven fighter (who only had single-digit HP) effectively erasing him from existence as well.

Now I'd hate to be one of those players who whines and whines about how his character dies and how death shouldn't happen and blah blah, but I'm certain my concerns are well-founded.

Is this campaign even worth playing still as a Dread Necro? Post some feedback and let me know your opinions on the matter.
#2
salla
Aug 11, 2009 16:05:33 From the top down ...

The potion is basically a distilled spell, so yes, it would kill you. A cleric had to brew it, after all. You would be entitled to a saving throw if the spell has a save: Yes entry.

This is why players should communicate before making characters, so people don't make characters who can't co-exist.

Killer DMs are no fun. If you're not having fun playing a game, don't play.
#3
Oni-Tekki-Maru
Aug 11, 2009 16:20:25 Kill me? How? I was at -3!

Also, you didn't answer my question about how unconcious healing works for a character like that.
#4
williamtanner
Aug 11, 2009 16:22:11 I agree that...
a) The potion of cure light wounds will 'inflict' positive energy on you. I expect that since it is ingested there is no saving throw. It is basically poison at that point.
b) Evil characters should not adventure with non-evil characters.
c) The DM sounds like a douche.

Given the lack of healing opportunities, you should have carried some potions of cause light wounds or whatever, and told the group to only use your potions to heal you.
#5
salla
Aug 11, 2009 16:28:16
Kill me? How? I was at -3!

Also, you didn't answer my question about how unconcious healing works for a character like that.

You're going to take damage from the potion ... okay, maybe it won't KILL you, but in any event, it's not going to do you any favors.

Your options are natural healing or inflict spells (or items that duplicate such).

@WilliamTanner: His character is considered undead, but I don't believe he's necessarily evil. I think Dread necros can be neutral.
#6
Oni-Tekki-Maru
Aug 11, 2009 16:28:48 Hey now... my character is not evil. He's Neutral, and I have no intentions of making him evil. The rest of my party is perfectly fine with my existence and the cleric is the only non-neutral party member. Also, the cleric PC agreed to leave the party and reroll as he didn't know what choosing Pelor entailed. (He was under the impression that Pelor was some Judeo-Christian equivalent. Yeah, I laughed pretty hard too)

I'm not considered undead for anything OTHER than harming/healing via positive/negative energy, respectively.

EDIT: Ouch. So if I fall below 0 I am forced to wait days (1 at the least) to recover naturally? Better pass out those wands of Inflict light xD.
#7
i_roll_ones
Aug 11, 2009 16:34:07 Last I recalled, Pelor is a god of healing, correct? Which means, the cleric will try healing as a first resort, rather then wading into battle. He might wonder why his healing spells inflict damage, as he's probably only aware of one type of being that displays this phenomenon. Unless his INT is 6 or less, he'll get a bit suspicious.

That, and I am unsure how you'll be able to use your class abilities around him, especially if he has any spellcraft. Not to mention, he'll want to go smash some undead, which is just another heap of problems.

So no on the dread necromancer, unless you, the other players, and the DM can come up with a reason for the two to work together and doesn't try to rob the cleric of Pelor's abilities. This seems doubtful.

On the DM trying to kill you...This is 3e, so the fighter has a 2d10 + CON modifier for HP. He rolled really badly, it would appear. Or I misread and he was injured. Either way...The NPC could one-shot any and every PC in the party, from the sound of it. Maybe the Orc was using some one-use ability, but that doesn't sound right for the edition.

But from your language, you sound pretty upset at this. Therefore, I suggest that you take a few days to cool down, and consider if the campaign was at all fun. A bit of anger can quickly color events, after all. But if you dread going next time...Just don't.

If your DM seems at all reasonable, try talking to him regarding the campaign, as he's killing off PCs left and right. Also consider talking to the other players, and see if they have the same impression.

Hope that helps!
#8
Oni-Tekki-Maru
Aug 11, 2009 17:28:32 Well, new development. The DM doesn't seem to think his encountered are overpowered in the slightest. I fail to see how 2 out of the 3 consecutive encounters in one playsession rated at "Very Challenging" and the first at "Challenging" isn't conducive to PKing. And how knocking a player unconcious and hitting him for 12 more damage afterwards on a seperate attack isn't either. The fact that he refuses to take criticism on the matter or own up to it is why I'm not playing with him anymore now.
#9
secretaryseven
Aug 11, 2009 17:44:51
Well, new development. The DM doesn't seem to think his encountered are overpowered in the slightest. I fail to see how 2 out of the 3 consecutive encounters in one playsession rated at "Very Challenging" and the first at "Challenging" isn't conducive to PKing. And how knocking a player unconcious and hitting him for 12 more damage afterwards on a seperate attack isn't either. The fact that he refuses to take criticism on the matter or own up to it is why I'm not playing with him anymore now.

That sounds about right for any session. Challenging is what 50% of all of the encounters in any game should be, and Very Challenging is what 15% of all of the encounters in any game should be. Standard CR also flies completely out of the window if you've got a party who uses teamwork, or if you've got any very strong combat characters in your party, from what I understand. When my players were using teamwork and three out of six of them were pretty powerful well-built characters, I was substituting "Overpowering" encounters for "Difficult" encounters and "Very Difficult" for "Challenging" and I didn't have any characters even go unconcious.

This is at levels higher than 2, however, and attacking unconscious characters is considered bad form in most gaming circles.
#10
williamtanner
Aug 11, 2009 17:47:59 Personally, I don't see how a "dread necromancer" can be anything but an evil being. "Aloof and minds his own business necromancer", perhaps. Well .. back to your questions ...
#11
mrdoobie
Aug 11, 2009 18:56:33
Personally, I don't see how a "dread necromancer" can be anything but an evil being. "Aloof and minds his own business necromancer", perhaps. Well .. back to your questions ...

Funny. I never exactly saw necromancy as being an Art that was evil in and of itself, just a profession that many find aesthetically displeasing. As a whole, necromancy isn't any more harmful or terrible than other types of magic. (especially when you consider a 20th level evocater or warmage could probably wipe out small armies just by blowing their nose)
#12
pajaul
Aug 11, 2009 20:03:09
Funny. I never exactly saw necromancy as being an Art that was evil in and of itself, just a profession that many find aesthetically displeasing. As a whole, necromancy isn't any more harmful or terrible than other types of magic. (especially when you consider a 20th level evocater or warmage could probably wipe out small armies just by blowing their nose)

Eh, I never got how everyone assumed things concerning death were evil. Skeletons, bats, wolves, vampires, etc etc never really figured them for being evil right off the bat. Oh yes, pun intended. But You're in D&D where the norm is 'evil' and evil is a tangible force. So. since most evil gods have cornered the market on the death domain, death itself seems preeeettttyy evil.

so, can a Dread Necromancer be good? Certainly. Rare case, but certainly. After all, what better way to understand death than to experience it and come back to tell the tale? or wonder why things decay? or ask why things have to decay at all?! A pretty noble thing to thwart the natural balance of consuming life to continue life. Afterall, if one can find a way to live that does not require taking life, that seems almost as perfection doesn't it?

So yeah there you go, Necromancer reasoning. Never read anywhere were Necromancer had to be dark and scary, just that they dealt with things dark and scary. And after a while, it begins to show. Still. Point of the matter is, yes you would be hurting from a healing. Unless yo aren't technically classified as 'undead'. which I don't know. I'd rather a construct than undead, but eh I don't know your choices. And either way I don't think a healing spell works on constructs either, more like, repair spell. In any case. Healing point at the very least, won't do you any good.

As for your DM... sounds like a "I'm not winning unless I kill people" kind of DM. Not co-operative, but a VS DM. Which is fine in small doses, but if you get carried away and you keep offing your players. Pretty soon the real players will be off too.
#13
i_roll_ones
Aug 11, 2009 20:15:40 I try not to think too much of the names. Classes need particular names, and putting funny words together is a bit more memorable then class 'AB' or class 087.

Do you demand that all rangers fight at range, or that rogues must be loners and fight on their own? A rose by any other name still has medium BAB progression.
#14
entropy_judge
Aug 11, 2009 21:09:53
Do you demand that all rangers fight at range

I think the class name "ranger," actually means "one who ranges," rather than "one who fights at range." Basically a wanderer/rover type.
#15
i_roll_ones
Aug 11, 2009 21:14:44 Still, hardly anyone expects the ranger to act according to the class name. It's just a class! The alignment restrictions are described later on for a reason.
#16
Oni-Tekki-Maru
Aug 12, 2009 0:00:26 Yes, I know Very Challenging encounters should only constitute 15% but a well-balanced adventure should roughly have about 1 Very Challenging fight for every 6 non-challenging ones. To have two VC's in a row, with no spell reload in-between is just plain reckless.
#17
mrdoobie
Aug 12, 2009 8:29:30
Eh, I never got how everyone assumed things concerning death were evil. Skeletons, bats, wolves, vampires, etc etc never really figured them for being evil right off the bat. Oh yes, pun intended. But You're in D&D where the norm is 'evil' and evil is a tangible force. So. since most evil gods have cornered the market on the death domain, death itself seems preeeettttyy evil.

Actually, I've always left alignment and the gods up to the DM, and when I DM, evil is not a tangible force, and Nerull is actually a true neutral deity, rather than an evil one. But that's just how I do it, and how I prefer it. I just find a world of black-and-white good-vs-evil to be boring.

This is why players should communicate before making characters, so people don't make characters who can't co-exist.

Who says a cleric of Pelor and a neutral aligned necromancer can't co-exist? As a neutral character, the necromancer isn't going out of his/her way to hurt anyone, so if the Party In-Fighting that may or may not happen is anyones fault, it's the clerics for playing a fanatic who does not play well with others, not the dread necromaner who's just decided to work with an Art the cleric finds icky. If the cleric feels he needs to mercilessly destroy someone over such a petty difference, maybe he doesn't deserve his Good alignment.
#18
themocaw
Aug 12, 2009 14:21:00
Yes, I know Very Challenging encounters should only constitute 15% but a well-balanced adventure should roughly have about 1 Very Challenging fight for every 6 non-challenging ones. To have two VC's in a row, with no spell reload in-between is just plain reckless.

If you didn't get a short rest, it's the same encounter. So instead of 2 Very Challenging encounters, it's actually a Near Impossible WTF one.
#19
Oni-Tekki-Maru
Aug 12, 2009 14:26:55 Wait, really? What constitutes a short rest? We got a few minutes but the town hall was being attacked at the same time and it was obvious the DM wanted us to go defend it.

My point was, two VC encounters in a row after a challenging one without a spell reload is just too much for a 4 person party.
#20
morphling_89
Aug 12, 2009 14:30:58
Wait, really? What constitutes a short rest?

30 seconds or more imo. Healing is very important.
#21
secretaryseven
Aug 12, 2009 15:11:00
If you didn't get a short rest, it's the same encounter. So instead of 2 Very Challenging encounters, it's actually a Near Impossible WTF one.

This is pretty much wrong. The encounter is categorized under the amount of stable combatants, and not the amount of streaming combatants. So, there are 10 monsters on the board-- one encounter. If you kill them all and get 30 seconds of rest before 15 monsters enter the map as well? That's a second encounter.

If you put a level 4 4-person-party up again 10,000 goblins, 1 and a time, with no rest, it isn't an impossible fight. :P The goblins who enter the sacred duel will pretty much die instantly, 10,000 times.
#22
williamtanner
Aug 12, 2009 15:21:44 Perhaps the game designers have experienced the internet and realized the futility of trying to spell out every possible scenario to avoid pithy arguments.
#23
themocaw
Aug 12, 2009 17:30:33
This is pretty much wrong. The encounter is categorized under the amount of stable combatants, and not the amount of streaming combatants. So, there are 10 monsters on the board-- one encounter. If you kill them all and get 30 seconds of rest before 15 monsters enter the map as well? That's a second encounter.

If you put a level 4 4-person-party up again 10,000 goblins, 1 and a time, with no rest, it isn't an impossible fight. :P The goblins who enter the sacred duel will pretty much die instantly, 10,000 times.

Wow. Pedantry, thy name is SecretarySeven. Ten thousand encounters completed with at-wills only and no damage to the party is not the same as two encounters completed with significant expenditure of resources for each half of the fight.
#24
salla
Aug 12, 2009 18:01:28 This is a 3e thread. 'Short Rest' makes no difference.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Oni-Tekki-Maru Aug 11, 2009 15:59:10	(Sorry this is such a long read, but its essential to at least skim it to make an insight on the situation) Last play session I was playing my level 2 Tomb-tainted soul Dread Necromancer and I was dropped to -2 hit points mid-fight. I became unconcious but on my second bleed roll I stabilized at -3. So, while I laid there, my friendly Cleric of Pelor in the party used a Potion of Cure Light Wounds on me to wake me up. Now, does this constitute as positive energy? I find it a violation of common sense that a vial of healing liquid channels the power of good gods into the imbiber as a healing mechanism but I am probably wrong. If it does, am I allowed a will save as the spell would? Also, how the hell am I supposed to wake up from being wounded? Will it take days just for my character to wake up via natural healing? That seems incredibly gimped and unfun to play. Now, before you tell me to tell the cleric to prepare Inflict spells, keep in mind that he is a cleric of pelor, and should my secret be revealed that I am healed the same way an undead creature is, he'll probably vanquish me in the name of his undead-hating god. On top of that, he refuses to prepare Inflict spells on account of them being "evil". Yeah... sure they are... Lastly, this is even more important of a question because our DM has an uncanny knack for killing the party. The first time he DM'd, he killed my Bard and our Warmage in a spectacular display of unrestrained focus fire in the second encounter of his campaign (There are a few more details on that and why it was poor DMing if you care to ask). There's already been an entire TK of our party in this campaign before, and he bull**ted us into prison cells when it was clearly obvious we just died. Lastly, the encounter right after the one I fell unconcious in, his Double axe-wielding Orcish soldier dealt a whopping 23 damage (Without a crit, mind you) to our poor dwarven fighter (who only had single-digit HP) effectively erasing him from existence as well. Now I'd hate to be one of those players who whines and whines about how his character dies and how death shouldn't happen and blah blah, but I'm certain my concerns are well-founded. Is this campaign even worth playing still as a Dread Necro?** Post some feedback and let me know your opinions on the matter.
#2 salla Aug 11, 2009 16:05:33	From the top down ... The potion is basically a distilled spell, so yes, it would kill you. A cleric had to brew it, after all. You would be entitled to a saving throw if the spell has a save: Yes entry. This is why players should communicate before making characters, so people don't make characters who can't co-exist. Killer DMs are no fun. If you're not having fun playing a game, don't play.
#3 Oni-Tekki-Maru Aug 11, 2009 16:20:25	Kill me? How? I was at -3! Also, you didn't answer my question about how unconcious healing works for a character like that.
#4 williamtanner Aug 11, 2009 16:22:11	I agree that... a) The potion of cure light wounds will 'inflict' positive energy on you. I expect that since it is ingested there is no saving throw. It is basically poison at that point. b) Evil characters should not adventure with non-evil characters. c) The DM sounds like a douche. Given the lack of healing opportunities, you should have carried some potions of cause light wounds or whatever, and told the group to only use your potions to heal you.
#5 salla Aug 11, 2009 16:28:16	Kill me? How? I was at -3! Also, you didn't answer my question about how unconcious healing works for a character like that. You're going to take damage from the potion ... okay, maybe it won't KILL you, but in any event, it's not going to do you any favors. Your options are natural healing or inflict spells (or items that duplicate such). @WilliamTanner: His character is considered undead, but I don't believe he's necessarily evil. I think Dread necros can be neutral.
#6 Oni-Tekki-Maru Aug 11, 2009 16:28:48	Hey now... my character is not evil. He's Neutral, and I have no intentions of making him evil. The rest of my party is perfectly fine with my existence and the cleric is the only non-neutral party member. Also, the cleric PC agreed to leave the party and reroll as he didn't know what choosing Pelor entailed. (He was under the impression that Pelor was some Judeo-Christian equivalent. Yeah, I laughed pretty hard too) I'm not considered undead for anything OTHER than harming/healing via positive/negative energy, respectively. EDIT: Ouch. So if I fall below 0 I am forced to wait days (1 at the least) to recover naturally? Better pass out those wands of Inflict light xD.
#7 i_roll_ones Aug 11, 2009 16:34:07	Last I recalled, Pelor is a god of healing, correct? Which means, the cleric will try healing as a first resort, rather then wading into battle. He might wonder why his healing spells inflict damage, as he's probably only aware of one type of being that displays this phenomenon. Unless his INT is 6 or less, he'll get a bit suspicious. That, and I am unsure how you'll be able to use your class abilities around him, especially if he has any spellcraft. Not to mention, he'll want to go smash some undead, which is just another heap of problems. So no on the dread necromancer, unless you, the other players, and the DM can come up with a reason for the two to work together and doesn't try to rob the cleric of Pelor's abilities. This seems doubtful. On the DM trying to kill you...This is 3e, so the fighter has a 2d10 + CON modifier for HP. He rolled really badly, it would appear. Or I misread and he was injured. Either way...The NPC could one-shot any and every PC in the party, from the sound of it. Maybe the Orc was using some one-use ability, but that doesn't sound right for the edition. But from your language, you sound pretty upset at this. Therefore, I suggest that you take a few days to cool down, and consider if the campaign was at all fun. A bit of anger can quickly color events, after all. But if you dread going next time...Just don't. If your DM seems at all reasonable, try talking to him regarding the campaign, as he's killing off PCs left and right. Also consider talking to the other players, and see if they have the same impression. Hope that helps!
#8 Oni-Tekki-Maru Aug 11, 2009 17:28:32	Well, new development. The DM doesn't seem to think his encountered are overpowered in the slightest. I fail to see how 2 out of the 3 consecutive encounters in one playsession rated at "Very Challenging" and the first at "Challenging" isn't conducive to PKing. And how knocking a player unconcious and hitting him for 12 more damage afterwards on a seperate attack isn't either. The fact that he refuses to take criticism on the matter or own up to it is why I'm not playing with him anymore now.
#9 secretaryseven Aug 11, 2009 17:44:51	Well, new development. The DM doesn't seem to think his encountered are overpowered in the slightest. I fail to see how 2 out of the 3 consecutive encounters in one playsession rated at "Very Challenging" and the first at "Challenging" isn't conducive to PKing. And how knocking a player unconcious and hitting him for 12 more damage afterwards on a seperate attack isn't either. The fact that he refuses to take criticism on the matter or own up to it is why I'm not playing with him anymore now. That sounds about right for any session. Challenging is what 50% of all of the encounters in any game should be, and Very Challenging is what 15% of all of the encounters in any game should be. Standard CR also flies completely out of the window if you've got a party who uses teamwork, or if you've got any very strong combat characters in your party, from what I understand. When my players were using teamwork and three out of six of them were pretty powerful well-built characters, I was substituting "Overpowering" encounters for "Difficult" encounters and "Very Difficult" for "Challenging" and I didn't have any characters even go unconcious. This is at levels higher than 2, however, and attacking unconscious characters is considered bad form in most gaming circles.
#10 williamtanner Aug 11, 2009 17:47:59	Personally, I don't see how a "dread necromancer" can be anything but an evil being. "Aloof and minds his own business necromancer", perhaps. Well .. back to your questions ...
#11 mrdoobie Aug 11, 2009 18:56:33	Personally, I don't see how a "dread necromancer" can be anything but an evil being. "Aloof and minds his own business necromancer", perhaps. Well .. back to your questions ... Funny. I never exactly saw necromancy as being an Art that was evil in and of itself, just a profession that many find aesthetically displeasing. As a whole, necromancy isn't any more harmful or terrible than other types of magic. (especially when you consider a 20th level evocater or warmage could probably wipe out small armies just by blowing their nose)
#12 pajaul Aug 11, 2009 20:03:09	Funny. I never exactly saw necromancy as being an Art that was evil in and of itself, just a profession that many find aesthetically displeasing. As a whole, necromancy isn't any more harmful or terrible than other types of magic. (especially when you consider a 20th level evocater or warmage could probably wipe out small armies just by blowing their nose) Eh, I never got how everyone assumed things concerning death were evil. Skeletons, bats, wolves, vampires, etc etc never really figured them for being evil right off the bat. Oh yes, pun intended. But You're in D&D where the norm is 'evil' and evil is a tangible force. So. since most evil gods have cornered the market on the death domain, death itself seems preeeettttyy evil. so, can a Dread Necromancer be good? Certainly. Rare case, but certainly. After all, what better way to understand death than to experience it and come back to tell the tale? or wonder why things decay? or ask why things have to decay at all?! A pretty noble thing to thwart the natural balance of consuming life to continue life. Afterall, if one can find a way to live that does not require taking life, that seems almost as perfection doesn't it? So yeah there you go, Necromancer reasoning. Never read anywhere were Necromancer had to be dark and scary, just that they dealt with things dark and scary. And after a while, it begins to show. Still. Point of the matter is, yes you would be hurting from a healing. Unless yo aren't technically classified as 'undead'. which I don't know. I'd rather a construct than undead, but eh I don't know your choices. And either way I don't think a healing spell works on constructs either, more like, repair spell. In any case. Healing point at the very least, won't do you any good. As for your DM... sounds like a "I'm not winning unless I kill people" kind of DM. Not co-operative, but a VS DM. Which is fine in small doses, but if you get carried away and you keep offing your players. Pretty soon the real players will be off too.
#13 i_roll_ones Aug 11, 2009 20:15:40	I try not to think too much of the names. Classes need particular names, and putting funny words together is a bit more memorable then class 'AB' or class 087. Do you demand that all rangers fight at range, or that rogues must be loners and fight on their own? A rose by any other name still has medium BAB progression.
#14 entropy_judge Aug 11, 2009 21:09:53	Do you demand that all rangers fight at range I think the class name "ranger," actually means "one who ranges," rather than "one who fights at range." Basically a wanderer/rover type.
#15 i_roll_ones Aug 11, 2009 21:14:44	Still, hardly anyone expects the ranger to act according to the class name. It's just a class! The alignment restrictions are described later on for a reason.
#16 Oni-Tekki-Maru Aug 12, 2009 0:00:26	Yes, I know Very Challenging encounters should only constitute 15% but a well-balanced adventure should roughly have about 1 Very Challenging fight for every 6 non-challenging ones. To have two VC's in a row, with no spell reload in-between is just plain reckless.
#17 mrdoobie Aug 12, 2009 8:29:30	Eh, I never got how everyone assumed things concerning death were evil. Skeletons, bats, wolves, vampires, etc etc never really figured them for being evil right off the bat. Oh yes, pun intended. But You're in D&D where the norm is 'evil' and evil is a tangible force. So. since most evil gods have cornered the market on the death domain, death itself seems preeeettttyy evil. Actually, I've always left alignment and the gods up to the DM, and when I DM, evil is not a tangible force, and Nerull is actually a true neutral deity, rather than an evil one. But that's just how I do it, and how I prefer it. I just find a world of black-and-white good-vs-evil to be boring. This is why players should communicate before making characters, so people don't make characters who can't co-exist. Who says a cleric of Pelor and a neutral aligned necromancer can't co-exist? As a neutral character, the necromancer isn't going out of his/her way to hurt anyone, so if the Party In-Fighting that may or may not happen is anyones fault, it's the clerics for playing a fanatic who does not play well with others, not the dread necromaner who's just decided to work with an Art the cleric finds icky. If the cleric feels he needs to mercilessly destroy someone over such a petty difference, maybe he doesn't deserve his Good alignment.
#18 themocaw Aug 12, 2009 14:21:00	Yes, I know Very Challenging encounters should only constitute 15% but a well-balanced adventure should roughly have about 1 Very Challenging fight for every 6 non-challenging ones. To have two VC's in a row, with no spell reload in-between is just plain reckless. If you didn't get a short rest, it's the same encounter. So instead of 2 Very Challenging encounters, it's actually a Near Impossible WTF one.
#19 Oni-Tekki-Maru Aug 12, 2009 14:26:55	Wait, really? What constitutes a short rest? We got a few minutes but the town hall was being attacked at the same time and it was obvious the DM wanted us to go defend it. My point was, two VC encounters in a row after a challenging one without a spell reload is just too much for a 4 person party.
#20 morphling_89 Aug 12, 2009 14:30:58	Wait, really? What constitutes a short rest? 30 seconds or more imo. Healing is very important.
#21 secretaryseven Aug 12, 2009 15:11:00	If you didn't get a short rest, it's the same encounter. So instead of 2 Very Challenging encounters, it's actually a Near Impossible WTF one. This is pretty much wrong. The encounter is categorized under the amount of stable combatants, and not the amount of streaming combatants. So, there are 10 monsters on the board-- one encounter. If you kill them all and get 30 seconds of rest before 15 monsters enter the map as well? That's a second encounter. If you put a level 4 4-person-party up again 10,000 goblins, 1 and a time, with no rest, it isn't an impossible fight. :P The goblins who enter the sacred duel will pretty much die instantly, 10,000 times.
#22 williamtanner Aug 12, 2009 15:21:44	Perhaps the game designers have experienced the internet and realized the futility of trying to spell out every possible scenario to avoid pithy arguments.
#23 themocaw Aug 12, 2009 17:30:33	This is pretty much wrong. The encounter is categorized under the amount of stable combatants, and not the amount of streaming combatants. So, there are 10 monsters on the board-- one encounter. If you kill them all and get 30 seconds of rest before 15 monsters enter the map as well? That's a second encounter. If you put a level 4 4-person-party up again 10,000 goblins, 1 and a time, with no rest, it isn't an impossible fight. :P The goblins who enter the sacred duel will pretty much die instantly, 10,000 times. Wow. Pedantry, thy name is SecretarySeven. Ten thousand encounters completed with at-wills only and no damage to the party is not the same as two encounters completed with significant expenditure of resources for each half of the fight.
#24 salla Aug 12, 2009 18:01:28	This is a 3e thread. 'Short Rest' makes no difference.