Question, does anyone think it is reasonable for 2 displacer beast who are controlled by intellect devourers to each waste both their attacks on a player who is making death saving throws instead of moving to attack one of the other 6 players who are still up and are a threat? I'm a player in this game and had my character killed this way but I also DM and personally don't see that this would be how the creatures would actually react. Thoughts?
In a world where spellcasters can get an unconcious character to immediately return to full combat effectiveness the unconscious characters are still a threat and it would make sense for the intellect devourer to make sure they stay incapacitated.
Having said that as dm I would not make it so a PC dies without the players being able to do anything about it. If it is the clerics turn next and the PC has no failed death saves I might have the beast make a single attack to apply some urgency to getting them healed. Once the party have revivify and diamonds I might have the occasional particularly ruthless enemy continue to attack the unconscious knowing it might kill them. For a player to have to roll a new character however they have to have done something pretty stupid.
Question, does anyone think it is reasonable for 2 displacer beast who are controlled by intellect devourers to each waste both their attacks on a player who is making death saving throws instead of moving to attack one of the other 6 players who are still up and are a threat? I'm a player in this game and had my character killed this way but I also DM and personally don't see that this would be how the creatures would actually react. Thoughts?
That does seem weird to me. You'd think intellect devourers would want reasonably intact fallen enemies so they could eat their brains and take over their bodies
Body Thief. The intellect devourer initiates an Intelligence contest with an incapacitated humanoid within 5 feet of it that isn’t protected by protection from evil and good. If it wins the contest, the intellect devourer magically consumes the target’s brain, teleports into the target’s skull, and takes control of the target’s body. While inside a creature, the intellect devourer has total cover against attacks and other effects originating outside its host. The intellect devourer retains its Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores, as well as its understanding of Deep Speech, its telepathy, and its traits. It otherwise adopts the target’s statistics. It knows everything the creature knew, including spells and languages.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
If you read the intellect devourer info it says they want to try and take things back to their masters to be enthralled or consumed. That can't happen if the creature is fully dead. Also, one of the creatures had one of my party members behind him as well. Our cleric was in movement range of them and we already killed a few.
I can only hope it was characters being attacked by displacer beasts, not players.
Considering you don’t know what the plan is for these intellect devourers, it all seems fair game. Maybe they’re up to something. Also just because the MM says a creature acts a certain way doesn’t mean the DM has to follow that. Insisting that a creature act only as it says in the MM is pure metagaming. The creature may behave differently in this DM’s world. Or these may be an exception to the the MM standard for any number of other reasons.
Or it could be the DM trying to discourage whack-a-mole healing.
Intellect devourers have an int of 12. They aren't stupid.
Was any healing magic used in the combat at all before this? Are any of the characters in the party recognizably healers or a class that can cast healing spells? You mention a cleric, do they have a holy symbol prominently displayed and have they cast any healing spells where these creatures can see? Was this the first time your character was knocked unconscious?
Intelligent creatures WILL take the abilities of the party into account when making decisions in combat. If they know about healing or have seen a character knocked unconscious and get back up then what is the intelligent thing to do? They will attack the downed creature to make sure it WILL not stand back up again. Even Intellect Devourers know that they won't be able to take ANY creatures back to become thralls if they don't win the fight. This means that they might leave the last one or two unconscious rather than dead to save for later, especially if they have already dealt with the "healer" but until they are about to clearly win, they will make sure the opponents STAY down.
So, yes, depending on circumstances it does make perfect sense for these creatures to finish off a downed opponent before moving on to the next.
P.S. Whether this makes sense in the context of this fight depends on what happened prior to the events occurring and what typical actions these creatures had been taking for the rest of the preceding fight. For example, was the fight almost over, the creatures hadn't previously attacked unconscious characters, there were no healing spells cast that would show the creatures it was a good idea to finish off a downed target? I.E. What was the in-character reason for the NPC Intellect Devourer to attack the unconscious character? Was it just because they knew they were going to die and wanted to take some creature with them? Is that a sufficient reason?
You should never attack a player, if you don’t like them tell them you don’t want them in your game.
Attacking characters is an entirely different matter. Players ≠ Characters. All kind of terrible, horrible things happen to PCs in D&D, including death, and things worse than death. The worst thing in the world that can actually happen to the players from playing D&D is bad D&D. The second worst thing that actually happens to them is having to create new characters. Nothing bad actually happens to players if something bad happens to their characters. If a character does something bad, the player didn’t.
By the same token, Villains & Monsters ≠ DMs. If a villain or monster does something terribly horrible to a PC, the DM didn’t.
If a monster attacks a downed PC and murders the bejeepers out of them, the DM didn’t do anything wrong, and nothing bad actually happens to the player.
Keeping the distinction between In Character and Out of Character clear makes for better D&D.
Oh yes, let's make it a semantic debate. So helpful
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Question, does anyone think it is reasonable for 2 displacer beast who are controlled by intellect devourers to each waste both their attacks on a player who is making death saving throws instead of moving to attack one of the other 6 players who are still up and are a threat?
I would normally expect one displacer beast to be sufficient (as any hit is an auto-crit so it only takes two hits), but for intelligent monsters, it's definitely worth avoiding playing whack-a-mole, and if they don't have better options (damaging zones, visual blocks, etc), sure, it's reasonable.
Oh yes, let's make it a semantic debate. So helpful
I did not. Perhaps if one were to reread my post, and put their own snark on the back burner for a moment, one might realize I gave a very sincere and absolutely constructive answer. However, just in case that might prove too difficult, I’ll highlight the “TL/DR” answer:
If a monster attacks a downed PC and murders the bejeepers out of them, the DM didn’t do anything wrong, and nothing bad actually happens to the player.
My dude, the OP was talking about making death saving throws. There was no confusion between 'player' and 'character' unless you choose to get hung up on which word got used
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
As a DM, you understand how all of the monsters and villains are thinking, what their motivations are, etc. You're familiar with the concept, and with the concept that in order for the PCs to understand what those same monsters and villains are intent upon, the DM has to communicate that to the players via the PCs. The DM did just that. Diving headlong into what the entry in the MM, or VGtM states that the vanilla version should do is moot. Your DM built a world and that world killed your PC. DM just told you that the world is dangerous to PCs who risk their lives.
If this still doesn't ease the grief that you feel at the loss of your PC, I might suggest looking at it if you were the DM that is trying to assuage the anguish of one of your players that just lost a PC. What explanation or reasoning do you, as a DM, give your players when you kill a PC? How do you help them to understand that there is no bias or malice intent behind what happened at the table? How would you react, as the DM of a game, if one of your players called foul on a decision you made about your game world and the creatures in it?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
It's a bit of a weird one, and a flaw with the mechanics overall. As the game goes on and there are more and more spell slots available, killing players becomes almost impossible in larger parties.
It's the interaction between:
Zero hit points is unconscious. Surely I wouldn't keep hitting the unconscious body when that guy over there might blast me?
Healing Word. For a Bonus action, the unconscious party IS going to get back up again. Unless someone mauls the corpse.
It then feels like the bad guys are idiots if they don't keep hacking at the corpse.
It then feels like the DM is being mean by not giving you a chance to heal.
Get through all that and a player actually dies? If you have 7 players you probably have 2 Revivify casters, so it's no big deal anyway.
Ta daaaa! Encounters of any difficulty short of a TPK no longer pose any real threat to the party.
This is all a bit daft. As a general rule, as soon as Revivify is available, all creatures should hack at the corpse until the threat they were fighting is truly dead. A turn is only 6 seconds. It's worth spending 6 seconds double-tapping the body. As a DM, I'll play it this way every time.
This is a session 0 and individual DM question. To me it is reasonable. But since I am an Adventure League DM, I have created the "EVIL INT ROLL" Patent pending. Trademark pending. If I am going to do something evil like attacking a mostly dead pc, Find Monster Int stat. Roll d20. If roll is not greater than INT then do EVIL. Note giggling when do this will get dice thrown at you.
My dude, the OP was talking about making death saving throws. There was no confusion between 'player' and 'character' unless you choose to get hung up on which word got used
🤦♂️ You still don’t get it. Let me rephrase for you. Slowly.
If. The. PC. Is. Killed. Because. The. Monsters. Attacked. It. While. It. Was. Downed. And. It. Was. Automatically. Forced. To. Fail. All. Of. It’s. Death. Saving. Throws., Then. There. Is. Nothing. Wrong. With. That. Because. The. Monsters. Did. What. Monsters. Are. Supposed. To. Do., Act. Monstrously.
You’re the one choosing to get hung up on which words got used, not I.
My dude, the OP was talking about making death saving throws. There was no confusion between 'player' and 'character' unless you choose to get hung up on which word got used
🤦♂️ You still don’t get it. Let me rephrase for you. Slowly.
If. The. PC. Is. Killed. Because. The. Monsters. Attacked. It. While. It. Was. Downed. And. It. Was. Automatically. Forced. To. Fail. All. Of. It’s. Death. Saving. Throws., Then. There. Is. Nothing. Wrong. With. That. Because. The. Monsters. Did. What. Monsters. Are. Supposed. To. Do., Act. Monstrously.
You’re the one choosing to get hung up on which words got used, not I.
I agree with Sposta here. The original question was about whether it was reasonable for the DM to have the creatures act that way. Sposta's saying it was - yes there was explanatory preamble but he still answered the question and I think the explanation behind his thoughts was useful.
I think it's entirely reasonable if that's how the DM see's it would go down in their world/game. Not every creature has to act exactly as would be expected in lore - just like PC's don't.
If the DM is singling out the player and only treating their character this way or punishing them (the player) for something then it's no longer reasonable.
It's a bit of a weird one, and a flaw with the mechanics overall. As the game goes on and there are more and more spell slots available, killing players becomes almost impossible in larger parties.
Having it be hard to kill PCs is probably intended, but Healing Word does seem like poor game design. A rule I've considered using is "if you are reduced to zero hit points and then healed, you lose your first action after being healed." Another is 'healing a dying character stabilizes them but does not return any hit points, you have to stabilize then heal'.
My dude, the OP was talking about making death saving throws. There was no confusion between 'player' and 'character' unless you choose to get hung up on which word got used
🤦♂️ You still don’t get it. Let me rephrase for you. Slowly.
If. The. PC. Is. Killed. Because. The. Monsters. Attacked. It. While. It. Was. Downed. And. It. Was. Automatically. Forced. To. Fail. All. Of. It’s. Death. Saving. Throws., Then. There. Is. Nothing. Wrong. With. That. Because. The. Monsters. Did. What. Monsters. Are. Supposed. To. Do., Act. Monstrously.
You’re the one choosing to get hung up on which words got used, not I.
I agree with Sposta here. The original question was about whether it was reasonable for the DM to have the creatures act that way. Sposta's saying it was - yes there was explanatory preamble but he still answered the question and I think the explanation behind his thoughts was useful.
I think it's entirely reasonable if that's how the DM see's it would go down in their world/game. Not every creature has to act exactly as would be expected in lore - just like PC's don't.
If the DM is singling out the player and only treating their character this way or punishing them (the player) for something then it's no longer reasonable.
My dude, the OP was talking about making death saving throws. There was no confusion between 'player' and 'character' unless you choose to get hung up on which word got used
🤦♂️ You still don’t get it. Let me rephrase for you. Slowly.
If. The. PC. Is. Killed. Because. The. Monsters. Attacked. It. While. It. Was. Downed. And. It. Was. Automatically. Forced. To. Fail. All. Of. It’s. Death. Saving. Throws., Then. There. Is. Nothing. Wrong. With. That. Because. The. Monsters. Did. What. Monsters. Are. Supposed. To. Do., Act. Monstrously.
You’re the one choosing to get hung up on which words got used, not I.
I agree with Sposta here. The original question was about whether it was reasonable for the DM to have the creatures act that way. Sposta's saying it was - yes there was explanatory preamble but he still answered the question and I think the explanation behind his thoughts was useful.
I think it's entirely reasonable if that's how the DM see's it would go down in their world/game. Not every creature has to act exactly as would be expected in lore - just like PC's don't.
If the DM is singling out the player and only treating their character this way or punishing them (the player) for something then it's no longer reasonable.
And this "point" contributed to the conversation how, exactly? I must have missed the post from OP where they said they thought the DM was out to get them personally
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Question, does anyone think it is reasonable for 2 displacer beast who are controlled by intellect devourers to each waste both their attacks on a player who is making death saving throws instead of moving to attack one of the other 6 players who are still up and are a threat? I'm a player in this game and had my character killed this way but I also DM and personally don't see that this would be how the creatures would actually react. Thoughts?
In a world where spellcasters can get an unconcious character to immediately return to full combat effectiveness the unconscious characters are still a threat and it would make sense for the intellect devourer to make sure they stay incapacitated.
Having said that as dm I would not make it so a PC dies without the players being able to do anything about it. If it is the clerics turn next and the PC has no failed death saves I might have the beast make a single attack to apply some urgency to getting them healed. Once the party have revivify and diamonds I might have the occasional particularly ruthless enemy continue to attack the unconscious knowing it might kill them. For a player to have to roll a new character however they have to have done something pretty stupid.
Some animals behave this way, others don't. If you don't think a displacer beat would act that way, then don't have it act that way.
You could describe have the blow(s) that incapacitates the player character like the grizzly bear scene in "The Revenant".
"As the displacer beast bites and claws at you, your body falls motionless and it searches for livelier prey."
That does seem weird to me. You'd think intellect devourers would want reasonably intact fallen enemies so they could eat their brains and take over their bodies
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
If you read the intellect devourer info it says they want to try and take things back to their masters to be enthralled or consumed. That can't happen if the creature is fully dead. Also, one of the creatures had one of my party members behind him as well. Our cleric was in movement range of them and we already killed a few.
I can only hope it was characters being attacked by displacer beasts, not players.
Considering you don’t know what the plan is for these intellect devourers, it all seems fair game. Maybe they’re up to something. Also just because the MM says a creature acts a certain way doesn’t mean the DM has to follow that. Insisting that a creature act only as it says in the MM is pure metagaming. The creature may behave differently in this DM’s world. Or these may be an exception to the the MM standard for any number of other reasons.
Or it could be the DM trying to discourage whack-a-mole healing.
Intellect devourers have an int of 12. They aren't stupid.
Was any healing magic used in the combat at all before this? Are any of the characters in the party recognizably healers or a class that can cast healing spells? You mention a cleric, do they have a holy symbol prominently displayed and have they cast any healing spells where these creatures can see? Was this the first time your character was knocked unconscious?
Intelligent creatures WILL take the abilities of the party into account when making decisions in combat. If they know about healing or have seen a character knocked unconscious and get back up then what is the intelligent thing to do? They will attack the downed creature to make sure it WILL not stand back up again. Even Intellect Devourers know that they won't be able to take ANY creatures back to become thralls if they don't win the fight. This means that they might leave the last one or two unconscious rather than dead to save for later, especially if they have already dealt with the "healer" but until they are about to clearly win, they will make sure the opponents STAY down.
So, yes, depending on circumstances it does make perfect sense for these creatures to finish off a downed opponent before moving on to the next.
P.S. Whether this makes sense in the context of this fight depends on what happened prior to the events occurring and what typical actions these creatures had been taking for the rest of the preceding fight. For example, was the fight almost over, the creatures hadn't previously attacked unconscious characters, there were no healing spells cast that would show the creatures it was a good idea to finish off a downed target? I.E. What was the in-character reason for the NPC Intellect Devourer to attack the unconscious character? Was it just because they knew they were going to die and wanted to take some creature with them? Is that a sufficient reason?
You should never attack a player, if you don’t like them tell them you don’t want them in your game.
Attacking characters is an entirely different matter. Players ≠ Characters. All kind of terrible, horrible things happen to PCs in D&D, including death, and things worse than death. The worst thing in the world that can actually happen to the players from playing D&D is bad D&D. The second worst thing that actually happens to them is having to create new characters. Nothing bad actually happens to players if something bad happens to their characters. If a character does something bad, the player didn’t.
By the same token, Villains & Monsters ≠ DMs. If a villain or monster does something terribly horrible to a PC, the DM didn’t.
If a monster attacks a downed PC and murders the bejeepers out of them, the DM didn’t do anything wrong, and nothing bad actually happens to the player.
Keeping the distinction between In Character and Out of Character clear makes for better D&D.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Oh yes, let's make it a semantic debate. So helpful
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I would normally expect one displacer beast to be sufficient (as any hit is an auto-crit so it only takes two hits), but for intelligent monsters, it's definitely worth avoiding playing whack-a-mole, and if they don't have better options (damaging zones, visual blocks, etc), sure, it's reasonable.
I did not. Perhaps if one were to reread my post, and put their own snark on the back burner for a moment, one might realize I gave a very sincere and absolutely constructive answer. However, just in case that might prove too difficult, I’ll highlight the “TL/DR” answer:
I hope that helps.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
My dude, the OP was talking about making death saving throws. There was no confusion between 'player' and 'character' unless you choose to get hung up on which word got used
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
As a DM, you understand how all of the monsters and villains are thinking, what their motivations are, etc. You're familiar with the concept, and with the concept that in order for the PCs to understand what those same monsters and villains are intent upon, the DM has to communicate that to the players via the PCs. The DM did just that. Diving headlong into what the entry in the MM, or VGtM states that the vanilla version should do is moot. Your DM built a world and that world killed your PC. DM just told you that the world is dangerous to PCs who risk their lives.
If this still doesn't ease the grief that you feel at the loss of your PC, I might suggest looking at it if you were the DM that is trying to assuage the anguish of one of your players that just lost a PC. What explanation or reasoning do you, as a DM, give your players when you kill a PC? How do you help them to understand that there is no bias or malice intent behind what happened at the table? How would you react, as the DM of a game, if one of your players called foul on a decision you made about your game world and the creatures in it?
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
It's a bit of a weird one, and a flaw with the mechanics overall. As the game goes on and there are more and more spell slots available, killing players becomes almost impossible in larger parties.
It's the interaction between:
This is all a bit daft. As a general rule, as soon as Revivify is available, all creatures should hack at the corpse until the threat they were fighting is truly dead. A turn is only 6 seconds. It's worth spending 6 seconds double-tapping the body. As a DM, I'll play it this way every time.
This is a session 0 and individual DM question. To me it is reasonable. But since I am an Adventure League DM, I have created the "EVIL INT ROLL" Patent pending. Trademark pending. If I am going to do something evil like attacking a mostly dead pc, Find Monster Int stat. Roll d20. If roll is not greater than INT then do EVIL. Note giggling when do this will get dice thrown at you.
No Gaming is Better than Bad Gaming.
🤦♂️ You still don’t get it. Let me rephrase for you. Slowly.
If. The. PC. Is. Killed. Because. The. Monsters. Attacked. It. While. It. Was. Downed. And. It. Was. Automatically. Forced. To. Fail. All. Of. It’s. Death. Saving. Throws., Then. There. Is. Nothing. Wrong. With. That. Because. The. Monsters. Did. What. Monsters. Are. Supposed. To. Do., Act. Monstrously.
You’re the one choosing to get hung up on which words got used, not I.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I agree with Sposta here. The original question was about whether it was reasonable for the DM to have the creatures act that way. Sposta's saying it was - yes there was explanatory preamble but he still answered the question and I think the explanation behind his thoughts was useful.
I think it's entirely reasonable if that's how the DM see's it would go down in their world/game. Not every creature has to act exactly as would be expected in lore - just like PC's don't.
If the DM is singling out the player and only treating their character this way or punishing them (the player) for something then it's no longer reasonable.
Having it be hard to kill PCs is probably intended, but Healing Word does seem like poor game design. A rule I've considered using is "if you are reduced to zero hit points and then healed, you lose your first action after being healed." Another is 'healing a dying character stabilizes them but does not return any hit points, you have to stabilize then heal'.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
And this "point" contributed to the conversation how, exactly? I must have missed the post from OP where they said they thought the DM was out to get them personally
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)