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
The question is was it reasonable for the DM to have the creature act this way. Since we don't have the full picture Sposta gave two scenarios which I agree with:
Yes if...
No if...
What did your accusation of arguing semantics add to the conversation and how was it on topic?
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
The question is was it reasonable for the DM to have the creature act this way. Since we don't have the full picture
Yeah, right there is the problem. I'm not a fan of inventing scenarios so you can lecture people about things they never asked
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue) Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid) 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'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?
I answered that. I provided my thoughts. I didn't make up scenarios. I provided an answer to those specific questions. You decided (made up the scenario) it was arguing semantics when Sposta was giving his thoughts on the question. You lectured us (and seem to continue to do so despite us explaining you misunderstood) and questioned what we were adding to the conversation. So I explained how I answered the question of the OP in my post and then I asked you the same. Can you point to who specifically I was lecturing in my original post?
Anyway my answer is still yes it is reasonable for any monster to outright kill a players character if the DM believes that's how the monster would act in that game/world/situation. That's the only correct answer with the information we've been given - without making up scenarios or adding additional information.
Continuing my thoughts I added, in my opinion, the only time the above would not be true would be if the DM was singling someone out. I said this not to imply it was happening in this situation but to make clear it is not acceptable if that is the case in any game despite saying essentially "if the DM says so". Providing my thoughts as asked.
Although it was not asked for - below is how I would play it based on the information we do have. This may not be relevant to the OPs game or DM's thought process at all. Note that the displacer beasts (non-humanoids) are being controlled by intellect devourers making these intellect devourers homebrewed somewhat already.
1) If they couldn't capture the PCs as displacer beasts - try to take over a player for stronger bodies - then capture the others.
2) If that's not possible - maybe escape.
3) If that's not possible they would try to take someone down with them to protect the colony/their master.
Intellect devourers are intelligent creatures capable of making these decisions.
I also believe not every monster has to follow their official lore 100% of the time. Maybe none of the above apply to this scenario and I didn't want to invent a scenario which is why I default to: Does the DM think it's how the monster would act? If yes, then it's reasonable for the monster to do.
The only other alternative is a DM (not specifically the one running the OP's game) doesn't believe that's how the monster would act and is killing a players character for out of game reasons - which would be unreasonable.
My players know from session zero that if they go down it won't stop a creature from taking their head off. Playing evil creatures they will know if a player is knocked out of dead. If not dead they will kill a still breathing combatant.
Which is why my players are always making decisions knowing that every combat can kill them. It's also why they don't kill everything and spare more lives than anything. Offering those they spare jobs and a chance for a different life for them.
Honestly it depends on what kind of game your DM wants to run.
5e rules for PC death is incredibly charitable, to the point where it's a legitimate criticism that it's too hard for PCs to die. You may think it's not realistic for the monsters to act that way but do you think it's realistic that all injuries heal after you go to bed for 6 hours?
You may think it's not realistic for the monsters to act that way but do you think it's realistic that all injuries heal after you go to bed for 6 hours?
I mean, there's are entire other discussions that could be had there on what hit points actually represent, how much "realism" the combat system is intended to support, etc etc
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue) Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid) 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'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?
First sorry to hear for your loss RIP
Now wether it's reasonable or not for monsters to attack dying crahacters is entirely up to the DM, depending on the situation, monsters, motives, etc... If the DM felt it was reasonable then it is, as unfortunate as it is for you.
At my table, monsters don't usually attack dying characters unless they're especially ravenous or intelligent and are out to kill. Otherwise, they concentrate on what still present a threat to them.
We had a twilight cleric but he forgot he was the healer and was doing nothing but attacking. No one had used any healing and this was the first time anyone had gone down to 0. I had failed 1 save and then the DM and the 2 creatures make 4 attacks total to final get one to hit and kill me. We had killed 2 but still had 5 or 6 up while one of our party members was a vegetable due to losing their saves to one of the Intellect Devourer. There was also some homebrewed plant taking shots at us when we got to close to it as well that I don't believe was with the devourers. It seemed to be part of wild life in the cave.
Or it could be the DM trying to discourage whack-a-mole healing.
We have a simple house rule for when things get out of hand with this. If you are knocked unconscious, you pick up a level of exhaustion upon being revived.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Not all those who wander are lost"
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The question is was it reasonable for the DM to have the creature act this way. Since we don't have the full picture Sposta gave two scenarios which I agree with:
Yes if...
No if...
What did your accusation of arguing semantics add to the conversation and how was it on topic?
Yeah, right there is the problem. I'm not a fan of inventing scenarios so you can lecture people about things they never asked
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The original question was:
I answered that. I provided my thoughts. I didn't make up scenarios. I provided an answer to those specific questions. You decided (made up the scenario) it was arguing semantics when Sposta was giving his thoughts on the question. You lectured us (and seem to continue to do so despite us explaining you misunderstood) and questioned what we were adding to the conversation. So I explained how I answered the question of the OP in my post and then I asked you the same. Can you point to who specifically I was lecturing in my original post?
Anyway my answer is still yes it is reasonable for any monster to outright kill a players character if the DM believes that's how the monster would act in that game/world/situation. That's the only correct answer with the information we've been given - without making up scenarios or adding additional information.
Continuing my thoughts I added, in my opinion, the only time the above would not be true would be if the DM was singling someone out. I said this not to imply it was happening in this situation but to make clear it is not acceptable if that is the case in any game despite saying essentially "if the DM says so". Providing my thoughts as asked.
Although it was not asked for - below is how I would play it based on the information we do have. This may not be relevant to the OPs game or DM's thought process at all. Note that the displacer beasts (non-humanoids) are being controlled by intellect devourers making these intellect devourers homebrewed somewhat already.
1) If they couldn't capture the PCs as displacer beasts - try to take over a player for stronger bodies - then capture the others.
2) If that's not possible - maybe escape.
3) If that's not possible they would try to take someone down with them to protect the colony/their master.
Intellect devourers are intelligent creatures capable of making these decisions.
I also believe not every monster has to follow their official lore 100% of the time. Maybe none of the above apply to this scenario and I didn't want to invent a scenario which is why I default to: Does the DM think it's how the monster would act? If yes, then it's reasonable for the monster to do.
The only other alternative is a DM (not specifically the one running the OP's game) doesn't believe that's how the monster would act and is killing a players character for out of game reasons - which would be unreasonable.
My players know from session zero that if they go down it won't stop a creature from taking their head off. Playing evil creatures they will know if a player is knocked out of dead. If not dead they will kill a still breathing combatant.
Which is why my players are always making decisions knowing that every combat can kill them. It's also why they don't kill everything and spare more lives than anything. Offering those they spare jobs and a chance for a different life for them.
Honestly it depends on what kind of game your DM wants to run.
5e rules for PC death is incredibly charitable, to the point where it's a legitimate criticism that it's too hard for PCs to die.
You may think it's not realistic for the monsters to act that way but do you think it's realistic that all injuries heal after you go to bed for 6 hours?
I mean, there's are entire other discussions that could be had there on what hit points actually represent, how much "realism" the combat system is intended to support, etc etc
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
First sorry to hear for your loss RIP
Now wether it's reasonable or not for monsters to attack dying crahacters is entirely up to the DM, depending on the situation, monsters, motives, etc... If the DM felt it was reasonable then it is, as unfortunate as it is for you.
At my table, monsters don't usually attack dying characters unless they're especially ravenous or intelligent and are out to kill. Otherwise, they concentrate on what still present a threat to them.
We had a twilight cleric but he forgot he was the healer and was doing nothing but attacking. No one had used any healing and this was the first time anyone had gone down to 0. I had failed 1 save and then the DM and the 2 creatures make 4 attacks total to final get one to hit and kill me. We had killed 2 but still had 5 or 6 up while one of our party members was a vegetable due to losing their saves to one of the Intellect Devourer. There was also some homebrewed plant taking shots at us when we got to close to it as well that I don't believe was with the devourers. It seemed to be part of wild life in the cave.
We have a simple house rule for when things get out of hand with this. If you are knocked unconscious, you pick up a level of exhaustion upon being revived.
"Not all those who wander are lost"