I do not think there is anything inherently wrong with the spell. I think you should focus your energy elsewhere. its clear you are upset, but your anger is directed at the wrong thing.
I think any DM that would use a spell like that without warning or any way to circumvent it is a bad DM.
Everyone is harping on the DM, but I'm not convinced. There is too much we don't know.
Does the party have multiple casters that can revive? Is the party flush with diamonds (or wealth if you don't micro-manage spell components)?
Does the party regularly ignore story hooks or narrative hints?
If I had a group that was lazy, always resorted to combat to solve situations, spent more time on their mobile phones than paying attention while gaming, etc... , then I would absolutely pull a stunt like that. Don't pay attention, or take absurd risks because you think the DM will pull punches? Dangerous shit can happen and OOPS, it just did.
If the DM did that and there was absolutely no way at all that character could be revived in the same gaming session, then yeah, DM is a dick. But if that is not the case, maybe the players are ***** and deserved it.
Counterpoint: if your entire band of players is that unengaged with your game, that none of them can be assed to pay attention at your table, it comes back to you as the DM. Why is it that none of your players are engaging with your game, to the extent that you feel justified in just automatically killing one out of the blue like an *******? And make no mistake - Subtle Spell PWK with nothing but a nebulous Insight check, specifically targeted at the group's healer/resurrectionist, is an ******* move.
Either you're running a perfectly functional game that they just don't want to play - which could very well be the case if you've got a bunch of combat-focused, dungeon crawl-y players stuck in your favorite game about political intrigue and Gaming of Thrones - or your game is less fun than their mobile phones are. In either case, a sit-down session to talk to your players and figure out why the game isn't working would be warranted before a Power Word DM-Butthurt on the group's cleric.
To expand on the situation based on what my DM told me after the fact. This is apparently a guy we had somehow managed to piss off from previous quests.
The dead dwarf bit and other things was actually just a setup to draw in a healer to PWK, he ended up teleporting out and left a boneclaw for the encounter.
I still maintain it was a shitty plan and any caster worth their salt, especially a sorcerer, wouldn't take power word kill if only from it's inefficiency. On top of the idea of just doing a greater invis and spamming various ranged spells to wear us down.
Fact this high powered sorcerer apparently couldn't be bothered to do some divination spying on a party that apparently pissed him off confuses me.
Overall it was just a dumb encounter which he mentally justified from us not making insight checks or the rogue apparently not acting on information he gleaned from his passives. Still doesn't make sense but whatev.
Maybe you pissed him off, and he just wanted to take petty revenge on you. It doesn't mean he wants to take the time and energy to create an elaborate plan, this might just be a "stop now, or else" type of intervention.
This being said, I would advise you stop playing with this DM. Whether the DM was right or wrong is irrelevant, but what I read from your message, is that he's not the right DM for you. You're a party of SEVEN characters of level NINE, death is nothing but a slight setback for you. Even in the unlikely case where you're the only one able to ressurect, the party should still easily find a way to bring you back to life. But when you're starting to pick at the DM's decision rather than trying to make sense of them within his world, I feel like the fourth wall is broken beyond repair.
Not to sound dickish, but how do we know? (I have some players who can be pretty lawyerly in the approach to rules reading. :))
The rules on Hit Points say "A creature's current hit points (usually just called hit points)". This should be clear enough that there's no ambiguity left.
Counterpoint: if your entire band of players is that unengaged with your game, that none of them can be assed to pay attention at your table, it comes back to you as the DM. Why is it that none of your players are engaging with your game, to the extent that you feel justified in just automatically killing one out of the blue like an *******? And make no mistake - Subtle Spell PWK with nothing but a nebulous Insight check, specifically targeted at the group's healer/resurrectionist, is an ******* move.
Either you're running a perfectly functional game that they just don't want to play - which could very well be the case if you've got a bunch of combat-focused, dungeon crawl-y players stuck in your favorite game about political intrigue and Gaming of Thrones - or your game is less fun than their mobile phones are. In either case, a sit-down session to talk to your players and figure out why the game isn't working would be warranted before a Power Word DM-Butthurt on the group's cleric.
With 7 players at the table, it's very likely impossible to run 'a' type of game that would please all of them. If the DM wanted to take ownership of the happiness and engagement of 7 players, then he would have to start kicking players out to whittle it down to a majority that likes a specific type of game, that the DM also likes to run. So in the end, what is better?
If those are 7 friends that insist on playing together regardless of the burden on the DM, and don't participate or respect the time investment of the DM, then I'd absolutely pull a dick move like that. And if they don't wise up, the next step would be, 'I'm out. Find another DM."
Automatically blaming the DM is just as much a dick move as the subtle spell PWK, especially given a real lack of information.
Examine the optics of this situation from eight-odd months ago.
One player, who was specifically singled out and targeted as the group's resurrectionist, was killed without warning, without sign, and without save. Just "and then your cleric falls over, and an examination reveals him to be dead. What do you do?" Without a clue or a hint, it comes down to "now you're dead. Go roll a new sheet, and maybe we'll pick you up soon."
When a DM is resorting to that kind of bull****ery, something is broken in the game. People like to blame the players because it's cool to blame the players - after all, the job of a player is to be a mindless cog in the Grand Machine that is a master storyteller's epic saga, and they're only worth remarking on when they screw that job up. or at least, such is the conventional wisdom of the game.
Getting seven people on board with a game is doable. it takes work on everybody's part, but it's doable. Subtle Spell PWK-ing your players is not conducive to that goal unless you're building towards a specific scene/event/encounter beyond "you pissed this guy off before and now he's back for revenge, so you're dead and may leave my table." My own players would tell me exactly where to stuff it if I did that to them, and they'd be absolutely within their rights to do so.
I don't get this, "You're dead and that's it" scenario.
There are 6 other level 9 characters. How do you know there are not another 2 or 3 characters that are able to revive on the spot at the cost of a diamond and action economy?
If the party was fresh from a long rest, flush with diamonds and had multiple healers/resurectionists, I wouldn't feel a subtle PWK would be dramatic at all.
My point is, we don't know what the DM faced with respect to the players, ie: their attitudes as players, nor their abilities as characters.
You're irrevocably blaming the DM without knowing the situation at all. I am just giving scenarios where I'd stand behind the DM for using the tactic. It's not black and white like many of you want it to be.
It's nothing more than a successful assassination attempt from what I can gather. Whether it's power word kill, or 2 CR8 Assassins hitting a single target from invisibility, or any number of other things, assassinations are not so uncommon as to bash the DM or make guesses on why it was done. The OP even said his post was less about the DM's choice to do it, but more of a rant on PWK. Evil groups going after adventurers (once they reach a high enough level) is a long standing adventure encounter.
Personally, I feel like PWK is best served when the players go in knowing the NPC has it. Then there's a new level of tension around keeping the characters above the hitpoint threshold and/or getting themselves in position to counterspell it when it gets used. In fact, as the DM, I would prefer the players go in knowing the NPC is going to use it, but not when or where. I cannot imagine just pulling it out unannounced and laying into a player with it. It doesn't seem like fun for anyone and it seems like a huge missed opportunity to add a layer to an encounter.
“If the creature you choose has 100 hit points or fewer”
The rule on death saves states that you need to make a death save “whenever you start your turn with 0 hit points.”
Therefore, the hp that you “have” is determined by current hp, as it would be ridiculous to only make death saves if your maximum hp is 0.
And PWK would be a pretty useless 9th level spell if it could only kill creatures that have a max hp of less than 100 (which is no creature at the CR where they can fight a 17-20th level party).
The main weakness of PWK at those levels is that, while it causes instant death without a save, it’s easily undone by a 3rd level revivify. Also, Meteor Swarm does 140 damage on a failed save (on average, ignoring resistances) in a massive AoE, so if you have the spell slot and the target won’t resist, might as well use that instead.
The best use of PWK is comboed with Polymorph, since a PWK on a Polymorphed creature still kills it instantly (how to take out pesky Archdruids 101).
The best use of PWK is comboed with Polymorph, since a PWK on a Polymorphed creature still kills it instantly (how to take out pesky Archdruids 101).
Is this part of the druid rules or the PWK rules?
Re: use of high level spell slots: A smart villain NPC (living or undead) who's capable of casting 9th level spells will bank some on scrolls, so as not to waste spell slots until absolutely needed.
The best use of PWK is comboed with Polymorph, since a PWK on a Polymorphed creature still kills it instantly (how to take out pesky Archdruids 101).
Is this part of the druid rules or the PWK rules?
Re: use of high level spell slots: A smart villain NPC (living or undead) who's capable of casting 9th level spells will bank some on scrolls, so as not to waste spell slots until absolutely needed.
Kind of neither, or both, it's really just the interaction between these 2 things.
A polymorphed druid's HP depends on his new form. The general wild shape rules says that if he's reduced to 0 hp, he loses his shape instead of falling unconscious, and all remaining damage flows over to his new form. But the text from PWK overrides that by directly killing its target.
Similarily, you could Disintegrate a druid and, if you reduce their form to 0 HP, they would get disintegrated instead of reverting to their true form. You would have similar interactions with Divine Word, and other effects that interacts with current HP, like a Beholder's Death/disintegration Ray, and all energy drain effects, such as from Chasme's proboscis.
Polymorphing as a druid gives you a lot of extra HP, but also leaves you vulnerable to some effects, especially at higher-level.
I see this is a fairly old thread but I still wanted to share a few thoughts.
The first thought I would want to share is that while the majority of responses here seem to present their opinion on whether it's the DM's fault (most thinking it is), I believe it is worth questioning the premise that there is anything to find fault with. It seems as if the "problem" is that a player is frustrated/annoyed. To me, this is a part of MOST great games. I understand the frustration of imaginarily losing an imaginary character (in addition to losing beloved D&D characters to questionable DM decisions, I've spent way too much time playing Hardcore mode in Diablo over my life) but a game can only be truly rewarding if it can also be truly frustrating. Try telling a professional poker player who loses two-years stakes to a bad river draw about how you lost an imaginary D&D character and I imagine they'll be less than fully sympathetic, yet nobody is complaining that the river is bad game design. Obviously, the game should not be frequently frustrating or it will no longer be fun, but the more dangerous the environment is, the more rewarding your successes are. People get frustrated at games. That's okay.
With regard to whether the DM acted poorly here, I do believe that for a time investment large enough for level nine characters, players should be warned of danger; HOWEVER, that doesn't mean there have to be clues for every scenario. There can be entire campaigns in which the warning for deadly encounters is a single warning before a player joins, "There are numerous dangers in this world that are well beyond your ability to handle. For this campaign I will not warn you or stop you when you are choosing to attempt something dangerous. Death is a very real possibility and you should play accordingly." Furthermore, we have no information on what happened with the party in question earlier in the campaign. If they purposefully did something that pissed off a level 18+ Sorcerer - that's more than fair warning. They literally chose to make an enemy of someone who can destroy their entire party. At that point, it is not the DM's job to warn them when the spellcaster is coming. The party dug their own graves. We just don't have context here.
I run two campaigns, one of which I make sure that the players only run into things they can handle, and present numerous warnings that allow them to choose whether to begin a deadly encounter. The other campaign, I do nothing of the sort. Both my parties and I get deeper enjoyment from the more dangerous campaign. To me, babysitting takes away free will; if they wish to take their level 1 party to find and Demon Lord and poke it in the eye, why should I stop them? Also, to me, acting as a God who injects warnings into the situation takes away from the realism and suspense.
To the original question that started the thread, ranting about PWK, I personally believe that the issue here is less with PWK, which can be Counterspelled, and more with Subtle Spell. I believe that a couple patch-the-rules for combinations of spells would help here. A DM can create whatever custom crap they want. e.g. global change - PWK cannot be cast with Subtle Spell.
I see this is a fairly old thread but I still wanted to share a few thoughts.
The first thought I would want to share is that while the majority of responses here seem to present their opinion on whether it's the DM's fault (most thinking it is), I believe it is worth questioning the premise that there is anything to find fault with. It seems as if the "problem" is that a player is frustrated/annoyed. To me, this is a part of MOST great games. I understand the frustration of imaginarily losing an imaginary character (in addition to losing beloved D&D characters to questionable DM decisions, I've spent way too much time playing Hardcore mode in Diablo over my life) but a game can only be truly rewarding if it can also be truly frustrating. Try telling a professional poker player who loses two-years stakes to a bad river draw about how you lost an imaginary D&D character and I imagine they'll be less than fully sympathetic, yet nobody is complaining that the river is bad game design. Obviously, the game should not be frequently frustrating or it will no longer be fun, but the more dangerous the environment is, the more rewarding your successes are. People get frustrated at games. That's okay.
I get what you mean with the poker analogy, but I think the example given is less "I played Poker and got a bad hand and lost everything" and more, "I had a perfectly fine hand, and the Dealer flipped the deck over, picked out a Royal Flush and wouldn't let me withdraw my bet when he played it".
Well, that would be against the rules; this DM did not break any rules. I did not intend the poker reference to be an analogy that would draw a parallel in circumstance between this player's experience and the poker experience beyond the one fact that frustrating stuff happens in every game and that frustration is not, in itself, a game flaw.
One aspect of your response that I think is an important consideration is that you think what the DM did was so unfair that it is tantamount to breaking the rules. While I very strongly disagree, particularly since we don't have sufficient context here, I do agree that the players must have a certain level of trust in the content generated by the DM and there was definitely a disconnect between this player's expectations and the DM's actions. As such, I respect your opinion that others might also consider this tantamount to breaking the rules.
I think a lot of this comes down to previous communication and agreement between DM and players about the game environment. I don't get the impression that this was a world in which the DM had previously communicated that they would try to protect the party from potentially lethal encounters. If it was, then my opinion would have to be that the DM was completely out of line. But again, to me, with the very little context we have, it seems to me the party was practically lucky only one of them was killed when they chose to feud with somebody who could destroy them all with a single spell.
That's more a problem with the fact that the poker analogy doesn't fully work for D&D, because the dealer in Poker does not have the same power as a DM... a Dealer is more like a moderator and active player in a game of Poker, but doesn't get that level of control. But ultimately a DM is an omnipotent, all-powerful being within the context of a game of D&D. Every single DM is perfectly capable of just dropping a dozen Ancient Dragons on the board at any moment and slaughtering their players, but any DM who did that for no reason would probably be more annoying to deal with than a fun, engaging partner for a roleplaying experience. A DM who says, "Oh, by the way, your character dies suddenly and there's no save or hint that it's coming" isn't breaking any rules, but they're not creating a fun environment. You could just as easily say, "A Meteor falls from the sky and you all take 30d10 damage" and it would be equally unsatisfying. Just because a DM isn't actually breaking a rule doesn't mean that they're doing a good job. If you want to get pedantic about it, a DM is quite literally incapable of breaking the rules, because it overtly states in the rules that the DM's word is law and they're allowed to alter the rules as they see fit.
I do not think there is anything inherently wrong with the spell. I think you should focus your energy elsewhere. its clear you are upset, but your anger is directed at the wrong thing.
I think any DM that would use a spell like that without warning or any way to circumvent it is a bad DM.
Check out my Homebrew Magic Items
Everyone is harping on the DM, but I'm not convinced. There is too much we don't know.
Does the party have multiple casters that can revive? Is the party flush with diamonds (or wealth if you don't micro-manage spell components)?
Does the party regularly ignore story hooks or narrative hints?
If I had a group that was lazy, always resorted to combat to solve situations, spent more time on their mobile phones than paying attention while gaming, etc... , then I would absolutely pull a stunt like that. Don't pay attention, or take absurd risks because you think the DM will pull punches? Dangerous shit can happen and OOPS, it just did.
If the DM did that and there was absolutely no way at all that character could be revived in the same gaming session, then yeah, DM is a dick. But if that is not the case, maybe the players are ***** and deserved it.
Counterpoint: if your entire band of players is that unengaged with your game, that none of them can be assed to pay attention at your table, it comes back to you as the DM. Why is it that none of your players are engaging with your game, to the extent that you feel justified in just automatically killing one out of the blue like an *******? And make no mistake - Subtle Spell PWK with nothing but a nebulous Insight check, specifically targeted at the group's healer/resurrectionist, is an ******* move.
Either you're running a perfectly functional game that they just don't want to play - which could very well be the case if you've got a bunch of combat-focused, dungeon crawl-y players stuck in your favorite game about political intrigue and Gaming of Thrones - or your game is less fun than their mobile phones are. In either case, a sit-down session to talk to your players and figure out why the game isn't working would be warranted before a Power Word DM-Butthurt on the group's cleric.
Why you shouldn't start ANOTHER thread about DDB not giving away free redeems on your hardcopy book purchases.
Thinking of starting ANOTHER thread asking why Epic Boons haven't been implemented? Read this first to learn why you shouldn't!
I'm going to go against the majority here, and say that maybe the DM was right.
Maybe you pissed him off, and he just wanted to take petty revenge on you. It doesn't mean he wants to take the time and energy to create an elaborate plan, this might just be a "stop now, or else" type of intervention.
This being said, I would advise you stop playing with this DM. Whether the DM was right or wrong is irrelevant, but what I read from your message, is that he's not the right DM for you. You're a party of SEVEN characters of level NINE, death is nothing but a slight setback for you. Even in the unlikely case where you're the only one able to ressurect, the party should still easily find a way to bring you back to life. But when you're starting to pick at the DM's decision rather than trying to make sense of them within his world, I feel like the fourth wall is broken beyond repair.
The rules on Hit Points say "A creature's current hit points (usually just called hit points)". This should be clear enough that there's no ambiguity left.
Click to learn to put cool-looking tooltips in your messages!
With 7 players at the table, it's very likely impossible to run 'a' type of game that would please all of them. If the DM wanted to take ownership of the happiness and engagement of 7 players, then he would have to start kicking players out to whittle it down to a majority that likes a specific type of game, that the DM also likes to run. So in the end, what is better?
If those are 7 friends that insist on playing together regardless of the burden on the DM, and don't participate or respect the time investment of the DM, then I'd absolutely pull a dick move like that. And if they don't wise up, the next step would be, 'I'm out. Find another DM."
Automatically blaming the DM is just as much a dick move as the subtle spell PWK, especially given a real lack of information.
Dumb question: what's this "subtle spell" stuff y'all keep talking about?
It's a type of metamagic that sorcerers may take. It allows them to cast spells without making sounds or movements even if the spell requires it.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Thanks. That's the class I know least about in 5E.
Examine the optics of this situation from eight-odd months ago.
One player, who was specifically singled out and targeted as the group's resurrectionist, was killed without warning, without sign, and without save. Just "and then your cleric falls over, and an examination reveals him to be dead. What do you do?" Without a clue or a hint, it comes down to "now you're dead. Go roll a new sheet, and maybe we'll pick you up soon."
When a DM is resorting to that kind of bull****ery, something is broken in the game. People like to blame the players because it's cool to blame the players - after all, the job of a player is to be a mindless cog in the Grand Machine that is a master storyteller's epic saga, and they're only worth remarking on when they screw that job up. or at least, such is the conventional wisdom of the game.
Getting seven people on board with a game is doable. it takes work on everybody's part, but it's doable. Subtle Spell PWK-ing your players is not conducive to that goal unless you're building towards a specific scene/event/encounter beyond "you pissed this guy off before and now he's back for revenge, so you're dead and may leave my table." My own players would tell me exactly where to stuff it if I did that to them, and they'd be absolutely within their rights to do so.
Why you shouldn't start ANOTHER thread about DDB not giving away free redeems on your hardcopy book purchases.
Thinking of starting ANOTHER thread asking why Epic Boons haven't been implemented? Read this first to learn why you shouldn't!
I don't get this, "You're dead and that's it" scenario.
There are 6 other level 9 characters. How do you know there are not another 2 or 3 characters that are able to revive on the spot at the cost of a diamond and action economy?
If the party was fresh from a long rest, flush with diamonds and had multiple healers/resurectionists, I wouldn't feel a subtle PWK would be dramatic at all.
My point is, we don't know what the DM faced with respect to the players, ie: their attitudes as players, nor their abilities as characters.
You're irrevocably blaming the DM without knowing the situation at all. I am just giving scenarios where I'd stand behind the DM for using the tactic. It's not black and white like many of you want it to be.
It's nothing more than a successful assassination attempt from what I can gather. Whether it's power word kill, or 2 CR8 Assassins hitting a single target from invisibility, or any number of other things, assassinations are not so uncommon as to bash the DM or make guesses on why it was done. The OP even said his post was less about the DM's choice to do it, but more of a rant on PWK. Evil groups going after adventurers (once they reach a high enough level) is a long standing adventure encounter.
Personally, I feel like PWK is best served when the players go in knowing the NPC has it. Then there's a new level of tension around keeping the characters above the hitpoint threshold and/or getting themselves in position to counterspell it when it gets used. In fact, as the DM, I would prefer the players go in knowing the NPC is going to use it, but not when or where. I cannot imagine just pulling it out unannounced and laying into a player with it. It doesn't seem like fun for anyone and it seems like a huge missed opportunity to add a layer to an encounter.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
“If the creature you choose has 100 hit points or fewer”
The rule on death saves states that you need to make a death save “whenever you start your turn with 0 hit points.”
Therefore, the hp that you “have” is determined by current hp, as it would be ridiculous to only make death saves if your maximum hp is 0.
And PWK would be a pretty useless 9th level spell if it could only kill creatures that have a max hp of less than 100 (which is no creature at the CR where they can fight a 17-20th level party).
The main weakness of PWK at those levels is that, while it causes instant death without a save, it’s easily undone by a 3rd level revivify. Also, Meteor Swarm does 140 damage on a failed save (on average, ignoring resistances) in a massive AoE, so if you have the spell slot and the target won’t resist, might as well use that instead.
The best use of PWK is comboed with Polymorph, since a PWK on a Polymorphed creature still kills it instantly (how to take out pesky Archdruids 101).
Is this part of the druid rules or the PWK rules?
Re: use of high level spell slots: A smart villain NPC (living or undead) who's capable of casting 9th level spells will bank some on scrolls, so as not to waste spell slots until absolutely needed.
Kind of neither, or both, it's really just the interaction between these 2 things.
A polymorphed druid's HP depends on his new form. The general wild shape rules says that if he's reduced to 0 hp, he loses his shape instead of falling unconscious, and all remaining damage flows over to his new form. But the text from PWK overrides that by directly killing its target.
Similarily, you could Disintegrate a druid and, if you reduce their form to 0 HP, they would get disintegrated instead of reverting to their true form. You would have similar interactions with Divine Word, and other effects that interacts with current HP, like a Beholder's Death/disintegration Ray, and all energy drain effects, such as from Chasme's proboscis.
Polymorphing as a druid gives you a lot of extra HP, but also leaves you vulnerable to some effects, especially at higher-level.
Click to learn to put cool-looking tooltips in your messages!
Because that's what the spell says.
It makes no mention of hit point maximum.
I see this is a fairly old thread but I still wanted to share a few thoughts.
The first thought I would want to share is that while the majority of responses here seem to present their opinion on whether it's the DM's fault (most thinking it is), I believe it is worth questioning the premise that there is anything to find fault with. It seems as if the "problem" is that a player is frustrated/annoyed. To me, this is a part of MOST great games. I understand the frustration of imaginarily losing an imaginary character (in addition to losing beloved D&D characters to questionable DM decisions, I've spent way too much time playing Hardcore mode in Diablo over my life) but a game can only be truly rewarding if it can also be truly frustrating. Try telling a professional poker player who loses two-years stakes to a bad river draw about how you lost an imaginary D&D character and I imagine they'll be less than fully sympathetic, yet nobody is complaining that the river is bad game design. Obviously, the game should not be frequently frustrating or it will no longer be fun, but the more dangerous the environment is, the more rewarding your successes are. People get frustrated at games. That's okay.
With regard to whether the DM acted poorly here, I do believe that for a time investment large enough for level nine characters, players should be warned of danger; HOWEVER, that doesn't mean there have to be clues for every scenario. There can be entire campaigns in which the warning for deadly encounters is a single warning before a player joins, "There are numerous dangers in this world that are well beyond your ability to handle. For this campaign I will not warn you or stop you when you are choosing to attempt something dangerous. Death is a very real possibility and you should play accordingly." Furthermore, we have no information on what happened with the party in question earlier in the campaign. If they purposefully did something that pissed off a level 18+ Sorcerer - that's more than fair warning. They literally chose to make an enemy of someone who can destroy their entire party. At that point, it is not the DM's job to warn them when the spellcaster is coming. The party dug their own graves. We just don't have context here.
I run two campaigns, one of which I make sure that the players only run into things they can handle, and present numerous warnings that allow them to choose whether to begin a deadly encounter. The other campaign, I do nothing of the sort. Both my parties and I get deeper enjoyment from the more dangerous campaign. To me, babysitting takes away free will; if they wish to take their level 1 party to find and Demon Lord and poke it in the eye, why should I stop them? Also, to me, acting as a God who injects warnings into the situation takes away from the realism and suspense.
To the original question that started the thread, ranting about PWK, I personally believe that the issue here is less with PWK, which can be Counterspelled, and more with Subtle Spell. I believe that a couple patch-the-rules for combinations of spells would help here. A DM can create whatever custom crap they want. e.g. global change - PWK cannot be cast with Subtle Spell.
I get what you mean with the poker analogy, but I think the example given is less "I played Poker and got a bad hand and lost everything" and more, "I had a perfectly fine hand, and the Dealer flipped the deck over, picked out a Royal Flush and wouldn't let me withdraw my bet when he played it".
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Well, that would be against the rules; this DM did not break any rules. I did not intend the poker reference to be an analogy that would draw a parallel in circumstance between this player's experience and the poker experience beyond the one fact that frustrating stuff happens in every game and that frustration is not, in itself, a game flaw.
One aspect of your response that I think is an important consideration is that you think what the DM did was so unfair that it is tantamount to breaking the rules. While I very strongly disagree, particularly since we don't have sufficient context here, I do agree that the players must have a certain level of trust in the content generated by the DM and there was definitely a disconnect between this player's expectations and the DM's actions. As such, I respect your opinion that others might also consider this tantamount to breaking the rules.
I think a lot of this comes down to previous communication and agreement between DM and players about the game environment. I don't get the impression that this was a world in which the DM had previously communicated that they would try to protect the party from potentially lethal encounters. If it was, then my opinion would have to be that the DM was completely out of line. But again, to me, with the very little context we have, it seems to me the party was practically lucky only one of them was killed when they chose to feud with somebody who could destroy them all with a single spell.
That's more a problem with the fact that the poker analogy doesn't fully work for D&D, because the dealer in Poker does not have the same power as a DM... a Dealer is more like a moderator and active player in a game of Poker, but doesn't get that level of control. But ultimately a DM is an omnipotent, all-powerful being within the context of a game of D&D. Every single DM is perfectly capable of just dropping a dozen Ancient Dragons on the board at any moment and slaughtering their players, but any DM who did that for no reason would probably be more annoying to deal with than a fun, engaging partner for a roleplaying experience. A DM who says, "Oh, by the way, your character dies suddenly and there's no save or hint that it's coming" isn't breaking any rules, but they're not creating a fun environment. You could just as easily say, "A Meteor falls from the sky and you all take 30d10 damage" and it would be equally unsatisfying. Just because a DM isn't actually breaking a rule doesn't mean that they're doing a good job. If you want to get pedantic about it, a DM is quite literally incapable of breaking the rules, because it overtly states in the rules that the DM's word is law and they're allowed to alter the rules as they see fit.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium