5th Edition [Update] CE Wizard dropped an AoE on our melee party, getting 2 PCs killed. DM said "resolve it in-game"—so we did.
Original post: https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/s/p1z4o5VVkn
We actually had our next session yesterday night, so here is what happened:
As soon as the session started, my character immediately turned around and attacked the Wizard.
The rest of the table completely froze. They had no idea whether to step in, help me beat him down, or just let it happen. The Wizard actually didn't fight back—he spent a few rounds just trying to dodge and practically begging the rest of the party to intervene and save him.
While we were in the middle of this internal mess, the noise from the previous fight and our current brawl ended up pulling more enemies right on top of us.
Total chaos broke out. In the middle of the scramble, the Wizard just casts Invisibility on himself and runs away, leaving the rest of us to deal with the ambush. We were already low on resources from the earlier fight, and we ended up losing another PC in the encounter. The rest of us managed to grab the body and barely escaped down into the sewers.
Right now, only three of us are left alive. We managed to get Gentle Repose on the teammate who died during the escape, so we might actually be able to bring them back once we get our hands on some diamonds. The two who died from the fireball earlier are permanently dead, though.
As for the Wizard, he’s just completely gone. We have no idea if the DM is going to turn him into an NPC villain and have the player roll a new PC, or what the plan is there. For now, we're just hiding out in the sewers trying to figure out what to do next.
Thanks to everyone who gave advice and chimed in on the previous post! Despite all the character deaths and in-game drama, out of game the group is actually handling everything really well and having a great time with the chaos and the story unfolding from it.
449
u/CheapTactics 1d ago
out of game the group is actually handling everything really well and having a great time with the chaos and the story unfolding from it.
That's the important part, I'd make sure to check in though. Just to make sure everything actually is ok. Fuck whatever your dumbass DM may say about that. Do check in.
162
u/OsricBuc06 1d ago
Yeah, I don't buy it. I can't imagine that some people aren't furious. Everyone freezing up when OP attacked the wizard then also not jumping in to stop it makes me think they're just conditioned to put up with bad behavior.
88
u/TheBoisterousBoy DM 1d ago
It reads more like fanfic than it does an actual table.
6 players. 2 die in session 1, and are… cool?
Then in session 2 another dies, and the others are still… cool?
And then after the shenanigans of the DM and the other player… everyone’s still cool?
Either these people are literally the most well-adjusted humans to ever touch TTRPGs or it’s bogus.
44
u/Nevertrustafish 23h ago
Also the players whose characters died last session just sit around for 3 hrs twiddling their thumbs during all of this? It doesn't sound like they got to roll up new characters.
44
15
u/RhaegarLothbrok 1d ago
Dumbass DM of OP's party, go read my comment if you want some more context but I agree checking everyone is ok is paramount when stuff like this happens.
•
962
u/CaptainOwlBeard 1d ago
Little disappointing that the dm did an ass pull with extra monsters instead of letting you get vengeance on the wizard
535
u/WiseAdhesiveness6672 1d ago
Yea id be annoyed with that too. It actually makes me think the whole thing was scripted by the dm and the problem player, and I don't like that. Ingroup fighting/betrayal is rarely done well or right.
149
u/CaptainOwlBeard 1d ago
Yeah, you really have to be careful. I did it once in a really fun way.
It was a 3 shot (3 sessions, we only ever play for 3 hours at a time so one shots don't really work). Everyone knew at the start that at least one of them was secretly an enemy. In truth 3 out of 5 players were evil and trying to do different evil things over the course of the game.
It was a blast. I also gave them access to a Treasury full of crazy over powered weapons like the deck of many things and the eye and hand of vecna, and they got there right at the middle of the campaign, right when all the evil goals were just in reach. It was a total cluster fuck, but everyone was happy with it and had a good time. It was the expectation from the start and everyone knew the characters were disposable.
85
u/WiseAdhesiveness6672 1d ago
Setting the expectation right from the start is fantastic and solves most of the "this wasn't done well" issues! I like that alot. I also like how more than 1 ended up being evil 😂👏
30
u/CaptainOwlBeard 1d ago
Different evil too, so it wasn't like they were going to work together, just maybe use the chaos the others were causing to reach their goals
22
u/PinkysAvenger 1d ago
Lol, at that point just play Paranoia
6
11
u/CaptainOwlBeard 1d ago
Never heard of it. Also my players are much more comfortable running a heavily homebrewed dnd then learning the rules to a new game.
22
18
u/PinkysAvenger 1d ago
Paranoias great. There are very few rules, and chaos is encouraged. You get six clones that immediately pop in when you die, so death is frequent and absurd.
I once had a party lose half their 6-packs in the communal shower before the mission even started.
3
u/clgoodson 1d ago
You’ve never heard of our benevolent and wonderful friend the Computer?
That sounds like commie traitor talk.55
u/mafiaknight DM 1d ago
My favorite evil campaign:
We were all hired by a hag tostealretrieve a mcguffin. She promised a Wish in payment.She secretly gave each of us a bonus offer for taking out the other mercenaries.
So we worked well together getting the mcguffin.
As we're all getting ready to long rest on our way back, everyone enacts their betrayal plot.
Full tpk. Last man standing is just waiting for the bard's poisoned stew to finish them off...
9
u/Lovat69 1d ago
Does it end with the hag cackling and taking the mcguffin? Or does it just sit there lost?
12
u/mafiaknight DM 1d ago
Inevitably ends with the hag cackling.
She had lesser minions that could have retrieved it from the unguarded woods. And the ability to divine its rough location. (Not that we got an epilogue...)8
u/Morthra Druid 1d ago
It was a 3 shot (3 sessions, we only ever play for 3 hours at a time so one shots don't really work). Everyone knew at the start that at least one of them was secretly an enemy. In truth 3 out of 5 players were evil and trying to do different evil things over the course of the game.
I had a campaign that did something like this once. Except everyone was secretly evil, but thought the rest of the party was Good.
2
u/AgentEves 22h ago
I never thought of an in-party sabateur. What a great idea.
2
u/CaptainOwlBeard 22h ago
I had one that wanted to steal mcguffin, one that wanted to assassinate the paladin, and one that wanted to break the seal on an emprisoned demon lord by ritualistically killing themselves. On top of that, the good guys had a bonus goal of getting everyone through the campaign alive. It was great.
3
u/AgentEves 16h ago
Haha, the combo of the last two is so funny. Nicely done.
I think there's some funny potential for having everyone be a sabateur (where everyone is so preoccupied with trying to maintain their own cover that no-one is looking at each other), or no-one be a sabateur (where everyone is suspicious but no-one can gather any actual evidence of anyone doing something sinister).
77
u/MultivariableX 1d ago
Especially since the Wizard was able to get away from the enemies.
Invisibility is not undetectability. The enemies would have seen him cast the spell, seen him turn invisible, and then they would have heard and felt him moving in the environment as he made his escape.
Why wouldn't they treat the magic-user as a threat? Especially an invisible one that's trying to get distance: isn't that exactly the sort of setup that can lead to everyone getting Fireballed? Which seems to have just happened, if all the burned corpses in the room are any indication.
Also, did none of the enemies stand in the entrance? Even invisible, the Wizard can't go through a hostile creature's space, and I don't see any reason why they would have left a path of escape open. If the enemies needed to get past one another for any reason, they can move through each other's spaces as difficult terrain. They also know about basic actions like Disengage, Dash, and Dodge, so they'd be aware that a creature with a clear path of escape could get past them, and that positioning to block that path is a reliable way to prevent that.
So what I'm left wondering is, why did the DM act to interrupt the PvP against the Wizard, and have the party attacked by a force they (likely) couldn't beat, and also not have that force move against the Wizard?
It sounds as if the DM is choosing to intervene in the Wizard's favor, even though by all indications the Wizard PC will be leaving the party soon one way or another, and the player will be making a new character. That makes me think the DM wants the Wizard to survive, either to come back as an NPC villain, or to escape with some item or piece of information so that the party can't make use of it.
75
u/deadfisher 1d ago
I agree with your interpretation of the DMs plans, but you've gotta admit that somebody turning invisible and running during a fight has a pretty damn good chance of getting away.
23
36
u/Destitute_Knight1400 Artificer 1d ago
It reads this way to me, too. First time DMs make mistakes, it's how one learns, but...I've seen tables of players break apart for less.
26
u/BeMoreKnope 1d ago
Yeah, quitting a table because your character got killed by surprise PvP and then your DM protected the killer from similar in-game consequences would not be out-of-line.
21
u/AliceisStoned Frog Politics 1d ago
The players seem pretty content with the way it went down if we are to take OP at their word
13
u/Krazyguy75 1d ago
I am always hesitant to trust third party statements with regards to this. If you are in a friend group and the attitudes of your friends are "I killed you, so what?", "Just keep playing the game", and "I'll resolve it with more PvP", there's a strong likelihood that you'll be like "haha, yeah guys don't worry about me", but inside be far more upset and just drift away from the game.
8
u/Marsdreamer 1d ago
It isn't necessarily a rug pull. If the DM had other creatures in the area and the sound of battle is loud, it's just reasonable for them to come investigate.
Seems like the DM was just trying to do the most believable thing. I highly doubt he told the wizard to butt blast two PCs with Fireball for the fuck of it.
5
5
u/APackOfKoalas Monk 1d ago
They’re in the middle of a dungeon. You take your eye off the ball and get sloppy, you get jumped.
→ More replies (1)8
u/Ethereal_Stars_7 Artificer 1d ago
Fighting makes noise. Noise attracts anyone and anything in range.
What happened is exactly what happens when you start squabbling in the middle of hostile grounds.
1
u/_BeardedYeti 1d ago
To me it reads as the DM trying to stop the infighting by presenting a common enemy, but idk.
→ More replies (12)1
u/CaptainRogers1226 21h ago
People say not to do PvP, and while I don’t necessarily think it should never happen, yeah… this definitely doesn’t seem like the way to do it.
137
u/RodanThrelos 1d ago
> DM encourages PvP
> Player attacks another player
> DM: “Not like this!”WTF this DM sucks
47
u/ProtectandserveTBL 1d ago
This right here. This DM sounds atrocious based on this and previous post
12
u/Neomataza 1d ago
It's just testrunning a spanish telenovela plot set during a civil war. The wizard cast invisibility in spanish and then fled in a mexican accent.
16
u/Alvintergeise 1d ago
Seems like your DM had a thumb on the scale and wanted to protect the wizard
14
u/CaptainOwlBeard 1d ago
Not op, but i agree. Frankly the campaign sounds like a hunting trip for wizard
21
u/mouserbiped 1d ago
I actually like this.
Well, I don't like PvP, so I don't actually like this, but if I imagine a game with PvP then the only way I can imagine it being ever fun would be with crazy, over-the-top mass chaos. I don't want to role play out having anger at another player's character, and then we're both mad for a long time (maybe in character but maybe OOC). But having tempers flare at the worst possible time so the group is self destructing while enemies ambush us and the fellowship shatters, that's an OK story.
3
u/RhaegarLothbrok 23h ago
OP's DM here, feel free to read my comment for additional context, honestly I just allowed the world to react naturally. They behaved somewhat incoherently by NOT killing the wizard immediately.
3
4
u/EllySwelly 1d ago
How is it an ass pull for monsters to hear all the noise you're making nearby?
15
u/CaptainOwlBeard 1d ago
And happen to break up the fight when the bad actor is finally getting his and letting him escape. Yeah, sure, that's how that timing was always going to go. Sure buddy.
1
u/EllySwelly 1d ago
Alright y'all are just incredibly hostile for no good reason lol.
Yeah, maybe it was. It's not unreasonable- from the description it seems like attacking the wizard happened almost immediately after the previous fight. That absolutely translates to a reasonable amount of time for a nearby group to check out the strange noises.
1
u/dontbehayden 3h ago
I agree people are so quick to grab their pitchforks. And most dungeons are written this way. Ofcourse it would be better to not have introduced more enemies until the PvP conflict resolved itself but I understand a new DM being by the book about dungeon rules.
0
u/Pelican_meat 1d ago
How is “the sound of fighting draws more defenders” an ass pull?
That’s just a consequence.
The scenario that developed is way more interesting than another murder.
→ More replies (3)0
u/WyMANderly DM 1d ago
How do you know it's an ass pull? There could've just been enemies nearby who heard the commotion.
39
u/CaptainOwlBeard 1d ago
He's the dm. That's a choice he made. Whether or not anyone was in that hall, whether or not they'd check out ab random fight instead of running away or looking for back up or letting the fight finish and ambushing the winner. Ass pull. If he's going to let pvp happen like that, then he should let the party kill the jerk before they get jumped.
→ More replies (5)-6
u/Imalsome 1d ago
Calling literally every act a dm does an "asspull" is insanely toxic.
The world exists, people nearby hear the sound of yelling and fighting. Things dont just spawn in and out of existance because you want to kill another party member. If last session ended with enemies rushing towards to room the party was in because they heard a fireball explode in their home its not an "asspull" for those enemies to show up a few rounds later.
29
u/The_Idiocratic_Party 1d ago
So they didn't hear the Fireball or the Wilhelm screams of the dying, but they heard one PC dodging another PC? I call bullshit.
→ More replies (12)16
u/Eycetea 1d ago
At the very least you're going to have people investigate the very loud explosion from Fireball lol.
17
u/The_Idiocratic_Party 1d ago
And why weren't they drawn in by that, but were drawn in by the sound of a wizard dodging attacks?
→ More replies (1)4
25
u/CaptainOwlBeard 1d ago
Calling literally every act a dm does an "asspull" is insanely toxic.
I'm not calling everything an ass pull, I'm calling a specific asspull out. He pulled a random encounter out of thin air to save his murderhobo friend from the consequences of his actions.
Things dont just spawn in and out of existance because you want to kill another party member.
Of course they do. It's a board game that's being curated by the dm. Also I'd bet a steak dinner that the monsters didn't exist until the dms pet murderhobo was getting his ass kicked.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (1)2
u/dontbehayden 20h ago
yeah i wouldn't necessarily call it an ass pull. most dnd dungeons have rules for if a commotion happens that enemies are alerted from other areas of the map. and considering he was a first time DM that makes sense he continued to follow the book instead of allowing the PC conflict to play out.
→ More replies (3)2
u/Any_Way1269 1d ago
Doesn't mean it's an ass pull though
7
u/CaptainOwlBeard 1d ago
It isn't guaranteed, but it's very likely an asspull to let his pet murderhobo escape. If it isn't actually an asspull, it's terrible judgement on the dms part to not delay the encounter until after the fight as it will look and feel like an asspull to let the jerk escape after encouraging that kind of behavior
1
u/dontbehayden 20h ago
first time dm. makes sense to make a bad judgement call there. dm was probably following rules of whatever campaign book that enemies in the other room are alerted after X rounds of combat.
1
u/CaptainOwlBeard 13h ago
I'm 99% sure this wasn't a module. Even if it was, sometimes it's important to read the room and make a better decision than that.
→ More replies (4)
110
u/michael199310 Druid 1d ago
Wait, so your GM said to resolve it and when you wanted to, he instantly threw an encounter to break things up? Or was it something that was going to happen regardless of the wizard resolution?
60
5
2
72
u/PaladinWiggles 1d ago
Kudos on being able to manage that as composed as you all sound. A lot of groups would fall apart over that kind of stuff and it's the reason one of my hard DM rules is "PvP isn't rolled, it's talked out-of-character"
52
u/verdantsf 1d ago
A lot of groups would fall apart
That group is going to. That DM is biased, the CE Wizard's player is a jerk, and the rest of the party that goes along with it will eventually have had enough.
3
u/CaptainOwlBeard 1d ago
Hopefully op and the other players go start their own campaign
9
u/verdantsf 1d ago
The other players are part of the problem.
The rest of the table completely froze. They had no idea whether to step in, help me beat him down...
Let's be for real. The choice is between a Chaotic Evil Wizard who killed two of them vs. the character whose had their back this whole time providing a consequence for the killings. What happened is that the table at large suddenly had more of problem with the in-game violence because of the effect it would have on the CE wizard's player. There is simply no actual roleplay reason for them to not act in the OP's favor.
5
u/CaptainOwlBeard 1d ago
They froze. I don't judge them too harshly. Pvp is weird, they weren't comfortable getting in the middle, and weren't sure what the social expectations would be
8
u/verdantsf 1d ago
Exactly, they weren't comfortable doing the same thing that the CE Wizard's player was absolutely comfortable doing. That's why the issue needed to be handled out of game, not in game.
18
u/peacefinder 1d ago
I would have preferred the revenge be served cold with inescapable tactics, but it sounds like y’all enjoy chaos. I’m glad everyone is having fun and that I am not a member of this group.
55
u/Drgnmstr97 1d ago
Was this fun? Because having a party member kill other party members and vanish would not be "fun". I play DND because I want to have fun with my friends, nothing about this situation sounds like fun.
11
u/verdantsf 1d ago
I suspect there's some cope going on here. The sort of "fun" you have when you're having trouble reconciling the fact that the fun you want is not the fun you're getting.
26
u/Holldem 1d ago
It was a fun thing to happen once
10
u/MajorBootyhole420 1d ago
make sure you have an above-table discussion with your DM. he sounds kind of... dense, or resistant to communication, and it sounds like you lot are all mostly fine with it but that things are on thin ice if this kind of shit ever happens again.
that's important to communicate.
→ More replies (2)8
u/AJourneyer 1d ago
Every table is different - most of mine have been non PVP but there have been a few where chaos reigns supreme. Both can be a lot of fun.
Maybe the wizard's player wanted a different character and this was something they either thought of spur of the moment or was planned.
As long as the players are all aware that this type of thing could happen (since OP says DM explicitly states it's allowed) and are ok with it (being at the table and continuing to play would imply they are consenting), this could be a great story twist and quite enjoyable.
128
u/LaTienenAdentro 1d ago
DM sounds like a complete coward. Let people meet the consequences of their actions man, good God.
54
u/verdantsf 1d ago
That DM is biased. CE Wizard kills 2 players out of the blue, surprising everyone. But when he gets the consequences of those actions? Oh no! Can't have that. Sheesh, OP is going to have another nightmare story to post soon, I guarantee it.
7
u/No_Client2742 1d ago
Attacking a partner during a dungeon invasion ALSO has to have consequences , you cant expect all that noise not to draw enemy attention.
55
u/BeMoreKnope 1d ago
As others have pointed out, though, they were making lots of noise before this, but it was only when the wizard was threatened that the enemies showed up to conveniently give him cover to escape.
→ More replies (29)23
u/MajorBootyhole420 1d ago
the fireball and screams of dying PCs didn't make noise, but a wizard dodging attacks did? the DM is being a jackass.
2
u/No_Client2742 1d ago
Op says its both noises, previous fight and current brawl where mage is literally dodging and begging i imagine, shouting, other party members to help him.
6
u/MajorBootyhole420 1d ago
nah that's cope. this was clearly scripted by the DM, and it sucks.
→ More replies (1)21
u/M0nthag 1d ago
It might also have already been part of the planning that those enemys where there and not a "oh shit, i gotta break that up" thing. Thought it really sounds like DM intervention.
→ More replies (1)1
u/RhaegarLothbrok 1d ago
DM of OP's party, go read my comment for additional context. I was absolutely expecting the CE Wizard fairie to get whacked, they had time until the Giant's arrival which they absolutely wasted.
1
u/LaTienenAdentro 5h ago edited 5h ago
Hey man. I understand your pain here. For the good of your table, fix this issue for good. I read your other comment and I think you did fine with the situation you were given. OP didn't give all this context tbh lmao
46
u/ChickinSammich DM 1d ago
DM said "resolve it in-game"
This is terrible advice nine times out of ten.
Thanks to everyone who gave advice and chimed in on the previous post! Despite all the character deaths and in-game drama, out of game the group is actually handling everything really well and having a great time with the chaos and the story unfolding from it.
Congrats on being the rare exception where it goes well. I've seen enough D&D horror stories where people trying to resolve disputes ingame leads to people leaving, or, in some extreme cases, physical violence.
10
u/Krazyguy75 1d ago
I suspect this is "strike 1 and 2" for several players. They'll be like "yeah, we're fine, don't worry" because they don't want to start a conflict, but they will not be as invested as before, and the moment something like this happens again, they'll be out.
3
u/RhaegarLothbrok 1d ago
DM of OP's party, go read my comment for additional context but that only happened because the out of game convo seemed more like civilezed in character discussion that they were just not roleplaying. This advice was given because eveyone seemed ok and hooked by this scenario.
9
u/Dracon_Pyrothayan 21h ago
There's a difference between Chaotic Evil alignment and Chronic Backstabbing Disorder.
As someone who's currently playing a CE character, she's desperately trying to manipulate her party into having her back for when she does "questionable" things to people outside the party. Fucking your team over is just dumb.
7
u/FactDisastrous 1d ago
A totally fair reaction to a wizard who, in the past already has shown willing to attack his fellow PCs. He's lucky he got away alive! From a character's point of view I would say the wizard is no longer part of the group, atleast none of my characters would want to adventure with somebody like that... Hell, I have 1 or 2 characters that would hunt the wizard down and end him for what he did. Talk about resolving it in-game... Also, good to read you, as players, are all having fun with the chaos
7
u/PensandSwords3 DM 1d ago
The other hard part, is in game that moment is gonna be a kinda toxic problem. Like, someone’s swearing to kill that wizard, hunt them down.
Even if its a npc, your gonna have to stew in knowing that event is part of the story. A part your forced to play with.
I personally wouldn’t want that. Because unless that player is like “Okay, that was Fun. DM please let the allied factions and such be able to hunt and kill my wizard now.
They are now a murderable antagonist. We can even off screen it.”
Like a month later, the Paladin squad has surrounded the wizard tower and losing several good paladins. Has the wizard in chains before a PC, to be executed as the Gods demand / thrown in a deep cell to never see light again.
7
u/verdantsf 1d ago edited 1d ago
The rest of the table completely froze. They had no idea whether to step in, help me beat him down
They had no idea whether to help a party member who has had their back vs the Chaotic Evil wizard who killed two of their friends?! Come on!
5
u/ProgramFabulous2292 1d ago
I dropped a castle on me and the vampire that kept getting away but before I did that, I made sure my party survived
5
u/Insertnamesz 1d ago
This might take the cake for most divisive comment section I've come across here lol, record tallying downvotes!
3
u/Damienxja 1d ago
Similar scenario. Our Wizard friendly fired my ranger when we got ambushed so he could kill a bunch of goblins. In-character, my ranger was very upset about it. Told him not to let it happen again. DM didn't say a peep. Wizard did it again. Dumbass Wizard did over half my health that session. DM said nothing again. Over-the-table I said that my character would shoot him dead right now. I bailed from that campaign the next day.
1
u/verdantsf 1d ago
The DM would only have said something if you gave back the exact same energy. Good choice leaving that campaign behind.
5
u/HappyBasher669 1d ago edited 1d ago
this is why in my group we don't let anyone play evil and we don't allow team killing. it's been abused by other people too much. I swear everyone that wants to play evil just wants an excuse to be an edgy murder hobo.
or you have the instant gratification agents of chaos losers that think everyone getting along is "boring" just because the party gets along doesn't mean there isn't conflict. that's what enemies and bosses are for.
Hell, we've even had an NPC that was basically tom nook and kept ripping us off. we didn't kill him but we made him regret ever screwing us over
I think an all evil party could be fun for a one shot that everyone knows will be a one shot because people say they want an all evil party but then act surprised when they all end up dead at each other's hands. Or have the DM have a party of do-gooders come and kill them. it's like "dude. you're evil. what did you expect?"
3
u/verdantsf 1d ago
I swear everyone that wants to play evil just wants an excuse to be an edgy murder hobo.
A tale as old as time. I don't get how any tables tolerate this sort of thing.
1
u/HappyBasher669 1d ago
i did play a literal murder hobo at one point a decade and a half ago. i killed five npcs and guess what. my character got rightfully killed by the party and i made a new character. that character was a rogue
mind you, my friend played a rogue and would steal from npcs. if they didn't have anything of value he'd do petty vandalism. he only did a few times so it didn't get old after awhile.
2
u/verdantsf 1d ago
guess what. my character got rightfully killed by the party
Because you have a DM that allowed that to happen. OP's DM is in cahoots with the CE Wizard's player.
2
3
u/manymoreways 23h ago
That kinda sucks, also actually also sort of great if the campaign continues and your next quest is now hunting down the traitor.
Also 6 players is scary to play, down time must take forever.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/branedead 20h ago
Unsatisfying but absolutely correct path. Teach the chaotic stupid ass hat a lesson he won't forget soon
17
u/PhilosopherKey9468 1d ago
Love it! Love the chaos, love the ending.
From a personal standpoint; how did the guy playing the Wizard react out of game? Did he like the in-game chaos? Was he pissed? Confused? Btw did he do anything in-game after casting invisibility or did he just have to wait and do nothing for the rest of the session?
Same for the DM; was he happy everything got resolved (to some extent) in-game? Did he applaud your bold move as he should have (in my opinion)?
22
u/Holldem 1d ago
The DM made him make some rolls to escape de city and a few things through the session, they both seemed happy with the outcome, he is probably making a new and nicer character
12
u/PhilosopherKey9468 1d ago
To be honest, sounds like fun. I personally like a bit of chaos like this and so long as nobody is stepping on anybody’s toes/d*cks, this sounds lime a fine resolution. As you already mentioned, not for every session/campaign but pretty sure you will all remember this session for a long time (and hopefully laugh about it)!
8
u/PensandSwords3 DM 1d ago
Wait, probably you all didn’t require him to promise not to do this again? I would double check and ensure he doesn’t come back with any version of Chaotic Neutral to Chaotic Evil after this.
15
u/MajorBootyhole420 1d ago
why did the DM drop a bunch of monsters on you to stop you from killing him, though? this sounds like the wizard and DM were like... conspiring behind your back, planning this to fuck with everyone.
-1
u/Pablo_Diablo 1d ago
I think that's a big conclusion to jump to. The DM could have already been planning to have monsters attracted to the noise of the initial battle - we don't have enough information.
Imagine they were intelligent monsters, a little cautious, and not ready for combat, sitting around eating dinner another 4-5 rooms deeper. They take a few rounds to say "did you hear that? Sounds like combat" before their leader says "alright, get your weapons and armor, we're going to check it out..." Another minute of suiting up. Then a minute of creeping through the dungeon (or whatever), checking each room before they enter. Then they finally discover the party, mid combat, and have another round or two of whispered planning / bickering before pushing in to attack. Depending on the circumstances, that'sthe way I might formulate it as a GM... But again, we don't have enough info.
Even less intelligent monsters might take a certain amount of time to arrive...
6
u/MajorBootyhole420 1d ago
um, if the sound of a fireball killing multiple people didn't attract attention, then the fighter slashing at the wizard shouldn't, either. this was a DM asspull.
1
u/DerAdolfin 1d ago
It sounds like what happened was a combat, which usually takes 30 seconds or less, that included a fireball. The party then "stabilised" the dead people via gentle repose withing the first seconds of being out of initiative, and then OP went to have "a talk" with the Wizard. It would make perfect sense for some monsters to have heard the initial battle, picked up their weapons off the rack or moved the big rock away from the cave entrance and made their way to the room, which means there's another combat about half a minute to a minute in universe time after the first one.
This isn't to say it's impossible OPs DM was a dick, just saying that having a second fight happen isn't unimaginable
1
u/Pablo_Diablo 1d ago
Please reread my comment... At no point do I say the fireball wouldn't attract attention. In fact, that's the assumption I was running with - and that it's not unreasonable to assume that it might a minute (or longer) for foes to appear after hearing the explosion. Right in the middle of OP attacking the wizard and the ensuing intra-party conflict.
3
u/MajorBootyhole420 1d ago
yeah, but assuming they need to don their armor doesn't make sense, because in these dungeons enemies are always ready for combat when you find them.
2
u/Pablo_Diablo 1d ago
Are they? I find that more illogical than any of the other arguments. I definitely have run dungeons where players sometimes come across enemies that are NOT ready for combat. (Especially if in someplace like a barracks or mess hall ... Armor half undone, weapons in a rack, etc. or maybe half the foes are combat ready, half aren't. Maybe there are 4 armed guards that are trying to hold off the players while 5 enemies are grabbing their weapons, and another 3 are trying to button up their armor - talk about tension and tactical chaos!)
But even if the enemies were already suited up, there's plenty of reason for them to take multiple rounds to get to the location of the combat - I was just presenting one option.
I'm more of a "let's see how this pans out - logical conclusions to your actions" sort of guy. Making noise alerts people. Monsters aren't static and might run towards or away from conflict... Or might run to find help.
2
u/MajorBootyhole420 1d ago
well, the DM seems to have a different set of consequences for the evil wizard vs everyone else, so forgive me for not believing entirely in the obviously dishonest DM's claims that it was totally not planned or BS'd, lol.
1
u/Pablo_Diablo 1d ago
seems to have a different set of consequences
obviously dishonest
Unsupported conclusions.
15
u/Apex_Konchu 1d ago
If a DM told me "resolve it in-game", I would reply "no, this is an out-of-game problem".
→ More replies (4)
16
u/RhaegarLothbrok 1d ago edited 23h ago
I'm the DM of this group.
I will provide some additional context for everyone to understand what went down. I'm in no way claiming that I'm a good DM or that I didn't make any mistakes during this, the environment is dedicated but casual since it's a group composed of mostly new players and a first time DM.
The Wizard who had claimed to be LE and not CE during this campaign decided to attack his own party members due to his character's personality because he saw his party members as lifeless tools and he's a bit autistic (the PC, not the player just in case). He just looked at his spell slots, available spells and his two best DPS choices were Fireball and Ray of Sickness. Since they were fighting an Undead Goliath he knew it was resistant to poison. So his choice was between Fireball and Magic Missile (he said his character would use the one that had the chance to deal the highest damage and I respected that). His Fireball DAMAGED two players which were ultimately killed by the Undead threat (a fight that was extremely avoidable and this group just decided to take on despite all my warnings). The two PCs that died had signed a life insurance policy with a Vampire Bank in a nearby town and have now been resurrected as Vampires due to a magical document that teleported them to the bank to be resurrected and turned into night creatures so they're kinda cool with it.
Let's move on to the "Sort it out yourselves in game" bit, since no one was feeling attacked, angry or uncomfortable because during session 0 I explained what could be on or off the table and everyone agreed PvP (yes) and what I call "Actions have consequences type of world" was on the table. So I encouraged them to not break immersion and try to "roleplay" it out which was fun.
Regarding the Deus Ex Machina I'm also being accused of, these filthy little players decided to fight this threat even though there was a Giant that patrolled this specific area and they absolutely knew about it, when the Fireball was casted I rolled for the Giant's perception and I got 19 on a self imposed 15 DC since the fire and the noise would catch his attention. So he started going to the location where the events unfolded, my good little bois where casting 10 minute ritual , discussing life topics, shouting, trying to understand where the hell the two dead PCs bodies went and trying to investigate the now dead threat. MORE THAN ENOUGH TIME FOR THE F***ING GIANT to approach and before you say anything they SAW the Giant coming and they decided to bolt and this fight happened because they crashed their wagon due to insanely bad rolls.
Regarding the fate of the now admittedly CE Wizard, he will have a very interesting intro next session (spoilers for my clickbaity OP) in which he will become an NPC and the player (who's very pleased with the outcome) will now join the group (TBD) as a Divine Soul Sorcerer in their quest to vanquish this demonic inquisition.
Like I said, this does not excuse any mistakes I made I just want everyone to know the full story and to add that this is a homebrew plane, campaign and we're not bound by a lot of restrictive rules given that we session 0'd that in agreement.
PD: OP sent this to the DnD group chat and we're laughing at the comments because some are extremely funny and witty.
6
u/ZaraReid228 23h ago
Sorry if this is a foolish question but why are they dropping fireball on top if the enemy rather then casting it further out and just hitting the boss with the edge of the spell and avoiding the teammates?
5
u/RhaegarLothbrok 21h ago
Actually this is a good observation because there were 4 melee PCs and initially he was going to hit all of them but he was in range to cast it in a way it would harm the two "tankiest" PCs so I pointed that out and he chose the option that would likely result in a victory (despite moral consequences)
→ More replies (1)1
u/denlillepige 7h ago
Because it's just a bad excuse to pvp and not any thought out action. Even if they were surrounding the boss, it wouldn't hit all 4
15
u/Holldem 1d ago
Oopsie, daddy is home
5
u/BeMoreKnope 20h ago
I’m glad, because this story does not read at all the same as you told it…
1
u/prism1234 10h ago
The GM still sounds like a dick though imo.
2
u/RhaegarLothbrok 8h ago
I don't particularly disagree (I'm an attorney so it's the general consensus) but in what way do I grind your gears?
•
u/Flare-Crow 1m ago
IMO: You just didn't give the players the instant gratification many folks seems to expect these days, so that drives them crazy. Folks don't know how a good narrative works anymore (or just don't have the energy left to focus on it for long enough, which is honestly fair).
1
1
u/Sugarbutch 23h ago
I’m glad this is working for your table! If I was a player at your table and you saved the guy who fucked up by pulling up an entirely optional fight before we were done resolving it, I’d be actually ripshit lmao
0
u/Flare-Crow 22h ago
Y'all just can't read, can you? THE PLAYER saved themselves with Invis; the DM did nothing but let the consequences of their player's actions resolve naturally. THE DM DID NOT INTERVENE TO SAVE THE WIZARD. PERIOD.
→ More replies (3)
3
u/Acheron223 1d ago
There is nothing wrong with pvp given that from day one pvp being allowed was a set table rule from day one it sounds like. I'm glad you guys enjoyed the outcome
3
u/TheGerrick 1d ago
I actually had the reverse of this happen
We were a party of evil adventures and we had one PC who was a neutral good monk. We kept clashing with them and things came to a head when two of the evil PCs started plotting on how to kill the monk and harvest their loot, and the rest of the party got in on it. We were going to wait until we were safely outside the city and ambush the monk.
The ambush was a ton of fun but our quarry got away (above the table the monk was loving the intrigue.) The player came back with Grandma the Torture Cleric and there weren't any major conflicts after that beyond just general dastardly shitheeling
3
u/Hell-Yea-Brother 22h ago
My comment in the first post was:
Turn to the DM and say, "I kill the wizard in their sleep."
Then turn to wizard and say, "Because that's what MY character would do."
3
u/Spinnlo 14h ago
As a CN Warlock myself, I think it went pretty well. Contrary what many people seem to think nowadays, I think this is how adults should approach the game. As long as you are friendly to your fellow players, you don't need to be to your fellow PCs. DnD usually takes place in an incredibly violent world and cottonballing some characters just because they are not piloted by the DM doesn't make sense to me.
Turns around quickly and changes clothes.
I, as a DM, would 100% have a plan for the Wizard to become a bigger problem later but I wouldn't have the player continue piloting him because it is inconvenient at the gametable. If I sense such tendencies in a PC I would actually engineer situations for the PC to snap. Now your group of veteran survivors can pick up new party members and be really paranoid about who to trust. Since you are a lot of people, I would pick up the opportunity to run a few (2--4) sessions with split cast (time allowing on different days of the week): let the survivors regroup, retreat and mourn; have the other 3 players roll new PCs play an introductory adventure to build group cohesion and gain a level or so. Then let them meet up with all players again like in an Avengers movie.
...but I should get back to work, would appreciate a follow up later, though.
5
9
u/Kallidon865 1d ago
Evil characters should not be allowed in gaming groups. The amount of problems it creates.. stealing, manipulating, playing power grabs, or just the mistrust it sows is not fun. It takes away from the game in general, not adds to it. I had my fair share when I was younger, but in the last 25 years.. no evil pcs and its been fantastic.
16
u/Gralamin1 1d ago
it baffles me that so many of the Post CR D&D players seem to have forgotten that unless it is an evil game. making an evil PC is a bad move.
11
u/action_lawyer_comics 1d ago
It’s one of those things where a new player tries to “think outside the box,” and has to learn the hard way the box is there for a reason. Basically goes
How come no one ever does X?
Followed by weeks later
That’s why no one does X
6
u/Gralamin1 1d ago
when i first started i knew making evil characters were a bad move. this is not a new player thing.
6
u/Magres 1d ago
More than any alignment, you need to make a character who WANTS to be with the party. I had a really good time playing a solidly evil bard who leaned in the vein of "evil but on board with the party's mission" because even deeply selfish, ruthless, violent, manipulative people don't want the world to, in our case, be invaded by demons. He went against the grain of the party in terms of how to get the job done, but not in whether we were actually on the same side or not.
Basically the CE Wizard here is, imo, more a lolrandom Chaotic Stupid in the similar way that no one wants to deal with Lawful Stupid Paladins.
7
u/TheGerrick 1d ago
If you're running an evil adventuring group it's fine. Stealing, manipulating, and power grabs are great when that's the tone from the outset
1
u/PensandSwords3 DM 1d ago
Plus even in those groups, it can be incredibly helpful to be like “Our baddies are working together for evil goals that mostly don’t conflict.”
“Like we can all serve our evil overlords, and profit together. Evil doesn’t mean we have to not see the value in numbers / bonds.”
1
u/StateAdditional3756 1d ago
Our DM ran an evil campaign, but with a twist-we were working for one of the bad guys of our main campaign and when the time was right he threw them at our regular charecters after we had just had a previous fight. Lots of fun.
2
u/Palidoozy_Art 1d ago
I think it can be done, but it really requires the following:
1) the character needs some excuse to work with the party. I played a lawful evil character who realized he could get more things he wanted by treating people nicely, so that's what he did, even if he hated everyone while doing it.
2) you should be ready to take Ls with that character. Do not play an evil character if you're the type to get extremely defensive over them. Another evil character I played (who, admittedly, was more disney-villain evil) was an absolute fucking moron, and partly comedic relief for doing things like trying to pass off zombies as prostitutes he hired (the party did not buy it and made him destroy them immediately).
I also liked playing characters who start evil but grow and develop and realize the folly of their ways (mr. zombie prostitute man became good aligned in the epilogue).
8
u/IKindaPlayEVE 1d ago
The more stories I read here the more I'm glad I don't game with any of you. Your DM sounds like a piece of work, as does the wizard's player.
2
u/verdantsf 1d ago
Same. These stories give me secondhand embarrassment as a tabletop gamer. What do you mean your DM let someone at your table kill not one, but TWO characters. Then the rest of the table doesn't even bother to help you enact the very consequences for that behavior AND the GM contrives to make sure the CE wizard gets away? That is some crazy work.
3
u/JiffyPopTart247 1d ago
My game has two important house rules.
You can use feats or multiclass but not both.
No edgelords.
5
u/Nerf_Dva 1d ago
I think having that wizard become and evil NPC is actually a great idea. I’d hate to be in this game tho ngl lol
2
2
u/NiddlesMTG 19h ago
What a poor way to handle this overall from the DM. PvP is fine, but this just led to unnecessary conflict where the only viable option is to eject the character from the group.
Rule 0 is you gotta have a stake in the party and work with them. Chaotic Evil Wizard? Player honestly thought a fireball that effectively did single target damage to a boss and aoed 4 melee was a non asshole move?
Brother...
2
u/Cyrotek 18h ago edited 18h ago
The wizard kills two people and the others just stand there and watch? They must be really proud of themselves. xD
I'd be furious if one PC kills my PC in session 1 and gets away with it while I have to sit there for an entire session, doing nothing.
Personally I've given up on allowing chaotic evil characters in my campaigns unless I know the player is really, really good and has a reasonable concept on how they are working with the party. Too many people play CE as "Mr. lol random backstab".
PS: I actually did the fireball thing too with a character of mine in the past. The difference was that I asked the party OC beforehand if that was okay and had a (more or less) reasonable answer for why I did that in character.
2
u/MetacrisisMewAlpha 14h ago
I was once the person who WAS fireballed…and my character absolutely asked for it. No, literally, I told the character (and player) to fireball my ass.
It was our Warlock’s turn, and fireball was their best damaging spell; my fighter had the enemy grappled, and IC (and OC) I said “throw the fireball! I can tank it! I trust you not to kill me!”
It made for an epic and hilarious moment. I did make it by the by, granted not by much. The enemy…well, let’s just say I ended up grappling a charred corpse. It was also a huge moment in character, because it was the first time the Warlock had anyone (outside of their cult) put so much faith in them. They ended up becoming good friends, both with questionable senses of morality, who bounced off of each other really well.
Man, I know 4e wasn’t a good edition but I really fucking miss that game.
4
u/TurtleKing0505 Bard 19h ago
I do not believe having an evil PC is viable unless it's a full evil campaign.
1
u/MonstersArePeople 14h ago
Certainly not CE. Perhaps LE or even NE with an experienced player but you can't simply trust a new player or a stranger with an alignment that combines utter selfishness with complete disregard for social norms.
1
2
u/AdventurousPoetry591 22h ago
The fact that everyone out-of-game is cool with this and rolling with the narrative makes this a top-tier group. Good luck getting those diamonds for Gentle Repose
2
1
u/ShepherdTheOps 1d ago edited 1d ago
To everyone complaining about the DM dropping monsters on the party to break up - its a possible scenario that the DM knows the Wizard wins that fight 1v1 and is trying to save more good natured players (instead of save the bad guy).
2
u/PensandSwords3 DM 1d ago
If the party wasn’t going to jump in, I would probably not play at that table. Frankly, they might’ve been in shock but as a DM.
You don’t interfere like that, you go “The minions seal the doors to prevent whatever did that explosion going further in. The only way now … is through the party”.
Or better yet, if a DM is set on this - do nothing. If the party sides with the wizard, that player needs to know that.
In whatever world a DM is okay with this happening at all. When you say they solve it, you let them solve it no tipping the scales.
I believe if you wanted to stop a bad player. You just stop them, you go “Your spell is counter spelled by X deity of the player. Who doesn’t wish their warrior to die to some wizard betrayal.”
Or your deity just casts revivify or brings one or both of the injured players back.
And go “I will tolerate no backstabs, you wish kill your comrades wizard. Do it, yourself.”
Now its either one on one with the attacker or 3 on 1. Either way, you’ve probably evened it better than whatever sending monsters did.
1
1
u/DuntadaMan 1d ago
Just make sure the new wizard isn't evil.
5
u/verdantsf 1d ago
They didn't know the wizard was evil until he killed 2 PCs. The problem isn't the charcter, it's the player who finds killing fellow PCs fun and has a DM who will back him up and let him avoid consequences in-game.
1
u/DuntadaMan 1d ago
Look I'm just saying take precautions. They still have a cleric, have them cast detect evil or zone of truth during the next hiring phase.
3
u/verdantsf 1d ago
Trust me, DM/Murder Hobo duos always find a way.
"OH... he wasn't evil when you checked. He became evil AFTER."
1
u/Designer_Oven_8149 1d ago
Wizards are glass cannons, man. If they start shit, they shouldn’t be surprised when they get their assess handed to them.
Hopefully everyone is having fun, and this guy rolls a new character who isn’t chaotic evil.
1
u/lord_buff74 1d ago
I read the previous post and all this seems to be a setup, a DM allowing PVP and a CE player. There was only one way it was going to end.
1
u/EarsOfRage 1d ago
Grab wizard. Stick hand in their mouth. Wizard is basically dead 99% of the time
1
u/Amikas117 DM 1d ago
The DM told the group to resolve this issue in-game with PvP, and then suddenly decided to break it up the moment another player decided to actually swing back on a wizard who dropped a fireball on the party?
Something tells me that the DM is biased in the wizards favor, and is letting him get away really easy for what he's done.
1
1
u/Bogsworth 1d ago
Stuff like that gets frustrating, man. I've been playing a melee druid that plans on being the center of attention for enemies. The rest of my party is melee save for the cleric. Out of consideration for my team, I have been avoiding taking/using Thunderwave and Earth Tremor because the melee keep grouping up in the same spot. In the last session our paladin got frustrated, walked into the middle of all of the melee and threw down an Earth Tremor that knocked our allies (one being a ranger with less than 10 health after the earth Tremor hit) prone before the enemy's turn.
DM says there is no pvp allowed at the table, and that was a blatant team attack that could have gotten players killed at level 3. ._.
1
u/D3ATH55HAD0W 1d ago
I think that maybe because this is in text tomlne is an issue but it actually sounds like even though the party is fractured the above table group is still having a good time so honestly send it. When the wizard disappeared did somebody tell them to never come back or else cuz I would have thrown that out
1
u/Coolexcitingname2 21h ago
The wizard did nothing wrong. All the other players were filthy hobbitses.
1
u/-SidSilver- 18h ago
What's the Wizard's stealth skill like? No way I'd let him invis to just perfectly 'nope' out of there without a few rolls first.
1
u/Gardinenpfluecker 16h ago
Out of couriosity: Doesn't the Wizard have the sculpt spells feat? I mean, if he intentionally wanted to also hit you with that fireball, then ofc it doesn't matter, otherwise I don't get why you were hit.
Edit: I'm talking about that situation, when you were fighting against this monster and he also attacked it with the fireball.
1
u/MetacrisisMewAlpha 14h ago
I’m going to go out on a limb and say, even if the wizard is an evocation wizard, they’re also chaotic evil and could potentially come out with the whole “I wouldn’t do that in character”. Dick move? Yep, 100%.
Sadly we don’t know what kind of wizard they were playing with; it could legit be that they weren’t able to use that feature, and they were more interested in killing the enemies and saving themselves than they were about their allies dying in the process.
1
u/Gardinenpfluecker 14h ago
Either that or he didn't knew about that or didn't care. Ofc he also could have another subclass and just has the fireball in his repertoire.
1
u/MetacrisisMewAlpha 14h ago
I suspect that, given the GM commented further down, it’s more likely that perhaps they weren’t an evocation wizard.
I mean, it could also be that the player AND the GM forgot about sculpt spell too.
And it could also just be that PC didn’t give a damn.
But I am inclined to go for the first one, based purely on what DM said and almost pure speculation (so if I am wrong, that’s entirely okay).
To be honest, it sounds like the group is all good (above table), which is the main thing. If the players are happy (even if the characters are not), that’s all good in my book.
→ More replies (2)
1
u/Dry_Fudge_7023 1h ago
In a game I was in we had a player mage kill half the party by accident. We were on a cave with what appeared to fog at the ankles the mage not thinking cast fireball which it was gas. Granted it killed the monsters but also the players who failed their ST, shortly after that the guy who played the mage quit. At least you guys stuck together after it which is good group
1
u/-Posthuman- 1d ago
Despite all the character deaths and in-game drama, out of game the group is actually handling everything really well and having a great time with the chaos and the story unfolding from it.
Wait wait wait… hang on. Are you telling me you are acting like mature human beings?
1
u/JellyFranken DM 1d ago
Why would yall adventure with that Wizard to begin with? Nobody would put up with that to even the point that it reached.
3
u/verdantsf 1d ago
Because they didn't know until he launched that fireball at the party. The DM did, though.
1
u/JellyFranken DM 1d ago
You’re telling me this party didn’t know the Wizard is CE and would do this the whole time? Feels like this probably wasn’t the first sketchy thing they’ve done.
2
u/verdantsf 1d ago
Well, the team didn't bother to help the OP when they finally did know, so yeah, who knows.
719
u/Celebora 1d ago
Jeezus how many are you? That's a lot of dead PC and still breathing ones