The Unseen Servant forums

AnsalonMUD is still up. I was more than a little shocked! #OldDogInternet

Marullus: I thought Earc, et al returned on 25 July. One week of good meals would put Earc's departure on 1 August. If Winnie scribes 4 spells, that is 8 days, so she cannot leave until 3 August at the earliest.

Earc and co got back on the 20th and advanced to the 25th.
viewtopic.php?f=355&t=6857&start=760#p346110

I will bump Winnie's group and the timeline to Aug 3rd.

Dang! Why can't I keep all this stuff right?

Anyhow, that just puts Winnie, et al at to leave on 29 July. But you already changed it, so 3 August is fine. Unless Scatha comes back between the 29 July and 3 August - because if that happens Winnie doesn't want to be around.

Rusty, all that sounds good to me. I will try to make a post or two tonight, but tomorrow might be more realistic.

I once again think I'm all caught up. If you wish to disabuse me of that notion and remind me of what I've forgotten, just bump the thread.

Marullus wrote:I once again think I'm all caught up. If you wish to disabuse me of that notion and remind me of what I've forgotten, just bump the thread.

What a terrible word...

It's no "utilize."

...I just updated every character sheet in the game. It is the first time that I did that and nobody leveled up. I think that's further evidence of your awesomeness.

Marullus wrote:I once again think I'm all caught up. If you wish to disabuse me of that notion and remind me of what I've forgotten, just bump the thread.

Are you waiting on one of us for the expedition in the north woods?

Alethan wrote:

Marullus wrote:I once again think I'm all caught up. If you wish to disabuse me of that notion and remind me of what I've forgotten, just bump the thread.

What a terrible word...

Why don't you like "disabuse?"

Zhym wrote:

Alethan wrote:

Marullus wrote:I once again think I'm all caught up. If you wish to disabuse me of that notion and remind me of what I've forgotten, just bump the thread.

What a terrible word...

Why don't you like "disabuse?"

Just sounds violent.

I abhor violence in any form.
/sarcasm

But you're right. "Utilize" is a terrible and often mis-used word.

Zhym wrote:

Marullus wrote:I once again think I'm all caught up. If you wish to disabuse me of that notion and remind me of what I've forgotten, just bump the thread.

Are you waiting on one of us for the expedition in the north woods?

...good question. I missed it because the last post was already from me.

I assumed there were more players to chime in, but it looks like it is only Grizzly Woman. I just pinged earlier today, so I'll give a day for response and then roll for her (and the bear).

Marullus wrote:

Zhym wrote:

Marullus wrote:I once again think I'm all caught up. If you wish to disabuse me of that notion and remind me of what I've forgotten, just bump the thread.

Are you waiting on one of us for the expedition in the north woods?

...good question. I missed it because the last post was already from me.

I assumed there were more players to chime in, but it looks like it is only Grizzly Woman. I just pinged earlier today, so I'll give a day for response and then roll for her (and the bear).

You have been disabused, sir! Good day to you!

Still, I'd rather be disabused than abused.

So, I learned today:

Merriam-Webster wrote:We know the verb "abuse" as a word meaning "to misuse," "to mistreat," or "to revile." But when "disabuse" first appeared in the early 17th century, there was a sense of "abuse," now obsolete, that meant "to deceive." Sir Francis Bacon used that sense, for example, when he wrote in 1605, "You are much abused if you think your virtue can withstand the King's power." The prefix dis- has the sense of undoing the effect of a verb, so it's not surprising that disabuse means "to undeceive." English speakers didn't come up with the idea of joining "dis-" to "abuse" all on their own, however. It was the French who first appended their prefix "dés-" to their verb "abuser." English "disabuse" is modeled after French "désabuser."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disabuse

Huh.

Rusty Tincanne wrote:I've got to say, I was hoping that, if they were chanting and jumping around, we have had a free, sneak attack.

I'm always glad to know player expectations.

So I understand... you thought you'd get a free attack because the goblins would have been unprepared for treachery on a bargain? I mean... they're goblins. They ALWAYS suspect treachery; it is who they are.

What would have been unexpected for them would be straight-dealing. You won the test and they were happy to let you go past them to be dragon food. They got more excited when Bremen offered to PAY them to let you be dragon food. They wouldn't have fired on you first, had you approached them and passed through as the deal (with the payment, of course, because it was offered).

Zhym wrote:"Maybe it means they'll let us by so they can watch us get eaten?" speculates Lug.

Zhym correctly identified that their chanting was a form of acceptance of the deal, and said so to the others (through Lug) even though Lug had no interest in not-fighting. I appreciated that. (I would have felt bad if it was OOC understood by everyone - the fact that you IC clarified for the group assuaged that.) I also accept that Lug was Lug, and only had so much patience before resorting back to (more fun) violence.

...it is pretty hard (imho) to get a free sneak attack on a barricade of foes staring down a kill-chute hallway and waiting for you to pop out as a target, though. Sorry for frustrating the expectation.

Well, Lug's comment was labeled as speculation. And chanting "DRAGON FOOD!" is ambiguous acceptance at best. I doubt a court would hold that a contract was formed on the basis of that response.

My frustration with the situation is less about that than it is about how the game mechanics seemed to be stacked, with 20 goblins all able to fire bows and with ducking around the corner, firing, and ducking back seeming to offer very little protection. It's a disconnect between how the situation seems like it logically should work and what the mechanics and the DM's interpretation of the situation say will work.

It also shows the downside of not having a tactical map. Not your style, I know, and they're a mess of work to put together, but there's nothing quite like a battle map to clarify that twenty goblins are ready to shoot arrows at you all at once.

But, really, what it mostly highlights is how important sleep is against hordes of low-level monsters.

Fair. From my perspective, I told you there were 24, I only had 20 of them shoot (because the roller supports 5 at a time, really), and I applied "in melee" rules due to the crowding (so a fair number shot each other instead of you). I generally play that chaotic goblins are more prone to ignore such friendly-fire hazards and it often works in your favor.

I'm at a loss as to how to better determine how many 3' tall goblins can stand at a 10' wide barricade, 2-3 rows deep. I have clear rules enforced for you guys working in melee in these hallways, but hadn't really considered this kind of ranked archery.

I did think the "cover" was fair, though. The Goblins should have full cover, being behind a table as tall as they are, but due to the overcrowding I only have them half-credit as they jostle each other out into your view (and then also returned fire). On your end, I regularly give full cover only if you aren't poking out and partial-cover if you are. That -2 AC bonus for the partial cover was not insignificant - it saved Lug from two arrows and Baxtaw from two arrows, which otherwise would have hit.

Sleep is kind of important.

Having asked them for a bargain, you could have tried to follow through on it as well. There's risks to leaving several dozen goblins at your back, though, if you had done so.

I don't know where I got this from, but I've always played that one man-sized creature needs 5' of space in combat. So regular-sized people can fight two-abreast in a 10'-wide corridor. I haven't seen that adjusted for smaller folk (hobbits, gnomes, etc.) that often, but I'd be surprised at a DM who allowed more than three abreast, maybe four. So that's what I'd also expect of goblins: the front row consists of three goblins, the second row also has three, and so forth. 24 goblins would be eight rows, all but the first one or two of which would not get any protection from the barricade.

Having 24 goblins be only three rows deep means you'd have 8 goblins per row, or one per 15". You could probably fit goblins in that space, but they'd be crammed together and I wouldn't think they'd have room to fire bows.

Goblins aren't much smaller than hobbits. I've never gotten the impression that eight hobbits could fight side-by-side in a 10'-wide hallway.

That's where my expectation came from that even though we might be against a couple of dozen goblins, there's no way more than half that many at most would be able to attack at the same time. The quarters are just too close.

I didn't give it that much thought. I wasn't going back and rereading what went before, and forgot there were so many. I also didn't understand that "dragon food" was acceptance, but I don't know I would have trusted them enough to walk down the tunnel, anyhow.

To be clear though, I'm not really feeling frustration. If it was called that, though, it isn't the game. More of just getting caught in a tunnel with no decent way forward. Which is more about crappy planning. Between a rush to get Bremen (and my other PCs) back in play, and playing Bremen as having little-to-no knowledge of the mountain (he was in prison and trial when Clay returned and Scatha came), I just didn't plan for anything other than a dragon. C'est la vie. If this doesn't work out, Bremen can always just look for other adventures on this side of the map with his men.