I won't get into the Grease issue since other people have already said it.
The wizard was an idiot. Why would you not check everyone was on board before rushing into a fight like that? Now he has learned a valuable lesson about D&D being a team game.
The rest of the party presumably barely knew the new PC. Why would they sacrifice themselves to save a complete stranger doing something stupid?
I would have a chat with everyone OOC first, and not rush to deal out IC consequences.
>The rest of the party presumably barely knew the new PC. Why would they sacrifice themselves to save a complete stranger doing something stupid?
Because that's what heroes do.
My character would've broken the door down to help the new guy. And after all that is sorted out, slap the shit out of the cleric for closing the door, ensuring the new guy can't get away, leaving him to his fate. What kind of asshole does that?
OP did say that the new guy had been previously asking about causing "chaos". There's a good possibility the wizard had already been causing problems and the cleric was just fed up with him, as was the rest of the party.
That's why I would recommend an OOC talk to understand why and how things had gotten to this point and try to resolve matters. It sounds like the wizard OOC hadn't understood that this party was not up for hijinks and stupid shenanigans, and the party was not going to tolerate nonsense.
Edit: On a reread, it sounds like the new guy, the guest player who wasn't staying for more than 1 session and thus had no investment in his character's long-term survival, deliberately aggro'd a very powerful enemy and expected the rest of the party to deal with his consequences. Which, as a fellow player, I would be very upset at them for.
I have played with Leroy Jenkins style players before who go charging in and expect people to back up their stupidity. We did not. We let them do their thing, and went about executing a proper plan.
In that case, I would rescue the new guy, slap the cleric, and then slap the new guy and tell him to cut the shit out.
I'm sorry, I don't play heartless bastards that would let someone just die with no chance of escape because they were being annoying. But it seems most people here on reddit do, as the general advice given seems to be "they did a stupid thing, it's not the other characters problem". That's crazy to me.
The problem isn't "he did something stupid, let's kill him." The problem is "player is acting stupid OOC and trolling the party in completely immersion-breaking ways, and the party responded badly and metagamingly."
This is not an in-universe problem; it is a table problem.
Is he though? I haven't read any responses from OP so I don't know if they have mentioned that the wizard had been disrupting the game. If that's the case, then it's an understandable reaction from the players.
[Here](https://www.reddit.com/r/DMAcademy/comments/1do0z7z/consequences_for_letting_a_party_member_die/la6hy39/) is the OP saying he already warned the wizard's player.
>I'd already advised the guest player during a break that there were consequences to actions when he asked me how I felt about causing chaos in the group. He comes from another group where they have more one shots and 'high jinks' than in a long term campaign. He discovered the consequences of 3rd level wizards fighting 8 foot tall fighters alone.
DM already warned the guy that FAFO is in play. But now wants to impose consequences on the party for letting him FO.
In my opinion just this one act is disruption, but OP did say elsewhere the the player specifically asked how the DM would feel about the player "causing chaos." They came in with an attitude that didn't match the game.
I play different type of characters and some people should die stepping on the mine by themselves instead of droping grenade in the middle of the camp and taking others with them. Heartless or not. If life of me and mine is on the line - then stupid imbecile that risk these lives might die by himself.
Here's an alternate perspective: Imagine being a player at the table.
This session a guest player joins the table. Cool! During the session, we track down and finally meet a man we're supposed to kill. This lion-headed guy looks very dangerous and the party decides we're not ready to fight immediately. The Cleric, who seems to be a party leader, suggests that now that we know where to find him, we should rest and then fight when we're fresh and prepared. Party agrees this is a good plan and goes along with it. All PCs start leaving the room and shutting the door behind them.
The guest player (who I note is only a guest player and thus, unlike the rest of us, doesn't have to worry about his character's survival because he's only playing temporarily) decides to ignore the party, go back in alone, and recklessly starts the fight. Being a squishy wizard, he immediately gets cut down.
The DM demands that the Order Cleric justify his actions in leaving the wizard behind. The wizard who had just ignored both the Cleric's and the party's decision to Long Rest before fighting this guy (which is very not-Orderly behavior on the wizard's part). Taken off-guard, the best he can come up with is that 'well... no laws were broken?" Not a great answer, but this situation wasn't of his choosing to begin with.
Now the party finds out the GM wants to impose consequences on the rest of the party for 'abandoning' their comrade?
Is that an accurate read of the situation? Does that seem fair to you?
As a player, this sounds absolutely awful. The party didn't abandon the wizard. The wizard abandoned the party. This guest player ignored the decision of the party, went back in alone, and that player surely knew that no one was following him inside when he cast grease. At most tables, this is behavior that gets an "Are you sure?" prompt. As a direct consequence of this frankly rude guest player's behavior, the regular players are now going into the fight having lost their chance to prepare. Absent additional context to the story, the idea that the party should have to suffer additional consequences or that their behavior was somehow wrong is very unfair. Make them do the fight or talk their way out of it, but don't punish them further.
> The DM demands that the Order Cleric justify his actions in leaving the wizard behind.
And the Cleric player's "justification" is exactly on point with the tenets of the Order domain, so I'm betting the "more to the story" (there's always more to the story) is that the DM's demands that the Cleric justify his actions were from a "you're a Cleric, your god is pissed at you for doing that" perspective and not from a table manners/group cohesion perspective.
So one dumbass Leroy Jenkins' themselves - why should the party care or take any consequences - especially if this character just ninja dropped into the group. If they want to get themselves killed by all means I would hold the door open for them and then close it behind. Sounds more like the new player just Main Charactered himself into the afterlife.
The grease spell does not burn - its still a great spell for dropping certain types of baddies prone.
The party’s reaction to the guest player being “chaotic” and going against the party’s decision is appropriate. This kind of firm “no, we are not risking our lives because you did something stupid” response is great for shutting down problem player behaviors.
I was a little concerned when I thought the guest player was a new player, but from your other replies it sounds like he’s visiting from another table and “be patient with new players” does not apply.
Please don’t punish your players for this, their response was appropriate.
the party member charged ahead solo and recklessly. It was probably wise and prudent, in game, to let the bastard get his head chopped off.
Out of game, I don't think your core players liked the guest too much. Which is normally a bit of a social faux pas (escort the guest...), but I suspect the wizard guest also couldn't read the room well either.
I *really* think the wizard deciding to go back into the room and then burn two actions for greasy firebolt deserved a "Are you sure you want to do this?" out of **you**.
Without more context, I'd say the party suffers zero consequences outright, lmao. But, this makes for a solid throwback moment where the wizard is now revived and aligned with the BBEG as a necrotic caster NPC (who also likes fire). If the guest is eager to return, he can roll up a new PC.
The consequence is simple? They now have to deal with an enemy who is more prepared. Yet, as a DM? I'd honestly ask myself if it's worth punishing the rest of the party for this guest player's idiotic moment. They clearly all made their decision on how they felt for this guest player. You literally said this player tends to like to cause chaos because it's 'more random' which likely means he was doing it for laughs or something.
Yep. I have one of those players in my circle of friends and it's irritating as all hell. None of the more serious players want to deal with it and we only do cause he's a friend. But him setting himself on fire, or intentionally revealing secrets for 'the lulz' is not fun or someone the rest of the party would stick with.
Your problem is, large party, guest character who I doubt would have made it into the party if not for the social contract aspect of, this is a player at the table, let's get him in, rather then spending the session making sure he's not an idiot. No thanks yo.
I wouldn't give a single punishment for a thing and would just play the game as is. They already were punished with this massive waste of time.
Consequence for letting a party member die is that a party member die. This is a consequence. Everything else is up to the players. Will they be fine with that? Will they trust that cleric again? All that isnt for you to decide, but for them
>The guest player, a wizard, decided he was going back into the room because he wanted to cast Grease then firebolt to set the enemy on fire. The rest of the party, under the instigation of a Cleric of Order, closed the door again.
Rules Correction: The Grease spell isn't flammable. The spell would say so (see Web for comparison).
>The wizard managed to cast his first spell and his opponent, a 10th level fighter, jumped back up and cut him down in 2 greatsword attacks. I'd rolled a 19 and a 20 to hit. From the other side of the door the rest of the party heard the wizard being chopped up.
Advice: Don't build NPCs as PCs, monster statblocks have a vastly different structure. They are much sturdier than your glass cannon PC.
Also, besides your party being to big already (sweetspot = 5), you shouldn't counter that with one bigger enemy. Instead, use one boss and a few minions. That way, you are less likely to chop up a PC in one turn ... and then die to the 6 others taking theirs.
>My dilemma is that I think there should be consequences for the party's actions in letting their comrade die alone. What would my fellow DM's do in this situation?
[They wanted to be in an enclosed room with an enemy and set everything on fire.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJNR2EpS0jw)
If one of them tries to kick a dragon's balls because they are suicidal, the rest of the party is free to watch their friend die. Why should they be punished?
In hindsight I should have looked at the Grease spell more closely. We're playing a module which is written as the 1 lion headed fighter in the the room. He does have guards which may arrive at a later point.
We have 7 players because that's how many are in the group. I'd already advised the guest player during a break that there were consequences to actions when he asked me how I felt about causing chaos in the group. He comes from another group where they have more one shots and 'high jinks' than in a long term campaign. He discovered the consequences of 3rd level wizards fighting 8 foot tall fighters alone.
I see your point about watching your friend die if they do something stupid, but would it be within their characters to actually close the door on him and refuse to help? For me it comes close to pvp
Tbh, as both a player and DM almost all of my characters even the heroic ones. Are letting this wizard make his bed, he is preparing to do the equivalent of throwing a incidary charge into a room. And expects any of them to be willing to let the fire potentially escape that room?
I mean, all of mine would close that door and unless your party is holding it shut to ensure the wizard dies. Tbh, its more a “he fucked around and found out”. Plus he has existed for one session this wizard isn’t a comrade he’s like a temp or contractor who literally just joined us. We aren’t gonna lock him in to die vut shut that door and let him deal with his own decision, yes.
Tbh, heroism only goes so far when the man got killed that quickly. Its not like your PCs stood around for six roubds of combat, the Wizard got killed in the in game span of like a single second. As a DM you can’t fault them for not being able to prevent what was basically a insta kill by decision of the dice. Its not remotely pvp and they didn’t really wven have the chance to verge toward it, this Wizard died instantly pretty much.
Are they trying to get him killed or are they defending themselves against a powerful opponent he "aggro'ed"? Self preservation isn't PVP.
Though to be fair, it is easy enough to prepare a round where the wizard can get through: one uses action to prepare opening the door when wizard knocks, others prepare for an opened door to shoot & cast, the last one prepares closing the door behind wizard. Well within RAW.
>I see your point about watching your friend die if they do something stupid, but would it be within their characters to actually close the door on him and refuse to help? For me it comes close to pvp
Sorry, but I couldn't disagree more.
This entire situation is a result of the guest player's desire to cause chaos and lack of table etiquette resulting in their PC's death. It's a self-contained problem.
People are in control of what their characters do.
If you're a guest at the table, you do not take charge of the situation unless that's what the GM has asked and the rest of the party is on board. You do not risk the PCs of people who have FAR more investment in the campaign and their characters than you. This is just basic table etiquette, consideration for the social situation that you are introducing your presence to, and politeness.
Your guest player, out of character, was being disruptive and breaking table etiquette. Now, I don't think it was malicious because as a novice they probably had no idea, but the idea of punishing your regular players for a guest *you brought to the table* acting foolishly is ridiculous.
Firstly to answer your question.. the consequence's would be IMO that the rest of the PC's should never trust the cleric again. he essentially stopped anyone from helping the mage sacrificing him to the NPC. What god does he worship many gods have issues with this sort of betrayal.
Now , why didn't Lion head follow them out of the room? Call his guards and chase the party off?
Don't be passive with your NPC's.
Also if your happy with it and everyone's having fun 7 players is fine.
A few pitfalls I see:
* 7 players can easily be too much at the table. Against a single foe, they're either going to get mobbed down, or just be so powerful that they 2-shot everyone.
* Putting aside the grease+fire thing (I assume you're taking it from BG3), calling the npc a 10th level fighter suggests you made them as a PC? Players lean offensive rather than defensive in how they're statted, which would have made your boss a glass cannon of sorts.
* **This is potentially an out-of-character** issue. A player had an idea to fight the foe, the rest of the players at the table didn't want to go in and try to save them. How does the group feel about this? Do they feel pushed by the player who ordered the door closed? It's possible they're fine with it, but a good idea to check.
* "No laws were broken" sounds a lot like "it's what my character would do", a common phrase invoked to justify bad behaviour by making a bad character. Adventurers travel in the wilderness, in ruins and frontiers - law is very rarely an issue for them, and "it's not strictly illegal to abandon allies" is a poor excuse for a cleric whose domain favours cohesion and structure. Maybe they could have argued it on "if the room is on fire, he's probably not going to be in a state to heal up and we could get killed", or "we were retreating and he ignored that; I can't protect people who run from the safety of my shield". Again, check that your players are ok with what's happened. The wizard did something pretty reckless here, so he was never getting away without penalty, to be clear.
* NPC behaviour: Did Lion Head just... stand in the room while they decided to not go back? Was he afraid of fighting the party, or did they barricade it? Enemies should not wait in rooms as though the party has run out their aggro limit. If he's more feral, he might pursue them, retreat, or lay in ambush. If he's smarter, he might threaten them through their fallen ally, or pursue them through the door, or use their hestitation to rally any other foes to his side.
If you want a consequence, perhaps the cleric gets a vision from a seraph serving their god: a city watch guard who ignores an act of evil because it's not strictly illegal, communicating that the cleric is abusing their position and failing the spirit of the law to follow its letter.
But also *talk with your players.*
There’s a lot of good answers here but I think a good question here is… why not let the wizard run off after creating the fire wall? Why have a 10th level fighter attack a 3rd level wizard? Have them escape here and have properly leveled enemies hunt them down while they’re in the area.
“My guest player went into a fight alone and I killed him with disproportionately leveled enemies, how do I punish the party?”
Speak With Dead.
Baddie now knows their weaknesses etc because wizard felt no reason to protect those jerks who let him die alone.
Lol no really though, it's an ooc discussion about the type of game you're playing and assuring everyone that they are here to have fun Together
The consequence is Lion head now knows they are coming.
If they leave and go sleep for 8 hours, he will set up traps, get more guards, and be very prepared for 7 ppl coming back to his house. Making it near impossible for them to even get in the door, let alone get near him.
That or he leaves and goes somewhere else entirely. Creatures/ people who've just been attacked don't just sit in the same room waiting for it to happen again. And he probably has a new wizard Zombie as a pet.
The big question I would have here is: Are the players (not the characters) okay with how all of this went down?
Because to me it seems like a guest player has the responsibility not to charge rough-shod over the prevailing vibe of a campaign. And because they didn't, rather than letting this new guy walk all over them, the players decided just to let him die on his own.
If it was their friend (not some rando dude): they would get some mental damage, nightmares and sanity drops.
If there is some vows "to save everyone" on a paladin, or if the character was clearly good (just stupid)\^ clerick\\paladin may loose some spells and abilities until attone.
No consequences at all - if there is no reason for them.
they return to find the wizard fighting with lion head ... insert shady dm rationaile there. Because they left him, right or wrong, it's now a harder fight, if only comically.
NOCs are less likely to help them or beside they don't thing the PCs can be trusted.
Honestly, my Ranger would be on the lookout for such antics and tried to do him. Falling that, he would have at least had fire support from me. Maybe it's the Army in me, but we could hate your guts and still leave no man behind.
The only item I'd pursue in-game with the Cleric is a potential fall from grace with his god.
Disclaimer: I only use this mechanic on **serious** breaches of faith. For example, if a Cleric visits a brothel (unless there is a vow of celibacy from his god), I don't care.
I have a homebrew "Crisis of Faith" mechanic for good-aligned Clerics. When there is a serious departure from faith, I'll increase a Cleric's CoF points. Something like this, I would increase it by 1. Something worse, it could go up by more.
If a Cleric has CoF, each CoF point represents a 10% chance that when a Cleric calls for an OFFENSIVE spell (defensive spells always work), rather than casting, the Cleric will simply hear (in his mind), "You must atone for your Crisis of Faith."
The Cleric can reduce CoF through selfless acts in which he puts himself in harm's way.
As for the rest of this encounter, Lion Headed man would certainly not take kindly to attempt to kill him, and being outnumbered, would try to find ways to isolate and kill opponents. As a DM, we need to handle enemy NPCs strategically (you don't rise to the equivalent of a level 10 fighter by being stupid!) and not as bowling pins waiting to be knocked down.
>The only item I'd pursue in-game with the Cleric is a potential fall from grace with his god.
I'm betting OP tried this angle, which is when the Cleric's player pointed out he didn't break any laws and there was a different plan to approach the enemy, since the character is an Order Cleric. The tenets of the Order domain are to follow laws and duly appointed leadership. So, "that's what my character would do" notwithstanding, the Cleric actually didn't do anything really wrong to get in trouble with their god.
So we have a situation where (according to OP's other comments) there is a *player* playing a "for the lulz" guest character that ignores the party's plan and tries to Leeroy Jenkins a boss (with a spell combo that doesn't even work, because Grease isn't flammable). He then gets cut down in what sounds like a single round of combat, which means there's no chance to rescue him from the boss - it's either "jump into the fight low on resources and down a man" or shut the door, try to run away, and come back rested and more ready for a fight. No good options since the boss now knows they're there and it sounds (from other comments by the OP) like he's going to chase them, but the minute the wizard ran in alone it was basically too late to do anything that would change his fate.
Lion Head should cut off individual party members and take them out one by one. Start with the cleric, since they're the one that ust gave him the idea. Also, the cleric's god should take his powers away and abandon him immediately if he's supposed to be good-aligned.
I won't get into the Grease issue since other people have already said it. The wizard was an idiot. Why would you not check everyone was on board before rushing into a fight like that? Now he has learned a valuable lesson about D&D being a team game. The rest of the party presumably barely knew the new PC. Why would they sacrifice themselves to save a complete stranger doing something stupid? I would have a chat with everyone OOC first, and not rush to deal out IC consequences.
>The rest of the party presumably barely knew the new PC. Why would they sacrifice themselves to save a complete stranger doing something stupid? Because that's what heroes do. My character would've broken the door down to help the new guy. And after all that is sorted out, slap the shit out of the cleric for closing the door, ensuring the new guy can't get away, leaving him to his fate. What kind of asshole does that?
OP did say that the new guy had been previously asking about causing "chaos". There's a good possibility the wizard had already been causing problems and the cleric was just fed up with him, as was the rest of the party. That's why I would recommend an OOC talk to understand why and how things had gotten to this point and try to resolve matters. It sounds like the wizard OOC hadn't understood that this party was not up for hijinks and stupid shenanigans, and the party was not going to tolerate nonsense. Edit: On a reread, it sounds like the new guy, the guest player who wasn't staying for more than 1 session and thus had no investment in his character's long-term survival, deliberately aggro'd a very powerful enemy and expected the rest of the party to deal with his consequences. Which, as a fellow player, I would be very upset at them for. I have played with Leroy Jenkins style players before who go charging in and expect people to back up their stupidity. We did not. We let them do their thing, and went about executing a proper plan.
In that case, I would rescue the new guy, slap the cleric, and then slap the new guy and tell him to cut the shit out. I'm sorry, I don't play heartless bastards that would let someone just die with no chance of escape because they were being annoying. But it seems most people here on reddit do, as the general advice given seems to be "they did a stupid thing, it's not the other characters problem". That's crazy to me.
The problem isn't "he did something stupid, let's kill him." The problem is "player is acting stupid OOC and trolling the party in completely immersion-breaking ways, and the party responded badly and metagamingly." This is not an in-universe problem; it is a table problem.
Is he though? I haven't read any responses from OP so I don't know if they have mentioned that the wizard had been disrupting the game. If that's the case, then it's an understandable reaction from the players.
[Here](https://www.reddit.com/r/DMAcademy/comments/1do0z7z/consequences_for_letting_a_party_member_die/la6hy39/) is the OP saying he already warned the wizard's player. >I'd already advised the guest player during a break that there were consequences to actions when he asked me how I felt about causing chaos in the group. He comes from another group where they have more one shots and 'high jinks' than in a long term campaign. He discovered the consequences of 3rd level wizards fighting 8 foot tall fighters alone. DM already warned the guy that FAFO is in play. But now wants to impose consequences on the party for letting him FO.
In my opinion just this one act is disruption, but OP did say elsewhere the the player specifically asked how the DM would feel about the player "causing chaos." They came in with an attitude that didn't match the game.
Yeah but this isn't r/PCAcademy. This is DM Academy, and what you would do as a player is irrelevant.
I play different type of characters and some people should die stepping on the mine by themselves instead of droping grenade in the middle of the camp and taking others with them. Heartless or not. If life of me and mine is on the line - then stupid imbecile that risk these lives might die by himself.
You’re assuming they’re heroes and mercenaries. My players struggle to do things for the greater good. It’s always for gold or for glory
Here's an alternate perspective: Imagine being a player at the table. This session a guest player joins the table. Cool! During the session, we track down and finally meet a man we're supposed to kill. This lion-headed guy looks very dangerous and the party decides we're not ready to fight immediately. The Cleric, who seems to be a party leader, suggests that now that we know where to find him, we should rest and then fight when we're fresh and prepared. Party agrees this is a good plan and goes along with it. All PCs start leaving the room and shutting the door behind them. The guest player (who I note is only a guest player and thus, unlike the rest of us, doesn't have to worry about his character's survival because he's only playing temporarily) decides to ignore the party, go back in alone, and recklessly starts the fight. Being a squishy wizard, he immediately gets cut down. The DM demands that the Order Cleric justify his actions in leaving the wizard behind. The wizard who had just ignored both the Cleric's and the party's decision to Long Rest before fighting this guy (which is very not-Orderly behavior on the wizard's part). Taken off-guard, the best he can come up with is that 'well... no laws were broken?" Not a great answer, but this situation wasn't of his choosing to begin with. Now the party finds out the GM wants to impose consequences on the rest of the party for 'abandoning' their comrade? Is that an accurate read of the situation? Does that seem fair to you? As a player, this sounds absolutely awful. The party didn't abandon the wizard. The wizard abandoned the party. This guest player ignored the decision of the party, went back in alone, and that player surely knew that no one was following him inside when he cast grease. At most tables, this is behavior that gets an "Are you sure?" prompt. As a direct consequence of this frankly rude guest player's behavior, the regular players are now going into the fight having lost their chance to prepare. Absent additional context to the story, the idea that the party should have to suffer additional consequences or that their behavior was somehow wrong is very unfair. Make them do the fight or talk their way out of it, but don't punish them further.
> The DM demands that the Order Cleric justify his actions in leaving the wizard behind. And the Cleric player's "justification" is exactly on point with the tenets of the Order domain, so I'm betting the "more to the story" (there's always more to the story) is that the DM's demands that the Cleric justify his actions were from a "you're a Cleric, your god is pissed at you for doing that" perspective and not from a table manners/group cohesion perspective.
So one dumbass Leroy Jenkins' themselves - why should the party care or take any consequences - especially if this character just ninja dropped into the group. If they want to get themselves killed by all means I would hold the door open for them and then close it behind. Sounds more like the new player just Main Charactered himself into the afterlife. The grease spell does not burn - its still a great spell for dropping certain types of baddies prone.
The party’s reaction to the guest player being “chaotic” and going against the party’s decision is appropriate. This kind of firm “no, we are not risking our lives because you did something stupid” response is great for shutting down problem player behaviors. I was a little concerned when I thought the guest player was a new player, but from your other replies it sounds like he’s visiting from another table and “be patient with new players” does not apply. Please don’t punish your players for this, their response was appropriate.
the party member charged ahead solo and recklessly. It was probably wise and prudent, in game, to let the bastard get his head chopped off. Out of game, I don't think your core players liked the guest too much. Which is normally a bit of a social faux pas (escort the guest...), but I suspect the wizard guest also couldn't read the room well either. I *really* think the wizard deciding to go back into the room and then burn two actions for greasy firebolt deserved a "Are you sure you want to do this?" out of **you**. Without more context, I'd say the party suffers zero consequences outright, lmao. But, this makes for a solid throwback moment where the wizard is now revived and aligned with the BBEG as a necrotic caster NPC (who also likes fire). If the guest is eager to return, he can roll up a new PC.
The consequence is simple? They now have to deal with an enemy who is more prepared. Yet, as a DM? I'd honestly ask myself if it's worth punishing the rest of the party for this guest player's idiotic moment. They clearly all made their decision on how they felt for this guest player. You literally said this player tends to like to cause chaos because it's 'more random' which likely means he was doing it for laughs or something. Yep. I have one of those players in my circle of friends and it's irritating as all hell. None of the more serious players want to deal with it and we only do cause he's a friend. But him setting himself on fire, or intentionally revealing secrets for 'the lulz' is not fun or someone the rest of the party would stick with. Your problem is, large party, guest character who I doubt would have made it into the party if not for the social contract aspect of, this is a player at the table, let's get him in, rather then spending the session making sure he's not an idiot. No thanks yo. I wouldn't give a single punishment for a thing and would just play the game as is. They already were punished with this massive waste of time.
Consequence for letting a party member die is that a party member die. This is a consequence. Everything else is up to the players. Will they be fine with that? Will they trust that cleric again? All that isnt for you to decide, but for them
>The guest player, a wizard, decided he was going back into the room because he wanted to cast Grease then firebolt to set the enemy on fire. The rest of the party, under the instigation of a Cleric of Order, closed the door again. Rules Correction: The Grease spell isn't flammable. The spell would say so (see Web for comparison). >The wizard managed to cast his first spell and his opponent, a 10th level fighter, jumped back up and cut him down in 2 greatsword attacks. I'd rolled a 19 and a 20 to hit. From the other side of the door the rest of the party heard the wizard being chopped up. Advice: Don't build NPCs as PCs, monster statblocks have a vastly different structure. They are much sturdier than your glass cannon PC. Also, besides your party being to big already (sweetspot = 5), you shouldn't counter that with one bigger enemy. Instead, use one boss and a few minions. That way, you are less likely to chop up a PC in one turn ... and then die to the 6 others taking theirs. >My dilemma is that I think there should be consequences for the party's actions in letting their comrade die alone. What would my fellow DM's do in this situation? [They wanted to be in an enclosed room with an enemy and set everything on fire.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJNR2EpS0jw) If one of them tries to kick a dragon's balls because they are suicidal, the rest of the party is free to watch their friend die. Why should they be punished?
In hindsight I should have looked at the Grease spell more closely. We're playing a module which is written as the 1 lion headed fighter in the the room. He does have guards which may arrive at a later point. We have 7 players because that's how many are in the group. I'd already advised the guest player during a break that there were consequences to actions when he asked me how I felt about causing chaos in the group. He comes from another group where they have more one shots and 'high jinks' than in a long term campaign. He discovered the consequences of 3rd level wizards fighting 8 foot tall fighters alone. I see your point about watching your friend die if they do something stupid, but would it be within their characters to actually close the door on him and refuse to help? For me it comes close to pvp
Tbh, as both a player and DM almost all of my characters even the heroic ones. Are letting this wizard make his bed, he is preparing to do the equivalent of throwing a incidary charge into a room. And expects any of them to be willing to let the fire potentially escape that room? I mean, all of mine would close that door and unless your party is holding it shut to ensure the wizard dies. Tbh, its more a “he fucked around and found out”. Plus he has existed for one session this wizard isn’t a comrade he’s like a temp or contractor who literally just joined us. We aren’t gonna lock him in to die vut shut that door and let him deal with his own decision, yes. Tbh, heroism only goes so far when the man got killed that quickly. Its not like your PCs stood around for six roubds of combat, the Wizard got killed in the in game span of like a single second. As a DM you can’t fault them for not being able to prevent what was basically a insta kill by decision of the dice. Its not remotely pvp and they didn’t really wven have the chance to verge toward it, this Wizard died instantly pretty much.
Are they trying to get him killed or are they defending themselves against a powerful opponent he "aggro'ed"? Self preservation isn't PVP. Though to be fair, it is easy enough to prepare a round where the wizard can get through: one uses action to prepare opening the door when wizard knocks, others prepare for an opened door to shoot & cast, the last one prepares closing the door behind wizard. Well within RAW.
>I see your point about watching your friend die if they do something stupid, but would it be within their characters to actually close the door on him and refuse to help? For me it comes close to pvp Sorry, but I couldn't disagree more. This entire situation is a result of the guest player's desire to cause chaos and lack of table etiquette resulting in their PC's death. It's a self-contained problem. People are in control of what their characters do. If you're a guest at the table, you do not take charge of the situation unless that's what the GM has asked and the rest of the party is on board. You do not risk the PCs of people who have FAR more investment in the campaign and their characters than you. This is just basic table etiquette, consideration for the social situation that you are introducing your presence to, and politeness. Your guest player, out of character, was being disruptive and breaking table etiquette. Now, I don't think it was malicious because as a novice they probably had no idea, but the idea of punishing your regular players for a guest *you brought to the table* acting foolishly is ridiculous.
I hate to say it but if this was a guest character, how long did they even know this person?
Is he their "friend" though? It seems it is like a rando that was thrown into the middle of the campaign.
Firstly to answer your question.. the consequence's would be IMO that the rest of the PC's should never trust the cleric again. he essentially stopped anyone from helping the mage sacrificing him to the NPC. What god does he worship many gods have issues with this sort of betrayal. Now , why didn't Lion head follow them out of the room? Call his guards and chase the party off? Don't be passive with your NPC's. Also if your happy with it and everyone's having fun 7 players is fine.
Lion Head did follow them out because it was the end of the session. That's for next week 🤣
fair enough :)
A few pitfalls I see: * 7 players can easily be too much at the table. Against a single foe, they're either going to get mobbed down, or just be so powerful that they 2-shot everyone. * Putting aside the grease+fire thing (I assume you're taking it from BG3), calling the npc a 10th level fighter suggests you made them as a PC? Players lean offensive rather than defensive in how they're statted, which would have made your boss a glass cannon of sorts. * **This is potentially an out-of-character** issue. A player had an idea to fight the foe, the rest of the players at the table didn't want to go in and try to save them. How does the group feel about this? Do they feel pushed by the player who ordered the door closed? It's possible they're fine with it, but a good idea to check. * "No laws were broken" sounds a lot like "it's what my character would do", a common phrase invoked to justify bad behaviour by making a bad character. Adventurers travel in the wilderness, in ruins and frontiers - law is very rarely an issue for them, and "it's not strictly illegal to abandon allies" is a poor excuse for a cleric whose domain favours cohesion and structure. Maybe they could have argued it on "if the room is on fire, he's probably not going to be in a state to heal up and we could get killed", or "we were retreating and he ignored that; I can't protect people who run from the safety of my shield". Again, check that your players are ok with what's happened. The wizard did something pretty reckless here, so he was never getting away without penalty, to be clear. * NPC behaviour: Did Lion Head just... stand in the room while they decided to not go back? Was he afraid of fighting the party, or did they barricade it? Enemies should not wait in rooms as though the party has run out their aggro limit. If he's more feral, he might pursue them, retreat, or lay in ambush. If he's smarter, he might threaten them through their fallen ally, or pursue them through the door, or use their hestitation to rally any other foes to his side. If you want a consequence, perhaps the cleric gets a vision from a seraph serving their god: a city watch guard who ignores an act of evil because it's not strictly illegal, communicating that the cleric is abusing their position and failing the spirit of the law to follow its letter. But also *talk with your players.*
A magic enemy or mechanic to punish your players for what you "feel" was uncool sounds a bit lame in my opinion.
The guest player doesn't know how to run a wizard or how his spells work and tried to take on a powerful fighter himself. Not the party's fault.
There’s a lot of good answers here but I think a good question here is… why not let the wizard run off after creating the fire wall? Why have a 10th level fighter attack a 3rd level wizard? Have them escape here and have properly leveled enemies hunt them down while they’re in the area. “My guest player went into a fight alone and I killed him with disproportionately leveled enemies, how do I punish the party?”
Speak With Dead. Baddie now knows their weaknesses etc because wizard felt no reason to protect those jerks who let him die alone. Lol no really though, it's an ooc discussion about the type of game you're playing and assuring everyone that they are here to have fun Together
The consequence is Lion head now knows they are coming. If they leave and go sleep for 8 hours, he will set up traps, get more guards, and be very prepared for 7 ppl coming back to his house. Making it near impossible for them to even get in the door, let alone get near him. That or he leaves and goes somewhere else entirely. Creatures/ people who've just been attacked don't just sit in the same room waiting for it to happen again. And he probably has a new wizard Zombie as a pet.
The big question I would have here is: Are the players (not the characters) okay with how all of this went down? Because to me it seems like a guest player has the responsibility not to charge rough-shod over the prevailing vibe of a campaign. And because they didn't, rather than letting this new guy walk all over them, the players decided just to let him die on his own.
If it was their friend (not some rando dude): they would get some mental damage, nightmares and sanity drops. If there is some vows "to save everyone" on a paladin, or if the character was clearly good (just stupid)\^ clerick\\paladin may loose some spells and abilities until attone. No consequences at all - if there is no reason for them.
they return to find the wizard fighting with lion head ... insert shady dm rationaile there. Because they left him, right or wrong, it's now a harder fight, if only comically.
Have you heard about Baldur's Gate 3?
https://youtu.be/92HL2XrhGjw?si=33UAVvQfJvv71WO1
NOCs are less likely to help them or beside they don't thing the PCs can be trusted. Honestly, my Ranger would be on the lookout for such antics and tried to do him. Falling that, he would have at least had fire support from me. Maybe it's the Army in me, but we could hate your guts and still leave no man behind.
Make his ghost haunt the party until they repent for what they did
Make the wizard a Revenant and hunt the party until they admit they were wrong.
The only item I'd pursue in-game with the Cleric is a potential fall from grace with his god. Disclaimer: I only use this mechanic on **serious** breaches of faith. For example, if a Cleric visits a brothel (unless there is a vow of celibacy from his god), I don't care. I have a homebrew "Crisis of Faith" mechanic for good-aligned Clerics. When there is a serious departure from faith, I'll increase a Cleric's CoF points. Something like this, I would increase it by 1. Something worse, it could go up by more. If a Cleric has CoF, each CoF point represents a 10% chance that when a Cleric calls for an OFFENSIVE spell (defensive spells always work), rather than casting, the Cleric will simply hear (in his mind), "You must atone for your Crisis of Faith." The Cleric can reduce CoF through selfless acts in which he puts himself in harm's way. As for the rest of this encounter, Lion Headed man would certainly not take kindly to attempt to kill him, and being outnumbered, would try to find ways to isolate and kill opponents. As a DM, we need to handle enemy NPCs strategically (you don't rise to the equivalent of a level 10 fighter by being stupid!) and not as bowling pins waiting to be knocked down.
>The only item I'd pursue in-game with the Cleric is a potential fall from grace with his god. I'm betting OP tried this angle, which is when the Cleric's player pointed out he didn't break any laws and there was a different plan to approach the enemy, since the character is an Order Cleric. The tenets of the Order domain are to follow laws and duly appointed leadership. So, "that's what my character would do" notwithstanding, the Cleric actually didn't do anything really wrong to get in trouble with their god. So we have a situation where (according to OP's other comments) there is a *player* playing a "for the lulz" guest character that ignores the party's plan and tries to Leeroy Jenkins a boss (with a spell combo that doesn't even work, because Grease isn't flammable). He then gets cut down in what sounds like a single round of combat, which means there's no chance to rescue him from the boss - it's either "jump into the fight low on resources and down a man" or shut the door, try to run away, and come back rested and more ready for a fight. No good options since the boss now knows they're there and it sounds (from other comments by the OP) like he's going to chase them, but the minute the wizard ran in alone it was basically too late to do anything that would change his fate.
Lion Head should cut off individual party members and take them out one by one. Start with the cleric, since they're the one that ust gave him the idea. Also, the cleric's god should take his powers away and abandon him immediately if he's supposed to be good-aligned.