Maybe I'm just doing it wrong ....

[wotmaniac]

Uf you wanna be truly dickish go pixie/barbarian/frenzied berserker.  Cue up the greater invisibility before activating frenzy.   

I seriously thought about that.  Very seriously.  As well as Warblade (because +6 INT and d12 HD).
Alas, the ramp-up time on that is a bit long (we're starting at level 3); and I'm worried about early-game survivability (HP ain't everything, ya know).

As it is, I'm going the following route:
Pixie Chaos monk 2/Paladin of Freedom 14+
My starting level is monk (instead of racial HD that later gets replaced).  The DM is also let me do the following:
ACF:
- Decisive Strike (monk, PH2)
- Aura of Sanctity (Pld, DragMag 349) - lose Turning, get immunity to death effects
- Gaze of Truth (Pld, DragMag 349) - lose detect evil, get discern lies x-times/day
- Hunter of Fiends (Pld, DragMag 349) - lose smite, get favored enemy (evil outsiders) ranger level = 1/2 paladin level .... the BBEG and his minions is a devil.
- Sword of Celestia (Pld, DragMag 349) - lose mount, get celestial-forged weapon (not necessarily a sword) that you can magic-up how ever you want (my bow).
*other notes: Feats:
- he's letting my racial SLAs count for Ascetic Mage; also changing the feat to get rid of that b.s. arcane-strike-like effect, and letting my stunning fist use CHA for the DC
- he's removing the racial prereqs for Magic in the Blood.
- for Touch of Golden Ice, he's removing the "extra damage based on victim's CHA mod", and replacing the DC to be based on my CHA. (unless someone has seen anything that changes the DC from 14 -- which blows).

I'm thinking Stats -- 32 points: pre-adjustments = 14,14,14,10,10,16
Come ECL 5, it'll be: 10,22,14,16, 14, 22  ; pour every stat bump I can get my hands on in to CHA
I know that INT looks a little high, but I need the skill points.  Also, I have an aversion to having a negative STR mod.
Feats (sadly, not flaws):
1: Magic in the Blood, IUS(b), Stunning Fist(b)
2(ecl6): Combat Reflexes(b)
3(ecl7): Ascetic Mage (I'm gonna try to get DM to let me take this as my 2nd-level monk bonus feat; don't know yet)
6(ecl 10): Hover
9(ecl 13): Nemesis
12(ecl 16): Touch of Golden Ice (may flip-flop this with Nemesis; dunno)
15+: dunno; wait and see what I need (it's a ways down the road).  Probably Ability Focus or something.

If this guy eats it, I've got a Lyric Thaumaturge and/or setting on the shelf.  If his wizbot eats it before I do, I'll bust my Spirit Shaman back out.

Just picked up another player -- he's leaning towards Beguiler (though, wouldn't surprise me if he pusses-out and defaults to barbarian).



EDIT: added quote because new page.

[wotmaniac]

re:  Linear and Video Game Style
I'm actually not against a lot of this approach.  The trick is to invest the conflicts with some sort of emotion and motivation.  In my humble opinion, the trick is to realize that all the "gamist" rewards -- loot, XP, tactical combat, seeing your enemies driven before you by luck and wit -- are still there.  But, they just under the "skin" of the plot and character motivations. 

The preceding may be hopelessly abstract, but let me say this.  I would be extremely happy with a campaign set in and inspired by the games Diablo 1 & 2.  We've done this a couple of times among my buddies, though for practical reasons it's never really taken.  Diablo is easily one of the most video gamey of video game settings, and it's very straightforward:  you run around murdering obvious monsters and taking the stuff that falls down.  But, it has a distinctive feel, so you're not just cutting through cardboard sets of stats in an endless quest to scribble things down on a character sheet, and the world has a distinctive feel. 

And, on top of that, all the characters should have motivations for the beloved murder - loot - murder cycle.  I guess what I'm trying to say is that fairly linear "go here and kill these guys b/c they are bad" isn't really all that bad a thing.  Good players will, if given half a chance, come up with compelling interesting motivations to do just that (that's a big part of why they rolled characters in the first place), and good GMs will give them enough tools (world description, the occasional flavorful NPC, monsters that horrible and stabworthy) and enough space (not smothering them, and "ok, I hadn't thought of an ancient order of wizards hellbent on safeguarding forbidden knowledge, but it's a cool backstory so poof, here they are") to do so. 

That's based on my observations at least.  Sorry if that's a little rambly ...

I'm not totally against hack-n-slash with but a thin veil of excuse.  I'm not saying that guy#2's games are all that bad; just hollow.  He's also quick to hand-wave "a wizard did it" and "because plot".  I just chalk it up to his inexperience .... we've all gotta earn our chops sometime somehow.  I'm willing to be patient.  In the 3+ years that I've known him, his system master has grown by LEAPS AND BOUNDS, just by hanging out with me.  This is the first gaming group that he's been in that wasn't completely stupid.  Some examples:
* had a DM that handled all Saves and opposed checks with "high-or-low on a d6"
* banned psions for no other reason than "you can turn in to a psionic ham sandwich".  When showed the "psionics are actually balanced" thread, his response was "but psionic ham sandwich".
* thought greatswords were totally broken because a 5th-level goliath sorcerer slaughtered his CR12 dragon (dragon refused to fly or use spells)
* thinks that the crazy imbalance in GURPS is okay, because realizm, and actively encourages that kind of shit in all his games
* players who go out of there way to invent reasons to tell the DM why you shouldn't be able to use your abilities, because realizm and because they don't have those abilities too.

This is across 2 play groups.  Apparently this shit is more common that I could have ever imagined.
And you know what, I get it.  I get that I'm in a hobby that is chocked full of socially awkward and maladjusted rejects who are somehow able to find social acceptance (at least on some level) in this hobby and the culture that surrounds it; but for fucks sake, normal-person social standards shouldn't be shunned and maligned when they present themselves.  WTF?

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

1 is not okay. 2 is. Sometimes DMs don't want you to kidnap the princess from the dragon and hold the king hostage for an even higher sum. DMs who want you to do that ... well they have problems.

[wotmaniac]

Oh shit -- I forgot about this thread.
Update:
Both games got scrapped.  Guy#1 is no longer in the group -- I told him that if we continue gaming together without any changes from him, that it will end up irreparably damaging our friendship.  Apparently, making any concessions for the sake of the game isn't even a consideration for him; so we don't game together anymore.

Me and guy#2 have cobbled together a new group; 2 of the 3 new guys I've gamed with before ... my hopes are fairly high. 
We're all going to be waking up next weekend on a beach after having our ship sank.  Woo-hoo!   

[wotmaniac]

HOLY SHIT!!!  Last night's session-zero was like watching gamer porn (metaphorically speaking, of course ... otherwise that'd just be really gross):
Alright, so everyone showed up; 2 of the guys are completely new to the group, but everyone seems mentally competent and easy to get along with.  As soon as we sat down, the DM pitched the concept (privateer ship crew members; boat sank; wake up on beach of uncharted island) .... and everyone was immediately on board (no pun intended .... well, maybe).  Not one single ounce of contrarianism to be found.  No "do I have to be a crew member?"; no "I want to be the captain"; no attempt to undermine the character building parameters ... none of that crap.  Everyone tried to respect everyone else's niche/role; one guy was even ready to completely abandon his rogue that he's been hammering out for 2 hours just to play a healbot (nobody had picked a divine caster at that point ... I told him not to worry, that I'd pick up the slack). 
Heck, when asked about optimization ability, everybody basically admitted to being straight-up basket-weavers ..... but expressed enthusiasm at the idea of learning (they each mostly just feel overwhelmed by the sheer volume of options, and just need guidance).

All-in-all; it was amazing.  I thought that this kind of behavior from and entire group was only the stuff of myth ... seriously, I was starting to believe that this kind of stuff simply was impossible.
Had I realized that this kind of thing was actually possible, I would have started from scratch years ago.

Just thought I'd share.

[Unbeliever]

^ always nice to hear it when things work out well.  I'd be a little nonplussed by the setup, but that's mostly b/c I've played it a bunch of times.  That, and I like to have campaign pitches before the session so that I can ruminate on an appropriate character concept.  Hope you have fun.

One small actual comment.  If everyone is a basket-weaver (which means like virtually no charopp at all, right?), why not just embrace that?  Depending on the DM, it might make things a lot easier for them (that could go either way, for me and some of my compatriots it'd make things more difficult actually, but I think we're outliers).  And, for you, as someone who is charopp savvy, it might be the chance to play some crappy very suboptimal concept or class you've had lying around.


EDIT:  just noticed in another thread that you're probably playing an arcane/divine buffbot, so perhaps disregard.

[wotmaniac]

As far as the pitch goes: in actuality, only one guy didn't know the premise beforehand; but that's just because he was added last minute.

As to the rest .... I totally get what you're saying; I even agree with you to a large extent.  I was even fully ready to play either a bard or a net&trident fighter.  The thing is, the DM wants me to be able to act as a kind of a "fail safe" when needed.  Besides, the group also unanimously insisted we did need a real primary caster.  So there it is.  I just have to sandbag it unless it is really needed (it's actually surprisingly easy to sub-optimize a caster).  The buffing route lets me use my abilities to make them better (instead of whoring-out the win buttons).  Additionally, the other members also have ranged options, so I'm not too worried about that front.

Also, I'm very paranoid about leaving unfilled party roles.  As in, I feel real actual anxiety over having roles going unfilled; to the point that it's very distracting for me ..... I just can't help it.  That's why I usually insist on waiting until last to decide on a character -- I've always got a giant pile of character concepts ready to be tweaked and dropped in to a game, so it's not like waiting causes things to slow down. 

[Unbeliever]

Also, I'm very paranoid about leaving unfilled party roles.  As in, I feel real actual anxiety over having roles going unfilled; to the point that it's very distracting for me ..... I just can't help it. 

I hope you'll get over this someday.  We routinely play with "roles" unfulfilled, although I haven't been getting much gaming in as of late.  Part of this is a bit of "breaking the boxes" part of it is that some of the traditional "roles" are either uninteresting to us collectively or eminently substitutable.  Part of it is probably some DM tailoring -- it's silly to include a bunch of traps if there is no trapfinder, and the converse is true, too.  Honestly, the party roles, at least as traditionally understood, are kind of silly.

Speaking of personal proclivities/insanities, I find it really hard to play a character weaker than it is.  That's not a good way to say it ...  What I mean is that I'm happy to build a suboptimal character.  But, if I get to the table and I find myself holding back by  not using stuff on my character sheet when it would be apt.  Then, I feel like I'm not being challenged and tend to get bored.  Hence, my antipathy towards the "fail safe" meta-role.  That, and I do prefer some (very) rough intraparty parity.

[wotmaniac]

Someday?  20 years, and it's only deepened.  Oh well.

I'm actually fine sandbagging ..... it's like a little puzzle for me: "how can I max-out this sub-optimal strategy?".  That way, if I/we ever get in over our heads, I have a trick or 2 up my sleeve.

[littha]

Someday?  20 years, and it's only deepened.  Oh well.

I'm actually fine sandbagging ..... it's like a little puzzle for me: "how can I max-out this sub-optimal strategy?".  That way, if I/we ever get in over our heads, I have a trick or 2 up my sleeve.

I quite often end up playing high ECL monsters for this reason. There is a certain amount of badass that goes along with playing as a weretiger monk or something. My friends are likely to play sword and board fighters and enchantment specialist mages... except the one guy who is obsessed with making lightning focused blaster sorcerers but never particularly good ones.

[ZhonLord]

Congratulations Maniac, may your new group be filled with fun, adventures, laughs, panic moments and more.

[Baad Speeler]

(I guess he's wholesale ripping off a particular plot point from a season of Babylon 5 ... I think season 3 or season 4 ... something about nurturing -vs- darwinism ... don't know, never really got in to the show)

Shadows vs Vorlons for those of you who watch the B5

Well, by his own admission, he views D&D as simply the combat engine that serves as the platform for "an excuse a go kill something".  Plot is that thing which keeps his interest long enough to get him between killings; and if his killings are linked in a way that makes sense, bonus.

I actually couldn't possibly agree more with this if I tried.

I'm the second guy by the by. The main reason I usually say no evil is because in my opinion and experience, (which is admitedly limited) parties don't work well together if you have evil people in them. The reason why I say no CN is because of what ass holes use it as an excuse to do.

I did have a character concept get proposed where the caracter was all about some might makes right, survival of the fittest, which I incorrectly vetoed because I didn't want the player to side with team bad guy when they revealed why they did what they did.

And also, it wasn't entirely ripping off the Vorlon/Shadow conflict. For instance, team good guy wasn't implanting psionics in the world because they are the ultimate weapon to stopping team bad guy. Although with how much one of the players loves the psionics, they might shed tears of joy over that.

With the new information that is now available, please let me know what your thoughts on the matter are. Am I still on the right track as a budding Mr. Cavern, or do I need to shut up and stick to sitting on the player side of the DM Screen?

[Unbeliever]

With the new information that is now available, please let me know what your thoughts on the matter are. Am I still on the right track as a budding Mr. Cavern, or do I need to shut up and stick to sitting on the player side of the DM Screen?

I don't get the reference, but I'd say stick with DMing for a while.  You made what is, and I mean this in the nicest possible way, a fairly common rookie mistake.  One that's common among non-rookies, too.  You just tried to engineer things too much.  The trick to GMing, plot-wise at least, is having a light touch. 

That, and if every GM who had something fall apart hung up his or her screen, games would never happen.

I've got some further thoughts below, but in general, there's only one thing you really need from your PCs.  Although your experience with evil PCs is largely true.  You just need them to be invested in something and a little bit in each other so that you get a teamwork dynamic.  Mostly that equates to "good" in D&D parlance, since the good of the realm or random folks is an easy thing to care about.  Stereotypically "evil" PCs tend to suck at this, and so they end up as free-floating murderbots. 



I've been away from this thread for a long time, but here's my thinking.  I think the GM, which I guess is Baad Speeler, is trying a little too hard to engineer things.  Partly, this is due to the extraordinarily blunt instrument that D&D's alignment is.  There aren't a lot of shades and nuance in there.  And, even if you try to inject such nuance into it, things get boiled down to a rather abstract set of ideals that still leaves to a kind of black and white palette.

Let me give you an example.  Take the Darwinian character described in the above post.  Is it possible that he might still respect, honor, and fight for his comrades?  Can he even have friends?  Can that kind of thing be captured in D&D's good/evil scale easily? 

"Good" characters in D&D's parlance, which runs all the way from Elric to Lancelot, really, are easier to run and easier to play b/c it's easy to see how they connect with other people (their comrades, smallfolk being terrorized, etc.).  But, it's also quite a straitjacket. 

Specific to this campaign, though, I think you need to clarify a bit what you're anticipating down the road.  The OP by Wotmaniac indicated that he felt you (the GM) were essentially stacking the deck towards one side of the nurture v. evolution dilemma.  That's not, in and of itself, inherently bad.  My memory on B5 is spotty, but I think it was kind of a reveal that the Vorlonns, the putative "good guys" were not all that sterling.  It didn't seem like the show was working too hard to say "pick between these two viable options" given that one of them were card-carrying hellish Shadows.  There was just the eventual reveal that the ones the heroes were working with were also awfully shitty. 

That's by no means a bad approach.  And, if that were the case, then you'd be running something kind of standard (again, which isn't bad at all, it's a standard for a reason), and then you'd want reasonably good characters. 

But, the OP described it as the GM trying to set the characters up poised on the knife-edge.  Making it so that each side, Vorlonn or Shadow in this shorthand, would be a viable option to side with.  Or, none of the above, I suppose.  Not good, per se, but also not evil, per se.  It's hard to even wrap your head around what that really entails.  And, as a side note, any GM should keep in mind that players are notoriously prickly about dictates with respect to their PCs.  Creating your own character is the most sovereignty a player has in a campaign, and they are expected to have fun and identify with for the foreseeable future. 

That's tough to pull off.  But, and this might be with the benefit of hindsight, that actually has a lot less to do with the PCs than it does with making both sides (which are NPCs) roughly equal in their goodness and their badness.  The Vorlonns could be nurturing, but extremely paternalistic, to the point of stunting freedom, which usually pushes players' buttons.  The Shadows could be much more dangerous and rough and tumble, but there is also freedom and maybe even greatness to be had.  Or, maybe the Vorlonns have become so concerned with the "greater good" of winning that they've lost sight of things.

[Baad Speeler]

I don't get the reference, but I'd say stick with DMing for a while.

Mr Cavern is the term used by some foreign knockoff of D&D for the DM. If memory serves, it was Russian and it was during the Cold War.

You made what is, and I mean this in the nicest possible way, a fairly common rookie mistake.  One that's common among non-rookies, too.  You just tried to engineer things too much.  The trick to GMing, plot-wise at least, is having a light touch.

One of the main issues I run into, is that I can run exactly two types of game. I can do absolutely no plot whatsoever, and let a story emerge as a result of player interaction with the world, but the problem with that in my experience is that it is a very slow burn to get started and after that it has the possibility to seem like too many things are going on at once as more and more ripples bounce back from the stones the PC's have thrown into the lake that is the game world.

The other type of game that I can do is hard rails. I don't need to really talk about the pros and cons of that, since entire volumes have been written on that matter.

Everything Else

That was actually a lot of rather insightful information that I appreciate. It's given me quite a bit to think about.

If anyone has any further advice for me on this matter, it would be greatly appreciated.

Also, if the everything else thing came accross as me being a prick, I do apologize, it was not my intent. It was meant mainly for humor, with a healthy dose of laziness trown in there for effect.

[wotmaniac]

Goddamn, Unbeliever -- you always seem to find a way to say some awesome stuff!  Here, have some internets.



So anyway; the character that was "wrongly vetoed" was wrongly vetoed because of a lack of insight about that characters motivations .... and the decision has since been revisited.  At the time, the (mis)understanding went something like "well, 'team badguy' is all about 'might-makes-right', so that seems to dovetail too well with your character's outlook".  (with the baseline assumption being "D&D games are about the epic struggle of Good-vs-Bad, and the PC should be on 'Team Goodguy'" ... in a nutshell)

And herein was the misconception.  The character in question is a druid, is indeed very Darwinian, and embraces a life of jungle living because people=shit.  However, his take on Darwinism is very much in keeping with the idea of "in the course of natural events", has a deep reverence for Natural Law and the Natural Order, and simply sees himself as just another organism within the "web of life".  Meanwhile "team badguy" (whichever B5 analog that may be ... like I said, I'm unfamiliar) likes to finger-fuck with shit; and to my understanding, this involves artificial experiments and contrived cultural engineering (and they do so from the position of a 3rd-party observer who has no direct vested interest .... perhaps with some narcissistic end goal).  And that is very much diametrically opposed to that particular character's outlook.

But that has since been all cleared up.

Also, if the everything else thing came accross as me being a prick, I do apologize,

Oh, stop.  You know that you're just a giant prick, so just own it already.   


@ evil PCs:
In my mind, D&D has always been, and will always be, games that involve "the epic struggle of good-vs-evil, and the PCs are on 'team goodguy'" -- i.e., the "classic" Fantasy Epic.  That doesn't mean that everyone has to be a paladin .... Conan wasn't exactly a paragon of virtue, but when contrasted with Thulsa Doom, he was clearly on "team goodguy".  For me, other kinds of games require other Games.  That's just a personal thing, and I don't begrudge anyone of a different view; but it is what it is -- and it's an emotional response that I have fully rationalized in to a concrete position.
Make of that what you will.

[Unbeliever]

Thanks so much for the kind words.  It's a nice change of pace from the usual internet tone.  I do appreciate it. 

One of the main issues I run into, is that I can run exactly two types of game. I can do absolutely no plot whatsoever, and let a story emerge as a result of player interaction with the world, but the problem with that in my experience is that it is a very slow burn to get started and after that it has the possibility to seem like too many things are going on at once as more and more ripples bounce back from the stones the PC's have thrown into the lake that is the game world.

The other type of game that I can do is hard rails. I don't need to really talk about the pros and cons of that, since entire volumes have been written on that matter.

This might be an obvious suggestion, but what about trying a hybrid?  Start off with the first arc or mini-arc being on rails.  And, crucially, tell the players this.  Something like "the first arc is going to involve you protecting the Aquilonian frontier, this will let us dive into the adventure and make it easy for me to introduce the game world." 

There's a little bit of GM Jiujitsu here.  Ideally, that set-up gets the players to make characters that are invested in that plot.  They make people who have ties or connections to the Aquilonian frontier.  You get the Aquilonian knight, the sturdy independent local from that region, and so on.  And, the hope is that then, after that mini-arc, there will be enough investment and stuff that's happened to be fertile ground for other adventures.  Most of the ills of railroading, I'm speculating, are caused by The Grand Plan (tm).  A little bit at the beginning should hopefully not precipitate a player revolt or even much grumbling.

As I'm writing this, it occurs to me that railroading isn't even all that bad.  At least on the small scale.  I'm thinking it's like a Disney ride, I know it's on rails, but the trick is to hide them for a little while so I can enjoy the pirates or whatever.  There's this campaign I play in, it's on hiatus right now due to work commitments, and now that I think about it it's definitely on rails.  But, that doesn't bother us, the players, at all.  Mostly b/c each "stop" along the railroad is interesting and feels organic.  The setting is interesting, the NPCs are engaging, and each PC has reasons to jump aboard and punch our ticket on this increasingly tortured metaphor. 


P.S.:  I dig the Darwinian Druid Wotmaniac.  I may steal it at some point.  I could see him saying something like "you think what you've built is all that impressive, but when you come down here, and get over your silly prejudices, you'll see that nature is this sublime, subtle system where everything fits together.  All this struggle amounts to something great.  What do your petty clumsy cities, which inevitably mess everything up, have to compare to that?"  Kind of a slanted take on the Invisible Hand.  I'd almost rather play him as something other than a Druid, like a warrior or a monk:  there's something a little zen in there, but also something where he feels a little, I don't know, small compared to the vastness of nature.  I was finding it hard to square that "you shouldn't interfere with this subtle sublime system" with "oh, and I can cause an earthquake at whim" if you take my meaning.

[Baad Speeler]

This might be an obvious suggestion, but what about trying a hybrid?

The game that kicked off this thread was going to be my approach to a hybrid. I had an idea for a bad guy, a nice world that had a one page intro to it for the PC's and 50 pages worth or world stuffs for me. I had a reason for the PC's to want the bad guy dead. (He's a bad guy, you aren't) and was going to leave it there. Then I was going to let whatever happened happen. My thought was that if I rail road the players at character creation, I don't need to do it during the game.

As I'm writing this, it occurs to me that railroading isn't even all that bad.  At least on the small scale.  I'm thinking it's like a Disney ride, I know it's on rails, but the trick is to hide them for a little while so I can enjoy the pirates or whatever.  There's this campaign I play in, it's on hiatus right now due to work commitments, and now that I think about it it's definitely on rails.  But, that doesn't bother us, the players, at all.  Mostly b/c each "stop" along the railroad is interesting and feels organic.  The setting is interesting, the NPCs are engaging, and each PC has reasons to jump aboard and punch our ticket on this increasingly tortured metaphor. 

Also, stop saying insightful well thought out things. It makes the interwebs look bad and they don't appreciate it.

[wotmaniac]

Thanks so much for the kind words.  It's a nice change of pace from the usual internet tone.  I do appreciate it. 

Well, if you'd like, I'd be happy to call you bad names and tell you to suck a barrel of cocks -- would that be better? 

P.S.:  I dig the Darwinian Druid Wotmaniac.  I may steal it at some point.  I could see him saying something like "you think what you've built is all that impressive, but when you come down here, and get over your silly prejudices, you'll see that nature is this sublime, subtle system where everything fits together.  All this struggle amounts to something great.  What do your petty clumsy cities, which inevitably mess everything up, have to compare to that?"  Kind of a slanted take on the Invisible Hand.  I'd almost rather play him as something other than a Druid, like a warrior or a monk:  there's something a little zen in there, but also something where he feels a little, I don't know, small compared to the vastness of nature.  I was finding it hard to square that "you shouldn't interfere with this subtle sublime system" with "oh, and I can cause an earthquake at whim" if you take my meaning.

Ah, you went a little more zen with that than I did. 
It's a little more like this:


The way I square it, he is a Force of Nature.  If somebody wants to come in and muck shit up, Nature bites back .... kind of a "Mother Nature is a little busy right now, so she sent me to ruin your world".  He prefers non-invasive uses for his magical powers; but also figures that if he ever messes up and goes against Nature, he'll lose his powers.

[Unbeliever]

Thanks so much for the kind words.  It's a nice change of pace from the usual internet tone.  I do appreciate it. 

Well, if you'd like, I'd be happy to call you bad names and tell you to suck a barrel of cocks -- would that be better? 

I'd be more used to it at least ...

Let us know how the game goes after it's got a few sessions under its belt.

[Baad Speeler]

Well, Two sessions in, I've turned one character into a Necropolitan, and the entire party almost died when they picked a fight with a Boneyard that they didn't know was a Boneyard at level 5. Thanks to quick use of a rope trick they managed to not all die horribly and managed to get out of the dungeon with 75 percent of their pulses still intact. It was supposed to be scenery, and I did everything in my power to show that they weren't tall enough to ride that particular ride, but I screwed that particular process up. Oh well, live and learn.