The players were trying to bring their fallen comrade back to life (and back into the fight) but the DM opted to use an ability of the dragon to counter the spell, meaning dead dude stays dead.
Trust issues is right. I wouldn’t want to play with a DM who does that. This is not just fictional cruelty, to take a player out of the final battle just to rub in how evil and clever the villain is just feels unsportsmanlike to me.
But I see there is a whole genre of posts that’s all about suggesting awful things for D&D games because it makes for spicy social media content. Same goes for, say, the False Hydra, a monster that does not fit with the games mechanics and imposes a metagame threat that bypasses the characters abilities and resistances entirely. I hope it’s all just memes at the end of the day.
The only part of it that I think is really out of place and would make me unhappy is that it’s the first counterspell he used.
If that’s been a pattern and it’s a higher lethality game in general, then all’s fair. But springing a counterspell on them at the last moment might make me a bit… bitter.
I dunno. Even in the sense of a high lethality campaign that the BBEG would use that reaction and spell slot for denying recovery rather than defending, counterattacking or causing further harm seems petty, and not in the way that it makes for a fun BBEG.
Because of that, the dead PC’s player can only sit there idly and wait for the next attempt, or they might be fully taken out of the conclusion, over an interaction they had no input in participating. It isn’t really the caster PC who faces the consequences.
I don’t know D&D but in Baldurs Gate, it’s a pretty high level spell, so you might only have 1 or 2 uses. And even if you can cast it again, that’s a high level spell slot that could have been used for damage or healing which is now gone.
And by the time your turn comes around again, the enemy will have had their turn and got their reactions back.
So they could just counterspell it again
I’d argue that’s besides the point. The game is supposed to facilitate collaborative fun. An important thing to remember as a GM is to be a fan of the players. Want them to succeed. Make it challenging, yes, but never make it “DM vs players”.
Besides, think of the lost dramatic potential. Perhaps the barbarian is haunted by what they briefly witnessed in the afterlife. Or, maybe, the cleric senses the dragon prepare the spell and as a boon their deity ensures the spell succeeds, but now the deity needs something in return from the barbarian, who didn’t agree to any of this.
Or they could just counterspell it and “beat” their players.
Trust issues, lol
The players were trying to bring their fallen comrade back to life (and back into the fight) but the DM opted to use an ability of the dragon to counter the spell, meaning dead dude stays dead.
Trust issues is right. I wouldn’t want to play with a DM who does that. This is not just fictional cruelty, to take a player out of the final battle just to rub in how evil and clever the villain is just feels unsportsmanlike to me.
But I see there is a whole genre of posts that’s all about suggesting awful things for D&D games because it makes for spicy social media content. Same goes for, say, the False Hydra, a monster that does not fit with the games mechanics and imposes a metagame threat that bypasses the characters abilities and resistances entirely. I hope it’s all just memes at the end of the day.
The only part of it that I think is really out of place and would make me unhappy is that it’s the first counterspell he used.
If that’s been a pattern and it’s a higher lethality game in general, then all’s fair. But springing a counterspell on them at the last moment might make me a bit… bitter.
I dunno. Even in the sense of a high lethality campaign that the BBEG would use that reaction and spell slot for denying recovery rather than defending, counterattacking or causing further harm seems petty, and not in the way that it makes for a fun BBEG.
Because of that, the dead PC’s player can only sit there idly and wait for the next attempt, or they might be fully taken out of the conclusion, over an interaction they had no input in participating. It isn’t really the caster PC who faces the consequences.
Can’t they just cast it again?
I don’t know D&D but in Baldurs Gate, it’s a pretty high level spell, so you might only have 1 or 2 uses. And even if you can cast it again, that’s a high level spell slot that could have been used for damage or healing which is now gone.
And by the time your turn comes around again, the enemy will have had their turn and got their reactions back.
So they could just counterspell it again
They’d need the high level spell slots as well, is the only thing.
I’d argue that’s besides the point. The game is supposed to facilitate collaborative fun. An important thing to remember as a GM is to be a fan of the players. Want them to succeed. Make it challenging, yes, but never make it “DM vs players”.
Besides, think of the lost dramatic potential. Perhaps the barbarian is haunted by what they briefly witnessed in the afterlife. Or, maybe, the cleric senses the dragon prepare the spell and as a boon their deity ensures the spell succeeds, but now the deity needs something in return from the barbarian, who didn’t agree to any of this.
Or they could just counterspell it and “beat” their players.
A player rez being countered in the final big bad fight sounds like a dramatic scene to me. I’d hope the DM would ham it up when it happens.
Sounds like fun for the dead PC who gets to sit out the rest of the fight. On the up side, they can finally use the bathroom and get snacks.