Would You Consider This CK Cheating?

[KeyIXTheHermit]

The question: Is it cheating to create a monster that's virtually unkillable by boosting Hit Dice and Hit Points beyond what the players can handle, because the monster isn't supposed to be killed (at least, not yet)?

Here's the rest of the story: I'm working on the background and important NPC's of my Sword & Sorcery styled adventure. I've talked about it before, but if you missed it, it has NO: Elves, Dwarfs, Orcs, other intelligent races, etc. It has very little magic: No magic items, only one kind of magic-user, most spells are disallowed (although NPC's who gained their power from diabolic sources may have more powers than the more learned variety of spellcaster that PC's would represent).

While looking through my minis, I found a Bugbear mini that caught my eye. So I decided to make him my Evil Sorcerer's bodyguard. He was once human but was not a very good person. He wanted power more than anything, so my Evil Sorcerer offered him great power. The guy accepted without knowing what the Sorcerer would actually do (foolish, yes, but that's the sort of thing you do when you desire power and you're a contrived character in a roleplaying game).

When the Sorcerer was done, the guy was now a "bugbear." But this world doesn't have bugbears, so it just looks like a bugbear. It's a big, 8' tall, hairy, mean, strong creature. In another world it would be a bugbear. In this world, it's just a big hairy monster. Or maybe it's just "Ben." I don't know, whatever.

As part of the spell, he can no longer understand or be understood by anyone other than his Sorcerer master.

This character exists to be the muscle for a Sorcerer in a world where magic doesn't have BOOM factor. There are no Magic Missiles or Fireballs or Lightning Bolts. Between low hit points and no offensive magic, a Sorcerer could be easily killed in a direct battle, thus smart Sorcerers create bodyguards.

Because he kinda looks like a Bugbear in other games, I looked up Bugbear stats to see how he would fare if he were one, and 3d8 hit dice doesn't even come close. This guy is at least 10th Level. He was more like a 10th Level Barbarian (possibly higher) before he got cursed into what he is now.

So, my thinking is to create a monster with, say, 10 HD, about 100 Hit Points, and d12 damage (weapon), possibly even d12+? to indicate his great strength.

The players will know he's not a bugbear and so shouldn't be inclined to treat him like one, but I feel odd making what is essentially a superpowered bugbear, even if he's not.

The players shouldn't fight him. If they do, they should figure out pretty quickly it will kick their tails and they should fall back quickly. Its purpose is to protect his master, who is the real BBEG of the game.

If you were playing in this campaign, would you feel I'm cheating, making a henchman that is unbeatable? Or would you feel that his purpose is more story motivated, and so his existence is fair? Is this monster a "cheat"?

[Go0gleplex]

I am going to answer this in two parts.

1) It is not cheating to adjust monsters or NPCs as you wish within your game. We had one single surviving kobold of a dozen that in one fight rolled 5 nearly lethal crits against five members of a six person party (the PCs were KO'd and in the negatives but not dead dead). Average level was 6th. We (the players) jokingly referred to it as Super Kobold....and the next time we encountered him, he was indeed buffed up (complete with red cape and large S on his chest) and an even tougher opponent. If it fits the game and your storyline. Go for it.

2) That said. No creature should be unbeatable. Beyond the party's normal means to defeat is fine. To remain that way or have no way at all to overcome it, no. Unless it is a God. Then all bets are off. By this I mean, if they PCs engage in a straight up fight knowing they are outmatched then they deserve to be lawnmowered. But if they come up with creative ways to defeat the enemy, say like maneuvering them near a real high cliff and then managing to drop them off it or some such thing that would be expected to be lethal, don't deny them that without logical cause, like say the enemy had a ring of feather fall they were wearing at the time.

Anyhow. That is my two-cents on things. Good luck and happy reaping of PCs.

[Treebore]

I make the monsters whatever I feel they should be or I need in order to make the encounters the challenge I want them to be. Its my players jobs to figure out how to win, or retreat.

[serleran]

Cheating? No.

Railroading? Maybe.

Unfun? Possibly.

If something is meant to be indefatigable, show it. Make the beast rip through ten or twenty powerful creatures (or whatever) so it strikes fear into the players -- they don't need to engage it. Waiting for active participation and then saying "hah, didn't work" is a general bad move...

[Captain_K]

Almost by definition a CK who is doing something for the game for the big picture cannot cheat.. they can fudge dice to save PCs lives or make things more fun/exciting.. so do what you got to do... but many things that seem like cheating, say tossing in a Nilbog simply are not cheating but frustrate the hell out of PCs who think they know how things are supposed to go all the time... and that can be a pain for the CK and cause issues with the PCs.

Our fantasy worlds always seem to stack up adventures where the PCs can just barely beat their opponents. In a more real world this is pure fantasy.. you are as likely to meet something that thinks you're the easy kill as doing the easy killing... so once everyone buys into the idea that "all things should be beatable" variation from this causes players grief.. personally I LIKE ensuring the PCs run into things they cannot beat.. I give most "warning" labels not to try to kill X or Y creature or PC but sometimes a good thrashing with a laughing high level PC pair leaving the group bleeding and half unconscious in the dirt with a parting word or two of wisdom "When your opponents barely look worried, there might just be a reason. Come back when you've learned to tell true skill."

Do what you can/must, but having some sort of understandable or believable reason for the PC defeat helps the sour taste wash from their defeated mouths.

Good luck, let us know how it turns out.

[KeyIXTheHermit]

Thanks for all the great feedback!

Regarding the reason he's so powerful, I kinda have two....

The first is Cosmic Rays....

Okay, not really, but how about magical rays? I don't know. The point is, the mini is orange, and I've kinda taken to seeing him growling (in his own language) "It's CLOBBERIN' TIME!" when he comes roaring at the characters. In other words, he's powerful like the Thing (or the Hulk) because my games are very fanciful in their own way... I don't have much magic, but characters strong enough to smash walls aren't beyond possibility at all.

The second reason is that he was a high level barbarian fighter before this happened. Assuming he was only 10th level, he would have had a +9 to his attacks, rolled a d12 damage for his weapon, and had an average of 65 hit points before accounting for Constitution bonus (so more like 85 hit points, assuming a +2 bonus).

So being turned into a monster served to augment and increase what he already had. He was already that tough before he became a monster. Being changed would have increased his muscle mass and hit points, certainly. If all of those factors improved by only 50%, he should reasonably have a +13-14 attack and around 120 hit points. Much higher if being turned into a monster doubled those abilities.

I tend to do cutscenes in my games, which forces players to separate player knowledge from character knowledge, so they'll quite likely know all about this guy before they meet him. Our group's tank will still run up and attack him, because he likes to do that, but he'll be knocked back a mile if he does, which hopefully will clue them in that they need to retreat.

Anyway, this is all in the thinking stage at the moment, which is why I'm asking. So far, most have said it sounds fair and possibly fun, so I'll keep dreaming in this direction for the time being.

[Captain_K]

How high a level are your PCs?

[WSUJ Steve]

Ultimately, it comes down to why you're playing. If you wanted to force a story, you could just write a story. If you want to play a game, and have as many people enjoy it as possible, you should design your game around that.

I'd definitely incorporate monsters that they should have no right beating. But, it would be understood that they shouldn't try the fight in the first place. If they charge headlong into the fight anyway, that's on them.

[Buttmonkey]

It's impossible to cheat when designing a monster or NPC. The CK/DM/GM is only limited by his/her imagination. Whether a monster is a good or bad idea is a separate question.

[KeyIXTheHermit]

Ultimately, it comes down to why you're playing. If you wanted to force a story, you could just write a story. If you want to play a game, and have as many people enjoy it as possible, you should design your game around that.

I agree 1000% on your first statement, WSUJ. That said, by now I think everyone in the hobby agrees that there are many ways of playing, of which two are (sometimes unfairly) called "Sandbox" versus "railroad."

I, personally, as a player, despise sandbox play unless you can somehow make it feel it's not sandbox. When I go in to play your game, you need to have me right smack in the middle of an adventure within the first half hour, and it's not my job as the player to find it; it's your job to create it. I came to your house and sat at your table to have fun, and my fun is an exciting adventure. You need to plunk me right smack in the middle of a Steven Spielberg/Peter Jackson production.

So, if the adventure is already mostly determined, for example, there's one adventure to be had and our goal is to find the Lost Ark of the Covenant and drop it into an active volcano, then you might say, "what the heck does it matter about your characters?"

To me, it matters, because different skill sets will go about it different ways. And different characters will interact in different ways that I'll find enjoyable in different ways. I'll cheerfully play through the same adventure half a dozen times, always acting like it's my first time and doing things I'll know will get me killed because it's what the character would do.

Kirk, Spock and McCoy talk to each other differently than Buffy, Xander, and Willow. Plus, each set of characters has different skill sets. So you can write the adventure, have it as detailed as you can get it, and then put me in it. If I'm Dr. McCoy, I'll go about it one way with one skill set and one personality, and if I'm Willow I'll go about it completely differently.

However, for the love of all that's holy, please don't put me on the Enterprise and then make me fly around until we find something of interest or until you come up with something on the ship, especially if you're just making it up as you go.

Which leads to my final and most important requirement as a player: Please don't wing it. If you tell me you're gonna just "wing an adventure," I'll pass.

For me, if I know you're winging it, it makes me feel like my actions truly have no value. If you're winging it, then ultimately the next thing to happen will be whatever your pull out of your head. You're still telling a story, you're just doing it on the fly instead of having it made up in advance.

If you have notes and papers, and your papers clearly say, "If the players do A then B happens, but if they do X then Z happens," then I feel like my choices have substance: there are options laid out, and what I do will affect the direction of the adventure, at least for the short term.

I am quite lucky to have found a small group (three people) who feel the way I do. When they sit down to play, they want an adventure ready to go.

Also, none of us -- not a single one of us -- is into that virtual world junk. This is a game, and should have rules, borders, and an end zone. We're not living virtual lives in an alternate universe... we're playing a game. This weekend it's C&C. Next weekend it's Monopoly. Last weekend it was Scene It James Bond Edition.

In sum, I agree with you, if I want to tell a story, I should just write one... and in fact I am. I don't write fantasy, though, I prefer to write horror, and am about 2/3 of the way through a horror novel of my own. What I'll do with it when I finish is anyone's guess, but it's been great fun writing.

But when I'm playing a game, I want to play a game. There should be a clearly defined goal and playing pieces. This is not a world, this is a game. And luckily I have players who feel the way I do. If I didn't, I wouldn't be playing.

[KeyIXTheHermit]

It should be noted that my question about the character is not questioning my game design theory, but whether or not it's fair to create a bugbear that's 10 HD. Another option would be to find a 10HD monster and then the players will clearly know, "Oh, look, he has a small red dragon for a bodyguard, we can't beat that, let's just go home."

To go up against what looks like a bugbear (but isn't, but looks like it) but is actually 10 HD instead of 3 HD (as they would be expecting when I pull out a bugbear mini) feels kinda wrong. But that's the figure that I liked and wanted to use.

So, to clarify the question, would you feel it's cheating if I put a bugbear on the mapboard and when you went to fight it found that it was more than 3x tougher than a bugbear should be according to the M&T? Would it be more fair to the players to use a different mini that is actually 10 HD in the rule book?

Thanks. I hope this clarifies the question!

[WSUJ Steve]

In the case of the Bugbear example, I would do one of two things. Either, I would make it abundantly clear that this is not a regular Bugbear, but one that appears to radiate power and command respect, or perhaps using a different 10hd monster would be fine. If it's important to the world/narrative that it's a bugbear, that's cool. I just wouldn't pull a fast one by saying "I know you've fought four hundred bugbears before, but this one happens to be able to TPK you".

I don't think you should limit the narrative to x monster in the book necessarily. I just feel like you could be setting your game up for some bad vibes if you were to throw a secretly mega powerful mundane monster at them.

[Buttmonkey]

I recommend telling your players up front that you are going to be throwing monsters at them that do not conform to the M&T write-ups. The players make assumptions about a monster's capabilities at their own peril. Once you do that, everything is fair game.

[Go0gleplex]

Still not cheating. And as Monkey said, you can tell them up front or if wanting more of a subtle way, drop hints and clues around the players about how this mage guy enslaved some poor soul, yada yada yada. You can also do a mixture of both.

[Treebore]

Still not cheating. And as Monkey said, you can tell them up front or if wanting more of a subtle way, drop hints and clues around the players about how this mage guy enslaved some poor soul, yada yada yada. You can also do a mixture of both.

Yep, Butt and Goo have hit the proverbial nail on the head as far as I am concerned. Plus I get to mutilate their forum names and mutate them into a hideous imagining.

[alcyone]

It should be noted that my question about the character is not questioning my game design theory, but whether or not it's fair to create a bugbear that's 10 HD. Another option would be to find a 10HD monster and then the players will clearly know, "Oh, look, he has a small red dragon for a bodyguard, we can't beat that, let's just go home."

To go up against what looks like a bugbear (but isn't, but looks like it) but is actually 10 HD instead of 3 HD (as they would be expecting when I pull out a bugbear mini) feels kinda wrong. But that's the figure that I liked and wanted to use.

So, to clarify the question, would you feel it's cheating if I put a bugbear on the mapboard and when you went to fight it found that it was more than 3x tougher than a bugbear should be according to the M&T? Would it be more fair to the players to use a different mini that is actually 10 HD in the rule book?

Thanks. I hope this clarifies the question!

I think it's fine. I'd run it like this though: characters attack bodyguard. Bodyguard shrugs the damage off, and uses only sufficient force to nullify the threat, like good bodyguards do. If they persist, after he lays a few out with subdual/non-lethal or grappling, he says, "Stop that or I'll cut your heart out." (I guess the sorcerer will have to kindly translate) If they don't stop, he cuts their heart out. It should be apparent after a few rounds of good damage rolls not dropping him that they are out of their league and it will teach them a bit about assumptions in your world.

Now, if the dice really go their way, and THEY drop HIM, well, so be it. Guess the next bodyguard will be better.

[Buttmonkey]

There are lots of ways to signal the monster is "beefed up" through your descriptions. I'm a fan of stuff like saying the opponent's blade has blue lightning flickering along its edge. Or maybe the monster's veins pulse with neon green stuff that shines through their skin. You could also do something with the monster's eyes. Maybe the eyes are entirely black and the monster's face is permanently locked in a snarling glare regardless of the situation. If you apply those types of descriptions to something like an orc or an ogre, the players are going to sense they are dealing with something more dangerous than a standard monster from the book.

[KeyIXTheHermit]

Thanks, everybody, for the replies.

Yeah, this is a tricky situation because in this world, there are no bugbears. There's also no Orcs, Elves, or Dwarfs (of the RPG kind). There are no Gnolls, either. There may be Lizard People, deep in some swamp far away from the eyes of man, but I'm not sure about that. There are no Gnomes and no Halflings.

They'll know all this. This has been discussed at length with them. The whole point of this game is to create a world with less magic and more "realism." My plan for Goblins will be that they are demon-imps and can't even be killed by normal means (they'll have to be Banished to be gotten rid of). I'll let the players "kill" them, probably with just one stroke of a weapon (1-4 hit points), but then it will just turn to smoke and re-form one turn later. (And, to clarify, they wouldn't be found randomly; they'd be used to guard an area, placed there by Dark Magicks, summoned into existence by someone for a distinct purpose).

So, yeah, this is supposed to be a darker, grimmer, more violent world of swords and sorcery.

So it's not a bugbear. They'll know this. But I wasn't sure if I needed to stay within the guidelines presented by C&C, and if I didn't, are we still playing C&C?

Goblins, such as they are, will have 1d4 hit points. Most of the creatures they encounter will match their M&T counterparts. The first adventure has them facing what was described by the villagers as a sea monster. It's a large crocodile. Of course, for first level characters, that should prove tough enough anyway, but I intend on using the stats in the book.

That's why I've been unsure about this one critter. Most monsters that exist will be about the same as their M&T analogues. This one critter will be one of the few (I presume) that will be different from the version presented in the book.

[Lurker]

Still not cheating. And as Monkey said, you can tell them up front or if wanting more of a subtle way, drop hints and clues around the players about how this mage guy enslaved some poor soul, yada yada yada. You can also do a mixture of both.

Yep, Butt and Goo have hit the proverbial nail on the head as far as I am concerned. Plus I get to mutilate their forum names and mutate them into a hideous imagining.

Now, that is 2 things you normally don't put together in polite conversation !


Rgr on what has been said here already. It isn't cheating by any means to have that big strong bad guy. Also, you have a great background story for the why he is so tuff so even better than just by gm fiat saying he is that tuff.

Also, like said before, I'd argue not to let them walk flat footed into the hopeless fght. Drop hints (based of that good background/history) give clues, have them find the results of the last heroes that foolishly went toe to toe with him. etc etc etc.

I will say that I tended to run lower power more Tolkien based game worlds than the average around here (back when I gmed). As such, the average monsters players npcs etc were underpowered compared to the normal game world. However, I did have monsters/critical npcs like you are planning with your 'not-bugbear'. To me they worked amazingly because they were uniquely powerful not the norm.

[Revfan]

I read this post and scratched my head...

If its a powerful NPC that can't be killed... then use your Castle Keeper Judo to make sure it doesn't die...
"and then a tree falls over and separates you from the dreaded "thing-that-looks-exactly-like-a-bug-bear-but-lets-be-clear-that-it-is-definitely-not-a-bugbear!", preventing you from dealing the fatal blow and it escapes to battle you another day... cue the maniacal laughter

Also, if you have taken 95% of the magic, and 75% of the creatures that normally fill the fantasy genre OUT, and can create an instant action world that grips your players from first dice roll til' the end of the evening time bell...

I nominate you for Keeper of the Year.

[alcyone]

So it's not a bugbear. They'll know this. But I wasn't sure if I needed to stay within the guidelines presented by C&C, and if I didn't, are we still playing C&C?

That's one for the philosophers, but the message with C&C from the get-go is it's meant to be folded, spindled, and mutilated. And even if it stopped being C&C, I don't think an elite team of operatives in balaclavas would descend on tactical ropes to drag you to a secret court where Stephen Chenault would find you guilty for some crime against the game. And you could still talk about it here.

What matters is that you and your group are having a good time. C&C makes a pretty good base for modifications. There is a certain point after which the amount of work to make the game different becomes silly when I can find a game closer to what I wanted, but that point is different for all.

[Treebore]

But I wasn't sure if I needed to stay within the guidelines presented by C&C, and if I didn't, are we still playing C&C?

As long as your using the core SIEGE engine pretty much as is (some even change the +6 assumption to +5 or even +3), your playing C&C. I am pretty sure some people would argue that with my house rules I am not running C&C.

The ONLY times and places we need to be concerned with "going by the book" is at conventions. With our own groups we only need to be concerned with ensuring we are all having fun.

[Lurker]

.... And even if it stopped being C&C, I don't think an elite team of operatives in balaclavas would descend on tactical ropes to drag you to a secret court where Stephen Chenault would find you guilty for some crime against the game. ....

& if that happened, I have it on good authority that he or any other member of the Troll Court is easily bribable with Dr Pepper, so no sweat there either.

[miller6]

Adventures should contain a variety of different encounters of different difficulties be they creatures, traps, puzzles, riddles, role playing situations like negotiations, unusual terrains, weather conditions, etc. Changing things up keeps players guessing which maintains interest and rekindles that cool feeling of the first time they played when they didn't know what anything was. Makes it more memorable too.
Heck, one of the most notable things about the adventures I write aside from my GMing style is my penchant for tossing new or modified stuff in the mix. Ask Treebore and he'll tell ya I'm guilty as hell of that. lol. Some prefer a more predictable game but others find it refreshing having to wonder if that 3 inch frog is just a harmless one or a nasty little bugger that breathes potentially lethal gas. If you mix it up, players tend to choose their battles more carefully anyway. But I'd definitely remind your players that no matter how tough their party is, there's always something tougher out there. That's especially so if you run random wilderness encounters for travels in between dungeons where anything goes and there are no hit dice limits.

Smart players keep in mind that not all battles are meant to be won and overconfidence is a harbinger of doom.

Ultimately it's up to the GM though since the rules are designed and meant to be flexible.

Brian Miller

[finarvyn]

In a sense, all CK's cheat at some point if they want their players to have fun. The secret is not to let the players know that you are doing it, because that knowledge will diminish the enjoyment factor. The problem is that there is a fine line between a good story and a railroad. The players should always feel like they have options, even if things don't go the way they would like. Knowing that one particular baddie is really tough and should be feared isn't a railroad.

Smart players keep in mind that not all battles are meant to be won and overconfidence is a harbinger of doom.

Nailed it. This is a very old-school philosophy, and one that I subscribe to, but many modern-edition gamers seem to have lost this perspective. You might want to remind them of it so they know what to expect.

[Revfan]

miller6 wrote:
Smart players keep in mind that not all battles are meant to be won and overconfidence is a harbinger of doom.

Nailed it. This is a very old-school philosophy, and one that I subscribe to, but many modern-edition gamers seem to have lost this perspective. You might want to remind them of it so they know what to expect.

I hear what you are saying... but there can be a big difference between a "Harbinger of Doom" and a vindictive GM who punishes overconfident players because their particular actions don't mesh with the story line and direction a GM wants a story/game to go.

Everybody plays for different reasons, and each player has a different style.... and sometimes you just gotta let those styles, and the dice rolls, to determine the path and the consequences.

Rold Firebeard the Dwarf charges into a "unknown" room only to discover that there are 3 very large and well armed Orcs inside. Rold wins initiative and through luck of his dice, quickly dispatches the Orcs with three successive "Natural 20" hit rolls... to the Orcs natural 1s and 2s. That wasn't what the GM had in mind as the party was supposed to have its Rouge listen at the door to "discover" where the Orc were keeping their prisoners.

Some GMs I've played with would then go off script to have a troll come crashing in on Firebeard to "teach him a lesson" and be the hand of that Harbinger of Doom. Is THAT cheating? Don't be tempted to let personal feelings get in the way of everyone's great time. Rold's player will remember that Epic 5 minute melee for the rest of his life, and may make him your most consistent and dependable gaming member. Trying to mold him into "your" type of player may backfire in and out of the game.

Your mileage may vary... of course.

[Treebore]

miller6 wrote:
Smart players keep in mind that not all battles are meant to be won and overconfidence is a harbinger of doom.

Nailed it. This is a very old-school philosophy, and one that I subscribe to, but many modern-edition gamers seem to have lost this perspective. You might want to remind them of it so they know what to expect.

Some GMs I've played with would then go off script to have a troll come crashing in on Firebeard to "teach him a lesson" and be the hand of that Harbinger of Doom. Is THAT cheating? Don't be tempted to let personal feelings get in the way of everyone's great time. Rold's player will remember that Epic 5 minute melee for the rest of his life, and may make him your most consistent and dependable gaming member. Trying to mold him into "your" type of player may backfire in and out of the game.

Your mileage may vary... of course.

If they are truly going off script. If the Troll was just down the hall, or a room or two away, and the GM had been rolling listening checks for every combat, or planned to do so if this was the first room, then no, it is not wrong to do.

I have noticed some people think every single battle is supposed to be "tough". No, they are not. Most are supposed to be a low to moderate challenge, and hopefully eat up potions, memorized spells and such. If it goes easy for the players, then thats how it goes.

I have seen some fights where the PC's, by all rights, should have been all killed or captured. The dice rolled high for every critical roll, and victory was seized from almost certain defeat. USUALLY, the party would have been killed or captured in these encounters. Smart/tactical players would have run. In fact, I did. However, they made every save that needed to be made, including non Primes, and the CK rolled like crap when it was needed to keep a character up and fighting. All rolls were done in a dice roller. There was no fudging. So I would rejoin the fight, and we eventually won. Every single one of us realized, at some point during the fight, or during the after fight discussion, we should not have won that battle. The CK would confirm it. Some times luck saves the foolish. When it does, it makes for the fights you remember the most vividly.

That said, most encounters usually aren't built assuming the players would run. Most are built with the hopes of causing an appropriate challenge.

[Jyrdan Fairblade]

I wouldn't call it cheating. Customer monsters have been around for as long as the hobby has been around. I think it definitely is a question as to the nature of the game you're playing, and how the players would react. Would they try to hammer on the foe until they are slain? Or are they smart enough to beat a tactical retreat. How do they handle real adversity?

I once tried a similar encounter, with an enemy that, while not unbeatable, was, well, above their pay grade. It ended up a near TPK with one PC dead, and two on the ground.

[mgtremaine]

Seems fine to me but you better drop the warning hints early and often. Like you said the tank will attack, that's what they are suppose to do. If he dies in a round or two their will be teeth gnashing. But I don't see a 10HD monster as so uber-gross as to be DM/CK vindictiveness ..

Aside: I actually played in a game, decades ago, where there was an unkillable. It was the whole railroading point. This 39thLVL thing was one step away from Godhood and did everything it could not to ascend for eons. The point of the game was to research a way to force it to ascend so the gods would deal with it once and for all. Of course as an 8 Wisdom Power crazed Elven Fight/Mage I discarded the hints and left it to other party members to figure out, I went out every morning to play with my new favorite punching bag. The unkillable could full resurrect 7/day so you just had beat on him until he could not come back anymore that day. Then get a good night sleep and repeat. A year of the real time was waste in this way with the one other FIghter coming with me to punch on this guy and the rest of the group doing side conversation and research. Good times. But proves the point of don;t assume the players with do the rational thing.