Had they tried to take on Kukrit head-on, he would have fried them through the bracers. Had they tried to take on Grasping Hands head-on, they would have faced a fight far beyond deadly.
Adam will only set up encounters as deadly if he feel that it fits the setting. If the PCs chose to go against good judgement and pick a fight they are aware they won’t win, Adam will not hold back. The world needs to have fights that the party cannot take head-on.
This is such a fascinating thread for me. Thank you OP. Like, it’s nice seeing folks notice the threads that are developing. The themes of Court of Swords are authority and destiny and this last episode was so so interesting - when the PCs were finally “free” they became aimless and when they came under pressure from someone looking to use them, they fell in line. I can’t wait to see what happens next. I think Azriel has some tricks up his sleeve…
Initially they had to follow Kukrit but they passed that point, a bracelet that deals a few d8 becomes less of an issue as time passes. They could absolutely fight grasping hands if they wanted. The bad consequences for fighting against grasping hands aren’t necessarily player death but the fallout from the action like not getting their armor.
Kukrit was always supposed to have a knife to their throat for a while, and everyone bought into that idea. Adam is not making them act and threatening them with death if they don’t do what he wants. He is giving them choices and carrying forward consequences from decisions. [spoiler]I am aware there was this one time an npc literally held a knife to a PC’s throat and threatened to kill him but it doesn’t actually undermine my point[/spoiler]
There is no DM overpowering the players either.
The few D8s were warning jolts. They were absolutely supposed to get out from under Kukrits thumb, but not through a straight fight. They absolutely could not take on Grasping Hands and his underlings in a straight fight. They could take him out by subterfuge, either by trying to dismantle his organisation or by isolating him from his underlings.
The DM can always chose to overpower the players if he wants to. Rocks fall, everyone dies.
Kukrit had power over them and this was something everyone was okay with and had talked about and everyone was playing around this idea of being under his power. They weren’t necessarily “supposed” to get out from his thumb but it quickly became clear it was something the characters wanted and they began to explore that through play.
Grasping hands was something in the world that they encountered. If they fight him and his minions they should expect combat encounters to be in line with an appropriate level of challenge. They should expect this because that’s how dnd works, the players are supposed to be able to win fights in the end if they play smart.
What is you point when you say the GM (or the players) can always choose to be a dick an ruin the game?
Rocks fall everyone dies is straight up GM bullshit. As is letting the players play out a fight they absolutely mechanically cannot win without clearly telling the players that they will die if they try to fight because they aren’t supposed to.
If the DM put’s unwinnable combats in the game and doesnt make the unwinnable bit explicit its a massive slap in the face to everyone playing.
The raging rhino can never be the sly snake, to try to deny your intrinsic nature will cause a war within yourself. It is better to revel and die as who you are then live and despair as who you are not.
Just because the players encounter something in the world doesn’t mean that they can expect to beat it in a straight fight. Adam has given the PCs more than enough indication that a straight fight against Grasping Hands will end poorly for them. A world cannot be immersive if it has to allow for the PCs to solve every obstacle with a head on fight. Where you got the idea that there’s is something inherent to DnD saying that PCs should expect every fight they pick to be winnable is beyond me.
You said that the GM cannot overpower the players. Before that you said that the players can get too strong to be challenged in the world. Neither can be further from the truth, seeing as the GM holds ultimate power.
I wonder where you got the idea from that a GM should explicitly say that picking a certain fight is unwinnable. The players are expected to exercise common sense.
click the link at the bottom of my post for a detailed exploration about why giving players dnd fights they cant win is bullshit
Then the link in at the bottom of your post isn’t worth its weight in bytes. Forcing players into fights they cannot win is different than fights existing in the world that the players cannot win if they chose to pick them.
The worst we’ve seen the bracer do is cause a PC to feel a pain akin to being submerged into icy water that caused the PC to stagger, causing 3D6 damage. What we can assume from Grasping Hands and his gang is that one lieutenant is at minimum a 5th level Monk.
npc’s do not have levels the same way as players do, npcs are statblocks
For example a 5 lvl warlock pc would be different to an npc warlock with 3rd level spellcasting. A 5th-ish level monk would be around CR3 i think though an npc would have more health maybe an extra attack and different and likely less features skills and saves.
azure vortex is an example of a monk that was not a monk
I may be misremembering, but I think the Golden Princess or whatever rolled 1D6 for damage on her unarmed strike, which should as far as I know mean that she is at least a 5th level monk.
Adam has stated that he will use character creation for creating high level NPCs of a given class. Whether Golden Princess is such a character or not is unknown as of yet.
Berg was a former slave…falling into that role makes a lot of sense even if he’s trying to fight against it. IIRC he was brought up as a slave. Old habits are hard to break.
A paladin would still consider his collateral damage to innocents. To start a brawl in the establishment where damage could happen or others be hurt would be more out of character. Just because you would play things full of fire and brimstone, doesn’t mean it makes the most sense, or that anyone else should. There are many reasons to justify what the characters do, and few to justify your suggestion.
EDIT: I might have replied to the wrong post…the thread organization is just awful
It is perfectly reasonable and usual for a GM to stat up important NPCs the way you do a PC.
To a certain degree, I agree with this. Like Adam had hinted at, I think the fear of death or worse has shunted the normal behavior we’d see in the characters as they strive for survival. I’d almost consider it some form of trauma.
Being 5th level would explain the lack of surprise or being cowed in the face of an angry angel.
D’awww. Well thanks for making a great series! 
This is the only platform for roleplaying games you can watch online in which the producers are as active with the fans as you guys are. Responding to our thoughts and questions like you do has given birth to such a loyal fanbase, complete strangers will get somewhat heated in a debate over the details–as seen here. Lol. Keep up the good work, and again, thank you for your clarifications.
Heck at this point the trauma is the players’ rather than the characters’.
I can respect this outlook. Those are good points I hadn’t considered. It is true most paladins would consider collateral damage to be avoided, and with the circumstances akin to self preservation and recent traumatic events pushing for peaceful resolution or even fear I can understand the reactions taken somewhat. One thing I wanted to point out that does help support a bit of my stance:
Azrael has tenets. Two of which I’d say do not outright counter your suggestion, but would at the least support why I’m thinking as I am currently. The By Any Means Necessary tenet would suggest that collateral damage is not generally on the forefront of a vengeance paladin’s mind. Now this monk that hit him wasn’t a Mara, no, but an enemy no doubt, as she did attack him with lethal damage, and represented a corrupt group. This of course doesn’t mean collateral damage is never thought about, only that it’s likely not something often kept in mind to overshadow justice or revenge. The Restitution tenet suggests also that Azrael might care more about how this group is affecting the populace than things like property damage or more centralized notions like self preservation or fear (paladin->fear). Not that I think he needs it, but I’m sure if @DansGaming ever wants inspiration for what he thinks his character would do, the tenets he follows would be great reference.
In regards to the barbarian, that point makes an excellent amount of sense, as even in an episode where the barbarian and the rogue went off and swindled some dwarves, Max did state that his character more or less fell in line at one point with old habits from when he was a slave. This is a tendency I can now see. Perhaps I assumed that was the source of his rage and because of that, it would make more sense to lash out when treated as such as seen in an accounts of former slaves, but then again I should not assume.
Thank you for the perspective.