I think what Niara's trying to say here is that they have a problem with the encounter having multiple dice checks that can each individually lead to your character's death. I for one agree that this is bad design but since it's been a while since I played through this encounter and don't really remember it well, I can't confirm if this is an accurate assessment.
It would be bad desing ...
But if you check the video i posted, you can notice that all other checks are actualy your rescue anchors:
- First check (Int) > risking peer into Mind Flaers thoughts ... aka. trap.
(The other option here is free yourself ... from the way it is written, it is clear clue from DM what you should do in his opinion ... there is even no check, its clear route to safety)
- Second check (Wisdom) > chance for you to save yourself, since you decided to risk ... and it didnt work wery well for you.
(other option is not the check ... its embracing your fault, its not your thought btw ... you are controlled)
- Third check (Wisdom) > again, change to save yourself ...
(again other option in embracing your fault ... since same as in previous option, you are allready controlled)
And note that in litteraly any part of this process you can both cast guidance to boost your chances to save yourself ... or simply smash its squishy head, to make it sure.
Therefore i claim that if anyone dies in this particular scenario ... the only one he can blame is himself.
You make a lot of good arguments here but this one I still can't agree with. Especially the one about companions not being independant entities. They very much are, at least as much as any companion in any crpg. They can still make choices you don't control, initiate dialogues, make judgements on your actions, etc. A significant part of the game will consist of their character stories, which will require them doing things outside of your control, such as Asterion secretly killing animals for blood.
There is missunderstanding ...
I was talking about this particular moment ...
Sure, they could have some action (read as: sentence) of their own ...
And as we can see in that video i posted, Shadowheart specificly told my Tiefling "Get Away from that thing!" (without voice tho, so i gues it was some unfinished stuff, or glith ... or i managed to bug it when i switched them) ...
My point is that active companions in your conversations dont simply go and save your skin automaticly, that is simply not how it works ... you control them, you are suppose to do that.
Yes, im aware that they can and do coment your actions, make judgements, or do some "out of screen" activities ... so they seem more alive ... but that is entirely different story.
As a more in-depth example, at the encounter with the Gith patrol, Lae'zel will turn to your character and and seek a prompt from them for how to talk to the patrol. You're not expected to directly take control of her, and I would argue that such an option actually makes *less* sense than any of your companions stopping you from gettingn eaten by the mindflayer. What with the fact that if it got to eat, it would presumably regain some amount of strength and be able to be a greater threat to them, so killing the thing would be in their best interest. My point though is that I don't think you can argue that the companions are no longer independant and shouldn't be expected to act independently when they act independently all the time, up to and including speaking up for themselves in dialogues.
To be completely honest i would like take direct control much more ... Lae'zel dont seem like somebody who would ask for your permision, or guidance ... she KNOWS what she is suppose to do, and therefore she do it. After all, you are lesser creature, unless you are also Gith ... and even then, she obviously conciders you to be beneath her, since she keeps lecturing you.
Therefore taking direct control would seem much more immersive to me, so i kinda hope that this particular part of that conversation is actualy just a placeholder.
As for the rest ...
That is again different situation, Lae'zel leave your party and sprint to her kin before conversation even started, and even then she acts only as a interpeter of your party ... if she would suppose to work the same way in situation we discuised, she would have to kill the Ghaik before you even start talking to it.
And once again ... all do Lae'zel is forward(?) your Main charaters decisions, she dont actualy act by her own, if you think about it.
And one final thing, the game never teaches you that you can select other characters outside of combat (unless they started doing that in patch 4, I could have missed that). I'm being lenient on this point though since while I think we should judge Early Access on its own terms, I also accept that it only makes sense for tutorials to be among the last things added since they have to finalize all the content and stuff first.
Honestly i dont know ... i didnt read litteraly even single tutorial message, since im precisely that kind of smug (insert insult here) ... who presumes he will figure things out later, and then he panic when he dont know how to do something.
Maybe that saved me, since i was really curious about what those buttons do.
But dont get me wrong, when i talked with that Illithid for second (since i passed wisdom check first time
... also i was curious what will happen) time, i died too.
I believe its just matter of point of view ... i see there nicely done trap, someone else see there bad desing.
Also I think that your DM's choice is perfectly valid from a storytelling perspective. People differ and it ultimately comes down to what the players at the table want, but I personally believe that part of a DM's job should be steering players away from dumb, unsatisfying outcomes. If the player wanted their character to face the consequences of their actions then fine, if in-character there was no way to avoid the fall, then fine. But if the character could still cast levitate and carry on then to have them die from not doing it would to me seem pointless and unsatisfying, and I wouldn't let my player do that unless they understood that that was what was happening. So as far as story design, helping a player make an in-character choice that makes sense feels like good design to me. But like I said, that's just my philosophy when it comes to DMing.
Well yes ...
Maybe that wasnt so clear as i believed, my point was that there should be allways only certain amount of warnings, before player have to suffer consequences of ignoring them all ... and i believe you had enough of them here.
The example i write was only for fun, and we had fun in tabletop ...
In PC game, we have autosaves and quick saves for the same purpose.
Therefore i dont see any "upgrade" in adding another few chances to save yourself ... its just polonging the inevitable.
