|
Which is different than I have ever seen it applied. No, I am talking about 5% chance to fail any skill against even the basest static DC. Have a +15 jump check and rolled a 1 to clear a 5 foot gap? You're going in for the plunge unless you make a DC 15 Reflex save.
No the stealther would have to roll a 1 followed by a 1 to fail. The perciver would need to roll a 20 followed by a 20 to succeed.
And I did start off with that. Then I found the failure rate for somebody with +60 to jump failing a 15 foot pit pretty unacceptable. So I adjusted. Nothing wrong with the houserule as a starting point. The DM may after a few games learn the same thing I did...well at higher levels. It's less blatant on lower levels games where a 1 fail anyways.
Of course it is "realistic," and I have apparently been reported for - what offense I'm not sure - pointing out my acknowledgment and opinion of that.
|
|
The only grief I have with that is that sometimes, as a DM, I don't want them making a skill check, or failing it. So I set a DC so low or so high that can't possibly do one or the other. If a 20 followed by a 20 is a guaranteed success, then the piece of obscure lore that I want them to research or that only the Wizard should be able to make, could be known by the stupid rogue. Or, the DC 1 Knowledge Duh check is failed by the genius because he rolled two 1s. I know, statistically it's highly improbable, but the chance exists.
No the stealther would have to roll a 1 followed by a 1 to fail. The perciver would need to roll a 20 followed by a 20 to succeed. So you have a 1 in 400 chance of failure because you stepped on a very loud cracking branch. He has a 1 in 400 chance of just happening to glance at the right place at the right time. Please do try to read the WHOLE thing before commenting...sheesh.
Actually it would only work if the rogue had a point in the knoweldge skill. Now bards on the other hand....
Yeah it can happen. Even very smart people can't know EVERYTHING...and even dumb people may know the one key thing that you just happen to need. As a DM I never hinge my plot point on impossible to fail or succeed checks...seem kinda moot to even have a DC at that point.
Of course they can't. Which is why that is already worked into the knowledge rules. Both ways even. Without ranks in Knowledge (unless Pathfinder changed that), you can't exceed common knowledge regardless of what you roll. And the lower the ranks, the more likely you are to not be able to know something - which once failed you can never figure out again (at least there are no rules for it, theoretically you should be able to try again once you gain a skill rank in that Knowledge). So that means a person wit +30 Knowledge (arcana) can roll two 1s and have no idea what dragons are. Ever.
|
|
Of course they can't. Which is why that is already worked into the knowledge rules. Both ways even. Without ranks in Knowledge (unless Pathfinder changed that), you can't exceed common knowledge regardless of what you roll. And the lower the ranks, the more likely you are to not be able to know something - which once failed you can never figure out again (at least there are no rules for it, theoretically you should be able to try again once you gain a skill rank in that Knowledge). So that means a person wit +30 Knowledge (arcana) can roll two 1s and have no idea what dragons are. Ever.
So, by RAW, you can try to figure out about a dragon at lower levels with +10 to knoweldge, fail and never know about dragons too...badly written rules ain't exactly helping your cause. In fact since I can house rule (and I have) I can make it so you can re-roll with a new rank. You and your RAW can't do that.
So, by RAW, you can try to figure out about a dragon at lower levels with +10 to knoweldge, fail and never know about dragons too...
No, actually by raw at a +9, you would always know common knowledge about dragons. By your rules you can fail and never know about dragons. The fact that there isn't a note about what you can do to allow you to try again ever is an editing error that would either need to be errata'd or houseruled. But houseruling a cover to an error in the writing is not the same as houseruling the entire skill system against RAW that is defined explicitly.
But the rules also define, to some extent, the character's understanding of how the world works. As far as the player and his character knew, there was no risk to burning the Pipes of the Sewers.
I see your point, however unless an arcana check was done, in character the player has no idea what effects could come from this action and should understand there is danger in what they are doing. In character, no one knows "the rules" of what could happen when you are messing with strange, evil, arcane objects.
The added effects seem "logical", even if they don't fit rule as written, and all the character has to do is sell the sword (probably worth more now than it was) and get another one. Or not do what they did in a clearly labeled wild magic area.
I agree if the warning was "looking back" without giving the player an opportunity to take it back, this is kind of a dick move by the DM from the start. But if a clear warning is given that an action may have unintended consequences, I think this is a brilliant piece of DMing.
He believed it was an item which contained evil magic, but it was not an artifact, nor did he have any reason to believe it to be so. If burning a standard-level magic item releases residual magic which can hang around an object and add 'quirks' to its enchantment some significant amount of time after the fact--this is something a character with arcane inclinations should have an idea of. If no indication has been given to the player that magic operates in a somewhat less predictable manner than RAW suggests, I could hardly fault him for acting under the assumption that he's operating under the safe and predictable RAW.
|
So it's just OK to assume the other guy was dumb? And don't make the mistake to think that it's anything other than an assumption, unless you were there with them and know all the facts.
Its far fairer to cry "Dumb" on someone knowingly expending spells in a wild magic zone than it is to proclaim the DM a spiteful individual, unless you were there with them and know all the facts (said I as I paraphrase my first post in this thread).
Once the "are you sure?" warning has been issued a DMs hands are clean, I can't see a DM as spiteful when a character willingly goes through with whatever prompted the "are you sure?" in the first place.
|
|
He believed it was an item which contained evil magic, but it was not an artifact, nor did he have any reason to believe it to be so. If burning a standard-level magic item releases residual magic which can hang around an object and add 'quirks' to its enchantment some significant amount of time after the fact--this is something a character with arcane inclinations should have an idea of. If no indication has been given to the player that magic operates in a somewhat less predictable manner than RAW suggests, I could hardly fault him for acting under the assumption that he's operating under the safe and predictable RAW.
Fair enough. But then we agree doing it again in a wild magic area...
|
So it's just OK to assume the other guy was dumb? And don't make the mistake to think that it's anything other than an assumption, unless you were there with them and know all the facts.Its far fairer to cry "Dumb" on someone knowingly expending spells in a wild magic zone than it is to proclaim the DM a spiteful individual, unless you were there with them and know all the facts (said I as I paraphrase my first post in this thread).
I think most people who had an issue (including myself) were referring only to the magic item gimping issue.
Trying to use magic in an area where it can go wrong can be construed as dumb yes. Seperate issue for me though, didn't feel the need to weigh in.
|
|
I think most people who had an issue (including myself) were referring only to the magic item gimping issue.
I can dig it, really, but to be fair that's how the guy runs his game; its all subjective - you think its a gimp, I think its awesome; some people are crying "FOUL" that the DM did something that he felt was interesting, I personally love it when unique, interesting things go against the norm and give me something interesting to embrace or overcome.
I guess my whole point is that the dude did what he did and (as I said before) we can't assume the group dynamic of people we've never met before is so obviously tantamount to our own personal experiences/peer groups; its been way hostile in this thread over some really simple differences in playstyle - not that humanity hasn't fought wars over less - but that still kind of bugs me.
|
|
So, by RAW, you can try to figure out about a dragon at lower levels with +10 to knoweldge, fail and never know about dragons too...No, actually by raw at a +9, you would always know common knowledge about dragons. By your rules you can fail and never know about dragons. The fact that there isn't a note about what you can do to allow you to try again ever is an editing error that would either need to be errata'd or houseruled. But houseruling a cover to an error in the writing is not the same as houseruling the entire skill system against RAW that is defined explicitly.
ONLY if dragons are common in your world. Otherwise it would be DC 15 or 20-30. In most published worlds dragons are NOT common. So yes you can fail with a +10 barring special DM world rules. And a houserule is a houserule. Do you KNOW it's an editing error? They have what, 3 erratas out now and it isn't fixed in any of them. So by RAW, mister must play by RAW, your knoweldge check is was more FUBARED then hey looks I can tweaks things the way I like it rules I have.
ONLY if dragons are common in your world. Otherwise it would be DC 15 or 20-30. In most published worlds dragons are NOT common. So yes you can fail with a +10 barring special DM world rules.
Which worlds?
And a houserule is a houserule. Do you KNOW it's an editing error?
Presumably yes because it makes no sense that failing a knowledge check at level 1 means you can never make that knowledge check again.
They have what, 3 erratas out now and it isn't fixed in any of them.
I'm not even going to go into that, but it's probably because it existed in 3.5.
|
|
ONLY if dragons are common in your world. Otherwise it would be DC 15 or 20-30. In most published worlds dragons are NOT common. So yes you can fail with a +10 barring special DM world rules.Which worlds?
And a houserule is a houserule. Do you KNOW it's an editing error?Presumably yes because it makes no sense that failing a knowledge check at level 1 means you can never make that knowledge check again.
Tell me which ones that are. Golarion and FR don't have common dragons. Neither does darksun. Or greyhawk. Dragonlance however does. So yeah it works in one published world. Fine then in such a world you try even early and fail...same difference.
It makes no sense to YOU. Makes even less sense to me. But your the one being a RAW monkey...RAW doesn't have to make sense...and in fact it DOESN'T. You can't go well you have to play by RAW...except for these bits that I PERSONALLY find dis-tasteful...but let there be hell if you change any other bits of RAW that you find so. No, don't work like that that.
Tell me which ones that are. Golarion and FR don't have common dragons.
FR doesn't have common dragons? The crest of Cormyr is a dragon. I'm pretty sure they live in every other mountain range.
Neither does darksun.
Aren't dragons the ones that run Dark Sun?
Or greyhawk.
I don't know enough specifically about Greyhawk or Golarion.
It makes no sense to YOU. Makes even less sense to me. But your the one being a RAW monkey...RAW doesn't have to make sense...and in fact it DOESN'T. You can't go well you have to play by RAW...except for these bits that I PERSONALLY find dis-tasteful...but let there be hell if you change any other bits of RAW that you find so. No, don't work like that that.
The difference is you are the one making rules to change RAW whereas I support house rules to cover gaps in the game rules. Two totally different things.
|
Which is different than I have ever seen it applied. No, I am talking about 5% chance to fail any skill against even the basest static DC. Have a +15 jump check and rolled a 1 to clear a 5 foot gap? You're going in for the plunge unless you make a DC 15 Reflex save.
No the stealther would have to roll a 1 followed by a 1 to fail. The perciver would need to roll a 20 followed by a 20 to succeed.
You ever see an Olympic class athlete trip? Even the best fail at things they've done a thousand times before.
The auto fail/succeed on skill is something I've used as a DM and a player for as long as I've been playing 3x. I understand if others don't use it, their game, their idea of fun.
As for the whole rat summoning sword? I think it's classic, if the player seemed upset by it I would work some easy fix for it. However I will say this, any player that ever stopped the game to argue with me about RAW has and will get his butt shown the door, with my boot print on his ass if he wanted to get in my face about it. Approach me after the game if you have issues with something and we'll work it out, but don't pitch a fit at the table if you got your feelings hurt.
You ever see an Olympic class athlete trip? Even the best fail at things they've done a thousand times before.Which is different than I have ever seen it applied. No, I am talking about 5% chance to fail any skill against even the basest static DC. Have a +15 jump check and rolled a 1 to clear a 5 foot gap? You're going in for the plunge unless you make a DC 15 Reflex save.
No the stealther would have to roll a 1 followed by a 1 to fail. The perciver would need to roll a 20 followed by a 20 to succeed.
At a 5% rate? An Olympic athlete trips over his own feet every 21st jump? Or falls off a balance beam every 21st time she tries to cross it? Or drops the shot on his foot every 21st attempt to throw it?
Never mind if the DM applies critical failure tables (that he just makes up) to stuff like that.
A 1/1000 chance maybe makes sense. A 1/20 doesn't.
|
|
The difference is you are the one making rules to change RAW whereas I support house rules to cover gaps in the game rules. Two totally different things.
There is NO gap. YOU see a gap and make a houserule. The rules explicitly say no retries. You can't say you must play by holy RAW and then ignore the parts of RAW you don't like.
There is NO gap. YOU see a gap and make a houserule. The rules explicitly say no retries.
The difference is you are the one making rules to change RAW whereas I support house rules to cover gaps in the game rules. Two totally different things.
In Knowledge. There is a subrule about retries in a particular use of Spellcraft that requires you to get another rank in Spellcraft to try again. Otherwise, you can increase your Knowledge (arcana) but apparently because you failed a check once, never again will you find a book about dragons. It is inconsistent with other rules present in the game and even if it wasn't, it is itself nonsensical.
You can't say you must play by holy RAW and then ignore the parts of RAW you don't like.
Your defense of your changing the explicitly written rules is accusing me of not playing by RAW because I am pointing out OBVIOUS gaps in the rules.
Who needs editors for d20 products? Gaps in the rules? Poorly written rules? Rules that are not internally consistent? Who cares! Enterprising DMs will just make up everything anyway!
|
|
In Knowledge. There is a subrule about retries in a particular use of Spellcraft that requires you to get another rank in Spellcraft to try again. Otherwise, you can increase your Knowledge (arcana) but apparently because you failed a check once, never again will you find a book about dragons. It is inconsistent with other rules present in the game and even if it wasn't, it is itself nonsensical.
There is no such subrule. And yes that is EXACTLY what RAW says. Once you fail you can never ever know it again. Even with access to a library. Yes it is bloody stupid. I think taking 10 and 20 and having a 100% success rate is stupid so I house rule it. JUST like your house ruling knoweldge retries. So no, don't give me that your playing by RAW non-sense because even you aren't following it.
Who needs editors for d20 products? Gaps in the rules? Poorly written rules? Rules that are not internally consistent? Who cares! Enterprising DMs will just make up everything anyway!
And they did such a system...called 4e. If you think that your gonna get a pefectly written ruleset for games as complex as REAL D&D, WoD, warhammer or pretty much any REAL RPG vs computer clones on paper, then you are sadly mistaken. I take it back, a company back by a private benefactor who can spend 50 years perfecting a ruleset and spending BILLIONS of dollars on some books that won't sell for more then 50 bucks can make it work...also known as not bloody likely.
There is no such subrule.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic#TOC-Adding-Spells-to-a-Wizard-s-Spellbo
I think taking 10 and 20 and having a 100% success rate is stupid so I house rule it. JUST like your house ruling knoweldge retries. So no, don't give me that your playing by RAW non-sense because even you aren't following it.
I may not be playing by RAW, so you say, but I'm not creating rules that explicitly change how the game works and are otherwise specifically written.
And they did such a system...called 4e.
You mean 3e. When the game became based on rules instead of being made up.
If you think that your gonna get a pefectly written ruleset for games as complex as REAL D&D, WoD, warhammer or pretty much any REAL RPG vs computer clones on paper, then you are sadly mistaken. I take it back, a company back by a private benefactor who can spend 50 years perfecting a ruleset and spending BILLIONS of dollars on some books that won't sell for more then 50 bucks can make it work...also known as not bloody likely.
What point are you even trying to make? That because editing can't be perfect, I shouldn't be complaining about DMs that change rules that are explicitly written out where the change screws me over? Not bloody likely.
I removed some mutual antagonism. Fight over.
One of the most thrilling segments in any game I've ever played was due to a cursed sword that had a horrible affect on my character...and I'm pretty sure it's effects went well beyond anything supported in any rules.
One of the most thrilling segments of any game I've ever RUN was all of Shackled City up to the part where a PC ends up bonded with a pocket plane that they're suddenly morally obligated to "clean up" that has nothing to do with the actual adventure and ultimately drove the player to abandon the PC in question and the adventure path itself.
What I'm saying is that I lost an otherwise thriving adventure path because the module made arbitrary changes to the PC's character sheet that the player didn't want or agree to.
I say it again... as a DM do what you want to the plot. That's creative. Beyond that, you can kill, maim, or torture a PC, but don't so much as change a PC's eye-colour
Sounds like this sword is important to the character. If you want your character to be cool, and a lame effect is forced on him, it's reasonable to be a little upset.
Also, this player is working in game and using magic theory to come up with another way to end the embarassing incident instead of dragging it out and impacting the storyline by trying to drag the rest of the party to this anvil. This is especially tiresome for a character that's obviously intended to be self-sufficient. Be happy that your player is working with you and the game, rather than just killing his character, scrapping the sword, or getting increasingly despondant about his DM's hostile attitude towards him until he leaves.
edit: Also, is it possible he's deliberately doing this cleansing in a wild magic area because he's aware that normally all casting these spells would do is slag the sword, and is hoping that the wild magic will change the spells in a thematically appropriate way?
I think it is just amazing that he found a way to combine magic items that way. Paladins will be beating down his door wanting to put vorpal into their holy sword. So he destroyed the domar item, then did some reforging on his receiving item? Is it a special forge?
Anyways, I have some wild magic tables you can try. As a noble gesture, let the dice fall where they may this time.
On the subject of failing skill checks, a hummingbird cannot hover 5% of the time. The captain of the guard may never know who the mayor is of the town he was raised in when there are only 200 people living there. The town militia may not hear the battle raging on the other side of the picket fence, the head cleric of Iomedae may not remember even minor details of her own church.
These are all things that are possible to fail within the rules if you allow for a 1 to be a failure. None of them should ever be failures.
I like what the DM did.
He'd be welcome at my gaming table - I like a but of mystery and spice, and a bit of thought required on my part as a player.
If I want a game that sticks hardcore to the RAW and is inflexible with no need to invest in the game world I'll go play Monopoly.
|
|
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic#TOC-Adding-Spells-to-a-Wizard-s-Spellbo
There is no such subrule.
And that website is wrong. Read the book and the new spellcraft rule is retry after one week for scrolls and next day for barrowed spellbook. So yeah no such subrule exists anymore.
And they did such a system...called 4e.You mean 3e. When the game became based on rules instead of being made up.
Umm no...they TRIED and quickly learned how futile it was before moving onto 4e...which more or less is what you want if you can't accept that the rules WILL need houseruling.
If you think that your gonna get a pefectly written ruleset for games as complex as REAL D&D, WoD, warhammer or pretty much any REAL RPG vs computer clones on paper, then you are sadly mistaken. I take it back, a company back by a private benefactor who can spend 50 years perfecting a ruleset and spending BILLIONS of dollars on some books that won't sell for more then 50 bucks can make it work...also known as not bloody likely.What point are you even trying to make? That because editing can't be perfect, I shouldn't be complaining about DMs that change rules that are explicitly written out where the change screws me over? Not bloody likely.
How are the rules explictly out to get you?!? Are the monsters somehow not playing by my rules in my game or something?!? If the rules are applied equally, then it isn't about YOU...not one wit.
With or without a rule to support this, I would really like this to be moved to general discussion.
I have posted my random magic tables main file. It actually is homebrew as far as I can tell.
My general rule - DM Fiat is to be used to add something cool to the game, not something lame or crappy.
In this case, DM Fiat was used to snerk at someone who didn't play Mother May I with the DM. It was lame and crappy. Mother May I never ends well. Unless the DM outright stated "This will negatively effect your sword," guess what? The DM didn't warn him.
Were I the DM and for whatever reason I decided to do the whole "secret enchantment" thing, the first sword-thing would've given the sword the ability to command rats. It's cool, it adds to the game, and there's no antagonism.
Also whoever on page 1 mentioned John Wick, don't. He has like the worst DM advice in the universe. He's the guy who creates DMNPC villains purposefully to screw over his players.
See, here's fun fact. There is no DM vs PCs. There can't be. So long as the DM can say "rocks fall you die," there can be no vs there because the PCs cannot fight back. Now, PCs vs the rules? That's not only possible, it's the default.
Also for christ's sake cut the edition warring. You aren't cooler or better because you use a different nerd game to be a pretend elf in a magical rainbow forest around a table with a bunch of other nerds.
And that website is wrong. Read the book and the new spellcraft rule is retry after one week for scrolls and next day for barrowed spellbook. So yeah no such subrule exists anymore.
What?
And it's not here either. I don't have the book and if they can't bother to update their own PRD with the rules change, I can't bother to care.Umm no...they TRIED and quickly learned how futile it was before moving onto 4e...which more or less is what you want if you can't accept that the rules WILL need houseruling.
Except you don't NEED to house rule rules that are specifically defined already.
How are the rules explictly out to get you?!? Are the monsters somehow not playing by my rules in my game or something?!? If the rules are applied equally, then it isn't about YOU...not one wit.
I don't make skill checks? Is that why I'm not negatively affected by house rules that turn skill checks into 5% failure rates regardless of your skill total? That sounds wrong.
|
|
I have to agree with the Prof. It seems to me that while the actual effect of the accidental sword enchantment is pretty minor, the DM's motivation seems all wrong. The PC decided to destroy, for reasonably valid in-game reasons (albeit based on a misunderstanding), a piece of treasure. So what? But the DM seemed like he wanted to teach the guy a lesson ("don't destroy the treasure I, in my munificence as DM, deign to grant you, or there'll be trouble!") which to me just seems a bit mean-spirited. Posting up that the guy is "dumb" when he was probably just being faithful to his character is likewise a pretty mean-spirited thing. On the flipside, if everyone is having fun and are happy, it's a non-issue. But clearly it is an issue, otherwise this thread wouldn't exist. But the issue is the DM's, seemingly trying to punish his players' characters for the decisions they make in-game, albeit that in this instance the punishment was far from severe. If this sort of thing (destroying treasure, mucking about in a wild magic zone) is severely impacting the game, then this is where the player-DM chat comes in, not in-game irritations foisted on characters.
(Caveated, of course, that I don't know the full circumstances.)
Going back to the OP's orginal post...
You already put it to the player, all be it in a very cool and fun way using some spurious interpretation of the rules. I love the idea and think it makes for a fun side quest to find the anvil etc... but I would say you shouldnt take further steps to maim the guy. He casts spells that have no bearing on the enchanment qualities of a weapon and burns his spell slots to no effect. This clearly establishes that he needs to undertake the side quest and that there is no quick fix for the problem while not maiming the character or further hurting his weapon over something that you went outside the rules to put into play. For the record attempting to cast in a wild magic zone doesnt make him stupid, it just makes him a risk taker or desperate to have his prized possession back. Beyond that have you considered how much you are heaping on one player here...you took away his weapon and his spells...are you as hard on the rest of the party?
I like what the DM did.
He'd be welcome at my gaming table - I like a but of mystery and spice, and a bit of thought required on my part as a player.
If I want a game that sticks hardcore to the RAW and is inflexible with no need to invest in the game world I'll go play Monopoly.
I agree, but I think the stumbling point is that he presented the player with a non RAW problem, and then is only open to a RAW solution to the problem he presented... You have to play it fair and be flexible with creative solutions to creative problems.
And that website is wrong. Read the book and the new spellcraft rule is retry after one week for scrolls and next day for barrowed spellbook. So yeah no such subrule exists anymore.What?
Page 219 Core book has the wait until next Spellcraft rank subrule - just as the d20pfsrd link you posted shows.
The spellcraft is memorizing a foreign spell daily (assuming using spellcraft and no read magic), the learning and copying a spell is on pg 219 as the subrule in question.
Hope this helps.
When I GM I expect the players to trust me. I expect them to trust me to turn the rules into a pretzel if that's what it takes to make the game the most fun.
In my current PF campaign I know that at least 7 of the 8 characters have something that is impossible by the raw. For three of them it is items that have abilities they shouldn't normally have. For three of them it is templates they were able to accuire after raiding an ancient library that has texts on how to transform yourself. For the last one is familiar who is way more powerful than normal because I let her add to it with the leadership feat.
They know I'm not out to get them. They damn well aware that however I might fudge they didn't win just because I said so, but because they earned it.
If you can't trust your DM find a new one. If you can't ever find one you trust then I'd suggest thinking about why that is.
As to the rules about 1 and 20 on skill checks. I go with the rule that a nat 1 is treated as a -10. Horrible check but not auto-fail. A nat 20 is treated as a +30, not quite auto-success, but still damn good.
If he adds vermin bane to the sword, wouldn't that automaticly remove the rat summoning ability? Especially since a weapon has a maximum equivalent bonus of +10?
I agree that DM and player should talk about this.
|
|
If the DM had said something like "You remember a favorite childhood tale about Bob the Bumbler who tried to destroy his mother's everlasting gruel cooking pot while he create a Whistle of Piercing Loudness, and from then on whenever he blew his whistle, gobs of gruel flew out out it," before the character destroyed the pipes, that would be fair warning that the rules don't, in this case, define the rules of the world as the character understands it.
Making rule changes like this is within the perogative of a DM, but this makes it very important for a player to know their DM well, so they amuse or please their DM for good surprises rather than bad...and the DM needs to know his players well so he knows if gifts meant to be pleasant or at least...amusing...are so, and teasing/jokes are not carried so far the DM loses a good player due to overindulgence of his own desires.
The PC decided to destroy, for reasonably valid in-game reasons (albeit based on a misunderstanding), a piece of treasure. So what? But the DM seemed like he wanted to teach the guy a lesson ("don't destroy the treasure I, in my munificence as DM, deign to grant you, or there'll be trouble!") which to me just seems a bit mean-spirited.
Maybe he shouldn't have used the word "dumb", but that's not the point.
The PC was forging a sword. He used the exact same fire to destroy the item and then proceed to forge his sword in it.
If you set a tire on fire, and then cook over it, your food is going to come out tasting bad. Conversely, if you use special kinds of wood, your food might come out tasting awesome, for example, hickory smoked ribs.
The GM wasn't trying to screw over his player, he saw a perfectly plausible consequence for an action and add a small amount of COLOR to his campaign. He didn't give any mechanical penalties. He also gave the player a guaranteed way to fix the problem, with an assurance that the player would have the opportunity to use this solution within the natural course of the campaign. The player being impatient, decided to try using magic in an noted uncontrollable environment to have a very specific effect.
So if I fix a crack in a sword in a forge into which I have just tossed a ring of counterspelling, I get a sword of counterspelling! Hurray!
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Oh, I don't think anybody is saying that, Cartigan. Remember, the OP gave the sword in question a minor effect that didn't even crop up until the character had learned to throw the weapon.
I imagine that smelting a ring of counterspells when forging a sword probably wuldn't have any effect, but if it did, I can see it granting spell resistance (say, SR 14) to any creasture or material into whcih someone has stuck its blade. That's a minor power, perhaps even inconvenient to the PC.
Certainly not something worth tossing away such a valuable ring.
We still haven't heard whether or not the player is actually enjoying the results of his actions from the OP. An answer would clear up alot.
There is no problem with the DM becoming a pied piper in regards to offering a choice and penalizing a character when they don't follow along, if player has some hint of the consequences. After that everything is fair game. But I agree for the most part it is better to add to the game, or remain neutral, before adding detrimental effects (unless the character has been warned). Or you can just play by RAW if that is your preference.
As to the player’s second choice in regards to a wild magic zone, he or she probably feels the choices are being forced, so why not go against the DMs suggestion to fix it.