Issues with DM of game.

[MrCharisma]

Bandw2 wrote:

Brother Fen wrote:

I had an issue similar to this over the weekend. The PCs were fighting a mimic which was currently flanked by the barbarian and the rogue. The rogue wanted to use his backstab, but I initially ruled "no" because I felt that the mimic was an unconventional creature without a true face or "facing" that would lead it to being unaware of incoming attacks such as a backstab.

One of the players suggested that unless it stated in the monster listing that it was immune to backstab or flanking that I should allow the backstab. I relented and agreed to let the rogue get his backstab because it is not listed anywhere that the mimic is immune to such attacks, regardless of whether or not I thought it should be immune.

feels like your playing ADnD, or did 2e keep the back stab?

anyway in pathfinder things can have "all around vision" so it would require that in it's stat block in pathfinder.

That's a tougher call. I'd be more inclined to agree that a "backstab" (or sneak attack) wouldn't work so well on a mimic.

Quote:

Sneak Attack: If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.

(Core Rule Book p68)

In this case, the player would have to make a compelling argument that their character knew what a mimic's "vital spots" are. If they could convince me that they (and their character) knew this, I'd let them get away with it, but otherwise nope. If they'd fought a lot of mimics I'd be more generous.

[kestral287]

Do you similarly make Rogues prove that they know the weak points of dragons, elves, dwarves, orcs, skeletons, liches, angels, demons, daemons, etc., etc.? Because a mimic is no different. Mimics actually have a specific mini-template that gives them the chance to ignore sneak attack damage, but without that they do not.

[a shadow]

I think I'd side with the DM on these two issues.

I could see the headless undead angel being immune to feint. BUT I see the argument for the other side as well. If his rulings bother you THAT much though, my advice would be to roll with it in game but afterwards state your case and back it up with whatever evidence you have and ask him to explain why he thinks Monster X isn't affected by Ability Y. A DM isn't obligated to follow the rules and can adjudicate things as he sees fit so you're probably fighting an uphill battle.

As far as the spider swarm being immune to spells that require Will saves, I think if they're immune to the spell then the secondary effects would have no effect either. I don't think you have much of an argument there.

[Bandw2]

MrCharisma wrote:

stuff

here ye here ye, we've decided to break the rogue even more apparently.

[Bandw2]

a shadow wrote:

As far as the spider swarm being immune to spells that require Will saves, I think if they're immune to the spell then the secondary effects would have no effect either. I don't think you have much of an argument there.

except they do have a will save unlike undead which are immune to things that require a fortitude save.

[alexd1976]

Cuup wrote:

alexd1976 wrote:

Cuup, you mentioned that the GM hadn't said it was blind, in literally the first (original) post this was said:

"DM ruled that the target of my feint was immune to feint because it does not have eyes, and would not react to a feint maneuver. Yes that is literally how he explains it."

Which is what I would draw attention to.

I would ask the GM _why_ not having eyes is relevant, if it has Blindsight...

Can it, or can it not, see? Is it blind and not blind at the same time, gaining the benefits and none of the penalties?

If this is how having no eyes and having blindsight works, then players should have the characters gain blindsight (magic items allow for this I believe) and GOUGE OUT THEIR EYES! Forever immune to feint, hooray!

No reason not to, mechanically... other than scrolls and spellbooks I guess.

Language: Braille.

If it cannot perceive it's opponents actions, then should it not be flatfooted against ranged attacks? (if it ignores feint because it can't see, it won't notice an arrow being fired either, right?)

If it has no head, then presumably it has no ears, shouldn't it then get a -4 to initiative?

Clearly this monster was designed to be functionally identical to a normal monster, just stylistically missing it's head.

It's really bad GMing, and the best way I have found to deal with it is to get the GM to tell us more about the condition.

If he is going to re-write how the game works, the players have a right to know.

I'm really sorry, but you've got me very confused at this point. Here is the first post of this thread, copy-pasted:

Wolfwood 82 wrote:

First off, I understand and accept that the DM has the final say regarding rules.

However I feel that, over the past 2 years at least, the DM that heads up the games I play in is abusing this rule specifically to spite me. This occurs in games outside of pathfinder, however we mostly play pathfinder.

What I'm looking for is advice I guess. I don't really want to walk away

...

I'm simply trying to advise the player involved here to get the GM mentioned in the original post to try and understand his owned flawed logic:

He can't be tricked by feint cause he is blind (no eyes) but can attack and react to attacks normally (blindsight).

It's contradictory, and very bad GMing.

I'm not getting hung up on anything other than trying to advise the poster here, as per the theme of this particular thread.

[Thelemic_Noun]

I have no idea what your relationship with them is like, but the following are some tips if you ever end up in the worst-case scenario: a self-centered jerk who behaves like the pointy-haired boss from Dilbert (or, for a less dated reference, Kevin Spacey's character from Horrible Bosses).

A little-discussed method of dealing with overbearing people in a superior position is to subtly reframe their ideas, presenting them as if they were their idea, agree with the idea, and compliment their cleverness/pragmatism/consistency/idealism, either directly or in a backhanded manner, depending on their temperament.

Things that won't work:

Directly confronting them with prior statements by them that contradict their current position.

A purely reason-based argument with no emotional appeal.

Giving someone a script and having them deliver your stance by proxy.

[Mike J]

Wolfwood82 wrote:

He did state that I could instead attack the thing with my first attack, instead of attempt to feint it, because he was making that call.

I spent a good 3 minutes thinking about whether or not I would walk away though. In the end, it had an AC of 32, my bonuses ranged from +29 to +19 at the lowest iterative, and I turned it into hamburger before I rolled out my 4th attack, it wasn't "game breaking" enough at the time. The only real reason I was feinting it was because my feint partner (his character) had improved feint partner and I wanted to give her the AoO that came with it (role play reasons). That and, despite my +27 bluff, I had yet to successfully feint anything....

Emphasis mine.

If I'm reading that right, this GM has a GMPC. While that isn't necessarily the end of the world (I've played a GMPC or two successfully from time to time), it raises numerous red flags. Combine GMPC (done badly) with "Old School" style gaming (AKA GM rules all) and a few questionable rule calls, and you might be in a situation where you are literally playing the "GM's game". You and the other PCs might be minor "extras" on his movie set. I'm betting that in his mind, you aren't sticking to the "script". If this is the case, I doubt there is little you can do besides play your part or walk away.