TriOmegaZero wrote:
Agree totally. I have gotten much better.
The Sword wrote:
To tell you the truth it happend so long ago that I dont remember exactly what happened Im pretty sure it was a med snake.
Saldiven wrote:
Agree, I'm much more prepaird now.
2ndGenerationCleric wrote: I'd let the character survive. Or give back the hero points. Or give the replacement character hero points as an apology I would have, but this happend 3 levels ago the player has re-rolled a new PC. this came up only after the Druid in the group got wild shape and understood it Months later (now). The player who died is not the one with the issue although Im sure she is not happy about her Barbarian dying...
Beopere wrote:
Which we did as a group at the table. I agree its easy enough to die with bad die rolls...
Arloro wrote: How did wild shape in this case cause said character's death? Confusion with the creature's type while wild shaped? Spoiler: It was the Goblin Druid on Thistletop, in Rise of the Runelords. He turned into a snake and grappled a Barbarian. Which, apparently, he should not have been able to do at that level of wild shape.
I'm a newer GM, I freely admit not knowing all the rules and I never will. At my table a while ago we had a character death due to wild shape, which I was unfamiliar with, I had my players look it up and do what we thought was right. Later we found that we misunderstood the rules and the Character death should not have occurred. I have some players now saying that as a GM I should have full understanding of the rules, especially when a character death is involved. I replied that we as a group misunderstood and there is a level of responsibility of the player(s) to double check that any rule is being done correctly. I feel that I should not have to look up every rule I’m one person there are five others sitting at the table with internet access that can look things up in minutes while I try and move the story along. This turned into a bit of a heated disagreement which left me not wanting to GM further. Am I that far off base, that no GM understands every rule? If a table consensus is wrong should the GM take the blame? I’m a very forgiving GM who does not want any PC to die, especially from a misunderstood rule.
Awesome food for thought! You have all touched on the things that made me iffy in the 1st place. Thanks! I will not be allowing leadership until I become a better GM (plenty of room there lol). I guess the problem now is figuring out if this is the type of game he wants to play in, and getting them to think about group dynamics. We are not playing this week so it gives me some time to think about how to approach the issues. Thanks again for your help.
I’m Semi new to GM'ing, and I have never posted anything before so I hope this is in the right place. The group of 5 I’m running through ROTRL is for the most part new, the leader of the group is very experienced in builds and Society Play. He is unhappy with the other player’s inexperience and willingness to learn (which for the most part is true), and the make up of the party. Currently they have a 5th lv cleric with 3 lv's of cleric and 2 of ranger, a 5th level Druid, a 5th lv monk with 4 lv's of monk and 1 of druid. And a 5th level rogue. They are playing core with 15 point buy. To try and make up for the lack of party balance he wants to take the Leadership feat. Here is his plan: I. Leadership Score (19)
Wow right? Although I think it would be interesting to explore the leadership feat the others in the group are starting to get a little upset with him trying to "Teach" them what to do. I’m very concerned if I allow this, it will create a lot of problems that I’m not experience enough to deal with. Any input would be most welcome.
should get this today! I have turned my daughters onto tabletop RPG's, they in turn have turned on a couple of their friends, so now we have a loyal weekly group playing Pathfinder. They are 2nd level and about to go on an adventure they will talk about for the rest of their lives! How cool is that! |