|
I have a quick question/ scenario. Party runs across a group of 7 hill giants. I play a dwarven fighter/rogue. I chug a potion of Enlarge. DM rules that in addition to the pluses and minuses incurred by the potion, I also lose my +4 ac vs. giants because I am no longer smaller and thus would lose my racial ability. Does this sound good to anyone? BTW 10th level average our party of 5. I keep gettin' odd "realistic" rulings like this and its starting to grate on me. Another example: -4 ac for fighting in 4-5 foot of water on top of losing Dex bonus and minuses to attack and such. Why would you lose 4ac? Did my chain shirt suddenly fall off? I already lost my dex bonus. WTF? The penalties on top of penalties is just killing the game for me. I need feedback.
FH (stumped)
|
I think losing the 4 ac in water on top of the dex bonus is bullcrap. The dex bonus I half understand. The rest comes from armor, right? Maybe your chainmail is soggy. I don't really know about the racial bonus vs. giants and chugging the potion of growth. It feels wrong to me, though, to get hosed when you are using a beneficial SINGLE USE magic item. Maybe it's a cursed potion of growth. Look out, man, your dwarf might get elephant man's disease. (edit) potion of enlarge...wow, I am an old grungy bastich. I need a potion of longevity.
I think losing the 4 ac in water on top of the dex bonus is bullcrap. The dex bonus I half understand. The rest comes from armor, right? Maybe your chainmail is soggy. I don't really know about the racial bonus vs. giants and chugging the potion of growth. It feels wrong to me, though, to get hosed when you are using a beneficial SINGLE USE magic item. Maybe it's a cursed potion of growth. Look out, man, your dwarf might get elephant man's disease. (edit) potion of enlarge...wow, I am an old grungy bastich. I need a potion of longevity.
I agree with your DM that you lose the +4ac bonuse vs giants. Since you no longer have the advantage of size when fighting them and unless they are a 'favored enemy' (I don't think the dwarven rogue has a favored enemy)then the bonus would be lost.
That is how I would have played it, and have played it in campaigns.|
|
Is the dungeonmaster getting insecurity? Sometimes they do, and they start trying to stick it to the characters, because they're insecure about their "ability to challenge them adequately." I've been there, on both sides of the table.
Maybe try a little "overly cautious guy who kills all the dungeon masters' character hooks by being too rational to attempt such a deadly mission." THAT always straightened me out as dungeon master.
The dm will have to respond by sending a slew of bumbling drunken ettins after the party to "rebuild the party's confidence in themselves."
Heathensson, master of passive dragon aggressive tiger-style
Is the dungeonmaster getting insecurity? Sometimes they do, and they start trying to stick it to the characters, because they're insecure about their "ability to challenge them adequately." I've been there, on both sides of the table.
Maybe try a little "overly cautious guy who kills all the dungeon masters' character hooks by being too rational to attempt such a deadly mission." THAT always straightened me out as dungeon master.
The dm will have to respond by sending a slew of bumbling drunken ettins after the party to "rebuild the party's confidence in themselves."Heathensson, master of passive dragon aggressive tiger-style
It has nothing to do with insecurity. If the bonus is gained due to height differences, and the dwarf needs to height change to adequately battle the giant for what ever reason, then the bonuses that the player gets are gone. Simple as that. A good DM does not need to slide the rules to gain the upper hand in a game. The DM should be the guide and the referee. It is ultimately up to him/her to decide. In this case, the decision was fair and just.
|
|
I agree with your point, JET. I was working on my schmaltzy diatribe before your first post appeared, it wasn't meant as a comeback.
God, I feel like Nicholas Cage in the Weatherman the last couplea days. I'm taking a vow of silence; the poverty is handled.
Fakey, I know, "Iiiiiiiim iiiiiiiiin troooooooouble...."
|
|
It has nothing to do with insecurity. If the bonus is gained due to height differences, and the dwarf needs to height change to adequately battle the giant for what ever reason, then the bonuses that the player gets are gone. Simple as that. A good DM does not need to slide the rules to gain the upper hand in a game. The DM should be the guide and the referee. It is ultimately up to him/her to decide. In this case, the decision was fair and just.Is the dungeonmaster getting insecurity? Sometimes they do, and they start trying to stick it to the characters, because they're insecure about their "ability to challenge them adequately." I've been there, on both sides of the table.
Maybe try a little "overly cautious guy who kills all the dungeon masters' character hooks by being too rational to attempt such a deadly mission." THAT always straightened me out as dungeon master.
The dm will have to respond by sending a slew of bumbling drunken ettins after the party to "rebuild the party's confidence in themselves."Heathensson, master of passive dragon aggressive tiger-style
Nothing in the Enlarge spell, rules or any book state that a dwarf would lose his ac bonus. I take the -1 ac due to size from the potion. Dwarves are taught how to deal with giants tactically and the rules have reflected that with a +4 ac. I DO think of it as a favored enemy-type of bonus. Dwarves are also taught how to fight against goblinoids, the rules translate that as a +1 to attacks. It never states that it is a size ruling for either bonus. If it did I wouldn't have a problem with this scenario. When you couple this with the ridiculous water ruling and a few others it just seems to be a lot less fun and lot more railroading/do-as-I-sayism. (new word). I am considering leaving the group over this stuff. I am not having fun anymore and what is the point if you aren't having fun? I have only been with the group for 9 months or so, it would suck to leave but we all deal with real life everyday and I like escaping into a fantasy world where I can do.............lots of stuff. I like and agree with RAW in general, but this just seems like constantly beating down the PCs over someones pre-concieved notions of "realism".
FH
According to the RAW, you shouldn't lose that bonus against giants specifically because it's a Dodge bonus and not a Size bonus, although I could see some arguments for why you would lose it (if it were a Racial bonus, then there would be no way to claim it should be lost). However, even in the light of those arguments, an enlarged Dwarf is still smaller than most giants, and its really more about a Dwarf's surefootedness than his size.
As for fighting in the water, according to the RAW (DMG - Underwater Combat), in water of that depth, you always have a +8 bonus to AC and +4 bonus to Reflex saves due to improved cover against any landbound opponent, unless they have Freedom of Movement (doesn't apply for Reflex saves).
Also, by the RAW, you only lose your Dex to AC while swimming if you are flailing about in the water for some reason (i.e., you failed a swim check), in which case enemies also get a +2 bonus to hit you until you succeed on a swim check. Admittedly, this isn't explicitly stated anywhere, but the table of penalties for underwater combat only lists an AC penalty under the section of what happens when someone is "off-balance".
Because of the height of the water your Dwarf would have had to have been swimming, but you shouldn't have lost that 4ac, unless maybe you failed a swim check, and you were entangled or something.
I agree with your DM that you lose the +4ac bonuse vs giants. Since you no longer have the advantage of size when fighting them and unless they are a 'favored enemy' (I don't think the dwarven rogue has a favored enemy)then the bonus would be lost.
That is how I would have played it, and have played it in campaigns.
If you see this ability as based on the size of giants, then what about when the dwarf fights a medium sized giant such as the Taer from Unnaproachable East? No where in the RAW does it say "the dwarf gains this bonus only against giants larger than the dwarf".
The 3.5 PH states that the AC bonus dwarves gain is a dodge bonus against monters of the giant type. It is stated that this is an ability developed by dwarves over the course of generations and that dwarves get trained in that ability.
To me, there is nothing there to indicate that this has anything to do with their size, or the size of their enemies.
It is IMHO similar to the dodge feat, only with a higher numeric value agains a specific group of enemies, and against all attackers from that group, not only one.
It is said that this bonus is lost when an Dex bonus to AC would be lost, or the dwarf is caught flat-flooted. Again, nothing indicates that this has anything to do with size. IMHO, the ruling of your DM is clearly wrong.
Stefan
This is entirely the DM's call. Here's how I'd rule it, though: an enlarged dwarf retains his bonus versus giants. The +4 bonus to AC is largely due to traditional dwarven training versus giants, not merely size; if it was due to size, gnomes and halflings would get it too. An enlarged dwarf is only as tall as a normal human.
I think I can see where your DM is coming from; he might be imagining that the dwarf can no longer run between the giants' legs or whatever. I'd perhaps remove part of the AC bonus, but not all, if that were the case. That's up to your DM, of course.
However, if you ask me, I imagine that the bonus derives from the dwarf's training that makes him able to predict the opponent's attacks. To a dwarf, they're all the same - slow, lumpy and predictable, swinging one heavy weapon or another. For that reason, I wouldn't deny the dwarf his AC bonus.
|
I pretty much agree with Jonathan... The bonus isn't just a size issue, or gnomes and halflings would have it as well, so it must derive more from tactics and training. Dwarves tend to be more martial and straight-forward... I see a dwarven father or grandfather passing on the secrets of combat to the young generation; "Y'see, goblins, yeh gotta smack 'em upside the head with yer axe. Giants, though, them yeh gotta duck left, smack in the ankle, then when they fall, smack 'em in the head with yer axe."
I DO think that size and its effective use would be a strong part of that, and I do think that it's your DMs call on how the bonus might get applied in certain situations. I would probably give you half of the bonus in the enlarged form because your 'vs. Giants' bag of tricks would be a bit reduced. I think completely negating the bonus was too much, but that's just my opinion.
I'm in the player's camp on this one. As a DM, my job is to organize and present the story, play the NPCs, and adjudicate the rules. In this case, the RAW is pretty clear (though it can admittedly be very ambiguous on certain issues). The description of the Dwarf's dodge Vs. giants lists the instances in which the bonus would be lost. Changing size doesn't alter it, and I see no logical reason why it should, as it is a result of training (and as was pointed out, increasing in size carries inherent AC penalties already, which account for all of the reasons a DM might use to justify the loss of the dodge bonus in the first place). Just because you get bigger doesn't mean you forget that training, plain and simple.
I join with the majority on the dodge bonus to AC vs. giants: an enlarged dwarf does not lose this racial ability.
As for the -4 to AC for fighting in 4-5 feet of water...the rules for underwater combat are set forth in the DMG (page 92). And since a character who is completely submerged, does not have a swim speed, lacks firm footing, and blows his Swim check suffers only a -2 penalty to AC (in addition to losing his Dex bonus to AC), I'd say your DM was WAY off in his ruling.
However, the real question is what are you going to do about it? He may not be perfect, but at least he's willing to DM, right? Is anyone else ready to take up the job? Will that cause a lot of hard feelings? Do you have at least some fun when he DMs? I think you see my point.
Anyway, good luck with it!
The +4 bonus to AC is largely due to traditional dwarven training versus giants, not merely size; if it was due to size, gnomes and halflings would get it too.
Just thought I'd point out that gnomes do get it. According to the PH they have "special training, and have learned tricks" for fighting giants... nothing in their about size though.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I agree with the camp that says the bonus is not lost. Do you lose the benefit of mobility when you fly past an ememy rather than walk? Do you lose the benefit of two weapon fighting when your size changes? No. You get to keep mechanical benefits even if "realisticly" you would not.
As for water, not only is your DM wrong about losing an AC bonus, you should actually gain an AC bonus according to the DMG. Check out the entry for the bog terrain:
A square that is part of a deep bog has roughly 4 feet of standing water. It costs Medium or larger creatures 4 squares of movement to move into a square with a deep bog, or characters can swim if they wish. Small or smaller creatures must swim to move through a deep bog. Tumbling is impossible in a deep bog.The water in a deep bog provides cover for Medium or larger creatures. Smaller creatures gain improved cover (+8 bonus to AC, +4 bonus on Reflex saves). Medium or larger creatures can crouch as a move action to gain this improved cover. Creatures with this improved cover take a -10 penalty on attacks against creatures that aren’t underwater.
Note that there is nothing in the above quote to suggest that you lose your dex bonus to AC, much less gain a penalty.
IMO, your DM needs to either play by the RAW or tell you what his house rules are and apply the consistently. A DM that makes a million on the fly rulings for the sake of his own conception of "realistic" is one of my pet peeves.
|
|
I don't agree with JET at all no more. I looked at the books some, and Fakey is, RAWwise, 100% right on both points, IMBO.
I read somewheres that if you are DM, what you say goes. BUT...if you start slapping together new rules, it's kind of nice to let the characters in on it, BEFORE they start chugging potions of enlargment/jumping in water/whatnot.
|
|
This is entirely the DM's call. Here's how I'd rule it, though: an enlarged dwarf retains his bonus versus giants. The +4 bonus to AC is largely due to traditional dwarven training versus giants, not merely size; if it was due to size, gnomes and halflings would get it too. An enlarged dwarf is only as tall as a normal human.
The dwarves are trained in battling giants, but the training is probably based on them usually being their normal size, not enlarged. Maybe that is where the DM is coming from on this rule. Although even then I wouldn't agree that the dwarf would lose the entire bonus (not that I agree with losing any of the bonus).
Keep in mind that DMs are (for the most part) only human. I sometimes call something on the fly because I don't want to spend 10 minutes flipping through rule books. Sometimes the judgement call benefits the players, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes the call is fair, other times... mistakes happen. I personally don't think a few bad calls (or good calls that don't favour a player) are worth quitting over, but maybe there are deeper issues going on that I'm not aware of. I recommend discussing the call with the DM after the game, or showing him the differing points of view that were brought up on a thread like this one. Avoid "shaming" the DM, just explain in a constructive manner what you are thinking/feeling in relation to the game. DMing ain't easy... and if you think it is, then maybe you should volunteer to DM a few sessions for the group. That's my 2 coppers...
Director of Sales
|
It sounds to me like you were punished for being inventive and furthermore...
I am not having fun anymore and what is the point if you aren't having fun?
...You know exactly what you need to do.
Needless to say, I'm in the no loss to bonuses camp... But then again, please note the "Customer Service Rep" in my avatar title, as opposed to "D&D Rules Adjudication Expert".
I'm just a player who doesn't like playing with an adversarial DM. Some players are into that, but not me. And it sounds like you have a pretty adversarial DM.
DM rules that in addition to the pluses and minuses incurred by the potion, I also lose my +4 ac vs. giants because I am no longer smaller and thus would lose my racial ability.
The Dwarven racial dodge bonus is not due to size. It is only applicable against giant types. It is not applicable against other non-giant creatures whom are the same size as giants, therefore it is not bonus due to size. The size modifier, if the character is small, as gnomes are, stacks with this bonus. You do not lose this racial bonus when you are enlarged, but your size modifier for being a different size does change.
-4 ac for fighting in 4-5 foot of water on top of losing Dex bonus and minuses to attack and such.
I am not 100% conversant with the rules of fighting in water. Realisticly, if you are a dwarf...fighting in 4-5 feet of water should give you close to total concealment, not a negative to your armor class. Also, if the DM is arbitratily handing out the penalties to you, is he handing them out to his NPC's as well? Share and share alike.
FH (stumped)
I believe that the cover bonus from water assumes that the water isn't crystal clear like we know from swimming pools, but very quickly becomes murky and near impossible to see through. Further, the bonus reflects the stopping power of a fluid when trying to swing something through it, starting in the air. As a final miscellaneous reason, when the water moves and ripples, the image of the target disorts. Now, two of those sound more like concealment to me, but the fact remains that it is still hard for someone on land to poke/slash/crush you when you are neck-deep in water, and (this is important) under control of your own movement.
Whether or not your weight, your gear, or the water is affecting your ability to move is represented by the swim check. If you make it, and have the aforementioned firm footing, it is already assumed that you retain enough control over your movement and speed of movement that you suffer no penalties, statistically, and can even use the physical presence of the water to your advantage.
Your DM is way off on both counts. All that I could say about the loss of the AC bonus has already been said; it was a bad call, through and through. Also, the water/AC penalty call was completely off base.
|
|
Let me clear up the water issue. Scrags surprised us while we were wading in a 10'wide, partially submerged hallway. How a large creature movesall the way down a hallway and surprises a party without us getting a spot roll or something is beyond me. 3or4 Aquatic trolls moving down a hallway in 4-5 foot of water would make a pretty noticable wake, no? How big are trolls? Too damn big for that IMO.
House rules in this campaign.
All racial ability modifiers are gone.
All races age at the same rate as humans.
Gnomes don't exist, I quote "aren't they just like halflings".
modified 15 point buy to generate abilities. If you don't min/max to the extreme you end up with 3-10s,2-11s and a 13. Thats my scores now.
It costs 500gp per level to train(exclude 1st) i.e. to train from 9th to 10th level costs 4500gp. And training takes a week per level/9-10 is 10weeks.
Evasion- take full damage if you fail save, 1/4 if you make it.
Imp Evasion-you can use a tumble check instead of reflex save.
Dropping below 0 hp leaves you fatigued (-2 str and dex) until you are healed to full hp
Magic items cannot be bought except potions and scrolls.
Magic items are very rare and usually low power. (+1 chain shirt on a 10th level character!)
That was the challenge I was presented and I took it thinking that I could work within these guidelines at a gritty game. When off the cuff ruling work to reduce my 19 ac (at 10th level) down to 14 ac against creatures with a to hit bonus of +12 or more, I tend towards getting very frustrated. I hate hearing that "They were only CR7 creatures, and you guys are a 10th level party." Yeah, well 7 cr7's is like a 12EL encounter. And we can hardly be considered a 10th level party with minimal ability scores, lack of resources, and lack of magical umph. The DM PC wizard rarely has trouble hitting anything. Why? Because his spells weren't treated to the same wonderful adjustments that any Rogue-type or Fighter-type has underwent.
Sorry for the Rant. It took 2 months+ to find a group and I hate that I need to start looking again. There is too much wrong for a simple talk to fix.
FH
Let me clear up the water issue. Scrags surprised us while we were wading in a 10'wide, partially submerged hallway. How a large creature movesall the way down a hallway and surprises a party without us getting a spot roll or something is beyond me. 3or4 Aquatic trolls moving down a hallway in 4-5 foot of water would make a pretty noticable wake, no? How big are trolls? Too damn big for that IMO.
That reminds me of those funny quotes given in Dragon may years ago (I think it was in the 130s or 140s)It started with "If you hear the following as a DM then there is a slight chance you might have been unfair". One of the quotes was "So the 40ft tall T Rex surprised us while we were moving through a grassy plain" or something similar. Another one was " I didn´t know that Arch-Devils traveled in groups." Is this what comes next ?Sorry, that is no help to your frustration, but I couldn´t resist.
House rules in this campaign.
All racial ability modifiers are gone.
All races age at the same rate as humans.
Gnomes don't exist, I quote "aren't they just like halflings".
modified 15 point buy to generate abilities. If you don't min/max to the extreme you end up with 3-10s,2-11s and a 13. Thats my scores now.
It costs 500gp per level to train(exclude 1st) i.e. to train from 9th to 10th level costs 4500gp. And training takes a week per level/9-10 is 10weeks.
Evasion- take full damage if you fail save, 1/4 if you make it.
Imp Evasion-you can use a tumble check instead of reflex save.
Dropping below 0 hp leaves you fatigued (-2 str and dex) until you are healed to full hp
Magic items cannot be bought except potions and scrolls.
Magic items are very rare and usually low power. (+1 chain shirt on a 10th level character!)
Hm, why didn´t he rule out demi-humans completely, it makes not much difference anyway? These houserules are very strange. The game differs from what I would consider the core of D&D very much. As was discussed in another thread, D&D is not the right game system for a realistic game play, and trying to push it in that direction does no good.
That was the challenge I was presented and I took it thinking that I could work within these guidelines at a gritty game. When off the cuff ruling work to reduce my 19 ac (at 10th level) down to 14 ac against creatures with a to hit bonus of +12 or more, I tend towards getting very frustrated. I hate hearing that "They were only CR7 creatures, and you guys are a 10th level party." Yeah, well 7 cr7's is like a 12EL encounter. And we can hardly be considered a 10th level party with minimal ability scores, lack of resources, and lack of magical umph. The DM PC wizard rarely has trouble hitting anything. Why? Because his spells weren't treated to the same wonderful adjustments that any Rogue-type or Fighter-type has underwent.
Sorry for the Rant. It took 2 months+ to find a group and I hate that I need to start looking again. There is too much wrong for a simple talk to fix.
A gritty game might be ok, but this seems to be more a case of DM self-aggrandizement, and the DM PC wizard makes it even worse. The only counsel I can give is: talk to the DM about your gripes (in private) and why his game is no fun for you. If you cannot reach an agreement that allows you to have fun again and the DM to realize his ideas, then you should consider searching for a new group. Did you talk to the other players ? What is their opinion on the DMs style of play ? If they have similar gripes, perhaps if they tell the DM aso, you might change something. If not, try to take the good players and make a new group, if they are willing.
Stefan
|
|
Stefan, good points all. The core group has been together for 15+years, I am the newb. I would feel evil stealing players from the group so I can't/won't consider that. I enjoy the company but don't know if talking to the other players would be something that would get back to the DM in a negative way, he tells a good story I just dispise the rules invoked.
Guess I need to mull it over for a while.
FH
|
|
Just out of curiosity, how many of the scrags got a surprise attack on the initial 'ambush?'
2, it happenened just before an intersection (T, us coming up the leg) and the 2 fought side by side at the intersection while 3 others waited for an opening. We all had waterbreathing cast on us so the drowning issue was moot.
FH
|
|
As for water, not only is your DM wrong about losing an AC bonus, you should actually gain an AC bonus according to the DMG. Check out the entry for the bog terrain:
A square that is part of a deep bog has roughly 4 feet of standing water. It costs Medium or larger creatures 4 squares of movement to move into a square with a deep bog, or characters can swim if they wish. Small or smaller creatures must swim to move through a deep bog. Tumbling is impossible in a deep bog.The water in a deep bog provides cover for Medium or larger creatures. Smaller creatures gain improved cover (+8 bonus to AC, +4 bonus on Reflex saves). Medium or larger creatures can crouch as a move action to gain this improved cover. Creatures with this improved cover take a -10 penalty on attacks against creatures that aren’t underwater.
Note that there is nothing in the above quote to suggest that you lose your dex bonus to AC, much less gain a penalty.
That is indeed the case; however, I take the above bonuses to be the benefit gained from hiding in water to get cover from ranged attackers.
Have you ever heard the phrase "As easy as shooting fish in a barrel"?
If you are a landlubber, weighed down in armour and gear (and I personally find the underwater modifiers lenient), having to make Swim checks just to stay where you are, then IMO, as well as the penalties explicitly stated in the 'underwater combat' portion of the DMG, there are other(implicit) factors, that follow on, which players/DMs really ought to consider, such as:
If you count as carrying out 'strenuous movement' to stay afloat/stay still, then bang goes your free 5' step, bang goes any full-round actions, you lose your full attack/extra weapon attack, lose the ability to Tumble or charge, and lose concentration on spells, etc. Anyone think of any I've missed?
If you're in melee with an aquatic creature who is in its favoured environment, and knows all the tricks, then those cover/concealment penalties above are irrelevant. The creature is right next to you, it knows where you are, and its natural weaponry is designed specifically for slicing through water, into your bumbling, flailing ass.
Same goes for an attacker out of the water, on firm footing, jabbing down at you with a long spear or polearm, while you flap about. Have you ever seen primitive fishermen catch their dinner? Ready, set, BANG! Wouldn't happen if the (Diminutive)fish were AC30+, would it?
You are (quite rightly) dogmeat.
That said, I do believe FH's DM is running a very harsh game, and would it not be better to run a game whose rules were designed this way from the start to reflect gritty realism, rather than modifying a high-fantasy game, and messing with all the players' expectations?
It seems wierd that many of the house rules seem to penalise fighter/rogue types, while leaving spellcasters intact. Usually, DMs get frustrated with the wizards running amok, and try to nerf them, to encourage a more low-magic setting.
I find myself agog at the power of PCs sometimes, but I have to fight the urge to screw with the game, since many of the low-level creatures DO die like flies, since they are simple brutes and bruisers. At later levels, the appropriate challengers gain some seriously sick abilities, and the players find their characters can't simply rely on swatting them aside.
My campaign will be going underwater in a bit, but I have planned for this, and will be giving the PCs access to (some) tools to do the job, I won't just chuck them in the ocean, to sink or swim. A memorable campaign is one in which the PCs survive (while feeling they were always on the brink of defeat), not one where they die like dogs every time they poke their nose out the front door.
DM rules that in addition to the pluses and minuses incurred by the potion, I also lose my +4 ac vs. giants because I am no longer smaller and thus would lose my racial ability.The Dwarven racial dodge bonus is not due to size. It is only applicable against giant types. It is not applicable against other non-giant creatures whom are the same size as giants, therefore it is not bonus due to size. The size modifier, if the character is small, as gnomes are, stacks with this bonus. You do not lose this racial bonus when you are enlarged, but your size modifier for being a different size does change.
-4 ac for fighting in 4-5 foot of water on top of losing Dex bonus and minuses to attack and such.I am not 100% conversant with the rules of fighting in water. Realisticly, if you are a dwarf...fighting in 4-5 feet of water should give you close to total concealment, not a negative to your armor class. Also, if the DM is arbitratily handing out the penalties to you, is he handing them out to his NPC's as well? Share and share alike.
FH (stumped)
Having been a DM since the late seventies, I have to say I still agree with the loss of the +4 bonus. Even if it is not a racial bonus and a fighting bonus, he earned it by learning to fight against a foe much bigger than he. Now that he is closer to the size of the giant, then those techniques for fighting a larger foe are moot.
IMH(and experienced)OJeff
DM rules that in addition to the pluses and minuses incurred by the potion, I also lose my +4 ac vs. giants because I am no longer smaller and thus would lose my racial ability.The Dwarven racial dodge bonus is not due to size. It is only applicable against giant types. It is not applicable against other non-giant creatures whom are the same size as giants, therefore it is not bonus due to size. The size modifier, if the character is small, as gnomes are, stacks with this bonus. You do not lose this racial bonus when you are enlarged, but your size modifier for being a different size does change.
-4 ac for fighting in 4-5 foot of water on top of losing Dex bonus and minuses to attack and such.I am not 100% conversant with the rules of fighting in water. Realisticly, if you are a dwarf...fighting in 4-5 feet of water should give you close to total concealment, not a negative to your armor class. Also, if the DM is arbitratily handing out the penalties to you, is he handing them out to his NPC's as well? Share and share alike.
FH (stumped)
Having been a DM since the late seventies, I have to say I still agree with the loss of the +4 bonus. Even if it is not a racial bonus and a fighting bonus, he earned it by learning to fight against a foe much bigger than he. Now that he is closer to the size of the giant, then those techniques for fighting a larger foe are moot.
IMH(and experienced)OJeff
Not to mention that the dwarf would have learned to battle larger foes on land, not in 4-5 feet of water. A person who has played volleyball their whole life on a court will not be an instant expert when they first start playing volleyball in a pool, they likely will suffer a few "penalties" until they will have trained sufficiently in that environment (although they likely still will be better than the average Joe). How tall is this dwarf, anyway, that he's not practically drowning in 4-5 feet of water???
While I disagree with some of the DM's house rules, some of the others seem reasonable (if he adjusts the EL accordingly). And if the group has been together for 15 years, this would suggest that the other player's are satisfied with his way of running the game.
And I'll reiterate my point from a previous point... in the middle of the action, it's possible for the DM to make judgement errors. It's easy to criticize, if all you've ever been is a player (which I'm not saying is necessarily the case with the OP). That, and let's face it... despite the differing points of view on this thread, this argument is largely one-sided, as we don't have the OP's DM's point of view here.
|
|
Not to mention that the dwarf would have learned to battle larger foes on land, not in 4-5 feet of water. A person who has played volleyball their whole life on a court will not be an instant expert when they first start playing volleyball in a pool, they likely will suffer a few "penalties" until they will have trained sufficiently in that environment (although they likely still will be better than the average Joe). How tall is this dwarf, anyway, that he's not practically...
2 separate encounters. Read the posts. 1 encounter was hill giants in the mountains when I enlarged. The other was Scrags in a 10' wide corridor in a partially submerged dungeon waterbreathing cast on shorties. At least read the posts before jumping to uninformed conclusions.
The DM later admitted being wrong, days later after getting a ruling by some peers.
Several people have left the group (about 1/2) during a coup about 1-1/2 years ago because of similar rulings.
FH
Not to mention that the dwarf would have learned to battle larger foes on land, not in 4-5 feet of water. A person who has played volleyball their whole life on a court will not be an instant expert when they first start playing volleyball in a pool, they likely will suffer a few "penalties" until they will have trained sufficiently in that environment (although they likely still will be better than the average Joe). How tall is this dwarf, anyway, that he's not practically...2 separate encounters. Read the posts. 1 encounter was hill giants in the mountains when I enlarged. The other was Scrags in a 10' wide corridor in a partially submerged dungeon waterbreathing cast on shorties. At least read the posts before jumping to uninformed conclusions.
The DM later admitted being wrong, days later after getting a ruling by some peers.
Several people have left the group (about 1/2) during a coup about 1-1/2 years ago because of similar rulings.
FH
Please accept my apologies. I read them a few days ago, did not re-read the whole thread today... I shall refrain from offering further opinions on this subject.
I think loosing your dwarven ability bonus is a boatload of bunk. Dwarves dont get the bonus because they are smaller, they get it because of a long racial history of fighting this enemy and have special attacks and counters which amount the the dwarven bonus for avoiding giant attacks. To just about everyone I have talked to, this is much like the ranger bonus for racial enemy; size doesn't matter. By the silly logic of being small, which has its own defensive bonus built into the game, a short human, who like a dwarf is still medium sized, would get this bonus and smaller races should have a bigger bonus. This is crapola that gms spring on players for unknown reasons that I have never understood. A gm shouldnt have to inhibit your play to make his monster effective.
It has nothing to do with insecurity. If the bonus is gained due to height differences, and the dwarf needs to height change to adequately battle the giant for what ever reason, then the bonuses that the player gets are gone. Simple as that. A good DM does not need to slide the rules to gain the upper hand in a game. The DM should be the guide and the referee. It is ultimately up to him/her to decide. In this case, the decision was fair and just.
You can't just assume that the dwarfs' +4 VS giants are due to their height. I don't agree with your DM about not letting you get +4 VS giants when you drink the potion. Even though you get BIG doesn't mean you are gonna forget your tactics Vs giants and their weak points.
I think loosing your dwarven ability bonus is a boatload of bunk. Dwarves dont get the bonus because they are smaller, they get it because of a long racial history of fighting this enemy and have special attacks and counters which amount the the dwarven bonus for avoiding giant attacks. To just about everyone I have talked to, this is much like the ranger bonus for racial enemy; size doesn't matter. By the silly logic of being small, which has its own defensive bonus built into the game, a short human, who like a dwarf is still medium sized, would get this bonus and smaller races should have a bigger bonus. This is crapola that gms spring on players for unknown reasons that I have never understood. A gm shouldnt have to inhibit your play to make his monster effective.
NICE. It's like you're reading my mind...