I remember reading a thread and i'm sure there are others too that basically boiled down to this. The Gm was/planning giving enemies abilities that players cannot gain. i Think it was for a single boss fight and the gm was going to give him extra turns? I've seen other posts that basically boiled down to "you can't have enemies do that if players can't".
well i'm wondering why not? why can't the GM do whatever he wants? in a role playing game is there truly such a thing as RAW and is there any GM that truly abides to raw?!
i was going over the Silver dragon and i found something that doesn't make sense. under magic for dragons it says something like,"Dragons cast and learn spells as a sorcerer of the listed level etc..."
but if you look under silver dragon they ave access to devine spells, not really the issue. the issue is that learning spells as a sorcerer forbids spells on the cleric list. the spell in question wasn';t even a bard spell or bloodline spell. nor does a dragon have any feats or dragon abilities that let them do this, there is NO feature that lets you do this per RAW! so if pathfinder monsters don't have to follow the rules why does an all powerfull GM have to? just figured i would open a can of worms and see the replies *GRIN*
Well, I really don't see any problems with what you said. But players CAN have pretty much anything they want, it depends on how the DM runs his games. I've played with Godlike characters, God's chosen, insanely powerful characters before, and all this was DM Fiat.
I think what the book does is aply the norm to players and give a little twist to some characters and creatures, and that's AWESOME, and has been happening since the beggining of RPG as we know it. Did you know that Drizzt could hit ANYTHING regardless of AC with a roll of 15? That's in the rules for second edition. I think this kinda stuff if well thought out and makes the game fun is great and should be encouraged.
Well first off you are wrong. Many True Dragons specifically gain access to clerical spells as if they were sorcerer spells.
If you look on page 110 of the Bestiary second column top of the page at the bottom of the chart you will see the following:
"*A silver dragon can cast cleric spells as arcane spells.
As to why a NPC shouldn't have powers a PC can't have:
Simply put it's because the NPCs already have all the cards. They get precisely what they need, they can spend everything in one fight, often they are already fully prepared for the PC's to show up (which is especially annoying when the PC's go to prepare and the GM goes, "Wait you can't do that you don't know anything is coming!" or some other such nonsense), they have access to exactly the equipment they want and have the ultimate in rules on their side GM Fiat.
Considering the resources the GM already has, he shouldn't need to "cheat" in such a way (aka to give the NPC's extra powers he would never let the PC's have) to "challenge" his players. It shows a lack on his behalf to need even more special stuff to handle people that are playing completely in the rules.
I remember reading a thread and i'm sure there are others too that basically boiled down to this. The Gm was/planning giving enemies abilities that players cannot gain. i Think it was for a single boss fight and the gm was going to give him extra turns? I've seen other posts that basically boiled down to "you can't have enemies do that if players can't".
well i'm wondering why not? why can't the GM do whatever he wants? in a role playing game is there truly such a thing as RAW and is there any GM that truly abides to raw?!
i was going over the Silver dragon and i found something that doesn't make sense. under magic for dragons it says something like,"Dragons cast and learn spells as a sorcerer of the listed level etc..."
but if you look under silver dragon they ave access to devine spells, not really the issue. the issue is that learning spells as a sorcerer forbids spells on the cleric list. the spell in question wasn';t even a bard spell or bloodline spell. nor does a dragon have any feats or dragon abilities that let them do this, there is NO feature that lets you do this per RAW! so if pathfinder monsters don't have to follow the rules why does an all powerfull GM have to? just figured i would open a can of worms and see the replies *GRIN*
If it is for a boss fight, is very rare, say once in a campaign, and not game breaking I dont think it is an issue. The issue is when the rule breaking occurs all the time. Having to fight Demogorgon who can take two full round actions in one round is ok, but if every boss guy can do that it gets old real fast.
if i want goblins that can breathe fire and jump 30 feet in the air i'm gonna have them! if i want a wizard that wields two tree branches and casts spells out of his nose i will have it! GM has ultimate power and RAW means nothing when coming up with cool NPC enemies to fight. so... if i want a fighter with an eyepatch that can shoot an apple off a dwarfs head at 500 yards i will have it!!!!
And a drith of players to go with it.
DMs do not have ultimate power because they can not control the players. They have to govern within the boundries their players will put up with.
I've walked out on DMs before and if needed I will do it again. They are about a dime a dozen (even including myself when using average pricing).
The ability to do something =/= the right, or even a reason to do it.
The DM can do whatever they want, end of story.
if i want goblins that can breathe fire and jump 30 feet in the air i'm gonna have them! if i want a wizard that wields two tree branches and casts spells out of his nose i will have it! GM has ultimate power and RAW means nothing when coming up with cool NPC enemies to fight. so... if i want a fighter with an eyepatch that can shoot an apple off a dwarfs head at 500 yards i will have it!!!!
It is more about abuse of DM power than cool NPC's. Even cool NPC's should have a reasonable explanation as to how they can do____, and even then rule breaking should be limited in most situations.
PS:Not every house rule is rule breaking.
PS2: Nobody is telling anyone what to do. I think the point is to be reasonable(yeah I know that is a thread unto itself).
|
if i want goblins that can breathe fire and jump 30 feet in the air i'm gonna have them! if i want a wizard that wields two tree branches and casts spells out of his nose i will have it! GM has ultimate power and RAW means nothing when coming up with cool NPC enemies to fight. so... if i want a fighter with an eyepatch that can shoot an apple off a dwarfs head at 500 yards i will have it!!!!
Pssst: That last one isn't even hard to implement. Just far shot and a decent to-hit. A really talented level 1 fighter with a distance bow could drop that to below nat-20 range easily.
As to the breaking RAW comment: If the DM does it because it makes cool story, and (if they want to) allows players to find a way to do some of those things (even the two-actions thing to a limited extent, like an artifact) then so be it.
If a wizard uses a spell that doesn't exist, let the PC wizard research it (when they could cast it fairly). If an NPC jumps 30ft in the air, allow the PCs to find an item that emulates that. If the dragon can use clerical spells, allow the PC to take some prestige class that gives them limited cross-spell-list ability. If an enemy uses two actions a turn, create an artifact that lets the player do that once a day to once a week. Or maybe make it trigger 1d4 rounds later.
The point is, the game needs to be fun. Part of the fun is not knowing what's going to happen (ie suspense). If the DM always had to stick to RAW there would be a very finite number of things that could happen, and that would detract from the fun.
well i'm wondering why not?
Actually, it depends a lot on the circumstances...
why can't the GM do whatever he wants?
Because this is a group activity. Total lack of restraints doesn't work well with group activity, unless the everyone involved has a very similar outlook on what is fun/okay and what not.
in a role playing game is there truly such a thing as RAW
Get the RPG core book. Any RPG core book, really. Open it. Read it. You just read the RAW. The rules as written. You can completely ignore them, but they're still there.
and is there any GM that truly abides to raw?!
Probably. Not counting the organised play GMs, who are bound by them.
i was going over the Silver dragon and i found something that doesn't make sense. under magic for dragons it says something like,"Dragons cast and learn spells as a sorcerer of the listed level etc..."but if you look under silver dragon they ave access to devine spells, not really the issue. the issue is that learning spells as a sorcerer forbids spells on the cleric list. the spell in question wasn';t even a bard spell or bloodline spell. nor does a dragon have any feats or dragon abilities that let them do this, there is NO feature that lets you do this per RAW!
There is the "being a silver dragon" feature. The fact that the dragon is in the official rules means that it's in the RAW.
so if pathfinder monsters don't have to follow the rules why does an all powerfull GM have to? just figured i would open a can of worms and see the replies *GRIN*
There is more to this than "It was done once, so why not do it always?"
Sure, in his own, private game, the GM is theoretically bound by no rule. But that doesn't mean he shouldn't think about what he does before he does it, and neither should he make changes without taking a moment to think about how this will affect the game, and the people who play that game with him!
To get the latter out of the way (because it's not really the core of what this is really all about): While the GM can introduce issues and themes like homosexuality, rape, sodomy, incest and torture - maybe all at the same time, and explained in graphical detail - into his game, he should know that he can do so without offending his players or making them unduly uncomfortable.
The actual topic you were addressing was this:
The GM wanted to introduce what can be considered a rules change for change's sake, something that, depending how it is implemented, would have no explanation within the game world. Arbitrary changes to get around problems the easy way. That's usually bad form.
In the specific example: The game usually lets you act once per round, on your initiative. That is one of the most fundamental rules in the game, an attribute on the abstraction the game deals with by necessity. It takes into account that rounds, and actions, are abstractions and do not copy the actions of everyone in the game world. You act once per initiative and get one set of actions, which might be one attack roll or ten, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the "actual" creature in the "actual" fantasy world the action takes place in attacks exactly once (or ten times) every 6 seconds. And attack roll could represent one well-timed attack, or a flurry of strikes, and hit means that something went through (and your damage roll could mean one good hit or several shallow cuts).
Adding another initiative with an extra set of actions to a creature would imply that you can literally do twice as much as you should be able to. That's a near god-like boost.
I'm not saying the option should never be used.
I am saying that you should think about it before you use it, and have an in-game explanation for it. Maybe the creature type in question is so powerful that it makes sense to do it that way. Maybe there were extraordinary circumstances.
It never should be slapped onto anything for no other reason than "I can't challenge the players otherwise".
And it should never, ever (that's a double never) be added to an otherwise ordinary critter just because he happens to be alone (i.e. a "solo creature". That would mean that if its goblin buddy got back from the lavatory, the critter would suddenly become weaker, just because his friends showed up.
If you start doing that sort of thing, expect players to become annoyed. It's basically using the meta-gaming weapon against them. If you're unlucky, they'll retaliate. Maybe when they encounter a solo monster, they summon some critter and order it to ally with the beast, so it's no longer solo. (You can argue that once common sense is no longer part of the meta-rules and the Fourth Wall is broken, such tactics become legal).
And even if they don't counter with being as childish as the GM, they might want to emulate this ability. Say you added it to an otherwise regular wizard you double-dipped only because he was a solo BBEG. Expect jaws to drop when he acts twice. Then expect players to ask questions about how this is possible and how they can do it (quite a useful trick, would be helpful, and the synergy between those rounds will have weird consequences, like hold person followed by coup-de-grace before the poor sucker had a chance to act.).
And when you then go and say "It's only for me, you can't have this new toy, I added it because it was a solo encounter", expect frustration and annoyance. Especially if every second encounter taunts them with this ability (Making it common, which will destroy any remaining awe of this unique ability)
So if you want to do this, think long and hard, and if you do it, do it only with a good in-game explanation, and never, ever overdo it.
I have a personal dislike of "You can't because I say so" rulings. 2e was full of restrictions and thoushaltnots. Getting rid of that stuff was one of the best things about 3e.
|
Monsters definitely follow the rules, monsters have special qualities or special abilities that are part of the rules.
As a GM you can create monsters that have unusual abilities but if you are using existing creatures it's important to do it in an appropriate way. Monster design is tricky work on grafting on special abilities on the fly is likely to break things.
So if you do it, plan ahead, don't do it on a whim. If it alters your players core expectations then tell them.
If all goblins breath fire then suddenly goblins aren't CR 1/3 creatures anymore, they are likely CR1 or maybe more. Read the monster building section of the book carefully and give them appropriate powers for their CR.
The DM can do whatever they want, end of story.
Quite literally in many cases, as the players just walk away from his table and leave him with his sorry lack of skills.
Never forget that unless you live in the Bizarro Universe where people are sentenced to play in RPG campgaigns you run, nobody can be forced to keep playing.
|
|
The DM can do whatever they want, end of story.Quite literally in many cases, as the players just walk away from his table and leave him with his sorry lack of skills.
Never forget that unless you live in the Bizarro Universe where people are sentenced to play in RPG campgaigns you run, nobody can be forced to keep playing.
Ok stop for a minute.
The original poster hasn't suggested anything ridiculous here. Lets not get sidetracked by a silly off the cuff comment.
|
Seems to me there are a lot of bitter, intrusting people kicking around...
Short answer: yes, the dm CAN give his critters extra powers or whatnot. That does follow that he SHOULD do so.
If there's a good reason (enemy is a Diviner, and has been scrying on you, so knows your favorite tactics, or is Demogorgon and gets 2 rounds of actions), your players wont mutiny as suggested above. Heck, they may just >gasp< enjoy the the new monster /npc you throw at them.
Arbitrary boosts, OTOH, generally just irritate.
There are many ways in which an NPC can attain extra actions. I used a multiple brain in the playtest, because with 6 characters at 20th level the playtest would have been over immediately. At least with 2 standard actions my Cthulhu inspired Gibbering mouther Half-Farspawn had half a chance. Not really, but at least it helped not make the battel one sided.
Other ways to get multiple actions.
A Scroll of an obscure spell which is ultra rare, unfortunately the material component of the spell makes it so PCs would RARELY want to cast the spell, perhaps a 10,000gp ruby that has been drenched in the blood of a virgin. Let the PCs pursue that avenue of research only to find out that the material component might be evil to get. (ala the Philosopher Stone from Full Metal Alchemist).
The creature might have bonded a devil's soul to himself so that he acts once and the devil acts once.
A misworded wish granted the NPC a dual personality, and quite a bit of insanity. Extra action, but perhaps a confusion roll for each action. That one sounds kind of fun!
The creature is actually two creatures mashed together through magic.
Of course you wouldn't want to run every BBEG encounter this way, same as you don't want to run EVERY BBEG encounter with a Rune Giant that can cut any of the PCs in half rather easily...Or Every encounter ends with a 20th level Lich.
|
I think the real question to ask is not whether you can give them an extra full action each round, but rather if you should?
If a 5th lvl monster, even a special one, gets an ability like this, sure its impressive, but what do you have to do at 10th level to be impressive now? Its a form of "power creep" that the GM has control over. If the GM "jumps the shark" early in the game, they lose credibility as a storyteller, at least that has been my experience, from both sides of the GM screen.
The GM should have the creativity, tenacity, and imagination to craft entertaining and challenging encounters no matter what the characters look like stat and crunchwise. And he or she should not have to "make up stuff" and tack it on to the monsters (like a fiery breath weapon that cannot be resisted with spells, etc) in order to create a viable encounter for the party. If Tucker can do it with kobolds in an old school world with not a lot of published material to draw on, a GM should easily be able to do it with all the tools, writeups, etc available today. If not, you have these message boards to fall back on for assistance :)
|
|
As I have said before...
Players have rules
DM's have guidelines
Players NEED rules to keep the PC's internally consistent and so the DM knows what to expect.
DM's only need guidelines and the zealot like reliance on RAW can end in one completely screwed game (i.e. party wipe). The DM can always win any encounter (and no prizes awarded for doing so), but as luck would have it, RPG's are NOT DM vs Players so this should never be an issue. The DM is a story-teller first and foremost and an adjudicator second (when RAW seems to not fit the bill or be a little vague).
So going back to the Silver Dragon. How many hp's does a Silver Dragon in my games have? Answer: Enough.
S.
The only problem I've ever really had with NPCs or monsters breaking the rules came with the Forgotten Realms NPCs* - guys who seemed like they were basically there to show off how much cooler they were than the PCs**. In 2nd edition AD&D, Drizzt could perform ungodly stunts with his scimitars, Elminster could invent new spells on the fly, and so on. The big problem was that the character concepts didn't really require rules breaking - the extra powers were thrown in just to make those characters extra awesome, when in actuality, they were just extra annoying.
Basically, unique abilities for NPCs and monsters are great if they fit the concept of the character and if they don't feel cheap. Sometimes GMs just give their pet NPC ungodly abilities and it comes off as annoying. Other times, it's not a huge deal.
(*I'm sure this problem existed in other settings as well - I just have more experience with the Realms.)
(**I know that a good DM didn't play the NPCs of the Realms like that, but many of the published modules and products did. Take a look at them sometime and show me a point where a major NPC was involved and wasn't written like a Mary Sue.)
The DM can do whatever they want, end of story.Quite literally in many cases, as the players just walk away from his table and leave him with his sorry lack of skills.
Never forget that unless you live in the Bizarro Universe where people are sentenced to play in RPG campgaigns you run, nobody can be forced to keep playing.
Ok stop for a minute.
The original poster hasn't suggested anything ridiculous here. Lets not get sidetracked by a silly off the cuff comment.
It was a generalisation. All generalisations are bad!
And seriously: If the first words out of a GM's mouth are "I can do whatever I want, end of story." I turn around and walk away. Might not be as bad as that despite the tone, but I consider my time to be way too valuable to bet on that.
If there's a good reason (enemy is a Diviner, and has been scrying on you, so knows your favorite tactics, or is Demogorgon and gets 2 rounds of actions), your players wont mutiny as suggested above. Heck, they may just >gasp< enjoy the the new monster /npc you throw at them.
Very funny, with the pretend gasp and all. But have you actually read the rest of the thread?
I think the real question to ask is not whether you can give them an extra full action each round, but rather if you should?
If a 5th lvl monster, even a special one, gets an ability like this, sure its impressive, but what do you have to do at 10th level to be impressive now?
Four extra full actions each round. Once you get to level 20, they get 3 full actions for every enemy action - one to undo the enemy's efforts, one to counter, and one just to screw with them! ;-P
|
|
It was a generalisation. All generalisations are bad!
And seriously: If the first words out of a GM's mouth are "I can do whatever I want, end of story." I turn around and walk away. Might not be as bad as that despite the tone, but I consider my time to be way too valuable to bet on that.
I just didn't want this thread to get derailed into an argument over GM discretion. (And I agree with you)
It's much more interesting talking about legitimate ways a GM can accomplish the same ends.
As an example, my party was tearing through the ghouls in Rise of the Runelords and they were frankly a bit bored. So I seriously upgraded them creating a variant. They have 4 arms and are overall a lot tougher.
The challenge goes up, the CR goes up, experience goes up. Everyone is happy.
If I just decided in the middle of combat that things were too easy and arbitrarily doubled their hit points then the players get kind of screwed.
So yeah, the GM can and should do what he wants. But he should do it in a predictable fashion and stick to the rules if at all possible.
NPCs of the RealmsNot wrong there. Often wondered what the PC's were there for in the Realms, the NPC's seem to have it all sewn up. Why I was always a Dark Sun / Ravenloft sorts guy. Actually 2e Dark Suns was perhaps the high point of D&D(like) games for me.
S.
2nd edition dark sun was a lot of fun for me too. I remember the first time it was explained to me:
"It's not a matter of if you survive -- you won't so don't really worry about that -- it's more a matter of how long you can buck the odds and seeing what eats you when you die."
|
|
NPCs of the RealmsNot wrong there. Often wondered what the PC's were there for in the Realms, the NPC's seem to have it all sewn up. Why I was always a Dark Sun / Ravenloft sorts guy. Actually 2e Dark Suns was perhaps the high point of D&D(like) games for me.
S.
2nd edition dark sun was a lot of fun for me too. I remember the first time it was explained to me:
"It's not a matter of if you survive -- you won't so don't really worry about that -- it's more a matter of how long you can buck the odds and seeing what eats you when you die."
+1
And sometimes what ate you was a Halfling... Those were the days.
...
If I just decided in the middle of combat that things were too easy and arbitrarily doubled their hit points then the players get kind of screwed.
So what if you decided to double their hit points before the fight began. Would that be screwing the players or a legitimate rebalancing of the encounter given prior experience with these PCs? How is it different from 4 armed ghouls?
So what if you decided to double their hit points before the fight began. Would that be screwing the players or a legitimate rebalancing of the encounter given prior experience with these PCs?...
If I just decided in the middle of combat that things were too easy and arbitrarily doubled their hit points then the players get kind of screwed.
If he decided before the encounter it probably wouldn't be arbitrary. For example my friday night DM just gives the enemies maximum HP. Doesn't hurt our feelings because we still generally mow through them -- he does it to all the monsters and he let us know what he was going to do, he also said that if it started seeming like things were getting to onerous or if it wasn't working we would "do over" the encounter and he would start just using what the book has.
Now he's a new GM (it's his first campaign even) so it's not much of an issue (he's done really well by the way). I might have handled it differently but he legitimately sat down thought about the change, what it would mean to the campaign, what it would do to the game in general and was upfront about even offering a way to reverse the decision if we found it didn't work.
As a GM he covered all the points I would worry about as a player at his table.
It wasn't just "I'm GM this is what's happening" It was "Hey I think if I do this it will be more enjoyable, I'm going to try it and if it doesn't work we'll go back to the way things were."
A huge difference in approach has a huge difference on how players respond.
|
|
So what if you decided to double their hit points before the fight began. Would that be screwing the players or a legitimate rebalancing of the encounter given prior experience with these PCs? How is it different from 4 armed ghouls?...
If I just decided in the middle of combat that things were too easy and arbitrarily doubled their hit points then the players get kind of screwed.
I'm not sure why I used that as an example. It's a bad example. I just meant that arbitrarily changing the challenge in the middle of combat can screw your players over and rob them of experience.
As far as the difference between what I suggested, I take the time to balance it and adjust the CR. Just doing things on the fly you are almost never going to get it right.
|
|
So what if you decided to double their hit points before the fight began. Would that be screwing the players or a legitimate rebalancing of the encounter given prior experience with these PCs? How is it different from 4 armed ghouls?...
If I just decided in the middle of combat that things were too easy and arbitrarily doubled their hit points then the players get kind of screwed.
I'm not sure why I used that as an example. It's a bad example. I just meant that arbitrarily changing the challenge in the middle of combat can screw your players over and rob them of experience.
As far as the difference between what I suggested, I take the time to balance it and adjust the CR. Just doing things on the fly you are almost never going to get it right.
|
|
If they started calling me out saying this or that doesn't line up, I just wouldn't engage in the conversation.
If I change something in RAW and the players want to know why then they'll need their characters to explore the world some more to find out
+googolplex
Having to explain why creature A is not behaving exactly as in the MM on page XX can be a real thriller-killer. Be nice if PC's looked more on the world through their characters eyes rather than uber-meta-gaming every +1.
Pet hate, well said by Mok,
S.
Tip for players:
I've been playing for a long time. No surprise really and it should also come as little to no surprise that I generally recognize the monsters I'm up against rather quickly. What I've found helps me avoid the "Oh this is monster X use tactic Y" thing is I don't grab the bestiary -- I go by what I remember from second or first edition. Yes the information is dated but that's part of the point. Somethings I might get wrong because of this but it gives more of the "second hand" knowledge feel and helps keep me from expecting certain things from monsters.
I also try really hard not to share my monster knowledge with the other players. Even if I'm using tactics I know are going to be effective I try not to clue everyone in so as to help the GM keep the suspense of the fight together -- it also helps to keep the GM guessing about what I do know and what I might not know so he doesn't feel the need to say, "This monster is old to my players I should change something just so it doesn't seem like a rut monster!"
|
|
If they started calling me out saying this or that doesn't line up, I just wouldn't engage in the conversation.
If I change something in RAW and the players want to know why then they'll need their characters to explore the world some more to find out
+googolplex
Having to explain why creature A is not behaving exactly as in the MM on page XX can be a real thriller-killer. Be nice if PC's looked more on the world through their characters eyes rather than uber-meta-gaming every +1.
Pet hate, well said by Mok,
S.
As a player I like to work in a predictable world. When things suddenly don't work the way I expect them I get frustrated. Going back to the example I presented above the characters see 4 armed ghouls when they get attacked 4 times the players aren't surprised. If they see a 2 armed ghoul and suddenly it's attacking 4 times they are scratching their heads. On the other hand if you made a 'fast ghoul' similar to the way there are fast skeletons and described them as 'unnaturally quick' and gave them an extra attack per round (3 claw attacks) then suddenly the world is back into a predictable place (and hopefully you also upped the CR on this creature so they get experience for fighting a tougher monster)
Even players who haven't read the MM want thing to act in a predictable fashion, the whole purpose of the rules is to provide structure. When you break those expectations there should be a good reason. Ettin's can make 2 attacks as a standard action because they have 2 brains to coordinate them. You can extract from that that maybe other multi headed creatures can do the same (and hydras do).
When a GM just pulls arbitrary stuff out of the air then the game system becomes unpredictable and frustrating.
is there any GM that truly abides to raw?!
I abide by RAW.
But I also used to write houserules for 3e. Note, I wrote them. I put them out there for all the players to see. No secret houserules. And I abided by those, because those were recorded and therefore also RAW in that game.
As of now, I haven't written any houserules yet for Pathfinder.
As for doing whatever I want, I prefer this to be a game. A game with a story. I need both aspects to be in balance for true harmony. It's not a game when one player makes up rules as he goes. That would be like playing chess and your opponent just moves his pieces anywhere he wants them whenever he wants to. Not a game.
No, I'm not saying it's "Me vs. Players". But it is "My encounters vs. the players' characters". My players know that I'm just as bound by the rules as they are. They know the most of the rules, so they often know what to expect. And when I do something that surprises them (a fairly frequent occurrence), they know there is always a reasonable rule-abiding explanation for it, and they also know they can always find ways to do the same thing themselves if they want to. Yes, that might require turning into a Silver Dragon if they want to cast divine spells like a sorcerer, and that may be a whole lot more trouble than it's worth, but they know they could do it.
If I have that Silver Dragon taking two rounds' worth of actions every turn, my players would know that they could never do that, even if they wished themselves into becoming a dragon. They would know that I broke the rules. They would know that we're no longer playing a harmonious game.
And they would be justifiably disappointed.
Well first off you are wrong. Many True Dragons specifically gain access to clerical spells as if they were sorcerer spells.
If you look on page 110 of the Bestiary second column top of the page at the bottom of the chart you will see the following:
"*A silver dragon can cast cleric spells as arcane spells.
As to why a NPC shouldn't have powers a PC can't have:
Simply put it's because the NPCs already have all the cards. They get precisely what they need, they can spend everything in one fight, often they are already fully prepared for the PC's to show up (which is especially annoying when the PC's go to prepare and the GM goes, "Wait you can't do that you don't know anything is coming!" or some other such nonsense), they have access to exactly the equipment they want and have the ultimate in rules on their side GM Fiat.
Considering the resources the GM already has, he shouldn't need to "cheat" in such a way (aka to give the NPC's extra powers he would never let the PC's have) to "challenge" his players. It shows a lack on his behalf to need even more special stuff to handle people that are playing completely in the rules.
dang i looked over page 110 like 3 times and never seen that... I will have to check when i get home. i just thought it odd in the 1st place that they had cleric spells and no mention why. according to your quote though they cast cleric spells as arcane. um, but how do they learn them in the 1st place? lol.
this thread kinda blew up fast lol. well i pretty much already GM and do whatever i want. but i like to see suplimental rules and such to have a basis to go on. I've told players before "because im the DM and i say so", they didn't like using slow progression. and i've created and modified monsters, artifacts, magic item, spells. Over all i've NEVER had a player walk out or quit in 18 years of play. i've had a few throw a tantrum or try to apply physics and change the rules. Over all i do my job and entertain and tell the players a story, but i will not let them force me to make them gods and write there biography lol. just because a GM does what he wants doesn't mean it won't be fun!
|
|
When a GM just pulls arbitrary stuff out of the air then the game system becomes unpredictable and frustrating.
That I agree with. If every Orc is completely different from the Orc before I too would be wondering what's going on (talking number of legs, arms, heads and whatever else).
I was more referring to the "special" encounter where things don't quite stack up for the players with what they are facing (an Evil Silver dragon perhaps?). As you said a good DM will be dropping clues and likewise a good player won't be b-arching that the MM states X or Y must happen and the thing is doing Z. I do like to throw in familiar creatures with unfamiliar abilities - but these are there for a good reason, the story rules. In fact only by having a base expectation can the unusual be unusual.
Which brings me back to my 100% support of your frustration over arbitrary changes. What I hate in when players get frustrated by changes that are there for a very good reason and argue "mechanics" against them.
S.
The DM can do whatever they want as long it's entertaining and the group is having fun, end of story.
There, corrected that for you ;)
The DM can do whatever they want, end of story.
Actually, that is not the "end of story."
While what you are saying is literally true. Remember that if the GM abuses their power, they will find themselves befret of players.
(Ninja'd by a CunningMongoose)
dang i looked over page 110 like 3 times and never seen that... I will have to check when i get home. i just thought it odd in the 1st place that they had cleric spells and no mention why. according to your quote though they cast cleric spells as arcane. um, but how do they learn them in the 1st place? lol.
Just like a sorcerer does. They simply treat clerical spells as if they are on their spell list to be learned.
This is a trait dragons have had since first edition -- part of the reason being they are magic in much the same way the fey should be. They don't really distinguish between divine and arcane because to them, it's all the same magic.
Another explanation I've heard is that the specific dragons that gain clerical spells as arcane spells are such bastions of their ethos and paragons of their kind (dragon kind) that they are almost divine in and of themselves.
|
|
Tip for players:
I've been playing for a long time. No surprise really and it should also come as little to no surprise that I generally recognize the monsters I'm up against rather quickly. What I've found helps me avoid the "Oh this is monster X use tactic Y" thing is I don't grab the bestiary -- I go by what I remember from second or first edition. Yes the information is dated but that's part of the point. Somethings I might get wrong because of this but it gives more of the "second hand" knowledge feel and helps keep me from expecting certain things from monsters.
I also try really hard not to share my monster knowledge with the other players. Even if I'm using tactics I know are going to be effective I try not to clue everyone in so as to help the GM keep the suspense of the fight together -- it also helps to keep the GM guessing about what I do know and what I might not know so he doesn't feel the need to say, "This monster is old to my players I should change something just so it doesn't seem like a rut monster!"
to this point...does using your knowledge of past or present game statistics make the game-experience more or less fun for you and your group? Does having to pretend you don't know something, or not tell your table-mates something, bother you or remove you from the verisimilitude of the game?
At my table, if someone had the monster manual or Bestiary memorized, they would likely face nothing but custom creations, class-leveled NPC's, and the like. Alternatively, they'd get the DM chair after the first "He can't do that" comment. Why bother having the whole "tabletop RPG" experience if you're instead playing a "tabletop minis wargame" where all the stats are known/assumed.
That's not to say that's the WRONG way to play, far from it. It's just that if I wanted tabletop wargame, I'd bust out the WARMACHINE or Warhammer 40k models and measuring tapes.
Again, that's just my opinion, of course.
To the OP: certain messages can come across completely different based on how they're delivered.
"Because I'm the DM" is probably the worst, and easiest, reason to give when asked "why" something occured. It smacks of "totalitarian ruler" syndrome and reminds people of their parents. This is especially compounded if you game with adolescents.
"It'll make sense later, just wait and see," delivers the same message (I'm not giving you a real explanation, for undisclosed reasons) in a much more reasonable and palatable fashion.
Sometimes, the failure in communication lies not in what was said, but HOW it was said.
Honestly it doesn't bother me. Generally the character is going to act how the character acts regardless of the monster in front of him (or her). The other players at the table generally don't ask me about the monsters because they honestly don't really want to know. I know the monsters because of how much I've GM'ed and how much I liked reading the older books for their faux ecology and such. The 3.5 and pathfinder books continued this and added in systems that I enjoy picking apart -- not because the systems are bad, but it's fun (to me) to find the hidden jewels that keep the whole thing together and seeing why the designers put things together like they did.
Honestly the idea that simply because a player has knowledge that you would have to only throw custom stuff smacks of a lack of trust in the people you play with. You don't trust them to be able to handle the situation like an adult, and therefore can't let yourself just let it go and use the regular stuff with them. It also smacks of control issues beyond the game.
The few times I've thrown a "He can't do that" at a GM it's because he has had someone charge more than twice the things movement, from a point where he couldn't see the player characters in a surprise round and still tried to take a full round of actions (and didn't charge in anything nearing a straight line).
Also just because I know the rules and the monsters doesn't mean I'm treating the game as some strategic battlemat game -- and honestly the suggestion that comes from your post is that anyone with knowledge of the rules and monsters could only be treating it that way is more than a little insulting (through probably not on purpose).
(Of course I tend to preach which is probably a bit insulting in its own right so I don't honestly take offense)
It's to my opinion that the DM may create/modify whatever he wants as long as it is within reason.
For example, for a double action Silver Dragon the DM may create an accuarid template (quicky?) and apply it to the dragon; its really no better than to equal creatures so +2 to the CR is enough for me, maybe some extra CON, DEX and/or insight bonuses even things a bit.
Now as viable ways to make it ¨unaviable¨ to the PCs:
-It produces psycothic madness, the reason you finght the dragon and turning any PC who gets into an NPC.
-It greatly reduces the creature's lifespan (up to 50 years per hour), even an elf won´t make to next weak.
-Insane ritual requirements, the ritual takes five hundred years, the blood of the newborn of a god with the time as its porfolio, etc.
My point is that DM can bend the rules. There are rules for bending the rules, wich are more like guidelines, but this has to be coherent in terms of fluff and mechanics.
Humbly,
Yawar
As an example, my party was tearing through the ghouls in Rise of the Runelords and they were frankly a bit bored.
Hm... in our game, one character charged them. Neither the character nor the player knew about their paralysing powers. He was paralysed and the ghouls made a coup-de-grace. BAM! Dead adventurer.
We weren't bored after that...
Not really relevant, I just thought of that and wanted to share.
So yeah, the GM can and should do what he wants. But he should do it in a predictable fashion and stick to the rules if at all possible.
And (and I think that's the important part), he should think about the players, too. Everyone's into this to have a good time, after all.
For a player to even open a monster manual and start going over the stats in the middle of an encounter... well, that would just be blasphemy to me. If they started calling me out saying this or that doesn't line up, I just wouldn't engage in the conversation. I wouldn't even invoke, "I'm the GM!" I'd just tack back to the immersion in the world.
You completely miss the point here. We're not talking about an extra couple of HP, or switching out some abilities if you create a regional variant of the monster on the fly (turn a cloud giant into a swamp giant and exchange levitate for water walk or something).
We're talking batshit insane stuff for no other reason than "I felt like it".
You don't really have to bust out the illegal Bestiary in the middle of combat to know that a wolf doesn't get to act five times in a round. Especially if you just fought a couple of those and they could do no such thing.
The characters are in a world that is being explored and wouldn't know "hit points" from "iterative attacks."
What, your characters are brain damaged idiots? They might not put names like hit points and iterative attacks to things, but they will know when something falls quickly beneath your onslaught or can withstand lots of punishment. They also know when a warrior is a lot more lethal and can make a lot of good attempts to hit you.
You forget that things like HP and attack rolls are not just rules but simulations of things that actually exist in the game world. Those differences in game stats aren't just there because some designer thought it would be jolly good to have different stats for enemies. They're there because those critters are actually different within the world the rules simulate.
If I change something in RAW and the players want to know why then they'll need their characters to explore the world some more to find out, although I won't entertain them with it if their characters wouldn't know something was different in the first place.
Again, you completely miss the point and the problem being addressed. We're not talking about the need to make Knowledge checks or find stuff out in an adventure.
We talk about changes that were made completely arbitrarily, without any reason, sense, or explanation within the game world (and I don't mean "they didn't know the explanation". I mean "the explanation does not exist"). And, in the case of a critter getting extra actions for no other reason than it is alone, the characters will, without a doubt, know that something is different.
As I said: What happens at/on the gaming table is directly linked to what happens in the fantasy world everybody is imagining himself into. They're not separate things. If the players notice the critter suddenly gets to act twice, the characters will notice that the critter is suddenly a lot faster than it's supposed to be.
So to the OP, sure, the GM can change all sorts of stuff. However one ought to have a good grasp of the rules as to what is being changed and how it'll impact further play. There is an art to GMing and that art can be handled poorly or it can be done well.
Ah. I see you get it after all. Because that is what I'm talking about. You just have to add that the changes need to be based on an actual difference in the game world.
In terms of mechanics, D&D 4e has some solo boss rules that I've used in Star Wars Saga and Pathfinder that actually work very well for large parties. The system is just rigged in such a way that action economy dominates the system, and so granting bosses more actions, along with extra hit points, allows for a more satisfying back and forth when you have six party members and one solo monster.
See, this is the prime example of something that has no real explanation within the game. "Being the boss" is not an explanation. Unless it is justified in every instance, this reeks of bad meta-gaming.
That would be like playing chess and your opponent just moves his pieces anywhere he wants them whenever he wants to. Not a game.
Knight Jumps Queen.
Biship Jumps Queen.Pawns Jump Queen.
GANGBANG!
Knight Jumps Queen.
Biship Jumps Queen.
Pawns Jump Queen.
GANGBANG!
Mel Brooks reference? ;)
dang i looked over page 110 like 3 times and never seen that... I will have to check when i get home. i just thought it odd in the 1st place that they had cleric spells and no mention why. according to your quote though they cast cleric spells as arcane. um, but how do they learn them in the 1st place? lol.
It's a sort of racial ability. If it were named, it would be named spell familiarity or something like that - just like a dwarf can used a dwarven war axe as a martial weapon, those silvers can use cleric spells as sorcerer spells.
Note that dragons aren't sorcerers. They get sorcerer magic, but that's just like some other critter getting some class ability piecemeal. A dark stalker gets sneak attack without being a rogue.
Dragons are just magical creatures. They got magic coming out the wazoo!
And some of them are just too pious for their own good. Silvers are among the worst. So their innate magical ability (which is presented by using the sorcerer magic class ability) gets cleric stuff added in.
ver all i've NEVER had a player walk out or quit in 18 years of play. i've had a few throw a tantrum or try to apply physics and change the rules. Over all i do my job and entertain and tell the players a story, but i will not let them force me to make them gods and write there biography lol. just because a GM does what he wants doesn't mean it won't be fun!
Well, to counter your overblown example (players demanding to be made gods) with one of my own: A GM who has goblins. In jet fighters. Armed with nuclear missiles and ray guns. They're still CR 1/3.
I guess you never had nuclear goblins, so nobody walked out yet. Did your players demand you write their biography and make them gods?
Mel Brooks reference? ;)
Knight Jumps Queen.
Biship Jumps Queen.
Pawns Jump Queen.
GANGBANG!
You got it.
It's good to be the King!
|
Rule of cool applies in most cases.
Case in point we had a bad guy in one camapaign I played that was granted an ability by a god that he would ressurect automatically after X days of death so long as any of his enemies still lived.
Problem was he was such a psycho that he considered his enemies to be anyone living.
We killed him repeatedly in some truly epic encounters (as well as running away a lot too...) and eventually destroyed him for good at the end of the campaign. A truly memorable bad guy who technically breaks the rules.
But he was cool, so the players went for it.
On the other hand if this is done badly all you will get is some grumpy players. Giving a set piece enemy a special power or two is fine but giving him a random unjustified list of powers will have the players grumbling into their coffees/teas/mountain dews/whatever.
It's what I like to call Samuel Haight Syndrome ("He has what now?!?" Lame!)
The trick is to theme it. Ghoul minions of an ancient lich? Give them each an enervation attack. Strange green cloaked monks? swap out their stunning fist for a 1 round blindness instead. Stuff like that keeps your players on their toes and adds a level of distinctiveness.
What not to do is create a bad guy who is rediculous. "Yeah he's a level 20 elven sorcerer who has been granted unlimited Heal spells by his god and has the base attack bonus of a fighter. Oh and he's immune to level 5 and below spells and has an aura that allows him to fly, teleport and shoot 20d6 lightning bolts with no save"
You might as well call that NPC Mary Sue...
Rule of cool applies in most cases.
Case in point we had a bad guy in one camapaign I played that was granted an ability by a god that he would ressurect automatically after X days of death so long as any of his enemies still lived.
Problem was he was such a psycho that he considered his enemies to be anyone living.
We killed him repeatedly in some truly epic encounters
Amateurs. So he won't die? Bury him alive. Encase him in metal first, or concrete. Let him really enjoy his immortality.
Or leave him in front of a big golem that kills anything that moves.
"I'm alive" *Splat* "I'm alive" *Splat* "I'm aaargh..."