Really, OP double checked with the player if he was going to burn a magical piece while reforging his sword, he had his warning.
You don't know that. It was just said that the OP "double checked". Depending on GM styles that GM has, and the styles the player is used to, it could have been unclear.
Some people will get that when the GM says "what do you want to do again?", he's issuing a warning. Others will think that the GM didn't listen and they have to repeat themselves. Again. (Yeah, insinuating that the GM has alertness issues is not nice, but it's on par with saying the player is an utter moron for circumstances we don't know correctly.
I think we need that player's side here. The OP should invite him to post here (though he might not like being called dumb behind his back).
Perfectly fine with me. You have your game of jerks and I can go play with people who care about the rules or at least DMs who aren't actively try to screw over their players out of spite.Then our method of play works. Nothing more annoying at a table than a rules lawyer who wants the power of the DM without the responsibility.And I wouldn't be coming back. The only thing I dislike more than people pulling arbitrary rules out of their ass is people people arbitrary rules out of their ass solely to spite people.We have a running joke in our game stemming from a game long ago where a player got into an argument with the DM about what he could and could not do, and apparently that person would not let it go.
So the DM had the hills attack. Literally. He told them to roll initiative, and the hills attacked.
When do you actually play? You have over 2000 posts on here, and half of them say you don't have time to do this or that...despite the fact you have over 2000 posts.
During the playtests, you don't actually, you know...play test. And I don't remember you ever giving examples of you in a group, doing something.
I wonder sometimes...not for very long, mind you. But sometimes.
I play 3 different games twice a month when we can meet. Real difficult to play test stuff that only lasts a couple weeks when I have a standing game only every other two weeks. And I havn't been able to play one for months because I was on business travel and other people have been on vacation and had other things they couldn't miss. And I haven't played another in a month because the DM has been on vacation. Real hard to playtest when your every other week games haven't met the entire time of the play test.
Why don't you go play test in your holier-than-thou, DM-is-always-right-and-hates-you games?
As I said to Cartigan, I wonder sometimes if some the people on here actually ever play the game regularly with people in the real world or if they just roll up characters and get chased out of groups after a game or two when people get tired of the complaining.
My regular DM I have been playing with for years runs adventure paths. Our group dropped a DM a couple years ago who pulled adventures and rules out of his ass.
Do you actually play or do you get chased out of groups for being a jerk?
I just feel its a bit unfair to jump to conclusions and assume that the decision was spiteful.
So it's just OK to assume the other guy was dumb? And don't make the mistake to think that it's anything other than an assumption, unless you were there with them and know all the facts.
|
It's an RPG. The GM can bend, twist or break the rules, especially if it adds a strong roleplaying element--not just based on a malicious and arbitrary whim.When a GM runs a game for a group of players there is an unspoken contract in which they all agree to follow the rules to the best of their ability. If one person, even the GM, isn't following the rules than the game falls apart every time.
This unspoken contract exists in ALL games. It's the sole reason why people are able to play games with one another.
Any changes to the established rules in the books (even if its "I'm the GM so I might change the rules for story purposes from time to time) need to be spelled out clearly to all the players well in advance of the campaign's start (modifying the unspoken contract as it were). Otherwise, the GM is doing nothing less than cheating/misleading his players.
No, this is how "you" can possibly play with other people. Some of us actually like our various DMs, and trust that they know what is going on behind the curtains more than we do and that they are making decisions to make the game fun. Sometimes by fudging rolls in our favor, or adding things in that fit the flavor of our characters, or by doing hilarious things like making rats come out of thrown swords.
Some of us don't look for rules exploits so we can always "win". Some of us understand you don't "win" the game. You play the game. You didn't actually slay that dragon, it was the DM and the dice.
When I first started, I argued with DMs at the table. Then I ran a few games and it became very clear how annoying I must have been not only to them, but to the rest of the group. I've tried to stop, and mostly have.
The rules are a guideline. Yes there is a social contract at work in any game, but it isn't "We will follow the rules to the letter". It is "we are all here to have a good time, let's do that."
You came to the table because you trust your DM to make the game fun for the players at the table. And you joined the group because you like your friends and sitting around the table with them is fun. If you don't, find another DM or group.
But how "You" do it isn't how the rest of us do it.
When a GM runs a game for a group of players there is an unspoken contract in which they all agree to follow the rules to the best of their ability. If one person, even the GM, isn't following the rules than the game falls apart every time.
I wouldn't say every time, but it does happen.
The instances where it worked were usually those where the person just didn't know about the rules (as opposed to making house rules and telling nobody until they came up and kill someone) and was ready to see reason when it was pointed out that the rules didn't work that way and in the case where the GM was the one who didn't know the rules, either started using the rules correctly or made a permanent house rule about it *without punishing the player who actually bothered to learn the rules*
The last part is important. A lot of player who learn the rules (and a lot of those aren't rules lawyers, thought hat's hard for some people to grasp) will base their actions in game on this rules knowledge.
And that makes perfect sense. I mean, you want to do something, and you do it in a way you think you know it works. We do it in real life, too. We know the "real-life rules" for jumping, and the benefits of running starts, so when we want to jump, we naturally take a running start. If we just assumed that this is beneficial and suddenly it turns out that it has a negative effect as you tire out before the jump, you're pissed (not actual in-game example, mind).
Now, the GM is within his rights to make houserules. No problem. Have lots of them myself. But you make them known to the players before they begin playing - actually, before they create their characters.
If you want to make an impromptu houserule out of your faulty knowledge of the rules, you have to keep it consistent. No letting it work this way one day and another way the day after.
And, most important: If you alter reality in this way, allow do-overs. In case of players who thought things worked differently and attempted actions that suddenly have a much worse chance of success, allow them to try something else.
If you change something that affects a character as a whole, not just a single action (i.e. you suddenly decide one day that sneak attack only works once per round because you are one of the people who has the completely wrong impression that rogues outfight fighters otherwise - I know, ridiculous, but some people actually believe that!), you allow the players to modify their characters to accommodate this reality shift (i.e. the rogue player is allowed to play another class, or at the very least to replace his two-weapon fighting feats with something else).
When do you actually play? You have over 2000 posts on here, and half of them say you don't have time to do this or that...despite the fact you have over 2000 posts.
Yeah, with a measly 2000 posts under his belt, he must have spades of time to do all sorts of things. I think he lies when he says he doesn't have time.
But maybe he's similar to me (11000+ posts, play twice a week if the sessions aren't cancelled) in many respects: When he says he doesn't have time for anything, he really means that he won't waste any time doing stuff that sucks.
Personally, I'd sooner sit there and memorise the pattern of the roughcast on the wall than play in a game where I wouldn't have fun.
|
|
As I said to Cartigan, I wonder sometimes if some the people on here actually ever play the game regularly with people in the real world or if they just roll up characters and get chased out of groups after a game or two when people get tired of the complaining.My regular DM I have been playing with for years runs adventure paths. Our group dropped a DM a couple years ago who pulled adventures and rules out of his ass.
Do you actually play or do you get chased out of groups for being a jerk?
Play and run. Have about 10 people we rotate in and out of the main group (any more than 6 is a nightmare at the table...) with 4 of us DM'ing at various points for various campaigns. We generally stick to D20, I run Pathfinder, another of us runs mainly 3.5, but mixes in Mutants and Masterminds, Microlite, and a couple other flavors now and then. One is running Dark Heresy, the other is straight 3.5. We tried 4e once and decided if we wanted to play World of Warcraft, we would just log on and play it.
I have a pool table in the game room of my house, and I made a cover that doubles as a game table. We used to all play at our friends apartment on a dining room table. Then some of us got houses, and some of us made tables. My table has four panels of plexiglass over about two rolls of Gaming Paper (http://www.gamingpaper.com/ is awesome btw, so much cheaper/better than anything else I've found), which works great for the big battles with medium to long range spells.
During the times of year when it is nice outdoors in the Mid-Atlantic we probably only play once or twice a month, doing outdoor stuff together the rest of the time. My wife and the guy I am renting a room to play, so sometimes we'll just throw something together when we are bored. In the winter it's almost a weekly game. Some of them have side groups as well, but I mainly stick to the base group.
Our base group has been together for about 12 years. I got invited in about 6 or 7 years ago, and other than wives no one else has been added to the main group. This is why others play in spin off groups with some of the people who...well...don't fit the group.
The main reason people are excluded is that they don't get that it's a game, and supposed to be fun. We've got 4 DM's in the game, and several people who have been playing since 2nd edition, so we all know the rules, which makes games go quicker. But we all also know the rules are guidelines, and that the story is more important than spending 20 minutes figuring out if your 17 knowledge check would or would not tell you who his second cousin is.
You either trust your DM or you don't. If you do, you let them drive the car and you get to your destination. If you don't, you try to grab the wheel and the game crashes into the guardrail, or through the guardrail over the cliff.
The main reason people are excluded is that they don't get that it's a game, and supposed to be fun.
Fun, you know, when you do everything the DM says the way the DM says it.
Like 1 always being a critical failure and 20 always being a critical success any time you roll a d20. Even on skill checks. I can't stand that houserule and I make a point to dispel people's belief that that is how it works the few times I DM. I imagine I am going to end up in a fight with my newest DM over that sooner or later.
|
|
The main reason people are excluded is that they don't get that it's a game, and supposed to be fun.Fun, you know, when you do everything the DM says the way the DM says it.
Like 1 always being a critical failure and 20 always being a critical success any time you roll a d20. Even on skill checks. I can't stand that houserule and I make a point to dispel people's belief that that is how it works the few times I DM. I imagine I am going to end up in a fight with my newest DM over that sooner or later.
Note "newest DM" as in, you have had to change multiple times, and will likely do so again because it isn't "fun" for you with that DM and his rules...
Your way is much more fun. Why am I not surprised about "the few times you DM" part. That would be a "fun" game to play, you dispelling all my wrong beliefs and stuff.
Yeah!
But in regards to all the hate on the OP for what he did, am I the only one, who if he was that player, would have done the following: Looked at the DM and then said "Huh. Let's see what else happens..." and would start to forge all manner of non magical blades with a fire that is simultaneously burning various magical items JUST to see what would happen?
No, no, you're not. I would get the whole party on it until the DM gave us somthing cool, something so bizarre that we would fall out of our chairs laughing, or we summoned the Tarrasque and all died (which would make us fall out of our chairs laughing), whichever hapened first.
The player was allowed a Knowledge(arcana) check, and was informed that while the result to the blade would likely be as desired, the result of doing this in this region was unpredictable.
The sword itself was "cured" of its summoning abilities.
However, the lightning bolts danced between mountaintops, magnified by the magic nature of the region, and summoned rats (And dire rats, and wererats) from leagues upon leagues in every direction.
They now believe this PC to be their God, and are trying to form social structures that support His belief in what is Right and Just.
You are a Great DM by my standarts:) That was just awesome and hilarious.
Like 1 always being a critical failure and 20 always being a critical success any time you roll a d20. Even on skill checks. I can't stand that houserule and I make a point to dispel people's belief that that is how it works the few times I DM. I imagine I am going to end up in a fight with my newest DM over that sooner or later.
So you're going to impose your view on a house rule on another DM knowing it may end up in an argument... Err just to be fair what does the rest of the table feels about the rule? Are they bothered too? Or maybe they don't give a rat's tail? In the first maybe you are in the right, in the second...
And that's a rule I would protect because of its hilarity/awesome potencial (1 on a stealth check? You tripped on the lantern and set fire to a square in front of you. 20 on a stealth check? you wrote I WUZ HERE on the guard's forehead and he did even wake up)
And that's a rule I would protect because of its hilarity/awesome potencial (1 on a stealth check? You tripped on the lantern and set fire to a square in front of you. 20 on a stealth check? you wrote I WUZ HERE on the guard's forehead and he did even wake up)
If I fail on a 1, I fail. I don't care. However, if I have a +20 to my Stealth skill and roll a 1, I still made a 21 stealth check. That's as good as some one with a +1 to their Stealth skill and rolled a 20. It's a stupid rule that turns all the noncombat portion of the game into a huge pain in the ass. That's why the rule was explicitly written that skills don't automatically fail or succeed and the reason you can take 10 on skills when there is no penalty for failure. In a game where 1 always fails for skills, you can NEVER take 10. Ever.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Question to the OP: What edition of D&D did you cut your teeth on? I ask, because some of the events you've been describing seem more in the style of AD&D than the more precise rules environment that 3rd Edition ushered in.
I'll echo a previous question: is your player having fun with all this?
And another: why did the character in question conclude that the original pipes of the sewers were Evil-aligned?
And ask a new one: how has the rest of the party received the news about this character and his magical hijinx?
Are these rat followers Awakened, or is their Intelligence score raised to allow them any sort of religious understanding?
And hey: how does the rightful goddess of rodents and ratkin feel about this (new herald of the Lady of Rats) / (blasphemous usurper and his heresy)?
LIES!You all can't handle the awesome of this guy's idea.
Your player has my permission to be shot.
The player was allowed a Knowledge(arcana) check, and was informed that while the result to the blade would likely be as desired, the result of doing this in this region was unpredictable.
The sword itself was "cured" of its summoning abilities.
However, the lightning bolts danced between mountaintops, magnified by the magic nature of the region, and summoned rats (And dire rats, and wererats) from leagues upon leagues in every direction.
They now believe this PC to be their God, and are trying to form social structures that support His belief in what is Right and Just.
That's.... odd.
|
|
That's.... odd.
LIES!You all can't handle the awesome of this guy's idea.
Your player has my permission to be shot.
The player was allowed a Knowledge(arcana) check, and was informed that while the result to the blade would likely be as desired, the result of doing this in this region was unpredictable.
The sword itself was "cured" of its summoning abilities.
However, the lightning bolts danced between mountaintops, magnified by the magic nature of the region, and summoned rats (And dire rats, and wererats) from leagues upon leagues in every direction.
They now believe this PC to be their God, and are trying to form social structures that support His belief in what is Right and Just.
If by odd you mean awesome, hell yeah!
SuperDM win!
I used to be like a lot of the naysayers in this thread. If my character wasn't exactly how I envisioned him, I got angry. Then I grew up.
One of our villains was essentially assassinating clerics and taking their holy symbols. Due to our game world lore, my cleric of justice's holy symbol was tattooed on his eye. My party used me as bait, but we failed and the villain killed me and took my holy symbol. When I was raised, I was still missing my eye. We never gave it an in game effect, I didn't use ranged weapons anyways, and I learned to wear it like a badge of honor.
If you watch a tv show, particularly one written by Joss Whedon, you'll notice the main characters pretty much only get screwed. Yeah, they beat up the BBEG, but their life continues to be in the crapper after that.
Harry Dresden novels are another example. He's a powerful wizard, yet the first 90% of the book he goes from scene to scene getting beat up.
Most people will say that Empire Strikes Back is their favorite Star Wars movie, yet that is nothing but the characters getting screwed.
Interesting stories don't happen when characters succeed all the time.
Some of us don't look for rules exploits so we can always "win". Some of us understand you don't "win" the game. You play the game.
Where is this coming from?
When I first started, I argued with DMs at the table. Then I ran a few games and it became very clear how annoying I must have been not only to them, but to the rest of the group. I've tried to stop, and mostly have.
I think I have the reverse problem. I started by hosting a lot of games and then switched to being a player, and now I often argue with the GM because they do things differently.
The rules are a guideline. Yes there is a social contract at work in any game, but it isn't "We will follow the rules to the letter". It is "we are all here to have a good time, let's do that."
Um...that's what I said.
You came to the table because you trust your DM to make the game fun...
I also trust that he is following the same rules framework that we are (when it comes to playing Pathfinder, the Core Rulebooks are the only common ground). Once everyone knows and has agreed upon the basic rule set, only then should you begin to talk about making house rules to better improve the group's games.
I'm not saying a GM shouldn't make things up from time to time (especially if there is no rule support for it), I'm just saying a GM shouldn't invite his players over to play checkers, and then start playing chess with them instead.
|
|
I'm not saying a GM shouldn't make things up from time to time (especially if there is no rule support for it), I'm just saying a GM shouldn't invite his players over to play checkers, and then start playing chess with them instead.
Fair enough, but I feel in this case the DM made clear that if you do what you are doing there will be consequences, and the player said "bring it!"
|
One of the most thrilling segments in any game I've ever played was due to a cursed sword that had a horrible affect on my character...and I'm pretty sure it's effects went well beyond anything supported in any rules.
The sword basically turned me into an undead creature. I was a low level half-orc fighter. By becoming undead, my character is basically denied any normally encountered means of healing damage (and I was already pretty damn low when the sword effected me). The sword does provide a very risky method for regaining hit points...every so often it would transfer the life energy of a sentient creature that the wielder killed using the sword to the wielder.
So I have very low hit points, and only one real option to try to regain them...combat. I never did manage to top off my hit points, but I managed to stay alive throughout the entire adventure (although every time I got near having a comfortable margin of hit points, I managed to take a hit or two).
I'm sure many of you would, from your reactions to this thread, whine about how unfair the GM was being and how he was "cheating". As for myself? Like I said...it was one of the more thrilling gaming experiences I've ever had. I was continually teetering on the edge of death...and it was damn fun.
But if had been a GM that I didn't trust, it wouldn't have been fun, it would have been annoying. And that's my point. A trustworthy GM is trustworthy whether he "cheats" or plays by the RAW. Likewise, an untrustworthy GM is untrustworthy whether he's cheating or just screwing you over within the rules (as a GM can easily do).
And if you happen to read this Nate, that was a damn fun game, and I'm glad you created that horribly unfairly cursed sword.
And that's a rule I would protect because of its hilarity/awesome potencial
There's probably no rule that is move annoying. Failing a check you would have made had you rolled a -10 just because it's natural 1 is not fun.
It's one step removed from the GM that requires dexterity checks to avoid strangling yourself while tying your shoelaces.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
But if had been a GM that I didn't trust, it wouldn't have been fun, it would have been annoying. And that's my point. A trustworthy GM is trustworthy whether he "cheats" or plays by the RAW. Likewise, an untrustworthy GM is untrustworthy whether he's cheating or just screwing you over within the rules (as a GM can easily do).
Nicely put. You articulated my vague position better than I could have.
|
And that's a rule I would protect because of its hilarity/awesome potencial (1 on a stealth check? You tripped on the lantern and set fire to a square in front of you. 20 on a stealth check? you wrote I WUZ HERE on the guard's forehead and he did even wake up)If I fail on a 1, I fail. I don't care. However, if I have a +20 to my Stealth skill and roll a 1, I still made a 21 stealth check. That's as good as some one with a +1 to their Stealth skill and rolled a 20. It's a stupid rule that turns all the noncombat portion of the game into a huge pain in the ass. That's why the rule was explicitly written that skills don't automatically fail or succeed and the reason you can take 10 on skills when there is no penalty for failure. In a game where 1 always fails for skills, you can NEVER take 10. Ever.
And that's bad because??? I use this houserule all the bloody time. Although since I did not like how often it comes up for specialized skills, I made it work like crits. Nat 20 with a successful roll = uber. Nat 1 with a failure roll aftrwards is a critical failure (on top of any existing critical failure rules). So hey, no more taking 10. I'm okay with that. No more taking 20...yep okay with that too. Yes I plainly say this is a houserule from the start...don't like it, too bad. And this is a houserule that many other DM I play with has adopted. I will admit that one group does not like this houserule entirely so I don't use it for them...and I don't use it when I meet up to run some play tests (which are as RAW as you can get play).
You and RD's unwavering everyone must be played by RAW is amusing...and just plain wrong. Our games, we can do what we want. It's not wrong to have houserules. And like I said, the OP should have made it clear that he is houseruling magical items to have residual magical effects on destruction...and if the DM did do this and the player still did what he did...then yeah he deserves what he got.
|
Theres nothing wrong with houserules- But its a terrible houserule. The worlds greatest blacksmith (lets say a 20th level expert), a man who would make Hephaeustus go red with envy, who can make swords worthy of the deities themselves, randomly fails in a given task 5% of the time- even one as simple as making a sturdy longsword.
It brings nothing to the game either except frustration IMHO.
|
|
Off topic, show me someone I messed with that wasn't trolling the board prior to me messing with them and I will apologize earnestly as I was clearly in the wrong.
On topic, as I and others have said, the issue comes down to trusting your DM or not trusting your DM. If you trust your DM, the game is more fun when they go "off book" sometimes. It add a layer of surprise for the players and flexibility to the DM.
As James Jacobs said, the Runelords were created by a should have been TPK which forced him to improvise a whole other adventure.
All off book.
If you have a good DM who wants to make the game fun, you go with it. If you have a bad DM who wants to kill your characters, find another DM.
If you have a rules nazi DM, that stinks too.
And that's bad because??? I use this houserule all the bloody time. Although since I did not like how often it comes up for specialized skills, I made it work like crits. Nat 20 with a successful roll = uber. Nat 1 with a failure roll aftrwards is a critical failure (on top of any existing critical failure rules).
So I, with my +23 to Perception can fail to detect someone with a -5 to Stealth because I rolled a 1 and he rolled a 20. You will never, EVER convince me that is a fair or sensible house rule. Ever.
|
|
Theres nothing wrong with houserules- But its a terrible houserule. The worlds greatest blacksmith (lets say a 20th level expert), a man who would make Hephaeustus go red with envy, who can make swords worthy of the deities themselves, randomly fails in a given task 5% of the time- even one as simple as making a sturdy longsword.
It brings nothing to the game either except frustration IMHO.
And which is why I made the adjustment...so the worlds greatest blacksmith can fail on two 1 being rolled. Or a 1 in 400. Yeah he had a bad day. He is human, it happens. The best blacksmith in the world today have a higher failure rate that that after all. Hell machined milled swords have a higher failure rate then that.
And which is why I made the adjustment...so the worlds greatest blacksmith can fail on two 1 being rolled. Or a 1 in 400. Yeah he had a bad day. He is human, it happens. The best blacksmith in the world today have a higher failure rate that that after all. Hell machined milled swords have a higher failure rate then that.Theres nothing wrong with houserules- But its a terrible houserule. The worlds greatest blacksmith (lets say a 20th level expert), a man who would make Hephaeustus go red with envy, who can make swords worthy of the deities themselves, randomly fails in a given task 5% of the time- even one as simple as making a sturdy longsword.
It brings nothing to the game either except frustration IMHO.
This game needs more reality! Except in all the parts with the nonsensical fantasy.
|
|
And that's bad because??? I use this houserule all the bloody time. Although since I did not like how often it comes up for specialized skills, I made it work like crits. Nat 20 with a successful roll = uber. Nat 1 with a failure roll aftrwards is a critical failure (on top of any existing critical failure rules).So I, with my +23 to Perception can fail to detect someone with a -5 to Stealth because I rolled a 1 and he rolled a 20. You will never, EVER convince me that is a fair or sensible house rule. Ever.
No the stealther would have to roll a 1 followed by a 1 to fail. The perciver would need to roll a 20 followed by a 20 to succeed. So you have a 1 in 400 chance of failure because you stepped on a very loud cracking branch. He has a 1 in 400 chance of just happening to glance at the right place at the right time. Please do try to read the WHOLE thing before commenting...sheesh.
|
|
This game needs more reality! Except in all the parts with the nonsensical fantasy.And which is why I made the adjustment...so the worlds greatest blacksmith can fail on two 1 being rolled. Or a 1 in 400. Yeah he had a bad day. He is human, it happens. The best blacksmith in the world today have a higher failure rate that that after all. Hell machined milled swords have a higher failure rate then that.Theres nothing wrong with houserules- But its a terrible houserule. The worlds greatest blacksmith (lets say a 20th level expert), a man who would make Hephaeustus go red with envy, who can make swords worthy of the deities themselves, randomly fails in a given task 5% of the time- even one as simple as making a sturdy longsword.
It brings nothing to the game either except frustration IMHO.
Now your just being antagonistic about a house rule in my game that does not deal with you at all...reported.
Hmm. My impressions.
Firstly, I'd say a lot of people, myself included, have a somewhat visceral reaction to the usage of the term 'dumb' with respect to the character's disposal of the pipes. On my first reading, I thought the DM was calling the player dumb for deciding the pipes were evil and disposing of the loot. This is not what was actually said; the OP actually said he thought the specific method was dumb. But the player's annoyance could stem from a similar misunderstanding. He might feel as if he is being passive-aggressively targeted, or that the DM won't let him refuse to take the loot.
And why was the method of disposal 'dumb', precisely? Yes, the DM did say something to the effect of 'Are you sure you want to do that'. As someone else pointed out, this could possibly have misinterpreted as 'Refresh my memory, what were you doing?', among other things. More pertinently, why would the character have the expectation that something like this could result from the action? The rules make no suggestion that it is possible. Now, of course a DM must reserve the ability to make house rules, fudge, or otherwise alter rules to suit the needs of his games. But the rules also define, to some extent, the character's understanding of how the world works. As far as the player and his character knew, there was no risk to burning the Pipes of the Sewers.
How long after the burning occurred did the sword get enchanted? The delayed consequence could also be a factor. Nothing did happen immediately after it was burned; the player might well have considered the whole occurrence a trivial bit of fluff and mostly forgotten it by the time it came up.
And of course, there's the simple possibility that the player finds such quirks silly and out of tone for the sort of D&D he wants to play.
|
|
Now your just being antagonistic about a house rule in my game that does not deal with you at all...reported.This game needs more reality! Except in all the parts with the nonsensical fantasy.And which is why I made the adjustment...so the worlds greatest blacksmith can fail on two 1 being rolled. Or a 1 in 400. Yeah he had a bad day. He is human, it happens. The best blacksmith in the world today have a higher failure rate that that after all. Hell machined milled swords have a higher failure rate then that.Theres nothing wrong with houserules- But its a terrible houserule. The worlds greatest blacksmith (lets say a 20th level expert), a man who would make Hephaeustus go red with envy, who can make swords worthy of the deities themselves, randomly fails in a given task 5% of the time- even one as simple as making a sturdy longsword.
It brings nothing to the game either except frustration IMHO.
See why I mess with him?
No the stealther would have to roll a 1 followed by a 1 to fail. The perciver would need to roll a 20 followed by a 20 to succeed.
Which is different than I have ever seen it applied. No, I am talking about 5% chance to fail any skill against even the basest static DC. Have a +15 jump check and rolled a 1 to clear a 5 foot gap? You're going in for the plunge unless you make a DC 15 Reflex save.
No the stealther would have to roll a 1 followed by a 1 to fail. The perciver would need to roll a 20 followed by a 20 to succeed. So you have a 1 in 400 chance of failure because you stepped on a very loud cracking branch. He has a 1 in 400 chance of just happening to glance at the right place at the right time. Please do try to read the WHOLE thing before commenting...sheesh.
And that's bad because??? I use this houserule all the bloody time. Although since I did not like how often it comes up for specialized skills, I made it work like crits. Nat 20 with a successful roll = uber. Nat 1 with a failure roll aftrwards is a critical failure (on top of any existing critical failure rules).So I, with my +23 to Perception can fail to detect someone with a -5 to Stealth because I rolled a 1 and he rolled a 20. You will never, EVER convince me that is a fair or sensible house rule. Ever.
To be fair--in the normal crit rules, 20 is autohit and 1 is autofail regardless of whether the crit is confirmed, so saying you made skill checks 'like crits' could well be misinterpreted.
|
|
For the OP...let him do it. When he cast a spell roll on a wild magic chart...I like the 2nd ed one. Then tell him what happens which each spells. And that's it. If he happens to roll and have the spell hit a party member, I would stop long enough to see if the rest of the party will stand for this non-sense.
No the stealther would have to roll a 1 followed by a 1 to fail. The perciver would need to roll a 20 followed by a 20 to succeed. So you have a 1 in 400 chance of failure because you stepped on a very loud cracking branch. He has a 1 in 400 chance of just happening to glance at the right place at the right time. Please do try to read the WHOLE thing before commenting...sheesh.
The only grief I have with that is that sometimes, as a DM, I don't want them making a skill check, or failing it. So I set a DC so low or so high that can't possibly do one or the other. If a 20 followed by a 20 is a guaranteed success, then the piece of obscure lore that I want them to research or that only the Wizard should be able to make, could be known by the stupid rogue. Or, the DC 1 Knowledge Duh check is failed by the genius because he rolled two 1s. I know, statistically it's highly improbable, but the chance exists.
For the OP...let him do it. When he cast a spell roll on a wild magic chart...I like the 2nd ed one. Then tell him what happens which each spells. And that's it. If he happens to roll and have the spell hit a party member, I would stop long enough to see if the rest of the party will stand for this non-sense.
He already let him do it. Which results in some very odd, comical scenario as equally confusing as not.
|
|
But the rules also define, to some extent, the character's understanding of how the world works. As far as the player and his character knew, there was no risk to burning the Pipes of the Sewers.
I see your point, however unless an arcana check was done, in character the player has no idea what effects could come from this action and should understand there is danger in what they are doing. In character, no one knows "the rules" of what could happen when you are messing with strange, evil, arcane objects.
The added effects seem "logical", even if they don't fit rule as written, and all the character has to do is sell the sword (probably worth more now than it was) and get another one. Or not do what they did in a clearly labeled wild magic area.
I agree if the warning was "looking back" without giving the player an opportunity to take it back, this is kind of a dick move by the DM from the start. But if a clear warning is given that an action may have unintended consequences, I think this is a brilliant piece of DMing.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
So I, with my +23 to Perception can fail to detect someone with a -5 to Stealth because I rolled a 1 and he rolled a 20. You will never, EVER convince me that is a fair or sensible house rule. Ever.
Cartigan, I'm not going to try to convince you it's a fair house-rule. It's not. I'm not going to try to convince you it's realistic.
What I will try to convince you is that it does have something going for it, depending on the style of a campaign. There are a great many people who like a level of (well, for lack of a better term) genre-appropriate chaos in their gaming. These are the people who buy the critical hit / fumble / plot twist cards. (If you don't like failing a skill roll one time out of twenty, then you probably won't like the fumble deck and its more severe penalties.) To that style of gaming, a sure thing, like tumbling over a shambling mound with an Acrobatics check of +23, or melting down a magic item with no bizarre ramifications, is anathema.
I agree with your position, if you hold that a single d20 roll is too coarse a randomizer. 1-in-20 is a pretty serious chance of failure when a renowned expert is trying something simple. I'm somewhere in the middle of the continuum on this topic, and would think that a 1-in-400 chance is often a better choice for an effect that takes into account so much fortune.