So I've been playing in games run by this one fellow off and on for 8 years or so. I generally enjoy his style, but his "interpretation" of the rules has always been a point of frustration with him, eventually leading me to leave his game years ago. I'm playing with him DMing again, largely because of the rest of the group who are all close friends, and because he is running a published adventure (Shackled City) for once which he has said he'd never do, and I thought it would reign in his tendencies to not play by the rules.
We have had disagreements in the past in regards to the melee/caster divide (which I don't want this thread to devolve into btw) because he thinks casters are underpowered and melee are gods, and prefers to play casters. I took up the challenge of playing a caster in this game to show him just how absurdly powerful spells can be.
Every week so far he has made oddball rulings on the fly that flew in the face of my understanding of the rules. 1) He wouldn't allow me to use Prestidigitation to hold a copper piece with Light on it so the human rogue could see to disarm a trap. Why nerf fun? It's a mild utility use of a friggin cantrip right? He says once you cast light on the coin it is a magic item and you can't use presto. Forgetting that there is no such provision in prestidigitation, that's Mage Hand, a coin with a spell on it is not a magic item. 2)Myself and a fighter had held actions to cast a spell/attack respectively a target that came into sight. I greased, he fell, the fighter didn't get the bonus to hit the now prone target under the logic that it happens simultaneously. 3)Forcing me to make a perception check to successfully target a Sleep spell to save the party, because there were people fighting between me and the target.
And last night, the big one, 4)he said that my Glitterdust didn't work on a construct because all constructs are blanket immune to magic with the exception of one or two spells which would be indicated in the monster writeup. I suggested he was thinking of Golems, and even then that only countered spells that allowed spell resistance which Glitterdust does not. My Grease failed for the same reason. After trying to point out the rules he just gets sort of defensive if not angry.
This is sort of his way, he just gets defensive when you try to challenge him on the rules. I consider myself a bit of a rules lawyer, I'll admit, but equal opportunity. I'll point out that a spell doesn't do what my teammate thinks it does, remind them that they were stunned this round, or correct infractions in action economy. Which he doesn't seem to mind, but when his "interpretations" (I use the quotes because he is just flat, pulling stuff out of his backside, wrong on some stuff) of the rules nullify every spell I cast it makes me think he is only trying to prove how "weak" magic is.
I fear that confronting him on his rules indiscretions will only make him stomp off and leave the group, or force me to leave. It may yet come to that, but does anyone have any advice for me before I burn my bridges?
Every week so far he has made oddball rulings on the fly that flew in the face of my understanding of the rules. 1) He wouldn't allow me to use Prestidigitation to hold a copper piece with Light on it so the human rogue could see to disarm a trap. Why nerf fun? It's a mild utility use of a friggin cantrip right? He says once you cast light on the coin it is a magic item and you can't use presto. Forgetting that there is no such provision in prestidigitation, that's Mage Hand, a coin with a spell on it is not a magic item.
I have to agree. A spell on a mundane item is not a magic item.
2)Myself and a fighter had held actions to cast a spell/attack respectively a target that came into sight. I greased, he fell, the fighter didn't get the bonus to hit the now prone target under the logic that it happens simultaneously.
Huh? I'm not sure what he means.
pquote[3)Forcing me to make a perception check to successfully target a Sleep spell to save the party, because there were people fighting between me and the target.
Wait...so you are blind in combat?
And last night, the big one, 4)he said that my Glitterdust didn't work on a construct because all constructs are blanket immune to magic with the exception of one or two spells which would be indicated in the monster writeup. I suggested he was thinking...
Yeah, only Golems are immune to spells (but he never noticed it means SR magic)
I know how it is to get the shaft from a DM whose "interpretations" are different from yours. One of my DMs won't let me take 10 on Spellcraft checks for Magic Item Creation. I have not confronted him about it in a while so what I did was post the question here on the boards and hopefully get a developer to comment on your post proving your point...which I did. I have a screenshot of a developer supporting my position. I plan to explain to him one more time with the creators of the game's intent on the rule. I am a bit of a lawyer too tho. If you still get pushback refer to Rule 0.
Maybe you can try that.
See, I can understand how some of those rulings are annoying. However, I also think its important to make sure that the GM in any given situation isn't telling you how things work in his campaign.
I know I'd be pretty upset if someone came to my table and said "this has to work this way because X said so."
Now, that having been said, I tend to make any changes in a campaign from RAW as clear as possible before the campaign starts, which I think is important for a GM. Letting people know up front that X or Y is a pet peeve and its going to work differently avoids a lot of annoyance when it seems like a ruling was made on the fly, even if it wasn't
Also, regarding 2 . . . actually the fighter should have said he's holding his action until you had completed your spell, instead of waiting to act at the same time.
I just want to add that I am totally 100% fine with houserules, whatever they may be, even if it is something off the wall...as long as I get prior notice. It doesn't seem fair to get stuff sprung on you. If I design a character around certain strategies, then am told those strategies won't work, I feel cheated.
I fear you're screwed: You can either
For what it's worth, I'd be annoyed, too. Misinterpretations combined with a resistance to being told how it is supposed to work can be annoying if one has a bit of rules lawyer in him, and if it's invariably stuff that screws the players over, it will probably annoy most everyone.
Regarding your examples:
1) That's petty. Sure, mage hand only works on non-magical items, and I could see one ruling that this will roll over to prestidigitation as well, but a coin with light on it? It's not as if this will turn you into a being of godlike power. You could just put it on a fishing pole and get the same effect.
3) That's silly. It's magic, you just mentally target some blokes and they're affected.
4) That's weapon's grade dumb. I'd try the extent of this. Smash a bridge, magically repair it and lure the "golem" across. After all, he's immune to magic and will fall into the hole which is still there for the thing.
Finally, if I were you, I wouldn't correct other people's mistakes. He is obviously open to interpretation, so get creative. This should work both ways.
Also, regarding 2 . . . actually the fighter should have said he's holding his action until you had completed your spell, instead of waiting to act at the same time.
He didn't know what I was doing. My initiative is higher, so I reacted first. The point is that there's no simultaneity, but rather an order of operations. I cast a spell, its effects are instantaneous. The DM had already rolled the save and placed the miniatures in the "prone" position.
@Starbuck Re: Being blind. Exactly. His position seems to be that if there is anything that would provide cover "or soft cover" between the caster and where he is placing a spell it should require a perception check for it to land properly. What ended up happening is I targetted it in an adjacent hex, forcing the aforementioned fighter to make a save vs. sleep and not enough of the spell leftover after his 2HD to affect the targets I really wanted.
I just want to add that I am totally 100% fine with houserules, whatever they may be, even if it is something off the wall...as long as I get prior notice. It doesn't seem fair to get stuff sprung on you. If I design a character around certain strategies, then am told those strategies won't work, I feel cheated.
I didn't want to sound too unsympathetic. I just wanted to play GM's advocate. I had a GM once that frustrated the Hell out of me, because he was running a 3.5 campaign by converting (on the fly) 1st edition adventures, but was using a mix of 1st/2nd/3.0/3.5 rules, and often didn't explain under what conditions each set of rules would apply.
"The adventure calls for you to improvise using something specific for weapons, so your feats that let you improvise weapons don't work."--after we were already in the adventure, after I had already taken the feats.
"I don't like adamantine magic weapons hurting Golems. I like you to need +3 weapons to hurt them,"--in the middle of a fight with an Iron Golem.
"Fireballs automatically destroy magical treasure, you have to be careful using them,"--after our spellcaster used fireball on some bad guys and apparently destroyed a +1 longsword when no one in the party had any weapons (see above).
"Fireballs fill up their total volume once they go off, so you guys are all in the blast radius now,"--again, after our caster had used the spell in a relatively small space.
So I feel your pain, I do. I just wanted to get across that someone that actually has certain changes or a legitimate difference on how a rule should work shouldn't be told that he "can't" run his game the way he prefers.
I fear you're screwed: You can either
Stomach it and on playing, which might mean that the frustration is bottled up until it explodes and "an incident" happens.
I'm not proud to admit it, but while we didn't have "an incident," in the game I mentioned above we all seemed to be going out of our way to do really unorthodox things the more these things happened, and at least two of us were intentionally trying to commit suicide upon our characters.
He didn't know what I was doing. My initiative is higher, so I reacted first. The point is that there's no simultaneity, but rather an order of operations.
Actually, the entire round goes on in the same six seconds. It not that you get your standard action to cast your spell (about 3 secs), then the Fighter get his standard action attack (another 3 secs) and then the next in line can act. If the Fighter should wait for you, then make his attack and then wanted to use his move action, the round would stretch into some 9 seconds, which of course it doesn't.
My point here is that while initiative does indeed decide who goes first in the round, it's not a game of Final Fantasy, where everybody wait in line for their turn. Battle is a mess and nobody really has a much control over the situation as they would like to.
That said; Your GM is dead wrong and his decisions sound like they're based on him taking things personally on behalf of his monsters. I would make a few notes on the rulings that I felt slighted on and take the fight with him. If he started rawing I'd leave the group, so that I at least didn't spoil the other players' fun.
I feel your pain...
I understand where you are coming from OP, but...
You basically created a character to prove your GM wrong. This implies an adversarial relationship. I'm not surprised you are having trouble.
It's probably not good for you, him, or the game to set goals like that. He's going to rein you in rather than let the campaign deteriorate, so the harder you push the less happy everyone will be.
This is an inter-personal issue, not a game issue. You actually need to sit down and talk to this person as a friend, as though the game and rules don't matter.
From the sound of it, I'm thinking you are at least 50% responsible. If the game or the social event is worthwhile to you, you need to recalibrate.
While all of the above is my opinion, as a GM, I disagree with his ruling, especially the one about constructs. If a creature is magic immune, it is in the statblock. Grease works on anything that walks on legs.
I understand where you are coming from OP, but...
You basically created a character to prove your GM wrong. This implies an adversarial relationship. I'm not surprised you are having trouble.
It's probably not good for you, him, or the game to set goals like that. He's going to rein you in rather than let the campaign deteriorate, so the harder you push the less happy everyone will be.
This is an inter-personal issue, not a game issue. You actually need to sit down and talk to this person as a friend, as though the game and rules don't matter.
From the sound of it, I'm thinking you are at least 50% responsible. If the game or the social event is worthwhile to you, you need to recalibrate.
While all of the above is my opinion, as a GM, I disagree with his ruling, especially the one about constructs. If a creature is magic immune, it is in the statblock. Grease works on anything that walks on legs.
I must bow to superior wisdom :D
+1
The answer to your situation seems fundamentally simple and obvious. It seems to me that you simply shouldn't play with this person.
Nowhere in your post do you mention how anybody else at the table feels about any of this. That would lead me to conclude that they are okay with it, if not downright enjoying it. It's very possible, then, that you are the biggest distraction to the group's enjoyment, arguing as you do.
As much as it may irk you to read this, the rules are secondary compared with the enjoyment of the group. If they are okay with his style, and continually keep coming back for more, there really is no issue here, other than you insisting on playing in a situation you purport to hate.
I've played many games over the 30 years since I got my first Basic Set box. Some were rules heavy, some completely ad hoc. None were more valid than the others just because they obeyed RAW more, or obeyed them less. They simply were fun or were not. If it is not fun for you to have a rules-lax GM, then find one that is not.
Change is not somthing you Can force others to dó, it has to happen from within Yourself.
So if you really want to chang somthing start with yourself, talk to your gm in private and be honest, telle him why you creates This spellcaster(to prove him wrong), and then ask him if the rulling he makes are house rules or just there to prove his point about magic.
It might be that hé would like a game where magic is weaker, and if that is the case try to work with him in order to improve the fun for both of you.
Happy gaming, i hope you resolve this.
Considering the background you mentioned in your interaction with the GM, I am unclear as to why you are gaming with him other than to create an advesarial situation. Perhaps you should invite him to this thread for his POV, so that we can give fair and balanced advice, including about those specific situations you mentioned.
well, he might be wrong on some points but at least it doesn't look like he's trying to mess with you. (seriously.. he thinks melee are gods? He must give out a LOT of lootz)
1) He wouldn't allow me to use Prestidigitation to hold a copper piece with Light on it so the human rogue could see to disarm a trap. Why nerf fun?
It's a mild utility use of a friggin cantrip right?
Thats kind of a silly ruling. Next time someone tries to magehand something cast light on it.
2)Myself and a fighter had held actions to cast a spell/attack respectively a target that came into sight. I greased, he fell, the fighter didn't get the bonus to hit the now prone target under the logic that it happens simultaneously.
I would have ruled the same thing. You and the fighter are blasting the mook at the same time, the fighters player can go before you (the player) and it would have been just as accurate.
3)Forcing me to make a perception check to successfully target a Sleep spell to save the party, because there were people fighting between me and the target.
that's nutty. ask him to show you the rule.
4)he said that my Glitterdust didn't work on a construct because all constructs are blanket immune to magic with the exception of one or two spells which would be indicated in the monster writeup. I suggested he was thinking...
well, constructs ARE immune to a lot.
Immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, morale effects, patterns, and phantasms).
• Immunity to bleed, disease, death effects, necromancy effects, paralysis, poison, sleep effects, and stunning.
• Not subject to ability damage, ability drain, fatigue, exhaustion, energy drain, or nonlethal damage.
• Immunity to any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects, or is harmless).
I don't see anything to make it immune to blinding, but it seems to be immune to most things that would blind you.
Save Will negates (blinding only); SR no
MY DM IS WRONG: ADVICE PLEASE.....
DM are GODS. They are never wrong. If the god, wants something to happen, then they bend reality (or break it) and it become what happens. They control what your character sees, hears, smells, touches, tastes ... they control the vertical and the horizontal, for you are in their ..twil... oh well you get the picture!!
If you do not like they way the gods work in their world, you can:
1) Pray to your god, and see if you can change his mind. (good luck with that one, never works for me)
2) Vanish from the world.
3) BECOME GOD !!.. Start your own game up, and become DM. That way the game world works the way you want it to......... As long as you can find and keep worshipers (cough,,,Players)... You will rule the universe!!!
A Character to Prove Your GM Wrong:I understand where you are coming from OP, but...You basically created a character to prove your GM wrong. This implies an adversarial relationship. I'm not surprised you are having trouble.
It's probably not good for you, him, or the game to set goals like that. He's going to rein you in rather than let the campaign deteriorate, so the harder you push the less happy everyone will be.
This is an inter-personal issue, not a game issue. You actually need to sit down and talk to this person as a friend, as though the game and rules don't matter.
From the sound of it, I'm thinking you are at least 50% responsible. If the game or the social event is worthwhile to you, you need to recalibrate.
While all of the above is my opinion, as a GM, I disagree with his ruling, especially the one about constructs. If a creature is magic immune, it is in the statblock. Grease works on anything that walks on legs.
+1 and well said.
|
I don't see house rules like the GM made as being too terrible and I would suggest going with the flow except... It sounds like he is making these calls on the fly and somewhat arbitrarily which means you have no idea how things are going to work. This is exactly why I left the last group I was in. Not being able to predict what a spell or power is going to be able to do in combat is one of the most frustrating experiences as a player and there is ultimately no help. Maybe ask if you can switch to a class which is predictable in nature.
Edit: Also, re-read Evil Lincoln's post, very good advice.
DM Aren't Wrong. They're gods!:MY DM IS WRONG: ADVICE PLEASE.....DM are GODS. They are never wrong. If the god, wants something to happen, then they bend reality (or break it) and it become what happens. They control what your character sees, hears, smells, touches, tastes ... they control the vertical and the horizontal, for you are in their ..twil... oh well you get the picture!!
If you do not like they way the gods work in their world, you can:
1) Pray to your god, and see if you can change his mind. (good luck with that one, never works for me)
2) Vanish from the world.
3) BECOME GOD !!.. Start your own game up, and become DM. That way the game world works the way you want it to......... As long as you can find and keep worshipers (cough,,,Players)... You will rule the universe!!!
:smile:
Oliver summed it up th best I think.
Yet, from what I see in your initial post your relation with GM is bad, at least when it comes to game. Of examples you wrote, 1, 3 and 4 seem to be arbitrary and not quite fair towards you, unless you missed some hints or information from GM earlier or miscommunicated about the circumstances (well, at least in case of 3). Only second example was clearly fair (unless the fighter specifically readied the action to attack prone opponent knowing what you will do).
Ditch this guy!!! His game is not about the players having fun, rather,it's about everyone bowing to the DM's every goofy wish. It's all about winning the battle of wills over the welfare of the players.
If this is the only game and you really want to play then just play a fighter, say "wow, you are right, wizards really do suck" and know that you and all of us know this guy is a real dumba$$.
Dm is god? pft.
"The DM is always right" is a true statement generally but one most also remember that power comes with responsibility.
It is NOT the DM's job to make up house-rules on the fly or to alter the rules arbitrarily without notice to the PC's. We have all not spent 40 if not 70 dollars or more on rule books to guess at what will happen when we take any given action. the DM can change rules- but they need the consent of the PC's and, most importantly, they need to give notice of the change.
This is not a game of "hide the ball". The game world mechanics should be wide open to the PC's so they know what will happen when they undertake any action. This means that, assuming physics apply, when you jump you make the check and you go the distance you roll. You do not make the check and the DM looks at it and decides you rolled half the distance- with no reason. "Oh, that doesn't work that way" is not appropriate. (assuming there is no trap or spell effect going on that would alter it, of course).
The DM is not god. the DM is another player in a game where /we are all trying to have fun/. Arbitrary and capricious are not fun.
-end threadjack-
-S
Dm is god? pft.
** spoiler omitted **
-end threadjack-
-S
While i agree with you.... it never works out that way (my prayers never get listen to)
To maintain one sanity, the reality is your DM is god. They have there own house rules (althought it would be nice if they typed those up and printed them out for the players... i know i always did), and players have to chose of living by what the DM says....or going out and starting there own game.
I guess I've just never been in a game like that- excepting games where I came in at the mid-campaign level.
Even then the players and DM would sit down and talk about "their house rules".. Not the DM's.
house rules should be by committee not by dictator. The closest I've seen to "on the spot" are for things that only had just come up and no one had thought of them before. At that point, we took a short break, discussed it, came up with a rule, and went on.
Different folks play differently, however.
-S
1) He wouldn't allow me to use Prestidigitation to hold a copper piece with Light on it so the human rogue could see to disarm a trap.
I agree with you
I greased, he fell, the fighter didn't get the bonus to hit the now prone target under the logic that it happens simultaneously.
He may have a point. The fighter may actually have swung just before the spell went off. When readying actions you are supposed to be very specific. The fighter should have worded to take place after the spell was cast, but then the DM may decide to make him decide to attack based on whether or not the opponent is on the ground.
Forcing me to make a perception check to successfully target a Sleep spell to save the party, because there were people fighting between me and the target.
There are no rules that say you have to make perception checks to target spells. Some DM's do it, but it is a house rule. I would have had him write up in house rules before we started playing. I think a DM should do it as a courtesy anyway. Random sudden rules are not fun.
As for this rule if a quarterback can throw a ball 70 yard to someone and hit them in the middle of their chest with a football while the person is running, and another world class athlete is trying to at least knock the ball down I don't think placing a spell is all that hard. If the wants to say the wizard is not a world class athlete then remind him that even the average H.S QB can place a pass accurately, and that is with people running at him trying to tackle him.
he said that my Glitterdust didn't work on a construct because all constructs are blanket immune to magic with the exception of one or two spells which would be indicated in the monster writeup. I suggested he was thinking...
Golem(a type of construct), not constructs as a whole, are immune to spells that have SR except for certain ones which are listed in the monster's descriptions.
Which monster was this? I might be able to help you out on this one.
I know the fight is over, but it could help with future problems.
edit:I made a change to number 1. I agree with out. I misread it the first time.
First things first, I think Evil Lincoln and others have a good point: regardless of the specific issue, the way this is presented here, this whole thing seems to have been built on both your parts--with all due respect--on adversarialness and the importance of "who is right" rather than on the fun of playing a game, and as long as either of you are convinced you must be right and the other wrong, this is not going to get better.
My advice would be to stop the campaign and ask a third person, preferably an experienced GM to run a game with both of you as players---or have each of you find different games to be in and then come back and compare notes later after you've had time to cool down and each of you can both look at the situation and the rules objectively.
For the record, however... my thoughts on the rulings. This is just FWIW, and not intended to start an argument. The most important thing is in fact not to be worried about whether you're right at the moment--it's about letting go of competitiveness.
Every week so far he has made oddball rulings on the fly that flew in the face of my understanding of the rules. 1) He wouldn't allow me to use Prestidigitation to hold a copper piece with Light on it so the human rogue could see to disarm a trap. Why nerf fun? It's a mild utility use of a friggin cantrip right? He says once you cast light on the coin it is a magic item and you can't use presto. Forgetting that there is no such provision in prestidigitation, that's Mage Hand, a coin with a spell on it is not a magic item.
While I agree the coin is not a magic item, I also agree with your GM that prestidigitation is the incorrect spell to manipulate an item like that. Prestidigitation clearly states that it can be used to very slowly lift an item--not move it around. I would also say that you need mage hand do do what you were trying to achieve. (Why would there be two cantrips that did exactly the same thing?) Also, there's no reason the rogue couldn't just take the coin with him and put it on the ground so he could see while he worked. Or why you couldn't cast light on one of his buttons of his shirt or something.
It's not about "nerfing fun"--it's about establishing clear guidelines and respecting the spell descriptions as written (as I know very well from experience, allowing a loose interpretation for one spell can "permit" loose interpretation of a more powerful spell that can lead to serious balance issues down the line).
2)Myself and a fighter had held actions to cast a spell/attack respectively a target that came into sight. I greased, he fell, the fighter didn't get the bonus to hit the now prone target under the logic that it happens simultaneously.
This may have been a miscommunication about readying/delaying actions, but I agree this was very nitpicky. At a time when all of you are feeling fairly neutral and willing to see all sides, I'd suggest all of you--you, the fighter player, and the GM review the ready/delay rules together and make sure you are all on the same page on how that works.
3)Forcing me to make a perception check to successfully target a Sleep spell to save the party, because there were people fighting between me and the target.
I need to know more about the situation. In a very complex situation with a lot of blocking and cover where I wasn't sure someone had LOS, I might ask for a Perception check too---but it would be a very unusual circumstance.
Again, when all are feeling amicable with one another, I would read the line of sight rules together and make sure everyone is on the same page.
And last night, the big one, 4)he said that my Glitterdust didn't work on a construct because all constructs are blanket immune to magic with the exception of one or two spells which would be indicated in the monster writeup. I suggested he was thinking...
Either way, he is wrong. If it was simply a construct such as an animated object, obviously any immunity to spells is neither in the statblock nor in the description of construct traits. A review of the statblock in the Bestiary is all that is needed to confirm this.
If it was a golem-type creature that specifically has the Immunity to Spells ability, the description of that ability very clearly states that it applies only to spells stoppable by Spell Resistance. Both glitterdust and grease are "SR:No" spells (i.e., spell resistance does not apply) and therefore would both work on golems. (I've seen grease used very cleverly and effectively and quite legally on golems!)
Again, this is all clear in the rules text. My guess is that in the worst case scenario, competitiveness engendered between you and the GM--not interested in who started it, just that it needs to stop--has inspired the GM to "forget" to read his monster stat blocks. In the best case, he needs to review the rules, but needs to be given space to do so in a way that does not engender this competitive atmosphere.
RPGs are cooperative, including cooperativeness between player and GM. Both players and GMs need to work together to encourage this cooperation. If things get heated and poor rules decisions are being made because of it, then everyone clearly needs a break before gaming stops being fun.
Also, if it's a matter of difference in play style or house rules, then the GM needs to be clear on what his house rules are and stick to them consistently--and if players accept the house rules when they are declared, then they don't get to, unconditionally and without reason, complain about them later.
No, your DM isn't wrong.
The rules are what the DM says they are, not what's printed on the pages of the book. The DM is by definition right on any matter of the rules in the game he's DMing. The DM is, as Gary Gyxax put it, the "creator and ultimate authority in [his] respective game", and the rules are written "as one Dungeon Master equal to another." When the DM and the book disagree, the book is wrong.
You don't like his oddball rulings. Fine. You're perfectly entitled to your opinion. But his oddball rulings are not wrong, even if they contradict the book. They're just rulings you don't like. You do not have a rules problem here, you have a social problem. And apparently a major part of your social problem is your mistaken belief that the DM can be wrong about the rules in the DM's game.
DM are GODS. They are never wrong. If the god, wants something to happen, then they bend reality (or break it) and it become what happens.
Even God has boundries and for the DM, those boundries should be the rules.
House rules should be discussed and agreed upon before characters are built and the DM should have a general understanding of how your character is going to develop. I have had to swallow my pride a couple of times for group cohesion.
No, your DM isn't wrong.
The rules are what the DM says they are, not what's printed on the pages of the book.
Then why even have a CRB? Why even have rules for all PCs to view?
As a DM, if a player shows me where a rule in the book that is contradictory to what is happening in the game, I would not say "Well, that's just how it is. Deal with it." I would amend the situation to comform with the rules.
When DMs hand wave away stuff to the point you can no longer recognize that you're playing Pathfinder, then what's the point?
Just play DM's story hour.
When DMs hand wave away stuff to the point you can no longer recognize that you're playing Pathfinder, then what's the point?
Just play DM's story hour.
+1
Brings back memories of the worst DM ruling I've ever been on the wrong side of. It was 2e, and we were surprised by rakshasas in a cave and getting beat pretty badly. My cleric cast earthquake where they were standing and hitting us with lightning bolts and the like, trying to cause a cave-in. The DM said, "Nothing happens." Because the rakshasas were "immune to magic." I tried to demonstrate that I wasn't casting it at them but at the ground they were standing on, but he insisted that if the spell would affect them at all, even by making the earth to open up or rocks to fall, their immunity to magic would stop the spell from doing anything at all. Like they were carrying around their own personal anti-magic field or something.
Grr. Still makes me mad.
I have a DM that changes things up mid combat. The group isnt doing so well, so all of a sudden neither are the bad guys. We totally know what he's doing and it takes risk away from the game. None of us have died yet and a couple of us should have.
I like my character, but...don't take the risk out of battle.
The Created Union insists that spells without spell resistance, particularly benificial spells, should go through. Healing does half, harming has no effect. You take that away from us, we demand surviving at minuses and souls.
Um sleep bypasses anyone with too many dice to be affected. I don't think you could target the troll wrestling the barbarian.
+1When DMs hand wave away stuff to the point you can no longer recognize that you're playing Pathfinder, then what's the point?
Just play DM's story hour.
+2
House Ruling is one thing. It is another to constantly change things. Personally everyone here (including me) is agreeing with all of your statements except on the readied action. Give him a link to this page. If he still persists... You might really want to just leave.
I had one GM that for god knows what reason thought you could not charge and power attack at the same time in 3.5. It infuriated me to NO end.
Brings back memories of the worst DM ruling I've ever been on the wrong side of. It was 2e, and we were surprised by rakshasas in a cave and getting beat pretty badly. My cleric cast earthquake where they were standing and hitting us with lightning bolts and the like, trying to cause a cave-in. The DM said, "Nothing happens." Because the rakshasas were "immune to magic." I tried to demonstrate that I wasn't casting it at them but at the ground they were standing on, but he insisted that if the spell would affect them at all, even by making the earth to open up or rocks to fall, their immunity to magic would stop the spell from doing anything at all. Like they were carrying around their own personal anti-magic field or something.
Grr. Still makes me mad.
That's why advanced and 3rd edition sucked eggs. If a drow doesn't actually eat magic why does she suck up the entire fireball? How can she have functioning magic items? It takes me out of the game and makes me think about rules.
|
|
+1When DMs hand wave away stuff to the point you can no longer recognize that you're playing Pathfinder, then what's the point?
Just play DM's story hour.+2
House Ruling is one thing. It is another to constantly change things. Personally everyone here (including me) is agreeing with all of your statements except on the readied action. Give him a link to this page. If he still persists... You might really want to just leave.
To be honest any or all of the GMs call might be reasonable house rules but it's irrelevant. If you don't know how he's going to rule from session to session, spell to spell until he does it you are bound to be frustrated.
I have this problem in reverse, I have a player who does not understand the rules very well, and he has played off and on for a long time, gets his edition mixed up, every single play session I have to spend at least an hour explaining /looking up/ arguing rules with this guy. On top of that he will argue plot points with me as well. Part of the problem is I try to keep the game moving forward and if I don't remember a minor rule I will do something that works, and pathfinder runs a few thing different then 3.5 and this guys is not fully up to date on the rules.
I don't think that you are like my player, but I have told this guy many times that if you think that I am being unfair or you don't like the way I play then don't play no hard feeling. So thats what I am saying to you, you will not get him to change the way he runs his game, because it is his game, right or wrong. Unless of course he see the game as every ones, then you might be able to say some thing, talk to the other players see if they see it to. If your fun vs frustrated index is in the frustrated stop playing in his game again.
{STUFF}
OK, two things here.
1) The Umpire is always right, even when he's wrong.
2) Do not confront him about his rulings. Accept them, mopve on, and raise the issue afterwards and discuss with him in a non-confrontational, rational manner. (My ex-wife was always defensive if confronted - the harder you argued and the more 'right' you were, the more she dug her heels in. The only way to get her to accept your point of view was to lead her to it gradually and in a non-confrontational manner).
1) He wouldn't allow me to use Prestidigitation to hold a copper piece with Light on it so the human rogue could see to disarm a trap. Why nerf fun? It's a mild utility use of a friggin cantrip right? He says once you cast light on the coin it is a magic item and you can't use presto. Forgetting that there is no such provision in prestidigitation, that's Mage Hand, a coin with a spell on it is not a magic item.
Magic items are created by using the various feats for that purpose, yes? How can you create a wondrous item without the appropriate feat? If this light coin is an actual magic item, you require the feat to make it. Since you don't have the feat (I assume), you cannot create the item. Thus you cannot cast light on a coin. Or a person. Or any other object. You cannot in fact cast any spell with ongoing duration (beyond Instantaneous) without the appropriate feat. And since there is no Craft Magic Creature feat, you cannot ever cast spells on a living creature.
To summarize: bad ruling.
2)Myself and a fighter had held actions to cast a spell/attack respectively a target that came into sight. I greased, he fell, the fighter didn't get the bonus to hit the now prone target under the logic that it happens simultaneously.
Since everything within a round happens simultaneously regardless of the order that the DM calls out initiative, a rogue with higher initiative than his foes is never permitted to sneak-attack them unless he is flanking. They are not flat-footed as they have their turn at the same time that the rogue does. Further, a cleric who has prepared breath of life cannot actually apply it in the event that a companion falls for the simple reason that he is already busy taking his turn doing whatever it is that he would normally have done. The companion has not fallen at the time the cleric acts; they are in the process of being slain. By the next round, the companion is good and dead, so this is another spell that cannot ever be cast successfully.
To summarize: bad ruling.
3)Forcing me to make a perception check to successfully target a Sleep spell to save the party, because there were people fighting between me and the target.
Ranged attacks involve cover penalties and firing-into-melee penalties. It is clear that the designers of the system discourage any action but melee attacks, and it is entirely within the existing framework to extend this to add more penalties. As such, anyone with a ranged weapon must make a Perception check (DC 15 plus 5 per obstacle of size Small or larger with any portion of its square between the shooter and shootee) to be able to target their target. Unfortunately no feat exists currently to mitigate this particular penalty. Please refrain from any action that does not involve a melee attack.
To summarize: bad ruling.
4)he said that my Glitterdust didn't work on a construct because all constructs are blanket immune to magic with the exception of one or two spells which would be indicated in the monster writeup.
Players are either ignorant of a creature's ability or they are metagaming. A successful Knowledge check appropriate to the creature type reveals whatever information a DM believes is accurate about said creature unless the DM doesn't want to reveal the creature's capabilities for drama's sake. An unsuccessful check or any attempt at metagaming by any player requires an immediate arbitrary addition of 1d4 abilities of the DM's choice. Creatures of types that are not assessed by use of Knowledge(nature) are inherently unnatural and therefore checks to identify them are made at a -15 penalty. The unknown is - by definition - unknown.
To summarize: bad ruling.
That all having been said, you've got an issue of DM style. This DM isn't working with the rules trying to find a justification to say "yes, you can!" He's trying to find a justification to say "no, you can't". Neither is the same as "let's see what the rules really say". You've got the worst of the three possible attitudes. Sorry about your luck.
My tables have a simple semi-unspoken rule. If there's a rule dispute at the table, players have a couple minutes to find in print how my ruling is wrong. If it can't happen in that time, the ruling stands - even if bad or suspect - until outside of game time. That keeps things flowing. Outside of the game session, if a rule can be looked up and demonstrated, an apology is given. A DM can only memorize so much. With this method, the group knowledge of the rules rapidly increases. That all being said, if a DM says "rule X exists", it's entirely fair to ask him to find that rule outside of game. If the DM won't, you've got a lazy unfair DM. If the DM can't, he should concede he appears to be mis-remembering. Fair is fair is fair.
|
My suggestion? Learn your rules and page numbers well. When he calls out a rule that you believe is incorrect, politely ask if you can double-check the rule.
Let me restate that:
Politely ask.
If your dm is frequently being questioned by you, he's probably feeling insecure in his rulings. The more uncomfortable you make him, the more insecure he's going to feel, and the more he'll ignore what you say.
Of course, you *are* trying to prove him wrong about something. But, if you really want to do that, don't do it in the context of the campaign. Besides, it's an opinion, and opinions can't be right or wrong. They're just attitudes on a subject. There are plenty of situations where a fighter will beat a wizard, and plenty where a wizard will beat a fighter. Maybe he just has a history of starting combat next to a caster who hasn't had any time to prepare or any inkling of an upcoming fight. Comprehend languages does not a battle win.
Manipulation is your goal here. You want him to rule in your favor. The way to do that is not to question him frequently, or make him feel insecure about dming, or arguing with him. It's to make him think of you as an asset at the table. Someone he enjoys having around.
I had this problem with my dm for a while. He constantly made weird ruling about how certain things worked in order to set up a particular action or effect. Finally, frustrated to no end, I just asked him to tell me what he wanted to happen. Then I described to him the mechanics of how to accomplish that within the game. It did wonders for the game table, and the dm-player relationship.
Support your local dm, or start dm'ing yourself.
I'll let go of the adversarial stuff said above. That's an interpersonal issue you should definitely fix; it ain't really good for the atmosphere at the table. Definitely such things can be felt even without knowing what's going on, and ruin part of the pleasure.
But I'll give you credit about the rules part. Myself being quite knowledgeable about the rules (Well, in my group I'm the most, that is) and I tend to know what I can accomplish or not.
In real life, when I see a 5 foot wide hole, I take a little run and from personal experience, I can hop over it easily. When my character, perhaps a seasoned barbarian, is pursued and must make a 15 feet long jump to escape to safety, I expect a DC 15 acrobatics (Maybe a little more due to situational modifiers, but nothing above DC 20). My character, in good knowledge of his abilities, decides he takes that risk.
If the DM rule out the DC of a 15 foot long jump is 30 (just because he doesn't know the rules), it makes my character look like a suicidal fool. In my mind, it was a task he could comfortably succeed. In the DM's mind, he wanted either my character to fail or do something else. Why sucks, right?
I guess the best way is either to tell your DM to read the skill entries and the combat chapter, and adapt to it. It's so much simpler and funnier when everybody expects the same from the game...
Why even have rules for all PCs to view?
Because the original model of prohibiting the players from reading the DMG ("It is in your interests, and theirs, to discourage possession of this book by players") and telling DMs to actually penalize players who did ("a magic item or two can be taken as payment—insufficient, but perhaps it will tend to discourage such actions") didn't actually work out in real life, however useful it would have been to control rules lawyers.
Anyway, I am not saying the DM's rulings are necessarily good; good rulings will be consistent with both fun and expectations. When a DM deviates from rules that have tested and refined and tested again and refined again for four decades, his rulings will have a good chance of being bad rules. But as the final authority in his game, his rulings are the correct expression of the rules in his game; it just may be that his game is a bad game.
The GM is ALWAYS right!The GM is GOD!
The GM can do no wrong!
Response : H@%!*~!%+ piled on B#!+@@~% piled on Bat Guano!
I have been a GM for 24 years. I am not always right. I am not god. I can be mistaken (ok, so I'm vain enough to have an issue with the word wrong).
Anyone who spouts the drivel above is probably one of those GMs that gives us all a bad name. I've played in games before where the GM arbitrarily changed rules with no notification to the players, made up stupid restrictions (Such as saying a Halfling who wanted to use a Small Greatsword had a -5 on his stealth penalties because he was using as sword taller than he was, despite a human warrior not receiving the same penalty), took on an adversarial role (stopped the game for 20 minutes to argue me out of taking one action and into taking a different action that I knew was likely to get me killed by telling me my character had a 'good feeling' it would work out, then he grinned afterward and said all I needed to roll was a natural 20 on my save for it to work out right).
Other than the held action, every ruling above is BS. The held action one was just a case of the players and the GM not working out exactly what was going on, so a failure to communicate.
EDIT: Oh, that GM above, he also ruled that a T-Rex who was chewing on me was 'too hungry' to drop my character, even while the ring of blades around me chewed through his head to the tune of 30 hps (over half it's hitpoints, to it's head). That's like arguing a lion is too hungry to drop the porcupine in it's mouth as the spines drive through the roof of his mouth into his brain. End result, I died, and the T-Rex died.
Why even have rules for all PCs to view?Because the original model of prohibiting the players from reading the DMG ("It is in your interests, and theirs, to discourage possession of this book by players") and telling DMs to actually penalize players who did ("a magic item or two can be taken as payment—insufficient, but perhaps it will tend to discourage such actions") didn't actually work out in real life, however useful it would have been to control rules lawyers.
Anyway, I am not saying the DM's rulings are necessarily good; good rulings will be consistent with both fun and expectations. When a DM deviates from rules that have tested and refined and tested again and refined again for four decades, his rulings will have a good chance of being bad rules. But as the final authority in his game, his rulings are the correct expression of the rules in his game; it just may be that his game is a bad game.
Im sorry but Rule 0 doesn't extend out of the game world. As I have said, I am incredibly accepting of house rules, but what this gentleman and I were discussing were the RAW where he insisted that constructs are immune to magic. He also expected me to know that, which is only a rational expectation if said information is published in the rules. All a DM has to say to me is "that's how it works in my world" to shut me up, really, I'm that easy. That was never said or implied.
Why even have rules for all PCs to view?Because the original model of prohibiting the players from reading the DMG
+1. DMG not CRB
When a DM deviates from rules that have tested and refined and tested again and refined again for four decades, his rulings will have a good chance of being bad rules.
+1. When he deviates he risks being inconsistent and sending the wrong message to his players. I have quit a few games because I didn't know what to expect half the time. Once when I leveled up a character according to the rules, but not to my DMs liking (2 sessions later).
But as the final authority in his game, his rulings are the correct expression of the rules in his game; it just may be that his game is a bad game.
I have seen deviations from the rules spiral into as the guy before put it...DM story hour.
Not much fun.
Regarding this "GMs are always right" sentiment....
Speaking as a GM....
No, they're not.
Sometimes, as a GM, I f@$* up royally. And I find it an incredibly great help when my players (gently and politely) point out the mistake I make. And I hope they continue to do so.
And because I listen to my players and work to correct my mistakes, they tend to accept the rulings I make over unclear situations with little argument. They do so not only because I am the GM, but because they know I am a GM who works very hard to know the rules and be fair.
I am very lucky to have a fairly drama free gaming group, and it is entirely because we, I as GM and my players, work together to make sure we are having a good time.
ABSOLUTELY, the GM's authority to make a ruling over a difficult issue must be respected. But that is part of a player/GM contract to respect each other and work, first and foremost, to ensure that everyone is having a good time.
As part of this player/GM contract, GMs would be wise to do following:
1. Being clear and consistent about what rules they are following as written and what their house rules are.
....a. When I declared I was running a game, I made it clear we were running with rules-as-written, with specific house rules made known to the players at the start of the campaign.
....b. Since I have made it clear that we are running as rules-as-written, with exceptions clearly noted, that is also my promise to the players that I will indeed run with rules-as-written. That means that if I make a call that does not follow the rules-as-written nor follows my established house rules, it is my responsibility to explain the ruling, or realize I have made a mistake--according to my own guidelines established at the start of the campaign--and correct it. If this ruling becomes a new house rule, I am expected to be consistent about applying this house rule to the game, to players and NPCs equally.
2. Listen to players when they are unhappy. Note that this does not mean "give the players 100,000 Gp if they ask for it." It means to listen, respectfully, to concerns, and address them. If a player is confused or upset about a ruling, GMs should be able to explain that ruling clearly, fairly, with the rules or established house rules at hand to back them up.
3. Make sure everyone (including themselves) is having a good time. If people aren't, then it's time to have a chat or take a break.