|
I spent a while trying to figure out how I should actually handle lava in my game. After a while looking at lava sites and pics of lava burn survivors, I learned several things.
Thanks for that insightful post Lincoln. I'll remember that for when I'm running a more realistic game. But of course, I prefer games that go beyond the impossible and kick reason to the curb, so skinny-dipping in lava is par for the course.
When I play in mdt's games, I'll be sure to run screaming from any steaming pit. :) Of course, since fire is the most common energy type, a ring of fire immunity will be first on the wishlist. Followed closely by acid immunity.
Also, in reference to lala's GM and his crazy rules: I think he's a horrible GM and should feel bad, especially if he wonders why no one plays bards/barbarians/wizards.
This didn't sound like some kingdom had a rule about it. It sounded like the game had a rule that wizards couldn't function without the garb.
So instead of a wizard not wearing the stuff committing an offence, it's wizards without the stuff being unable to cast at all.
And that's just crappy design. Unless he had a really good reason that was sufficiently explained.
...The robes didn't pack the arcane ammo or anything.
Man I wanted folks to know I was packing when I said, "I put on my Robe and Wizard's Hat."
Errr *whistles* anyway...
I agree that those things while they may be laws of the land are not Kryptonite to the casters Superman. Not to say you might not suffer a quick and painful death for breaking those laws. But unless I missed something I saw nothing indicating it was anything other than to be a giant warning sign that person X was a wizard in the post I was replying to. To say it stops magic from functioning for said caster well that sounds like a bonded item for a wizard to me.
I was getting at that there may infact have been a soceital reason the GM made that call, Now perhaps he could have explained it much much better to the players seems obvious but that does not make it a crazy DM rule.
When I play in mdt's games, I'll be sure to run screaming from any steaming pit. :) Of course, since fire is the most common energy type, a ring of fire immunity will be first on the wishlist. Followed closely by acid immunity.
I doubt you'll need it for Lava.
Because I consider lava so deadly, I rarely use it in any of my games. I think I've had a lava area one time in one game, and that was a GURPS fantasy game, which has all sorts of rules for lava (most equal dead).
To me, treating it as uber deadly means I shouldn't put people in that situation unless they have had warning. Otherwise it would be like changing goblins so that they had the ability to cast disintegrate at will and then putting them up against people.
I agree that those things while they may be laws of the land are not Kryptonite to the casters Superman. Not to say you might not suffer a quick and painful death for breaking those laws. But unless I missed something I saw nothing indicating it was anything other than to be a giant warning sign that person X was a wizard in the post I was replying to. To say it stops magic from functioning for said caster well that sounds like a bonded item for a wizard to me.
For Discworld, I always took the wizards being required to have pointy hats and robes as a way for the guild to differentiate who was covered by their insurance and who wasn't.
Also as a way for Vetinari to know who was a member and good standing and who he needed to have assassinated on sight. :)
Hmmm, I guess looked at that way, the hat/robes are more about defense than armor, as the wizards look at it. :)
EDIT : Speaking of Vetinari, I stole him for my homebrew world. He runs a Neutral desert city at the southern edge of the continent. The whole city is LN, and is a major mercenary city. There's a War-Mage college (although I supposed I'll have to change that to Magus college) in the city, and both the mercs guilds and the college have to assign folks to the city watch as part of their charters. So causing trouble in the city is generally a bad idea. :)
I had one player throw a hissy fit in the middle of a bazaar. An orc city guard (actual guard, not a merc) and informed him (politely!) that the Regent had requested all guards from the attacked caravan report to city hall for a debriefing.
The character started calling the orc names, insulted the Regent, told the orc he'd burn his face off if he didn't leave him alone, and generally made a big spectacle, including casting Prestidigitation to make a big ball of crackling energy appear in his hands.
Everyone in the bazaar started beating feet for the exits (although the stopped at the edges of the squares and climbed up on houses to watch). Six city guards, allerted by the first guard waving his polearm in the air above his head) sealed off the exits, and waited in a guard position.
Two minutes later, during which time the PC had the time to think that this was maybe not his best idea, a troupe of 6 warmages (1 Level 5, and 5 level 3's) trotted into the square, all prepared actions to cast spells. The leader order the PC to lay down with his hands on his head.
The PC cast Illusion to make himself look big. This of course resulted in 5 war-mages casting various spells at him, from Rock Fall to Rays of fire to acid arrow to magic missile. The illusion saved him for one round, and the second round he went down at negative 8 hp.
He was later stripped of all magic items which were sold to cover his fines for disrupting the peace and threatening a city guard. The merchant's guild then presented the court with a sworn statement that over 3500gp worth of damage and stolen items resulted from his stunt. The PC was made an indentured servant with an anti-magic collar for 10 years to pay off his debt, and given to the Merchant Guild.
2) Barbarians can not control their rage. Who they attack is at DM discretion, and the player can't choose to end a rage.
I would so play a barbarian in this game...than go Frenzy Berserker. No downside....ultimate power...of course I'll probably need to find a new party after every adventure...but hey you guys get to try out all those classes..;)
The above is mostly in jest.
|
|
That's actually not a bad idea. :) Provided you could survive long enough to take the class.
I'd tell the DM to call me when my character comes out of rage and go play Smash Brothers or something. Then roleplay my character not remembering anything that happened during the rage. Enforced method acting!
1) I don't think the group he played with ever used Bards. I did try to explain that by taking class features like that away he would need to add something to compensate. He didn't give it any thought and just left the Bard is.
That would be reason enough to stop playing, honestly. Bad GM and unwilling to learn to boot.
3)I really tried to say this was a pointless restriction on Wizards. Micromanaging inventory aside, it doesn't make any sense at all when it comes to magic. How do you enchant a sword if it's made of steel? What about spells with some sort of iron component? The funniest part? He wonders why nobody will play a Wizard.
Did you tell him it was because his idiotic rules made the class about as desirable as a sixpack of STDs?
I mean, it's one thing to be a vicious prick about things, but being oblivious on top of that?
Even more reason to just stop playing when he's at the helm.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
1) I don't think the group he played with ever used Bards. I did try to explain that by taking class features like that away he would need to add something to compensate. He didn't give it any thought and just left the Bard is.
As others have pointed out, the Bard class was never restricted to cantrips or very low-level spells. In OD&D, they were the most powerful characters on the board. In 1st edition AD&D, they were, again, powerful casters (albeit with druid spells). In 2nd Edition AD&D, the Bard shifted over to learning Wizard spells, but could master spells of up to 6th level.
2) The Barbarian Rage is the rule I put up the most fight about. He interprets rage as some overwhelming bloodlust that you can't control. The fact that this rule makes a Barbarian completely unplayable doesn't phase him. He really doesn't like martial classes other than the Fighter anyway. From his point of view they're all just fighters you could role play as Paladins, Rangers, or Barbarians.
This is the way "rage" or "berserk" works in other game systems, for example, Champions. And in D&D 3.5, there was the "Berserker" Prestige Class, that had those kinds of limitations. (Worse, actually, since the Berserker would automatically fly into a fit of seething fury whenever she took damage. I know of one PC who ended up killing all the rest of his party, when he went berserk in the middle of a hailstorm.)
5) I also think he banned Sorceror's because they're new. Not like it matters, as nobody will be playing an arcane caster due to rule #3.
New, as in, 11 years ago??
Otherwise it would be like changing goblins so that they had the ability to cast disintegrate at will and then putting them up against people.
Wait, goblins can't do this?
On the note of lalallaala's DM... I would just hit him over the head with a player's handbook and walk out. It seems like he's more interested in forcing people to play the classes he likes than allowing players to have some free will.
If you fall into a pit of molten lava in my game without magic to survive, you're dead.
Here's the thing that I have a problem with in this whole "lava = death" debate. I don't know if you all have really read the lava rules, but lava is pretty freaking deadly in D&D. Lava does, if I'm not mistaken, 20d6 damage per round of total immersion, and half of that damage persists for 1d3 additional rounds after the immersion is over. So that means that for every round you're immersed in lava, you're taking an average of 70 damage per round, plus additional 30 average damage damage each round after that for at least one more round. How many rounds does it take to swim out of lava? Even if you can swim out in a single round, and you only roll a 1 on your 1d3, thats ONE HUNDRED damage average. I don't know anyone that isn't a superhero that can withstand 100 points of damage and survive (keep in mind, the average commoner has 2 hit points). Anyone who's able to survive hit one hundred points of damage (whether it's from lava or a any other source) without any magical protection is nothing this world has ever seen. So why is it so unbelievable?
Fifteenth level dwarf fighter, 20 Con, Toughness, Diehard. You can take 182 damage, on average, and still be up.
You can survive two rounds, twelve seconds. If you're lucky. And this assumes you can get out easily--which isn't probable if you're totally immersed.
A few house rules our DM uses in our Pathfinder campaign
1) Bards can only cast cantrips because "that's how it used to be".
2) Barbarians can not control their rage. Who they attack is at DM discretion, and the player can't choose to end a rage.
3) Wizards can't have anything made of iron or steel on their person or their spells mess up.
4) If you roll a 1 it's a fumble, but instead of using fumble tables the DM decides the result of the fumble.
5) No Sorceror class. It's wizard or nothing.
I would be stealing his GM chair, just to show him how it is supposed to be done and/or looking for a new GM.
Fifteenth level dwarf fighter, 20 Con, Toughness, Diehard. You can take 182 damage, on average, and still be up.
You can survive two rounds, twelve seconds. If you're lucky. And this assumes you can get out easily--which isn't probable if you're totally immersed.
Exactly my point. A fifteenth-level dwarven fighter (optimized to take damage), who, for every intent and purpose, is a superhero- the likes of which has never, and likely will never, be seen in all of human history- and he can only survive two rounds by the core rules. Why is a house rule even necessary?
Exactly my point. A fifteenth-level dwarven fighter (optimized to take damage), who, for every intent and purpose, is a superhero- the likes of which has never, and likely will never, be seen in all of human history- and he can only survive two rounds by the core rules. Why is a house rule even necessary?Fifteenth level dwarf fighter, 20 Con, Toughness, Diehard. You can take 182 damage, on average, and still be up.
You can survive two rounds, twelve seconds. If you're lucky. And this assumes you can get out easily--which isn't probable if you're totally immersed.
Why do we need to bother rolling? If he falls in head first, he's dead. Unless you roll 20 1's twice in a row, and then 10 1's 3 times in a row? I'd rather not hold up the game for 20 minutes killing someone. I'd rather get on with the game so they can either get resurrected or bring in a new character.
Repeat after me:
Homerule it. And get over it.
Feels good!
Agreed. pulling out character/class limiting rules after character creation is generally a sign of a bad DM. It's right up there with the blue bolts from the heavens nonsense.
Where did the whole blue bolts thing come from anyway?? I once saw a DM use that in a game my friends and I walked past in college. I think I even ridiculed the DM over it and I didn't know the guy.
But it seems like it's been around for ages and pretty wide spread.Blue bolts from heaven was a 1st edition line about dealing with troublesome players. Basically if a player is ruining the game for the rest of the table, give them a in game warning then get rid of them. No word yet on a troublesome DM.
One of the players finally said that "This is bullcrap. I am playing to have fun, and all we do is get taken prisoner, die or fail at most everything we do. I do not want to continue playing unless someone else steps up to DM."
The entire table mostly agreed, and I was set to the task, and started running the boxed module "Night Below", and everyone had fun, especially when the bad DM in question tried to make the most overpowered elven fighter/mage ever, and I shot him down. One of his attempts at blatant cheese: 20 point Spells & Powers disadvantage; need air to cast spells. For those who have never used the player option systems, a 20 point disadvantage is supposed to be something absurdly restricting, like only able to cast spells while in direct sunlight.
This guy had amazing houserules such as (and not limited to):
- Everything you say, your character says
- Magic Resistance works against magical weapons
- Rolling a 1 on a threat confirmation roll makes it a fumble
- No terminal velocity when falling, lost a character due to jumping into water from high above, thinking I had better chances with 20d3 than some manner of overpowered "rocks fall" monster. Got 74d3 damage for... lots.
- Terri-cheese DMPCs all the time. His staple DMPC was a half-vampire F/M/T that was grandmaster with katanas (were slashing/piercing in 2e, meaning you could backstab with 'em), 19+ in all stats, etc
- Monks/martial artists were godly, especially if they used karate. Guess what he trained (and never excelled at, being a skinny nerd)?
- Weapons (even magical ones) broke if hit hard stuff like rocks. Guess how fights with golems went?
- If your character smoked or drank alcohol you lost permanent Con for each vice.
- The Knock spell destroyed doors in a very loud fashion, making covert infiltration without a thief nigh impossible.
- Big monsters multiplied their damage by every step larger than medium. Meaning a huge monster did triple damage. Dragons increased this multiplier by 2 or 3.
- Dragons were nigh immortal godlike creatures, but he still sent them at players when pre-made modules called for it.
- Character death (which was pretty common, as you might expect from all above) was punished by having your new character start at the lowest level party member, minus 2.
Repeat after me:
Homerule it. And get over it.
Feels good!
Repeat after me:
If it bothers you, don't read it. And get over it.
Feels good, and is less annoying to everyone else.
1. Touché.
2. Quid pro quo.
Irony feels good! ;-)
One of his attempts at blatant cheese: 20 point Spells & Powers disadvantage; need air to cast spells.
[other mind-boggling stuff deleted]
LOL!
Sounds like an awesome GM...
Yeah, Uri, this is the one thread where I think that mantra is actually inappropriate.
Every complaint is basically a houserule gone wrong. Each is a case against your mantra.
But, normally, I agree with you! Just goes to show, context matters.
Sorry, haven't checked in this thread in a while. It took me a bit to get caught up. I'm not even going to touch the lava thing. Never seen it as a player, never used it as a GM. No basis for reference = no comment.
I LOOOOVE some of the ridiculous rules that people are spouting off about past GM's. The only thing I can ever think is: "Why the hell would you play in that game in the first place?" As soon as a GM told me he/she had a list of houserules that looked like cows butchered terribly to get at the milk in their udders I'd tell him/her to take a flying fuuuuuuu...
Also, I almost spit coffee all over my laptop when I read this.
Did you tell him it was because his idiotic rules made the class about as desirable as a sixpack of STDs?
Beautiful KaeYoss, just beautiful. I believe Steinbeck refers to those as "pants rabbits."
After reading I remembered a purely incidental thing a past GM said. We were in a castle and heading downstairs, it was a stormy night outside and the stairs were all metal. I was playing a wizard at the time, and I said: "I cast levitate and levitate down the stairs."
His answer? "You can't levitate down stairs you can only levitate vertically..."
Okay, I get it, you aren't supposed to be able to levitate forward and backward with just the spell, but I'm pretty sure even the old language of the spell said you could use walls and ceilings to push yourself in any direction.
I'm not kidding we argued about it for 10 minutes. Ten minutes! Arguing about the fricken physics of being able to move myself down a flight of stairs using the walls and ceiling (which were stone, btw, not metal like the stairs) whilst I levitated.
In the end he just GM fiated it, so I gave in and walked down the durnt stairs. Guess what happened? Lightning struck some freaking directed current lightning rod outside and the metal stairs charged with electrical damage, and I darn near died.
That was the last time I played with that GM. For multiple reasons.
Yeah, Uri, this is the one thread where I think that mantra is actually inappropriate.
Every complaint is basically a houserule gone wrong. Each is a case against your mantra.
But, normally, I agree with you! Just goes to show, context matters.
To a point, I'll concede with you. If you discuss the issues post-game, then fine. But if such disruptions drag out the controversy during what should be focused to game play, there's really only one of two resolutions. I offered one of two. :)
Carry on, mates.
|
Anybody remember the stat for Comelieness back in the AD&D era? For those unfamiliar with it, whereas CHA covered your personality, COM was used to indicate your appearance. A high enough COM got you the ability to fascinate similar species of the opposite gender while a low COM actually made you inspire fear and disgust and could get you chased out of town with torches and pitchforks. I played a game in high school where the DM used this stat but included a caveat that required players to roll for the size of their, uh, anatomy.
The DM must have some kind of inadequacy or self-esteem issues because this rule led to the him constantly trying to humiliate or kill my loincloth-wearing, Zulu-inspired barbarian because I rolled a 12 on the d12 used to figure out the length of his..er...spear. His NPCs also seemed to target the characters of male players, regardless of the PC's gender, if they'd been unfortunate enough to roll better than average COM.
Whoa! There are some mind-boggling things here that have me go "What was he thinking!"
...except that the GM has a pretty marked "Players vs GM" attitude...
That attitude is a complete game-breaker, not to mention an invitation for a GM to have a revolving door of gamers. The idea of RPGs, at least in my humble opinion, is cooperative storytelling, not contentious storytelling. Again, imho, a GM's job is to help everybody at the table have fun, not work as hard as possible to prove how awesome he/she is, or how much they can whoop up on the PCs. This will probably make me sound a bit wimpy as a GM, but if the bad guys ever drop a PC to zero or into negative hit points, I'll have them back off and concentrate on other foes (even if they wouldn't actually do that). I'm somewhat proud to say that I haven't killed a PC yet. I've had PCs kill each other over trifles, of course, but all I did in that instance was adjudicate the battle. One thing I try to always remind myself is that I should be impartial as to the rules, but partial as to the players and their fun.
|
IIRC its an optional rule last seen in the 3.5 (or 3.0) DMG. Its a very evil thing to use as a GM, especially if a lot of minions with several attack the party.well all of these rules date back to second ed DnD but all from the same campaign
a natural 20 followed a second 20 was instant death , this caused us to avoid combat or try to kill thing very quickly also to complain that it was a silly rule, his reply what are the chances , ours 1 in 400
Heh in my games a nat 20 followed by a nat 20 followed by a confirmed hit cuts off a limb, and 3 nat 20s in a row is an instant kill
|
|
So if one combatant's AC is at or below what you've rolled, and your roll was 1-4 numbers below the target AC you actually hit the other combatant? That's a rule I could get on board with. In fact I might be instituting that at the next session, if my players agree of course. :)Your first interpretation. Missing by 1-4 you hit the creature getting in your way. 5+ your attack went wide or bounced off armor, etc.The way I play it, you have to miss the target by 4 or less AND still manage to hit your buddy's AC. I can't remember at this point if that's a house rule or the actual rule! :P
I've had that rule for a while, great minds think alike.
We used the nat 20 followed by another nat 20 as an instant kill until I killed a dragon with a dart. No, really! That caused us to reevaluate the rule.
That is exactly one of the reasons I've never gone in for rules like that. We've always just used the multiple criticals as more multiplied damage. In many cases, you could kill a bad-guy with all your multiplied damage, but you weren't going to instant kill anything just because. I also never liked rules like that because what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and it's entirely easy to kill PCs with rules like that. Even three 20's in a row, though the chances are slim, does happen, and instant killing something just cause you got in a really really great hit doesn't always make sense. See above, for reference.
We used the nat 20 followed by another nat 20 as an instant kill until I killed a dragon with a dart. No, really! That caused us to reevaluate the rule.That is exactly one of the reasons I've never gone in for rules like that. We've always just used the multiple criticals as more multiplied damage. In many cases, you could kill a bad-guy with all your multiplied damage, but you weren't going to instant kill anything just because. I also never liked rules like that because what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and it's entirely easy to kill PCs with rules like that. Even three 20's in a row, though the chances are slim, does happen, and instant killing something just cause you got in a really really great hit doesn't always make sense. See above, for reference.
What I usually do is if they roll a nat 20 on the confirmation roll, I let them make another crit confirmation, if that succeeds, I let them do max damage on the dice. Prevents the dart hitting the dragon in the eye and penetrating the brain scenario Moriarty had, but it still does a bucket more damage than usual.
|
I think my worst "DM Rules" experience was with me behind the screen.
3rd Edition had just come out, and I was really feeling the tone/style/etc.
Then, I started up a "Modern World" setting game, and allowed pretty much anything, so long as the player could justify it. Remember, this is intended to be a "modern" world where the PCs may have some extraordinary abilities, but still baseline "normal."
Crazy Samoan Bard with Cybereyes, a Smartlink 2.0, Headware Telephones, and Wired Reflexes? Sure, why not?
Wizard with Shadowrun style Summon spells and a penchant for lighting everything on fire? OK!
I should have realized things were going to be a little weird when the first encounter went something like this:
"Bard, you see someone on the rooftop across the way, he seems to be looking in your direction.
Brief chase scene as one PC runs from the other, resulting in a failed save vs. sleep.
"Ok, Bard, the guy you were chasing fell asleep, what do you do?"
"I put my gun to his head and pull the trigger"
(Me: O_O????)
"Okaaayyy...roll attack"
Dice: Nat-1.
In hindsight, I should have stopped the game right there and reset everything, but I was young, dumb, and inexperienced. Most likely, I should have picked one game to run and just used that.
Lesson learned: Limitations make for good games. They improve focus and keep everyone on the same page. No more "anything goes" for me, outside one-shots.
|
|
We used the nat 20 followed by another nat 20 as an instant kill until I killed a dragon with a dart. No, really! That caused us to reevaluate the rule.
Dart went into the eye of the dragon and pierced directly into it's brain. I don't see a problem with a player getting to tell the epic story of how he once killed a dragon with one shot. Granted I understand it can be anti-climactic, that's why I make it 3 20s in a row, because by the time you roll a second 20 the whole table is leaning in and hoping, makes that last roll climactic enough for the whole table. In my game you would have disabled a limb by piercing the muscle/tendon etc. Equally awesome and allows the dragon to still be a tough fight while you get the glory of being the guy who took out a wing with a dart.
|
|
I played in an epic game with the 3-20s rule. It actually came up twice. First was a paliriyon demon getting our NPC buddy with a razor nail through his head. Second was one of our guys one-shotting a night hag sorcerer. I don't mind the rule due to its rarity. I only allow fumbles in my game after two natural ones in a row to have a comparible rarity for them as well.
I feel bad to pick on my DM since he was like 9 years old at the time, but this thread is fun.
We were playing 2e and neither of us had ever played before. It was just me and the DM, and I was creating a fighter. After deciding I would use a big sword (I think it was a two-handed sword) and a longbow, the DM suggested I should buy some knives. I looked at the stats and asked him why I needed knives at all. Knives looked pretty crappy to me. He told me, "You can hide them. And they're good against ogres." So I bought 10 knives.
Lo and behold, I came upon a room of 4 ogres. But the room was trapped so when I entered, the ceiling started descending. My DM told me that I had 7 rounds before the the ceiling crushed us all. I was still first level for this encounter. I started throwing knives at the ogres, and the DM was having them do double damage. But even with that double damage I was not going to kill them all in time. It got down to 2 rounds left, and I had 3 ogres left to kill. So my DM told me that any damage that I did beyond what was necessary to bring an ogre to 0 would carry over to the next ogre. (I guess my DM was ahead of the curve and was creating a proto-cleave rule.) With this little help, I was able to kill the 3 ogres with two knife throws.
In 2e, I seem to recall a round lasting 1 minute, so we're talking about a trap that took 7 minutes before it finally crushed anyone. Brilliant.
In our game, you require a nat. 20 followed by another nat 20 before you get to roll on the crit table. My fighter has only critted 3 times in 5 years.
Once against an orc - it died.
Once when i luckily grappled a dwarf - headbutt stunned for 1 round.
Once when i was 'confused' against our dwarf healer - headshot taking half his HP (& dead if he wasn't wearing a helmet).
Of course we have the same for fumbles & i have dropped my sword over a dozen times. :)
"Psuedo-scientific realism" is the worst....
examples freedom of movement makes you fall through water as if through air and splat upon the ocean floor.....
Lol! Now that's funny.
Why do we need to bother rolling? If he falls in head first, he's dead. Unless you roll 20 1's twice in a row, and then 10 1's 3 times in a row? I'd rather not hold up the game for 20 minutes killing someone. I'd rather get on with the game so they can either get resurrected or bring in a new character.
Except you're the first person to use time-saving as a reason to make lava an insta-kill. Every single other person to bring it up houserules it on the basis of "lava is too deadly in real life"- while ignoring the fact that it's just as deadly in-game, just because a 20th-level Fighter can survive it for a couple rounds. I'm all for speeding up the game- my issue is when people compare something in real life to the abilities of high-level characters, as if they have anything whatsoever to do with each other. It doesn't matter what a 15th+ level character can withstand- they left realism behind thirteen levels ago.
Why do we need to bother rolling? If he falls in head first, he's dead. Unless you roll 20 1's twice in a row, and then 10 1's 3 times in a row? I'd rather not hold up the game for 20 minutes killing someone. I'd rather get on with the game so they can either get resurrected or bring in a new character.Except you're the first person to use time-saving as a reason to make lava an insta-kill. Every single other person to bring it up houserules it on the basis of "lava is too deadly in real life"- while ignoring the fact that it's just as deadly in-game, just because a 20th-level Fighter can survive it for a couple rounds. I'm all for speeding up the game- my issue is when people compare something in real life to the abilities of high-level characters, as if they have anything whatsoever to do with each other. It doesn't matter what a 15th+ level character can withstand- they left realism behind thirteen levels ago.
Actually, I used both arguments. It is extremely deadly, and unless they have defense, they are going to die. I just don't see the reason to waste time with rolling unless they have a chance of survival. I think the thing you are not realizing is that a lot of people who are saying "It is too deadly, they just die" are really saying "The chance of surviving it without protection is so damn small I don't feel like wasting time with it, let's just get on with it".
When did this become the "lets argue about how lava works in D&D" thread? Anyway, one silly DM rule I had to put up with was that if you didn't have your hand on your head, everything you said was in character. His reasoning for this had something to do with the third party module he was running, but seemed to mostly be an excuse to treat us like morons every time we forgot the rule.
In 2E I had a DM try to roll ALL of our rolls for us. We rolled our characters up, but after that we got to the first combat and he rolled our initiative. Then he tried to roll my attack roll (I went first), that's when I asked what he was doing, and he said it was how he had always played.
I told him that rolling is one of the few things we as players have control over. If he just wanted to have characters that he rolled dice for, then he didn't need the players sitting around watching him play.
When did this become the "lets argue about how lava works in D&D" thread? Anyway, one silly DM rule I had to put up with was that if you didn't have your hand on your head, everything you said was in character. His reasoning for this had something to do with the third party module he was running, but seemed to mostly be an excuse to treat us like morons every time we forgot the rule.
Having to put it on your head is silly.
Having to specify OOC is not.
But then, I had a group of players that would say things during a roleplaying session, and then when the NPC took it badly, claim it was OOC. After 6 months of this, I implemented the 'Must make the Football Time Out sign when doing OOC during a roleplay' and that ended that after a couple of fights broke out.
When did this become the "lets argue about how lava works in D&D" thread? Anyway, one silly DM rule I had to put up with was that if you didn't have your hand on your head, everything you said was in character. His reasoning for this had something to do with the third party module he was running, but seemed to mostly be an excuse to treat us like morons every time we forgot the rule.Having to put it on your head is silly.
Having to specify OOC is not.
But then, I had a group of players that would say things during a roleplaying session, and then when the NPC took it badly, claim it was OOC. After 6 months of this, I implemented the 'Must make the Football Time Out sign when doing OOC during a roleplay' and that ended that after a couple of fights broke out.
I had a Dungeon Master that gave us cards that said 'IC' on them for speaking in character. It was much easier to have to display the card for In Character rather than Out of Character since it wasn't normally an issue to accidently say something Out of Character. Not that he really cared if we did, it just beat having to go "My character says...".