I am here to see if I can get a rules conflict resolved. Our party has had our progress halted by a trap in a dungeon. The DM is not disputing whether the trap is fair or not because he says he intended it to be this hard to bypass. I personally don't think it is legal and when I look up the rules for traps well, they were not specific enough for me to figure it out.
The situation is that it hit us the first time before we even noticed it, the Rogue said he was looking for traps, rolled well, we found nothing and we were still hit.
It was a magical Fireball trap on the ceiling of a 90ft tall natural cavern chamber and the GM claims because the trap's trigger is Arcane Eye which allows unlimited range and the spell itself has a very long range we can be targeted anywhere in the large room, could not be close enough to it to search for the exact source of the Trigger or Firing Mechanism since the DC was +9 to the Perception DC due to the distance. It goes without saying that our level 8 Rogue does not have any flight options to go up and disable it either. It resets automatically.
He says it is a CR 9 Trap, even accounting for the +9 DC to the Perception check to find it due to the distance and after reading the OGC I checked his math and it looks correct. 4 for Highest Spell Level, +2 Average Damage, +1 Automatic Reset, +1 for Visual Trigger, +2 Perception DC, -1 Reflex Save.
Am I missing something? The cavern chamber is very large and the door on the far side is locked in addition to being a huge rolling disk that will take us several attempts (or taking 20) to move.
He says that it isn't meant to be impossible, just to make us think of a creative solution but damn if I can't think of one.
8th level? Boy, this trap is easy. Have virtually any of your spellcasters cast resist energy which gives you fire resistance 20 at 7th level (30 at 11th). Alternatively, break line of sight or effect. A cloud spell like obscuring mist would prevent the eye from seeing you. Worst case scenario, locate the trap with detect magic and then use dispel magic + shatter to destroy it completely.
8th level? Boy, this trap is easy. Have virtually any of your spellcasters cast resist energy which gives you fire resistance 20 at 7th level (30 at 11th). Alternatively, break line of sight or effect. A cloud spell like obscuring mist would prevent the eye from seeing you. Worst case scenario, locate the trap with detect magic and then use dispel magic + shatter to destroy it completely.
They couldn't locate it with Detect Magic or Perception because of distance, so worst-case-scenario wasn't actually feasible.
It was a magical Fireball trap on the ceiling of a 90ft tall natural cavern chamber...
He mentioned that specific knowledge of the trap's mechanisms only came about out-of-character. In-character, they would have known they were being pelted with Fireballs while they were in the chamber, and were not followed out.
... and the GM claims because the trap's trigger is Arcane Eye which allows unlimited range and the spell itself has a very long range we can be targeted anywhere in the large room, could not be close enough to it to search for the exact source of the Trigger or Firing Mechanism since the DC was +9 to the Perception DC due to the distance. It goes without saying that our level 8 Rogue does not have any flight options to go up and disable it either. It resets automatically.
Resist Energy and Obscuring Mist would have worked, but either they didn't have ready access to those spells or simply liked Invisibility better.
I'm still not quite sure about the "automated turret fireball" covering a 120 foot cavern being the same CR as a static, resetting fireball trap (ignoring the fact that it is out of reach and apparently impossible to permanently disable, at least in that particular situation). It seems to have almost the same effect as an arrangement of non-aiming ones lining the room, which ordinarily would be a higher CR (several lower CR ones put together, each having to be bypassed). It has more opportunities to hit you given how long you have to be exposed to it, making it pretty much the same as multiple traps placed directly in your path. The math you stated would be the same for a non-aiming trap as it would for this aiming variety, but the latter gets to hit you a few more times for "free." Just feels wrong.
8th level? Boy, this trap is easy. Have virtually any of your spellcasters cast resist energy which gives you fire resistance 20 at 7th level (30 at 11th). Alternatively, break line of sight or effect. A cloud spell like obscuring mist would prevent the eye from seeing you. Worst case scenario, locate the trap with detect magic and then use dispel magic + shatter to destroy it completely.They couldn't locate it with Detect Magic or Perception because of distance, so worst-case-scenario wasn't actually feasible.
If 'worst-case-scenario' isn't feasible than the trap couldn't detect you without a source of light or trueseeing (this makes invisibility pointless).
It's not IC to not experiment before wasting resting and wasting 4 2nd level spells.
An hour of experimentation Roleplayed out partially would easily yield that if you remove lighting from the equation the fireballs don't destroy objects that enter the room. Either cast Darkness, mage hand things to cover light sources with an appropriate object, or turn off your own light source. Problem solved and potentially for a cantrip.
When confronted with a seemingly impassible obstacle it's not metagaming for your character to start hypothesizing the dynamic of the obstacle nor experiment with simple ways to neutralize such dynamics that don't expend all of their resources running on a trial and error system in which error does not result in injury nor limited resources spent.
An hour of experimentation Roleplayed out partially would easily yield that if you remove lighting from the equation the fireballs don't destroy objects that enter the room. Either cast Darkness, mage hand things to cover light sources with an appropriate object, or turn off your own light source. Problem solved and potentially for a cantrip.
When confronted with a seemingly impassible obstacle it's not metagaming for your character to start hypothesizing the dynamic of the obstacle nor experiment with simple ways to neutralize such dynamics that don't expend all of their resources running on a trial and error system in which error does not result in injury nor limited resources spent.
Nothing you've said is factually wrong, I'm simply pointing out two things: it isn't as simple as was made out to be, and I think (and I'm apparently the only one) that the trap is more difficult than it is "spec'd" at mathematically by having an extra feature (a gigantic triggering area from the ability to aim, essentially multiplying its damage by giving it more opportunities to affect you).
Unless you have darkvision, Darkness is actually more of a problem than anything. The trap guarded a locked door, which itself may have had more traps on it, and was very heavy, requiring Strength checks and time to move when unlocked. The last part can be done okay in darkness, but the former two (lockpicking and checking for traps) need your sense of vision to be carried out. Lots of races have darkvision, and there's probably magic that does effectively the same thing. But if you don't have that? It's not quite so useful to be able to traverse to the door that has effectively become a wall.
This assumes that the room isn't lit by something else, where a Darkness spell may only grant partial concealment or look like a new 20' radius target to shoot at.
This trap is so flagrantly illegal you wouldn't believe.....Tell your GM that if he want to cheat that blatantly you can find another GM.The GM defines the world and the rules. By definition he or she cannot cheat unless it be via inconsistent rulings. It is the GM's world and they can design anything they want into it, and there is nothing unreasonable about this trap.
Frankly if I had a player behaving this way I would be happy to toss them out of the group. It is the GM's job to challenge the party. This trap is obviously beatable with multiple methods so it is clearly not unfair.
My point is- the “trigger” can’t be far away and still have the party trigger it.Sure it can. This is not a physical trigger like a tripwire, it is triggered by vision and the distance is the maximum distance of vision in the eye spell. In modern terms it could be like a laser beam or motion detector: not requiring the party to touch it but simply be within range of the beam or sensor.
Rule 0 is not always a good defense. As I said before there is a difference between a GM bending or ignoring rules intentionally, and him making a mistake. I don't know if the GM made a mistake, but I just wanted to point that out.
PS:I do like the trap, and I might use it whether it is legal or not. I am surprised the party does not have access to fly in any form though.
my PC's would have passed this differently with 1 2nd level spell and 1 3rd. Summon 2 and flight. summon a small fire elemental (immune to fire)and have it keep flying up to were the FB is coming from. Arcane eye's as the trigger only use spells by sight, there not intelligent. The FB would be cast at the first thing it sees, the closest thing. this would have given you 7 rounds.
honestly the wizard using up all his 2nd level spells shouldn't have been the downfall of the party. all you had to do was hit the trolls with a dang torch... by 8th level the part should have had a wand of healing saving the clerics spells for when really needed as well.
I have a question:
How and why did the trap hit you when you opened the door?
Wow, if one of my players started to calculate if the CR of my traps are correct* and go complain about it on an public message board, I would **** a BRICK.
*"legal"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds to me like the party did themselves in with their own paranoia and poor choices. They allowed themselves to distracted by a fireball trap, putting all their focus into avoiding a little fire damage (which they took anyway). And in return, they didn't focus on the encounter(s) which everyone suspected was coming. TPK is often the result.
I agree. There were numerous less resource-intensive ways to bypass that trap mentioned in this very thread!
It looks to me like a failing of the party, not the GM.
I consider some of the blame to be on the party, and some of the blame on the GM. The GM specifically designed a dungeon and encounter to tax the wizards spells needed before the fight with the trolls. He should have included something within the dungeon to help counter the trolls. A Wand of Fireball with say, 10 charges remaining would have helped, so too would have another flaming weapon, or a Wand of Soundburt. Perhaps, as they were moving through the chamber, they found the charred remains of a skeleton, and below the skeleton, tucked away in some of the ruined clothing, was a wand.
However, the party failed to test the limits of the trap before resting, and Xyr should have written down a list of possible counter measures and given it to the party to attempt. They over-prepared for one situation, leaving themselves vulnerable to another. The Wizard could have prepared Invisibility Sphere instead of 4 Invisibility spells, as long as he had it in his book. Perhaps the GM could have tossed in a scroll of Invisibility Sphere somewhere for them to find.
Anyway, the party is dead, roll up new characters, and I'm hoping the players and GM both learned something. A brilliant trap may be a great idea, but you shouldn't make it so brilliant that the party could die because of it fairly easily. I've heard people mention the Rule of Three before, and while I've never read what the Rule of Three is, I believe I can safely assume that there should be 3 methods of defeating an encounter, or gaining the knowledge to defeat the encounter.
The DM can do whatever he wants but defining what rules he decided to disregard is pertinent to the players playing the game. Playing a game with considerably higher CR then is APL appropriate or with a DM who makes up rules, disregards rules, and adjudicates house rules solely in his favor on a whim without making the effort to at least define them beforehand is legitimate cause for complaint. Not enough to leave a table or cause a large ruckus, but enough to apply appropriate levels of grumbling and or moaning.
True, but of course we do not know how this DM adjudicates normally. We don't know that rules are not mostly spelled out. Also, it is inevitable that new rules questions will be encountered regularly and on the fly decisions must be made. We see no real evidence that the GM is going by whim or ruling erratically.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you're thinking about the CR of the trap your character has encountered, you're not roleplaying.
The GM placed this trap there. It could be CR 20, it doesn't matter, the trap is there.
In the OP, he as much as told you to look for ways to bypass it. Might I suggest loading up on some fire resistant spells and waltzing on through? Maybe the GM placed an item to help you earlier in the dungeon, who knows?
As a player, you should never, ever question the GM on the basis of fairness or CR. You can tell them they are being a jerk if they are being a jerk, but that doesn't seem to be what's going on here.
Obviously, I'd need to know more to tell you if the GM in question is being truly unfair. But that answer doesn't involve CR math.
The game world isn't balanced to your PCs abilities! CR only exists for GMs to know in advance what can kill the PCs and what the PCs can kill. There is no rule in the Pathfinder RPG saying that the GM must (or should) only present encounters that can be defeated by the players.
There is no rule in the Pathfinder RPG saying that the GM must (or should) only present encounters that can be defeated by the players.
It's not so much a rule as attitude.
While I'm not saying that the DM should always make sure his encounters are beatable (or even easy), what I do think is that the DM leading the party by the nose towards a brick wall and then laugh at them as they smack into it might be a bit on the dickish side of things.
A DM that builds a series of encounters, not naturally, but in a specific manner that targets how the group operates, is meta-gaming. Unless there's a specific bad guy, who's had a method to view the party over a long time and understand it's capabilities and tactics.. sure, this makes sense (and there's a certain AP that does that exactly).
However, a random dungeon that has a trap and a series of encounters, and it just so happens to be perfect to screw over the players?
That sounds like the DM was being a little mean spirited. Getting his jollies on pulling a fast one on the group of players.
As a parent.. it feels like if I had told my 3 year old to go run and get me something, and when he did, I stick out my foot to trip him because I knew exactly where he was going to go. And then laughing.
I don't know.. perhaps it wasn't that mean spirited, and maybe the dungeon was set up without any of this in mind and the DM was just laughing at seeing the dominoes lining up as it happened. But without any evidence of this, it kind of leaves a bad taste.
But, Kaisoku, even if that kind of mean-spirited thing is going on, the answer is never to go to the books, look up the CRs, and say "that challenge was not appropriate for our party level."
Yes, some GMs are dicks, absolutely. But CR isn't a rule that constrains GMs. It is a tool for GMs to balance encounters as they see fit. In my campaign, I often include encounters that are vastly above the APL of the party. In these cases, they are meant to use their heads and run away, or else tip the balance in their favor with some good role-play.
It is a pet peeve of mine when players expect that every challenge in the setting was placed there for them in exactly the order that would be required to keep them at the right level. What if this GM isn't being a dick, but merely allowing the players to get a glimpse of some location they should visit later when they are higher level?
Basically, we cannot say from the OP's description whether the GM is being a dick or whether his motives are simply not known. Players who rush to the rulebook to cry foul are robbing themselves of the opportunity to confront a real challenge with their creativity, rather than simply grinding through "appropriate challenge" whatever that is.
Don't get me wrong. I am against arguing in the game (or even after the game if it hasn't been resolved yet). There are too many factors that, as a player, I'm not privy to that can make things seem wildly different or swingy.
However, I've plenty of times asked my GM after all was said and done "Was that supposed to be survivable?" or "What was the CR on that? It didn't feel right."
Mistakes can happen. I've seen DMs retcon some events when they forget some key factor that drastically altered the events (with or without player prompting... "oops, I forgot he was hit with dispel and lost those buffs", etc).
And with consistently meta-gaming or mean DMs, I don't bother arguing. I just stop playing if they are DMing (some people make better players than DMs).
But, Kaisoku, even if that kind of mean-spirited thing is going on, the answer is never to go to the books, look up the CRs, and say "that challenge was not appropriate for our party level."
Yes, some GMs are dicks, absolutely. But CR isn't a rule that constrains GMs. It is a tool for GMs to balance encounters as they see fit. In my campaign, I often include encounters that are vastly above the APL of the party. In these cases, they are meant to use their heads and run away, or else tip the balance in their favor with some good role-play.
It is a pet peeve of mine when players expect that every challenge in the setting was placed there for them in exactly the order that would be required to keep them at the right level. What if this GM isn't being a dick, but merely allowing the players to get a glimpse of some location they should visit later when they are higher level?
Basically, we cannot say from the OP's description whether the GM is being a dick or whether his motives are simply not known. Players who rush to the rulebook to cry foul are robbing themselves of the opportunity to confront a real challenge with their creativity, rather than simply grinding through "appropriate challenge" whatever that is.
If you had read the whole thread, you would know that the party was on a time limit. They needed a lens from that dungeon so that the Clerics of Desna could watch an extremely rare passage of a comet. They cast some divinations and learned that the Lens would be in that dungeon. That means, the GM told them to go to that specific dungeon so they could run across a trap that he and just 'ingeniously'[/sarcasm] designed.
The GM hand picked a trap to deprive the party of their blasting spells, so that they would go up against a group of trolls they couldn't kill. GG GM, you're a genius trap builder. Problem is, the Party is dead, and ever one of the players thinks you're an a@&%$!%. Have fun trying to get new players next time.
You stated you often include encounters that are too powerful for the party, then, in effect, hand waving them through it by allowing them to role play the situation to lessen the threat. That means the situation was never too powerful for the party. The GM here didn't seem to do that at all. He threw them into a trap that couldn't be disabled by the Rogue because it was 90 ft away up on the ceiling and if they opened the door, FIREBALL! In order for the Rogue to have defeated the trap, they would have had to find the damned thing, then he would have needed a flight or levitation spell, and invisibility to get up and to the trigger to disarm it. If he didn't have invisibility, he would have been fireballed the entire time because it takes 2d4 rounds to disable a trap.
A good GM knows how to balance challenging encounters with fun. This GM doesn't strike me as a good GM. He not only specifically designed the encounter to nerf the players, but then he laughed about it as they were being slaughtered. This is the kind of guy that would never again play at any table I'm included on.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A good GM knows how to balance challenging encounters with fun. This GM doesn't strike me as a good GM. He not only specifically designed the encounter to nerf the players, but then he laughed about it as they were being slaughtered. This is the kind of guy that would never again play at any table I'm included on.
Actually, no. The trap was not designed to nerf the players (unless invisibility was the only way to bypass the trap and I would be surprised if this was indeed the case), the players nerfed themselves through poor resource management. There were plenty of other less resource dependent options listed within this thread. Since the players decided to rest (allowing the wiz to get new spells), they had plenty of time to experiment with the trap to:
1) locate the source of the fireballs2) determine if they had any existing resources that could bypass the trap trigger
3) plan out their spell resources ... there were multiple casters in the party, if they knew the wiz was going to not have any 2nd level slots available, the others should have planned accordingly, and the wiz should have definitely modified the spell selections for the day (though it sounds from the way the OP posted "but these events threw [sic] him off his routine" that this did not occur).
Personally, as a player, I find trap encounters to be a nice change of pace from standard encounters. You are correct in your assessment that good GM will balance encounters where appropriate, but a good player will also realize that not every encounter is there to be defeated. Some should be avoided, some should be bypassed.
It is not a GM's job to ensure that all encounters are easily defeated by the PCs (or that that can even be defeated by the PCs ... though in these cases the GM should be especially open to the possible solutions the players come up with to avoid or bypass them), but instead to tell a story for the players' characters to take part in and to have the players' actions help to dictate the outcome. Bad decisions on what actions to take will lead to bad outcomes; anything otherwise would be bad GMing.
Finally, the OP did state the GM laughed when he saw the start of the domino chain, but before the PCs started getting killed, not "as they were being slaughtered". I have to admit I have also done this (laughing at the start of a chain of events, not during a PC slaughter) as well; not a mean spirited laugh, but more of a "wow, THAT'S kinda unexpected" kind of way. Does this make me a bad GM?
EDIT: Ninja'd by Godwyn on several points! <shakes fist> ;)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are forgetting rule 0: the DM is always right.
... that said, there is also rule -1: the game is supposed to be fun. If it really is killing the fun for the group, address it, independent of it being legal or not.
Except when the DM is wrong. This isn't just the Dm's game. It's everyone's game and should be treated as such. Rule 0 is a bad rule.
Even still. Invisibility lasts 80 minutes at that level. Why was everyone clumped up together in a fireball prone area. There was no hurry. It wasn't going to wear off before the rogue got the door open. Rogue opens door, fireball goes off, rogue took no damage. Everyone walks blithely through the room.
Apparently the door was a heavy, rolling affair that needed the entire party aiding the strongest member in order to move it. So after it was checked for traps and unlocked, it then needed the entire group clustered in order to be moved- placing them in harm's way of the final parting shot.
Also, apparently the trolls were "Cave" trolls, not "Rock" trolls, so Acid didn't apply for some reason. Damage combo was evidently Fire and Sonic. (If you're thinking that there are too many re-color monster varieties at this point, I'm agreeing with you).
Probably time I left the issue alone by now, though. Xyr, good luck on your DMing.
It is a pet peeve of mine when players expect that every challenge in the setting was placed there for them in exactly the order that would be required to keep them at the right level. What if this GM isn't being a dick, but merely allowing the players to get a glimpse of some location they should visit later when they are higher level?
As someone who has been a GM since the 80s, it seems like we entered an era of player empowerment that came about with 3rd Edition. New books were marketed toward players instead of DMs, and even though the rulebook talked about "Rule Zero," more and more players started to think of the DM as another player who just happens to also handle NPCs but are still equally bound by the rules. Basically, the rpg equivalent of the Monopoly player who handles the money.
Like a previous poster, I'd be really upset if a player of mine was second-guessing my DM role by running the math on all my encounters. Unless it is obvious the DM is ramping up difficulties just to spite characters or flex some kind of superiority complex, players should have a little more faith.
It seems this GM also likes to push players to their limits of what he knows they can do, even if it includes out of the box thinking. If they figure things out they live, if not they die. Some players are not good at such things though, and player ability should always be taken into account when designing encounters, IMHO.
Also i think that the PCs were little if not at all optimized, from their party composition to the spells the wizard had prepared to how hard it seemed to me were the encounters.
Mundane candles cost 1cp and have no weight. Buy a hundred. Light one and mage hand it in. If the trap goes off, light and throw a bunch in, maybe make use of an unseen servant to spread them around.
Given that the trap went off when the door opened, it's highly likely you wouldn't even have needed to light them.
|
Yeah, in this scenario, I'm gonna go with party error for the wipe.
You said your major complaint about using those spell slots for Invisibility was that the Wizard couldn't prep his evocation stuff... but why didn't he just use his higher level spell slots? Or a more cost effective method of escaping the trap?
The DM made a difficult challenge, and you died. It happens. Heck, when I DM, I don't use enemies below APL+2, and those are the easy fights! I'm not one for traps, but in my group, if someone doesn't drop unconscious in about every fight, it wasn't a fun battle.
I say that to say this: If a DM makes a challenge that is difficult, then... it's difficult. The adventuring day does not consist of 4 APL encounters, or whatever other nonsense is out there. The adventuring day lasts as long as the DM intends it to, and is as difficult as the DM intends. That doesn't mean the DM shouldn't have fun, but it does mean that the players have no basis for quoting rules at the DM to try an "prove" that he is cheating. The DM doesn't cheat: The rules say he can flat out do whatever he wants.
|
Meh. I'm familiar with Tomb of Horrors - Ergo, I would have just thrown rocks and sticks and stones in there to see if the trap would have fired. Seems it reacted to movement, so the suggested dancing lights&Staying still combo would have worked.
Or, Throw a rock - half of the party moves for a round. The rest stays behind a corner, and throw another rock - during reset, the other half moves again. Repeat until the door is open, get inside, and repeat for the other party. Or magehand all lightsources.
I personally would have loved this trap, though getting around it did require some out-of-box thinking. If the party isn't used to such, or this was the DM's first time of experimenting with unusual tactics, it might have been... Well... Not nice.
Then again, I love traps of all kinds, both as a DM and as a player, so I might be biased. One of my favorites was a trap that turned a character into a chicken. Setting it off again would turn you back, but you would loose all your equipment. One of the party walked into it. (We circumvented the penalty by killing the polymorphed character, reverting the transformation, and then raising him back from the dead. Didn't have any way to dispel the effect, and had a reason to believe it would have been permanent).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I sort of disagree with you. The DM could absolutely be called out for cheating.... the world revolves around everyone at the table, not just the DM. Yes, the DM has a lot of control over that world, and calling a trap of this nature "unfair" is sort of silly in my mind, but that doesn't mean a dm is immune to being called a cheater.
Quoting rules is often not a good argument against a DM, and drags things down... but if my DM has 3 low level orcs attack and deal 40 damage a hit without any magical auras or anything, I will call him out in a heartbeat.
Ehh... how do you know they're low level orcs? Or prepared enemies who've got nondetection on their gear to take you by surprise. Ect.
Heck, one of my favorite thing to do is to use an image of, say, an orc, and use the stats for, say, a troll. It helps a lot when people are familiar enough with monsters to call out abilities and stats at the table. Give me your knowledge roll, I'll tell you what you know about this creature.
The dm totally can't be called out for cheating, because he can't cheat. Everything he does in the game world can be explained either before and after the fact. There's only one thing you can call the dm out for.
Running a game that isn't fun.
And if you're not having fun, let the dm know. That's the dm's job, and why he gets to bypass all this cheating stuff. I've adhoc'd stuff dozens if not hundreds of times on the fly to make things more interesting and fun for my party.
Aside from the trap being perfectly fine it could have left some burn marks on the floor that would be easier to notice, but there are already tons of methods to bypass it. The trap particularly lacks intelligence score, so image spell could easily fool it to fire the fireball to some far corner, summon monsters were also mentioned (fire mephit would be ideal to keep the trap occupied as he's not harmed by fire and has fly speed, so he can even block the spell by maneuvering himself in the path. Fireball explodes when it hits solid surface, but the trap's hardly worth the 4th level spell IMO - or make a fire elemetal and levitate him there)
Another option would be to raise your move in some way, through running, spells and perhaps an option or two I missed. 120' is not that far, and you have a round to cover it.
Unless you treat the trap as having readied action with triggering condition being someone stepping in sight.
This one is very easy to circumvent.
Do you have a sorcerer or wizard with you?
YES?
Then memorise fireball (or if your sorcerer already has it)and counterspell it as you pass in a huddle through the room.
Alternatively take at least two dispel magics for other casters and do a double dispel counter (just to make sure) as you pass.
What could be simpler....
I am almost completely certain that you can't counterspell traps any more than you can spell-like abilities.
You must be able to spellcraft before you can counterspell. You can not see the casting of the spell because a trap does not need a voice or somatic components so there is nothing to spellcraft. All you see is the bead, and by then the spell is already cast.
Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast....
A trap is also not a spellcaster which is what the counterspell must be used against according to the counterspell rules.
RD is correct.
|
|
From your example, a common thing I might do would be to change hps on the fly from average to maximum.
Alternatively, I might shoot them down to minimum and *depending on what the bbeg has gotten off so far, and what the players have done* change him to a minion who is well disguised as the villain. Then the *real* bbeg comes out with defenses and a cr appropriate to the encounter.
Or I might have a bunch of minions come running in from another room. Some of them attack, some of them cast buff spells on the bbeg, some of them hit him with healing spells. Now his ac, hp, bab, ect all go up.
There are tons of ways to change an encounter to make it more interesting for the party.
The *bad dm* part of your example is where you make the changes and have them sit as obvious suspension of the game world. Changing the invisibile stats like hp, or boosting up saves if your players aren't watching you roll, are things you can do without breaking the players suspension of disbelief.
Having mooks come running in is one way you can make the changes you want without breaking that suspension. You're doing the exact same thing, but providing an in-game explanation for it if it comes up.
You seem to have trouble separating *bad dm* from everything else. If you do your *cheating* right, then your players will never know about it.
And any dm who arbitrarily kills the party is a bad dm, because he kills the fun. Bad argument is bad.
Is it cheating? No, but it's not good form.
Adding some hit points to a BBEG who is going down too quickly is fine. Altering numbers with which the characters have already interacted is not. So in your example, the DM shouldn't mess with the established AC or damage dice from the weapon, because once the combat began, those things are "fixed" in the sense that astute players can actually figure them out. His hit points, however, are not fixed. He could have a wide range of them.
Ultimately, the DM's only job is to make things fun, which in many cases also means *dramatic*. Characters felling the BBEG of the entire campaign in two rounds might sound awesome, but upon closer inspection, robs the campaign of dramatic potential and proper closure.
Of course, one does need to stick to reason. If the BBEG is a low-level orc chieftan, the DM can't just keep stretching out his hit points into the triple digits without the players (rightfully) starting to wonder. At some point it turns into "he dies when I want him to die."
No, scratch that -- it's ALWAYS "he dies when I want him to die" (or "he dies when it is dramatically appropriate") but one of the DM's jobs is to make it seem like this ISN'T what's happening. Players want to both A) feel like the enemy's stats are fixed and B) not have a weak challenge, especially if it's a villain. In a game like d20, where high probability ranges and a steep power curve can provide a massive result range, it's not always easy to plan ahead where you need to be for full dramatic potential.
The example provided above...is absolutely cheating.