|
So, we have a player who is very good at making unhittable characters. His 8th level ranger/monk has an AC of 46 - legally (unless he's surprised or unprepared, but how often does *that* happen in PFS?). One would think this would make him less capable in other areas, but since he is a focused trip-monkey, he has a huge effect on the scenario without needing to do huge amounts of damage.
(Somewhat off-topic: this player is also a huge rules lawyer, arguing every call made by every GM and driving people bonkers. I may wind up uninviting him for this reason, but I'd like to know how to solve the main issue anyway.)
So, is there a way to challenge him? Are there scenarios which would reduce his effectiveness enough to put him at risk, or at least give him something different to do? In a campaign I could deal with it, but I'd like to find a way in-game to challenge him.
|
|
I'd love to see the break down of that AC.
Me too. I'm also 8th level and specialize in tripping and AC... but mine's only 29 (or 32 with Combat Expertise).
EDIT:
10 base
5 from DEX
8 from a +2 mithral breastplate, if using a monk archetype that doesn't lose much in armor
2 from a Ring of Prot +2
2 from an Amulet of NA +2
4 from a +2 mithral heavy shield, maybe?
1 from the Dodge feat
-------
32 so far, and I'm out of ideas
So, is there a way to challenge him?
(assuming he dumped Str) Ask to see his encumbrance.
I agree with Shadowcat ... I'd be interested in not only the breakdown of the AC, but the level/fame level he purchased items at ... sounds like there needs to be a serious audit done ... and I'm not a person for auditing characters, but something seems hinky
So, we have a player who is very good at making unhittable characters. His 8th level ranger/monk has an AC of 46 - legally (unless he's surprised or unprepared, but how often does *that* happen in PFS?). One would think this would make him less capable in other areas, but since he is a focused trip-monkey, he has a huge effect on the scenario without needing to do huge amounts of damage.
(Somewhat off-topic: this player is also a huge rules lawyer, arguing every call made by every GM and driving people bonkers. I may wind up uninviting him for this reason, but I'd like to know how to solve the main issue anyway.)
So, is there a way to challenge him? Are there scenarios which would reduce his effectiveness enough to put him at risk, or at least give him something different to do? In a campaign I could deal with it, but I'd like to find a way in-game to challenge him.
Count me as another request on this breakdown for the AC, I'm skeptical. But in this situation, this is exactly why attacking the saves is a good option, as. Is environmental control, how well will he do when hit with grease and set ablaze? Save or Suck spells and further set them up for Save or Die spells...
Incorporeal opponents should be very difficult for him to trip, same with swarms... Also, live by the Combat maneuver, die by the combat maneuver... Surely his CMD is lower than his AC.
But without seeing the character, It's all speculation.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's see... best I could come up with is
Qinggong Monk 7/ Ranger 1, probably small race. For the sake of it, I'm going to assume the guy's a halfling for the +2 Dex. Also purchasing Monk's Robe, +2 Belt of Dex, +2 Headband Wis, +2 ring of prot, wand of mage armor, wand of shield (not sure if 29K is normal wealth for level 8 PFS, but that's what I just spent). This also assumes he has at least 31 fame, not impossible by any means. This also makes the assumption he has UMD as a trained skill.
Stats : Str 8, Dex 20, Con 8, Int 9, Wis 16, Cha 9
4: Wis
8: Wis
AC
10 (base)
1 (size if small)
6 (Dex, assuming 22)
5 (Wis, assuming 20)
3 (Monk AC bonus with Monk's Robe)
4 (wand of Mage Armor someone uses on him, or maybe does it himself)
4 (wand of Shield, which he'd have to use on himself)
3 (Barkskin via Qinggong)
2 (Ring of Protection +2)
4 (Crane Style w/ 3 ranks of Acrobatics)
1 (Dodge, a prereq to Crane Style)
= 43 AC. Could be higher if he could somehow afford +4 Belt/Headband.
Touch would be far lower, looking at 32, and if it's the first round of combat and monsters go before him, you can also ignore the Crane Style boost making it lower (AC 28 until he gets to declare he's fighting defensively).
CMD, using my calculations above, will be probably 10 + 6(dex) + 6(BAB) + 8(Wis/Monk) = 30, not as high and far easier for some creatures to land.
Anyway, to tackle this guy... first thing is to find stuff he can't trip or will find difficult to trip. Snakes, oozes, many larger animals, flyers, incorporeal beings. And swarms. He'll just LOVE swarms.
As noted, I bet his Touch AC is a fair bit lower so casters with Touch effects will work better against him.
For a scenario, try Year of the Shadow Lodge; tons of action, too many targets for him to consitently trip, and at his level, plenty of lethal things.
|
I agree with an Audit of his character. IMO every other week you should pull a person aside randomly and audit a one of their characters. Even if you never find something the possibility of it happening will keep people from trying to squeak questionable purchases and bad accounting of their characters by you.
|
Yes, something seems off. I think an email to him, and a request for a copy of his sheets be provided before his next session, or his character will be considered invalid.
+1
Something dose not seem right. I know it can be done. The cost is very high in ability points, and gold to do it. If he started with a 18 Dex and 16 Wis he has very low hp. So you could be looking at a glass cannon that just needs hit to brake it. And natural 20 hit all the time. Other then that if he AC is really that high. His fort save will be his low save. Or go after his CMD if any of the casters have blackend tentacles.
So, we have a player who is very good at making unhittable characters. His 8th level ranger/monk has an AC of 46 - legally (unless he's surprised or unprepared, but how often does *that* happen in PFS?). One would think this would make him less capable in other areas, but since he is a focused trip-monkey, he has a huge effect on the scenario without needing to do huge amounts of damage.
(Somewhat off-topic: this player is also a huge rules lawyer, arguing every call made by every GM and driving people bonkers. I may wind up uninviting him for this reason, but I'd like to know how to solve the main issue anyway.)
So, is there a way to challenge him? Are there scenarios which would reduce his effectiveness enough to put him at risk, or at least give him something different to do? In a campaign I could deal with it, but I'd like to find a way in-game to challenge him.
Count me as another request on this breakdown for the AC, I'm skeptical. But in this situation, this is exactly why attacking the saves is a good option, as. Is environmental control, how well will he do when hit with grease and set ablaze? Save or Suck spells and further set them up for Save or Die spells...
Incorporeal opponents should be very difficult for him to trip, same with swarms... Also, live by the Combat maneuver, die by the combat maneuver... Surely his CMD is lower than his AC.
But without seeing the character, It's all speculation.
Since you add dodge bonouses to CMD don't use combat manuvers against him. It's not where he will be weak, and infact it will be just as difficult if not moreso to hit then his AC.
James,
How do you handle this type of thing at your PFS table?.. wait you don't play PFS ... ok moving on...
LampLighter -- I would merely let me know that you're curious about how his AC has gotten so high and could he explain it to you as you have a character concept in mind that you might use part of the tactics for...
This way the audit is non-confrontational from the start .. he's in a good mood becuase you're expressing interest in his character and you get to see where his mindset is on how things worth together.
I'd bone up on your items/abilities/feats beforehand or write things down so that you can look them up and study them later.
Unfortunately, there isn't much you can do about the rules lawyering... even people that have admitted they don't play the game like to rules lawyer. If he's creating that much of a hostile atmosphere, talk to him and let hime know that you'd appreciate if he could keep the discussion about the miniscule rules til after the game, but that you appreciate when he speaks up regarding a major rule; but there have been complaints about the length of the game due to the constant interruptions. Then if he's still disruptfull you can kick him, but you've given him fair warning
Unfortunately, there isn't much you can do about the rules lawyering... even people that have admitted they don't play the game like to rules lawyer. If he's creating that much of a hostile atmosphere, talk to him and let hime know that you'd appreciate if he could keep the discussion about the miniscule rules til after the game, but that you appreciate when he speaks up regarding a major rule; but there have been complaints about the length of the game due to the constant interruptions. Then if he's still disruptfull you can kick him, but you've given him fair warning
+1 to this. When I read the original post, my concern wasn't so much how did he get the AC but the "driving people bonkers" part.
You can hit through his AC easily. It's called add casters to every enemy party. Magic missile? Auto hit. Fireball? Reflex or damage.
There are plenty of spells that bypass AC.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16
|
You can hit through his AC easily. It's called add casters to every enemy party. Magic missile? Auto hit. Fireball? Reflex or damage.
There are plenty of spells that bypass AC.
Magic Missile will work, fireballs not so much (the guy probably has a +11 - +13 Reflex save and Evasion). True strike + Intensified Shocking grasp, though...
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Unfortunately, there isn't much you can do about the rules lawyering... even people that have admitted they don't play the game like to rules lawyer. If he's creating that much of a hostile atmosphere, talk to him and let hime know that you'd appreciate if he could keep the discussion about the miniscule rules til after the game, but that you appreciate when he speaks up regarding a major rule; but there have been complaints about the length of the game due to the constant interruptions. Then if he's still disruptfull you can kick him, but you've given him fair warning+1 to this. When I read the original post, my concern wasn't so much how did he get the AC but the "driving people bonkers" part.
And this could in turn be based on a lack of trust, due to either yourself or a previous GM. Possible contributing factors include:
• Someone fudged something and cost him something in the process.• Someone mis-ruled and cost him something.
• Someone dismissed his concern on a topic (remember that the player doesn't know that the BBEG only has 1 HP left and therefore the details of Spell X don't matter - a ruling that seems trivial to you might seem like life or death to someone who's not reading the scenario)
This can apply to why he build an "unhittable" PC, too (and one with good saves, I'd point out). There are some GMs with whom I'll only play my most straightforward, number-based characters because I don't trust them to try to understand the mechanics of my more complicated ones and I think they'll screw me over.
It might just be that this guy got burned, and his rules-lawyering (and his PC) is just him trying to protect himself from getting burned again.
Magic Missile will work, fireballs not so much (the guy probably has a +11 - +13 Reflex save and Evasion). True strike + Intensified Shocking grasp, though...You can hit through his AC easily. It's called add casters to every enemy party. Magic missile? Auto hit. Fireball? Reflex or damage.
There are plenty of spells that bypass AC.
True, that's just the tip of the iceberg though. Don't forget rangers have LOW will saves. Hit him with a charm, or command or any other will save ability. Make him staggered so he can only take 1 action and he become extremely limited and has issues fighting defensively at that point.
Lots and lots of spells that can take out this guy. Like I said just add 2-3 caster per fight and you'll be fine.
Unfortunately, there isn't much you can do about the rules lawyering... even people that have admitted they don't play the game like to rules lawyer. If he's creating that much of a hostile atmosphere, talk to him and let hime know that you'd appreciate if he could keep the discussion about the miniscule rules til after the game, but that you appreciate when he speaks up regarding a major rule; but there have been complaints about the length of the game due to the constant interruptions. Then if he's still disruptfull you can kick him, but you've given him fair warning+1 to this. When I read the original post, my concern wasn't so much how did he get the AC but the "driving people bonkers" part.And this could in turn be based on a lack of trust, due to either yourself or a previous GM. Possible contributing factors include:
• Someone fudged something and cost him something in the process.
• Someone mis-ruled and cost him something.
• Someone dismissed his concern on a topic (remember that the player doesn't know that the BBEG only has 1 HP left and therefore the details of Spell X don't matter - a ruling that seems trivial to you might seem like life or death to someone who's not reading the scenario)This can apply to why he build an "unhittable" PC, too (and one with good saves, I'd point out). There are some GMs with whom I'll only play my most straightforward, number-based characters because I don't trust them to try to understand the mechanics of my more complicated ones and I think they'll screw me over.
It might just be that this guy got burned, and his rules-lawyering (and his PC) is just him trying to protect himself from getting burned again.
Trust me ... there are rules lawyers that will argue the miniscule pionts on why you're using the pencil that you're using as the GM. There are arguements that can simply wait until afterwards as they have no bearing on the specific situation.
As a GM I've looked at a rules lawyer and simply said that it is what it is, that belaboring the point isn't going to change how it's working currently as what specifics of the point you're arguing I don't feel pertain in this instance. In the interesting of keeping to our time table, I'm going to table the discussion for now, if you like we can continue this after the game.
If they still have an issue then I give the the standard -- It's my table, I've made the ruling and we're moving on, I'm sorry that you're still upset.... and then I move on, I don't engage in that specific discussion again during the scenario. I do give the player time after the scenario to make his point if he so chooses.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It sounds like you are already in an adversarial relationship with the person in question
Why would it be adversarial? The player has an extreme build that far surpasses the AC expectations of PFS encounters. This makes the character effectively unhittable. Combine that with the high CMB for tripping and the pervasive use of humanoid opponents, the OP is just trying to figure out a way to provide a reasonable challenge. The PC is likely to make most scenarios a cakewalk and less fun for the other players. The GM is just asking for assistance on how to challenge the player while still allowing him the play the character as built.
One thing I would ask the player to do is read Painlord's GET FOUND article and limit the frequency of the use of trips attacks. Not because the character is broken (even though it might be in some opinions), but because it steals the spotlight from the rest of the players and makes them feel somewhat useless.
We have to remember that within the scope of PFS, the GM is limited to what s/he can do to adapt the scenario to the skills of the player-characters. So unfortunately, Ferio's comments don't really work unless the scenario is written with auto-hit spells. Since his build is largely dodge-based AC, touch attacks are just as likely to fail and if he has most of his levels in monk, his saves are likely pretty good. It is also not legal to just add casters to each encounter.
By building a character well beyond the scope of the challenges can overshadow the other players at the table and influence them to not play in the future.
EDIT--sorry, I was redicted to this thread and thought it was within the scope of Pathfinder Society Organized Play. So yes, if this is a home-game environment, there are a plethora of creatures that even a trip build will find a challenge to trip, not to mention oozes, incorporeal, and flight. As far as hitting, environmental effects and conditions are excellent neutralizers for those who rely on mobility for their AC.
|
Truestrike is a wonderful way to go if you want to attack AC. That +20 is a huge equalizer. Suddendly his AC is effectively 26, easily reachable at 8th level. Or you can be a little tougher when it comes to preparation before encounters. It seems like he is likely precasting/UMDing for 2 or more rounds to get that AC. Don't give him that time. Casting causes noise, PC's draw attention to themselves. Give npcs and monsters Perception checks, etc. If the PC's are waiting outside every door to precast interrupt them. In PFS you can't change senarios but you can play NPC's to the best of their abilities.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16
|
True, that's just the tip of the iceberg though. Don't forget rangers have LOW will saves. Hit him with a charm, or command or any other will save ability. Make him staggered so he can only take 1 action and he become extremely limited and has issues fighting defensively at that point.Lots and lots of spells that can take out this guy. Like I said just add 2-3 caster per fight and you'll be fine.
They do, but I'm guessing he's more Monk than Ranger, just for the AC to be so high (see my earlier post on my presumed AC breakdown). If that's the case, he probably has a +10/+11 Will save with another +2 if it's an enchantment spell.
Not that he can't fail, but odds are he's going to pass.
True strike + Intensified Shocking grasp, though...Or true strike + any combat maneuver whose effect scales based on how much you beat their CMD by.
True strike + Bull Rush = Throw them across the room.
Good point, not to mention it'd be fun to see a halfling get booted back 20 feet.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Trust me ... there are rules lawyers that will argue the miniscule pionts on why you're using the pencil that you're using as the GM. There are arguements that can simply wait until afterwards as they have no bearing on the specific situation.
As a GM I've looked at a rules lawyer and simply said that it is what it is, that belaboring the point isn't going to change how it's working currently as what specifics of the point you're arguing I don't feel pertain in this instance. In the interesting of keeping to our time table, I'm going to table the discussion for now, if you like we can continue this after the game.
If they still have an issue then I give the the standard -- It's my table, I've made the ruling and we're moving on, I'm sorry that you're still upset.... and then I move on, I don't engage in that specific discussion again during the scenario. I do give the player time after the scenario to make his point if he so chooses.
I absolutely agree. I don't doubt that such extreme persons exist. I'm just saying that not all rules lawyers fit that profile, and so it's worth looking into whether he's just being obnoxious or if he's defending himself. As someone who's blown an oil of daylight because the GM wouldn't be challenged on darkness stacking because it seemed trivial and not worth an interruption for, I can say that sometimes it really is self-defense. I've also had to check myself with other GMs because that sense of defensiveness carried over unfairly to their tables.
Sometimes they're being a jerk. Sometimes you'd be doing it too if you'd had their history. I think it's worthwhile to figure out which is the case.
|
Honestly, just be happy he's doing it at PFS and not a regular home game. For a lot of my players I try and use PFS as a way for them to get this kind of tendencies out of their system so I'm not spending every moment of my home games trying to plan around their inane builds and how to continue making games interesting.
Swarms are wonderful.
It sounds like you are already in an adversarial relationship with the person in questionWhy would it be adversarial? The player has an extreme build that far surpasses the AC expectations of PFS encounters. This makes the character effectively unhittable. Combine that with the high CMB for tripping and the pervasive use of humanoid opponents, the OP is just trying to figure out a way to provide a reasonable challenge. The PC is likely to make most scenarios a cakewalk and less fun for the other players. The GM is just asking for assistance on how to challenge the player while still allowing him the play the character as built.
One thing I would ask the player to do is read Painlord's GET FOUND article and limit the frequency of the use of trips attacks. Not because the character is broken (even though it might be in some opinions), but because it steals the spotlight from the rest of the players and makes them feel somewhat useless.
We have to remember that within the scope of PFS, the GM is limited to what s/he can do to adapt the scenario to the skills of the player-characters. So unfortunately, Ferio's comments don't really work unless the scenario is written with auto-hit spells. Since his build is largely dodge-based AC, touch attacks are just as likely to fail and if he has most of his levels in monk, his saves are likely pretty good. It is also not legal to just add casters to each encounter.
By building a character well beyond the scope of the challenges can overshadow the other players at the table and influence them to not play in the future.
EDIT--sorry, I was redicted to this thread and thought it was within the scope of Pathfinder Society Organized Play. So yes, if this is a home-game environment, there are a plethora of creatures that even a trip build will find a challenge to trip, not to mention oozes, incorporeal, and flight. As far as hitting,...
While I agree most scenarios won't have auto hit spells, as the DM there is always the option to add more monsters WITH auto hit spells. I tweak encounters all the time as most of my players LOVE to min-max, unless otherwise agreed upon beforehand. There is a counter to everything.
|
|
Not sure why the discussion is still going on because the build has not been posted and I can almost promise you that the build isn't legit.
I just want to say also that UMD is not a class skill for a Monk or a Ranger and the Monk is a very MAD character. His UMD skill isn't going to be high and if he is using wands he needs to make a DC 20 roll every time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trust me ... there are rules lawyers that will argue the miniscule pionts on why you're using the pencil that you're using as the GM. There are arguements that can simply wait until afterwards as they have no bearing on the specific situation.
As a GM I've looked at a rules lawyer and simply said that it is what it is, that belaboring the point isn't going to change how it's working currently as what specifics of the point you're arguing I don't feel pertain in this instance. In the interesting of keeping to our time table, I'm going to table the discussion for now, if you like we can continue this after the game.
If they still have an issue then I give the the standard -- It's my table, I've made the ruling and we're moving on, I'm sorry that you're still upset.... and then I move on, I don't engage in that specific discussion again during the scenario. I do give the player time after the scenario to make his point if he so chooses.
I absolutely agree. I don't doubt that such extreme persons exist. I'm just saying that not all rules lawyers fit that profile, and so it's worth looking into whether he's just being obnoxious or if he's defending himself. As someone who's blown an oil of daylight because the GM wouldn't be challenged on darkness stacking because it seemed trivial and not worth an interruption for, I can say that sometimes it really is self-defense. I've also had to check myself with other GMs because that sense of defensiveness carried over unfairly to their tables.
Sometimes they're being a jerk. Sometimes you'd be doing it too if you'd had their history. I think it's worthwhile to figure out which is the case.
And it's a conversation that is more appropriate for after the game, not during. I will and have asked a player to tone it down on the rules lawyering and I'll do it again. They are given the opportunity to come and chat with me after the game if they wish to. As the GM I do not have time nor as a person do I have the inclination to play psychiatrist for their gaming issues. If they have an issue with stuff in the past than they need to deal with it with those people, not at my table.
I am part of the same group as lamplighter so I think I know who he is referring too. When I have played at the same table as the person in question, he often argues with the gm, more than anybody else I have seen. Last time I played with him, his character was around lv 5-6 with an ac around 35.
Sadly I don't think there is much you can do about this in PFS. I don't even think playing up would change much, because we've done that. His lv 5-6 character was playing in a tier 8-9 and was still barely getting hit. But as others have suggested I would audit the character and check to make sure everything is legit. All I really know about the character in question has already been mentioned (he has lvs in monk, uses combat expertise and fights defensively).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Baleful Polymorph should work nicely.
Dominate person.
"trip the rest of your party"
Yeeees master....
|
run the module "the delsean affair" i think thats how you spell it. if you play the main villan as you should, you will knock him out of the fight in one hit.
now im not saying you should kill him because he's playing a good character, but if you read that module you will see how powerful you can be as a gm. i wont post spoilers, so go buy it.
My suggestion would be to hit him in the Fort and Will saves. By any means necessary and/or possible.
And it's a conversation that is more appropriate for after the game, not during. I will and have asked a player to tone it down on the rules lawyering and I'll do it again. They are given the opportunity to come and chat with me after the game if they wish to. As the GM I do not time nor as a person do I have the inclination to play psychiatrist for their gaming issues. If they have an issue with stuff in the past than they need to deal with it with those people, not at my table.
I've seen players being a jerk, and trying to get any small advantage they can.
However, I also have seen DMs who were wrong. They had a poor understanding of the rules, and made mistakes. I have made mistakes myself as a DM too, and have been corrected by players. We are all humans, none of us are perfect. So if the player is right, and the DM is not hearing him, then the DM is doing two mistakes instead of one.
I don`t know you, and I give people the benefit of doubt. I bet that you did the right thing and made the right decision. However, we don't know the player that the OP is talking about either. So I don't have any hint to say he is being a jerk, other than the OP word. The player might have a different vision, and we haven't heard his version. We shouldn't give him the "guilty" lab yet.
I've seen players being a jerk, and trying to get any small advantage they can.
However, I also have seen DMs who were wrong. They had a poor understanding of the rules, and made mistakes. I have made mistakes myself as a DM too, and have been corrected by players. We are all humans, none of us are perfect. So if the player is right, and the DM is not hearing him, then the DM is doing two mistakes instead of one.
Part of the problem, for me at least, is that during the middle of the adventure is not the time to raise rule interpretation questions (unless it surrounds a player's death). It takes away from the game (and limited 4 hour block for PFS games) to continually have to break open the books to verify the wording - even if the player is right.
If a player has a problem with the interpretation or ruling of the GM, after the game is the time to do it (or before the next game if possible).
I would audit the character if you GM, but I am totally against targeting or focusing intentionally on him. Rather be mindfull of action economy.
The main issuse would be the rules lawyering. If this is indeed so bad, I would simply warn him.
I don't know to what extent in-game arguing actually takes place. I would stop it immediately if it is affecting the group.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen players being a jerk, and trying to get any small advantage they can.
However, I also have seen DMs who were wrong. They had a poor understanding of the rules, and made mistakes. I have made mistakes myself as a DM too, and have been corrected by players. We are all humans, none of us are perfect. So if the player is right, and the DM is not hearing him, then the DM is doing two mistakes instead of one.
Part of the problem, for me at least, is that during the middle of the adventure is not the time to raise rule interpretation questions (unless it surrounds a player's death). It takes away from the game (and limited 4 hour block for PFS games) to continually have to break open the books to verify the wording - even if the player is right.
If a player has a problem with the interpretation or ruling of the GM, after the game is the time to do it (or before the next game if possible).
As far as I know, in a PFS "after the game" might be too late, as the next game might be with another different DM.
You should not argue every single little interpretation of the rules, but if the player is right, he is right, and therefore the DM is wrong. Being DM is not a "bullet-proof jacket" against mistakes. When it is a DM call, or a matter of interpretation, DM can impose his interpretation. When it is a matter of being right or wrong, it is not. For example, taking a potion from a Handy Haversack does not provoke AoO. If the DM thinks it does, the DM is wrong, period. It is not a matter of interpretation, it is that the DM is wrong. The player bought the item (in a PFS, maybe with another DM), he is ought to have what he paid for. Especially in PFS.
There is also a difference between a player that comments on a wrong ruling/interpretation and can pull the information from the book vs. a player that jumps on the GM because the player feels that the GM ruling a door was closed vs left open is wrong.
The later is what I'm talking about with telling the player that we can discuss the fine-tuning after the scenario.
I've been more than willing to discuss a rules interpretation where I was wrong and the player understood it better. What I'm not willing to do is argue in game in the middle of combat.
There is also a difference between a player that comments on a wrong ruling/interpretation and can pull the information from the book vs. a player that jumps on the GM because the player feels that the GM ruling a door was closed vs left open is wrong.
The later is what I'm talking about with telling the player that we can discuss the fine-tuning after the scenario.
I've been more than willing to discuss a rules interpretation where I was wrong and the player understood it better. What I'm not willing to do is argue in game in the middle of combat.
Oh, then we agree at 101% :). Doors being closed or open is in the realm of DM decision. Players have nothing to do with it.