|
The only thing identified with the casting of spells are the components, there is nothing else by RAW that is associated with it.But there's also nothing in the RAW that says that the only thing identified with the casting of spells are the components. In fact, the RAW never mentions the components used in casting even once when in reference to identification.The rules don't say that a giant marching band doesn't appear every time you cast a spell either.
I'm pretty sure it doesn't, though.
Nice try, but the rules don't say, "You must be able to see the giant marching band as the spell is cast" - they do say "you must be able to see the spell as it is cast," however, and make no mention of seeing the components.
I guarantee if they did the former that we'd probably be arguing that there was a marching band, for whatever reason. And you'd probably be agreeing with us, particularly if the developers had noted that the phrasing wasn't a mistake.
That's a blatant misreading of Mr. Buhlman's post:
Back to the topic at hand, since the rules are silent here, I think it is well within the GMs purview to impose a penalty to the Spellcraft check to identify a spell without components (V, S, M). Since there is no real increase for spells with just one, I would guess that this penalty is not very large, perhaps only as much as -4.
Adding a perception penalty is an acceptable interpretation of the RAW because the RAW is silent.
OR
Edit: I should also note that I also agree with James, that a strict reading of the rules says you can make the check, without penalty, regardless of the spell's components.
If you add any penalty you are breaking the RAW. This also neglects that the RAW specifically allows the DM to add perception penalties to spellcraft rolls based on "other factors".
Which is it? That is why this is a very confusing and poorly worded response that does not really answer the question.
If spellcasting has some other effect beyond VSM that is not clearly delineated in the rules, then what is it? Is it visible when the caster is invisible or it the glow(or gathering of power, or whatever you want it to be) considered an item on the casters body?
What is the point of casting ghost sound, ventriloquism, or glibness(or any other spell that relies of deception) if everyone around you knows you just cast a spell, and automatically becomes suspicious of you?
This "answer" from the devs creates more problems and questions than it actually answers.
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"
What is the point of casting ghost sound, ventriloquism, or glibness(or any other spell that relies of deception) if everyone around you knows you just cast a spell, and automatically becomes suspicious of you?
All three of those spells have a duration meaning that they can be cast ahead of time. Not a single one of those spells requires a "target" (or more to the point, you don't need a line of effect for your intended dupe), meaning you can cast them from a hidden location.
Illusionists usually do need to do a little extra work to create deception mostly because deception isn't free simply because the spell makes use of it.
|
|
Which is it?
It's the one he specifically went back and added in to make sure the point didn't get lost.
There's no contradiction here unless you force one. Yes, RAW says you don't apply a penalty based on the lack of components. It also says you can apply penalties based on "other factors." That just means the "other factors" don't include a lack of spell components. If the devs had said, "you shouldn't apply a penalty to Perception checks because Jupiter is in the House of Mars," would you also be complaining about a contradiction in RAW?
"It is within the GM's purview" is tantamount to saying "it's a houserule, but one I think is reasonable and might apply myself." Nothing more. It is, as you yourself said, an interpretation, not the strict reading. The strict reading is, as Mr. Buhlman said, no penalty.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Heck, if I lived in the PF world and I saw some robed guy in the corner pointedly NOT speaking, NOT making hand gestures and NOT fumbling for something out of a pouch, my immediate assumption would be "THAT GUY'S CASTING A SPELL!" I mean what else would he be doing?
Which is it?It's the one he specifically went back and added in to make sure the point didn't get lost.
There's no contradiction here unless you force one. Yes, RAW says you don't apply a penalty based on the lack of components. It also says you can apply penalties based on "other factors." That just means the "other factors" don't include a lack of spell components. If the devs had said, "you shouldn't apply a penalty to Perception checks because Jupiter is in the House of Mars," would you also be complaining about a contradiction in RAW?
"It is within the GM's purview" is tantamount to saying "it's a houserule, but one I think is reasonable and might apply myself." Nothing more. It is, as you yourself said, an interpretation, not the strict reading. The strict reading is, as Mr. Buhlman said, no penalty.
Yet the exact same dev post you mentioned says that is an acceptable interpretation of the RAW. Are devs only right when they agree with you?
That's a blatant misreading of Mr. Buhlman's post:
So is it an acceptable interpretation of his post, or a blatant misread?
Further, filling in "silent places" in the rules with "acceptable interpretations" is not a house rule, it is the DM's job. House rules are when you change the RAW entirely.
|
Heck, if I lived in the PF world and I saw some robed guy in the corner pointedly NOT speaking, NOT making hand gestures and NOT fumbling for something out of a pouch, my immediate assumption would be "THAT GUY'S CASTING A SPELL!" I mean what else would he be doing?
Sleeping, thinking, taking a crap, checking a girl out, has a headache etc.....
Heck, if I lived in the PF world and I saw some robed guy in the corner pointedly NOT speaking, NOT making hand gestures and NOT fumbling for something out of a pouch, my immediate assumption would be "THAT GUY'S CASTING A SPELL!" I mean what else would he be doing?Sleeping, thinking, taking a crap, checking a girl out, has a headache etc.....
Woo, remind me to never wear my robes out in public.
Woo, remind me to never wear my robes out in public.Heck, if I lived in the PF world and I saw some robed guy in the corner pointedly NOT speaking, NOT making hand gestures and NOT fumbling for something out of a pouch, my immediate assumption would be "THAT GUY'S CASTING A SPELL!" I mean what else would he be doing?Sleeping, thinking, taking a crap, checking a girl out, has a headache etc.....
lol.
I strongly suspect AD was being somewhat sarcastic.
When something is created it is seen unless otherwise noted.
Is it? Do you have any RAW reference to that? I haven't seen anything like it. Not to be rude, but I think you just assume this because it supports your argument.
And do you mean created as in "conjuration (creation)" or as in "something that didn't exist before begins to exist"? Because in that case, by the rule you refered to yourself, spells are visible as soon as they start to exist. And as you must see the spell to identify it, it clearly exists at the time you identify it (since otherwise you couldn't see it - note that you identify a _spell_, not spellcasting).
Also, note that this isn't the first time's this been up and last time Jason said you can identify without components by RAW. I actually argued the other way before the ruling and thought that the components would be the thing you ID'd by, but whatever...
Huh, interesting. I always wondered where that quote from James came from, but this discussion already happened for 135 posts!
Considering that the same people are now coming back to make similar comments, I'd say this discussion has come full circle.
Full circle? It's been several laps.
"you must be able to see the spell as it is cast,"That's right. And what is 'the spell'?
Well, what are spell components?
The definition of "a component" is a part of something else.
Does "still spell" make the magical energies still? Does a ray cast with "still spell" never extend beyond the caster's fingertip?
No. What is being "stilled" is the casting. What "still spell" does is it stills the casting. The spell is synonymous with the casting.
If you can't see the casting (because it's been stilled so there is nothing to see), then you can't counterspell it unless you can see the components or hear the verbal components. But, if the spell is stilled, silent, and eschewed materials, there is nothing about the casting that can be perceived. Since the casting is synonymous with the spell, there is nothing about the spell that can be perceived.
Except, maybe with some sense that is not visual or auditory. For that reason, a -20 to the perception roll (same as invisibility) is justifiable. Now, the -results- of the spell can be perceived. But that's a different beast. A fireball (which is the result of the spell, not the spell itself) can certainly be perceived. An illusion can be perceived (though mistaken for something else). A spell which has no detectable results (forex. Charm Person may fall under this category) can't be perceived.
By this arguement A character who is standing in the middle of a room can then
1. Not move himself.
2. Make no noise.
3. Not fiddle with anything on his person.
He is now harder to see (-20 i think you said) since he is still and silent.
That's right. And what is 'the spell'?
Well, what are spell components?
Spell components are components of casting, not of the spell. It even says that in the description of spell components. A verb is not the noun. I wonder why so many people keep making this mistake. Weaving a basket doesn't mean that weaving and basket are the same thing.
Or my new personal favorite, telling a dog to perform a trick. You (the caster), the dog (magic), and the trick (the spell) are all three things, and the act of telling (verbal component) is a FAR cry from being the trick.
The spell is synonymous with the casting.
You made that up based on nothing in particular. Just making sure you're aware that your logic is based upon something that isn't remotely stated in any books. Generally speaking, I see more evidence of this being completely contrary to the rules than correct.
because it's been stilled so there is nothing to see
You also make a fairly big assumption here.
then you can't counterspell it unless you can see the components or hear the verbal components.
You also just randomly made this up based on nothing in particular in the books.
Essentially, that entire post was filled with logical fallacy and loopholes. Deductive reasoning resolves around needing the statements to correct in order to create the deduction. You tried to use deductive reasoning fairly poorly I'm afraid.
Most of the points you tried to make have been discussed in this thread already. Eventually, Darkwing Duck and shallowsoul have made the points that are the most valid and true logically.
I think we call that a standard stealth check, Talonhawke.
I agree I was just pointing out that not moving or talking doesn't make one any more invisible than not moving or talking makes a spell invisible.
I agree I was just pointing out that not moving or talking doesn't make one any more invisible than not moving or talking makes a spell invisible.
It would if either were behind total cover, if the new stealth rules are to be believed. Otherwise, having total cover on its own is a pretty good way to not be seen.
Strange how that works for hiding your spell from being seen also.
See this is your sides big argue ment that components = spells.
But guess what not only does RAW not support that it doesnt support that casting and the spell are the same thing.
As to your guitar being played analogy. The thing is I'm not trying to ID how your making the music I simply need to know its accoustic properties to counter them. I don't care if its a trumpet or guitar your not making or fiddling with I'm reacting to the playing and coutering that.
Fine Then I will stick to my guns I stated earlier.
1. Devs say by RAW its not harder to ID in these instances.
2. Nothing listed in any section of magic or metamagic says its harder. In fact Since making a spell un IDable would make it uncounterable then Metamagic cannot by RAW make it unIDable.
3.Until you can produce RAW to the contrary I will not believe that nothing happens when a spell is cast up until the very last Nano-second of time before the effect happens and saves come up.
|
|
Actually, I lied. I do have one more thing to say before I'm done here. This is actually directed primarily at the posters who are arguing that casters are screwed without the ability to use Still/Silent/Eschew to stealth cast, but I think it might also serve to better illuminate the distinction between "seeing the spell" and "seeing the components of the spell."
Nowhere, in the RAW or in any of the arguments that have been put forth supporting the fact that you can still see the spell even without seeing the components of the spell's casting, is there any reason to automatically link a S/S/EM spell with its caster.
In some cases, yes, it will be obvious - the ray spells (and indeed, most attack spells) are pretty directly hooked up to their caster no matter what, and the spells that emanate from the caster otherwise (obscuring mist, for example) will also give themselves away. But I think there's a very strong case for saying that when you see the spell, you have to see the spell's target or area of effect, not necessarily the caster - the target or AoE is the only place where the rules actually stipulate something happens, after all. So that enchantment spell you're worried about? No way to tell you cast it, even if someone might recognize that the target was just enchanted. The circumstances might be suspicious, but there'd be no way to link it to you, particularly if you can manage to be in a crowd when you cast it. And illusion spells are even easier - no way to link it to you at all!
So while it may not be an "auto-stealth," having the feats would definitely make it easier for a stealth caster to do their thing. Perhaps that will make you feel a little better about the whole deal.
|
EDIT: Link on Charm Person thread
page 113: Counterspelling Metamagic Spells: Whether or not
a spell has been enhanced by a metamagic feat does not
affect its vulnerability to counterspelling or its ability to
counterspell another spell (see Chapter 9).Doesn't that pretty much say you can counterspell regardless of the feat they took to "hide" the spell being cast? IE. those on this LONG thread who said you can still "see spells" being cast are RIGHT, regardless of whether a mage is eating a twig, waving his hands and saying "alakazam" - there is still a magic effect visibly taking effect. Or page 113 says rather, it still don't matter... you can counter it even without waving hands, words, or components being used up.
I don't think that refers to the same thing. I think the point there is that an Empowered Fireball is still a Fireball and can be countered with a Fireball.
Otherwise, using Enlarge spell to cast the spell from the other side of a thick fog so there's full concealment between you and the counterspeller won't hinder it from counterspelling. It could very well be possible, I just don't think it's likely the RAI.
Now, I agree with the conclusion (there are always visible effects) since it's both suggested by other parts of RAW and the stated intent of the rules, but I don't agree with that phrasing affecting it.
What do you mean you "don't think it means the same thing?" It CLEARLY STATES - ANY METAMAGIC FEAT. Are eschew materials, stilling and silence METAMAGIC FEATS or not? If they are, then OBVIOUSLY its the same thing. Period. In black and white. It doesn't need an interpretation that "these were not the feats they meant" - they are feats. End of discussion. They have no effect on one's ability to counterspell.
|
|
PS. Personally I always thought the point to eschewing materials is so you avoided MATERIAL COSTS. And Silence? So you don't get heard casting (say if you are in the dark and don't want to be heard or trying to cast on a sleeping victim and don't want to wake them). And stilling is so you don't need free hands. I don't see any reason to believe that the combination of all of these feats WITH DIFFERENT PURPOSES allows an added FOURTH PURPOSE of being immune to counterspelling. And page 113 pretty much backs me up. They don't add a 4th feat of "un-counterable spell."
A(ny) spell that has been enhance by a(ny) metamagic feat(s) is still vulnerable to counterspell. Period. Its pretty plain english.
Spell components are components of and modifiers of the spell. That's why they are called 'spell components'.
Spell components are components of and modifiers of the casting.
Both of these statements are true. Which proves that 'casting' is synonymous with 'spell'.
The first statement is never backed up by RAW, so claiming it to be true is a bit bold. This is the RAW description of components:
A spell's components explain what you must do or possess to cast the spell. The components entry in a spell description includes abbreviations that tell you what type of components it requires.
This is the only description of what a spell component is anywhere in the core rule book. It does not say anything that makes me think that "spell components are components of and modifiers of the spell". It only says to cast the spell.
But playing a song and the song being played are the same thing.
What? Playing a song is a drastically different thing than the song being played. In fact, I can hear a song without playing it, which emphasizes the difference exactly as my point reflects for seeing a spell.
A spell isn't an object. Its a verb. Its an action.
Ironically, you used it as a noun right there and even referred to it in all follow up statements with pronouns.
In fact, read every possible definition of the word here.
The only definitions that could refer to magic, enchantments, or fascinations are all in the noun section.
What evidence do you have to the contrary? As for evidence in the book, its right there in the very term 'spell component' (which means 'component of the spell' the same way that 'song component' means 'component of the song').
The term "spell component" is only used in the book once and is used as a descriptor. It is highlighted in bold directly under "Name" and "School" in the spell descriptions, and the descriptions section reads as follows:
The description of each spell is presented in a standard format. Each category of information is explained and defined below.
This actually defines the term "spell component" as a category of information and nothing more. It's a term that was used specifically to be a header. It even states that the purpose of this is to create a standard format.
As for what evidence I have to the contrary that spells and spell casting are separate? The distinction is made quite clear in the Spellcraft section.
|
|
PS. Personally I always thought the point to eschewing materials is so you avoided MATERIAL COSTS. And Silence? So you don't get heard casting (say if you are in the dark and don't want to be heard or trying to cast on a sleeping victim and don't want to wake them). And stilling is so you don't need free hands. I don't see any reason to believe that the combination of all of these feats WITH DIFFERENT PURPOSES allows an added FOURTH PURPOSE of being immune to counterspelling. And page 113 pretty much backs me up. They don't add a 4th feat of "un-counterable spell."
A(ny) spell that has been enhance by a(ny) metamagic feat(s) is still vulnerable to counterspell. Period. Its pretty plain english.
A curiousity in the rules is that there's actually nothing in RAW which states that you have to be able to perceive the event that triggers your readied action. By RAW, you can be blindfolded, in a pitch black room, and ready your action against somebody thumbing your nose at you. You can ready an action to draw a sword if a disguised enemy ninja sneaks into the room. RAW allows you to do this. I don't think its RAI, but it certainly is RAW. And counterspelling is a readied action. Which means that by strict RAW you can counterspell spells you can't perceive.
Of course you can cast counterspells all day long (until your spell levels run out). It doesn't mean you ever have a spell to counter. The point of page 113 is to specifically state in plain english that no METAMAGIC FEATS affect counterspelling ABILITY (not the ability to cast counterspells at nothing). I can't help those folks out there who can't read plain english or who presume that an easily read rule doesn't apply to nearly 30% of the metamagic feats listed in the book because "these are not the droids I want you to counterspell". People who are attuned to magic know when it is being cast and how to stop it from affecting the world... what was that skill? Oh yeh, Spellcraft. And per 113 its NOT AFFECTED by the three metamagic feats in question. The arguement that removing some visual cues removes them all is like saying removing three senses removes them all. Which simply isn't the case, and is expressly pointed out in 113. As I said, gaining three benefits does not suddenly grant an unlisted fourth. Unless you let me take Improve Reflexes, Lightning Reflexes and Animal Affinity and get the added bonus of "Able to one shot Giants because that is what I want the combined effect of those three feats to do for me". (sarcasm intended).
What do you mean you "don't think it means the same thing?" It CLEARLY STATES - ANY METAMAGIC FEAT. Are eschew materials, stilling and silence METAMAGIC FEATS or not? If they are, then OBVIOUSLY its the same thing. Period. In black and white. It doesn't need an interpretation that "these were not the feats they meant" - they are feats. End of discussion. They have no effect on one's ability to counterspell.
Well, if you want to go that hardcore RAW rather than RAI, it wouldn't have an affect to the ability to counterspell, just to identify.
|
|
What do you mean you "don't think it means the same thing?" It CLEARLY STATES - ANY METAMAGIC FEAT. Are eschew materials, stilling and silence METAMAGIC FEATS or not? If they are, then OBVIOUSLY its the same thing. Period. In black and white. It doesn't need an interpretation that "these were not the feats they meant" - they are feats. End of discussion. They have no effect on one's ability to counterspell.Well, if you want to go that hardcore RAW rather than RAI, it wouldn't have an affect to the ability to counterspell, just to identify.
I don't see a whit of difference between the RAW and RAI. Identify, counter, or any other part of Spellcraft... they intended metamagic feats to do one thing. They didn't intend to add a fourth freebee feat of "uncounterable"(thus its not a RAW). They intended and wrote exactly what they meant. No metamagic feats discounts countering. Had they intended you to have a "hidden spell" feat they would have made these three feats pre-requisites. And it would probably be written in as the exception to page 113. But they didn't.
Can we just agree to disagree on this since it's clear that the following are true.
1. The Core rules give no direct mention at all on the affects of the Still and Silent metamagic feats on the DC of spell identification.
2. The Core rules give a general statement about how metamagic does not affect spell identificaion DC without going to specific feats.
3. The Core Rules also state that DM's can assign modifiers to the DC as they see fit due to "circumstance". (Which is a qualifier you could drive a fleet of Mack trucks through.}
Given the above can we just agree that it's pretty much up to the DM to handle this question as she sees fit?
I'm not so sure that #2 is accurate.
|
Yeah, no problem if you always play with the same group, but the problem is organized play or playing with different groups(like play by post). Ambiguous rules lead with different adjudications. The above example I gave with charm person means that 2 different DMs can adjudicate the exact same situation with completely different results. All because one DM reads the rules as "spellcasting == spell components" and another DM reads it as "spellcasting > spell components"That's the best thing because it weeds out a lot of the crap that people try and get away with in this game.I think you're reading too many rulebooks.The problem is some of you have been reading way too many novels and playing too many video games.
If your argument is based off of a video such as Baldur's Gate then we have a big problem.
I will repeat this once again. No where in the book does it say anything about special visual effects taking place during the casting of a spell.
Regardless of rules if you let your players get away with junk like that then you are being a bad GM.
The book says specifically that the rules are guidelines aka the GM isn't forced into anything at anytime regardless of whats written in the book.
Kinda like the pirates code, in The Pirates of the Caribbean.
And just what makes you think that is a problem? PnP is not supposed to be equivilent to a computer game it is not intended to always be the same. Different GMs have different techniques that mesh with their different capabilities and the GM is ALWAYS the single most important factor of how fun a game is, they should always have free rein to keep the fun in the game.
Players are always different with different foci and different desires and different ideas, and this game is intended to be fun, not intended to always play the same, therefore in consideration of the two prior statements, forcing a GM to follow stupid rules when they will drag the fun out of a game is very unwise.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is not about forcing a GM to do anything. The idea is to have everyone on the same page as far as understanding intent. If the GM does not like the intent he can always houserule, but one should always know how something is supposed to work before they go tinkering with it.
|
|
You can't have everything expressly written in the book, at some point you need to step back and let the GM make calls based on common sense. Therefore why make all these minute details when they are better left alone for the GM to embellish as desired, this isn't rocket science, it does not need to be exacting, if the book does not specify then ask the GM and whatever ruleing he gives is what you follow for that GM. You shouldn't need the book to specify, that's what the GM is for.
Part of being the GM is making the world work ,completly and consistantly.
Wraithstrike: This is spot-on. That is one of the main reasons I dislike "munchkins" (not all optimizers), in the sense that they try to find loopholes, broken interpretations and the like. That forces designers to write in a legalese manner to prevent players who _actually try_ to break the rules - the result is that the rules get harder to understand for those who have a more limited understanding of the rules, and that more focus is put on getting "unbreakable" rules than conveying intent.
I like rules where the intention is clear. If they can somehow possibly be interpreted in another way that is obviously not the intent, no problem for me. However, because of a combination of organized play and munchkins, there is created a large need for "unbreakable" rules.
While it can be fun to try to "break" rules on an internet forum, just for the lulz, players who actually do it in a game is making the game worse - not just for them, but for players on the other side of the world too.
EDIT: Also, it's only fun to try to "break" rules if the rules try to be unbreakable. I think there are two kinds of "munchkins"; those who just want to "win" the game, and those who just want to see how much they can break the system. If the runs are a bit more soft and focuses on conveying intent in a simple manner rather than legalese language, it would reduce the draw of munchkinism to those who want to see if they can break the system - because it's really easy.
In addition, it's kind of ironic, because those who break the game usually has at least a decent level of system mastery and understanding of the game, so they could quite easily house-rule things if they are broken without making the game worse. Those who have a hard time understanding the game due to the language though, won't have that system mastery and can't make something simpler in an easy way.
|
|
Stringburka suddenly gives me insight on alternate understanding of your comment wrathstrike.
But I have to wonder, why can't the GM simply decide the intent for those small rare to appear details even if its organized play? They are rare occurances and its not likely to mess things up especially if the player simply asks any "new" GMs about their feelings on said prior calls if they come up.
They can, and I think they should; but due to how the rules are presented, that the rules texts are "filling" or "unbreakable" or in some way "complete", there has been fostered a gaming culture of "if it's not in the RAW, it's a house rule (regardless of the RAI!), and house rules are best avoided".
Personally, I'd like to see RAI be the primary guideline. I mean, anyone can come up with a game system - the reason I play Pathfinder is because I think generally, paizo does a great job with it and creates a rules system that is better than what I could have created. I put my trust in them being good game designers. Since that is the case, why would I ever choose RAW against RAI unless forced to? (or unless personally thinking the RAW makes more sense)
To me, ruling against the RAI is more of a house ruling than ruling against the RAW if the RAI is clear.
Yeah, no problem if you always play with the same group, but the problem is organized play or playing with different groups(like play by post). Ambiguous rules lead with different adjudications. The above example I gave with charm person means that 2 different DMs can adjudicate the exact same situation with completely different results. All because one DM reads the rules as "spellcasting == spell components" and another DM reads it as "spellcasting > spell components"
And just what makes you think that is a problem? PnP is not supposed to be equivilent to a computer game it is not intended to always be the same. Different GMs have different techniques that mesh with their different capabilities and the GM is ALWAYS the single most important factor of how fun a game is, they should always have free rein to keep the fun in the game.
Players are always different with different foci and different desires and different ideas, and this game is intended to be fun, not intended to always play the same, therefore in consideration of the two prior statements, forcing a GM to follow stupid rules when they will drag the fun out of a game is very unwise.
Unclear rules lead to differing expectations between DMs and players. So a player casts a metamagiced spell thinking they have a good chance to get away with it. The DM rules it can be easily seen, and springs an ambush. Now that the players know about the ambush. They are now upset with the ruling and they are pushing to let the player take the spell back because "If I knew it would work that way, I would have done something different". The DM digs in and refuses because now the players know about the ambush and will act differently.
I have seen gaming groups disintegrate over things like this where the player's interpretation was different from the DMs interpretation, but it didn't come up until the players are staring at a TPK. At that point, emotions are running high, and rational discourse is difficult.
I find this particular case to be a problem because Pathfinder took a wording that was pretty clear in 3.5, and made it a lot less clear.
The DM digs in and refuses because now the players know about the ambush and will act differently.
Wow, I'm glad my group doesn't respond that far out there. We take back misunderstanding actions all the time, and try to not meta-game. That sounds like a stubborn GM and very meta-gamey players.
The DM digs in and refuses because now the players know about the ambush and will act differently.Wow, I'm glad my group doesn't respond that far out there. We take back misunderstanding actions all the time, and try to not meta-game. That sounds like a stubborn GM and very meta-gamey players.
No, it is usually more of a misunderstanding that ruins a well planned DM encounter.
The DM is watching hours of prep work get ruined or lost.
The players are worried about losing months of character development.
It ends up generating a lose/lose situation. Someone is going to walk away unhappy and thanks to ambiguously written rules, both sides think they are right.