This thread is where I want to hear your thoughts on a problem. The dm ignores the rules, or whatever the rules say on a monster and makes a challenge. Challenges are good, everyone likes a challenge, but the rules are broken or ignored in the process, and in this case a party member was almost killed by something that was already dead.
The latest one was our party sorceress was almost killed by an already dead choker. Yeeeep. So the choker wrapped her up, she killed it with scorching ray while inside (pretty cool), but instead of the choker falling off her, it then became heavy, her char fell over (no check) and the pc was sealed inside. To get out required multiple very high str checks (1 natural 20 didn't even do it) vs. suffocation. Yes, the dead choker was set to take out the sorceress.
A battle was still raging on, so not everyone could help. When they started to try and help, it turns out multiple very high str checks were needed to remove the cloaker, because she was wrapped up tight. I did find this a bit ridiculous and asked the dm "why can't we just unroll her, how can she be sealed in?". Dm insisted of course she was. So more str checks were up.
Then the dm shortcut the suffocation rules, and told her she was running out of air quicker than she should have been (her st was poor, her con was not) by the rules. We got her out, just before she would have suffocated (requiring two melee chars to do it) and without our help she would have died (good luck making those multiple high str checks with 10 str).
>:(
Some found it a bit entertaining. I found ignoring the rules very annoying.
Eager to hear what you all have to say.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I tend to come down on the side of "The rulebook is there as a set of suggestions to the GM how to resolve any given situation, but they can overrule them any time they feel they have a better handle on this particular situation than the rulebook does."
Obviously how well that works very much depends on how good a GM you have. Following the spirit of the game premise is far more important to me than following the letter, so as long as things "feel right" (in that they're not breaking what appears to be a natural law of the game universe) it's all good. If the GM's ruling just makes no sense in terms of the universe the rest of the rules are simulating, well, that's not so good. My own game universes tend to run with a cinematic feel, so I keep my rulings to a similar spirit to ensure some kind of consistency.
Now, the specific situation mentioned in the OP. Firstly I love how the GM threw in a situation that wasn't specified in the rules, that to me is one of the main reasons you have a GM - to ensure things aren't just following a set of prewritten procedures. They came up with an idea for a situation that could feasibly occur and implemented it. However, I feel shortcutting the suffocation rules was probably going too far as there doesn't appear to be any good reason to do so. Personally I'd have kept the normal suffocation rules but otherwise run it a similar way.
As nobody actually died, though, it's hard for me to tell whether or not the GM would have actually let that occur. I guess it's possible they had an emergency exit method planned in the event the character was really going to die from the situation.
Obviously what this comes down to in the end is that there's a split in player thought between whether the rulebook is a general simulation of the underlying universe, or whether the universe follows the underlying rulebook. I'm the former, some are the latter. There's no wrong way to do it, just possible issues when you get a mix of the two player types in the same game.
I follow the rules unless they dont make sense for a situation, and I don't mean "what does not make sense to me", I mean what the party would agree with most likely.
I hear you all, thanks. On "the rules are suggestions" the rules most certainly aren't suggestions for the players though. No player gets to near suffocate an enemy with their dead character (lol). So I got a bit s*~~ty with a cloaker almost taking out a party member after her char had just killed it.
If cloakers now have some type of locking deathtrap ability, urgh, I wonder is this going to come up again if the cloaker is killed mid-wrap, does it apply to all cloakers, if not, why, and if it doesn't why did this one take out our sorceress like that?
Fortunately the sorceress player was just inconvenienced and seemed a bit amused by the char almost dying. I wanted us to be done with the damn encounter though, and for this dead lurker not be be suffocating a team member, because we have a whole lot of dungeon to explore.
I like playing less rule heavy systems, they sure can be good. But I suppose I don't like the rules being broken to the detriment of the players. You killed the monster--no it entraps you, came off as very cheap to me personally; and damn weird that the checks to get it off were so high. Unrolling it would be too easy and sensible, it had to have vacuum lock. Of course since the dm wanted it to be a challenge, we couldn't simply solve it (yes, even with the sorcerers nat 20 early on).
Love my traps too; just not thrilled at dead monsters taking out party members.
Really, the underlying problem as far as I can see is that some people feel as though the DM is cheating if he changes/breaks the rules, and this can easily be fixed by saying "the rules are suggestions. Mostly they will be followed but sometimes there will be significant changes for the good of the game" at the beginning of the game.
Yeah. It's important that things like that are made clear at the beginning, because just throwing it in mid-game is a sure-fire way to lose the trust half your players have placed in you.
It can't be said enough. GMs should discuss playstyle with players before anyone sits down at the table to play. That could mean getting a consensus, or it could mean saying "This is how this game is going to be run, would you like to play in it?". Again, no overall right or wrong way, that's down to the individual specifics of who the group are and why they're playing together. I currently play in two groups, one set up one way and one the other. The difference between the two just makes for more variety.
IMO, codifying a single "right way to play" is the absolute worst thing that could happen to this hobby (I'm not suggesting anyone is saying that btw, I just wanted to throw this in there :) ). The variety in styles is the thing that allows more people to enjoy it.
Sometimes I specifically get in or start a game with a different playstyle just to try out something new or to break up the routine.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That kind of thing really pisses me off!
The rules, even the DM's houserules, are how the universe works. People know how things work in their own world (I'm not talking about 32feet/second squared for falling, I mean that they know 'what goes up must come down'), and they make their decisions accordingly.
The only thing players can do is make decisions, and if the way the world works changes at the whim of the DM then how can players make rational decisions.
The gameplay aspect of our hobby is that our decisions either let us succeed or get us killed. When the DM pulls that kind of s*+* them it's not the players' decisions that let their characters live or die, but the DM's.
We don't know if the OP's DM would have let the sorceress die. If he would, then she died not because of the player but because the DM said so. He might as well have just said, 'rocks fall, you die'.
If the DM would have not let her die, even if the helping PC's failed those checks (or even if they didn't help), then she lived not because of her player's decision but because of DM fiat.
Either way, how is that fun? I didn't turn up just to watch the DM masturbate his narrative at us, I came to play my part and make the decisions by which I live or die.
My decisions, not his!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For what its worth, I'm fine with changing up monsters or making them unique now and then, as long as its within reason and isn't kept secret even to your knowledge checks and that before the game its known you will occasionally have those. Not so fine with abilities that are instant no save and you don't get to play abilities, especially not when they're scaled over the top or fudged to make it extra dangerous or tense because then it feels like the victory I'm trying to earn is stolen and given at whim. If that makes sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. Already dead choker is somehow still strangling you.
Just that seems pretty dumb. Rules changes aren't meant to accommodate this kinda silliness—that's what things like Hero Points are for.
2. GM is changing suffocation rules.
Bull. S&&*. That's the GM changing rules because he wants your PC to be in danger. He is penalizing you for investing in a character who is supposed to be tough.
3. Strength checks are too high.
The checks for a choker shouldn't be very high. A dead choker? It should be a CMB check, anyways. Again, the GM is changing rules just because he didn't think ahead.
That being said, the GM already appears to have made an exception in your favor by letting you cast while strangled.
Rules changes are justified, but they have to be consistent. The first breach is therefore okay, if a little corny. The rest? That's the mark of a GM changing rules without understanding how they work.
I suggest you talk to him and ask him, politely, to let the rules stand as they are and not keep changing them on the fly. The occasional modification is one thing, but when he does things like making suffocation Strength-based, it's confusing to the players and makes it look like he's got no impartiality.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like the situation presented as the sorceress's player, instead of getting to contribute to the combat, gets to go:
I roll strength. I fail.
I roll strength. I fail.
I roll strength. Natural 20! oh, that still fails? Ok, I fail.
I roll- you know what? Here's a note saying I fail. I'll be off playing Halo if anyone needs me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Holy mother of Desna, not even a Natural Twenty? I missed that. Okay, this GM went beyond "b%*@~+~@ting rules" and straight into plain "b%#@!$!!ting". Tell him you don't enjoy scripted combats.
DMs aren't perfect and they don't know all the rules. He may have prepped and forgot to come back to this to look it over. If you would rather have slowed the game to a 10 minute hault looking up suffocation and chokers and con checks instead of rolling with it to move the story along, go play in the Players Fiat Society. Had you died and this was a drastic departure from the rules I could see being frustrated. No one died, just show him what it says the rules are for this and figure out what your permanent rule is for suffocation. If he arbitrarily changes it back to suit his needs, then I would say its a problem.
He knew the rules. If he didn't, the OP likely pointed them out to him. This GM deliberately changed the rules to suit his combat railroad (which I think should be called something to do with bumper cars instead of trains), despite them not making sense and being patently unfair.
GMs are not perfect, I agree. As such, I suggest the OP help this extremely imperfect GM to improve by pointing out, very politely, how b$$%$$+% that encounter was.
EDIT: Swearing done for dramatic and comic effect, not because I'm actually ticked. "Totes lame" just doesn't have the same ring to it.
A DM changing a monster avoids the rampant metagaming of you thinking you know how easy the monster is going to be and what its strenghts/weaknesses are. He changed it up, you were greatly surprised and sweat bullets trying to figure the situation out. The PC didn't die so either the DM fudged or set the DC just right enough that you barely made it out.
I assure you, there was no sweating at all. I simply found it ridiculous and cheap.
What, the combat easily went our way so a dead monster almost kills a pc? It felt like there was a quota, you must spend this many rounds of desperation in this fight.
Four SUCCESSFUL str checks to get a cloak monster off a pc is ridiculous. I am glad some of the others had fun, but I felt like shaking my head and declaring my pc walks into a wall.
That kind of thing really pisses me off!
The rules, even the DM's houserules, are how the universe works. People know how things work in their own world (I'm not talking about 32feet/second squared for falling, I mean that they know 'what goes up must come down'), and they make their decisions accordingly.
The only thing players can do is make decisions, and if the way the world works changes at the whim of the DM then how can players make rational decisions.
The gameplay aspect of our hobby is that our decisions either let us succeed or get us killed. When the DM pulls that kind of s@#@ them it's not the players' decisions that let their characters live or die, but the DM's.
We don't know if the OP's DM would have let the sorceress die. If he would, then she died not because of the player but because the DM said so. He might as well have just said, 'rocks fall, you die'.
If the DM would have not let her die, even if the helping PC's failed those checks (or even if they didn't help), then she lived not because of her player's decision but because of DM fiat.
Either way, how is that fun? I didn't turn up just to watch the DM masturbate his narrative at us, I came to play my part and make the decisions by which I live or die.
My decisions, not his!
We are in agreement.
He changed it up, you were greatly surprised and sweat bullets trying to figure the situation out.
"Figure the situation out"?
He would try something. GM would let him try it. GM would say "no" no matter what. Once the sorcerer had been threatened long enough, GM said "yes". The only thing "figured out" about the situation was that you just have to wait the GM's challenges out.
I don't like the situation presented as the sorceress's player, instead of getting to contribute to the combat, gets to go:
I roll strength. I fail.
I roll strength. I fail.
I roll strength. Natural 20! oh, that still fails? Ok, I fail.
I roll- you know what? Here's a note saying I fail. I'll be off playing Halo if anyone needs me.
It was a bit worse than that.
She was grappled, so she failed, but then she succeeded and killed the creature from inside it (eww, but cool).
Yataa! Victory.
Then she was tripped with no check or save.
"Death grapple" begins.
Then she rolled strength, nat 20 and she could move one of her arms, but not escape.
Then she failed.
Then she failed, took some damage.
Near suffocated, out of air.
Suffocation begins next round.
Then she was finally rescued thanks to a few rounds of others making str checks.
She clearly could not have got out of there barring another 20, or when the dm decided to let her go.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Suffocating in two rounds? This guy has no idea how the rules work, or just doesn't care. Probably both.
Constrict (Ex) A creature with this special attack can crush an opponent, dealing bludgeoning damage, when it makes a successful grapple check (in addition to any other effects caused by a successful check, including additional damage). The amount of damage is given in the creature's entry and is typically equal to the amount of damage caused by the creature's melee attack.
Also, let me point out the obvious:
Chokers strangle. That's what the tentacles and claws are for. It's shown in the image. It's why they're called "chokers", not "envelopers".
Yep, I like chokers, always have.
When I asked can we just unwrap the choker, we needed to make four successful str checks to do so. >:(
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the Str checks to remove the dead cloaker is fine. I often add little checks throughout the game to keep players interested. (Nothing perks up a player like "roll a...") I don't like a natural twenty having zero effect. That's a big no-no for me personally. The change to suffocation rules, I could go either way. If he didn't know the rules and made them up in the fly to save time, then that's understandable. I also empathize with not wanting to change the rules if the situation is ongoing and a decision has been made.
I see what you're saying, Durngrun, but multiple strength checks? That's crazy. It's going from "a single challenging check" to "four much more difficult checks". And they aren't even over something fun for the victim, they're over something preventing him from taking part in the combat. And they're all for something the GM made up on the spot.
There's not even the excuse of "well, he wanted to keep the combat interesting". There were other creatures to fight. He just wanted to keep the sorcerer from taking part.
Also: Choker, not cloaker. A cloaker would actually make some sense (though they don't constrict, sooo...).
The politely part came across as sarcasm. Politely tell him his encounters are b**s***. The fact they survived has nothing to do with whether or not the encounter sucked, it just proves the encounter wasn't unwinnable and he was trying to fiat kill a pc.
That's true. I don't think we ever said he was trying to kill anyone. Are you acknowledging this encounter choice sucked, though?
Something requiring multiple pcs does not make it an impossible task.
It makes "get out of this on my own" impossible. My post was pretty explicit about the difference—see the bolded text?.
Do not let somebody roll for a task they cannot complete. If they are alone, and it requires multiple people, it is a task they cannot complete.
If everyone had fun but you then get over it.
Or find a new group that understands that if one person isn't having fun, there's probably something wrong. That's a last resort, obviously. The GM just made a dumb mistake and needs to be told it was a mistake.
Lol, my mistake.
It was a cloaker. A mysterious and wonderful cloaker (not sure where I was getting choker from).
Looking up, we have gone from cloak to choke, and back again!
In that case, the cloaker keeping you contained is a bit more reasonable. The only thing I object to is how needlessly difficult—and dangerous—the GM decided to make it. Escape should have taken one high Strength or Escape Artist check, not four. And changing constriction rules to give you three rounds to live? That's just ridiculously obtuse.
All-in-all, the initial decision was perfectly reasonable and cinematic. It's how he clung to it remaining a problem for the entire combat that I have a problem with.
Also, a natural 20 doesn't seem to have done nothing. It's just one of the four checks needed. Still stupid to require four checks, though.
I hear you all, thanks. On "the rules are suggestions" the rules most certainly aren't suggestions for the players though. No player gets to near suffocate an enemy with their dead character (lol). So I got a bit s!!~ty with a cloaker almost taking out a party member after her char had just killed it.
If cloakers now have some type of locking deathtrap ability, urgh, I wonder is this going to come up again if the cloaker is killed mid-wrap, does it apply to all cloakers, if not, why, and if it doesn't why did this one take out our sorceress like that?
Overall, this is where you lose me. The rules are just suggestions, and yeah, the GM is the only guy who gets to bend them. Things aren't balanced.
So what? A good GM will also bend things in the players' favor (like yours did with your scorching ray). As long as he's consistent, this is how the rules are meant to work—loosely.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't think of any reason to justify making up rules and checks on the fly solely to keep one player from participating. I don't like to be the one to yell 'BADWRONGFUN' but if you are making stuff up to stop a player having fun then YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!
In that case, the cloaker keeping you contained is a bit more reasonable. The only thing I object to is how needlessly difficult—and dangerous—the GM decided to make it. Escape should have taken one high Strength or Escape Artist check, not four. And changing constriction rules to give you three rounds to live? That's just ridiculously obtuse.
All-in-all, the initial decision was perfectly reasonable and cinematic. It's how he clung to it remaining a problem for the entire combat that I have a problem with.
Also, a natural 20 doesn't seem to have done nothing. It's just one of the four checks needed. Still stupid to require four checks, though.
I get it visually makes more sense, but they don't have a suffocate you after death ability, and as has been said, once dead they can't make trip or grapple attacks (which the cloaker passed with no check needed). Lol.
Weird. Why do I get the sense you aren't literally laughing out loud?
First, this ain't your game. If the GM wants chokers to lock up...well, who cares? It's all about Rule Zero. See point three.
Second, you admit yourself it makes more sense this way. That's the whole reason house rules get made. Who cares about the rules if they don't make sense?
Third, and this is the big three here: This is not changing the rules.
Saying rogues have full BAB, can wear full plate, and shoot lasers out of their eyes is changing the rules.
Saying characters must make Reflex saves every round or fly off the face of the earth is changing the rules.
Saying AC is now calculated so that the lower, the better, is changing the rules.
Creating a new monster or modifying the old one? Not changing the rules. Not one bit.
Creatures that can kill you after they've been killed are a more difficult challenge.
Therefore, a creature that doesn't have this ability which is then modified by the DM to have this ability will have a higher CR than the original.
And be worth more XPs.
Did you get more XPs?
Speaking logically, this ability is not powerful enough to modify a creature's CR on its own. Putting aside the crazy quadruple strength checks and suffocation rules, it's just a specialized inconvenience. It might bring a CR 1 up to CR 2, but a CR 5 isn't gonna be much affected.
Now, with the GM's other changes, it's another story. :P
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I get it visually makes more sense, but they don't have a suffocate you after death ability, and as has been said, once dead they can't make trip or grapple attacks (which the cloaker passed with no check needed). Lol.In that case, the cloaker keeping you contained is a bit more reasonable. The only thing I object to is how needlessly difficult—and dangerous—the GM decided to make it. Escape should have taken one high Strength or Escape Artist check, not four. And changing constriction rules to give you three rounds to live? That's just ridiculously obtuse.
All-in-all, the initial decision was perfectly reasonable and cinematic. It's how he clung to it remaining a problem for the entire combat that I have a problem with.
Also, a natural 20 doesn't seem to have done nothing. It's just one of the four checks needed. Still stupid to require four checks, though.
So....it was better at grappling when it was dead than when it was alive?
Following the DM's lead, let it kill the sorceress then have the sorceress declare that she has now become 'more powerful than you could ever imagine!' and wish yourself to victory.
After all, the rules are just suggestions....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't think of any reason to justify making up rules and checks on the fly solely to keep one player from participating. I don't like to be the one to yell 'BADWRONGFUN' but if you are making stuff up to stop a player having fun then YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!
Fortunately the sorceress player was just inconvenienced and seemed a bit amused by the char almost dying.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Weird. Why do I get the sense you aren't literally laughing out loud?
First, this ain't your game. If the GM wants chokers to lock up...well, who cares? It's all about Rule Zero. See point three.
Second, you admit yourself it makes more sense this way. That's the whole reason house rules get made. Who cares about the rules if they don't make sense?
Third, and this is the big three here: This is not changing the rules.
Saying rogues have full BAB, can wear full plate, and shoot lasers out of their eyes is changing the rules.
Saying characters must make Reflex saves every round or fly off the face of the earth is changing the rules.
Saying AC is now calculated so that the lower, the better, is changing the rules.
Creating a new monster or modifying the old one? Not changing the rules. Not one bit.
I think that 'changing the suffocation rules' counts as 'changing the rules'.
I think that allowing dead creatures + infinity to grapple checks counts as changing the rules, even if a creature is suddenly ruled to have the ability to grapple after death.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Waaaait...the sorceress's player wasn't the OP? I can't believe I missed that.
I take back about 95% of everything I've said. The GM's choices were kinda dumb, but...really? We're supposed to care when the player herself doesn't? You aren't even getting mad on her behalf, you're just getting mad on the rules' behalf.
Weird. Why do I get the sense you aren't literally laughing out loud?
First, this ain't your game. If the GM wants chokers to lock up...well, who cares? It's all about Rule Zero. See point three.
Second, you admit yourself it makes more sense this way. That's the whole reason house rules get made. Who cares about the rules if they don't make sense?
Third, and this is the big three here: This is not changing the rules.
Saying rogues have full BAB, can wear full plate, and shoot lasers out of their eyes is changing the rules.
Saying characters must make Reflex saves every round or fly off the face of the earth is changing the rules.
Saying AC is now calculated so that the lower, the better, is changing the rules.
Creating a new monster or modifying the old one? Not changing the rules. Not one bit.
I think that 'changing the suffocation rules' counts as 'changing the rules'.
I think that allowing dead creatures + infinity to grapple checks counts as changing the rules, even if a creature is suddenly ruled to have the ability to grapple after death.
If you'll look at the context of my post, you'll see we're specifically discussing the chokers' ability to retain grappling capabilities and lock up, not the way the ability was handled.
Creatures that can kill you after they've been killed are a more difficult challenge.
Therefore, a creature that doesn't have this ability which is then modified by the DM to have this ability will have a higher CR than the original.
And be worth more XPs.
Did you get more XPs?
:''(
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you'll look at the context of my post, you'll see we're specifically discussing the chokers' ability to retain grappling capabilities and lock up, not the way the ability was handled.Weird. Why do I get the sense you aren't literally laughing out loud?
First, this ain't your game. If the GM wants chokers to lock up...well, who cares? It's all about Rule Zero. See point three.
Second, you admit yourself it makes more sense this way. That's the whole reason house rules get made. Who cares about the rules if they don't make sense?
Third, and this is the big three here: This is not changing the rules.
Saying rogues have full BAB, can wear full plate, and shoot lasers out of their eyes is changing the rules.
Saying characters must make Reflex saves every round or fly off the face of the earth is changing the rules.
Saying AC is now calculated so that the lower, the better, is changing the rules.
Creating a new monster or modifying the old one? Not changing the rules. Not one bit.
I think that 'changing the suffocation rules' counts as 'changing the rules'.
I think that allowing dead creatures + infinity to grapple checks counts as changing the rules, even if a creature is suddenly ruled to have the ability to grapple after death.
Cloaker, it was a cloaker. Cape with an evil face and a stringray tail. Probably an Australian cloaker.
Yeah, yeah, mistyped.
Cloaker, it was a cloaker. Cape with an evil face and a stringray tail. Probably an Australian cloaker.
Australia doesn't have Cloakers. They were all killed off by the Drop Bears.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The last one was slain in battle with the mighty Crocodile Hunter.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cloaker hides in an Australian closet. Gets eaten by a spider.
Something that a char killed almost suffocating them to death while going around all the rules isn't "knuckle breaking", it is a bore.
A bore for you. Not for the other players, the GM, or the PC it was centered on. So maybe you need to lighten up and let them have some fun instead of trying to smack them with rulebooks.