The situation in this thread's OP isn't about rules interpretation, but about 'Rocks fall, you die!'A DM can be factually wrong about the Pathfinder rules.
A DM can be morally wrong if he pretends he's invited you to play Pathfinder and proceeds to ignore the Pathfinder rules during play, without informing you of any houserules first, especially if he's just doing it to f~++ you over.
I doubt that the DM in the OP told the players before character creation that he's changed the stat for adjudicating suffocation from Con to Str (allowing players to take this into account during creation), or that he's changed the time to suffocate to two rounds.
Morally wrong? Wow dude. I'm all for following the rules but talk like this makes me feel like a Grognard, and I just started playing 5 years ago!
Jesus Christ.
I knew there was something off about your insane tilting-at-windmills over the whole reach weapon/ adjacent improvised deal. You seriously were looking to take a road of moral superiority over those who disagree with your rules interpretation.
You really really need to take a break from the game for a while and get some perspective.
Morally wrong?!?
I would chalk it up to stylistic differences. If you don't like a GM that deviates from the rules as written, then it is probably a good idea for you to mention that to your GM one on one and let him/her give feedback on the situation.Some things are stylistic differences, others are half-remembered or misunderstood rules, but others are the DM ignoring any rules and simply narrating what happens in a way that both screws the player over and is in contradiction to the rules which the players had every reason to believe they were using.
If the DM allows you to build a rules-legal monk without comment, then during play makes the monk take damage every time he uses unarmed attacks against armoured opponents (because punching metal hurts IRL), then this is not an honest mistake, it's just screwing the player over. There's no way you'd've made a monk if you'd've known about this 'rule', especially since he just made that rule up right now!
Well... I didn't want to say it... but.
Another thing the dm is throwing in is damaging yourself, your weapon or others on a nat 1. I've seen these homebrew rules before, but it has led to my monk having his leg chopped by the clumsy ranger so far. I've been told that another possibility is to damage or break your weapon, and that it may lead to crippling yourself on a 1, 1 or something like that as a monk using unarmed. I said as a player of the monk, I may get plenty of 1s on the ki boosted flurry, and I almost always go unarmed, which he said this would mean my hand was broken and unusable for unarmed. Fortunately, the char has other limbs if one is broken, but yeah, the rules on 1s are changed. Hey, at least he told us about this change.
I would chalk it up to stylistic differences. If you don't like a GM that deviates from the rules as written, then it is probably a good idea for you to mention that to your GM one on one and let him/her give feedback on the situation.Some things are stylistic differences, others are half-remembered or misunderstood rules, but others are the DM ignoring any rules and simply narrating what happens in a way that both screws the player over and is in contradiction to the rules which the players had every reason to believe they were using.
If the DM allows you to build a rules-legal monk without comment, then during play makes the monk take damage every time he uses unarmed attacks against armoured opponents (because punching metal hurts IRL), then this is not an honest mistake, it's just screwing the player over. There's no way you'd've made a monk if you'd've known about this 'rule', especially since he just made that rule up right now!
Well... I didn't want to say it... but.
Another thing the dm is throwing in is damaging yourself, your weapon or others on a nat 1. I've seen these homebrew rules before, but it has led to my monk having his leg chopped by the clumsy ranger so far. I've been told that another possibility is to damage or break your weapon, and that it may lead to crippling yourself on a 1, 1 or something like that as a monk using unarmed. I said as a player of the monk, I may get plenty of 1s on the ki boosted flurry, and I almost always go unarmed, which he said this would mean my hand was broken and unusable for unarmed. Fortunately, the char has other limbs if one is broken, but yeah, the rules on 1s are changed. Hey, at least he told us about this change.
You DM doesn't happen to call himself Arkemedes?
And inflammable and flammable are synonyms?So are you saying that V is upset over a surprise house-rule that inflammable and flammable are different?
See? This is what I'm talking about. Lrn2realism, Vaarsuvius! They're obviously antonyms!
Quite possibly, hence my concern; and kobold cleaver, please don't try to be the agitator and piss people off, there is a discussion going on here.
Give me a break. If I wanted to troll, I'd sing a song about how everyone's a bit of a fixer-upper, but the way to fix up this fixer-upper is to fix them up with Veronica Mars.
Cut out the "moral high ground" angle. People may not laugh at my silliness, but the only person who actually thinks I'm able to derail anything, much less agitate folk, is you. And it comes off as really weird that you complain about my jokes when you yourself are being perfectly liberal with pointed sarcasm.
Won't somebody help that poo' man?
Hush, May, that's a sure way to get him killed!
|
The cloaker obviously had instant Rigor Mortis as a special feat or trait or some such.
Won't somebody help that poo' man?Hush, May, that's a sure way to get him killed!
I don't know ... if he's covered in poo he might want to be dead.
Seriously though, as far as the OP goes, it kinda sounds like a GM going for dramatic flair via implied-but-nonexistant-danger and failing. Not something to get all morally indignant about, but it can be annoying.
|
Morally wrong?!?The situation in this thread's OP isn't about rules interpretation, but about 'Rocks fall, you die!'A DM can be factually wrong about the Pathfinder rules.
A DM can be morally wrong if he pretends he's invited you to play Pathfinder and proceeds to ignore the Pathfinder rules during play, without informing you of any houserules first, especially if he's just doing it to f~++ you over.
I doubt that the DM in the OP told the players before character creation that he's changed the stat for adjudicating suffocation from Con to Str (allowing players to take this into account during creation), or that he's changed the time to suffocate to two rounds.
Morally wrong? Wow dude. I'm all for following the rules but talk like this makes me feel like a Grognard, and I just started playing 5 years ago!
Jesus Christ.
I knew there was something off about your insane tilting-at-windmills over the whole reach weapon/ adjacent improvised deal. You seriously were looking to take a road of moral superiority over those who disagree with your rules interpretation.
You really really need to take a break from the game for a while and get some perspective.
Don't you think it's morally wrong to lie to someone, deceive them just to screw them over?
If you promise a game of Pathfinder, allow players to create PF characters according to PF rules, then during play, without warning, abandon those rules in favour of narrating some badness you just made up which the characters can't cope with because the rules with which those characters were made can't cope with what you just made up, then you've lied to the players about your intentions to their detriment.
I remember a high level 2nd ed game where the DM ruled that when a PC fell he not only took damage but, by DM fiat, his leg was broken leaving him unable to walk or to cast spells because of the pain. These penalties would go away as soon as the leg was repaired. Only trouble was, he ruled that heal didn't say that it fixed broken legs, so our high level healbot could do nothing to cure it, and we were stuck in the middle of Thay with a broken wizard and no way to fix him, all because the DM decided to narrate a broken leg in a ruleset which he ruled can't cope with broken limbs.
There are worse lies, sure, but he deceived us into thinking we were playing D&D when he launched us into a badly thought out homebrew system which might as well have been 'Rocks fall, you die.'
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Exaggeration seems to be a tried and true tactic on these forums. Changing a single rule, even changing a handful of rules, doesn't mean you're no longer playing Pathfinder. TTRPGs are practically expected to have house rules, and GMs are encouraged to make rulings based on unique situations.
Many a fun campaign has been tanked by people being unreasonable. If the GM changing a rule here and there makes it where you don't enjoy the game, then TTRPGs are not for you. You want a game where the GM role is done by a computer. There are many of them out there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The cloaker obviously had instant Rigor Mortis as a special feat or trait or some such.Hardly. The DM obviously made that up on the spur of the moment because the players did too well and he didn't want to 'lose'.
Yeah there was the "you must suffer this amount and not have it too easy" feel to the whole encounter.
The next really hard fight that my monk got through quite okay, ended with the last miss of the ranger chopping my leg. Oh I guess he didn't get through unscathed. >:(
Exaggeration seems to be a tried and true tactic on these forums. Changing a single rule, even changing a handful of rules, doesn't mean you're no longer playing Pathfinder. TTRPGs are practically expected to have house rules, and GMs are encouraged to make rulings based on unique situations.
Many a fun campaign has been tanked by people being unreasonable. If the GM changing a rule here and there makes it where you don't enjoy the game, then TTRPGs are not for you. You want a game where the GM role is done by a computer. There are many of them out there.
For what its worth, if you plan to change things its a good idea to state so and give people an idea of what your changing. For example if armor broke monks hands, that'd be pretty important. If every martial had pounce, if spellcasters were killed on sight, if every spell had a concentration check, or if there were a particular style of campaign you were going for, all of those things would be important to know at creation. Stating you might ignore rules would also help, like suffocation. That one strikes me as a bit of a cheating moment.
I'm not sure if it qualifies as immoral not to do so, but it goes a long way in making sure everyone has fun and keeping the bad emotions more in check.
The next really hard fight that my monk got through quite okay, ended with the last miss of the ranger chopping my leg. Oh I guess he didn't get through unscathed. >:(
... That's not a miss is it? What kind of miss hits you? Is this a new kind of miss?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Exaggeration seems to be a tried and true tactic on these forums. Changing a single rule, even changing a handful of rules, doesn't mean you're no longer playing Pathfinder. TTRPGs are practically expected to have house rules, and GMs are encouraged to make rulings based on unique situations.
I actually agree. So, where is the dividing line?
Is it 'If you change any rule at any time even slightly then you're not playing PF?' No.
If the DM changes (whether he consciously realises he's doing this or not) the game from 'the players choices making the difference between success or failure' to 'the DM deciding success or failure on a whim and by fiat', then he's crossed that line.
Many a fun campaign has been tanked by people being unreasonable. If the GM changing a rule here and there makes it where you don't enjoy the game, then TTRPGs are not for you. You want a game where the GM role is done by a computer. There are many of them out there.
Trust. Recently my fighter, Lucky (a name asking for trouble!), had an egg implanted while fighting a Phaerim. I knew that a cure disease would do the trick so our cleric cast it (this is 3.5 so it works without a roll). The DM said it didn't work, and the beastie growing inside me would kill me in about a month.
I could have had a warp spasm at this, but I guessed (correctly) that the DM was using this as a story hook, not doing it to screw me over. I trusted him.
Reading the OP, I don't think for one minute that this was a cool plot hook. Judging from further evidence it seems like the DM likes to just rule that the PCs suffer, and doesn't care how or why, so he makes stuff up so they do.
This DM behaviour could be diagnosed; these are recognisable symptoms. The next symptom is when he realises that one of these fiat badnesses has killed (or is about to kill) a player then he'll deus ex machina a solution then berate the players for being so bad they made him do it to save their useless hides!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see a repeating pattern of pfs/powergamers about how the DM is out to screw them over if things don't go raw or aren't in a 10 page pre-campaign contract for them to approve every section or find another DM over the most insignificant of details.
In reality, this isn't a 'DM versus player' topic. Bad DMs are bad, and this is a separate issue to 'bad players are bad'.
It's not one or the other. It's not a zero sum game where one side is good so the other is bad.
Complaining that your DM is screwing you over doesn't mean that you're a powergamer.
DMs can be good or bad. Players can be good or bad. These things are true independently; one does not rely on the other.
I didn't know we went through and interviewed the other players about their feelings on this.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No one said it was zero sum, but the fact is I see pfs players instantly jump to "dm screwing players over" over minor stuff such as changing the suffocation rules to fit a situation in which NO ONE died and everyone but one lone player simply found it amusing. The fact he changed it does not mean he's outta getcha so people need to stop being drama queens and taking s*** personally. The players will now be on their toes looking out for cloakers in corpses or whatever.
In the OP's situation, he's been back posting about the other badness this DM does. So while this doesn't make a general case, in this specific case, yes, this DM is bullying his players. Just because the bullied player laughs it off doesn't stop it being bullying.
And if the player did die, then what? Would the DM have changed his ruling, or create a deus ex machina to let the sorcerer live? This takes the player's agency away and leaves the DM masturbating his story at the players while they can make no meaningful decision that the DM won't arbitrarily decide succeeds or fails. That is not role-playing!
On the other hand, the DM could have let the sorceress die. No doubt he'll blame the players for 'failing' his impossible rolls, but he essentially just managed to make 'Rocks fall, you die!' last for several rounds of torture.
Each 'bad DM' accusation has to be taken on it's own merit. It's futile to conclude whether it's the player or DM who is 'bad' before you know the details!
Confirmation bias may make it seem to you that, because you've seen players moaning about their PFS DM, that therefore any claim that a DM is bad must be from a whingeing powergamer.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't tell if the above is sarcasm or if he can't tell I'm using kind of an onomatopoeia of the word "poor" to imitate the woman's accent in Blazing Saddles.
And there is a difference between nerfing a core class ability and having one "traumatic moment" where the suffocation rules didn't go just the way you wanted. Did he build his character around being Captain Unsuffocatable? I f***ing doubt it so quit being so dramatic Mr. PFS.
po', not poo' ... ;)
and it shocks me to have folks take either of my first two comments in that post seriously. The instant rigor mortis feat? Really?
As to the last part of your reply I can't tell who that is aimed towards, but I will address anyway. For PFS, yeah RAW is god. However, this sounds like it was more of a "let's give a little tension to the encounter" type concept which was just poorly executed. The OP did not appreciate it and the others at the table, from what he has said elsewhere in the thread, didn't really care one way or the other.
No resources were burned and no one died. I would agree that the OP (and a few others) are overreacting to this. However, I would also like to point out that your attitude is pretty much crap. You need to chill out as well and stop being so dramatic with your own indignation to the OP (and really anyone who is voicing a concern based on RAW).
|
|
The next really hard fight that my monk got through quite okay, ended with the last miss of the ranger chopping my leg. Oh I guess he didn't get through unscathed. >:(... That's not a miss is it? What kind of miss hits you? Is this a new kind of miss?
I am assuming it was a confirmed fumble and the GM is running with his own variety of crit misses (based off earlier posts). I would hope the same is holding true when the NPCs fumble ... hitting each other, not the PCs that is.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No gaming is better than bad gaming.
If you can't trust your GM enough to simply have this talk with him or her and your group you should stop gaming with that GM. Find a new GM or start your own game and attract like-minded players and/or fellow GMs.
If the GM in question is really bad, he will end up with no players if he doesn't listen to the players' concerns. If you like the GM's game enough to show up and play even if he overrules your objections then you are agreeing to let him continue to GM for you.
Getting random people on the internet to agree or disagree with you will not help. Gaming only with GMs and fellow players you like will or GMing yourself if you can't find a GM whose style you like and whose decision making you can trust.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The OP is playing a monk. I think that's pretty good proof that he's not powergaming (or has the meta regarding monks changed in the last few years?)
Sounds like the OP went full Rules Lawyer...NEVER go full rules lawyer!
Remember, Rule Zero always applies.
"Rule 0: The unwritten rule in tabletop role-playing games (such as Dungeons & Dragons) which grants the game master the right to suspend or override the published game rules whenever s/he deems necessary.”
Exaggeration seems to be a tried and true tactic on these forums. Changing a single rule, even changing a handful of rules, doesn't mean you're no longer playing Pathfinder. TTRPGs are practically expected to have house rules, and GMs are encouraged to make rulings based on unique situations.
Many a fun campaign has been tanked by people being unreasonable. If the GM changing a rule here and there makes it where you don't enjoy the game, then TTRPGs are not for you. You want a game where the GM role is done by a computer. There are many of them out there.
For what its worth, if you plan to change things its a good idea to state so and give people an idea of what your changing. For example if armor broke monks hands, that'd be pretty important. If every martial had pounce, if spellcasters were killed on sight, if every spell had a concentration check, or if there were a particular style of campaign you were going for, all of those things would be important to know at creation. Stating you might ignore rules would also help, like suffocation. That one strikes me as a bit of a cheating moment.
I'm not sure if it qualifies as immoral not to do so, but it goes a long way in making sure everyone has fun and keeping the bad emotions more in check.
The next really hard fight that my monk got through quite okay, ended with the last miss of the ranger chopping my leg. Oh I guess he didn't get through unscathed. >:(... That's not a miss is it? What kind of miss hits you? Is this a new kind of miss?
Yes, it was a new kind of miss. The ranger missed and then got to roll to hit me. Which he did (my monk is cool, but his AC isn't great).
I abject!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One problem I've consistently been running into with our current DM-- since I'm a more experienced player, he feels the need to "check" my experience by deliberately disregarding rules in order to throw me off balance. I don't mind changing the story, or even tweaking rules to streamline the game, but disregarding them entirely really bothers me. The rules are there for a reason, and if you're not following at least most of them, you're not playing the game.
I have the right to eat exclusively chocolate bars, but it isn't a good idea, and people would be well within their right to criticize me for it.
The rules are as they are for a reason. They were developed and play-tested over a long period of time. I don't believe they should be changed unless something is really off in a specific game, or is really detrimental to how the group wants to play.
On the subject of misses, with ranged attacks I use an old optional rule from 3.0 where you roll 1d8 to see which square around that space the arrow goes through, and it hits whoever is standing there. But melee attacks?
|
|
How did you know the choker was dead already?
Choker's have an int of 4, it may have been playing dead.
1-2 is animal like intelligence, 3 let's you understand language, 4 is probably smart enough to have some level of cunning.On top of that stat wise there's also a +13 to stealth. The GM may have made a steal roll and used it as a play dead roll.
Plus if you're going it should just be rules as written, the scorching ray would have never gone off, it has verbal components, and rules as written for the strangle are 'A creature that is grappled by a choker cannot speak or cast spells with verbal components.'
All of that really means nothing though. To get an actual useful answer I would recommend going to the GM and asking them what was up with the encounter.
It's been mentioned before: it was not a choker, it was a cloaker.
|
|
One problem I've consistently been running into with our current DM-- since I'm a more experienced player, he feels the need to "check" my experience by deliberately disregarding rules in order to throw me off balance. I don't mind changing the story, or even tweaking rules to streamline the game, but disregarding them entirely really bothers me. The rules are there for a reason, and if you're not following at least most of them, you're not playing the game.
True! In my last session I was hit by an Awesome Blow which knocked me back and prone. On my turn I stood up as a move action (provoking an AoO which would've taken me below zero HP but heroic defiance kicked in and used my immediate action to heal as if I never dropped below zero), took a 5-foot step, and attacked as a standard action.
Any problem with that? Well, the DM said that I had 'moved' by standing up so I couldn't take a 5-foot step. He knows that I know more about PF rules than he does, but even though he's actually a very good GM he occasionally has to 'put me in my place' and over-rule me, even though it's not really me he's over-ruling but the rules.
True! In my last session I was hit by an Awesome Blow which knocked me back and prone. On my turn I stood up as a move action (provoking an AoO which would've taken me below zero HP but heroic defiance kicked in and used my immediate action to heal as if I never dropped below zero), took a 5-foot step, and attacked as a standard action.
Any problem with that? Well, the DM said that I had 'moved' by standing up so I couldn't take a 5-foot step. He knows that I know more about PF rules than he does, but even though he's actually a very good GM he occasionally has to 'put me in my place' and over-rule me, even though it's not really me he's over-ruling but the rules.
Sorry for a brief derail; Did this change in Pathfinder? In 3.5e this GM would have been correct you only get a free 5' step if you haven't moved in the round... standing counts as having moved. So you would have been trying to take two move actions, a standard action, and the immediate action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
True! In my last session I was hit by an Awesome Blow which knocked me back and prone. On my turn I stood up as a move action (provoking an AoO which would've taken me below zero HP but heroic defiance kicked in and used my immediate action to heal as if I never dropped below zero), took a 5-foot step, and attacked as a standard action.
Any problem with that? Well, the DM said that I had 'moved' by standing up so I couldn't take a 5-foot step. He knows that I know more about PF rules than he does, but even though he's actually a very good GM he occasionally has to 'put me in my place' and over-rule me, even though it's not really me he's over-ruling but the rules.
Sorry for a brief derail; Did this change in Pathfinder? In 3.5e this GM would have been correct you only get a free 5' step if you haven't moved in the round... standing counts as having moved. So you would have been trying to take two move actions, a standard action, and the immediate action.
Movement that prevents 5 ft shift (which is a "no" action btw) is actual lateral movement on the board. That is not the same as a "move equivalent" action like standing up from prone or opening a door.
|
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.
The rules don't actually address all of the details of what happens when monsters die. It's a valid call that some may clench up when they go into rigor. Now there is some contention that your DM may or may not have been fiddling with the suffocation rules. That's not something I'm going to judge from one person's account.
As far as the natural 20, Natural 20's don't mean beans with ability checks. A Natural 20 with a str of 10 is still only a 20. And it's less than 20 if you have a penalty. And certain situations may call for DC's greater than 20 to be resolved.