My DM had us fighting a Balrog and when we killed it it exploded in a 100ft radius. He said make reflex saves and I rolled higher than the 33 necessary. He said I take half damage which was 100 and still died. I countered with my rogue having evasion so I took no damage. He argued I was right next to it so I took half damage even with evasion. I know the DM is always right and that I shouldn't argue but I feel like I was cheated. What would have really happened in this scenario? Did my rogue actually live?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The GM is always right.....
But the evasion ability says that if you are allowed a reflex save for half damage and you make that same you take no damage. Doesnt matter if your right on top of the explosion source, if it says reflex for half you take no dmage when you make the save.
Edit: of course there is no Balrog in the pathfinder Bestiary so....
Balor has this ability....
Death Throes (Su)
When killed, a balor explodes in a blinding flash of fire that deals 100 points of damage (half fire, half unholy damage) to anything within 100 feet (Reflex DC 33 halves). The save DC is Constitution-based.
The GM is always right.....
But the evasion ability says that if you are allowed a reflex save for half damage and you make that same you take no damage. Doesnt matter if your right on top of the explosion source, if it says reflex for half you take no dmage when you make the save.Edit: of course there is no Balrog in the pathfinder Bestiary so....
It was the Balor but he called it a Balrog because he wanted to. The explosion happened when I walked away to get a drink and I came back to him saying I died. I asked how and he explained that it had exploded. I asked if there was a reflex save and was told yes of 33. I rolled got a 36 and said I take no damage. Argument started and now I have to make a new character because even though our vampire made the save and lived through the damage I make the save and there is no way I can live even though I was next to a pillar and argued I could dive behind it and use it as cover for the explosion, thus evasion.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds like a case of Bad GM.
You're 100% right. Evasion totally negates the damage caused by the explosion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Evasion would be a pretty worthless ability if it could be countered by "but no, you see, the wizard targets your square with the fireball so you can't escape it."
I said something very similar and was told that it would be a different situation. I didn't get any help from my team either as one of us is super passive and just sits there and the other one yelled at me it was payback for when I killed his summoner with a exploding ship in the last campaign we did.
The thing is I think he was trying to kill all of us because when the vamp survived he got angry and started talking about how he had hoped he killed all of us because he thought it would be funny.
I think at this point I would sort of advise that you find a new group. Perhaps you could find some kids in middle school who would be more ready for the responsibilities of game mastering? :)
Why would middle schoolers be any better, because my 20 year old DM decided that my class skill won't work, or did you assume I was a kid because I am 19.
I think at this point I would sort of advise that you find a new group. Perhaps you could find some kids in middle school who would be more ready for the responsibilities of game mastering? :)Why would middle schoolers be any better, because my 20 year old DM decided that my class skill won't work, or did you assume I was a kid because I am 19.
No it was the first boss fight of the campaign he told us make level 15 characters so I made a Kitsune rogue with a underhanded and combo hide in plain sight. My rogue made a lot of good rolls and even survived a pit trap because of acrobatics and it made him angry. he even sent some snake demon thing after me and the vampire intervened on that fight to save me. I ended up doing a lot of damage, was mocked the entire time because with my arsenal of magic bullets I didn't have one enchanted with banishment but I did have one with dispelling. In the end I did the highest damage to the boss, to the point he ignored everything and went after me, because I got a couple lucky crits and was using underhanded alot, my highest damage was 107. I think that is what made him want to kill us was between the summoner and me we were dealing out more damage than he expected.
Whoops my last post quoted the wrong thing that was supposed to reply to Zwordsman.
I think he was making a maturity joke, about one person talking vengence on acts from a past game, and then your gm (who kinds sounds less mature in this; due to finding amusement with the idea of total party killing, getting angry when it didn't work, and breaking a class apart to make it work. then overriding your quite valid argument.
honestly the balor blowing up and the fire ball is amost no different situation. They both cause flash explosions; just one does more damage.
I realized it was a joke about maturity because my group makes the same joke about this guy a lot, he is always planning to ruin campaigns somehow and it has gotten to the point we only invite him if we need him, I was just venting a little in my reply that he is older than me and yet I am the more mature of the two.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
you could be lying on top of the bomb and take no damage with a reflex save
I've never heard of enchanted bullets. that sounds pretty cool.
It sounds like a high level game with some high level power in it. Maybe he wasn't prepped for that or doesn't know how to gm with high level power? I know I'm still learning how to do that. though TPK is not a good soft reset button.
Mocked by who? the GM or a partner?
It is something I found that I use pretty often. Ammunition can be enchanted and its effects stack with the effects of your weapon, if any. So I tend to make characters with ways to have infinite ammunition, in this case the pistol of infinite sky, and change my rounds according to the current magical need I have. It is what I consider a fun and adaptive play style.
Edit: Oh and I was mocked by my party apparently we had been told ahead of time it was going to be full of demons so my logical choice should have been to bring bullets of banishment. However I had been told no such thing so I grabbed a bunch of bane bullets and a dispelling bullet to get rid of magic that could harm the party, such as the ooze that the summoner summoned that then attacked the party when there were no more monsters for it to attack.
so can we get more insight into exactly why this GM is obsessed with killing people?
so can we get more insight into exactly why this GM is obsessed with killing people?
None of us know why he does it. He has been friends with us for a while and when we first started he was actually a really good team player. Then one day he was playing football in college and got a concussion. When he recovered he joined us for a session and that is when the, "I have to ruin this campaign any way possible" mentality started.
so can we get more insight into exactly why this GM is obsessed with killing people?None of us know why he does it. He has been friends with us for a while and when we first started he was actually a really good team player. Then one day he was playing football in college and got a concussion. When he recovered he joined us for a session and that is when the, "I have to ruin this campaign any way possible" mentality started.
Dispelling rounds are something like, "Make a caster level check of 1d20+ enhancement bonus+ 5, or 10 if greater dispell, versus their caster level+10. Banishment is a DC= 10+ enhancement level+ some other bonus I can't remember. So DC on magic weapons isn't hard if you have the money to spend otherwise yeah it can be pretty mediocre.
Edit: Once again this was supposed to be towards zwordsman but I hit the wrong reply button, need to pay attention to that.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...such as the ooze that the summoner summoned that then attacked the party when there were no more monsters for it to attack.
Wait... what? That's not really how that works either.
To echo what's been said earlier, I think you need to look for a new group as this sounds like a pretty volatile party. I've played with groups and GMs similar to this previously and it never ends well. Either you end up resenting them, or resenting the game. Neither is a good combination. Play games online. Find new local player. Whatever you need to do to enjoy yourself.
To answer the rules question that was asked: Your GM is blantly wrong according to the rules. Though, he can always change the rules to suit him, he should not do so without telling you first.
HOWEVER, this is really just symptomatic or greater problems. I suggest that you ask him to step down as GM. If he wont, find a new group to play with.
...such as the ooze that the summoner summoned that then attacked the party when there were no more monsters for it to attack.Wait... what? That's not really how that works either.
To echo what's been said earlier, I think you need to look for a new group as this sounds like a pretty volatile party. I've played with groups and GMs similar to this previously and it never ends well. Either you end up resenting them, or resenting the game. Neither is a good combination. Play games online. Find new local player. Whatever you need to do to enjoy yourself.
To answer the ooze thing he summoned a black pudding, he was really excited he could do this apparently, and then he went and looked and said he had no actual control of it that he could point it at things and say kill it and it would attack but after it was out of things to kill it would attack the closest thing to it, me. So I dispelled the summon because the DM said I could and it took me 3 shots. I rolled really poorly on the dispel check the first and second shot.
A GM isn't (always) supposed to go out of his way to kill the PCs. Granted, danger should be present so that the PCs don't have to sit there and just laugh at anything that comes their way, and if not, it defeats the purpose of the game, but bending the otherwise explicitly stated rules and nerfing abilities against their intended use just to accomplish his personal, misguided agenda tells you one thing, and one thing only:
That guy is .
Actually, I lied, it should also tell you that you need to either talk to him (and/or your fellow players) about how his game habits are affecting your ability to have fun and enjoy the game. Even if he is a goober, he is still a human being, and denying him the time of day to at the very least explain himself doesn't make you the better (or even the good) of this situation.
Of course, once he gives his explanation, which I'm betting will be filled with houserules and ignorance of the RAW, as well as his true feeling of being a GM, which he thinks is to "kill the players," he loses the rights of having the time of day, in which case you either leave and find a healthier group to play, or, if your fellow players are in unison with your viewpoints, force him to step down or leave the group.
Why didn't the summoner just dismiss the ooze? The Summon Monster line all have the caster able to dismiss the summons if they aren't needed or become problematic.
Him not dismissing it was his own form of role play. The vampire was constantly trying to kill us discreetly while also helping us, I thought it was pretty hilarious that he was failing constantly so his character just came off as really bad at killing things, and I happened to be alone when he teleported in to help me with some demons and when we were done there was just the ooze so he turned to me and said, "Sorry lad this ones all you." He teleported out as I yelled at him to dispel it and when I knew he was gone I switched rounds and dispelled it myself. The Vampire summoner wasn't my issue in this campaign though as I knew his attempts were purely role play and he was purposefully failing, he knew I had magic bullets.
So essentially the dm nerfered a key class ability for the sole purpose of killing a character after an encounter was already over because he thought it would be funny? Yea...no, I have better ways to spend my time, you should too.
So essentially the dm nerfered a key class ability for the sole purpose of killing a character after an encounter was already over because he thought it would be funny? Yea...no, I have better ways to spend my time, you should too.
I do have better ways to spend time but I hadn't seen these guys in a while so when they contacted me and said that someone had a campaign I said they could come over and play. The session happened and I happened to find something today that made me laugh pretty loudly, I woke a few people up, I had written that my character had a curse on him in my backstory and wrote the details of what I wanted it to do without seeing if I could find a similar actual curse somewhere, and seeing as how I was dead I went looking to see what it could have been. What I found is a curse that brings the cursed person back every time they die at the cost of memories of their past however it only works until you have lost all your memories, based on how long the character had been around in his backstory I have four "lives" left. So I have a way to come back it just has the issue of I am still in the mine that I am pretty sure the exit got blown up and I will have to back track through.
Edit: Just found out I am unconscious for a while with the curse revival, unless someone wakes me, so I think what's gonna happen are the dwarves are gonna find a kitsune in the middle of there mine surrounded by charred corpses. SURPRISE!
The implication is that your DM is being unusually childish. I had no idea how old you or your DM were, just observing that I have played with 8th graders who wouldn't have pulled a trick like that on you.
The overwhelming majority of D&D groups are better than that, so far as I know.
Have I DMed you? Maybe a year ago? Do I know you?
I realized it was a joke about maturity because my group makes the same joke about this guy a lot, he is always planning to ruin campaigns somehow and it has gotten to the point we only invite him if we need him, I was just venting a little in my reply that he is older than me and yet I am the more mature of the two.
With that kind of mindset, when do you EVER need him for a game? A DM + one player sounds better than a DM + one player + him.
I have always hand;ed evasion that if an explosion is centered on you, or you are adjacent to the epicenter of the explosion, evasion gets overcome. But, that's a houserule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have always hand;ed evasion that if an explosion is centered on you, or you are adjacent to the epicenter of the explosion, evasion gets overcome. But, that's a houserule.
...Why?
Here's what you do to address this situation: tell the GM that if he's not going to play by the rules, he's out of the game. If he wants to make a houserule that Evasion is trumped if you're too close to the center, he needs to state that, explicitly, before the game begins. This isn't the sort of thing you drop in the middle of a session, "Oh, btw... you know those pesky rules in the CRB? Screw 'em." The GM isn't "always right". His job in the game is to adjudicate the rules. If you don't do your job right, you get fired or at least demoted.
The right to quit the game is any player or GM's prerogative, but unless and until that happens, it really is the GM's call, whatever his outlook on RAW is.
|
Find a new GM. And group, apparently. Wow.
Seriously, the alternative is to make your next character a NPC class character with no abilities, since they are just going to say you can't use them anyway.
ps. I've played with GMs like this and simply had to walk out of the gaming sessions... I mean, seriously, arguing over what a class ability or FEAT does? Really? It says what it does... I don't need a GM "interpretation" to tell me what it does. If it allowed everyone else to save for half, I take half if I FAIL, none if I succeed. If everyone just takes damage, there is no save, so I take full damage. OK. That is fine. But don't roll, dish out half damage to everyone else who saved, then kill my character for making the save. I'd walk. I'd either walk or I would start making up and using feats I don't have ALL THE TIME in every session until they caught me doing it... and then still... because hey, "if you can cancel my feats, I can make them up." Fair is fair. Either way, I am mad for you! The GM screwed you on an honest roll and honest ability.
I've played with GMs like this and simply had to walk out of the gaming sessions... I mean, seriously, arguing over what a class ability or FEAT does? Really? It says what it does... I don't need a GM "interpretation" to tell me what it does. If it allowed everyone else to save for half, I take half if I FAIL, none if I succeed.
This only works if you have Improved Evasion. Evasion ability makes it all or nothing; if you fail, full damage, if you make it, no damage. Improved Evasion allows half even if you fail.
As far as the scenario is concerned, Improved Evasion was never brought up; in fact, it wasn't even referenced whatsoever. I don't know why you're bringing up the rules for Improved Evasion when those aren't the rules being discussed, regardless of their apparent relevance.
===
Speaking of relevance; while I am in agreement in that the OP will need to consider departing the group, everyone is always quick to simply denounce the other players when a mess-up occurs. It just gets worse when these reasons can be something absolutely trivial. Here's exactly what I'm talking about:
"GM throws creatures he calls "ogres" at you when he (and the book) really meant orcs? Time to find a new group."
"Fellow player said his PC's dad could beat up my PC's dad. Time to find a new group."
"I didn't bring Funyuns and Mountain Dew for my GM. Time to find a new group."
I'm glad the whole concept of giving participants the time of day to at least defend or explain their actions, or perhaps have a conversation about the subject, went down the drain, since it's apparently so much easier to just say "Oh, you looked at me funny, time to find a new group, cya!"
/endrant
I have always hand;ed evasion that if an explosion is centered on you, or you are adjacent to the epicenter of the explosion, evasion gets overcome. But, that's a houserule.
You should feel bad for doing this. The rogue has enough problems as is :-(.