GM Decision [Archive] - Wizards Community

GM Decision [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Puggle Halfwine
02-18-08, 08:05 AM Hey guys,

Just a quick thought. Can the GM overrule rules issues, even when those rules issues are completely clear, when it just doesn't make sense?

Case in point: Can constructs be nauseated? The answer, RAW, might surprise you.

Thoughts?

Cheers,

Puggle.
Timlagor
02-18-08, 08:09 AM 1) They can't over-rule clear rules
2) They can deem something "not well modelled by the rules"

3) How do you nauseate something without using any of the following?
- Fort Save
- Poison
- Disease
- Necromancy
- Eating or Breathing
- Critical hits
NiTessine
02-18-08, 09:42 AM 3) How do you nauseate something without using any of the following?
There's probably a way to accomplish it, somewhere.

Even better, how do you pummel an earth elemental unconscious?

Answer: you use nonlethal damage, duh!

There was an LG module once with an earth elemental that kept reforming if you killed it, and the solution was to knock it out.
solbergb
02-18-08, 02:40 PM 1) They can't over-rule clear rules

What you learn though, in years of playing with many GM's in many regions and talking to people around the world is there are surprisingly few clear cut rules in D&D. About 80% of what I thought was clear cut when I started playing RPGA in 2003 turned out to be ambiguous.

Far more typical is "there are two major schools of thoughts on this and a few fringe ideas" on most issues that cause rules divisions at the table.

If you know the GM has chosen a valid school of thought that you don't agree with, it is easier to let it go and get on with the game. That's one reason online rules forums are useful . Not to get campaign consensus but to educate rules-oriented players as to the multiple, VALID ways to interpret the text when WOTC has not posty clarifications in the FAQ. (and sadly, sometimes the FAQ needs interpretation too)
Arvagor
02-19-08, 01:19 PM Even better, how do you pummel an earth elemental unconscious?

Answer: you use nonlethal damage, duh!

There was an LG module once with an earth elemental that kept reforming if you killed it, and the solution was to knock it out.
Not sure why this one would have been an issue? There's nothing in the description of the Elemental type that says they're immune to nonlethal damage...
magebeast
02-19-08, 02:56 PM Not sure why this one would have been an issue? There's nothing in the description of the Elemental type that says they're immune to nonlethal damage...

Yes, but when was the last time you had to subdue an elemental?
Drezden
02-19-08, 03:20 PM Hmmm, nauseated is defined as "[e]xperiencing stomach distress." Constructs do not eat. Nor do they even have stomachs. I'm going to go with - No, they cannot be nauseated.

Daren

[snip]
Case in point: Can constructs be nauseated? The answer, RAW, might surprise you.
[snip]
Puggle.
kenobi65
02-19-08, 03:23 PM Not sure why this one would have been an issue? There's nothing in the description of the Elemental type that says they're immune to nonlethal damage...

My guess as to why this might be an issue: creature types that are immune to critical hits are also typically immune to a number of other attack types. Constructs and undead (two types that are immune to critical hits) also happen to be immune to non-lethal damage. I'd guess that some players and GMs get confused by this.
Arvagor
02-19-08, 07:35 PM [...] 3) How do you nauseate something without using any of the following? [...]There's probably a way to accomplish it, somewhere.
I took a look; interestingly enough, there's very few ways in the core rules to cause the nauseated condition:
Stinking cloud
A cloaker's Moan (Ex) ability
A hezrou's Stench (Ex) ability
Any swarm's Distraction (Ex) ability
The last two specifically state they apply only to living creatures; the hezrou's ability also excludes any creature with immunity to poison. The first two just mention a Fort save, but no mention of applying to objects, so both of those are ruled out...

I looked through the Complete, Races, etc. books allowed by the campaign, and there's a fair number of spells, creature special abilities, etc. that can cause the condition, but as a matter of course, constructs would be immune to them, either because they (as has already been pointed out) are necromancy effects, require a Fortitude save, require the target to be a living creature, or some other condition that conflicts with the features of the Construct type.

However... ;)

There appears to be two spells in the Spell Compendium that should (unless I'm just missing something) affect them: fugue and word of balance. The latter only affects creatures at the alignment extremes (LG, CG, LE, CE), so the only constructs I can think of that falls into that category would be retrievers and clockwork horrors.

OTOH, neither are Open spells, so you'd need to find access to them...
MwaO
02-20-08, 01:13 PM Just a quick thought. Can the GM overrule rules issues, even when those rules issues are completely clear, when it just doesn't make sense?

That's assuming that both GM and player think the rules issues are completely clear. An example of this is drawing weapon-like objects as a free action during a move. If it is considered a weapon-like object, you can draw it as a free action.

An oil or potion is clearly not a weapon-like object, an Alchemist Fire is actually a weapon(Grenade weapon), a Wand is clearly a weapon-like object, and a Staff is actually a weapon. Some Rods are actually treated as either clubs or maces. So from my point of view, it is clear cut that all Rods are weapon-like objects(and the Rules Compendium, as LG useless as it might be, agrees with me)

That's not exactly how all GMs rule, though. You should be able to see the edge problem with a potion vs an oil vs alchemist's fire and I've had DMs rule that drawing a rod as a free action as part of a move is not legal.

I think if both the GM and the player agree that the rule is clear, the FAQ indicates that you have to go with the rule unless you think there's some sort of huge spirit of the rules problem(such as fire resistance 1 and magma). The example in the FAQ is can a Golem be blinded despite not really having eyes.
JamesMaissen
02-20-08, 01:51 PM An oil or potion is clearly not a weapon-like object, an Alchemist Fire is actually a weapon(Grenade weapon), a Wand is clearly a weapon-like object, and a Staff is actually a weapon.

I'm sorry, but how is an oil or potion clearly not a weapon-like object?

One could mistake an alchemist's fire for a potion, while one would never mistake a wand for a dagger or the like. It seems to me that an oil or potion is more like a weapon (an alchemist fire or acid flask) than a wand is like one (a dagger/dart).

You will encounter those that would not even include wands if it were not the example listed and in fact only include wands (nothing else because nothing else is listed as an example). So I will certainly agree that there will be variation.

-James
solbergb
02-20-08, 02:26 PM oils and potions are two ounces. They're more the size of ammunition than most weapons, and they have some kind of stopper that has to be removed to be used.

Lots of GMs rule they are not weaponlike. Including me barring special equipment that says otherwise.

Splash weapons, by contrast, are similar in weight and size to things like daggers and darts. I treat them as weaponlike IF the PC is willing to have them exposed and visible (and thus bait for things like shatter or sunder)
MwaO
02-20-08, 02:40 PM I'm sorry, but how is an oil or potion clearly not a weapon-like object?

Physical Description: A typical potion or oil consists of 1 ounce of liquid held in a ceramic or glass vial fitted with a tight stopper. The stoppered container is usually no more than 1 inch wide and 2 inches high.

I can't think of any weapons that resemble a stoppered container and are 1 inch wide and 2 inches long. There's no handle-like area, such as that of a wand to easily grab. It is made of an extremely breakable material for which if it does break, that's it - where a wand has the same hardness and hit points as a projectile weapon. Potions have a part you don't want to grab onto hard and pull.

It isn't a question of mistaking it for an actual weapon, merely that a wand does resemble a weapon and a potion does not. I can imagine putting a wand into an appropriately-sized scabbard, with no worries of it falling out or getting broken, and having it be almost the exact same physical motion as drawing a dagger. Ditto for a rod. A potion doesn't even really resemble the action of drawing an alchemist's fire - you don't have to worry about removing the stopper from an alchemist's fire when you pull it out because there isn't one. Yes, in game terms, you can't accidentally remove a potion stopper or break it, but that could be because you can't draw it as a weapon-like object.

And your comment justifies my point - despite it being clear cut to me that a potion is not a weapon, there are people who will disagree with me on potions because they see alchemist's fire as similar enough to a potion to rule as you are ruling.
Arvagor
02-20-08, 02:46 PM I'm sorry, but how is an oil or potion clearly not a weapon-like object?
Well, I've always considered it so, mainly because they're radically different in size.A typical potion or oil consists of 1 ounce of liquid held in a ceramic or glass vial fitted with a tight stopper. The stoppered container is usually no more than 1 inch wide and 2 inches high. The vial has AC 13, 1 hit point, hardness 1, and a break DC of 12. Vials hold 1 ounce of liquid.Compare that with a flask of [oil/acid/alchemist’s fire/holy water] which all weigh 1 pound (and given that one US gallon of water weighs around 8 lbs., it works out that 1 lb. is a little less than 16 oz, i.e. 1 pint).

Or try this for comparison... Your favorite canned beverages in the US generally come in a 12 (fl) oz. can; I just weighed a can of Diet Coke, and it came in at 13.4 oz. Since aluminum containers are probably not widely available in Greyhawk, we'll say that the ceramic/glass flask takes it up to 1 lb., so a good baseline would be that a flask of oil/whatever is about the size of a can of Coke.

Now, take one of those little plastic containers that Chessex dice come in, and fill it up with water; dump that water into something that measures liquid volume, and you'll find that there's no more than 2.5 oz. of water in there. Your typical potion container contains less than half that amount, and so will be even smaller than your Chessex box.

So vial = very small perfume bottle. Flask = something hand grenade sized.
_metz_
02-20-08, 09:14 PM That's assuming that both GM and player think the rules issues are completely clear. An example of this is drawing weapon-like objects as a free action during a move. If it is considered a weapon-like object, you can draw it as a free action.

An oil or potion is clearly not a weapon-like object, an Alchemist Fire is actually a weapon(Grenade weapon), a Wand is clearly a weapon-like object, and a Staff is actually a weapon. Some Rods are actually treated as either clubs or maces. So from my point of view, it is clear cut that all Rods are weapon-like objects(and the Rules Compendium, as LG useless as it might be, agrees with me)

That's not exactly how all GMs rule, though. You should be able to see the edge problem with a potion vs an oil vs alchemist's fire and I've had DMs rule that drawing a rod as a free action as part of a move is not legal.

I think if both the GM and the player agree that the rule is clear, the FAQ indicates that you have to go with the rule unless you think there's some sort of huge spirit of the rules problem(such as fire resistance 1 and magma). The example in the FAQ is can a Golem be blinded despite not really having eyes.

I had a GM the other day not allow my 15th level Rogue PC with Quickdraw to pull out both his weapons as free actions and full attack something. (I was five feet away and top of the order)

Same GM also dissallowed use of Quickdraw and boots of speed in the same turn.

And lets not get him started on how he basically won't allow the belt of battle.

That clearly goes against intent and RAW. I had to put up with it. Its one of the downsides of LG. My attitude is to avoid the GM in future.

Just lets you know, sometimes you have to put up with what the GM says. I would only walk away from the table if the incorrect applications of the rules were getting PCs killed, or if the GM was being biased towards certain characters.

Not everyone agrees with every interpretation. In that way I will be glad with 4th edition as people WON'T be able to have 5 years of home rules inbred to work against How the rules actually work.

As to the wand vs vial arguement, lets just hope these things are FINALLY qualified!
Surgebuster
02-20-08, 10:20 PM And that bloke used to be a circle rep.

Metz, assuming you haven't gone overseas, we've never had an ex-circle member in Australia.

We do have a current one, but unless you've moved to Tasmania and Colleen turned into a man, then we've got a case of mistaken identity! :detect:

Joe

P.S. The person you may be thinking of has never held an official position, if it is the person I am thinking of.
_metz_
02-20-08, 10:27 PM P.S. The person you may be thinking of has never held an official position, if it is the person I am thinking of.

Duly noted.

I am fairly sure it is.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Puggle Halfwine 02-18-08, 08:05 AM	Hey guys, Just a quick thought. Can the GM overrule rules issues, even when those rules issues are completely clear, when it just doesn't make sense? Case in point: Can constructs be nauseated? The answer, RAW, might surprise you. Thoughts? Cheers, Puggle.
Timlagor 02-18-08, 08:09 AM	1) They can't over-rule clear rules 2) They can deem something "not well modelled by the rules" 3) How do you nauseate something without using any of the following? - Fort Save - Poison - Disease - Necromancy - Eating or Breathing - Critical hits
NiTessine 02-18-08, 09:42 AM	3) How do you nauseate something without using any of the following? There's probably a way to accomplish it, somewhere. Even better, how do you pummel an earth elemental unconscious? Answer: you use nonlethal damage, duh! There was an LG module once with an earth elemental that kept reforming if you killed it, and the solution was to knock it out.
solbergb 02-18-08, 02:40 PM	1) They can't over-rule clear rules What you learn though, in years of playing with many GM's in many regions and talking to people around the world is there are surprisingly few clear cut rules in D&D. About 80% of what I thought was clear cut when I started playing RPGA in 2003 turned out to be ambiguous. Far more typical is "there are two major schools of thoughts on this and a few fringe ideas" on most issues that cause rules divisions at the table. If you know the GM has chosen a valid school of thought that you don't agree with, it is easier to let it go and get on with the game. That's one reason online rules forums are useful . Not to get campaign consensus but to educate rules-oriented players as to the multiple, VALID ways to interpret the text when WOTC has not posty clarifications in the FAQ. (and sadly, sometimes the FAQ needs interpretation too)
Arvagor 02-19-08, 01:19 PM	Even better, how do you pummel an earth elemental unconscious? Answer: you use nonlethal damage, duh! There was an LG module once with an earth elemental that kept reforming if you killed it, and the solution was to knock it out. Not sure why this one would have been an issue? There's nothing in the description of the Elemental type that says they're immune to nonlethal damage...
magebeast 02-19-08, 02:56 PM	Not sure why this one would have been an issue? There's nothing in the description of the Elemental type that says they're immune to nonlethal damage... Yes, but when was the last time you had to subdue an elemental?
Drezden 02-19-08, 03:20 PM	Hmmm, nauseated is defined as "[e]xperiencing stomach distress." Constructs do not eat. Nor do they even have stomachs. I'm going to go with - No, they cannot be nauseated. Daren [snip] Case in point: Can constructs be nauseated? The answer, RAW, might surprise you. [snip] Puggle.
kenobi65 02-19-08, 03:23 PM	Not sure why this one would have been an issue? There's nothing in the description of the Elemental type that says they're immune to nonlethal damage... My guess as to why this might be an issue: creature types that are immune to critical hits are also typically immune to a number of other attack types. Constructs and undead (two types that are immune to critical hits) also happen to be immune to non-lethal damage. I'd guess that some players and GMs get confused by this.
Arvagor 02-19-08, 07:35 PM	[...] 3) How do you nauseate something without using any of the following? [...]There's probably a way to accomplish it, somewhere. I took a look; interestingly enough, there's very few ways in the core rules to cause the nauseated condition: Stinking cloud A cloaker's Moan (Ex) ability A hezrou's Stench (Ex) ability Any swarm's Distraction (Ex) ability The last two specifically state they apply only to living creatures; the hezrou's ability also excludes any creature with immunity to poison. The first two just mention a Fort save, but no mention of applying to objects, so both of those are ruled out... I looked through the Complete, Races, etc. books allowed by the campaign, and there's a fair number of spells, creature special abilities, etc. that can cause the condition, but as a matter of course, constructs would be immune to them, either because they (as has already been pointed out) are necromancy effects, require a Fortitude save, require the target to be a living creature, or some other condition that conflicts with the features of the Construct type. However... ;) There appears to be two spells in the Spell Compendium that should (unless I'm just missing something) affect them: fugue and word of balance. The latter only affects creatures at the alignment extremes (LG, CG, LE, CE), so the only constructs I can think of that falls into that category would be retrievers and clockwork horrors. OTOH, neither are Open spells, so you'd need to find access to them...
MwaO 02-20-08, 01:13 PM	Just a quick thought. Can the GM overrule rules issues, even when those rules issues are completely clear, when it just doesn't make sense? That's assuming that both GM and player think the rules issues are completely clear. An example of this is drawing weapon-like objects as a free action during a move. If it is considered a weapon-like object, you can draw it as a free action. An oil or potion is clearly not a weapon-like object, an Alchemist Fire is actually a weapon(Grenade weapon), a Wand is clearly a weapon-like object, and a Staff is actually a weapon. Some Rods are actually treated as either clubs or maces. So from my point of view, it is clear cut that all Rods are weapon-like objects(and the Rules Compendium, as LG useless as it might be, agrees with me) That's not exactly how all GMs rule, though. You should be able to see the edge problem with a potion vs an oil vs alchemist's fire and I've had DMs rule that drawing a rod as a free action as part of a move is not legal. I think if both the GM and the player agree that the rule is clear, the FAQ indicates that you have to go with the rule unless you think there's some sort of huge spirit of the rules problem(such as fire resistance 1 and magma). The example in the FAQ is can a Golem be blinded despite not really having eyes.
JamesMaissen 02-20-08, 01:51 PM	An oil or potion is clearly not a weapon-like object, an Alchemist Fire is actually a weapon(Grenade weapon), a Wand is clearly a weapon-like object, and a Staff is actually a weapon. I'm sorry, but how is an oil or potion clearly not a weapon-like object? One could mistake an alchemist's fire for a potion, while one would never mistake a wand for a dagger or the like. It seems to me that an oil or potion is more like a weapon (an alchemist fire or acid flask) than a wand is like one (a dagger/dart). You will encounter those that would not even include wands if it were not the example listed and in fact only include wands (nothing else because nothing else is listed as an example). So I will certainly agree that there will be variation. -James
solbergb 02-20-08, 02:26 PM	oils and potions are two ounces. They're more the size of ammunition than most weapons, and they have some kind of stopper that has to be removed to be used. Lots of GMs rule they are not weaponlike. Including me barring special equipment that says otherwise. Splash weapons, by contrast, are similar in weight and size to things like daggers and darts. I treat them as weaponlike IF the PC is willing to have them exposed and visible (and thus bait for things like shatter or sunder)
MwaO 02-20-08, 02:40 PM	I'm sorry, but how is an oil or potion clearly not a weapon-like object? Physical Description: A typical potion or oil consists of 1 ounce of liquid held in a ceramic or glass vial fitted with a tight stopper. The stoppered container is usually no more than 1 inch wide and 2 inches high. I can't think of any weapons that resemble a stoppered container and are 1 inch wide and 2 inches long. There's no handle-like area, such as that of a wand to easily grab. It is made of an extremely breakable material for which if it does break, that's it - where a wand has the same hardness and hit points as a projectile weapon. Potions have a part you don't want to grab onto hard and pull. It isn't a question of mistaking it for an actual weapon, merely that a wand does resemble a weapon and a potion does not. I can imagine putting a wand into an appropriately-sized scabbard, with no worries of it falling out or getting broken, and having it be almost the exact same physical motion as drawing a dagger. Ditto for a rod. A potion doesn't even really resemble the action of drawing an alchemist's fire - you don't have to worry about removing the stopper from an alchemist's fire when you pull it out because there isn't one. Yes, in game terms, you can't accidentally remove a potion stopper or break it, but that could be because you can't draw it as a weapon-like object. And your comment justifies my point - despite it being clear cut to me that a potion is not a weapon, there are people who will disagree with me on potions because they see alchemist's fire as similar enough to a potion to rule as you are ruling.
Arvagor 02-20-08, 02:46 PM	I'm sorry, but how is an oil or potion clearly not a weapon-like object? Well, I've always considered it so, mainly because they're radically different in size.A typical potion or oil consists of 1 ounce of liquid held in a ceramic or glass vial fitted with a tight stopper. The stoppered container is usually no more than 1 inch wide and 2 inches high. The vial has AC 13, 1 hit point, hardness 1, and a break DC of 12. Vials hold 1 ounce of liquid.Compare that with a flask of [oil/acid/alchemist’s fire/holy water] which all weigh 1 pound (and given that one US gallon of water weighs around 8 lbs., it works out that 1 lb. is a little less than 16 oz, i.e. 1 pint). Or try this for comparison... Your favorite canned beverages in the US generally come in a 12 (fl) oz. can; I just weighed a can of Diet Coke, and it came in at 13.4 oz. Since aluminum containers are probably not widely available in Greyhawk, we'll say that the ceramic/glass flask takes it up to 1 lb., so a good baseline would be that a flask of oil/whatever is about the size of a can of Coke. Now, take one of those little plastic containers that Chessex dice come in, and fill it up with water; dump that water into something that measures liquid volume, and you'll find that there's no more than 2.5 oz. of water in there. Your typical potion container contains less than half that amount, and so will be even smaller than your Chessex box. So vial = very small perfume bottle. Flask = something hand grenade sized.
_metz_ 02-20-08, 09:14 PM	That's assuming that both GM and player think the rules issues are completely clear. An example of this is drawing weapon-like objects as a free action during a move. If it is considered a weapon-like object, you can draw it as a free action. An oil or potion is clearly not a weapon-like object, an Alchemist Fire is actually a weapon(Grenade weapon), a Wand is clearly a weapon-like object, and a Staff is actually a weapon. Some Rods are actually treated as either clubs or maces. So from my point of view, it is clear cut that all Rods are weapon-like objects(and the Rules Compendium, as LG useless as it might be, agrees with me) That's not exactly how all GMs rule, though. You should be able to see the edge problem with a potion vs an oil vs alchemist's fire and I've had DMs rule that drawing a rod as a free action as part of a move is not legal. I think if both the GM and the player agree that the rule is clear, the FAQ indicates that you have to go with the rule unless you think there's some sort of huge spirit of the rules problem(such as fire resistance 1 and magma). The example in the FAQ is can a Golem be blinded despite not really having eyes. I had a GM the other day not allow my 15th level Rogue PC with Quickdraw to pull out both his weapons as free actions and full attack something. (I was five feet away and top of the order) Same GM also dissallowed use of Quickdraw and boots of speed in the same turn. And lets not get him started on how he basically won't allow the belt of battle. That clearly goes against intent and RAW. I had to put up with it. Its one of the downsides of LG. My attitude is to avoid the GM in future. Just lets you know, sometimes you have to put up with what the GM says. I would only walk away from the table if the incorrect applications of the rules were getting PCs killed, or if the GM was being biased towards certain characters. Not everyone agrees with every interpretation. In that way I will be glad with 4th edition as people WON'T be able to have 5 years of home rules inbred to work against How the rules actually work. As to the wand vs vial arguement, lets just hope these things are FINALLY qualified!
Surgebuster 02-20-08, 10:20 PM	And that bloke used to be a circle rep. Metz, assuming you haven't gone overseas, we've never had an ex-circle member in Australia. We do have a current one, but unless you've moved to Tasmania and Colleen turned into a man, then we've got a case of mistaken identity! :detect: Joe P.S. The person you may be thinking of has never held an official position, if it is the person I am thinking of.
_metz_ 02-20-08, 10:27 PM	P.S. The person you may be thinking of has never held an official position, if it is the person I am thinking of. Duly noted. I am fairly sure it is.