Post/Author/DateTime	Post
aleko 03-10-06, 01:36 AM	Last friday my dm made an interested ruling. He stated that fire resistance did not stop subdual damage caused by high heat areas like deserts. He said it was because the (1d4) damage stuck and so essentially fire resistance was like having extra hp against areas above 90 degrees. I find this silly since natural flame only does 1d6 and so it won't burn you for a while if you had fire resistance 5. Could you guys give some input and perhaps direct me to an official wizards of the coast ruling. My dm is really hardcore about official stuff despite using lame 3rd party book rules where traps have dc's of 32 against my lvl 4 rogue (he says it is easy if character can make it on a 15+ roll(I have a +17 to disable and search)) and if I fail by one I set off the trap. Any official links to somewhere would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. P.S. He argues with core books sometimes too. (Old second edition player) P.S.S. Also if there is a place online where I can show my dm that alignment works different than it did in 2nd edition I would love it.
Solidcobra 03-10-06, 01:46 AM	2e dinosaurs who won't get with the times are a difficult sort. 2e was all about "it works like the DM says", they just didn't have proper rules for every situation like we do today. My suggestion? If you can't talk sense into him, suggest a switch of DM for a while. Be polite. "I think that some variation would be good for the group. if nobody else wants to DM, I can try for a while". Show him how a real game is supposed to look like!
Kerri_Evanwood 03-10-06, 01:55 AM	By the RAW, fire resistance does not stop nonlethal damage from being in extreme conditions. It makes logical sense for it to (and I houserule it into my games), but according to the rules it doesn't.
Gauze Fireforge 03-10-06, 02:06 AM	By the RAW, fire resistance does not stop nonlethal damage from being in extreme conditions. It makes logical sense for it to (and I houserule it into my games), but according to the rules it doesn't. It makes perfect, logical sense because it is RAW Page 298 of the DMG 3.5 "A creature with resistance to energy has the ability (usually extraordinary) to ignore some damage of a certain type (such as cold, electricity, or fire) each round, but it does not have total immunity" Also, on page 303 of the DMG 3.5 "heat deals nonleathal damage that cannot be recovered until the character gets cooled off (reaches shade, survives until nightfall, gets doused in water, is targeted by endure elements, and so forth) Lastly, damage is defined in the PHB 3.5 as being "A decrese in hit points, an ability score or other aspects of a character caused by an injury, illness, or magical effect. The three main categories of damage are lethal, nonlethal and ability damage" In short, no you dont take damage from heat damage if you have resistance to fire. The Dm's flavour text of its a barrier of some type is interesting, but superfuluos. By the RAW, you dont take damage.
Gauze Fireforge 03-10-06, 02:13 AM	By the RAW, fire resistance does not stop nonlethal damage from being in extreme conditions. It makes logical sense for it to (and I houserule it into my games), but according to the rules it doesn't. the cherry on the cake (I really need smiley for this) :D From Sandstorm, p15 Resistance to Fire "A character with a spell or effect granting resistance to fire applies this resistance to both lethal and nonlethal damage from hot temperatures."
Kerri_Evanwood 03-10-06, 02:18 AM	the cherry on the cake (I really need smiley for this) :D From Sandstorm, p15 Resistance to Fire "A character with a spell or effect granting resistance to fire applies this resistance to both lethal and nonlethal damage from hot temperatures." Yes, that makes sense now. Your first argument on why it does didn't, however. Not that I disagree with the OP, but according to the the core RAW I don't see any evidence that fire resistance would prevent nonlethal damage from extreme temperatures. This, if you ask me, is one interpretation of the rules that results in some people needing to be shot. In the face. With a hammer.
Haml337 03-10-06, 02:22 AM	Hrm. I think that's bunk, just personally. Sure, you'll reduce damage from fire, no problem. But since when is being burned in a fire the same thing as succumbing to heatstroke? I wouldn't have a problem with the rule as a play OR as a DM. Then again, I personally have fond memories of Dark Sun, where dying of thirst in the hot sun was a common as a SAN check in Call of Cthulhu.
Kapalen 03-10-06, 02:41 AM	Hrm. I think that's bunk, just personally. Sure, you'll reduce damage from fire, no problem. But since when is being burned in a fire the same thing as succumbing to heatstroke? I wouldn't have a problem with the rule as a play OR as a DM. Then again, I personally have fond memories of Dark Sun, where dying of thirst in the hot sun was a common as a SAN check in Call of Cthulhu. Fire is jsut heat and light energy. Rays fromt he sun are the same thing jsut not as hot and the light is outside the visual spectrum.
ShadowDragon8685 03-10-06, 02:43 AM	Folks, let's get with the program here. We play a game to have fun, not to tortously submit your players to a recreation of Saraha travel. If Resistance to Fire is all it takes to say "right, sure. Goodbye" to the annoyance and un-funity of heatstroke, then go for it. Anything else is the DM picking on the players.
scott644 03-10-06, 07:48 AM	Hrm. I think that's bunk, just personally. Sure, you'll reduce damage from fire, no problem. But since when is being burned in a fire the same thing as succumbing to heatstroke? It's not. However, one must first suffer intense enough heat to trigger the body's cooling response and failure - and having fire resistance makes the body need that only in truly extreme conditions (such as fireballs with non-lethal substitution).
FriendoftheDork 03-10-06, 08:31 AM	aleco, you say abused "players". What do the other players say? If you all say the same the DM might reconsider. And if not, start a new game and invite the other players. And if the game is too fun for that.. tough luck live with it. Your DM really has some weird notions... having 25% chance of success of something makes it easy? But it's his game.
Pellanor 03-10-06, 11:46 AM	I think the fire arguement has been covered well enough. As for the alignment question. I'm not sure how alignments worked in 2nd edition, but this page (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm) describes how they work in 3.5. I hope that helps.
danielinthewolvesden 03-10-06, 12:11 PM	So, demons in Hell are constantly falling over dead of heat stroke admidst the flames- altho indeed their bodies aren't burnt by the fires.... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: But as for this "dc's of 32 against my lvl 4 rogue (he says it is easy if character can make it on a 15+ roll(I have a +17 to disable and search)) and if I fail by one I set off the trap. "- you don't set off the trap unless you fail by five. It's in the rules.
loki87 03-10-06, 02:05 PM	So, demons in Hell are constantly falling over dead of heat stroke admidst the flames- altho indeed their bodies aren't burnt by the fires.... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: And that about sums it up! :) Seriously, it sounds like your DM is just another power-tripper. It is very reasonable for you and your fellow players to ask him to ease up, or else start a new campaign without him.
Some_call_me_Tim 03-10-06, 02:19 PM	But as for this "dc's of 32 against my lvl 4 rogue (he says it is easy if character can make it on a 15+ roll(I have a +17 to disable and search)) and if I fail by one I set off the trap. "- you don't set off the trap unless you fail by five. It's in the rules.Not only is Daniel right that you have to miss the DC by five or more to set off a trap while attempting to disable it, but be sure to point out to your DM Table 4-3 in the PHB (p. 64) which says 'easy' is something that requires a DC 5 check, a DC 15 check is clearly 'tough.' :P
On_the_wings_of_TPK 03-10-06, 03:30 PM	Forr all your questions regarding the RAW, made easy in a quick reference document check: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35 the SRD.
Moon-Lancer 03-10-06, 03:45 PM	I had this problem with a 2.0/5 dm. I had an elf that got magically put to sleep. After that I said goodbye. The one time I get to use sleep immunity, he takes it away and says my character goes to sleep. That’s really not fun. Also there was no save. I have had bad experiences with 2.0/5 dm’s. The only two that I know of are both power trippers and do not adjust well to the rules at all. If they are not power tripping, they are complaining about X in 3.5 and how it used to be better. I’m not saying all dm’s from 2.0/5 are this way, just all the ones I know of.
Chobemaster 03-10-06, 04:20 PM	I had this problem with a 2.0/5 dm. I had an elf that got magically put to sleep. After that I said goodbye. The one time I get to use sleep immunity, he takes it away and says my character goes to sleep. That’s really not fun. Also there was no save. I have had bad experiences with 2.0/5 dm’s. The only two that I know of are both power trippers and do not adjust well to the rules at all. If they are not power tripping, they are complaining about X in 3.5 and how it used to be better. I’m not saying all dm’s from 2.0/5 are this way, just all the ones I know of. That's not a 2.0 issue. Elven immunity to sleep is older than 3.0.
Chobemaster 03-10-06, 04:21 PM	I'm interested as to what the difference is in how alignment "works" in 3rd vs 2nd. It's a descriptor (really, 2 descriptors) of the character's attitude toward the nature of the world and how he sees himself within that framework. And that's always what it's been.
Judging Eagle 03-10-06, 04:23 PM	I've said it once and I'll say it again. The problem with most ****** DMs is that they don't follow the rules and change rules that they have no right to change or wisdom to change properly. Just today I saw a thread where someone decided that you can coup de grace when someone was prone, since you could see their body on the group and their easier to hit. When that mechanic is already dealt with; by adding +4 to a melee chance to hit. Plus CDGing a tripped opponent means that tripping and spiked chains are even more broken than ever. Thus, never let a DM "make up" a rule unless they really, really, really know the way the current game system works.
High Octane 03-10-06, 04:53 PM	Thus, never let a DM "make up" a rule unless they really, really, really know the way the current game system works. I agree. You can't tell if the game is REALLY broken until you've played it ffor a LONG time. Once more.....hold on while I open another fortune cookie..... What is broken for one DM is not necessarily broken for another DM and vice versa. However, It is not until the DM has played with the rules for a while and knows himself that he can make such a judgement. The problem with modern players and past DM's (one of which I have) is the mentality of the game. Your DM might think a 15+ (30% chance) is a fair percentage because he grew up on first or second edition. In first edition, a first level thief with 17 dex had only a 20% chance of disarming a trap or it was set off. 18 Dex made it 25%. At level 4, a thief would have 35-40% I think. This is, of course, total crap and a failure on the part of first and second edition, since a thief had a VERY good chance of killing himself since he was the one with d6 hit points and a pretty low chance of having good constitution. Whats more, if your DM grew up using Gygax's modules he expects massive death. Tomb of Horrors..... My first edition DM admitted to it after a ton of pointing out his excess of traps in the game that he grew up on the massive death and trap scenarios like Tomb of Horrors. Of course, we also exist in the mindset that not only should the players WIN, but they should have a very good chance of everyone making it out alive. This kind of presumption is a bit exaggerated. Respond with "Yes, of course, a 70% chance of my character getting blasted in the face with an acidic frost FIREBALL with poison is great odds. Why the HELL would anyone ever become a rogue if this is commonplace? None would make it past 2nd level! Why would anyone bother taking rogues around? Trained monkeys are cheaper to send to probable death." He'll get the hint. Or ask for a new character. An 18 strength master thrower with weapon proficiency (brick). He specializes in throwing bricks at traps from 100 feet away setting them off and taking no damage.
Merestil Haye 03-10-06, 06:22 PM	Back to the resistance issue a moment. The whole raison d'etre of the Endure Elements spell is to enable the subject of the spell to exist comfortably at temperatures between -50˚F and 140˚F without the need for Fort saves, and therefore never take damage. If a 1st level spell can protect adequately against all but the very extremes of natural environments, why would a second level spell not do so? I'd just start using Endure Elements; it's more efficient.
Kerri_Evanwood 03-10-06, 06:56 PM	I looked back and realized how stupid my argument looked. It's a good thing that I didn't actually agree with my own argument. Using the same logic I was using, there's always the ever-famous "None of the core rulebooks specifically state that being dead prevents you from taking actions."
Raum_ul_Amon 03-10-06, 09:18 PM	I really don't think that the heart of the matter is the DM being a 2.0/5 dm (what the heck is that anyways?). I think that the problem is pretty much encapsulated in this statement from the OP. (I have a +17 to disable and search) Your character is a fourth level rogue and you have a WHAT? :confused: Most likely the DM is trying to create REASONABLE challenges for you and while you have the idea that everything should be a cakewalk with no challenges just more loot. Sorry for jumping to conclusions but come on ... your character is completely broken. The fact is he has to put 30+ DC traps in place or you would simply walk all over anything that would reasonably challenge a 4th level character. The other point is that I find Endure Elements to be a major PIA. With a first level spell the PC is basically immune to any environmental challenges and problems. He can basically wander around the Sahara Dessert or stroll down Death Valley, or wonder around in the Arctic in his skivies with not a care in the world. Not to mention the fact that a 0 level spell allows you to provide enough water so that during that stroll in the desert you need not worry about dehydration either. I personally have houseruled a change to the Endure Elements spell so that the PCs in my campaign can have challenges (that provide xp) that are not simply based on smashing something into a bloody pulp. As the PC gets to higher levels this becomes a non-issue as it rightfully should as they have other things to worry about other than dying of thirst or hyperthermia. Anyways, to each his own. Just don't ask for sympathy from this guy, cause I really don't hink you deserve any. Frankly, I feel sorry for your DM.
Haml337 03-10-06, 09:21 PM	2.5 is, where I come from, referred to as the "Skills & Powers" line of books.
fatal error 03-10-06, 09:35 PM	7 Ranks, +5 ability modifier, +3 skill focus, +2 nimble fingers = +17 to disable device. That's all core, and with no racial skill bonuses. So, I'm sure there are some feats in books they might be using that allow him to get more bonuses to skills. Not to mention he could be playing a race that gets a bonus to one or more of those skills. (Like an Elf, who'd give him an extra +2 to search) Plus he could have synergistic skills for additional +2. Ridiculous, I know, a rogue actually focusing on skills rather than multiclass-fighter-spiked-chain builds.
Raum_ul_Amon 03-10-06, 09:39 PM	Well .. hmm ... yeah. Let me revise that. Sounds like your DM is getting what he deserves with that one. Introducing Races and feats and such without care and consideration is sure to land any DM in frustrationland. I still say cut him some slack and relax on the min/max tho if you want to have fun. If however you just wanna game of oneupmanship and epeen comparison, go for it. Like I said, to each his own. *edit Bleh, before I seem like too big of an idiot, or a baiter. I think your DM should reassess the challenges he gives you and not react negatively like he did.
Kresalak 03-10-06, 09:50 PM	... I know! I remember when Grand Theft Otto said how his player tried to stack Skill Focus and Alertness for +5 to spot on top of his 6 piont buy commoner! Such munchkinism should never be allowed in D&D! I mean, sure, he was inviting it in allowing 6 point buy, but that's just beyond good sense! :rolleyes:
Chaser 03-11-06, 04:44 AM	I really don't think that the heart of the matter is the DM being a 2.0/5 dm (what the heck is that anyways?). I think that the problem is pretty much encapsulated in this statement from the OP. (I have a +17 to disable and search) Your character is a fourth level rogue and you have a WHAT? :confused: Most likely the DM is trying to create REASONABLE challenges for you and while you have the idea that everything should be a cakewalk with no challenges just more loot. Sorry for jumping to conclusions but come on ... your character is completely broken. The fact is he has to put 30+ DC traps in place or you would simply walk all over anything that would reasonably challenge a 4th level character. The character is specialized. He deserves to do well against traps. The bolded statement is perhaps a vast overstatement. The DM surely has other facets to his adventures beyond traps, and could always place some traps in unlikely areas, or have some minor time pressures that prevent "move 5', search for traps" adventuring. The other point is that I find Endure Elements to be a major PIA. With a first level spell the PC is basically immune to any environmental challenges and problems. He can basically wander around the Sahara Dessert or stroll down Death Valley, or wonder around in the Arctic in his skivies with not a care in the world. Not to mention the fact that a 0 level spell allows you to provide enough water so that during that stroll in the desert you need not worry about dehydration either. The environmental challenge has bitten into the party's spell battery for the day. This is a good thing for many DMs.
Man in the Funny Hat 03-11-06, 11:39 PM	Last friday my dm made an interested ruling. He stated that fire resistance did not stop subdual damage caused by high heat areas like deserts.Ask him to cite that rule. I mean really - it will protect you from fire but you'll die of heat stroke? Tell him you'll walk around with non-magical, burning torches continually strapped to your body so that the actual FLAMES will protect you from the ambient heat of the environment. He said it was because the (1d4) damage stuck and so essentially fire resistance was like having extra hp against areas above 90 degrees.He's being a pedantic weenie. "It doesn't actually SAY it helps against non-lethal damage too..." I find this silly since natural flame only does 1d6 and so it won't burn you for a while if you had fire resistance 5. Could you guys give some input and perhaps direct me to an official wizards of the coast ruling.No such ruling should be necessary because you should be able to convince him with simple arguments that he's being unreasonable. My dm is really hardcore about official stuff despite using lame 3rd party book rules where traps have dc's of 32 against my lvl 4 rogue (he says it is easy if character can make it on a 15+ roll(I have a +17 to disable and search)) and if I fail by one I set off the trap. Any official links to somewhere would be greatly appreciated.About the DC32 traps thing. As others have pointed out he's likely just trying to present your character with a challenge. However, it is not a crime for a PC to be good at something. If you have taken the trouble to make your PC very good at finding and disarming traps then the DM should not take it as his job to make it less likely that your efforts actually pay off. The DM's job is not to INVALIDATE your efforts at improving your character. That said, as suggested table 2-5 on p.31 of the DMG has examples of DC's. It lists 30 as an example DC for a HIGH level rogue picking a "good" lock. The PH lists a "good" lock as DC 30 and costing 80gp. Traps, though not listed, are going to be similar numbers. But those DMG DC's need to be taken for what they are. They don't take into consideration the tremendous specialization, buffs, circumstances, and other factors that can come into play on a routine basis, nor should they. A high level, maxed out, PC rogue is not the normal threat that a lock has to stand up to - a lower level NPC rogue is what the normal threat is. I think this specific complaint comes off as a draw assuming that the DM is not throwing DC 30 locks at you all the time at only 4th level. If your PC is specialized at traps to some degree (max ranks plus other feats, buffs, modifiers, etc.) then you should reasonably expect to succeed fairly often and finding/disarming without too much difficulty. Without a survey of what DC's you've faced and where they've been located (to account for higher/lower difficulty) nobody here can do more than blindly guess at whether the DM is really setting reasonable DC's on a consistent basis. He argues with core books sometimes too. (Old second edition player)Well, I argue with the core books sometimes too. Fairly rarely, but there are things that just aren't quite what I want. It's what he argues about specifically, why he argues about it, and what whether or not he wins the argument :) that's more telling that just the fact that he argues. But I will offer that if he's a 2E die-hard he may still need to unlearn some of the ideas he has ingrained in his head. Maybe. Also if there is a place online where I can show my dm that alignment works different than it did in 2nd edition I would love it.Simple. PH, chapter 6: Description. DESCRIPTION. Quote from p.103: "Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity. It is not a straightjacket for restricting your character." It goes on to say that characters of the same alignment can be quite different, that few people are completely consistent even from one day to the next, that a LG character can still be greedy, that good characters can have tempers, N characters can perform noble acts, etc. You can also point out that with the exception of alignment-restricted classes losing their abilities or being unable to continue to progress in a class there are no penalties whatsoever for changing alignment. However, your DM may still want to run alignments in certain ways. No problem with that - so long as he's telling you IN ADVANCE what his personal rules and restrictions are regarding alignment and alignment-related behavior. Alignment is not about telling you what your character MAY do because you are the final decision maker for what your character does and why. Not the alignment descriptions. Certainly not the DM. What's left is then having an understanding with the DM of the circumstances in which you will have to accept consequences for certain behavior of your character. THAT'S ALL. Alignment has no other control in the game over your character. Alignment exists to provide YOU with a descriptive means to guide your decisions about how and why your characters act the way they do. It does not exist to allow the DM to control your character for you. It's really pretty simple.