Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Capt. Pixel 10-09-06, 12:59 PM	It's DM training time. In our most recent game, the DM decided that three bats my Druid was harvesting would attack singly and bite me. He rolled up the hits and tallied the damage and informed me that my Druid had taken 5 hp damage. :eek: Bats have no attack and don't have any damage type in their monster listing. After the game, I pointed this out to the DM and furthermore showed him that the damage from a slightly larger creature (a Rat, in this case) would only do damage of 1d3-4. So he says: "1d3-4! Then the Rat would never do ANY damage." I pointed out that a successful hit would always do at least 1 point of damage. The end result was that the whole table got into a big argument about the '1d3-4' damage and the stupidity of that type of damage dealt, etc, etc. Many of you here have seen this argument before and I need your input to provide a cogent case for presenting the reasoning behind this type of damage and displaying it as they do in the Monster Manual. I understand why this is presented this way, but I couldn't seem to provide an argument that others would follow. Can you help? Thanks in advance. Capt. Pixel :cool:
FeceMan 10-09-06, 01:08 PM	It's DM training time. In our most recent game, the DM decided that three bats my Druid was harvesting would attack singly and bite me. He rolled up the hits and tallied the damage and informed me that my Druid had taken 5 hp damage. :eek: Bats have no attack and don't have any damage type in their monster listing. After the game, I pointed this out to the DM and furthermore showed him that the damage from a slightly larger creature (a Rat, in this case) would only do damage of 1d3-4. So he says: "1d3-4! Then the Rat would never do ANY damage." I pointed out that a successful hit would always do at least 1 point of damage. The end result was that the whole table got into a big argument about the '1d3-4' damage and the stupidity of that type of damage dealt, etc, etc. Many of you here have seen this argument before and I need your input to provide a cogent case for presenting the reasoning behind this type of damage and displaying it as they do in the Monster Manual. I understand why this is presented this way, but I couldn't seem to provide an argument that others would follow. Can you help? Thanks in advance. Capt. Pixel :cool: Improving monsters. If a monster were ever modified--such as through gaining HD or being the target of a spell that increased its STR modifier--damage would need to be reconfigured for it (which would be difficult to do if there was no listed damage).
Toloran 10-09-06, 01:12 PM	The whole point of rolling damage that show all the math thats take into account. For example. What if some crazy wizard (of which there are many) decided to cast bulls strength on a rat? Normally, a rat would only ever deal 1 damage on an attack (even a critical). However, with bulls strength, their damage goes from 1d3-4 to 1d3-2. As such, now the rat actually CAN deal extra damage on a critical. From a logical perspective: A rat really isn't going to be dealing more then 1 damage on its own (if you've ever had a pet hamster, you know what I mean). Hence, thats why at higher levels, you aren't attacked by single rats: You are attacked by rat swarms. A single rat isn't supposed to be a threat, a swarm of them is. Same thing for other animals of a similar size (and vermin). Also point out this: A bat SWARM consists of 5,000 bats (read the MM on swarms, diminuitive flying creature swarms are about 5000). It only deals 1d6. So how much do you think 3 bats will deal? 3.5/5000 or about .0007 damage on average. Which (in D&D) would round UP to 1 damage. Oh, and if he STILL complains tell him to go find a rat and have it bite him a few dozen times. Then ask him how much HP he feels like he lost :D
chitzk0i 10-09-06, 01:13 PM	It's written that way so that if you increase the creature's strength, you'll know what damage it will do. This is most likely going to come into play if you have Augment Summoning. Instead of summoning a celestial owl that deals 1d3-4, it would deal 1d3-1. If the damage entry was just "1", then it would be unclear what the new damage would be.
orionm42 10-09-06, 01:14 PM	Improving monsters. If a monster were ever modified--such as through gaining HD or being the target of a spell that increased its STR modifier--damage would need to be reconfigured for it (which would be difficult to do if there was no listed damage). Good point. Also note that the size of the damage die changes when a creature's size changes. So a creature which does 1d3 would do 1d4 if its size increased by 1 step and 1d6 if its size increased by two steps.
Paxar 10-09-06, 01:28 PM	There's a chart in the MM pg. 296 that shows typical damage from natural attacks for creatures of various sizes. In the case of the rat, it's a tiny creature so from the chart it gets a damage die of 1d3 for a bite. So there's the first part. The second part comes from its STR score which is 2. So that has a -4 modifier. Put those together and you get the seemingly ridiculous roll of 1d3-4. The reason it's like that is that not all tiny creatures have tiny STR scores. A pseudodragon is a tiny creature and has a STR of 6 and does 1d3-2 with its bite. If someone were to cast bull's strength on the pseudodragon and got it up to a STR of 10, it would start doing 1d3 damage. If the entry was just written as Damage: 1, then all the pseudodragon would ever be able to do is 1+(STR bonus) in damage. This allows it to do more with help.
Paxar 10-09-06, 01:30 PM	I need to post quicker.
Piggyfreak6 10-09-06, 02:29 PM	I would say 1 pt of damage per bat that hit.
Arganis 10-09-06, 03:10 PM	Your DM deviated from the published Bat statblock, causing 1.7 dmg per bat. OH. MY. GOD. Take your damage like a man.
Kaligrad 10-09-06, 03:17 PM	On a related note, you have to feel sorry for the first level elven wizard, who can apparently can be mauled to death by two rats. Three, if he manages to go first and cast magic missle.
freedeath 10-09-06, 03:36 PM	Your DM deviated from the published Bat statblock, causing 1.7 dmg per bat. OH. MY. GOD. Take your damage like a man. What he said! The DM has the latitude to adjust damage as he sees fit; I'd assign 1 additional damage per time the player whines about too much damage :D (here, have a tissue.....:weep: ) or you could point out how you reduce damage taken by players when beneficial to the current adventure....
Kusari_Gamer 10-09-06, 04:26 PM	Thanks to the above two posters...my faith in D&D is a bit restored. Quite simply, the bat does exactly as much as the DM says it does.
Borne Of Hate 10-09-06, 04:36 PM	Thanks to the above two posters...my faith in D&D is a bit restored. Quite simply, the bat does exactly as much as the DM says it does. Only if you feel like breaking rules and making the bite of a bat virtually equivelant to that of a persons punch. DMs who break too many rules and argue about the 'senselessness of those rules' are, in my experience, the DMs who need the most work. Each rule was put in place for a specific reason and WotC has playtesters that have proven those rules to be the most fair. Being that you are a druid, my advice to you would be to learn the spell summon swarm and then do 5,000d3 damage to the creatures that he throws against you. There are rules for a reason. Dont let people tell you that you are complaining like a 'wimp'. Without a PROPER understanding of the RAW a game can be turned inside out.
revnk 10-09-06, 04:43 PM	Your DM deviated from the published Bat statblock, causing 1.7 dmg per bat. OH. MY. GOD. Take your damage like a man. Absolutely wrong: bats have no teeth or claws and, a little-known fact but absolutely true, they're actually made of living NERF(TM). That's why PETA has asked for all people of good conscience to boycott NERF(TM) products, since up to five bats may be slaughtered in the manufacture of a single NERF(TM) football. A related fact: the so-called "vampire bat" is actually a legume. But seriously: the only reason I didn't bother to raise this point when I lurked this thread earlier was that the OP seemed more interested in the rationale behind damage blocks capable of causing negative damage (e.g. "1d3-4"). That question was ably answered by other posters. As for the "shocking" issue of bats having no damage listing and yet, inexplicably, causing damage, Arganis, Kusari_Gamer and freedeath are absolutely correct. A related issue: while any good DM welcomes legitimate criticism after the session, it's still bad form to complain about a rational improvised ruling by citing an obvious technicality in the rules (I do commend the OP for at least waiting until the end of the session). Aside from the common sense view that a small animal with teeth that is trying not to be caught can potentially injure the would-be catcher, it's also worth noting that a bat swarm can do 1d6 hp of wounding damage automatically to anything in its space, implying that individual bats within the swarm are indeed capable of biting and scratching. If I were the player, I'd not only take my damage, I'd be appreciative if the DM didn't follow up with a call for a Fort save after the incubation period for rabies had passed.... EDIT Only if you feel like breaking rules and making the bite of a bat virtually equivelant to that of a persons punch. DMs who break too many rules and argue about the 'senselessness of those rules' are, in my experience, the DMs who need the most work. Each rule was put in place for a specific reason and WotC has playtesters that have proven those rules to be the most fair. Being that you are a druid, my advice to you would be to learn the spell summon swarm and then do 5,000d3 damage to the creatures that he throws against you. There are rules for a reason. Dont let people tell you that you are complaining like a 'wimp'. Without a PROPER understanding of the RAW a game can be turned inside out. Somehow the last sentence of this post sounded like something Darth Vader would say to Luke Skywalker at Cloud City. "Luke, you do not understand the powers of... the Rules-As-Written.... Join me, and we will rule together, father and son--the Emperor has foreseen this, that is why he constanly improvises rules to cover situations that are not directly covered in the rules and needs to work on his DMing...." Speaking of Star Wars and playtesting, here's an example of Wizards' perfection during playtesting. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/sw20061005jc98) You'll want to scroll down to the first question in the minis section. Or, if you like keeping it to D&D, there's this (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20040125a) or how about this (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a)? Here's a hint: the guys who write this stuff ain't perfect, the playtesters ain't perfect, and these guys all make up stuff on the fly and improvise and bend rules, too. As for the "summon swarm and then do 5,000d3 damage to the creatures that he throws against you" advice, since the DM adjudicates spell rulings, it's a little bit like saying that your character "saves the party by flying around the world in the direction opposite its rotation so fast that the world spins backwards and time is reversed to a point where the party is still alive." It will absolutely work. If the DM says it does. Here's a bit of better advice: if you don't like your DM's rulings, walk. I don't think anyone's forcing you to play. (Corollary: if your DM is forcing you to play, try to wiggle free of the cuffs, climb out the basement window and try to find a telephone to call the police--my hopes and thoughts are with you.)
Necrosis 10-09-06, 04:51 PM	who knows mayeb those bats bite you more than once, (bonus attacks of opptunity for instacne form the grapple), or critted you. As as been already said-suck it up and take your damage like a man or women for that matter :).
HamHam 10-09-06, 04:52 PM	Aside from the common sense view that a small animal with teeth that is trying not to be caught can potentially injure the would-be catcher It can bite your hand. Which can hurt, sure, but a dozen bites wouldn't even come close to being able to kill a normal person, and a normal person has like 1 HP.
Chrono Nexus 10-09-06, 04:54 PM	In our most recent game, the DM decided that three bats my Druid was harvesting would attack singly and bite me. He rolled up the hits and tallied the damage and informed me that my Druid had taken 5 hp damage. Just be glad they weren't sting rays. Nah, your DM screwed up. As long as your character didn't die though, why sweat it? It would have been fair for him to have you contract a disease tough.
freedeath 10-09-06, 04:55 PM	DMs who break too many rules and argue about the 'senselessness of those rules' are, in my experience, the DMs who need the most work. Each rule was put in place for a specific reason and WotC has playtesters that have proven those rules to be the most fair. It has always been in the spirit of D&D that modifications and selective application of the full rules exist; house rules are a staple of the game. It's not about breaking rules and arguing about rules, but tailoring the game to enhance the experience for both player and DM alike. I've been DMing for 25+ years through 3 editions, and my players certainly don't think I need "more work" to be a quality DM. I applaud the DM that applies all the rules, but being a walking encyclopedia rules lawyer is not the only way to DM. Bottom line, as long as the players (and the DM) have fun, whatever rules you use, they're kosher.....
Borne Of Hate 10-09-06, 05:02 PM	It has always been in the spirit of D&D that modifications and selective application of the full rules exist; house rules are a staple of the game. It's not about breaking rules and arguing about rules, but tailoring the game to enhance the experience for both player and DM alike. I've been DMing for 25+ years through 3 editions, and my players certainly don't think I need "more work" to be a quality DM. I applaud the DM that applies all the rules, but being a walking encyclopedia rules lawyer is not the only way to DM. Bottom line, as long as the players (and the DM) have fun, whatever rules you use, they're kosher..... I wholeheartedly agree. However in this circumstance that was obviously not the case. I have my own house rules as well, however I also clear them with all of my PCs prior to playing. Giving a bat anything above 1d4-3 could break the game. I.E. Magic Fang Bulls Strength Enlarge Permanency Awaken +4 shocking burst alchemical silver tooth caps
revnk 10-09-06, 05:13 PM	It can bite your hand. Which can hurt, sure, but a dozen bites wouldn't even come close to being able to kill a normal person, and a normal person has like 1 HP. By the hallowed RAW, which someone around here has invoked, a 1st level commoner with a CON 8 has 3 hp (maximum hp on 1d4 HD for first level with a -1 adjustment for CON). Granting that the bats in question would have knocked our hypothetical wuss commoner unconscious (-1 hp) and dying, it might also be admitted that said wuss commoner would probably not be running around "harvesting" bats, instead preferring to run away, drive them out with a broom, or calling a friendly neighborhood War1 from the local constabulary to help with his bat problem. There is still, of course, an argument that the damage was on the high side. On the other hand, you might make that claim for any number of situations that arrise under D&D's coarse system of damage. It might seem improbable that a cat (1d2-4 damage) can do a hit point of damage--I have miraculously survived many combat encounters with cats, whether mock sparring or a sincere attempt to express displeasure--but anyone who has had a cat make an attack of opportunity on them (or, more sadly, had to corral and restrain a sick or injured pet for treatment) is aware that a cat does some damage on a hit (a much beloved friend, Springer, who passed away several years ago, had a tendency to confuse "play" with "mortal combat" and sometimes left scratches that were visible for days or weeks on humans he was fond of). D&D doesn't allow increments of less than a hp, nor does it have a conditional damage system like Blue Planet's (the rules of which correctly note that someone who has his nose broken in a fight is not suddenly more vulnerable to gunshot wounds). And the bottom line, the real point, remains that the DM has to make a judgement as to what sounds fair for an animal scratch or bite, be it a cat, bat, rat or animated hat. (Aren't I clever?)
freedeath 10-09-06, 05:14 PM	I definitely agree it can break the game if the DM continually applies the same results; the (relatively) high damage may have been a one-time occurrence, a "punishment" for some player's alignment transgression (I know, it was a Druid..... call me Cpt. Neutral), but you get the point. Constant arbitrary DM rules wrangling will kill a campaign; slowly, painfully and cheesily. ("Sure, that baby dragon will make a great pet..."); and, yes, your players need to know what they're getting into; I had another experienced DM hand me a Forgotten Realms sourcebook (100+ pages), when I wanted a break from DMing, and tell me to memorize it before I played in his campaign: I stuck to DMing instead....
MerlintheTuna 10-09-06, 05:19 PM	By the hallowed RAW, which someone around here has invoked, a 1st level commoner with a CON 8 has 3 hp (maximum hp on 1d4 HD for first level with a -1 adjustment for CON). Actually, this isn't true. Only PCs get full HP for their first hit die. The commoner in question has 1.5 HP, which generally means 1.
revnk 10-09-06, 05:35 PM	Actually, this isn't true. Only PCs get full HP for their first hit die. The commoner in question has 1.5 HP, which generally means 1. 1) You may be right--I only have the SRD available--but I wouldn't mind a cite for that. I'll certainly admit it if I'm wrong. 2) Although D&D fractions are generally rounded down, that isn't quite applicable here: a d4 generates an even spread of hit points, which means that 25% of Com1s roll 1, 25% roll 2, etc. Applying the -1 for CON8 means that 50% of Com1s have 1 hp but 50% have 2 or 3 hp. It's just as fair in other words, to say that a normal commoner has 2 or 3 hp, not 1. Of course, we're also talking about first level commoners and applying a straight-8 array; older commoners (perhaps oddly) may have quite a lot more hp than this thanks to higher levels--I mention this because I used a Com1 as a kind of baseline example, not because I have any idea what a "normal commoner" is. 3) If you're right, why aren't the streets piling up with dead commoners who have tripped on steps, walked into doors, cut their fingers making sandwiches, bumped their shins on coffee tables, slammed their fingers in drawers, etc.? I ask as a sincere rhetorical question, and if the humorously-offered daily accidents which should have killed me years ago are insufficient I ask you to substitute your own examples from the daily lives of medieval peasants: injuries related to carpentry, husbandry, farming and other trades. It may be that the rule you cite is another example of a poorly-thought out rule or of the crudity of the hit point system (which is absurd, but efficient). Anyway, I've been wrong before.
Ogmug 10-09-06, 05:44 PM	Actually, this isn't true. Only PCs get full HP for their first hit die. The commoner in question has 1.5 HP, which generally means 1. If you go by the quote in the DMG, page 107, under NPC classes: "Treat these classes as you would any other" Then you would give them max hps at 1st level (3hp for the commoner).
MarkB 10-09-06, 06:59 PM	If you go by the quote in the DMG, page 107, under NPC classes: "Treat these classes as you would any other" Then you would give them max hps at 1st level (3hp for the commoner). A standard Monster Manual elf warrior has a 1d8 hit die, Constitution 10, and 4 hit points.
Ogmug 10-09-06, 07:01 PM	A standard Monster Manual elf warrior has a 1d8 hit die, Constitution 10, and 4 hit points. Yep. That is why I said "IF" Also, you will not find an entry for "human" in the mm, so I suppose the default guideline above will have to do.
revnk 10-09-06, 07:33 PM	But... but... but.... If the DMG says one thing and the MM implies something else, that would mean... that would mean... it would mean there's some kind of discrepancy between two books, as if the holy RAW was somehow... imperfect. How... how could this possibly be? Will up be down? Will right be left? Will near be far? <gasp> How will Grover educate the future generations of America about opposites in such a mixed up, twisted world? * * * On a slightly more serious but nonetheless digressive note: it's always annoyed me that the 3.5 MM doesn't include humans but includes base humanoids like elves. When I was a wee lad who had seen but few winters, the AD&D Monster Manual included "Men" and all their subtypes (cavemen, berserkers, bandits, buccaneers, dervishes, pilgrims, and merchants) right there between pages 66 and 70, between Medusae and Mermen. I'd have to say Gygax et al. got it right insofar as making it clear that humans weren't especially privileged in the Grand Scheme, but what do I know?
Ogmug 10-09-06, 07:37 PM	But... but... but.... If the DMG says one thing and the MM implies something else, that would mean... that would mean... it would mean there's some kind of discrepancy between two books, as if the holy RAW was somehow... imperfect. Why do i get the picture of Revnk going "Does not compute"....... How... how could this possibly be? Will up be down? Will right be left? Will near be far? <gasp> How will Grover educate the future generations of America about opposites in such a mixed up, twisted world? He will ask Kermit. The Kermit knows all. * * * On a slightly more serious but nonetheless digressive note: it's always annoyed me that the 3.5 MM doesn't include humans but includes base humanoids like elves. When I was a wee lad who had seen but few winters, the AD&D Monster Manual included "Men" and all their subtypes (cavemen, berserkers, bandits, buccaneers, dervishes, pilgrims, and merchants) right there between pages 66 and 70, between Medusae and Mermen. I'd have to say Gygax et al. got it right insofar as making it clear that humans weren't especially privileged in the Grand Scheme, but what do I know? Yep.
Sergikins 10-09-06, 08:33 PM	If you're right, why aren't the streets piling up with dead commoners who have tripped on steps, walked into doors, cut their fingers making sandwiches, bumped their shins on coffee tables, slammed their fingers in drawers, etc.? because they have a buffer of 10 hitpoints to bleed out in.
chitzk0i 10-09-06, 09:03 PM	3) If you're right, why aren't the streets piling up with dead commoners who have tripped on steps, walked into doors, cut their fingers making sandwiches, bumped their shins on coffee tables, slammed their fingers in drawers, etc.? Because there's no damage listed for those things, so it's up to the DM to determine what damage they inflict. Hopefully, the DM will decide on an amount that upholds the versimilitude of his game.
guru7892 10-09-06, 10:05 PM	Your DM deviated from the published Bat statblock, causing 1.7 dmg per bat. OH. MY. GOD. Take your damage like a man. well at first level that can be very signifigant... Either way I want to see if Fluffy the commoner attacking cat can kill the three bats in a no holds barred smack down! If fluffy loses, give the cat a level in warrior and try again...
Nom 10-09-06, 11:16 PM	On hit points: DMG pg 110: "Elite characters (whether they are PCs or not) get maximum hit points from their first die. Average characters, on the other hand, have average abilities and don't get maximum hit points on their first Hit Die". On damage: while the DM can of course rule as he pleases, there's a certain verisimilitude issue when a bat's bite (teeth a few mm long) can cause damage comparable to a Medium shortsword (hunk of sharpened steel 60+ cm long). Admittedly, the system has an odd floor effect at 1 point, but 5 points isn't 1 point.
Matthew77 10-11-06, 01:45 PM	In our most recent game, the DM decided that three bats my Druid was harvesting would attack singly and bite me. He rolled up the hits and tallied the damage and informed me that my Druid had taken 5 hp damage. What exactly is "Harvesting a bat" ? Any why would you want to do it ? Druids are the beloved guardians of nature.... if they need a bat's help, they just ask nicely and the bat will most likely agree. If harvesting means "killing for spell components" or "catching and eating", then the 5 damage most likely came from the psychic pain of betraying the creature's trust and despoiling nature for your own benefit. -Matthew
Cifer 10-11-06, 04:26 PM	If harvesting means "killing for spell components" or "catching and eating", then the 5 damage most likely came from the psychic pain of betraying the creature's trust and despoiling nature for your own benefit. Catching and eating is most probably allowed for the druid. About killing for spell components... well, I've always known wizards are more ecological-minded - a fireball only needs some batcrap...
Shinryouga 10-11-06, 05:19 PM	Oh, the joys of freshly harvested bat milk! *Pictures scenes from Jackass2 and shudders* For creatures with negative damage due to strength penalties, I usually go with the solution Sean K Reynolds proposed on his private website. They do subdual damage, unless they take a -4 to go for lethal. That prevents most of the mage-killer-cats, and the druid-killer-bats, and such. In the end, D&D was mechanically built to support heroic exploits by beyond human characters. The rules are literally balanced in favor of PCs. NPCs, and critters below CR 1/2, just start falling through the logistical cracks in the system. But thats only because the system was built to represent how heroes interact in the world with dangerous monsters and powerful spells, not how commoners interact in the world with domesticated animals and dropped crockery. Its Dungeons and Dragons, not Kitchens and Kittens.
Sulaco 10-11-06, 05:22 PM	Thanks to the above two posters...my faith in D&D is a bit restored. Quite simply, the bat does exactly as much as the DM says it does. So if the bat pulls out a Luger and pops your for 30 pts you're cool with that? I guess it's just my group, then, who expect the DM to run a fair an equitable game using the published rules as a common baseline and who, when the DM deviates from said rules, does so with purpose and intent, not whim and ignorance. Unless there is a good and specific reason for those bats to do more damage than a normal bat is capable of then there is no valid reason for the DM to assign more damage to the PC.
Capt. Pixel 10-12-06, 12:03 AM	Thank you all for your responses on this subject. For those that seemed so concerned: I did 'take my damage like a man.' :P Taking damage from a creature wasn't the issue. The issue was having the DM trash the rules merely for the purpose of causing damage to a PC in excess of that listed under that creature's listing. Let me further explain the problem by citing another example of this DM's style of play. In an earlier game, we were a 12th level party battling his home-grown version of an 'Alien' (from the movies of the same name) I struck the Alien up-close-and-personal with my trusty Elven Thinblade, the critical hit dealt 26 points of damage and I was promptly showered by a spewing of acidic blood from the wound. (so far, so good. not really having a problem with the mechanics) Then the DM informs me that the PC (and his weapon) need to make a saving throws to avoid acid damage to the PC and to his weapon (sometimes this sh** happens, so still no problem with the situation except that the weapon save should usally only apply if the PC rolled a '1' on his saving throw) I asked the DM what the DC for the saving throw was and he informed me that the DC against the acid shower equalled the damage I had just dealt to the Alien. !!!!!!!!! :eek: Okay, NOW I have a problem. A saving throw DC of 26 is so far out of whack with the RAW that I couldn't sit quiet and not comment on it. This ruling was arbitrary and punishes the PC for doing well in a combat situation. I could find no precedent for this anywhere and was thoroughly disgusted with the whole situation. I present the above and the original situations as examples of this particular DM's style of play. A style that involves stacking up rule books next to the gaming table and then proceeding to ignore those books and the rules therein in lieu of 'winging it'. Winging it wouldn't be so bad if the DM is consistent in his rulings, but he isn't and tends to arbitrarily re-write the rules every game. Not only is this style confusing, but it's frustrating in the extreme. A player should expect that if he proceeds to 'harvest bats', that those bats will behave in a manner consistent with the rules. There's nothing special about them. they just hang in a belfry like the bats we all know and love. But in this DM's world, on any given Friday night, they have the ability to longsword damage at the DM's whim *************** Now, back to my original statement. It's DM training time. How do I explain to this DM that there needs to be consistency in his monsters, or his game becomes unplayable? I am seeking constructive advice to help explain to this DM that arbitrarily adjusting results is counter-productive to his game and eliminates the enjoyment of play. (Incidentally, 'constructive' doesn't mean comments like 'Pull out the hammer gun', 'walk from the table', 'find another group', etc.) I need help for this DM (who's a good guy, albeit a little misaligned) to improve his game, not to force him to abandon DMing. As an aside, we have been playing together since the early 80s. I DM, he DMs and we both play. So comments like he's an a$$ or I'm an a$$ are not useful to solving my situation. A little help is all I ask. Thank you, Capt. Pixel
DFoster 10-12-06, 01:29 AM	The DC of the acid increasing for more damage makes sense, after all a nick of 3-4 will obviously throw out less acid then a deep gash of 10-12 and both will throw out much less then your impressive hit of 26 damage. Now the DC calculation itself could probably use some work something like 10+1 per 3 damage would probably be more appropriate for a creature to be fighting level 12 characters. This would have given a DC of 18 or 19 for your attack still high but should be makeable at level 12 fairly often.
Thungrum_The_Exile 10-12-06, 04:48 AM	You all need to come to Australia, we have bats that are as big as house cats and could eat your hand if it stayed still enough. However you would be fortunate enough to not have to worry about rabies as that isn't here. (the bats are commonly refered to as a "flying fox" due to appearance, look them up if you want) As to the acid thing I would agree with DFoster in principle and would have to spend far too much time looking at mechanics to offer any other process so his looks good
Cifer 10-12-06, 08:42 AM	The DC of the acid increasing for more damage makes sense, after all a nick of 3-4 will obviously throw out less acid then a deep gash of 10-12 and both will throw out much less then your impressive hit of 26 damage. In most cases, I would agree with you - but it remains the fact that the character used an elven thinblade, meaning that the hit was more a very deep piercing than a large slashing. High damage can either be larger areas or more vital ones.
Arganis 10-12-06, 09:56 AM	Thank you all for your responses on this subject. For those that seemed so concerned: I did 'take my damage like a man.' :P Good! Taking damage from a creature wasn't the issue. The issue was having the DM trash the rules merely for the purpose of causing damage to a PC in excess of that listed under that creature's listing. The day the GM is forced to use monsters exactly as published is the day I will quit GMing. Modifying monsters adds unpredictability. If you want the same thing to happen every time you hit something, load up Diablo and clickclickclickclickclick your way to boredom without drawing your GM into it. Then the DM informs me that the PC (and his weapon) need to make a saving throws to avoid acid damage to the PC and to his weapon (sometimes this sh** happens, so still no problem with the situation except that the weapon save should usally only apply if the PC rolled a '1' on his saving throw) I asked the DM what the DC for the saving throw was and he informed me that the DC against the acid shower equalled the damage I had just dealt to the Alien. !!!!!!!!! :eek: Okay, NOW I have a problem. A saving throw DC of 26 is so far out of whack with the RAW that I couldn't sit quiet and not comment on it. This ruling was arbitrary and punishes the PC for doing well in a combat situation. I could find no precedent for this anywhere and was thoroughly disgusted with the whole situation. Not only is there precedent for requiring weapons to save on impact, but a DC 26 is not out of sorts for a level 12 character. DC Equals Damage Dealt has little precedent in the Core, but it has precedent in many supplements. Basically the deeper you wound the alien, the more acid it spews from the wound. It's actually a fairly representative mechanic, even if it does step out of the usual "DC = 10 + 1/2 HD + Stat Modifier" formula. Seriously, have you read the special abilities that some MM2-4 monsters get? If you have, then I can't understand why you'd think this ability came out of nowhere. The only problem I could possibly see with this situation is if the GM did not award XP appropriate for the difficulty of the encounter. I present the above and the original situations as examples of this particular DM's style of play. A style that involves stacking up rule books next to the gaming table and then proceeding to ignore those books and the rules therein in lieu of 'winging it'. Winging it wouldn't be so bad if the DM is consistent in his rulings, but he isn't and tends to arbitrarily re-write the rules every game. If the GM is actually changing the way he does things from session to session (and not just regularly deviating from the vanilla monsters you seem to be expecting), then your GM has a problem. Not only is this style confusing, but it's frustrating in the extreme. A player should expect that if he proceeds to 'harvest bats', that those bats will behave in a manner consistent with the rules. There's nothing special about them. they just hang in a belfry like the bats we all know and love. But in this DM's world, on any given Friday night, they have the ability to longsword damage at the DM's whim Once again, your expectation that the dash in the Monster Manual means a bat cannot cause damage is flawed. Hell, player-access to the Monster Manual is a priviledge that many GMs I know do not allow. It prevents this exact situation, where players whine and whine when they're facing something they can't flip to and figure out backwards and forwards. Could he have handled the situation differently? Yes. Should he have? Probably. What should you do now to ensure consistency? Ask him how much damage bats do. Hold him to it in the future. Since your GM seems to prefer customizing monsters, ask him if he's going to use the published effectiveness of knowledge skills. If he will, then pump some points into those skills and make rolls when you see a monster. Then he'll tell you what to expect. If he reduces the effectiveness of knowledge skills, resorting to "You don't know" no matter what you roll, then the problem is quite severe--and it is definitely his problem at this point, not yours. How do I explain to this DM that there needs to be consistency in his monsters, or his game becomes unplayable? I realize that my statements here are fairly one-sided. I am merely pointing out my opinions of the examples you've given. It is entirely possible that things are as you say, and your GM is making rookie mistakes while attempting to "wing it", and if that is the case then he could definitely improve his game by being more solid. I am seeking constructive advice to help explain to this DM that arbitrarily adjusting results is counter-productive to his game and eliminates the enjoyment of play. (Incidentally, 'constructive' doesn't mean comments like 'Pull out the hammer gun', 'walk from the table', 'find another group', etc.) I need help for this DM (who's a good guy, albeit a little misaligned) to improve his game, not to force him to abandon DMing. This is going to be the same advice anyone who posts a GM problem gets: Talk with him. Don't be confrontational. Make him understand where you're coming from. Simply explain that "the game would be more fun for me if..." You can't possibly think that "Find another group" is unconstructive (destructive?) advice. If you can't tolerate your GM's style, and he is unwilling to change it, then what advice do you expect to get? So far the only incidents you've posted have to do with Monsters being different from what is written--from what you expect. The GM has full license to do this. Unless you come out with some actual examples of your GM contradicting himself and being inconsistent (as in, one week grappling is done by touch attack and the next week by flipping a coin), my personal advice to you would be this: You're upset because you don't enjoy being surprised. Get over it.
revnk 10-12-06, 03:10 PM	It's DM training time. How do I explain to this DM that there needs to be consistency in his monsters, or his game becomes unplayable? I am seeking constructive advice to help explain to this DM that arbitrarily adjusting results is counter-productive to his game and eliminates the enjoyment of play. (Incidentally, 'constructive' doesn't mean comments like 'Pull out the hammer gun', 'walk from the table', 'find another group', etc.) I need help for this DM (who's a good guy, albeit a little misaligned) to improve his game, not to force him to abandon DMing. I suppose that one of my main issues with this kind of thread is that (a) the thread is called "What's a DM to do?" (not "What's a player to do?") and (b) that I suspect you're not looking for "help" so much as you're looking for ratifying opinions that you can whip your DM about the head with ("Read this thread, it says you're wrong!"). The latter assessment is supported by the fact that you answer your own question in your own post. You obviously are capable of saying to your DM something along the lines of: "There needs to be consistency in your monsters, or your game becomes unplayable. Arbitrarily adjusting results is counter-productive to your game and eliminates the enjoyment of play. You're a good guy, I'm just trying to improve your game, not force you to abandon DMing." That's simply a restatement of your "questions." You present them so articulately that it's hard to believe that you can't sit down and say exactly that to your friend. So I'm left with the conclusion that what you really want is to be able to say, "Four out of five DMs say that your rule about bat-damage was junk." Or, if not that, you at least want to feel vindicated about getting annoyed about it--it might even be something to mention behind your DM's back ("You know, I went on the boards about that last session with the bats, and everyone backed up my take on it..."). Well, no. If your DM needs "training" (and he might), perhaps he best seek it out himself. Aside from that, re-read Arganis' last post. I'd QFT it, but it should be easy enough for you to scroll up and re-read his answers for yourself, and his answers should be more than sufficient.