Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Mejdrich 09-10-07, 12:56 AM	My DM is almost never prepared, takes forever in combat, and when he’s caught off guard, he seems to just make things up. I’ve played in his game for a few months, and have twice caught him breaking the rules of the game. The first time was against a ‘boss’ where he just kept adding hps to keep the combat going, so he could have fun thrashing us. I checked in the MM after the fact. He added 400hps, but not a single extra xp for our trouble. The second time he caused a mass-suggestion spell of mine to fail against 4 random thugs (with low will saves). I knew the odds, so I pursued the issue. He said he just rolled “well”- in the realm of four 19s in a row. That’s 1000:1 against. He called me a rule-monger for catching that one. These are the times I solidly caught him, but there have been many others I’ve had a strong intuition he was just making up stats and dice rolls as he went along. I don’t expect to keep playing with this group much longer, but my question is, am I really crazy to see this as lazy, stupid cheating? I’ve run games myself, so I know that sometimes a DM has to make a small adjustment here and there to keep the game going, but at what point is it really just cheating?
runestar 09-10-07, 01:21 AM	It is an unavoidable double standard for beginner DMs. Give him some time to get his act together.:) Just don't sweat it.:)
BW0222 09-10-07, 01:24 AM	Mejdrich, The first time was against a ‘boss’ where he just kept adding hps to keep the combat going, so he could have fun thrashing us. I checked in the MM after the fact. He added 400hps, but not a single extra xp for our trouble. Maybe it had 15-levels of barbarian? Perhaps it had a template with DR? Maybe it had stone skin up? Maybe it was immune to certain damage types? Perhaps an invisibile creature cast a few heal spells on it? The second time he caused a mass-suggestion spell of mine to fail against 4 random thugs (with low will saves). I knew the odds, so I pursued the issue. He said he just rolled “well”- in the realm of four 19s in a row. That’s 1000:1 against. He called me a rule-monger for catching that one. And how did you know that they have low will saves? Maybe they had levels of monk or something? These are the times I solidly caught him, but there have been many others I’ve had a strong intuition he was just making up stats and dice rolls as he went along. I don’t expect to keep playing with this group much longer, but my question is, am I really crazy to see this as lazy, stupid cheating? You can never caugh a DM solidly. There may be things you don't know. I’ve run games myself, so I know that sometimes a DM has to make a small adjustment here and there to keep the game going, but at what point is it really just cheating? Sometimes cheating is necessary. Usually to recover from mistakes -- a fight which is too easy or too difficult, really bad rolls, some key plot event is supposed to happen (not that I like these), etc. However, if a DM doesn't prepare -- write out the stat blocks, make rough EL calculations, review combats, etc. -- then mistakes become far more likely and the need to 'cheat' to fix the situation becomes greater.
Eater_Of_Souls 09-10-07, 01:29 AM	Sounds like your DM is over his head with combat and choosing monsters that would be challenging. I have a few players who are somewhat optimized and even with that usual beefing up choosing a low CR monster that is a challenge and won't kill them out right is sometimes a challenge.
Kouk 09-10-07, 02:44 AM	First of all, rather than try to say he is "cheating", the first question should really be "Is everyone having fun?" It doesn't matter if you follow the rules religiously, take liberties occasionally, or completely ignore them, the job of the DM is to make a fun game. Personally, I prefer my DMs to follow the printed rules for the most part, especially in consideration to what the players are capable of, and I try to do things by the book when I am the DM as well. That said, what are the feelings of the other players? I like the mechanical interplay of the rules and such, it makes it more like an elaborate game of chess or something to that effect. Some people (and groups) are there for the storyline and the atmosphere, and don't really care that much whether all the rules are being followed as long as they have a good time. The DM can never "cheat", he is always following the rules. Specifically, the 0th rule: the DM is always right. See page 18 of the DMG.
runestar 09-10-07, 02:51 AM	The DM can never "cheat", he is always following the rules. Specifically, the 0th rule: the DM is always right. See page 18 of the DMG. Now you are just playing with words and you know it. The OP made it fairly clear what he meant when he chose to use the word "cheat". It means to deviate from the rules as written. Your "cheat" follows a different connotation - in that it assumes that the DM has carte blanche to change the rules any way he deems fit.
Salla 09-10-07, 04:19 AM	The answer is 'yes and no'. Yes, DMs can cheat, fudge die rolls, whathaveyou. The primary motivation is the issue. If he's doing it to correct a mistake he's made that results in an unfair encounter, or to ensure fun, then he's not really cheating, particularly if he issues it uniformly. If he's simply dropping an arbitrary screwjob ("Natural 20? No, that doesn't hit.") because he feels like shafting the players, then yes, he's cheating. As far as 'the DM always being right', see my sig.
Bopple 09-10-07, 04:39 AM	DM's would adjust the game to balance it and even 'cheat' to avoid awkward or ridiculous situations. Adding 400hp isn't all that much of a problem, depending on your lvl and optimization. Some highly optimized 20lvl multiclassed fighter/barbarians or gishes can do hundreds of damage per round(I am almost sure that your party is not the case here, but anyway). But at the nigh impossible save rolls of mere minions, calling you a rulemonger rather than showing you the proof how he could do the trick, simply sounds bad. He seems to be obsessed with DM vs PC war kind of fun for himself, no matter what it takes. He also seems to be a beginner.
Mejdrich 09-10-07, 05:03 AM	Thanks for all of the quick responses. I just want to reply and clarify a few things: You can never caugh a DM solidly. There may be things you don't know.Your right, and it seems my DM is using the fact that we can't know to change stats and rolls as he goes along. If he does add 15-levels of barbarian (and deny us the extra xp), or slip monks into thug disguises (without giving us a sense-motive to notice), then how is that different than cheating? To elaborate, in the case of the will saves, when we looted the four thugs, we found typical gear: longswords, chain shirts, 15gp . . . and four matching cloaks of resistance. Coupled with the four 19s, and it defies credibility. The DM can never "cheat"This unfortunate quote seems to be the source of most of my misery. In rereading the DMG, it seems to say a DM is not cheating to fudge rolls to save the lives of the PCs. In the case of my DM, it seems he's changing stats and rolls mid-combat to nerf the PCs to save his NPCs. Thanks for the comments, everyone.
kriskey 09-10-07, 11:13 AM	It would personally drive me nuts. And has, in the past. I just feel there is a sort of obligation that combat be done as fairly as possible. If it's fudged on behalf of the players (or even if the DM uses clearly sub-optimal strategy with his monsters), then the victory is hollow. If it's fudged on behalf of the monsters, the player starts feeling like his actions have no effect. That it really is about faked excitement to me. Some people it doesn't bother, though.
BloodDragon 09-10-07, 11:17 AM	Now you are just playing with words and you know it. The OP made it fairly clear what he meant when he chose to use the word "cheat". It means to deviate from the rules as written. Your "cheat" follows a different connotation - in that it assumes that the DM has carte blanche to change the rules any way he deems fit. It's cheating if the DM does not imform the player's, however so long as the DM says what he is doing it's free game.
Nephlite 09-10-07, 11:19 AM	On that subject: the wizard in our party used Evard's Black tentacles on a enemy Wizard and fire giants on a bridge. (enemy wizard) He somehow got out: our spellcraft said it was dispel magic that ended the effect, but the Samurai could see invisible creatures and saw none. Did he somehow dimension doored or teleported in with the fire giants with a delayed dispel magic because he can't cast somatic spells while grappling? Can you dimension door and cast....I thought that you couldn't do any actions.
Spikes01k 09-10-07, 11:22 AM	Sorry to try and top you, but my GM in our last game stretched the radius of a m-disjunction spell by 10-20 feat! Just so he could catch both me and another player in it. This caused me to lose over 300k worth of items! He just could not stand to have one of the two of us to be effected by the spell. I was furious! It was a dirty trick that everyone saw it happen and everyone just went along with it. Little does my GM know, most of my power comes from my build, not my items, he is going to be facing over 445d4 points of damage due to four +38 to hit attacks. It was a very un-polite thing for him to pull but he is going to suffer for it. P.S. That is also not including the additional damage from four +32 shock trooper 4D6+12 claw attacks from the dive attack. LOL !!! That stinking dracolich is going down in 1 round.:schemes: P.P.S. thats 493 minimum damage.
ForestFawn 09-10-07, 11:42 AM	It sounds like a new dm that has not got his feet under himself yet. Best thing to do is not say anything when all those thugs pass the save. Just chalk it up and scribble a little note on your paper. Then after the game, Email the DM and say whats up. Alot of New DM's hate being called on things in the middle of the game, and can turn sour and start doing even worse acts because of it. If it really bothers you, wait untill you get home and type out a email. Explain the situation and make sure the rules are clearly understood. Oftentimes a DM will make a bad rule call trying to speed up the game play or keep things simple, Sometimes they just dont know. But Throwing down the guantlet on the spot is not going to help you, even if your right.
Clawhound 09-10-07, 12:09 PM	I think the better question is, "Is he playing fair?" As DM's have discretion, they can and do make qualitative decisions that are outside the rules. This is their job. By definition, they can't cheat. Fairness is an entirely different question. Unfairness happens when the social contract between you is breached. You feel the DM treated the party unfairly. You need to speak up and work out the "house rules".
BW0222 09-10-07, 12:30 PM	Mejdrich, Your right, and it seems my DM is using the fact that we can't know to change stats and rolls as he goes along. If he does add 15-levels of barbarian (and deny us the extra xp), or slip monks into thug disguises (without giving us a sense-motive to notice), then how is that different than cheating? XP is based on risk. It is based on the EL calcuation of the combat. The DM is free to adjust it up of down for a variety of reasons -- number of PCs, likelyhood of surprise, PC wealth above/below recommended levels, beyond a 28-point buy stats, prior warning about the encounter. If he needs to add 400hp to a monster to make it challenging, then it isn't beyond reason that he has determined that your party is overpowered to your APL. A normal monster is obviously too easy so you would get say half XP for defeating it or normal XP for defeating a more powerful monster. It isn't cheating because you don't know. He isn't presenting you with his APL/EL calculations. That is like saying someone cheated at poker and yet you never called him. In D&D, players never see the DMs cards, so you can never really call him on it. I don't mind grumbling about the DM not taking the time to stat out monsters, doing the APL/EL calculations, etc. before hand. However, even if they do, sometimes they realize they made mistakes (too hard or too easy) and have to adjust things on the fly to make the game fun. It isn't 'cheating' if the DM is adjusting what he planned in order to make the game more enjoyable for the players. And since you never know why he is doing this (or that he actually did it in the first place), it's kind of poor to assume that he isn't doing it based on good motivations. To elaborate, in the case of the will saves, when we looted the four thugs, we found typical gear: longswords, chain shirts, 15gp . . . and four matching cloaks of resistance. Coupled with the four 19s, and it defies credibility. And how did you know they needed a 19? Why couldn't they have levels of monk or some other high-will save class? Why couldn't they have reasonable wisdom scores? Why couldn't they have iron will as a feat? Maybe they had potions of owl's wisdom or spell immunity cast on them by someone? This unfortunate quote seems to be the source of most of my misery. In rereading the DMG, it seems to say a DM is not cheating to fudge rolls to save the lives of the PCs. In the case of my DM, it seems he's changing stats and rolls mid-combat to nerf the PCs to save his NPCs. IMO, it is poor DMing, not cheating. You assume that he is trying to save his NPCs. Maybe he is just trying to make the combat exciting, so that you don't end it in three rounds? Such combats are typically a let-down. Honestly, the difference between cheating and good DMing, is that a good DM can cheat without anyone catching on. It is done far more subtly. He'd likely get better results if he... 1. Took more time to review the combats, write out the stat-blocks, do the EL calcuations, review the PCs, pre-think about intelligent tactics, etc. 2. Fudges in less obvious ways. Just bring in another group of thugs, a second monster, etc. rather than trying to adjust monster stats on the fly. 3. Realized that it isn't necessary to take all combats to the max. If a combat isn't designed as a climatic finish... and the PCs are kicking the snot out of it... it isn't necessary (or logical) that all combats are perfectly balanced to take PCs to the max. 4. Realized that at higher APLs it is extremely hard to create balanced combats. Folks have too many abilities, spells, etc. which can nerf a combat in single round. That tends to work both ways. 5. If plot requires that NPCs survive, win, or escape, then he'd be better off really thinking about it and ensuring that the NPC is really able to pull this off. If you don't want any possiblity of him captured or killed, then make sure you are using projected image, word of recall, behind a wall of force, or something to ensure that he can't be happen.
Myers 09-10-07, 12:59 PM	As asked before, is the rest of the group besides you having fun? Did anyone die? General rule of thumb in D&D for finding out who is at fault, if only one person is not having fun, if everyone except one player is having fun, it's the unhappy person who needs to find a new group, Now if the DM is the only one having fun, the players should invoke their rule 0 and either try and help the DM or to replace him. Cheating to kill the players is one thing, that is classic poor DMing, adjusting a creature to make the battle more drawn out more dramatic is perfectly legitimate. To be quite honest as a 3rd party I have more of a problem with a player looking up stats of a monster, then I would of a DM adding more HP to a creature etc. Fudging rolls, HP etc to save a player is a trick new DMs should utilize until they get the hang of making the encounter balanced, however adding HP etc to prevent the great epic boss fight from ending in half of a round is also a perfectly legitimate tool. Being able to change things on the fly is actually a trait of a good DM, but more experienced DMs are more transparent about it. When I first stepped into the DM chair, I was picking up on an adventure of which our previous DM was well, psychotically generous. IE a level 5 party on 60 point buyout, average wealth of 300K etc... For a while I had to ramp everything up, and no I didn't want to give XP to the point where everyone levels at a insane pace to have everyone level into their current wealth level. Did this new DM pick up a pre-existing game? He may be in over his head dealing with what the previous DM left behind, if this is the case he's best scrapping and starting from scratch.
Aberlonian 09-10-07, 01:08 PM	I am a DM and I "cheat". I sometimes fudge a dice roll to cause a bad guy to hit when it would otherwise be a miss, especially if the party is breezing through the encounter without being hit. I am also just as likely to fudge and cause a bad guy to fail a save if the situation warrants it. I try to make sure the players are having fun. I will let the dice fall as they may, for the most part, but if the players are having an unusual string of luck (good or bad), I'll tend to break it up with a fake roll here and there. I also have fudged listen, spot, knowledge and gather information checks to allow the PCs to notice something integral to the plot. It's just part of being a DM and keeping the game moving along and fun for everyone. If you aren't having fun, then the DM isn't performing properly. Fudging rolls isn't really the problem, it's the mentality behind the DM screen.
Cartigan 09-10-07, 01:25 PM	I also have fudged listen, spot, knowledge and gather information checks to allow the PCs to notice something integral to the plot. Neither here nor there but if you have to do that, I'd have to saying you're doing it wrong. Anyway, all the excuses for the DM sound iffy. It doesn't sound like he was fudging rolls, he was making up stuff he goes to get outcomes he wanted in spite of the PCs.
kriskey 09-10-07, 01:26 PM	As a player, I usually prefer this kind of fudging is minimalized. If the players are just getting destroyed by mistaken DM planning or an overestimation of their abilities, I'm cool with the occasional deus ex machina. If the monsters are just getting destroyed, I think it's generally better just to do a better job in creating the encounters next time around than to fudge die rolls. But that's just me as a player. I have no interest in a game in which I do not legitimately determine the outcome -- or a part of it. Once I feel the game is "fixed", my interest wanes substantially. It's not storytelling time. It's not an acting class exercise. It's gaming. And my own strategic decision making is an important part of the fun. From my own perspective, the obstacle needs to be determined ahead of time, and a large part of the fun is in seeing if I can overcome that obstacle without a constantly-shifted set of rules designed to create false drama. Really, creating false drama is self-defeating because I soon realize my actions are less important. And suddenly the game just isn't dramatic at all.
kainpendragon 09-10-07, 04:12 PM	To the OP 1 your Dming rolling 3 19's in a row is not unlikely as your may think. Your dm may have done a group saving throw for his bad guys to make it move faster. I my self have done this one many occasions When I dm as well as group Inish and it suggest doing this in the dmg to save time. You can expect a dm to do this more if he is unprepared. 2 the Dmg also states to give out exp based on how the dm feels the encounter went. Hence forth If the fighting going too easy for the group to lower the xp giving and it suggest lowering it greatly. 2 sometimes 3 encounter levels. In your case your dm decided to make the encounter hard by add hps. In actually he may not have raised level of the creature. He may have just maximized the creatures hit dice instead of taking the quarter witch is normal listed in the monster manual. 3 if you have a problem with all this quit the game. I am sure your DM won't mind if you do. You being a stickler for what are printed rules are in a game with a dm that more then likely just trying to have fun. You have two opposite styles of game play and more then likely should not play together. You two are going to butt heads often and up making it no fun for everyone else. 4 Be gratefully because I am pretty sure you DM has killed the entire party more then once and let you live because he fudge his damage roles or attack role. I taught my players that lesson long ago. I removed my DM Screen and let me see all my roll and they realized very quickly that they get whipped out often. 5 Stay out of the MM as a PC is none of your business to be in there during or after the game. If I was your DM you would be out of the group. The only time anyone other then the dm has the right to go in there is when they summon a monster. I would hope you would enforce a similar rule in your games if you DM. You’re blatantly Meta gaming when you go in there and look something up.
Aberlonian 09-10-07, 04:15 PM	Neither here nor there but if you have to do that, I'd have to saying you're doing it wrong. Doing what wrong, exactly? I run published adventures and sometimes the players fail some rolls that would otherwise bring the adventure to a halt. Especially if they've deviated from the written plot. I don't see this as doing it wrong, but I guess you're entitled to your opinion. My point is that fudging rolls is pretty common, and it's even mentioned in the DMG. If the fudging is done in secret and it only serves to make the game more fun (and I don't consider too much deus ex machina fun, FWIW), then that's not a problem. If the DM has a DM VS Player mentality, and is constantly fudging against the PCs, then it is a problem with the DM.
Cartigan 09-10-07, 04:23 PM	Doing what wrong, exactly? I run published adventures and sometimes the players fail some rolls that would otherwise bring the adventure to a halt. What I mean is, a storyline being brought to a halt because of some dice rolls on something like search or spot seems like a badly planned storyline. And what is with this forum geez.
Mejdrich 09-10-07, 09:04 PM	Thanks for responding, everyone. It’s been a help clarifying my views. I’ll probably solve this one by finding a better group, but I did want to respond to a few things: I have more of a problem with a player looking up stats of a monster Normally, I would agree. In this case, I was deeply suspicious that the DM was spiking the mobs mid-combat, so I double-checked to be sure. And let's be honest, most of us have DMed at one point or another, so we’re not exactly MM virgins. The number of monsters with over 400hps makes a very short list. Dragons and the Tarrasque, I think. the Dmg also states to give out exp based on how the dm feels the encounter went Really? I’ve never heard that xp was based on a DM’s “feeling”. The DMG has charts for xp, and as I player, it seems reasonable to expect the DM to use them. If the game runs on DM “feelings”, then what’s the point of rolling dice in the first place? Several people keep making the point that the DM can change whatever rules they like, whenever they like, on the excuse that it’s for the greater “fun”. I’ve got to be honest - this just seems like lazy DMing. With this attitude, why buy a DMG in the first place? If a DM throws out the DMG, fine, but we aren’t playing D&D anymore, we’re playing Calvinball. In any case, I can understand the subtle bending of rules for the greater fun of the group, but I don’t know anyone who thinks it’s fun getting their character constantly nerfed. Even the other players in the group have complained about the constant Deus Ex Machina, the slow combat (400 extra hps will do that), and the dickish nerfing of player ideas. But, they’re all old friends who don’t want to rock the boat by actually doing anything about it. As I said, I'll probably settle this by finding a better group, but I’m still shocked by people who arbitrarily decree that a DM is immune to cheating. It’s a game. Even a referee can cheat. Thanks again.
wonlee76 09-11-07, 10:45 AM	Normally, I would agree. In this case, I was deeply suspicious that the DM was spiking the mobs mid-combat, so I double-checked to be sure. And let's be honest, most of us have DMed at one point or another, so we’re not exactly MM virgins. The number of monsters with over 400hps makes a very short list. Dragons and the Tarrasque, I think. well, since you're not a novice player and have DM'd before, you are aware there are plenty of bad guys with DR which may have reduced the 400 points of damage you dished out to something like 200 or less right? (DR 10/- is a personal favorite of min not to mention resistances/immunities to energy to diminish the effects of spells). Also, there are advancing HD rules for a batch of monsters so whatever thing you fought, it could have extra HD through those rules or simply a few extra class levels which would give more HP.
Shadowhowler 09-11-07, 11:11 AM	It's all subjective, like so much in D&D. (and life.) For me, it comes down to the same thing a few other poster said... is the game any fun? Do you and the other players enjoy the game? If so... who gives a crap if you think the DM is 'cheating'? If you and the other players are NOT having fun... is it realted to the 'cheating'? Is it that the game seems to have no internal consistency, and the DM seems to fudge every encounter to try and screw over the players? If so... the guy is a poor DM. He may be new and inexperinced, in which case you guys should talk to him, offer some advice. Maybe you should take over DMing for a bit... show him how it's done, maybe he will learn. If he is not new, and thats just the style of play he likes... 'DM vs Player' kinda games... then you may just need to stop playing his game. If it's just *YOU* that dosn't like the game... becuase of the percived 'cheating'... but the other players are having fun... then you should quit and find a game with a DM who sticks more to the RAW, as that is what you enjoy. I fudge stuff *ALL* the time... which is not to say I don't do prep-work, I do. I often have the game maped out for 10 or more sessions in advance, and I never use published modules, I always create the story myself. However, I CONSTANTLY change monster is the MM, alter them... or make up my own. I don't want my players going 'Oh yeah, it's an Owlbear, this will be easy.' If a DM fudges to make the game better.... good DMing. If he fudges to make it worse, he is an a$$hat.
RobbyPants 09-11-07, 11:33 AM	In terms of the "adding 400 HP", I don't see a huge problem with it. I've often had BBEGs die fast, and I sometimes fudge the HP a bit to give a better fight. Now, if the DM keeps adding HP while players are dying, he needs to be shot with a hammer gun. The only time I add HP to a monster is if the PCs utterly trounce it, and I want to give them the satisfaction of a little longer fight (without any seriously increased risk of PC death). So, in a nut-shell, if everyone's having a good time, then I see nothing wrong with adding HP to the monsters. As for the four thugs auto-saving (assuming they did have low Will saves), he's being a dick. Nothing is more annoying than a DM constantly thwarting standard PC abilities just because he forgot to take them into account. It's one variation (or manifestation) of railroading. The Complete Arcane has a section in the back for DMs giving them advice at how to handle certain types of spells without coming up with contrived ways to work around them. The DM just needs to plan better. I mean, if the whole crux of his adventure hinges on four low-level mooks being able to make a Will save, then there's a big problem here.
Ariana Iriliel 09-11-07, 01:58 PM	Waaaay back in the 80's, when I was DM, I used to change a lot of rules (there were less back then, anyhow, so it was easier) but my group knew before hand. Afterall, it is supposed to be creative. But in some situations, until I understood something properly, I would create my own way of doing it. It was more about simplifying the process to make the game flow nicer. I would occasionally change a few things adding a hit point here, taking one away there, if it looked like it would help out the adventure better in a fruitful way, but I would never have set up a situation where the characters were dying left and right while I kept changing things behind their back. That part is definitely not playing fair. I had one member who was taking a fit, because her character was about to die. Sure enough, next round she rolled and kicked the bucket. The campaign was finishing that night, anyhow, so to keep her busy while the rest played it out, I had already started to flesh out an exciting new character for her to be in the next adventure and told her to look it over and use the PHB to enhance it. She was happy as pie while we continued to play. I could have just let her sit and stew over the fact that her beloved character had croaked and watched us for another hour or so having a blast, but as a DM I had listened to her little comments about "I wish I had been a... I wish I had a..." and it paid off. Sometimes breaking the rules and bending a bit is worth keeping the peace and the group together and just having plain fun. Cheating, OTOH, is not going to work out well. He is cheating the players if he is purposefully making trouble that shouldn't exist, and he is cheating himself out of being a good DM.
Thanuir 09-11-07, 02:10 PM	It's cheating if the DM does not imform the player's, however so long as the DM says what he is doing it's free game.Exactly. I once asked my group if they want me to fudge to save PC lives. One response was "I don't care, just don't let me know." He was accepting fudging on my part, so it would not be cheating. But if the players expected a cutthroat ame of wits on the fields of battle and never had the chance to die, that would be cheating. In your case, I'd ask what kind of game the GM wants to run and if he wants any help with balancing encounters.
Alyri 09-11-07, 04:24 PM	Instead of keeping things vague, what's your character and what creature was fudged?
Gagnrath 09-11-07, 05:21 PM	The DM I play with does this and more he's been playing for 20+ years and dming 10+ he's also really bad at adding varients or changing past rulings at whim. I hate hit but in my area other regular games are at bad times with my life.... its really really close as to weather i walk or not. At first i was feeling it might be his transition between additions but its been going on and he's been playing dming 3.5 for 3+ years now.
Mejdrich 09-11-07, 07:56 PM	Instead of keeping things vague, what's your character and what creature was fudged? It does seem a little beside the point, but we were a party of 5 at 10th-level fighting a half-fiend human with class levels. Even optimized for durability, there is just no way. A few people keep pointing out ways I could be mistaken, but I’ve already taken into account the DR, unusual buffs (we detected magic), etc. Frankly, my DM isn’t creative enough for some of the other things that have been mentioned. I guess I have to ask that you trust my judgment. I know my DM, and if I wasn’t sure he was just adding hps until he was done with the fight, I wouldn’t waste your time by posting about it. This time, the DM really was making up rules as he went along. Another one of his prize moments was when our cleric cast Speak With Dead on a foe. “Where can we find our friend that you took prisoner?” He answered, with a wide grin, “In the material plane.” He then went on to explain that he expected her question to be specific. By that, we would speculate that she would have had more luck asking, "Where can we find our friend that you took prisoner, specifically.” (as an aside, we found out where he was being held shortly after this, so it wasn't a case of ruining the story or any such thing) What baffles me is the way people in my group, and some people here, will defend this kind of behavior. If a player were to fudge rolls or give himself extra hps for “the good of the story” or “the fun of the game”, we wouldn’t hesitate to call them a cheater. So why do we make excuses for a DM with obviously less honorable motives? Why the double standard? Btw, I’m still grateful for all the replies. I don’t think I can save the game I’m in, but I really appreciate the perspectives from everyone. Thanks again.
wonlee76 09-11-07, 09:01 PM	What baffles me is the way people in my group, and some people here, will defend this kind of behavior. If a player were to fudge rolls or give himself extra hps for “the good of the story” or “the fun of the game”, we wouldn’t hesitate to call them a cheater. So why do we make excuses for a DM with obviously less honorable motives? Why the double standard? Because the DM's fudging sometimes works in the PCs favor. I've been known to fudge dice rolls in favor of the PCs. Suddenly the baddies bonuses to hit or do damage decreases for mysterious reasons in mid-fight in fact! Its a matter of entertaining the players. A 1 round BBEG fight is one of the worst things that could happen for a DM. All that effort to build up to the fight and watching the Wizard PC finger of death him and call it a day. I will fudge that save roll on some occasions or I'll slip in a Scarab of Protection on him for the PCs to take as loot (minus a charge for stopping the finger of death).
Bopple 09-11-07, 09:13 PM	You already know the answer. As you said before, sometimes, you cannot go on or have fun without some dm's 'cheatings'. The real question is, can you have fun, with obvious & obnoxious cheatings? I can't. But I met people who can willingly. I can't understand them. But I don't blame them nor get upset with them(though slightly annoyed). You don't have to, either. Let them be.
Shadowhowler 09-11-07, 09:54 PM	What baffles me is the way people in my group, and some people here, will defend this kind of behavior. If a player were to fudge rolls or give himself extra hps for “the good of the story” or “the fun of the game”, we wouldn’t hesitate to call them a cheater. So why do we make excuses for a DM with obviously less honorable motives? Why the double standard? Thats just it tho... it DOES depend on his motives, to me. If he just fudges things becuase he likes to run a 'DM vs Players' sort of game, then he is an a$$hat. If, however, he fudges things to make the game better... then he is NOT an a$$hat, but a flexable, creative and good DM who dose not feel that RAW is more important then the story or a good time. You never answered my questions before... about weather or not you are the only one who has a problem with the things he does. If so... then it's obvously a playstyle issue you have with the DM, and you should leave the game. If ALL the players are annoyed with what he is doing, you should all talk to him about it, and if he won't fix it, you should all quit and someone eles can run. It's really that simple.
kriskey 09-11-07, 11:57 PM	Ok, I'm obviously the minority here. Frankly, I'm amazed at just how much in the minority I am. I'm not saying the DM can't -- rarely -- fudge things. I'm not that absolute. But come on. If the players defeat something with the help of a coddling DM, there is nothing to be excited about. More class abilities? Yipee. How exciting is that when you aren't really controlling the outcome? If I discover the DM is regularly fudging anything, my interest is completely gone. Game over. I'm immediately bored. The DM can ensure that the outcome is beatable ahead of time. But the *characters* should really get to resolve it.
Thanuir 09-12-07, 04:09 AM	The DM I play with does this and more he's been playing for 20+ years and dming 10+ he's also really bad at adding varients or changing past rulings at whim. I hate hit but in my area other regular games are at bad times with my life.... its really really close as to weather i walk or not.Talk to him. Or/And go find more people to play with (http://www.neabygamers.com). Its a matter of entertaining the players.When I am playing, I am trying to entertain the players and the GM. When GMing, I am trying to entertain the players. Where's the difference?
Mejdrich 09-12-07, 06:34 AM	You never answered my questions before... about weather or not you are the only one who has a problem with the things he does.Sorry, I felt I had covered that in post 24. Everyone complains, but they aren't unaminous on standing up to the DM (for a lot of the same excuses the skeptics here are bringing up). Like I've said twice before, I probably will have to just find a better game. To be honest, I really am shocked at how many people here have leapt to the defense of my cheating DM. I’ve given three examples of him breaking the rules, I’ve shown how in all three they were for his selfish enjoyment, but still the arguments come. I usually enjoy a good discussion, but the same arguments are stopping my fellow players from straightening out the DM and having fun. Back when we were obnoxiously young teens, and the DM was the only guy who owned the books, the idea that ‘DM is god’ was more defensible. But when adults with 10+ years of gaming experience fall back on noob thinking, it’s a sad thing to watch. There was a point, when the players became as skilled with the rules as the DM, when we all got jobs and grew up, that the idea that the DM is right because they were a DM became a really poor reason. These days I expect the DM to follow the rules as closely as he expects me to. When he breaks rules with good intentions, I see a lazy DM. When he ignores rules with bad intentions, players do us all a disservice by not calling out, cheater!
Sterling 09-12-07, 09:16 AM	Definitely sounds like its time to rally the troops (the other players, of course) and go have a chat with the DM. The point when the players stop having fun is the point when the DM needs to change something. Try being polite and as non-confrontational as possible - you tend to get better results that way. Its possible that he isn't actually just trying to mess with all of you. He might be oblivious enough to think that it makes the game more fun for you. In which case, explaining to him that you aren't actually enjoying yourselves might clear things up. If he decides to be unreasonable, it's probably time to see if anyone else in the group wants to run something. Its just a game. If you aren't having fun, what's the point of playing? Personally, I totally disagree that DM's should always be held down by the rules. I fudge all the time. And, yes, my players are aware of it (generally because I tell them - no one ever seems to notice when we're playing) and don't care. Why? Because they're having a good time. Mind you, I don't really fudge the RULES only the occasional ROLL. I try to be flexible but consistent with the rules, and all the good DM's I've played under do the same thing. Its definitely something that players and DM's should discuss to see how much flexibility everyone is willing to tolerate.
Alyri 09-12-07, 10:24 AM	These days I expect the DM to follow the rules as closely as he expects me to. When he breaks rules with good intentions, I see a lazy DM. When he ignores rules with bad intentions, players do us all a disservice by not calling out, cheater! Have you played in a game where the DM follows RAW?
RobbyPants 09-12-07, 11:16 AM	It does seem a little beside the point, but we were a party of 5 at 10th-level fighting a half-fiend human with class levels. Even optimized for durability, there is just no way. A few people keep pointing out ways I could be mistaken, but I’ve already taken into account the DR, unusual buffs (we detected magic), etc. Frankly, my DM isn’t creative enough for some of the other things that have been mentioned. I guess I have to ask that you trust my judgment. I know my DM, and if I wasn’t sure he was just adding hps until he was done with the fight, I wouldn’t waste your time by posting about it. This time, the DM really was making up rules as he went along. Even still, did any PCs die? If not, don't worry too much about it. He probably just wanted a dramatic fight. If so, then he's going a bit too far. Effectively, he'd be breaking the rule to kill PCs. Hopefully not. ;) Another one of his prize moments was when our cleric cast Speak With Dead on a foe. “Where can we find our friend that you took prisoner?” He answered, with a wide grin, “In the material plane.” He then went on to explain that he expected her question to be specific. By that, we would speculate that she would have had more luck asking, "Where can we find our friend that you took prisoner, specifically.” (as an aside, we found out where he was being held shortly after this, so it wasn't a case of ruining the story or any such thing) Yeah, that is a bit of an A-hole thing to do. I did something similar (although not nearly this bad) to my players with Speak With Dead once, and they were still pretty mad. I don't remember the exact question and answer, but at the time, I felt they were basically asking the same question as they had just asked in different wording. Anyway, be careful once you're powerful enough to get Wishes with this DM. :P
drizzt420 09-12-07, 12:27 PM	First and foremost - is this DM preventing you from enjoying the game? Did the extra 400 HP lead to PC death or just a long drawn out combat? Was it boring or did you enjoy it? Regarding the suggestion spell, was it key that the thugs fail for you - did you NEED this to happen? Have you thought that maybe it was key for the DM to have these guys make their saves or that they had potential protective items? If you are undermining the intelligence of your DM it seems you have no respect for his game or him - why would you want to play under him as a DM anyways? Remember, as a player, the DM and all rules associated with D+D are just "guidelines" to go by. I would agree that there is a boundary to cross here and adding 400 HP to an opponent is a pretty large step over the boundary. On that topic, if you guys had 400 HP added to an opponent and still triumphed - it sounds like that "revision" to the monsters stats was potentially needed... If you are a party of five all @ 10th level then adding 400 HP to a single opponent is not that big of a deal. Maybe the DM was surprised at how quickly you guys decimated his villain? Doing 80 points of damage per PC at 10th level is not hard - in one round, yes but with four other companions to help you, why worry? Should the XP be bumped up as a result - not necessarily. Bottom line, if these rule bending procedures by your DM are ruining your enjoyment of the game - say something to him or direct him to this thread. As I said before, you speak as if you have no respect for your DM at all and have no faith in his game. Perhaps he will learn from his mistakes in the future. I have a PC in a game like you and I have to say I get very annoyed with his rule-nazi'ing. The game slows down incredibly when he starts complaining that page xxx says these events should of went this way. When a situation like this arises now, we do this: Write it down, have the DM make an educated guess ruling if appropriate (if the rules are in question) and look it up and discuss it after the game. Then in the future you will all know as a group what happens in said situation. This is what we do and it works very well.
Alyri 09-12-07, 01:32 PM	The second time he caused a mass-suggestion spell of mine to fail against 4 random thugs (with low will saves). I knew the odds, so I pursued the issue. He said he just rolled “well”- in the realm of four 19s in a row. That’s 1000:1 against. He called me a rule-monger for catching that one. It does seem a little beside the point, but we were a party of 5 at 10th-level fighting a half-fiend human with class levels. Even optimized for durability, there is just no way. Hmm.. Suggestion, Mass Enchantment (Compulsion) [Language-Dependent, Mind-Affecting] Level: Brd 5, Sor/Wiz 6 13th lvl bard for 5th lvl spells 11th lvl wizard for 6th lvl spells
Bopple 09-12-07, 07:19 PM	I don't think he is pointing out the levels exactly, because that was a past event. 1 lvl difference is pretty much nothing worthy of mentioning.
wonlee76 09-12-07, 11:28 PM	When I am playing, I am trying to entertain the players and the GM. When GMing, I am trying to entertain the players. Where's the difference? When I am playing, I am trying to find entertainment without ruining the fun for others. I've seen enough player actions to see the "me first" attitude ruining the fun of others (not all players but enough to know they exist). When I"m DMing, I am catering to the whole table as well as myself. There is a slight difference.
BilopTheFleshwarper 09-13-07, 02:20 AM	Yes it's cheating when the DM breaks the rules, it's not always wrong, but usually it is wrong. And to all the people who say the game is all about fun and as long as everyone has fun it's "ok" to cheat. I hope you die on the second disc. In a fire. Seriously, fun is not the only goal of games, and if it is your only goal, play "Apples to Apples" or "Roborally". I've been playing DnD for a long while, and I don't mind much, but I hate it when things get arbitrarily weaker or stronger based on how successful the players are currently being. I'd rather my character, fall to his death down the first pit trap he ever encounters than live till 50th level because the DM doesn't "like" to use monsters to their fullest and kill PC's. On the other side of that I feel no pity when players think that just because they're PC's they are invincible to the world, and something kills them cause they are too cocky to run away. But I absolutely hate it when the DM notices that he's beating the PC's and changes the monsters tactics to something stupid or just plain has them leave. That aside, this entire discussion is why it takes me a long time to get things prepared for game when I DM, cause I don't mess around with the monsters once I make them. If the players manage to deal with the thing in one round good for them, if it manages to kill them in two rounds good for me. In general once you're in the 10+ level range things start becoming about killing them as quickly as possible, either thru save or die effects or power attack/charge/2hander combo, or others. the things OP was talking about are all horrible attempts at makeing the game "fun for everyone" when if it was me, like the OP, I'd just get ****** off, and frustrated.
kriskey 09-13-07, 11:18 AM	Well said, Bilop, and I agree. I'm amazed at how few here have echoed your sentiment or feel that fudging to keep the players alive is the most fun way to play the game. Take the time as DM to design fair encounters, but don't fudge die rolls or employ stupid strategy. You really are doing a disservice to the players. They may be having fun anyway, but I bet they'd have more fun if they knew they genuinely defeated a fairly played and well-designed encounter. One of the best feelings in the game is that accomplishment (admittedly, this is my own opinion). If your monsters are being defeated too easily, on the other hand, suck it up and design a better encounter next time. Pump up those hit points in advance, if need be. But not during the enounter based on how it is going.
Thanuir 09-13-07, 02:11 PM	Have you played in a game where the DM follows RAW?Yes. One Ars Magica, two Burning Wheel ones. Both of those games are about as rules-heavy as D&D (AM may be a but lighter, but only a bit). These are the unfudged games I've been within two years. Also, all games I have GM'd for about three years: No fudging. No rules-altering midplay. When I am playing, I am trying to find entertainment without ruining the fun for others. I've seen enough player actions to see the "me first" attitude ruining the fun of others (not all players but enough to know they exist). When I"m DMing, I am catering to the whole table as well as myself. There is a slight difference.When I GM, I try to make it fun for everyone (me included). When I play, I try to make it fun for everyone, again, me included. If I know that one player's character is a traitor but my char does not, I try to give him a fun opportunity to betray us (fun meaning: nobody gets killed, but lots of fun action happens as a result of the betrayal, and hopefully the char's cover story is not ruined).
Dazzer 09-13-07, 03:24 PM	...or slip monks into thug disguises, without giving us a sense motive check First, a comment. Who is this man. He wears, a chainshirt, he carries, a quarterstaff, he has, a backpack, he looks strong, agile and tough. He has a backup weapon on his back (shortbow). He is human by all looks and accounts.... Remember, people can take feats to be proficient with martial weapons (like a shortbow). Is he. A rogue? A fighter? A warblade? A Monk who has 12 wisdom, and decided that chainshirt protected him better? A paladin? A blackguard? Is he a barbarian maybe? How can you know. Answer. You can't. Not all monks go around dressed up in monks robes with monk weapons. Some take proficiencies, some trick people into thinking their fighters, some consider themselves "brawlers". There isn't a sense motive check to determine class level... hell this guy could be a warmage with eschew materials (lack of spell component pouch). Or even a warlock, dread necromancer, etc... So. How do you tell? Does your DM literally state: "The monk enemy moves to flank with the enemy with 8 levels of Rogue." If he is saying this. That is wrong. The players aren't supposed to know the statistics of the NPC's unless it's fairly obvious. A goodly NPC who says; I'm a wizard from landtopia, I have information for you that I divined, in my lands I'm well known for my divining skills....*PC asks a question*.... No, I cannot cast fireball. Which could mean, won't or can't off-hand. It could mean he's 4th level. Or that he dropped evocation. It could mean he's a sorcerer, who didn't choose it. However; in this case, the players have a fairly good idea that he is a diviner of some level. Perhaps later he'll cast legend lore, and reveal to them that he is 11th level or higher. Who knows.
BW0222 09-13-07, 09:42 PM	BilopTheFleshwarper and kriskey, Like any social game, people play D&D to have fun. However, most folks would agree with the rational that not playing D&D is not fun. Therefore you want to minimize things which prevent folks from playing the game. Often one of these reasons is a character dying. Everybody either makes a new first level character and starts a new campaign, that player makes a new character, or you literally exclude a friend from participating in a social event. Neither of these are great solutions. The later is almost universally dismissed and the others can only happen so often before folks give up on you as a DM. I've been playing DnD for a long while, and I don't mind much, but I hate it when things get arbitrarily weaker or stronger based on how successful the players are currently being. You mean like first level characters face EL 1 encounters and 10th-level characters face EL 10 encounters? Gee... why aren't we expected to assign a giant stronghold at 3rd-level? Sorry, the entire premise of the combats is that things get arbitrarily stronger as you gain levels. Everyone knows this. The EL/APL system is designed to make encounters which are balanced, because those are fun. Ones which are too easy or too difficult aren't fun. I doubt anyone would play in any game where you just rolled a d20 to determine the EL of the combat. Game would end after one or two sessions. So, having accepted that the entire system "cheats" in order to make the game fun, I certainly don't see why one can't "cheat" when... a) Players are missing. b) You (being human) made a mistake in the EL calculation. c) The EL system (being written by humans) isn't perfect and you realize that an encounter is too hard or too easy. d) Through bad luck, having a bad day at work, etc. something doesn't go as planned. e) You didn't consider significant factors such as suprise, defensible positions, equipment, special abilities, etc. properly. f) You didn't run the encounter properly, put something out of initiative, had it use the wrong ability, didn't use an ability when you should have, etc. etc., etc. I agree that planning the encounters reduced the chance that one needs to 'cheat', as does realizing that if the encounter is too easy it is often better just to "fix" your mistake the next time, but in the 200-300 odd combats which make up a typical campaign it is insane to think that mistakes won't happen during this. IMO, part of the job of being a DM is to realize when something is going wrong and make a good-faith decision as to whether it is necessary to correct the situation. Personally, I'm certain willing to say that I make mistakes in planning out encounters. Some are too easy, others are too hard. I'm also more than willing to correct mistakes which are likely to end the campaign -- even if I don't notice the mistake until after the combat has started.
Shadowhowler 09-14-07, 12:36 AM	Sorry, I felt I had covered that in post 24. Everyone complains, but they aren't unaminous on standing up to the DM (for a lot of the same excuses the skeptics here are bringing up). Like I've said twice before, I probably will have to just find a better game. To be honest, I really am shocked at how many people here have leapt to the defense of my cheating DM. I’ve given three examples of him breaking the rules, I’ve shown how in all three they were for his selfish enjoyment, but still the arguments come. I usually enjoy a good discussion, but the same arguments are stopping my fellow players from straightening out the DM and having fun. Back when we were obnoxiously young teens, and the DM was the only guy who owned the books, the idea that ‘DM is god’ was more defensible. But when adults with 10+ years of gaming experience fall back on noob thinking, it’s a sad thing to watch. There was a point, when the players became as skilled with the rules as the DM, when we all got jobs and grew up, that the idea that the DM is right because they were a DM became a really poor reason. These days I expect the DM to follow the rules as closely as he expects me to. When he breaks rules with good intentions, I see a lazy DM. When he ignores rules with bad intentions, players do us all a disservice by not calling out, cheater! Well, if you are 100% sure he is fudging things just to get his rocks off on a power trip... and you can not talk to him about it, get him to change his ways... then you SHOULD ditch the game. I know I would. However... maybe your fellow players are not as sure as YOU are that that is the reason he fudges encounters. Maybe they are not as bothered by it as you are... becuase obvously they are unwilling to chalenge him on it. Really... playstyles varry WILDLY from group to group, player to player. You appear to be of the sort that wants everything done by the RAW, no changes, no fudges... the numbers and the dice are king. Not everyone feels that way... and I'll bet you your fellow players do not all feel that way... otherwise they would be right beside you, up in arms. I mean, honestly, if they all agree with you... why does one of you just not start DM, and not play with this guy anymore...? If ALL of you prefer and differant style of game... then he is the odd man out... he should go find a group that digs his style, and you guys can move on with yours. Playstyle and expectations of the game are VERY important... and you should not try stuffing a square peg into a round hole.
Vaelan 09-14-07, 05:57 AM	Yes, it is cheating when the DM breaks the rules. However, what the rules are is often left unspoken (you're appealing to a higher authority than the D&D books here, you know), so you can't really blame the DM most of the time.
Mejdrich 09-14-07, 06:31 AM	Zounds, I’ve got a lot of people to reply to. First up is Alyri, who is wondering if I’m making all of this up, by pointing out that:Suggestion, Mass - 11th lvl wizard for 6th lvl spellsBopple is right. We were I think level 12 when he pulled the four 19’s stunt. Sorry to disappoint. Dazzer the skeptical, thinks the thugs were monks:So. How do you tell? Does your DM literally state: "The monk enemy moves to flank with the enemy with 8 levels of Rogue."No, he described them as random thugs, which made sense with the situation, and they were using longswords and armor, which is inconsistent with a monk. But even if they were, the odds are still 123:1 against them all making their save, even after the cloaks of resistance that they all somehow managed to have. Please believe me that I thought through these kinds of possibilities before I posted. Sometimes a thug is just a thug, and sometimes a DM really is cheating. BWO222 is defending the DM right to fudge, if they have good reasons:Often one of these reasons is a character dying.Okay, but as I’ve said many times, and will continue to keep saying, that is not why my DM is breaking rules. Nine times out of ten he breaks rules to nerf us and keep his NPCs alive. He’s doing this because 1) he doesn’t do his homework, 2) as you said, has “a bad day at work”, and 3) generally has a mean streak. When a DM breaks the rules for these reasons, I’m still calling it cheating. However... maybe your fellow players are not as sure as YOU are that that is the reason he fudges encounters. Maybe they are not as bothered by it as you are... becuase obvously they are unwilling to chalenge him on it.First off, thank you for not assuming I’m a “rule-nazi”. I think my group, unfortunately, is stuck in the mindset that ‘DM is god’, and that’s as good as it gets. It’s sad, but I don’t think they’ve ever played in a game with a competent DM who actually spends the time to adjusting ELs before the game. Since I’m relatively new in their gaming circle, they simply aren’t willing to listen. Maybe I’ll get a chance to show them what a good DM is like, later down the road, but I don’t know that it’s worth the wait. Alright, I think this will be my last post. To be honest, I am a little surprised at some of the hostility, but at the least, I know my group is no more crazy then the broader D&D culture. ;) I appreciate everyone’s perspective and advice – it really has helped clarify my thoughts. Thanks!
Alyri 09-14-07, 10:47 AM	Rolling 4 19s is completely plausible. I never try to work out the probabilities, no point to it.
Man in the Funny Hat 09-14-07, 12:33 PM	The only way the DM can break the rules is when people are foolish enough to assume in the first place that the DM is FORBIDDEN to actually do the job he is there to do. The DM is there to adjudicate rules, which means that there AREN'T rules to cover every situation properly every time. The DM MUST therefore be allowed to dictate when the rules are insufficient or should be applied in different ways - both for achieving fairness, AND for achieving fun. This does not mean the DM is free to ignore the rules arbitrarily, but he should not consider himself EVER forcibly constrained by the rules from doing what is right or at least more fun for everyone. D&D is not a competitive game but a cooperative one. There is therefore no reason to assume that the DM must slavishly follow rules, perhaps in a misguided attempt to sacrifice the DM's creativity over "fairness", when allowing the DM creativity in creating and applying rules actually ASSISTS him in maintaining fairness and enjoyment by all.
kriskey 09-14-07, 02:36 PM	BilopTheFleshwarper and kriskey, Like any social game, people play D&D to have fun. However, most folks would agree with the rational that not playing D&D is not fun. Therefore you want to minimize things which prevent folks from playing the game. Often one of these reasons is a character dying. Everybody either makes a new first level character and starts a new campaign, that player makes a new character, or you literally exclude a friend from participating in a social event. Neither of these are great solutions. The later is almost universally dismissed and the others can only happen so often before folks give up on you as a DM. Believe me, I get it. But fudging is just less fun for me as a player, and I know that I'm not alone. There are a number of outs for an individual getting taken down. The whole "unconscious" system. Raise Dead. Resurrect. Allow a character to be created of the same general level. A nifty little deus ex machina *after* the unfortunate TPK (I vastly prefer this to the fudging of battle results because it doesn't give the player the illusion that *they* prevailed, and the player will always feel good when they actually did). I recognize that there are a no absolutes. But again, this is my preference. Design really good encounters. Don't fudge on the spot. The fact that there can be setbacks makes the victory that much more addicitve and rewarding. To me, at least. I would much rather miss half a session, but know that I am really controlling the story with my actions rather than being helped along by a DM who won't let me die.
BilopTheFleshwarper 09-14-07, 03:03 PM	BW0222, My comments were in regards to the original idea of a DM adding 400+HP to a creature, and to the idea that I brought up about the DM noticing he might slaughter the group and changes the Monsters obviously working tactics for something that would normally only have a small chance of working. Also you do know what I mean when I say, "things get arbitrarily weaker or stronger based on how successful the players are currently being" ? I mean in the middle of combat, the thing you've been fighting for a long time suddenly and for no reason gets tougher, if the PC's are doing well against it, or gets weak somehow and begins to perform actions not fitting to it's previous actions or style, if the PC's are getting trounced and it's obvious that if the monster had just continued doing what it was doing the entire party would have been TPK'ed. Also, if you are in a game that if one PC dies the entire group has to reroll new characters and start a whole new campaign, then the DM has made the game less fun in multiple ways by forcing himself into the position of either always saving PC's who are in danger of dying or not, and forcing the restart, because the game was poorly thought out. If you are in a game that if a PC dies he has to leave and never come back, your DM either already saves the party constantly and the only way you could ever die is thru suicide , or doing something so incredibly stupid they never want to see you again, or the group as a whole go out of their ways to make their characters as unkillable as possible out of habit, and just aren't used to the idea of someone dieing, and have a freak response. Finally, if a PC dies, the player can always just make another character. I don't see how that ostracise's the player, he gets to stay with the group in the same game. Sure he may be out for a bit while he puts the character together(20 minutes for low levels, hour or two for higher levels, more time for more levels obviously.) And if that person can't get the character done by end of the session to get it introduced then the player gets more time to work on it and flush out the details. As an example, I recently had a favorite character of mine die, relatively early into the game session, and before our meal break I had a replacement character ready to go over with the DM. My character was added, smoothly with an encounter, out of necessity he joined the rest of the group, due to their current adventure he'll keep assisting the group. The group was down a character for a bit, they tried to get him ressed( i refused due to level loss, was already 2 behind the group due to previous deaths), but the game continued on basically uninterrupted. But, like I said before, It is cheating for the DM to make things harder just because their monster isn't lasting as long as they wanted. Hiding behind "RULE 0" will never get you anywhere with me, The DM can be wrong, and if he cheats to get out of it or cover it up, he's not worth playing with, that is of course only if he did it on purpose(like the adding 400HP for no reason) I have no problem with a DM being "Creative" just don't change the way things work in the middle of combat. EDIT>>> Kriskey said it better than I did, I feel like I stuck my foot in my mouth after reading him say what I was trying to.
Ace_of_time 09-14-07, 03:11 PM	Half fiend cleric in the MM has resis all energy 10 and DR5/magic. That could explain those HPs. that's minus 5 per attack and any arua on weapon wouldn't matter and half the attack spells would be minus 10 points. Not including healing spell. It is a CR9. The thug could have been a race that get a bonus on saves, immune to the save, or Dominated by something, Or he could have just rolled high and you should be glad it was a save.
BW0222 09-14-07, 06:37 PM	kriskey, I recognize that there are a no absolutes. But again, this is my preference. Design really good encounters. Don't fudge on the spot. The fact that there can be setbacks makes the victory that much more addicitve and rewarding. To me, at least. Of course. Best option is always to design really good encounters. If all encounters were perfectly balanced, the DM never needs to fudge. However, it isn't realistic to expect that outcome. You have to plan 300+ combat encounters in a typical campaign. I'm the first to admit that I can't be expected to create that many encounters without making a few mistakes - overlooking something, not figuring something out, not playing something correctly, etc. There will be a night where I'm rushed, where a player doesn't show up and my "on the fly" adjustment to the APL doesn't work, I make a rules mistake, or the EL system just doesn't account for something - scrags aren't CR 5 for example (considering that fire doesn't work underwater), etc., etc. Now, if it is in the players flavor, IMO, let it slide. They have an easy fight. Fine. You've got 299+ chances to correct it. However, if it is going to end the campaign, I personally don't want a mistake (which I've even realized and could correct) to end the campaign. Player stupidity, really bad luck, evil plans, etc. are already capable of that. I would much rather miss half a session, but know that I am really controlling the story with my actions rather than being helped along by a DM who won't let me die. I guess I'm a bit more realistic. The DM is already helping me along and not killing me -- since I am expecting them to follow an EL system which gives me a 4-to-1+ advantage over my foes. I know this. I realize it is part of their job. The idea is to give us the advantage in combat so that the campaign last a significant number of sessions. So... it really doesn't bother me that when he or she makes a mistake that they fudge some dice rolls or adjusts something to prevent that mistake from occuring. Let me put it this way... would it bother you if you didn't know that the DM was cheating? If mid-way through the combat she realized that an encounter was too difficult, concluded that it was her fault, and say only had the monster breath every 4 rounds instead of 1d4? I assume that would be fine -- not that you would know to complain? If so, then we are only really talking about execution? Fudging is good if you don't get caught or folks don't know you fudged. If not, then what is the out? As a DM, you realize that you made a mistake after combat starts... and you really have no out. Is it better to just call it as scratch, stop the game, box-text them through the encounter, etc. or "fudge" to correct your mistake? IMO, as long as the DM looks at the situation and is "fudging" only to correct their mistakes in the encounter, fine. I'm not saying that keeping players alive is a sufficient reason to "fudge" if no mistake exists. Yes, the would just encourage stupid play and no sense of accomplishment. However, a DM needs to ability to look at why folks are getting slaughted in an encounter and consider the possibility that they may have made a mistake and have the ability to correct it on-the-fly. If it isn't a mistake (i.e. player stupidity, lack of planning, they aren't using magic items which they have, etc.) then by all means run the encounter to its likely conclusion. Do I like the original poster's DM? No, but my main criticism is not that he cheats, but that he isn't terribly good at it. We all "cheat" as DMs. Whether we use the EL system to setup encounters we know the PCs will win before combat starts or "fudge" encounters before the combat starts or after is a pretty fine line -- especially your players can't tell the difference. BilopTheFleshwarper, Also you do know what I mean when I say, "things get arbitrarily weaker or stronger based on how successful the players are currently being" ? I mean in the middle of combat, ... Two issues here. First, if you don't notice that it was changed during combat, is that OK? Honestly, if you don't notice, then you won't be complaining. Therefore, the issue isn't that the DM made things weaker or stronger after the combat started, but that they did so in a way in which you noticed. In which case, we are really talking about the DM being inexperienced at correcting mistakes in an acceptable way on the fly and not that he is wrong/bad for doing so. In the OP, I doubt we would be here if he DM fudged the encounter by having a second nasty walk in rather than adding 400hp to the current nasty. (Although we don't know that he did that -- it could be DR, magic, regeneration, etc. The OP is just assuming this.) Second, why the DM is doing it. I've already stated, IMO, that the only reason I would recommend doing so, is to correct a mistake I (as the DM) made in creating or running the encounter which likely leads to PC deaths. If I didn't make a mistake -- and it's the players fault they are dying -- then there is no need to correct it to save the PCs. As for why the OP's DM is fudging, we don't know this either. Perhaps he did run the ELs and made a mistake. Perhaps he didn't adjust the EL based on the party using more than a 28-point buy or higher than recommended wealth. Perhaps, he just never run the ELs to start with. I might consider him a poor DM for not preping the encounter, but that's different than assuming he is maliciously "cheating" the players.
kriskey 09-14-07, 07:18 PM	I'm not saying that keeping players alive is a sufficient reason to "fudge" if no mistake exists. Yes, the would just encourage stupid play and no sense of accomplishment. However, a DM needs to ability to look at why folks are getting slaughted in an encounter and consider the possibility that they may have made a mistake and have the ability to correct it on-the-fly. If it isn't a mistake (i.e. player stupidity, lack of planning, they aren't using magic items which they have, etc.) then by all means run the encounter to its likely conclusion. I'm fine with this. Like I said above, I'm not completely absolute about never fudging. What I don't support is having those 300+ encounters your mentioned wherein the players are virtually protected from dying. I *also* wouldn't support having that many encounters that were clearly designed so that the players are almost certainly going to prevail. To me, this is not gaming. It's storytelling in the guise of gaming. Which is cool, but not what I'm necessarily looking for. I would hope that somewhere in those 300+ encounters are legitimate foes who pose a real and valid threat to the characters that will not be corrected by the DM. There are also a number of excellent ways to deal with a parties failure in a D&D encounter that won't end the campaign.
Vanraya 09-14-07, 07:22 PM	It is totally ok for a DM to add HP to a creature that he wants to be a tough challenge. Likewise it's also totally his call as to whether or not dumb thugs succeed their will saves. I recall a quote from Gary Gygax once saying: "A DM only rolls the dice because of the noise they make." Thus it falls within rule 0 to totally hose players every once in a while. But yeah, your fun is the most important thing, if it's bothering you that he adds 400 hp here or there talk to him.
BW0222 09-15-07, 03:56 AM	kriskey, What I don't support is having those 300+ encounters your mentioned wherein the players are virtually protected from dying. I *also* wouldn't support having that many encounters that were clearly designed so that the players are almost certainly going to prevail. To me, this is not gaming. It's storytelling in the guise of gaming. Which is cool, but not what I'm necessarily looking for. I would hope that somewhere in those 300+ encounters are legitimate foes who pose a real and valid threat to the characters that will not be corrected by the DM. Except that is the way the game is designed. Anyone looking at the CR/EL system realizes this. In a typical campaign, on average it is 12-16 combats to gain a level. In order to gain 20th-level, you need to survive somewhere around 300 combats. In a typical EL=APL combat, you fight creatures dramatically less powerful than the party. Typically, the party has a 4-to-1+ advantage. For example, a 5th-level wizard is CR 5, and makes an EL 5 encounter. Of course, he is faced by four or five 5th-level PCs -- with five to tens times the amount of treasure he has. The party is expected to defeat the encounter using only 20% of their resources. It is highly unlikely that that 20% will be in the form of all the hit points a single PC. Typically, the party is 99% likely to win the encounter without anyone dying. i.e. the EL system is setup to virtually protect PCs from dying. This makes sense because over the 300 combats, there is a 95% chance that someone will die, so you can expect a few deaths before characters reach 20th-level. If you start upping the EL, you'll quickly realize why the system so heavily favors the PCs. If you toss in EL=APL+2 combat, and we only give the PCs a 90% chance of winning without someone dying and you run 200 of these combats, you can expect about ten or so deaths prior to reaching 20th-level. If you try the math on 150 EL=APL+4 combats, there is no point in playing. And these rates don't even factor in mistakes -- which given 150+ combats some party is going to make. IMO, it is somewhat silly to pretend that you (or your DM) isn't putting in encounters which the PCs have extremely high propabilities of surviving. It either isn't true or you would be be killing the party off every few sessions. IMO, all you can really do is mix up the encounters such that you include the occational APL+2 or APL+4 combat to keep the PCs on their toes, put in lower EL combats with situational modifiers so that it looks like the PCs are in danger when they likely aren't, and put in a few high EL encounters (with fair warning) which the PCs are never intended to fight but which stupid play can trigger -- attacking the Kings guards, or stealing from the silver dragon trying to hire you. However, any good DM (or player familiar with the EL system) should realize that the deck is already stacked in favor of the PCs. They are already virtually protected from dying and the encounters are clearly designed such that the player will prevail. When you raise "virtually impossible" to the power of 300, it doesn't look so great. When you raise "slightly possible" to the power of 200, it means "virtually impossible". etc. Honestly, IMO, the best you can do it make it look like you aren't designing encounters so heavily favoring the PCs. That helps the suspension of disbelief, but those understanding the game realize it is just smoke and mirrors. Properly designed combats have virtually no chance to kill PCs.
Grumman 09-15-07, 05:00 AM	It is totally ok for a DM to add HP to a creature that he wants to be a tough challenge. Likewise it's also totally his call as to whether or not dumb thugs succeed their will saves. I recall a quote from Gary Gygax once saying: "A DM only rolls the dice because of the noise they make." Thus it falls within rule 0 to totally hose players every once in a while. But if you're going to bend the rules, you have to have a reason. If it is something as blatant as Joe Cannonfodder and his mates all auto-passing their saves, he'd better have a really good reason, beyond "I don't want this spell to suceed". For a BBEG there's more leeway, but using DM fiat to save plebs is just going to annoy people.
kriskey 09-15-07, 06:29 PM	IMO, it is somewhat silly to pretend that you (or your DM) isn't putting in encounters which the PCs have extremely high propabilities of surviving. Well, duh. I am not railing against the existence of very beatable encounters. And I already acquiesced that if one of these intended easy encounters is about to kill the party, then I understand the occasional fudge. I am stating that 300+ encounters wherein none is truly a threat to the party would be less fun. For me, at least. Honestly, IMO, the best you can do it make it look like you aren't designing encounters so heavily favoring the PCs. That helps the suspension of disbelief, but those understanding the game realize it is just smoke and mirrors. Properly designed combats have virtually no chance to kill PCs. Honestly, whether the EL/CR system is truly designed to never kill the PCs is irrelevant to me. I'm not qualified to argue that anyway. In any case, I'm sure the player's perference allows for the adjustment for more or less challenging games. My point remains: the game is more fun for me when there are sometimes legitimate threats requiring me to test my character, my strategy, my luck, etc. That -- for me -- is fun. I suppose if the DM is a master smoke and mirrors charlatan the player'd never know the difference. I will admit that. He'd have to be brilliant, but it's certainly possible. Honestly, that's the opposite of what I'd prefer. If my DM has to fudge to keep a great campaign going, I'd like him to at least make us fully aware that only his nifty "deus ex machina" saved our butts. That we were beaten fairly, we failed that time, but he is giving us the chance again. I absolutely would not want him fudging rolls in private so that we thought we were clever players. But, roleplaying is only a minor aspect of the game's appeal for me, and I'd feel a real disservice is done to me if that enjoyable form of intellectual exercise is taken away. I simply wouldn't be interested in an acting exercise or storytime, and I'd shy away from those games. I am not attacking players who want something different. I am not saying my way is the exclusive way D&D was intended to be played. Simply stating what kind of game is fun for me. And, I know others share the same view.
BW0222 09-15-07, 10:34 PM	BilopTheFleshwarper, Ok, the EL system does already generally protect the players. I wouldn't say generally. The entire system gives such a massive advantage to PCs it isn't funny. This is due to the fact that PCs are expected to face hundreds of such encounters and when you raise even a 99% probability of not dying to the 300th power, the end result doesn't look so certain. But when the DM makes the encounter tougher without increasing the rewards is ruining the game for his players. If I fight a CR 5 thing, i want the appropriat rewards, if I fight a CR 7 I want rewards for that too, not rewards as if it was a CR 5. This brings up the reason why the DM is up'ing the EL of the encounter? If the original DM needs to add 400hp (not that I think that is a smart way to up the EL) in order to make something challenging, then chances are the party is overpowered for their APL. Whether due to excess treasure, higher than 28-point buys, more than four PCs, etc., etc. then the DM can easily add a few to the APL. In which case, they can certainly up the EL without increasing any treasure or XP. I doubt the original poster's DM has actually thought this through (based on the OP saying his DM doesn't prep), but if up'ing the EL is always necessary to challenge the party, then chances are he should look at their APL. Finally, players should have no idea of the EL, so I don't see how they can ever complain about the rewards. Such complains would solely be based on preception. It's isn't up to the DM to explain that it was only an EL=APL combat because they were hold a map showing the secret door which would have let them surprise the bad guys and kill the leader quickly. The fact they went through the front door made it an EL=APL+2 combat. kriskey, Honestly, whether the EL/CR system is truly designed to never kill the PCs is irrelevant to me. I'm not qualified to argue that anyway. In any case, I'm sure the player's perference allows for the adjustment for more or less challenging games. It shouldn't be irrelavant to you. It is the baseline at which any meaningful comparision of fair, challenging, overpowered, etc. is for combat. You should be familiar with the system. As for player's preference, the EL system puts a mathmatical limits on this. If the players want "challenging" encounters... sorry, if you put in EL=APL+2 combats, and each one has a 10% chance of death, the chance of at least one PC dying in the 8 combats needed to gain a level is about 50%. Chance of someone making it to 4th-level would be 7%. Neither of these allowing for mistakes. Honestly, the only way to expect PCs to reach reasonable levels without deaths is to ensure that the actual chance of death on each combat is extremely low. My point remains: the game is more fun for me when there are sometimes legitimate threats requiring me to test my character, my strategy, my luck, etc. That -- for me -- is fun. No offense intended, but perhaps ignorance is bliss. However, if you are actually familiar with the EL system, and the math behind it, your head knows that mathematically you are virtually protected from death in most individual combats. There are limits to how many EL=APL+x combats which your DM can toss in and realistically expect folks to survive. That doesn't mean you can be stupid, unlucky, or not use strategy. The EL system assumes both sides are playing to their potential. If you don't play well, you can easily be upping your chances of someone dying by say five times. However, even that is far from certain at EL=APL levels (say a 5% chance of someone dying vs. the normal 1%). Of course if you are stupid during an EL=APL+2 combat, your chance of someone dying likely went from 10% to 50%. And of course PCs often have the chance of just using all their consumables to survive mistakes and run/flee/hide until the next day. I suppose if the DM is a master smoke and mirrors charlatan the player'd never know the difference. I will admit that. He'd have to be brilliant, but it's certainly possible. You don't need to be brilliant. There are lots of ways to make it appear that creatures are more powerful than they are. You can play with the EL system in many ways to get these types of goals. Lower CR creatures in defensible positions, waves of lower EL encounters, higher CR creatures where the PCs are likely to have surprise or where the PCs are in defensible positions, special equipment, traps and low CR creatures, randomizing the encounters such that folks aren't sure what they are facing, giving class levels or advancement, having friendly forces join you in a fight, etc., etc. Six goblins rogues might only be an EL 3 encounter, but if you arm them with alchemists fire and put them at the top of a staircase, they won't appear like an EL 4 encounter. The first 4th-level PC up those stairs is really likely to perceive that his chance of death is more than 1%. Honestly, that's the opposite of what I'd prefer. If my DM has to fudge to keep a great campaign going, I'd like him to at least make us fully aware that only his nifty "deus ex machina" saved our butts. That we were beaten fairly, we failed that time, but he is giving us the chance again. I absolutely would not want him fudging rolls in private so that we thought we were clever players. Again, this brings up the reason why he needs to fudge. If he did his job planning the encounter (not that the OPs DM appears to do this), then he has determined the APL for the party, set the EL for the combat, and roughly knows the chance of the PCs dying -- which should typically be extremely low, since they have hundred more combats to go -- then he shouldn't need to fudge. If the PCs get slaughtered, it is a reasonable likelihood it was their fault. For example, assume that the group has five 5th-level PCs. The DM pegs them at APL 6 -- five PCs, the party is balanced, and they are using 32-point buys. The DM sets up an encounter with six ogres. That is normally an EL 8 encounter, except the DM has provided the PCs with a map showing that the ogres will be ambushing a caravan at a specific place, so the PCs are likely to gain surprise and can pre-buff. The combat should be an EL 6 combat. However, things don't always go as planned and the EL system has inherant flaws. Say, one of the PCs (a fighter) doesn't show up and instead the party decides to attack the ogres in their cave. The DM now has to make a few decisions. He adjusts it down to 4 ogres (EL 7) and assumes that the defensible position and missing cleric cancels out the parties pre-buffing. However, during the combat, he finds that the PCs are getting slaughtered. Now, he first tries to figure out why. Was the party's decision to attack the ogres in the cave just stupid, did he make a mistake with the EL, bad luck, should he have considered the fighters presence more carefully, are they not utilizing their resources fully? It wasn't supposed to be that hard. Also noting, that this "why" decision is likely rushed. So, at this point, I have to ask which option you would rather the DM do? a) Fudge the encounter, such that the PCs survive. If the PCs having sense the fourth ogre, remove him from the encounter or have him several rounds away, have the ogres miss for a few rounds, have them ask the PCs for a surrender (even though they normally wouldn't), have an ogre turn on this friends, etc. and hoping that the players won't notice. b) Call "mistake". Stop the game and box-text the players through either not having the encounter or through magically surviving. c) Kill the PCs off, restart the campaign, and hope like stink that it wasn't just an bad mistake. As a DM, I don't like (c) unless I was pretty darn sure that it was a good EL. In this case, I don't see how I could be that sure. Of (a) or (b), I'd rather have (a). If it is successful, then the players won't know anything was wrong. Even if they suspect you fudged, if you are a good DM, the players first through should be that you fudged to correct a possible mistake, not to save them from a bad choice which they may have made.
kriskey 09-17-07, 11:49 AM	It shouldn't be irrelavant to you. It is the baseline at which any meaningful comparision of fair, challenging, overpowered, etc. is for combat. You should be familiar with the system. I only mean: the fact that EL is relatively safe for the player is somewhat beside my point. My argument is that basically the occasional genuine, threatening encounter is fun, and that a game in which there is no real player determination of encounters is not. I'm not contending that every encounter needs to be dangerous, and I already acquiesced the point about the occasional fudge of average encounters is ok (as you already pointed out, this will be extremely rare anyhow). As for player's preference, the EL system puts a mathmatical limits on this. If the players want "challenging" encounters... sorry, if you put in EL=APL+2 combats, and each one has a 10% chance of death, the chance of at least one PC dying in the 8 combats needed to gain a level is about 50%. Chance of someone making it to 4th-level would be 7%. See above. And if players wants more "challenging" encounters, then obviously just throwing in the occasional, small upped EL would suffice by your own data. Depending on the campaign setting, though, death may or may not be a huge obstacle. It may even be a setback that causes the player more excitement throughout the game. It's generally the TPK that is the main concern, because it's a potential campaign ender. Like I said, though, I'd prefer for the DM to fudge obviously here so the player knows he did not prevail. It is more fun for me as a player to get a sense of how successful or unsuccessful my strategy or character creation has been. I actually find the math interesting, albeit somewhat tangential. What are the odds that someone goes unconcious but does not die? Now, he first tries to figure out why. Was the party's decision to attack the ogres in the cave just stupid, did he make a mistake with the EL, bad luck, should he have considered the fighters presence more carefully, are they not utilizing their resources fully? It wasn't supposed to be that hard. Also noting, that this "why" decision is likely rushed. So, at this point, I have to ask which option you would rather the DM do? a) Fudge the encounter, such that the PCs survive. If the PCs having sense the fourth ogre, remove him from the encounter or have him several rounds away, have the ogres miss for a few rounds, have them ask the PCs for a surrender (even though they normally wouldn't), have an ogre turn on this friends, etc. and hoping that the players won't notice. b) Call "mistake". Stop the game and box-text the players through either not having the encounter or through magically surviving. c) Kill the PCs off, restart the campaign, and hope like stink that it wasn't just an bad mistake. 'a' is not the worst of possibilities, if it becomes clear that every single character in the party will die from what was not intended be a final or climatic encounter. In this case, you really have screwed up bad because what was intended to be a beatable encounter means complete campaign ender. If it's intended to be a challenging encounter that may threaten the party legitimately, I would be more excited if the DM prepared a 'd' for such situations. The party is saved at the last minute by some fortunate event that sidetracks the mission or wakes up in a prison wherein there can be a daring escape. This is what I mean by an obvious fudge. Why allow such cheesy plot twists? Because the player knows he got his butt kicked, that he *can* get his butt kicked, and that if he does get his butt kicked it sets back the plot. I feel that death is an annoyance but easily overcome and is not a major problem ouside of total party destruction. Still, playing a game with a DM that allows total party death as a potential event can be fun. It's just my preference. I feel the game is strategically interesting enough on its own for this to be a real possibility. This whole statistical rant about how the system was designed to keep the player alive for long stretches I really view as tangential. I'm stating what I think is fun, and what types of games I enjoy playing. I really think that D&D can provide fun strategy gaming -- not just storytelling and character acting.
Vanraya 09-17-07, 10:55 PM	Vanraya Rule 0: you need to die seriously. The idea that the DM rolls dice for a sound means you're not playing the game, you're just doing what you want. If a DM doesn't "play by the rules" he's not playing the game and should just go to a diceless system. The rules exist for the game to exist, other wise it's just people guessing what the DM wants and saying they do things dramatically and hoping the "DM" agress. Oh wow, telling me I need to die, and seriously too. Well kid, and I'm assuming you are a kid, lemme tell you that DMing is much more fluid than following the rules 100% of the time, indeed thats what the DMG says. Now assuming you have a DMG, which I kinda doubt, you'll notice on page 8 "The Bottom Line," and page 18 "DM Cheating and Player Perceptions" specifically the DMG comes right out and says that it's ok for the DM to fudge rolls, make encounters more difficult on the fly and pretty much do whatever he pleases. Now does that mean players are going to want to play in a world where they can't Dominate lvl 4 warriors? No, of course not, but thats not what is at debate here. Thats a DM/Player problem that should be worked out between those 2. Furthermore, I'd wager my left foot to say your DM has fudged a roll at least once. Nobody wants to see their favorite bad guy NPC brought down by a Finger of Death in the first round of combat. Or maybe he even helped you survive by ignoring that nat 20 on a grapple check, or anything really.
FoulQ 09-17-07, 11:18 PM	People, people, the answer isn't that complicated....the answer is no. :P
_Jayne_Cobb_ 09-18-07, 10:26 AM	It all depends on Why. I routinely give enemies extra hit points to keep them in the fight longer, bit I do it in order to make a more exciting encounter not to kill the PCs or teach them a lesson. When I do this, and I only ever do it for major encounters, I am careful to note the point at which the encounter "officially" ends. After that point, since it is all being played up for drama only, I will not kill or severely injure a PC and any major resource that they expend I will find a way to replace or compensate. Also, I have told any group I play with about this when I start DMing and asked them what their feelings on it were, and also told them afterwards when I used it. Every single one, even those who were dubious beforehand, has agreed that it was far more epic and enjoyable than, say, taking out a BBEG in one lucky shot.
Grod_The_Giant 09-18-07, 08:32 PM	Ok. I am a DM. I sometime fudge rolls, or add HP. You know why? Look at it this way. You want to stage a fun, challenging fight. You pick several creature of the appropriate CR...and it turns out they need a 15 or more to hit ANY players. If no-one gets hit, they can't be damaged. And so the fight isn't challenging. So you fudge some rolls, so the PCs get hit a bit. You're at low-level play. The players are fighting some orcs for what should be a routine battle. And you roll a critical hit for an orc attack. One that would lead to instant PC death, at a level where resurrection is unavailable. so you ignore the natural 20 and just roll normal damage. Because killing a character in a simple random encounter isn't fun. You want to have a climatic boss battle. DM: "The man known only as Count Slaughter glares down at you, gripping a black metal staff. 'I warned you not to meddle in my affairs. You ignored my warnings...prepare to meet the ultimate fate of all that stand in my way!' Lightning blasts down from a previously clear sky-" Player: "No way, he's a wizard! They don't get Call Lightning as a class spell!" DM: (ignores rules-lawyer) "Lightning blasts down from a previously clear sky and strikes his staff. Energy crackles around the metal, and previously invisible runes light up. Malevolent energy pulses around the end of his staff as he prepares for battle." Player: "I have the highest initiative. Finger of Death! Hah, try beating a Fortitute save DC 25 with a wizard!" DM: (roll roll roll) "..." What would you do as the DM? Consider also that he probably spent a decent amount of time stating out this guy, choosing spells and such. Would you "cheat" on the save roll in the interest of a climatic battle? Or suppose the barbarian gets lucky in the big demon battle and gets a critical hit with his greataxe on the second round? Would you add some extra health on to the monster so it keeps going for a more dramatic battle?
BW0222 09-18-07, 09:47 PM	kriskey, I only mean: the fact that EL is relatively safe for the player is somewhat beside my point. My argument is that basically the occasional genuine, threatening encounter is fun, and that a game in which there is no real player determination of encounters is not. My point is that (by the math) there really aren't "genuine threatening" encounters. If you understand the EL system, you should understand this. The occational EL=APL+2 encounter is likely at best 10% likely to actually kill someone. It is highly possible (90%) that the party will still waltz through the encounter -- not even including the fact they could just expend max resources and rest for the day. It isn't until you string ten of these in a row that someone is actually likely to die. EL=APL+4 encounters are insanely deadly, but you really can't toss in more than say one every twenty combats or so, otherwise folks (statistically) aren't going to make it. I understand what you are attempting to accomplish, but it isn't something you can actually do. At best you can plan to make combats appear deadly. You can't actually make them deadly. I've already provided ways to make combats appear more deadly than normal -- mixing them up, lower EL encounters with special equipment, putting lower EL creatures in heavily defensible positions, large combats with big monsters who are held at bay by large friendly forces, have them face a higher EL creature which some advantage (special equipment, ambush site, secret way in to surprise him, etc.), extremely high nasties which don't fight the PCs (a dragon more interested in destroying the village than eating PCs), etc. Players think they are in more danger than the EL actually works out to. These, and the fact that players will make mistakes over the 300+ combats should keep their interest. However, you really can't plan on more than a handful of EL=APL+4 and maybe 10-20 EL=APL+2 combats and expect the group to survive. Even these need to be really carefully planned for -- since if the players happen to have one of their dumb moments during one of these it is all over. See above. And if players wants more "challenging" encounters, then obviously just throwing in the occasional, small upped EL would suffice by your own data. Ok, if you run 300 combats, say 6 EL=APL+4, 24 EL=APL+2, 200 EL=APL, and 70 EL=APL-2 encounters... players would only notice this (if they even noticed the EL=APL+2 combats) every ten combats (barely once per level, and often not even once per month assuming three combats per night on weekly sessions). It's kind of like putting speed bumbs along a 300 mile highway. If you put one every mile, the car isn't going to make it. If you put one every 30 miles... they may not even notice them. IMO, you get better results using tricks to make combats appear more dangerous than actually trying to make them more dangerous. I'll also point out that few folks actually do the formal APL and EL calcuations and even if you do, the system is far from perfect, so... chances of mistakes are actually pretty high. Depending on the campaign setting, though, death may or may not be a huge obstacle. It may even be a setback that causes the player more excitement throughout the game. It's generally the TPK that is the main concern, because it's a potential campaign ender. Agreed. However, (at lower levels) gold and access to clerics can be an issue, bodies may not be recoverable, and if the same player falls too far behind... he can be effectively out of the game. I actually find the math interesting, albeit somewhat tangential. What are the odds that someone goes unconcious but does not die? Much higher. Likely, several times that of death. Most combatants (PCs included) rarely take the time to finish off folks on the ground if others are standing. Mindless, animal, or low-intelligence creatures almost never do so. Grod_The_Giant, IMO, never fudge rolls against the PCs. If you want a fun challenging combat... spend more time planning it and then you won't suddenly realize that the creatures can't hit the PCs. If you make a mistake and the monsters aren't challenging enough, let it slide. You can always correct the problem the next combat. Your orc, low-level critical hit, example is a good example of a reasonable cheat. If possible, I wouldn't tell the players. Your final example, IMO, just shows bad planning. If you want an BBEG to survive more than a few rounds... then you should plan for it. You know that the PCs has a DC 25 finger of death (or something equally nasty), so have a projected image, a wall of force, some undead guy disquised as the bad guy, etc. in place so that the fight is going to last a while. If you really planned for it, and the PCs manage to drop him quickly... again... let it slide and don't try fudging. Finally, fudge in a way that isn't so obvious. Adding hit points is often pretty obvious.
FoulQ 09-18-07, 10:36 PM	But BWO222, isn't that kind of DM Metagaming? Think about it. One of your PCs has been building this finger of death build guy for a long time. PC: "Yeah it's going to be awesome, I'll just be look *boom*dead*boom*dead all over the place it will be sweet!" And then all the sudden all the guys that he wants to use it against have some way around it, SOMEHOW they just magically know he plans on building a character around finger of death. Sort of like how no cool attacks work on bosses in final fantasy, and you don't want to go down that route. Personally I think you should reward the player and just let the BBEG die, I mean honestly you will have more chances anyway
Mock26 09-18-07, 11:13 PM	Breaking the rules is cheating. Altering the rules is simply following the Rules As Written.
BW0222 09-18-07, 11:22 PM	FoulQ But BWO222, isn't that kind of DM Metagaming? Think about it. One of your PCs has been building this finger of death build guy for a long time. No. It isn't metagaming. It common sense tactics. My characters don't walk into major combats and start trash-talking folks without reasonable defenses up. The defenses aren't specifically against finger of death. They protect against a wide variety of spells which any intelligent BBEG can expect the party to employ against him on the first few rounds. Folks are tossing 7th-level spells around. The guy would have to be an idiot to make such grand speaches without employing some type of reasonable defenses up. He doesn't have to know that the PC was going to finger of death him. Whether it is a fireball, cloud kill, charm monster, mind fog, dispell magic, silence, etc., etc. these would be reasonable defenses for anyone of those levels to put up. Now, if the PC has true seeing going, sees through the projected image or disquised skeleton and sees the BBEG in the corner invisible (or hiding), then hat's off to the PCs for being ready and finger of death'ing him. If they have arcane sight going to see the wall of force and then dispell it and then finger of death the BBEG, fine. However, setting up your BBEG as a sitting duck and then claiming you had to fudge to make the combat more exciting is silly. BBEG should employ reasonable defenses, precautions, and tactics -- same as PCs. In most cases, this will ensure that you don't end up with anti-climatic combats whicn end in the first couple of rounds.
Mock26 09-18-07, 11:35 PM	My point is that (by the math) there really aren't "genuine threatening" encounters. If you understand the EL system, you should understand this. Which is why I have defenestrated the entire CR and EL system (figuritively speaking, of course). I believe in playing monsters in an intelligent manner. I don't like the idea of monsters sitting in their rooms waiting for their turn to get slaughtered by the adventurers. I believe in wandering encounters in lairs and such, and sooner or later someone will discover that someone evil (from the monster's point of view) has invaded their home and started slaughtering their friends and relatives. At this point they will sound the alarm and start to gather in greater numbers for security. They will send out scouts and when they find the evil invaders they will swarm them in numbers and try to slaughter them. And even before this happens, if there are monsters in adjacent rooms, they will hear the fighting and will investigate AND send for help. While this style of play has resulted in what may be termed a higher than average number of deaths in my group, and has resulted in the group having to turn tail and flee about 20% of the time, my group thrives on this realistic manner of playing. But, this style of play isn't for everyone.
kriskey 09-19-07, 12:19 PM	Ok, if you run 300 combats, say 6 EL=APL+4, 24 EL=APL+2, 200 EL=APL, and 70 EL=APL-2 encounters... players would only notice this (if they even noticed the EL=APL+2 combats) every ten combats .. It's kind of like putting speed bumbs along a 300 mile highway. If you put one every mile, the car isn't going to make it. If you put one every 30 miles... they may not even notice them. IMO, you get better results using tricks to make combats appear more dangerous than actually trying to make them more dangerous. Let me distill: I think that D&D can be played in such a way that the player's strategy in both combat and character design is not insignificant. ... The philosophy of CR and EL is an argument I'm still not sure I buy anyway but it doesn't really matter... clearly, no game can even remotely be designed this well but I'm sure that gets into your "mistake-needing-a-DM-fudge" argument. It is a tool for the DM and can clearly be a useful one. Is there no way to design a game of D&D that sometimes tests and rewards or punishes the players' strategy, innovation, creativity or even luck with legimitate, actual playing of the rules? If your CR and EL explanations are attempt to show me otherwise, I'm completely unconvinced. I think there is, and that it's a blast. I enjoy the game -- in fact -- much better with the occasional TPK that gets wiped out by a DM "game restore" story invention. If it is more important to your players to have a seamless story, then I understand the alternate viewpoint. To me, it is more fun knowing that my actions and my character build were tested and I prefer a fudge in the plot much more. Hell, that's *why* I spend so much time designing my character. I want -- at some point -- to test how clever my character design was. You can fudge on either side of it, I suppose, and you may think it's better to fudge the actual results because that makes your own game more fun you and your players -- who may be into a different type of experience. I'd prefer to know success or failure and just fudge on the other side of the test. This is a classic game design conundrum, of course. How can you really test the character in game? Usually it's: make death substantial, but make death a non-ender. Various pen and paper RPGs have strategies (i.e., your "fate point" system) and certainly computer RPGs (save and restore, or the classic "Lord British resurrects you") and online RPGs (minor setbacks, usually, for those because death is so much more common) have them. D&D tends to hold death in high regard, as it's an expensive problem. But, it really is up to what is most fun for the player and DM. Death can be handled in all sorts of ways and can totally be a non-ender. I would argue, in fact, that it should be both possible and a non-ender. Because frankly it's the most fun game. Of course, there is a way to "test" characters without having them come close to dying. They could -- for example -- dispatch monsters more efficiently if they were smarter. That could be your test. But that's just another philosophy of what is fun in the game.
Thanuir 09-19-07, 03:37 PM	BW022, is character death the only thing that matters to you, as a player? Losing a combat does not always mean death. What would you do as the DM? Let the dice fall where they may. I don't want to negate valid player tactics by fudging them off the radar. I'll be explicit about those kinds of things before the game.
BW0222 09-19-07, 08:26 PM	kriskey, I think that D&D can be played in such a way that the player's strategy in both combat and character design is not insignificant. Player strategy is already considered in the EL system. It assumes that both sides are playing to their potential. If your players really are that experienced, the DM is certainly free to increase the party's APL. However, even without doing so, if players act foolishly, typically you turn an EL=APL combat into the equalent of an EL=APL+2 combat (except only getting the EL=APL XP) -- since folks might be buffed, expecting you, likely to gain surprise, move to more defensible positions, fighting without rests in between, your party is separated, etc. Your chance of someone dying just went up by an order of magnitude. If you 'blow' an EL=APL+2 combat, you are in some serious trouble, and if you 'blow' an EL=APL+4 combat, you almost certain of multiple PC deaths. PC actions always determine outcome. However, within the EL system (and hence any reasonable planning the DM can do), you can't make encounters so razor thin that only player decisions determine the outcome. At best, you can increase the chance of death -- whether players even notice this or not, you really can't be anything close to certain of. If your CR and EL explanations are attempt to show me otherwise, I'm completely unconvinced. Ok. Let me try it another way. Create an encounter which you feel is actually threatening the PCs within the EL system. Without looking for loop-holes (such as fiendish trolls), you really can't. It really won't be threating, or I'll show you are goin well outside of the reasonable EL range. Statistically, if you make an EL=APL combat, players are going to blow through it without too much worry. If you make an EL=APL+2 combat, you still can't ensure that they are actually going to feel that threatened. It isn't until you start going into the EL=APL+3 or +4 range that you can start to be certain that folks are likely to feel death breathing down their neck (because it is). However, as I've stated, doing this repeatedly will kill characters. Since there is a limit of how many times you can do this, maybe 5-10 (max) and expect a campaign to survive, you honestly can't do it more than 1 in 30 or so combats. That likely isn't really enough to make a party fearful. Go must beyond that, and (statistically) the EL system makes it virtually impossible for them not to die. Personally, I've had much better luck making encounters which appear more deadly, than actually making encounters which are more deadly. The later either often doesn't work (players still blow through it) or it works too well and players do die in half the combats, so that I can't make 'threatening' combats often enough to actually keep interest. As for the effects of death... I assume folks are using standard death rules. At low-levels, it's a game ender. At mid-levels, if you can't get the bodies back, it is a game ender. At all except near epic levels, if the same PCs dies too many times, it is likely a game ender -- once you fall three or more levels back of the rest of the group, you tend to invite more deaths and/or your ability to contribute goes down dramatically. Thanuir, is character death the only thing that matters to you, as a player? No. However, as a DM, I realize that, unlike other possible outcomes, death often has out-of-character reprocussions. It can lead to players not being able to participate in the game, having to restart the campaign, making up another character (which usually isn't fun). As such, I consider it more carefully than other negative outcomes. If I make an EL mistake and it leads to someone getting their +1 flaming bow sundered, I'm not going to fudge things to prevent it. I could correct it if it was that critical. If an EL mistake leads to player now being three levels behind the rest of the group, or being permanently removed from the game -- I'd rather not make that mistake. Losing a combat does not always mean death. That's why I put the chances of making it through combats without deaths at 99%, 90%, and 75%. That 99% includes all other possible other outcomes -- fleeing, trapped while the bad guy gets away, you t-port away, you surrender, you pay them to not kill you, you roleplay past the encounter, etc. Many of these mean that you didn't win the combat. Not winning is much different than death. It almost never has out of game consequences. All I'm saying is that when things start looking bad for the party, you take a few seconds (grab a drink) and take a serious look at the encounter you designed. Is it going bad because it was poorly designed, some flaw in the EL system, or is it going bad because of stupidity. If it is a problem with the EL system (or your implementation of it), then, IMO, correcting it by 'fudging' is the best way to handle it. If the PCs are winning, there is no need to fudge to make it more challenging. You have hundreds of other opportunties to correct the mistake. For example, you design an encounter with some scrags with the PCs in a boat. Two CR 5 scrags are EL 7. Should be ok for your level 6 party. However, during the fight you quickly realize that the PCs are being killed. You take a few seconds to figure out why? You conclude that the water makes it impossible to use fire spells (and trolls regenerate almost everything else) or flasks of acid, and have cover from all spells and ranged weapons, and that PCs had no reason to expect scags so they weren't carrying lots of acid spells. Ugg... you hadn't though about that? Ok, you make a mistake. No need to end the campaign because of it.
holylink718 09-20-07, 11:51 AM	The first time was against a ‘boss’ where he just kept adding hps to keep the combat going, so he could have fun thrashing us. I checked in the MM after the fact. He added 400hps, but not a single extra xp for our trouble. First off, don't you think that you're cheating by looking the MM for the stats? The second time he caused a mass-suggestion spell of mine to fail against 4 random thugs (with low will saves). I knew the odds, so I pursued the issue. He said he just rolled “well”- in the realm of four 19s in a row. That’s 1000:1 against. He called me a rule-monger for catching that one. Maybe he did roll 19s and 20s. Would you want him throwing the gauntlet down when you get lucky like that just because it's unlikely? These are the times I solidly caught him, but there have been many others I’ve had a strong intuition he was just making up stats and dice rolls as he went along. I don’t expect to keep playing with this group much longer, but my question is, am I really crazy to see this as lazy, stupid cheating? I’ve run games myself, so I know that sometimes a DM has to make a small adjustment here and there to keep the game going, but at what point is it really just cheating? Give him a break. It's very likely that the poor guy can't come up with a nice challenge because the party is so optimized. Maybe you don't mind. Maybe he doesn't mind. But when the whole party is optimized to their maximum potential, a standard creature in the MM of the party's average CR won't stand a chance. Believe me, I know. The Barbarian in our party is so optimized that one of the bosses in the last adventure went down in 3-4 rounds while fighting the Barbarian one-on-one! You can rest assured that I wasn't too happy about that. In light of this, what's the point of a party? When one character can cleave through the enemies by himself, without taking any damage because his AC is so high, it gets a little depressing for those of us who rely on the party for survival. Just my 2 cents.
Mock26 09-20-07, 12:39 PM	My DM is almost never prepared, takes forever in combat, and when he’s caught off guard, he seems to just make things up. I’ve played in his game for a few months, and have twice caught him breaking the rules of the game. The first time was against a ‘boss’ where he just kept adding hps to keep the combat going, so he could have fun thrashing us. I checked in the MM after the fact. He added 400hps, but not a single extra xp for our trouble. The second time he caused a mass-suggestion spell of mine to fail against 4 random thugs (with low will saves). I knew the odds, so I pursued the issue. He said he just rolled “well”- in the realm of four 19s in a row. That’s 1000:1 against. He called me a rule-monger for catching that one. These are the times I solidly caught him, but there have been many others I’ve had a strong intuition he was just making up stats and dice rolls as he went along. I don’t expect to keep playing with this group much longer, but my question is, am I really crazy to see this as lazy, stupid cheating? I’ve run games myself, so I know that sometimes a DM has to make a small adjustment here and there to keep the game going, but at what point is it really just cheating? Then maybe you should give up your character and take on the role of being the DM.
RobbyPants 09-20-07, 12:52 PM	Its a matter of entertaining the players. A 1 round BBEG fight is one of the worst things that could happen for a DM. All that effort to build up to the fight and watching the Wizard PC finger of death him and call it a day. I will fudge that save roll on some occasions or I'll slip in a Scarab of Protection on him for the PCs to take as loot (minus a charge for stopping the finger of death). Well, I guess giving out the Scarab (in this example) at least helps give the players a reason to believe the made save, and gives them some compensation, but still, fudging a save like that is frustrating on a player's part. If I'm playing a wizard, I would never waste a spell slot on a save-or-die, if I know that it's certain to fail against someone important. Perhaps a better way to deal with the problem is to just remove save-or-dies entirely. If you (as a DM) aren't ready to have them used on your BBEGs, and you probably don't want use the on PCs, then just remove them. That way, your party wizard won't feel hosed for wasting a spell slot and a standard action. I mean, would you play a fighter if you knew that any crit would be an auto-miss? Ok, I'm obviously the minority here. Frankly, I'm amazed at just how much in the minority I am. I'm not saying the DM can't -- rarely -- fudge things. I'm not that absolute. But come on. If the players defeat something with the help of a coddling DM, there is nothing to be excited about. More class abilities? Yipee. How exciting is that when you aren't really controlling the outcome? If I discover the DM is regularly fudging anything, my interest is completely gone. Game over. I'm immediately bored. The DM can ensure that the outcome is beatable ahead of time. But the *characters* should really get to resolve it. All in all, I agree with you. Really, both sides have merit (which is why this gets so much discussion), but once the players know about fudging, their interest does drop. If their choices and the rolls of the dice don't control the actions, then what fun is it making chioces or rolling dice? I've played in a game where the DM wouldn't let me die. The problem with the campaign was that it was one-on-one, so if I died, so did his campaign. Now he always maintned that if I did something "stupid", that he'd kill me, but that definition was never really defined. I'd be playing a level 4 PC (LA +0 race), and he'd throw me up against a level 4 ogre barbarian! WTF!?! It's me plus four racial hit dice and some serious Strength adjustment! How is that fair one-on-one? So, if I decided to run, I could see him get visibly disapointed. If I stuck it out and fought him, one of two things would happen: I would roll well and pwn the ogre (which only makes things worse for the next encounter, as he feels the super-ogre was too weak), or Things would go average, and the ogre would kick the crap out of me, only to have the DM fudge rolls toward the end. Either way, it was not very satisfying. I realized I could do whatever I wanted and things would always turn out the same. Typically, a combat would go something like this: Round 1: I swing, I get hit for about 20 damage (off of my 50 HP) Round 2: I swing, I get hit for 20 more damage (now at 10 HP). Round 3: I swing, the DM rolls, asks how many HP I have, and I get hit for 5 - 9 damage (which might be less than the minimum damage the creature deals ;)). Round 4 and beyond: I hit or miss, it doesn't matter. The monster always misses from this point on. Perhaps a get some explanation like "oh! I forgot your dodge bonus! He misses instead", or "Wait a minute. What's your AC again? Nevermind, he misses", or "that's the third natural one this guys rolled!". It gets lame after a while. Perhaps I should run an experiment and just drop my sword and start punching the guy to see what happens. Long stroy short, kriskey, I agree with you. Is it "cheating" if a DM breaks the rules? It doesn't really matter. Once a player realizes that their choices or the results of the dice don't matter, then they lose interest. That's what matters.
kriskey 09-21-07, 02:09 PM	PC actions always determine outcome. However, within the EL system (and hence any reasonable planning the DM can do), you can't make encounters so razor thin that only player decisions determine the outcome. At best, you can increase the chance of death -- whether players even notice this or not, you really can't be anything close to certain of. And that's fine. I agree. If you make an EL=APL+2 combat, you still can't ensure that they are actually going to feel that threatened. It isn't until you start going into the EL=APL+3 or +4 range that you can start to be certain that folks are likely to feel death breathing down their neck (because it is). However, as I've stated, doing this repeatedly will kill characters. Since there is a limit of how many times you can do this, maybe 5-10 (max) and expect a campaign to survive, you honestly can't do it more than 1 in 30 or so combats. I mostly agree with you here, as well. I'm only of the opinion that the occasional, un-fudged test of characters' strategies is fun and that the player needs to feel his actions matter. I can also accept that it need not always be a legitimate threat to the entire party. It can just be a threat to slow-down the adventure, cause an unplanned stop for rest and rehabilitation, or cause one character who got knocked unconcious to hang his head in shame. I understand your argument now pretty well, and I do agree that seriously threatening the party's entire existence with many challenging encounters is a danger that will eventually have negative consequences. If my admitting this was the point you were trying to make all along, then you've won me over.
DFoster 09-21-07, 09:45 PM	I don't tend to fudge but I find by selecting appropriate tactics for the BBEG, and of course making sure he is a challenge for the PCs, but isn't going to just kill them all off (unless they roll extremely poorly) that I don't actually have to fudge the rolls. If any of my PC was stupid enough the Finger of Death the BBEG who happens to be a Wizard they deserve what they get, which is at best a waste of the spell, but much more likely it's the spell getting spell turned and them having to make the Fortitude save (which they are just as bad at) or die. But that's what you get for being a glass cannon, my evil characters are made with offense AND defensive abilities. Maybe they don't hit as hard as some but they do have much more survivability and tend to work really well against glass cannons. For reference throwing Finger of Death or any other save or die is the stupidest thing you can do in the first round of combat, it could be wasted on an illusion, it could be turned back against you, it could hit a wall of force. You need to analyse the situation first before you throw around magics.
Vanraya 09-21-07, 10:04 PM	I don't tend to fudge but I find by selecting appropriate tactics for the BBEG, and of course making sure he is a challenge for the PCs, but isn't going to just kill them all off (unless they roll extremely poorly) that I don't actually have to fudge the rolls. If any of my PC was stupid enough the Finger of Death the BBEG who happens to be a Wizard they deserve what they get, which is at best a waste of the spell, but much more likely it's the spell getting spell turned and them having to make the Fortitude save (which they are just as bad at) or die. But that's what you get for being a glass cannon, my evil characters are made with offense AND defensive abilities. Maybe they don't hit as hard as some but they do have much more survivability and tend to work really well against glass cannons. For reference throwing Finger of Death or any other save or die is the stupidest thing you can do in the first round of combat, it could be wasted on an illusion, it could be turned back against you, it could hit a wall of force. You need to analyse the situation first before you throw around magics. I dont believe any of us where debating the merits or falacies of using finger of death in the first round of combat, just using it as an example of the plethora of ways players can use save or die spells to ruin a climactic battle a DM has been brewing for months. That said, I'm not going to say "All DMs should always negate finger of death against the big bad guy." That's a DM call and a lot of DMs are perfectly ok with letting the players show the baddy in question what for in the first round. Myself? Meh, depends if it helps the story and if I think everyone will have a good time, regardless of if a spell is wasted. But a bad guy leader is definately not safe from save or die spells at around 40% hp.