Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Nicholas the Paladin 06-29-07, 04:00 AM	Hi Guys, this thread is about the spell "net of Shadows" from SpC. I'm a 3rd level beguiler and had recently aquired this spell by my 'advanced learning' ability at 3rd level. Last session a new DM took over from the previous (we rotate). He didn't see the spell in action yet.... and I probably should have informed hem beforehand. We encountered a group of Myrkul-sect priestst that were of higher level (we didn't know) and were of greater number. The DM didn't expect us to attack them, since 'we were 'supposed' to follow them to their hideout. We attacked anyway. I cast 'net of shadows' a couple of times, which worked pretty well because 4 of the 9 mykulites were 'binded' that way and retreating (it was their intention to retrieve an item and get out). They didn't really had a chance of getting back at me, bacause I was hiding in the shadows (it was in the sewers). I was making good use of my 'cloaked spellcasting' ability, increasing the DC of the spell. <the spell creates a small cloud of shadow around 1 cr/level, effectively blinding them beyond 5ft. Within the 5ft, there's concealment and thus a 20% miss-chance for the victim ánd the person attacking his. This makes it mostly an battelfield-controll spell.> then our DM start screaming that this spell is overpowered and ruining his whole game and will 'probably' give a lot of problems in the future. I got the feeling tat he felt powerless against it and didn't know what to do. I got the feeling that I (again) had to appologize for a character that can be effective (I have a trackreceord in that). I tried to explain him, that's a battlefield controll spell, that worked out well this time: them getting hit from a distance, because they were retreating and not in a fight with us. When in melee, our own warriors would álso have been under effect with this shadow-effect, imposing a 20% miss-chance. What do you think about this situation? Could I have handled this better? Or should I just see it as an over-emotional reaction? The bottom-line is that I am sick of apologizing all the time, when something works out very well. Now i just sit back at those moments, keep my mouth shut and stop arguing because I've done this already so many times. I think that this spells counts hardly as being overpowered. Maybe it was wiser to inform this new DM beforehand about this new spell. Our group has somewhat of a conservative approach toward new stuff: PHB is okay, but the rest is suspicious. It gets on my nerves. It's something that has bothering me for quite some time now (this is just aother example). Something new, to many DM's, is another threat on balance and is just another attempt of being overpowered. I think this is another controll-freak reaction and this spel hardly qualifies for being overpowered. It takes away any incentive for new ideas and innovation. I think it's mainly a silent war going on between the 'conservative' and innovative' branches of our group ;)
IceFractal 06-29-07, 04:41 AM	Just make a sign which reads: "Most abilities have strong points and weak points, and will shine in some situations while being weak in others. So don't try to judge whether something is balanced until you've seen it more than one time. Also, it isn't a crime for the players to win sometimes - there's an infinite supply of potential foes to return fire." And then hold it up when appropriate. I think that should convey your message. If that's too wordy, you could try a more concise version: "Remember when you said that other spell was broken, and then found out it wasn't? Well then, shut up and give this one a chance."
Kouk 06-29-07, 05:05 AM	It appears he overreacted. I don't really have experience with that spell in a game myself though, nor have I heard anything about it. Surprises can be "traumatic" for a DM, especially when it either makes a fight pathetically easy to win, or when it allows the party to bypass something you hoped they would encounter. It isn't that you "beat" the DM per se, he might have preferred you do it a certain way because he felt it would be more enjoyable in the long run. His first mistake was expecting you to do something, there is no way you can plan on the adventurers to ever do anything, even if you have an NPC tell them to. Part of the problem is the rotation of DMs for the same campaign. The new DMs will almost certainly not be aware of what your character is capable of, and so cannot really design appropriate encounters. Surprises also slow down the game when you have to look up rules. If a new person was taking over a game with existing characters, he should have asked to review the characters before starting, but if using supplemental material is such an extreme rarity he might have assumed he would know everything you could do already (another mistake, players come up with the weirdest uses for any ability). If you have rotating DMs, it would probably be better to have completely separate campaigns with separate characters for each.
Drag0nUL 06-29-07, 06:12 AM	I really think your DM is overreacting. If for him a spell like Net of Shadows is overpowered, then I wonder what he thinks about things like Wraithstrike or Shivering Touch :) . I see your DMs reaction's as being born mostly out of frustration (he had a plan and you 'ruined' it in a way he didn't expect), rather than an accurate asessment of the spell being overpowered. I agree with the rest of the people that said having rotating DM's in the same campaign is not the best of ideas.
Radijs 06-29-07, 06:21 AM	In crude but accurate wording the spell does the following: Will negates or the target gains concealment and everyone else has concealment from the perspective of the target. The spell doesn't mention blind though.
Morwen 06-29-07, 07:41 AM	Couldn't one of the priests just cast his prepared dispel magic on the Net?
Omnicronwarlord 06-29-07, 08:09 AM	Couldn't one of the priests just cast his prepared dispel magic on the Net? yea, why didn't they? If none of them had dispel magic prepared or they didn't cast it when they did this whole situation is the DM's fault for not using their NPC's to their fullest potential.
Nicholas the Paladin 06-29-07, 08:48 AM	The spell doesn't mention blind though. It prevents you from seeing beyond 5ft. We didn't get close, because they started running right away. This will make you blind from creatures/object beyond 5ft. he coudl have used Listen to ascertain where we were, but he didn't. i think it's mainly frustration about being caught off guard
Gleepwurp 06-29-07, 09:58 AM	I'm not familiar with the spells in question, so I won't comment on those, but it sounds to me like you have a more "temper" problem rather than an "in game" problem. The DM seems to have lost his temper because you dealt with his encounter in a manner that he didn't expect. Players do that. To me, that's part of the game. But your DM clearly had some expectations that were left unfulfilled by the turn of events. Maybe the guy was just having a bad day. If he had paused and thought about it, I am sure he could have come up with a way in which the priests could have dealt with the spell -- the aforementioned dispel magic being a pretty good choice. Coming up with ways to respond to whatever the players throw at you is a big part (or maybe THE biggest part) of the DMs job.
Cardinal Teplin 06-29-07, 10:17 AM	Wouldn't glitterdust (wiz 2) have done exactly the same thing, only better? Blinding creatures is nasty - save or they become largely useless, but it's also very much a part of the game. hence blindness, glitterdust, fog cloud, eversmoking bottle and variuous kinds of invisibility. Blindness can be countered - by listen checks, by use of intelligent tactics, by magic, etc. But you shouldn't be springing surprises on your DM. That give you an unfair advantage, since you're basically introducing material into the campaign with which he is unfamiliar, and forcing him either to give your foes a disadvantage by misplaying the situation, or bring the game to a halt until he understands the new material. It sounds like he did the latter, and shouted at you to cover his embarassment and frustration at having to do it. He didn't handle the situation well, but ideally you should helping to make sure that kind of situation doesn't arise in the first place.
Forfeit 06-29-07, 10:26 AM	Overreacting. Anyway, rotating DM´s usually doesnt work, unless all of them agree on using a set number of books or rules. If each DM allows new material, it wont work.
Geogoose 06-29-07, 11:25 AM	DM was overreacting. He put the players in a situation not only expecting them to follow only a set course, but threw a fit when they didn't (when do they?). One thing your group could do is establish what material is allowed and familiarize everyone with it. DM's naturaly have a rough time trying to run a game not knowing what rules are being used...
AaronDireBear 06-29-07, 02:44 PM	You didnt clear the spell with him first did ya? Most odf the garbage in the Spell Compendium is broken as hell, just like msot of the other new splatbook stuff (Robilar's freaking Gambit anyone?) You KNOW they dont playtest this stuff, like EVER... I fyou had bothered to tell him about what spells you memorized/learned and CLEARED them with him he would have been better prepared. Players shouldnt keep secret reserves from the DM's knowledge.
bob_the_great 06-29-07, 03:08 PM	*I cannot comment on the spell, as I'm not familiar with it* He overreacted out of frustration. Normally I'd say you should clear the spell with him, but I don't really see the need when he takes over a game where stuff has already been cleared. It would have been a good idea for him to know what he was inheriting, which he obviously didn't. Unfortunately, now is not the time to discuss the spell with him because he can't be rational about it. He has seen it in action once, and it worked well. I'd say discuss it with the group. If he balks, tell him you don't really trust his judgement based on his reaction. If he gets mad at that insinuation, again point to HIS reaction as being the root problem in your trusting him. As long as you'll accept the ruling of the group you're being more than reasonable. In making your argument for the spell, point out the fact it is highly situational and you're simply shrewd enough to use it when favorable. Unless the spell is the solution to most encounters it isn't broken. If the group decides the spell is broken, then pick a new one and move on. If you want to be a jerk and not just move on (not advised, but an option), whenever any spell dominates a combat declare it broken to the group. Preferably do this with core spells.
Evil DM Mk3 06-29-07, 03:14 PM	Most of the Spell compedium is fine, the more troublesome spells ahve been tuned down from their earlier incarnations. And Rogar's Gambit is the single hardest feat to use properly if you have a sane DM. This is a case of DM panic and (due to the base situation) possilby the start of a railroad (NEVER put the PCs in a situation where they have no way of knowing that their primary strategy (90% of parties this means violance) is sucidal (as you didn't.)
spyderfreek 06-29-07, 03:23 PM	Here is an example of a similar situation that happened 2x in the same campaign: Drow rogue takes mageslayer as a feat. We find the BBEG's second in command early in the game, who also happens to be a cleric. We storm in on her room, initiative is rolled and combat ensues. Drow rogue gets a huge initiative number, moves into a soon-to-be flanking position next to cleric. Everyone else goes on their initiative and seriously hurts cleric, also by this time barb has taken up flanking position with rogue. CLeric uses a quickened spell and then tries to "Word of Recall". Drow rogue gets AoO and proceeds to kill the cleric. BBEG's 2nd in command is dead WAY AHEAD of schedule. DM has to rework much of the module. He was at first upset, then amused at the skillful use of skills/feats. At the time we looked up the feat and debated how it worked, but in the end sided with us. He could have overreacted about it and cited brokenation all over the place, but he didn't. My point, you're DM overreacted, you should talk with him about it.
Bruunwald 06-29-07, 03:39 PM	If the OP has to, as he said, "apologize for having a character that is effective," and has to do so "again," and has a "track record" for this, with obviously multiple (rotating) DMs, he might want to stop and reconsider what he thinks is "effective." As others have mentioned, he might have wanted to clear his list of spells for the day with the DM. The DM might have noticed one he did not recognize and asked to be filled in on what it does. Or, maybe he did. Who knows? The point is, it is much more likely this player is doing something wrong to cause all his DMs to react to him as if his characters are overpowered, than it is that all of these people DMing for him are collectively a bunch of complete idiots. Patting ourselves masturbatorily on the back for how clever we are, once in a while, is probably granted. But once we get it in our heads that we are "so cool," it is easy to begin to delude ourselves into thinking that our gas doesn't stink. But when everyone thinks it does, it's probably time to sit down, re-read our rules, analyze how we are approaching things, and consider the possibility that we are keeping secrets from the DM, bending or breaking a rule somewhere, just not paying attention, or doing some other thing that makes us not the perfect min/maxer we thought we were. That said, the DM's conniption was uncalled for. It's stupid in the first place to think that the players aren't going to come up with something you haven't thought of, from time to time, but yelling about it is never okay. Even when your player is keeping secret spells in reserve.
Lazigothi 06-29-07, 03:49 PM	Sounds like you have one of those DM Q's. http://www.crystalinks.com/qstartrek.jpg I am the DM, and this is MY world, where I make the rules. I could be fair, but I want to win, and winning is fun, so I will make everything completely unfair. 1) DM obligation: Every DM needs to know what the players can do. Nothing should come as a surprise. 2) DM wisdom: Always expect the unexpected. Having players who at least utilize their abilities should be understood as part of the game, but having clever players that supercede expectation should be encouraged. If an aspect of a story needs to happen, a DM should always think of alternate scenarios that could reasonably suit the situation if plan B is foiled. 3) DM intelligence: As mentioned above, "any" spell or power can foil a plot if unprepared for. That does not make the power broken/ overpowered, it only proves the short-sightedness and slowness of the DM. 4) DM perception: A good DM tries to see things from the PC point of view to help anticipate and judge merit with story and NPC action. What are the possible outcomes of a group of evil people approaching PC's that merely want them to come with them back to their lair? A cautious PC, by nature, would not trust a villain at their word, and a typical PC would seek a means to turn the tables on possible captors and slayers. The DM would need to provide additional motivation for the PC's to obey without any hassle. Maybe a family member is taken and held hostage, maybe the villains threaten to blackmail them, or maybe the villains offer an exchange of goodies. I think that since it could have been any spell, any action that resulted in the same result, that the DM was just outraged the train derailed. These kinds of DM's have only one track to the story.
bob_the_great 06-29-07, 03:59 PM	Threadjack, quote shortened because I hate long quotes: Here is an example of a similar situation that happened 2x in the same campaign: Drow rogue takes mageslayer as a feat... The problem with mageslayer is that the spellcaster somehow knows he can't cast defensively (stated in the description), therefore should never try casting defensively next to that character. All the cleric needed to do was 5-foot step away and then cast. Unless three other characters form a wall preventing a 5-foot step away it doesn't do much.
Velcro Zipper 06-29-07, 04:00 PM	I don't know if you're DM was running a homemade or pregen adventure, but I think this brings up a good point about non-core rulebooks and adventure modules. It seems that most of the adventures being released, whether WOTC or OGL, are written assuming the players are all using nothing but the three core rulebooks. This often ends up neutering most of the pregenerated encounters. I think this leads to many DMs declaring the new material overpowered and broken. You should probably familiarize your rotating DMs with any new material you want to bring in and lend them the books so they can incorporate it into their plans. Once they understand the new rules, they may be more inclined to use them.
Salla 06-30-07, 12:49 AM	Threadjack, quote shortened because I hate long quotes: The problem with mageslayer is that the spellcaster somehow knows he can't cast defensively (stated in the description), therefore should never try casting defensively next to that character. All the cleric needed to do was 5-foot step away and then cast. Unless three other characters form a wall preventing a 5-foot step away it doesn't do much. Also, quickened spells don't provoke AoOs, so there's no need to cast Defensively, so Mage Slayer doesn't kick in, so yeah. :)
UltimateReality 06-30-07, 04:35 AM	If Spell Compendium was previously allowed, I would not apologize for the spell. One thing I always do, however, when I come across something that seems powerful, is pro-actively ask my DM about it after combat. I double-check the rules on it to make sure I'm using it right. And then (this is probably most important in your part) I tell him all the ways I can think of to negate it. My wizard just got ray of stupidity. If the monsters have an Int of 2 or less, it's almost guaranteed to end the encounter as soon as I cast it. I could theoretically instakill anything up to Int 5, until I start empowering and maximizing it. It's a level 2 spell. That negates almost any nonsentient encounter. Ways to get around it: -sentient opponents. Especially ones with 6 Int or more. -high touch AC -SR -long-range encounters (the spell's range is close) *** So, looking at your net of shadows spell, the following pops out at me: -SR and high Will save negate -enemies must be close together (all within 25 ft of each other) -only lasts 1d6 rounds...wtf is that duration about? -oh yeah, it gives your enemies concealment vs. you. Hello miss chance! -darkness is better and only 1 level higher. -dispel magic -obscuring mist (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/obscuringMist.htm) has no save, no SR, a bigger radius, and lasts a full minute/level.
Nicholas the Paladin 07-02-07, 02:48 AM	If the OP has to, as he said, "apologize for having a character that is effective," and has to do so "again," and has a "track record" for this, with obviously multiple (rotating) DMs, he might want to stop and reconsider what he thinks is "effective." The point is, it is much more likely this player is doing something wrong to cause all his DMs to react to him as if his characters are overpowered, than it is that all of these people DMing for him are collectively a bunch of complete idiots.. THe thing is, our group consists if two kind of players: players that like to invest in their character and players who don't as much. I'm the first, and I don't mind the latter. It's not like I like to powergame (I'm a good roleplayer, if I say so myself), but I just 'know' what the strengths and weaknesses are of the characters I play, and I go along with that. Example: My beguiler has mainly Enchantment and Illusion spells, that aren't overly effective. So all I can do is, maximized the DC's through feats (spellfocus etc) and INT as much as possible. This in my case, is easier done, since I have a limited repertoire (2 schools) of spells. People notice the high DC's I have, but that in a sense that is only logical. Besides that our group consists of two kind of DM's: DM's that want to be in controll and DM's that lead the game more loosely. Some DM's just have a tendency to want to 'win' from the players (whatever that is). Some DM's aren't that flexible to be able to cope with surprises the player's pull. My personal frustration with all of this is, that the same people that are controll-DM's are the players that don't spend as much time building their character (which in itself is okay). And are the same players that are the first to comment that other players are 'overpowered' That get's on my nerves, since I see it as somewhat hypocrit). It's not like we do anything special: nothing like multiple 1-level-dip PrC's build that we see on the CharOpt-boards. Nothing like the idiotic feats and PrC's that everybody knows. Mostly it's just tactical insight. So, looking at your net of shadows spell, the following pops out at me: -SR and high Will save negate -enemies must be close together (all within 25 ft of each other) -only lasts 1d6 rounds...wtf is that duration about? -oh yeah, it gives your enemies concealment vs. you. Hello miss chance! -darkness is better and only 1 level higher. -dispel magic -obscuring mist has no save, no SR, a bigger radius, and lasts a full minute/level. Okay, so we agree that this spell isn't all that special. I just made good use of it in cramped spaces (the sewers). 1) DM obligation: Every DM needs to know what the players can do. Nothing should come as a surprise. 2) DM wisdom: Always expect the unexpected. Having players who at least utilize their abilities should be understood as part of the game, but having clever players that supercede expectation should be encouraged. If an aspect of a story needs to happen, a DM should always think of alternate scenarios that could reasonably suit the situation if plan B is foiled. 3) DM intelligence: As mentioned above, "any" spell or power can foil a plot if unprepared for. That does not make the power broken/ overpowered, it only proves the short-sightedness and slowness of the DM. 4) DM perception: A good DM tries to see things from the PC point of view to help anticipate and judge merit with story and NPC action. What are the possible outcomes of a group of evil people approaching PC's that merely want them to come with them back to their lair? A cautious PC, by nature, would not trust a villain at their word, and a typical PC would seek a means to turn the tables on possible captors and slayers. The DM would need to provide additional motivation for the PC's to obey without any hassle. Maybe a family member is taken and held hostage, maybe the villains threaten to blackmail them, or maybe the villains offer an exchange of goodies. I think that since it could have been any spell, any action that resulted in the same result, that the DM was just outraged the train derailed. These kinds of DM's have only one track to the story. I agree.
DyloniusFunk 07-02-07, 11:30 AM	So what are you supposed to do, keep multiple spell lists for each DM? "Hey guys i wish i could use that awesome spell that saved our butts last week but there is a new voice in my head this time telling me it's not allowed". Sorry , bull-dren. If the DMs' want to play the rotating game they need to be kept on the same apge but to expect the players to keep multiple sets of characters just to fit each DM's personal views is ridiculous. If you want to be a rotating DM, you need to keep a "If the guy before me allowed it i gotta deal with it" attitude.
zelf_gale 07-02-07, 12:54 PM	Rotate DMs and Rotate Characters... and Rotate Campaigns. Run Abigals Angel Campaign on Monday. Betty's Bugbear Campaign on Tuesday. etc. Or make a standardized list of available books, spells, classes, equipment, feats, magic items, skills, animal companions, familiars, etc. that all DMs share. For a starting place you could check the rules for the RPGA Living Greyhawk Campaign.
solbergb 07-02-07, 01:49 PM	Hi Guys, <the spell creates a small cloud of shadow around 1 cr/level, effectively blinding them beyond 5ft. Within the 5ft, there's concealment and thus a 20% miss-chance for the victim ánd the person attacking his. This makes it mostly an battelfield-controll spell.> This really doesn't do much that obscuring mist doesn't already do. It follows them around, which is different but I assume they get saves and it doesn't last that long. Compare to glitterdust....it's very similar but weaker (they're all the way blinded with glitterdust and it reveals rather than conceals the targets) What you did wrong was not go over the spell with the GM before you took it. People always react worse when blindsided.
LCD2YOU 07-02-07, 02:10 PM	What solbergb said. You went behind his back and then he over-reacted. So which came first? Going behind his back. Simple rule. If the DM don't know about the book, don't ever use something from it. Yes he over reacted as solbergb again so correctly pointed out, being blindsided is no way to start off. As for apologizing to him, perhaps if you clear things first, aka ask permission, you wouldn't have to apologize.
bob_the_great 07-02-07, 03:47 PM	What solbergb said. You went behind his back and then he over-reacted. So which came first? Going behind his back. Simple rule. If the DM don't know about the book, don't ever use something from it. Yes he over reacted as solbergb again so correctly pointed out, being blindsided is no way to start off. As for apologizing to him, perhaps if you clear things first, aka ask permission, you wouldn't have to apologize. I think you missed a rather important detail: Last session a new DM took over from the previous (we rotate). The spell choice took place before the new DM did.
solbergb 07-02-07, 06:29 PM	Then, perhaps, the campaign needs some kind of understanding on how new material is to be introduced. Either it's wide open and the DM's need to get used to being surprised, or the DM's agree on what's allowed and what isn't or at least what review process for new stuff is normal.
dantedarkstar 07-02-07, 06:49 PM	Overreacting. Player's Handbook Wizard/Sorcerer spells Spell level 2 (acquired at 3rd level by wizard) Fog Cloud spell It sounds exactly like your net of shadows. At level 1 (!) wizards have similar spell, with the sole exception of being centered on caster instead of anywhere in range. Just a DM that's not very experienced and didn't know what to expect. He felt cheated because his "uber" encouter was thwarted and he didn't exactly know what to do.
amethal 07-02-07, 07:17 PM	Overreacting. Just a DM that's not very experienced and didn't know what to expect. He felt cheated because his "uber" encouter was thwarted and he didn't exactly know what to do.Yeah. As an experienced DM, I know what to expect - the unexpected. I wish I had a penny for each time the PCs made a mockery of a carefully constructed encounter by clever spell use and (sometimes) some bad NPC saving throws. It can be disconcerting the first couple of times it happens, but with time I stopped taking it personally. Since it ain't DM vs Players, just because they made fools out of a bunch of NPCs it doesn't mean they made a fool out of me. Instead I try and dwell on the good times, such as :- PC1 - I cast spell x DM - It doesn't work PC2 - I try spell y DM - That doesn't work either PC3 - "I think we might be in trouble ...."
Mock26 07-02-07, 08:03 PM	One of the aspects of D&D that all players have to learn and accept is that sometimes the DM is better than the players and that the players will "lose" an encounter. And, one of the aspects of D&D that all DM's have to learn and accept is that sometimes the players are better than the DM and the the DM will "lose" an encounter. The key, for both the players and the DM, is to learn to accept it gracefully and/or to adapt to the situation. This is clearly a case of the DM not accepting it gracefully. A good DM is not above "cheating" in a situation like this. If this was a VERY important encounter where the priests were meant to achieve a certain goal then the DM should have adapted the encounter on the fly and had more of the priests following behind the first group of priests or given them some spell or item to counter the net of shadows spell or done something else (other than throw a mini-tantrum). Now, I don't advocate "cheating" every time an encounter goes against a DM, but sometimes (and I stress the importance of the word sometimes!) the DM wants and/or needs an enounter to go a certain way, and sometimes the DM doesn't set it up just right or the players do something totally unexpected. In those situations, I would urge the DM to alter the encounter to ahcieve the desired outcome. Since it ain't DM vs Players, just because they made fools out of a bunch of NPCs it doesn't mean they made a fool out of me I actually treat the game as it being one of Me (the DM) vs. the Players. Of course, the players view it that way, too, but we all know that it is fun and just a game, and we all think that it makes us all better players. I actually laughed when I was accidentally received an e-mail from one player asking all the others how they thought I would react if they used a spell in a certain manner. I hadn't realized that they had their own Players Only e-mail group where they exchanged ideas on how to get the better of me. It is a "tactic" that I completely and totally approve of amongst players, and with each new session I wonder if they have something new up their collective sleeves. Of course, they don't know that I exchange regular e-mails with 3 of my friends back in New York who were all DM's/GM's in my old gaming group. It has led to some fun gaming sessions for me and my group (and my old group in New York).
Vash_HS 07-02-07, 08:13 PM	One of the aspects of D&D that all players have to learn and accept is that sometimes the DM is better than the players and that the players will "lose" an encounter. And, one of the aspects of D&D that all DM's have to learn and accept is that sometimes the players are better than the DM and the the DM will "lose" an encounter. The key, for both the players and the DM, is to learn to accept it gracefully and/or to adapt to the situation. This is clearly a case of the DM not accepting it gracefully. A good DM is not above "cheating" in a situation like this. If this was a VERY important encounter where the priests were meant to achieve a certain goal then the DM should have adapted the encounter on the fly and had more of the priests following behind the first group of priests or given them some spell or item to counter the net of shadows spell or done something else (other than throw a mini-tantrum). Now, I don't advocate "cheating" every time an encounter goes against a DM, but sometimes (and I stress the importance of the word sometimes!) the DM wants and/or needs an enounter to go a certain way, and sometimes the DM doesn't set it up just right or the players do something totally unexpected. In those situations, I would urge the DM to alter the encounter to ahcieve the desired outcome. I actually treat the game as it being one of Me (the DM) vs. the Players. Of course, the players view it that way, too, but we all know that it is fun and just a game, and we all think that it makes us all better players. I actually laughed when I was accidentally received an e-mail from one player asking all the others how they thought I would react if they used a spell in a certain manner. I hadn't realized that they had their own Players Only e-mail group where they exchanged ideas on how to get the better of me. It is a "tactic" that I completely and totally approve of amongst players, and with each new session I wonder if they have something new up their collective sleeves. Of course, they don't know that I exchange regular e-mails with 3 of my friends back in New York who were all DM's/GM's in my old gaming group. It has led to some fun gaming sessions for me and my group (and my old group in New York). I agree, especially if it is something simple like "oops, he actually prepared dispel magic, not this other spell he has yet to use." If it's that important for the NPC to continue something small like that isn't something that would bother me, a player. Of course the alternative is random follower teleports in and teleports out the followers or even "back at the temple, other followers used a divination and learned of what you did." and use that as a hook back into the plot.