the cast.
Seth "The Rules Lawyer"
William "The DM"
Tim "The Guy who was attacked by the rules lawyer"
i had in our homegmae group, an RPGA rules lawyer named Seth, who played a cheesed out goliath rageblood barbarian. Tim plays a razorclaw artful dodger, we ran into a dwarven solo monster. Tim wanted to blind it by throwing a pouch of dust in the solo's eyes. which is essentially free. Seth said "You need a power to do that". Tim told him, "it's not a power, it's a pouch of dust. an item that can inflict temporary blindness, and can be found anywhere for free." Seth said "So you have blinding powder. it costs 30 gold pieces." Tim told him "It's a pouch of dust, just because it does the same thing as blinding powder doesn't mean it is." Seth said "the entry in the adventurers vault says blinding power costs 30 gold pieces." Tim asked him "when did markets sell dust?"
William the dungeon master didn't comment and Tim opted not to throw the dust.
Seth is a hardcore rules lawyer and tries to interrupt any action made that he beleives is illegal. which is anything not listed in a published rulebook. he also looks for the biggest cheese possible.
if you were a DM. who would you side with.
i would side with Tim for the creative use of a common item to cheat the financial cost. i'm sure Harvey (another player in the group) would too if he were there that night.
for corrections, it was a small pouch full of dust, and the solo was not wearing eye protection. blinding powder is AoE, this was just a single target effect. tim didn't care so much about the blindness debuff as much as he cared about getting that combat advantage.
we finally got williams ruling on Tim's Dust
Mean Alternative: Throw dust in his face and see how well he can see.
P.S. Also, it's blinding bomb for 30 gp, which is area burst 1 and +6 vs. fort. There is no blinding powder.
P.P.S. With regards to "You need a power to do that". Show him page 42, let him know in no equivocal terms that no you do not need a power for every possible action.
Dust normaly to a normal person can blind him.
But not realy in normal combat soliders are trained to have mud in there eyes and still fire there gun straight.
Thus its my beleve that you should pay the 30 gold for the blinding bomb if you truely want to blind them
After all your adventures ok your not SUPERMAN or such but your trained to keep going with sweat and blood in your eyes
Thus basicly its a flash GNad or such.
Dust thrown in someones eyes wouldnt effect them very much (Not with helmets visors and such that was design to help keep **** out of the soilder eyes)
After all soliders where still perfectly fine able to fire there bows even if the sun was in there eyes. Sure it causes problems (Like the targets in air combat being able to hide better in the sun)
It however dosnt provide the same effect (Like not being seen at all) In air to air combat hideing with the sun behind you just gave you a slight miss chance that was all (Enough to give the jet a hide check)
This is my arguement.
the DM can rule what he wants but this is what i would bring up. The Dust from the ground wouldnt effect someone like that people are trained agest that.
Im damn sure a dragon who lives underwater with MURKY water and all that good stuff in the water isnt suddenly going to go Oh Me Gee! DUST IM BLINDED ALL THESE YEARS LIVING UNDER THE SEA WITH MURKY DARK WATER WITH FISH CRAP EVEYWHERE BEING ABLE TO SEE JUST FINE YET IM BLINDED BY DUST! AHHH THE HUMANITY!
Just no. You'll have to provide VERY good reason behind the monster in Question why he would be blinded by simple dust.
Hell when im playing with my friends and mud and dust still gets into my eyes im still able to spot them. Ok its distracting and i dont like it. BUT I STILL SEES THEM!
Being adventures / monsters ESPECOULY being alive in the time period there kinda so pos to with the life styles im sure they would not like the dust but wouldnt be blinded.
Especouly agest a solo boss who should know how to deal with this kind of stuff.
At most i might say a kobolt who basicly lives in the dirt and filth of other creatures whos most likly able to deal with random dirt in there eyes might not like you tossing dirt into his eyes.
Not only that but shouldnt there be at least an attack roll?
First of all your aiming to use a range thrown weapon at a target possibly louse if not next to you (And thus suffer from the attacks from it) Your Aiming for there eyes there moving around in combat trying to bite you or something.
and then when you release your dirt its gotta acouly hit the small target your aiming at.
And dirt being thrown isnt all that accurate eather its basicly a pay and spray type of an attack the more dirt you toss the better.
so no prof bonus at all its not a weapon per say.
it be like me attacking you with features ... I SHALL TOSS A WHOLE BUCKET OF FEATHERS INTO YOUR EYES YOUR BLINDED!
Just no.
I would possibly make it a split duel stat for attack a little bit of dex (Half mod) with Str (Half mod) vs Ref and Secondary hit to see if there even Effected by going blind vs Fort both need to hit IF you where able to come up with a good enough reason that it would blind.
After all if the Flash bomb gets a attack vs Fort im damn sure they get a save agest being blinded (By save i mean you have to hit them) and hit them in the right spot (Eyes) the flash bomb basicly just targets eveything and dosnt care if it hits your eyes or not ...
So Basicly My Law rule Lawyer would screem ... Uh No you fail?
BUT its your DM Choice.
Unless of course, anyone else catches on to this tactic and tries to use it against us...
Seriously though, even if "Seth" came off heavy handed, broken is broken, regardless of "Tim's" intentions/playstyle, or how frequently he intends to use his "neat idea." In fact, the only fair way I could see to allow this so that it wasn't exploitable, would be to require spending an Action Point to do it.
Throw the dust when the creature's attacking: defensive aid another
Throw the dust when your ally's attacking: offensive aid another.
But not realy in normal combat soliders are trained to have mud in there eyes and still fire there gun straight.
No. Not just no, but really, no. Soldiers need to be able to see to shoot straight. That's why they wear special equipment called "goggles".
After all your adventures ok your not SUPERMAN or such but your trained to keep going with sweat and blood in your eyes
Again, no. Just try it sometime.
Dust thrown in someones eyes wouldnt effect them very much (Not with helmets visors and such that was design to help keep **** out of the soilder eyes)
Now, at least, you're getting somewhere. Yes a soldier wearing a helmet with a visor would have better protection to his eyesight, at the same time, said soldier would have a restriction on his vision. Try on a plate helm sometime with those narrow visors - see how well you can hit a plate on a stick from horseback with a lance...
After all soliders where still perfectly fine able to fire there bows even if the sun was in there eyes. Sure it causes problems (Like the targets in air combat being able to hide better in the sun)
Yeah they would *shield their eyes*. Are you really just making this stuff up? You should join the SCA and get some real, first hand, 1 on 1 medieval weapons training.
Question why he would be blinded by simple dust.
Go outside and throw a handful of dust in your face and you'll have your answer.
Hell when im playing with my friends and mud and dust still gets into my eyes im still able to spot them. Ok its distracting and i dont like it. BUT I STILL SEES THEM!
Not talking a *speck* of dust - talking about a handful of dust in the face. Make sure you keep your eyes open when you throw it at yourself too to properly simulate your reflex defense being breached.
That's why they wear special equipment called "goggles".
But ze goggles..ZE DO NOZING!
Seriously though, it is a creative tactic; but being an improvised one, I would have DMd it to work like blinding bomb, but with a penalty to hit and effect.
And I'd use it a LOT against the players from then on.
But ze goggles..ZE DO NOZING!
Seriously though, it is a creative tactic; but being an improvised one, I would have DMd it to work like blinding bomb, but with a penalty to hit and effect.
I should know that quote, but I don't...
Your solution works too. ;)
The blinding bomb is an area attack that affects one or more targets, with an attack against Fortitude, and gives everyone an advantage against them until the end of the attacker's next turn.
Blinding bombs can be thrown as many times as the character has bombs.
This is why it's an alchemical item that costs money.
Throwing or kicking dust/sand/whatever in somebody's face is going to be an attack against Reflex on a single target, and would only give the attacker (and no one else) an advantage on their next attack against that target.
Any sane DM would only allow this trick to work once in any given combat, and is no different than any other creative use of the environment in combat, such as pulling down a tapestry on an opponent or kicking a chair at them.
An important thing to note is that although rogues have powers that would mimic this, those powers combine the distraction (throwing the dust or feinting, whatever) and the attack into a single action, whereas it would require two separate standard actions to accomplish this without a power, and still wouldn't guarantee you get any advantage by doing it since the opponent could move away from you before you can get your next attack on them.
I should know that quote, but I don't...
Your solution works too. ;)
It's the Simpsons. The Episode where they are filming Radioactive Man.
I'd rule that dust in the eyes is of limited use. It's not blinding but distracting and might give a person +1 to hit on their next attack. As well it would only work once against a given opponent.
I would also let the rules lawyer know that when I'm running a game he keeps his RAW quoting mouth shut unless someone specifically asks him a ruling. It's my game, and I like bending rules here and there for role play and/or creative reasons. I don't appreciate a player taking the DM role right out from under me because he believes it is against RAW.
After all, hit points aren't about straight damage -- it never HAS been. It's about combat effectiveness, and if a handful of dust might cause, say, 1d8 + DEX mod damage plus dazes the opponent to end of your next turn or something, then it's not jsut dazed them, it's taken away some of their fighting spirit - it's made it easier for a finishing blow to take them out.
Unless William is new to DMing or just plain inept, he does not need Seth's help. If Seth wants to determine what the characters can or cannot do, he should be the DM. It's William's adventure world and if he says a dust bag would work, it would work regardless of what the books say.
Personally, I tend to reward characters for out of the box thinking (and because I like continuing to use percentile dice), so I'd give Tim a percentage chance of it working. Albeit a low percentage chance.
Here, for your trouble(s)...
William the dungeon master didn't comment and Tim opted not to throw the dust.
William isn't doing his job (well). Part of DM'ing is mediation, not just story telling and making thematic & mechanical rulings. He's enabling the angst. He is in control, not the most vocal/assertive person at the table (Seth). Seth needs to fall in line and come correct and William needs to grow a pair IMO. Otherwise, Seth should DM and take flak from the players routinely to see what kind of position he's putting William in.
Seth is a hardcore rules lawyer and tries to interrupt any action made that he beleives is illegal.
Why this is bad:
Show
I prefer my method (for what it's worth, take it/leave it) of "the loyal opposition". When I'm DM'ing, I need that critical perspective from as many players as possible. We're all working together (social dynamic), I just carry more weight by game design is all (DM). With that in mind, we all are learning from one another. It takes a village...bla bla bla.
Someone will be very good at combat, another at spells, etc. This info must be shared and taught to the others to keep the game on track, encourage growth, groom new players, etc.
I need to know if I have made a mistake just as they, in turn, need to know if they're in error as well. Like the govt., checks and balances. If I'm making routine mistakes and no one informs me as a DM, I'll keep making them and slag the game and likely my players. Same for vice versa, but a DM is supposed to "correct" players. I need to be corrected too from time to time as there is simply such an abundance of text to committ to memory, mistakes can/will happen. I invite convincing arguements (correction) from rational minds, both pro and con.
I especially appreciate it when a player informs another player of a penalty I have overlooked. It's fair. It's not a betrayal though and we MUST REMEMBER THAT. Othewise, it's cheating if your silence benefits you/group. Karmically, I'll let them know if they're shortchanging themselves as the foil. Fair is fair and it sets a good precident. We all have to have some trust & integrity.
Like "Kill Bill"...If you think my decision/ruling isn't the correct one, say so, but allow me to convince you otherwise and I will follow in turn. I don't want anyone making mistakes just as I don't want to as well. Better DM'ing and playing = better overall game. We keep everyone appraised of the rules correctly and politely, then we make less mistakes and the problem goes away as we achieve rules mastery and good socialization.
I prefer my method (for what it's worth, take it/leave it) of "the loyal opposition". When I'm DM'ing, I need that critical perspective from as many players as possible. We're all working together (social dynamic), I just carry more weight by game design is all (DM). With that in mind, we all are learning from one another. It takes a village...bla bla bla.
Someone will be very good at combat, another at spells, etc. This info must be shared and taught to the others to keep the game on track, encourage growth, groom new players, etc.
I need to know if I have made a mistake just as they, in turn, need to know if they're in error as well. Like the govt., checks and balances. If I'm making routine mistakes and no one informs me as a DM, I'll keep making them and slag the game and likely my players. Same for vice versa, but a DM is supposed to "correct" players. I need to be corrected too from time to time as there is simply such an abundance of text to committ to memory, mistakes can/will happen. I invite convincing arguements (correction) from rational minds, both pro and con.
I especially appreciate it when a player informs another player of a penalty I have overlooked. It's fair. It's not a betrayal though and we MUST REMEMBER THAT. Othewise, it's cheating if your silence benefits you/group. Karmically, I'll let them know if they're shortchanging themselves as the foil. Fair is fair and it sets a good precident. We all have to have some trust & integrity.
Like "Kill Bill"...If you think my decision/ruling isn't the correct one, say so, but allow me to convince you otherwise and I will follow in turn. I don't want anyone making mistakes just as I don't want to as well. Better DM'ing and playing = better overall game. We keep everyone appraised of the rules correctly and politely, then we make less mistakes and the problem goes away as we achieve rules mastery and good socialization.
After all, hit points aren't about straight damage -- it never HAS been. It's about combat effectiveness, and if a handful of dust might cause, say, 1d8 + DEX mod damage plus dazes the opponent to end of your next turn or something, then it's not jsut dazed them, it's taken away some of their fighting spirit - it's made it easier for a finishing blow to take them out.
That is an @will power...too much...
I also think that both were wrong.
and I agree w/ the poster that talks about no rules discussions during a game. Bring something up, get the DM to make a decision. Play it out. Argue after the game is over.
As a free and renewable improvised attack, it shouldn't inflict an actual condition; dealing damage is silly too, because dust in the face shouldn't take out a minion of any level. Thankfully there's the Aid Another action. Jobz dunn!
Go outside and throw a handful of dust in your face and you'll have your answer.
technically it was a medeivieval wallet sized pouch full. but he threw handful from that pouch. i beleive it would be dexterity V.S. reflex on a single target. blinding powder is A.o.E. the point was to get combat advantage. and it would have helped the party get that round of C/A.
In the circle I play in, we have an unwritten (but often quoted) rule: Players do not help the DM. Seth would get a bashing not just from Tim, but from the other players as well.
Unless William is new to DMing or just plain inept, he does not need Seth's help. If Seth wants to determine what the characters can or cannot do, he should be the DM. It's William's adventure world and if he says a dust bag would work, it would work regardless of what the books say.
Personally, I tend to reward characters for out of the box thinking (and because I like continuing to use percentile dice), so I'd give Tim a percentage chance of it working. Albeit a low percentage chance.
William DMed 3e for years, but this is his first time running 4e
However, bonus points for creativity. I would have been a little upset with
Seth not just for interrupting the flow of the game, but for trying to stifle creativity over some imagined rule that he needs a power for everything. Make the ruling balanced (total blindness is not balanced), but creativity and the story should take precedence over rules anyway.
And NO, soldiers cannot function effectively with mud or dust or whatever in their eyes. Some soldiers can't shoot straight on a clear day with no adverse conditions whatsoever. Even the best still need to be able to see. Thats why soldiers are issued eye protection. I'd really like to know where you got that idea Korgoth. Not to mention that a little speck of random dust is different than a bag of it deliberately thrown in your face.
I would have allowed it, but with a less significant effect than a specially prepared item with monetary value.
First a Dex vs Ref attack. The dust counts as an improvised weapon. If it hits, the attacker makes a Bluff check vs the target's passive Insight. Success means the target is blinded until the start of the target's next turn.
If a player wants to carry around a bag of dust and try and use it to blind, go for it.
My rules for it, you must be adjacent. Why? I can't see a handful of dust flying over 5 feet and still being effective. It's a ranged attack, so OA, which as an artful dodger is worth the risk with the bonus to OA to AC.
It's Dex vs Reflex. If it hits, it grants combat advantage till the end of the Rogues next turn. That way, the can get one attempt at a sneak attack in.
The trick can only be used once per encounter, because everyone will be wary after the first time.
As for dealing with a rules Lawyer. I would simply do this. Make them look up and read aloud every rule they are trying to enforce, but they need to give you one action on their turn, as they spent part of their turn telling someone else what to do.
And if they don't like that, I have a door they can use.
See the Bluff skill on pg. 183 of the PHB - specifically the "Gain Combat Advantage" part in the shaded box. Reflavor as needed. Problem solved.
Tim: *explains plan with dust pouch*
Me: "What do you want out of this?"
Tim: "Combat advantage."
Me: "Okay. Make me a Bluff check as a move action to get the dust in his eyes."
Tim: "What? Why Bluff?"
Me: "Uh... well, okay. What's the difference between your attack and your Bluff?" *fudge some numbers to make it roughly equal to using Bluff as a move to gain combat advantage*
Me: "Okay. Roll your attack. Okay! You used your move action to get combat advantage. What are you doing with your standard?"
Right there in the rules to use a Bluff check once per encounter as move action to gain combat advantage. You can always work with players on this sort of thing. That he wanted combat advantage out of the deal is the key.
EDIT: Ninja'd. Dern it.
EDIT: Ninja'd. Dern it.
Erm, no... Ninja'd would be when you're typing your reply and someone beats you to it moments before.
You just didn't read all the replies. ;)
Erm, no... Ninja'd would be when you're typing your reply and someone beats you to it moments before.
You just didn't read all the replies. ;)
No. I had read all the replies. I took too long to type mine, and somebody else posted what I was saying in the meantime. I'd say that's ninja'd.
No. I had read all the replies. I took too long to type mine, and somebody else posted what I was saying in the meantime. I'd say that's ninja'd.
Ok... so 7:55pm EST, post about bluff goes up. Your post goes up 9:35pm EST...so it took you 1h40 minutes to type your reply...
Mavis Beacon...ftw...
If you don't reward players who come up with cool ideas, they'll stop coming up with cool ideas. Thus the bias toward "saying yes".
If you let cool ideas work as overpowered powers, you'll have a seriously cracked game. (And yes, ->blinding<- as an at-will attack is seriously overpowered.)
In my opinion, it should have gone something like this:
Tim: I'm going to throw dust in his eyes to blind him!
Seth: You have blinding powder?
Tim: No. Just dust. I'm throwing dust. That should blind him.
Seth: You need blinding power! just plain dust is ...
William: Er hold on. Blinding's a bit too much. But we can work something out. Make a Dex attack and tell me what you get...
Tim: I rolled a 16, so that's a ... 21
William (adds +2/tier as a generic no implement modifier, compares to Fort): Hit! He takes a half step back and wipes at his eyes. Everyone: he's granting combat advantage.
Later ...
William: Tim, after thinking about it some more, I think giving everyone Combat Advantage was still a bit much. I think if you do that in the future, I'll only have it give you combat advantage, kinda like a bluff check. But if you want, we could make it an encounter or daily power, and then it could be more effective....
Give too much at the time, to encourage creativity. Keep it in check later to avoid creating uber-powerful at will powers.
A good DM will listen for a very brief time rules issues in the middle of the game. Sometimes the DM is in fact wrong on a rule and needs to be reminded. If it is a matter of interpretation then the DM should listen to all sides involved (and all sides should be quick and concise about giving their side to the discussion) and the DM should then make a temporary ruling on the spot, stick to it for the rest of that session, and then afterwards discuss the issue in detail before making a final decision. After the DM has listened to all sides and made his decision then all players need to abide by the rule and not bring it up again during play.
Ok... so 7:55pm EST, post about bluff goes up. Your post goes up 9:35pm EST...so it took you 1h40 minutes to type your reply...
Mavis Beacon...ftw...
No. Took me less than five to type my reply. However, I went away and came back. I have two kids. Things take longer, especially when you're making dinner, changing diapers, holding bottles, sterilizing bottles, and cleaning the house in between.
ask the player (Tim) to make the bluff check as a feint.
OR
I would point out that blinding powder has a +__ to hit when used. A pouch of dust does not. This is why blinding powder costs money and dust does not. Then I would have had this function just the same as blinding powder and ran with that.
why spend 30 gold pieces on a compound specially made to blind someone when it could be easily replaced by a pouch of common dust? and dust is free.
the cast.
Seth "The Rules Lawyer"
William "The DM"
Tim "The Guy who was attacked by the rules lawyer"
i had in our homegmae group, an RPGA rules lawyer named Seth, who played a cheesed out goliath rageblood barbarian. Tim plays a razorclaw artful dodger, we ran into a dwarven solo monster. Tim wanted to blind it by throwing a pouch of dust in the solo's eyes. which is essentially free. Seth said "You need a power to do that". Tim told him, "it's not a power, it's a pouch of dust. an item that can inflict temporary blindness, and can be found anywhere for free." Seth said "So you have blinding powder. it costs 30 gold pieces." Tim told him "It's a pouch of dust, just because it does the same thing as blinding powder doesn't mean it is." Seth said "the entry in the adventurers vault says blinding power costs 30 gold pieces." Tim asked him "when did markets sell dust?"
William the dungeon master didn't comment and Tim opted not to throw the dust.
Seth is a hardcore rules lawyer and tries to interrupt any action made that he beleives is illegal. which is anything not listed in a published rulebook. he also looks for the biggest cheese possible.
if you were a DM. who would you side with.
i would side with Tim for the creative use of a common item to cheat the financial cost. i'm sure Harvey (another player in the group) would too if he were there that night.
for corrections, it was a small pouch full of dust, and the solo was not wearing eye protection. blinding powder is AoE, this was just a single target effect. tim didn't care so much about the blindness debuff as much as he cared about getting that combat advantage.
I would tell Seth to stop interrupting the game unless he wants to DM. As for that free blind dust nonsense if I were a DM I would not allow it, unless it were a very lighthearted game. If I were a 3rd non-involved player I would tell to grow a pair and make a decision.
No. Took me less than five to type my reply. However, I went away and came back. I have two kids. Things take longer, especially when you're making dinner, changing diapers, holding bottles, sterilizing bottles, and cleaning the house in between.
I was thinking the same thing...but didn't bother to post on it, and seeing your reply..I feel for you man...i got 3 and know exactly what you are going through...be happy you even got back to posting...
I was thinking the same thing...but didn't bother to post on it, and seeing your reply..I feel for you man...i got 3 and know exactly what you are going through...be happy you even got back to posting...
Indeed. These kids today, they don't know how good they have it. I tells ya. Young whippersnappers. Why in my day... oh, nevermind.
See, Tim doesn't have to convince Seth. Nor does he have to convince the rulebook/WoTC. All he has to do is convince me the DM. And since I already know through practical xp that one can be blinded for a moment by recieving a facefull of dirt.....
So it just comes down to A) what type of action am I going to call this, B) what exact effects am I going to assign it - odds to hit, duration, etc.
No doubt Seth will fume & object (rules lawyers tend to do that when they lose). Well, too bad. Because I'm the DM & in the end I control reality. What I say trumps the books. That means I'm the final rules lawyer at the table.
I also don't run RPGA stuff, so I'm not beholden to their opinions/rulings. If they think you can't throw dirt? That's their own bussiness.
I'm afraid Seth would lose at my table.....
See, Tim doesn't have to convince Seth. Nor does he have to convince the rulebook/WoTC. All he has to do is convince me the DM. And since I already know through practical xp that one can be blinded for a moment by recieving a facefull of dirt.....
So it just comes down to A) what type of action am I going to call this, B) what exact effects am I going to assign it - odds to hit, duration, etc.
No doubt Seth will fume & object (rules lawyers tend to do that when they lose). Well, too bad. Because I'm the DM & in the end I control reality. What I say trumps the books. That means I'm the final rules lawyer at the table.
I also don't run RPGA stuff, so I'm not beholden to their opinions/rulings. If they think you can't throw dirt? That's their own bussiness.
Well, yeah. And there's already a mechanic to do something similar that you could adapt very easily. Just figure out how Dex vs. Fort compares to Bluff vs. Insight, adjust as needed (honestly, I probably wouldn't even adjust. It sounds fair), and you're done. He can go ahead and take his move action to throw dirt in the eyes of his opponent to gain combat advantage.
No doubt Seth will fume & object (rules lawyers tend to do that when they lose). Well, too bad. Because I'm the DM & in the end I control reality. What I say trumps the books. That means I'm the final rules lawyer at the table.
I also don't run RPGA stuff, so I'm not beholden to their opinions/rulings. If they think you can't throw dirt? That's their own bussiness.
I'm a bit of a rules lawyer, and I totally object to this attitude. Here's why:
When a DM begins to allow actions (or items, or feats, or whatever else) that are not explicitly spelled out in the rules, I feel cheated. If I want a character that can throw dust to blind, I buy some of those Blinding Bombs or take something like the Sand in the Eyes power (PHB, Rogue, encounter 7). The rules are the physics, if you will, of the world - and if gravity suddenly doesn't work as anticipated, it throws you off.
Without a stable set of rules, an objective arbiter of what characters can and cannot do which applies to everyone (players and DM alike), you cannot make an informed decision about what feat to take or which items to buy or which foe to attack.
Also, it would have rendered my work of searching books for ways to make a character idea work useless by, essentially, a rules loophole. Let's assume, for a moment, that I had an idea for a character that did this. I spend some time (perhaps an hour or two) determining the best way to accomplish it, and settle on the Rogue multiclass. Now, in comparison, I've spent two feats and two hours, while Tim spent...a bag of dust. Oh, and I had to wait till level 7, while Tim could have done it at 1.
An At-Will, attack that costs no money, gives the whole party total concealment against the target, imposes a -10 penalty to the target's perception checks, causes the target to grant combat advantage, and eliminates the target's ability to flank? SWEET! Do you have any spots left open in your group? We could conquer the WORLD!
Not only would I be strictly inferior to Tim in terms of resources spent, I would be grossly inferior if a DM allowed this. And this is why we all have to follow the rules.
So, that's my general reaction to this position.
That said, Seth, in this instance, was being a drag. Additionally, the action could plausibly be ruled as the Bluff vs. Insight for Combat Advantage. In fact, I would say it was a really creative and interesting way to do it, and perhaps give a bonus for the first time Tim did it. But if the DM allowed anything else (such as actual blinding), I would be unhappy. To say the least.
When a DM begins to allow actions (or items, or feats, or whatever else) that are not explicitly spelled out in the rules, I feel cheated. If I want a character that can throw dust to blind, I buy some of those Blinding Bombs or take something like the Sand in the Eyes power (PHB, Rogue, encounter 7). The rules are the physics, if you will, of the world - and if gravity suddenly doesn't work as anticipated, it throws you off.
Without a stable set of rules, an objective arbiter of what characters can and cannot do which applies to everyone (players and DM alike), you cannot make an informed decision about what feat to take or which items to buy or which foe to attack.
"An informed decision?" Unless your character got his hands on the module you're running (which would be a stupid move on the DM's part, even ignoring the 4th wall violation), your information is always highly limited. If the DM was nerfing feats and powers for no reason or allowing you to get power effects for free, that would be a problem, but (for the most part) this isn't what we're talking about.
If you want to do well in tactical combat, creativity is always a major asset, and you really can't change that without just giving the PC's a printout of the module.
You have absolutely no right or privilege to know the mechanically ideal feats to take, the best items to buy, or which foe to attack. Figuring that out on your own is the entire point of the game (and in fact is part of the definition of "game"). As long as the DM doesn't nerf things without telling you, and as long as he doesn't go Monty Hall in terms of allowing improvised attacks, the rules are stable. That "handful of dust" thing couldn't be as powerful as Blinding Bombs or the Sand in the Eyes power under any semi-competent DM, it's not a threat to game balance or the viability of your build or any other similar matter.
Oh, and I had to wait till level 7, while Tim could have done it at 1.
Except, of course, that this comparison only applies if Tim actually got the effect of the Rogue power. There's no reason to think that this would have been the case. It would have been more like a 30 gp item, expect 1) point blank range, 2) single target, 3) unrepeatable, 4) of little use in most other situations, 5) with a to-hit penalty. I can actually still see how you would consider it unfair, but I'm completely lost on how this bothers you more than the fact that you seem to regard a 30 gp item as completely trumping a level 7 Rogue power.
Also, it would have rendered my work of searching books for ways to make a character idea work useless by, essentially, a rules loophole. Let's assume, for a moment, that I had an idea for a character that did this. I spend some time (perhaps an hour or two) determining the best way to accomplish it, and settle on the Rogue multiclass. Now, in comparison, I've spent two feats and two hours, while Tim spent...a bag of dust. Oh, and I had to wait till level 7, while Tim could have done it at 1.
And why should the other player who came up with a clever idea have his work (of thinking up the idea) rendered useless? Also remember that anyone could have come up with the idea at level 1 (or any other level).
In this case I think you would have a valid point if Tim were allowed to perfectly duplicate with a free bag of dust a much more powerful item. If Tim was just looking for a small advantage then what is the big deal?
And why should people be constrained to just the rules? If people are constrained to just the rules then no one will ever come up with a new spell or a new weapon or a new piece of equipment. Remember that the rules are here to guide the game, not to dictate the game.
"An informed decision?" Unless your character got his hands on the module you're running (which would be a stupid move on the DM's part, even ignoring the 4th wall violation), your information is always highly limited. If the DM was nerfing feats and powers for no reason or allowing you to get power effects for free, that would be a problem, but (for the most part) this isn't what we're talking about.
I played a wizard once, and had a rather good time of it. A new player joined and wanted to play a wizard as well. The DM gave him a feat that allowed him to burn two spell slots to gain one of a higher level (use two level 3 spell slots to cast a level 4 spell). I felt he was cheating, but he was allowed to keep the ability by group consensus.
Not only did this player show me up constantly with this ability, it was an ability that I had no way of knowing was an option. It was certainly not official, and was never stated in any list of house rules - therefore it was a rules violation.
The DM allowed a rules violation, and it (essentially) rendered my character useless. That spoiled my fun. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about here.
See, here's the thing. If I spend personal and character resources to accomplish a goal, and another player is allowed to achieve that goal by doing and end-run around the rules (that the DM specifically allowed on the fly), I have a right to be angry.
At that point, we are no longer playing the same game.
If you want to do well in tactical combat, creativity is always a major asset, and you really can't change that without just giving the PC's a printout of the module.
Agreed. But the characters will have some idea of what is and is not possible. I'm going to assume that I can't pick up that large oak table and hurl it at my enemies, because it just seems like something the rules (physics) would not allow (carrying capacity and all). If another player is allowed to do just that, he effectively has an option that I never had access to.
We would be unequal in capability, not by player choice or error, but by fault of the DM.
You have absolutely no right or privilege to know the mechanically ideal feats to take, the best items to buy, or which foe to attack. Figuring that out on your own is the entire point of the game (and in fact is part of the definition of "game"). As long as the DM doesn't nerf things without telling you, and as long as he doesn't go Monty Hall in terms of allowing improvised attacks, the rules are stable. That "handful of dust" thing couldn't be as powerful as Blinding Bombs or the Sand in the Eyes power under any semi-competent DM, it's not a threat to game balance or the viability of your build or any other similar matter.
I'm not talking about ideal choices, I'm talking about when other players have a larger range of options because they are allowed to circumvent or go beyond the stated rules.
And, as I said above, this is not commentary on the specific situation in the OP. Rather, it is about the attitude towards people who play the game by the rules. If you start ignoring those, you may as well not even bring dice or character sheets.
Except, of course, that this comparison only applies if Tim actually got the effect of the Rogue power. There's no reason to think that this would have been the case. It would have been more like a 30 gp item, expect 1) point blank range, 2) single target, 3) unrepeatable, 4) of little use in most other situations, 5) with a to-hit penalty. I can actually still see how you would consider it unfair, but I'm completely lost on how this bothers you more than the fact that you seem to regard a 30 gp item as completely trumping a level 7 Rogue power.
Again, it was only for example's sake. The OP did not state what the DM did in the situation and I was making a case that it should not be run as a "blind" effect.
And why should the other player who came up with a clever idea have his work (of thinking up the idea) rendered useless? Also remember that anyone could have come up with the idea at level 1 (or any other level).
My solution, as the OP did not state what the DM did, was use the Bluff vs. Insight rules and give the player a bonus for creativity.
In this case I think you would have a valid point if Tim were allowed to perfectly duplicate with a free bag of dust a much more powerful item. If Tim was just looking for a small advantage then what is the big deal?
Agreed. We are only privy to what the OP gave us, and it would seem that "Tim" just wanted CA out of it. "Seth" could have been a bit more civil...but he had a point.
And why should people be constrained to just the rules? If people are constrained to just the rules then no one will ever come up with a new spell or a new weapon or a new piece of equipment. Remember that the rules are here to guide the game, not to dictate the game.
And why should people be constrained by the laws of physics?
Why should I be constrained by DCs on a jump check? Why should I be constrained by AC rules, or Attack Bonuses?
Because we are playing a game, and games have rules. Without the rules, you may as well not play. (Or go play rules-free make-believe, which is fine if that is what you want. But it isn't DnD)
If you throw out the rules, and allow players to make up feats and items and powers and whatnot - those that bother to read the books are at a fundamental disadvantage. And that makes me have less fun.
It is less fun, for me, when other players are allowed to do stuff that I ruled out as "impossible" because that's what the rules said. Maybe it isn't for you.
If you throw out the rules, and allow players to make up feats and items and powers and whatnot - those that bother to read the books are at a fundamental disadvantage. And that makes me have less fun.
I contend that you're making way too large a jump in logic going from "throw out the rules" to "allow players to make up feats and items and powers and whatnot." Nothing in the books says that you're not allowed to make things up. There are even parts that say you can, in some cases with rules for doing exactly that.
If the DM is allowing the party's second wizard to spend two Fireballs to cast a Black Tentacles at the expense of a feat, and that's breaking the game, it's the DM's fault. It doesn't inherently make improvisation and homebrewing bad ideas.
(Of course, there's also the fact that feat-for-spell-combining guy would have to read the rules pretty well to actually make use of such an ability, otherwise he wouldn't be able to do anything especially impressive with it.)
I played a wizard once, and had a rather good time of it. A new player joined and wanted to play a wizard as well. The DM gave him a feat that allowed him to burn two spell slots to gain one of a higher level (use two level 3 spell slots to cast a level 4 spell). I felt he was cheating, but he was allowed to keep the ability by group consensus.
Not only did this player show me up constantly with this ability, it was an ability that I had no way of knowing was an option. It was certainly not official, and was never stated in any list of house rules - therefore it was a rules violation.
The DM allowed a rules violation, and it (essentially) rendered my character useless. That spoiled my fun. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about here.
Here's the thing. The DM can't cheat. The rules are merely guidelines that the DM should stick with most of the time. However, when the rules would take away fun, make no sense, or harm the story, they should be considered to be secondary.
What the DM did there wasn't entirely wrong. He was well within his rights to change wizards that way. God knows that I wouldn't make them more powerful like that, but hey, it was his decision. Where he went wrong was in not allowing you to do it as well. When the DM starts ruining fun, something needs to change in the way he's doing things.
I'm not talking about ideal choices, I'm talking about when other players have a larger range of options because they are allowed to circumvent or go beyond the stated rules.
The stated rules are not really rules, though. 3ed and 4ed both allow the DM to change, add or remove them as he sees fit. Flexibility is a good thing, and they don't truly have a larger range of options because you have those same options.
And, as I said above, this is not commentary on the specific situation in the OP. Rather, it is about the attitude towards people who play the game by the rules. If you start ignoring those, you may as well not even bring dice or character sheets.
And this is just absurd. It's not even a real argument.
I would allow the thrown dust to work, but not as powerful as an actual item or feat. Probably a -2 to attack and flat-footed for 1 round.
I contend that you're making way too large a jump in logic going from "throw out the rules" to "allow players to make up feats and items and powers and whatnot." Nothing in the books says that you're not allowed to make things up. There are even parts that say you can, in some cases with rules for doing exactly that.
...
It doesn't inherently make improvisation and homebrewing bad ideas.
The problem isn't when player's make new items and powers or improvise, and it isn't about when DMs homebrew. The problem is when those things go against the established rules. I see the main categories as being:
1 - DM allows an action (or feat, or item, etc...) explicitly disallowed by the rules. For example, using an Acrobatics check to jump. When this happens, it makes me totally unsure of what my character is capable of. Can I now use, say, Nature checks instead of Dungeoneering (caves are natural, after all)? What about using my bow to make a melee attack? These options would never even enter my mind during play, because they are specifically not possible. This whole problem is magnified when the DM either plays favorites or makes systematic changes on the fly.
2 - DM allows an action that has "real" ways to do it. This is the OP situation. If the player in question wants to throw dust to blind people, there are established powers and items to do so. If I spend personal and character resources to accomplish X, and the DM decides to allow another player to do it outside the current system, I feel cheated. Players must have the same base of options.
3 - DM makes a systematic rules change on the fly (as opposed to a house rule established at game start). If I make a character with high Athletics, I can reasonably assume that my character has a rough idea how far he can leap. Let's say that I try to jump a pit trap and make the standard check to do so - but then the DM tells me that I failed because he changed the jump DCs to double the standard value. In this situation, the character would have known whether or not he could reasonably make it, and would not have tried had it been more difficult. (Would you jump a gap if it suddenly became twice as wide?)
Basically, a character has an idea of how the world works (the rules). If those rules are fluid or unknown to the player, the player cannot make an accurate judgment of what actions the character would take.
Here's the thing. The DM can't cheat. The rules are merely guidelines that the DM should stick with most of the time. However, when the rules would take away fun, make no sense, or harm the story, they should be considered to be secondary.
The DM can cheat - unless you consider a DM having a DMNPC that gets three standard actions per turn not cheating...
The rules don't make sense sometimes, and they can occasionally harm the story. But once the DM starts fudging rules or dice rolls, everything becomes DM fiat. Things only happen because the DM wants them to, not because of skilled or lucky players. Sometimes players will get lucky and down your BBEG in the first round...but that doesn't mean you can retroactively double his hit points (at least not without a parallel increase in encounter reward).
Secondly, the rules are part of the fun for me (and I suspect the same for other rules lawyers). A large part of my fun comes from building a character within the restrictive framework of the rules. If my toon can be effective, interesting, or awesome without bending the rules, then so can everyone else's. Once the DM starts making exceptions, on any scale, I no longer know what I can and cannot do without bugging the DM with a thousand "Can I do this?" questions.
For example, if the DM in the OP allowed the blinding, I would immediately start thinking of things that are plausible in real life but the rules disallow. Can I cut the chandelier and knock a group unconscious? Can I push someone with a Dex check (instead of a bull rush)? Can I wear soft shoes and get a sneak bonus? Can I use my axe and swing in a circle to hit everyone? Can I reduce falling damage with Endurance? The list could go on and on once the rules become demonstrably mutable.
There is no realistic reason to disallow any of the above, but the rules clearly do so. For good reason.
What the DM did there wasn't entirely wrong. He was well within his rights to change wizards that way. God knows that I wouldn't make them more powerful like that, but hey, it was his decision. Where he went wrong was in not allowing you to do it as well.
You're right, of course, in that favoritism is bad. But favoritism is endemic to allowing a player to do something outside the rules without making the option known to all (and seriously, who wants a party of dust-throwers?).
When the DM starts ruining fun, something needs to change in the way he's doing things.
Absolutely. But changing, bending, ignoring, or adding the rules mid-stream ruins any fun I have. For me, I may as well be making everything up instead of rolling dice at that point. Discounting one rule in that manner makes all the others unstable ground to stand on.
What rule will be changed next? What thing will another player be allowed to do in violation of the rules? Why is the DM the only one who's opinion on the rules matter?
Let's say the the DM allows "Tim" to climb at full speed because "Tim" has thick gloves and spikey armor (*shrug* just an example). When my character approaches a fast-flowing river, he would expect that he is athletic enough to cross it. After all, he's swum across worse in the past. But maybe my DM will give me a bigger check penalty for my armor...he did give "Tim" a big, unsupported boost for the right gear. Will I now get a big, unsupported penalty for the wrong gear?
The stated rules are not really rules, though. 3ed and 4ed both allow the DM to change, add or remove them as he sees fit. Flexibility is a good thing, and they don't truly have a larger range of options because you have those same options.
Houserules are cool and all - provided that they are equally available to all players beforehand. Telling someone mid-combat that "you no longer get strength to damage," for example, it totally unacceptable.
The DM can cheat - unless you consider a DM having a DMNPC that gets three standard actions per turn not cheating...
It isn't cheating. It's the DM being a bad DM and possibly a jerk, but since the DM can do what he wants with the rules, he cannot cheat.
The rules don't make sense sometimes, and they can occasionally harm the story. But once the DM starts fudging rules or dice rolls, everything becomes DM fiat.
Incorrect. Only the things the DM is actually changing becomes fiat.
Things only happen because the DM wants them to, not because of skilled or lucky players. Sometimes players will get lucky and down your BBEG in the first round...but that doesn't mean you can retroactively double his hit points (at least not without a parallel increase in encounter reward).
I'm not saying the DM can't be a bad DM. I'm saying he cannot cheat. The rules are his to use, change, add, or remove at his will.
Secondly, the rules are part of the fun for me (and I suspect the same for other rules lawyers). A large part of my fun comes from building a character within the restrictive framework of the rules. If my toon can be effective, interesting, or awesome without bending the rules, then so can everyone else's. Once the DM starts making exceptions, on any scale, I no longer know what I can and cannot do without bugging the DM with a thousand "Can I do this?" questions.
This is matter of finding a game fit. If you aren't in a group with a rules lawyer DM and other rules lawyer players, you can't expect them to hold strictly to the rules. Either you suck it up, or you go find a group that fits your needs. If I got into a game where everything was by the book with no deviation, I'd quit and find a group that won't blindly stick to the rules in situations that don't make sense.
For example, if the DM in the OP allowed the blinding, I would immediately start thinking of things that are plausible in real life but the rules disallow. Can I cut the chandelier and knock a group unconscious? Can I push someone with a Dex check (instead of a bull rush)? Can I wear soft shoes and get a sneak bonus? Can I use my axe and swing in a circle to hit everyone? Can I reduce falling damage with Endurance? The list could go on and on once the rules become demonstrably mutable.
Page 42. The rules themselves say they are mutable in this fashion.
There is no realistic reason to disallow any of the above, but the rules clearly do so. For good reason.
They don't. The rules clearly ALLOW them to happen via page 42.
You're right, of course, in that favoritism is bad. But favoritism is endemic to allowing a player to do something outside the rules without making the option known to all (and seriously, who wants a party of dust-throwers?).
Not really. Had the DM at that point allowed you both the same spell capabilities, it wouldn't have been favoritism.
Absolutely. But changing, bending, ignoring, or adding the rules mid-stream ruins any fun I have. For me, I may as well be making everything up instead of rolling dice at that point. Discounting one rule in that manner makes all the others unstable ground to stand on.
Depends. Changing a rule in mid stream because an issue didn't come up to demonstrate the need to change it, is okay. As are limited rulings based on rare sets of circumstances. Changing things willy nilly is bad, though.
I am not talking about house rules, or rules that have been changed to suit the play style of the group or the campaign - these changes have already been disclosed and accepted by the group.
To clarify: Any time the DM uses his authority to arbitrarily diminish the capabilities of any character or to favor the capabilities of one character over another - the DM is cheating.
Sorry, Maxperson: The DM can cheat. The DM and the players are all playing the same game. The rules are not "secret" or "DM only". They are the common property of the gaming group. The players, as ayyiniwindryder has pointed out, make decisions about the game based on the rules. Any time the DM changes or invalidates the rules as the players understand them, he is cheating.
I am not talking about house rules, or rules that have been changed to suit the play style of the group or the campaign - these changes have already been disclosed and accepted by the group.
To clarify: Any time the DM uses his authority to arbitrarily diminish the capabilities of any character or to favor the capabilities of one character over another - the DM is cheating.
No, he's being a total dick. But he's not cheating, DMs aren't bound by the rules.
Since we accept that there are rules, - pay money for them, and even argue about them - then that statement cannot be true.
Conveniently, the statement itself renders it immune to any rules-based argument to the contrary, so we will have to agree to disagree.
The logical conclusion of that statement is that there are no rules: the DM is not bound by any rules and can change any rule at will or whim.
Since we accept that there are rules, - pay money for them, and even argue about them - then that statement cannot be true.
No, the logical conclusion is that there are rules. But only the players are bound by the rules. The DM may be bound by the rules if he/she chooses to do so, since he/she also has the option of changing the rules.
And since it is "within the rules" for the DM to change them, the DM cannot cheat. The DM, however, can be unfair, stupid or dickish about his/her way of changing the rules.
The rules that we argue about and pay are the rules that bounds players. These rules would vary slightly from game to game, depending on how much tinkering the DM has done with the rules, or how they were (mis)interpreted.
The DM can cheat - unless you consider a DM having a DMNPC that gets three standard actions per turn not cheating...
As stated above, the DM can't cheat. He/she can change the rules. However it's not a question of he/she can. It's a question of he/she should.
Secondly, the rules are part of the fun for me (and I suspect the same for other rules lawyers). A large part of my fun comes from building a character within the restrictive framework of the rules.
...Absolutely. But changing, bending, ignoring, or adding the rules mid-stream ruins any fun I have. For me, I may as well be making everything up instead of rolling dice at that point. Discounting one rule in that manner makes all the others unstable ground to stand on.
Emphasis mine. Note that these are opinions, since they concern only your view of it and not gamers as a whole. Hence, these are subjective claims.
I've had DMs that bend the rules on the fly. Even I bend the rules on the fly. We were more happy about it. That doesn't mean that everyone would be happy about it, or we're playing DnD wrong. See what I mean?
If my toon can be effective, interesting, or awesome without bending the rules, then so can everyone else's.
Once again, this is subjective. And you are not everybody else.
What rule will be changed next? What thing will another player be allowed to do in violation of the rules? Why is the DM the only one who's opinion on the rules matter?
If the DM allows it, it's not technically a violation. And a good DM would make the other players' opinions matter. A bad DM would not.
Take note that I'm arguing about mere definitions and technicalities. I understand what you're saying, but the DM just can't cheat. He/she can "cheat" the spirit of the rules, but not cheat (without the quotation marks).
If you throw out the rules, and allow players to make up feats and items and powers and whatnot - those that bother to read the books are at a fundamental disadvantage. And that makes me have less fun.
It is less fun, for me, when other players are allowed to do stuff that I ruled out as "impossible" because that's what the rules said. Maybe it isn't for you.
Thanks! Many thanks!
And just to add a perhaps not minor point:
Such abusive players, I'll not say rules-bending as they usually plainly not know them, are rarely creative. Sand in the eyes, what is it, about the 20th 30th thread on the subject.
OK! here, at least, we note no presence of the ominous Mage Hand.
Sorry, Maxperson: The DM can cheat. The DM and the players are all playing the same game. The rules are not "secret" or "DM only". They are the common property of the gaming group. The players, as ayyiniwindryder has pointed out, make decisions about the game based on the rules. Any time the DM changes or invalidates the rules as the players understand them, he is cheating.
If the rules say that the DM can change the rules as he sees fit, then he cannot cheat. Anything he changes becomes a new rule or ruling. The DM can be an ass. He can make things unfun. And he can lose his players by changing things willy nilly or being a jerk about things, but he cannot cheat. Cheating requires breaking rules, and the DM's power to change the rules doesn't allow for him to actually break anything. It's a subtle distinction, but it exists.
To clarify: Any time the DM uses his authority to arbitrarily diminish the capabilities of any character or to favor the capabilities of one character over another - the DM is cheating.
No, he's being a jerk. His authority extends to his ability to change things like this. It's not cheating if it's part of the rules, and the DM makes it part of the rules. However, if a DM is doing these things, the players need to talk to him and let him know that it's not cool, and if he continues, he's going to be by himself with his game.
The logical conclusion of that statement is that there are no rules: the DM is not bound by any rules and can change any rule at will or whim.
Exactly! This has always been the case. Every single rule is merely a "guideline" or "suggestion".
Since we accept that there are rules, - pay money for them, and even argue about them - then that statement cannot be true.
We don't. We pay money for strong suggestions. The SAW(Suggestions As Written) state that the DM can take those suggestions, change them, add to them, or remove them at his will.
Sorry, Maxperson: The DM can cheat. The DM and the players are all playing the same game. The rules are not "secret" or "DM only". They are the common property of the gaming group. The players, as ayyiniwindryder has pointed out, make decisions about the game based on the rules. Any time the DM changes or invalidates the rules as the players understand them, he is cheating.
I am not talking about house rules, or rules that have been changed to suit the play style of the group or the campaign - these changes have already been disclosed and accepted by the group.
To clarify: Any time the DM uses his authority to arbitrarily diminish the capabilities of any character or to favor the capabilities of one character over another - the DM is cheating.
I direct your attention to Rule 0
I direct your attention to Rule 0
And/or page 42. It's all the same ;)
And/or page 42. It's all the same ;)
Provided you're playing 4E ;)
Provided you're playing 4E ;)
yeah, it's 4e, today is the 2nd to the last week of the mod. then it's back to 3.5 again.
The section on Creating House Rules on pg 189 does discuss changing the rules. Again, nowhere does it give the DM the right or authority to situationally ignore or apply rules. Since the DM does not have the authority to situationally change the rules as he sees fit, the DM can cheat.
Some relevant text from How to be a DM
DMG pg 6, What does a DM Do?: The Dungeon Master has many hats to wear in the course of a game session. The DM is the rules moderator, a player of many different characters, and the primary creator of the game's world, the campaign, and the adventure.
DMG pg 7, Fun!: Different people have different ideas of what's fun about D&D. Remember that the "right way" to play D&D is the way that you and your players agree on and enjoy.
I don't know William, Seth, or Tim. But there are other ways to read the situation.
It would seem that Seth did not handle the situation well, but let's look more closely: Tim's behavior fits another label - the Power-Gamer (Seth sounds like an Optimizer, which is different). Power Gamers often know the rules just as well, but use that knowledge to find the holes and exploits that they can use to pull one over on the unwitting DM. These types of player's often play to "win" by beating or deceiving the DM, and are more disruptive than a whole party full of Seths could ever be.
Maybe William was silent because he appreciated Seth's help. Again, not saying that's the case - but is one way to read the situation.
Maybe William was silent because he has no idea how to handle either of them. It doesn't matter, because it sounds like no one is having fun - you guys should talk about it. DMG, pg 7 gives you, as a member of the group, an equal share of the responsibility for everyone having fun - so bring it up with the group. Don't blame the DM - he probably isn't having fun, either.
The section on Creating House Rules on pg 189 does discuss changing the rules. Again, nowhere does it give the DM the right or authority to situationally ignore or apply rules. Since the DM does not have the authority to situationally change the rules as he sees fit, the DM can cheat.
It doesn't have to expressly give the DM the right to "situationally" change rules. If it allows him to change rules, it allows him to change rules. When and how is up to the DM. If it expressly denied the DM that ability, you would have a leg to stand on.
[4e Response]pg 42 refers to Actions the Rules Don't Cover. Nowhere does it give the DM unilateral permission to change the rules. For what it is worth, it also never refers to imposing conditions as a result of said actions.
The section on Creating House Rules on pg 189 does discuss changing the rules. Again, nowhere does it give the DM the right or authority to situationally ignore or apply rules. Since the DM does not have the authority to situationally change the rules as he sees fit, the DM can cheat.
Some relevant text from How to be a DM
I don't know William, Seth, or Tim. But there are other ways to read the situation.
It would seem that Seth did not handle the situation well, but let's look more closely: Tim's behavior fits another label - the Power-Gamer (Seth sounds like an Optimizer, which is different). Power Gamers often know the rules just as well, but use that knowledge to find the holes and exploits that they can use to pull one over on the unwitting DM. These types of player's often play to "win" by beating or deceiving the DM, and are more disruptive than a whole party full of Seths could ever be.
Maybe William was silent because he appreciated Seth's help. Again, not saying that's the case - but is one way to read the situation.
Maybe William was silent because he has no idea how to handle either of them. It doesn't matter, because it sounds like no one is having fun - you guys should talk about it. DMG, pg 7 gives you, as a member of the group, an equal share of the responsibility for everyone having fun - so bring it up with the group. Don't blame the DM - he probably isn't having fun, either.
The only problem I have with your argument is that there is a reasonable, rules-based solution to make all players happy in this case. Treat it as a variant of the rules for using Bluff to gain combat advantage, and all can be satisfied, well within the spirit (if not letter) of the rules.
There is a fine line between creativity and trying to squeeze mechanical advantages out of a system. Sticking a sunrod on a shield probably should be allowed, but attempting to use a sunrod to blind people shouldn't be.
As far as I can see, Seth was right, even if he was being a jerk about it. Gaining combat advantage for minimal cost is simply too powerful.
There is a fine line between creativity and trying to squeeze mechanical advantages out of a system. Sticking a sunrod on a shield probably should be allowed, but attempting to use a sunrod to blind people shouldn't be.
That's why the DM makes it unreliable. Maybe adding an extra roll for effectiveness, or just making it harder to hit with the dirt and easier to save. The action point idea is good as well, but that only needs to be added in if the player is going to try and use this method a lot.
You don't need to stomp innovative ideas into the dust. :P
You just need to keep them fair.
Sometimes, you do have to say no.
So Tim's character can try to throw dirt in the eyes of an enemy. But Tim should realise that he may not get the exact result he's thinking of.
The DM should try to find a ruling that makes it balanced. No attack should be powerful enough for a player to resort to it every single time. The players should cut the DM some slack if he over- or underpowers this the first time: this means they'll have to accept that the ruling might be adjusted the next time it comes up. Since Tim's character is dragging around a bag of dirt, it basically became an at-will option. This makes it all the more important to make this tactic balanced.
Seth is right to express the above concern about balance. Seth should wait for the DM to make a ruling though. If he doesn't agree with this ruling, he can speak up immediately (in a decent manner) or hold his tongue and discuss it with the DM and/or Tim after the session. This way, Seth gets to express his concern without climbing in the DM's seat. Like Tim, Seth should accept the fact that a compromise is needed and he can't have it all his way.
But then you have the kind of player who will say, and I quote, "You let me do it once so now it's a rule and I can do it whenever I want and you can't take it back."
Sometimes, you do have to say no.
"Yes, I did, but after doing more reflection and research, I realize now that I made a mistake. It worked to your advantage, so be glad of it, but going forward, this is how it will work."
But then you have the kind of player who will say, and I quote, "You let me do it once so now it's a rule and I can do it whenever I want and you can't take it back."
Sometimes, you do have to say no.
True, but the ideal time to say "no" is after they let out the quote in your first paragraph.
Actually, I'd laugh at them first, but that part is optional.
It doesn't have to expressly give the DM the right to "situationally" change rules. If it allows him to change rules, it allows him to change rules. When and how is up to the DM. If it expressly denied the DM that ability, you would have a leg to stand on.
sorry to be late to the party - Stuff like this is why I ensure the only changes to the rules are for balance beforehand. "you break something? okay. it works until the end of the session. you should have known better, but I'll let you fix whatever to make your character not as such anymore. Yes, my awesome villain IS still dead despite me thinking he had a chance to escape."
and if anyone wants to get really against using the word DM and Cheat together, I think there is ONE way a DM can, really. Its when you roll the dice or the dice are rolled for something, and they say one thing, and you do another.
sorry to be late to the party - Stuff like this is why I ensure the only changes to the rules are for balance beforehand. "you break something? okay. it works until the end of the session. you should have known better, but I'll let you fix whatever to make your character not as such anymore. Yes, my awesome villain IS still dead despite me thinking he had a chance to escape."
This is a fine and valid way to run a game. But so is running a game where the DM fixes things as they come up. Neither is right or wrong, just different.
and if anyone wants to get really against using the word DM and Cheat together, I think there is ONE way a DM can, really. Its when you roll the dice or the dice are rolled for something, and they say one thing, and you do another.
Ahh, but it's the "rules" that the DM can change that say we have to take the number rolled. DM die fudging isn't cheating. It can be poor DMing if the changes are to spite or punish the players for something, though.
One example is that I'll fudge die rolls in combat if the dice gods are against the players and through no fault of their own, are getting their ass handed to them by an encounter they should breeze through. If the PCs are using good tactics and have made good decisions, they shouldn't end up dead due to random chance. I'll alter hits and damage rolls here and there to even the fight back up.
This is a fine and valid way to run a game. But so is running a game where the DM fixes things as they come up. Neither is right or wrong, just different.
Ahh, but it's the "rules" that the DM can change that say we have to take the number rolled. DM die fudging isn't cheating. It can be poor DMing if the changes are to spite or punish the players for something, though.
One example is that I'll fudge die rolls in combat if the dice gods are against the players and through no fault of their own, are getting their ass handed to them by an encounter they should breeze through. If the PCs are using good tactics and have made good decisions, they shouldn't end up dead due to random chance. I'll alter hits and damage rolls here and there to even the fight back up.
Nobody(99%) enjoys a game with no rules and that is what a DM that changed things at random would be running. If he is not using the rules from the book is it D&D by anything other than a name?
Nobody(99%) enjoys a game with no rules and that is what a DM that changed things at random would be running.
Name one person who has suggested changing rules at random. Certainly not me. However, if you mean having the right to change a rule on the spot, you are just flat out wrong. The game will have rules, and it will continue to have 99.9% of them. The DM isn't going to change things willy nilly, and he's going to be fair and thoughtful about it. That means that you can rely on the rules up to and until the rule fails to cover a situation or becomes absurd if applied to a situation. It's definately not some random game with no rules, though.
use it as an improvised weapon, with the standard penalty, and requiring one free hand. If it hits, make a reflex save for the foe of some sort, perhaps balanced with the bluff skill. If it saves, it blinks in time and takes no damage, but the attempt would be considered a hostile act. If it fails the save, its vision is reduced to its reach length, and it takes a -2 penalty to both its AC and attack rating for 1d4 rounds. It cannot make attacks of oppurtunity until the affliction is over, except with natural weapons, and ranged attacks take an additional -2 for every 10 feet of distance.
However, using the action will provoke an attack of oppurtunity against the user if the target is not flat footed, regardless of its success or failure. The affected foe will also retain his full grapple modifier, and may use the attack of oppurtunity to attempt to grapple the user. Can only be used against humanoids or similar types, reptilian humanoids cannot be blinded in this manner due to their second eyelids.
Seems to me like a decent penalty, but remember it's a rogueish trick, and can be used against the PC's as well.
Name one person who has suggested changing rules at random. Certainly not me. However, if you mean having the right to change a rule on the spot, you are just flat out wrong. The game will have rules, and it will continue to have 99.9% of them. The DM isn't going to change things willy nilly, and he's going to be fair and thoughtful about it. That means that you can rely on the rules up to and until the rule fails to cover a situation or becomes absurd if applied to a situation. It's definately not some random game with no rules, though.
My point was that by saying the DM can change the way things work whenever he wants just because he can, and thinking it is ok advocates random rule changes. As far as him being fair about it, that is an assumption. The issue of fairness is why people don't think a DM can change rules at will without it ever being considered cheating.
My point was that by saying the DM can change the way things work whenever he wants just because he can, and thinking it is ok advocates random rule changes. As far as him being fair about it, that is an assumption. The issue of fairness is why people don't think a DM can change rules at will without it ever being considered cheating.
If you can't trust your DM, you're in the wrong gaming group. That is all. :P
I would have allowed a DEX vs Reflex attack to make the target grant combat advantage for 1 round.
I believe there's a feat in one of the Dragon Magazine articles that allows exactly that, once per encounter.
The blasting bomb is a 30gp item that has +6 vs. fort in a burst one and grants concealment.
Pouch of Dust should be +0-2 vs. ref, single target and grant concealment.
At will daze or blinding is insanely overpowered.
The blasting bomb is a 30gp item that has +6 vs. fort in a burst one and grants concealment.
Pouch of Dust should be +0-2 vs. ref, single target and grant concealment.
it's limited by how many wallet sized pouches you can fill with dust. and they are single target, same range throwable as an alchemist fire. but 1 target, and 1 round daze.
the pouch has only 1 useage per pouch. (3 pouches=3 uses) unless refilled with new dust. it's also a standard action that would be better off used to deal damage. also it does not gain scaling enchancement bonuses. the pouch is reusable, but the dust is not and will be gone.
it's not at will. it's consumable.
As a player who on occasion has a better grasp of the rules than a DM, it is always nice when a DM asks "why?" and spends a moment to think about what I've said instead of just shutting me down with a wave of his hand because I am "delaying the game".
As a strategic player, I structure my moves every turn based on my understanding of how the game mechanics operate, when they change suddenly I am often left swinging for the fences.
The best thing anyone can do is ask the rules lawyer why he is bringing this up and why it is important to him, take 90 seconds to hear him out and respond in a way that is even handed if possible.
All of your players have different motivations and gain enjoyment from the game in different ways, knowing that the world is structured and ordered by these ephemeral "rules" may be very important to your rules lawyer player.
its less about trust, more about experience and not wanting to get hosed, accidentially or intentionally, even for Story's sake. I really would rather see a lucky crit strike our grand foe dead long before he should perish and see a grand derail of evil empire #173.
Max - there is a big difference between giving the DM trust which I DO for most things. I however know most DMs haven't read the books at least 12+ times I have and spent an entire summer once because my leg was broken for 3.x optimising characters, learning the rules, and writing and running a campaign so finely tuned to the RAW as I have. When the DM does say something that contradicts the rules, I WILL point it out because all but ten times in (at this point over a hundred times) have I been wrong, either ruling based, OR because the DM actually changed it and just did not simply get it wrong. I even once argued mid session to ban Sundering for both PCs and NPCs to save a party member's sword because the DM did not have any idea how ridiculous sunder stacking effects were in a 3.0 game. (and won!)
its less about trust, more about experience and not wanting to get hosed, accidentially or intentionally, even for Story's sake. I really would rather see a lucky crit strike our grand foe dead long before he should perish and see a grand derail of evil empire #173.
The only problem with all of that Draco, is that it isn't what I was talking about ;)
My point was that by saying the DM can change the way things work whenever he wants just because he can, and thinking it is ok advocates random rule changes. As far as him being fair about it, that is an assumption. The issue of fairness is why people don't think a DM can change rules at will without it ever being considered cheating.
The above quote shows a CLEAR mistrust of the DM. If you trust your DM, then you know he will be fair. If you trust your DM, then you know that if he changes something, he has a good reason for it, even if you don't know that reason at the time. If you trust your DM, you understand that he cannot cheat.
I wasn't speaking to a DM who got a rule wrong. I've corrected DMs myself, and have been corrected. There's nothing wrong with that. It's just not what I posting about.
The only problem with all of that Draco, is that it isn't what I was talking about ;)
The above quote shows a CLEAR mistrust of the DM. If you trust your DM, then you know he will be fair. If you trust your DM, then you know that if he changes something, he has a good reason for it, even if you don't know that reason at the time. If you trust your DM, you understand that he cannot cheat.
I wasn't speaking to a DM who got a rule wrong. I've corrected DMs myself, and have been corrected. There's nothing wrong with that. It's just not what I posting about.
Trust does not mean never question. Even if you trust the DM at the beginning that does not mean the trust has to stay. When I get questioned during a "mistake" if I say it is part of the story no further explanation is need, but if I start changing well establish rules without saying anything I am sure there will be issues, but I can give enough explanation with giving away the story and without my players metagaming because I trust them also.