DM's and Rule Zero (Complaint Thread) - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

DM's and Rule Zero (Complaint Thread)

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
merrshaulk
Dec 15, 2008 8:05:00 Just recently, one of my friends told me (And a few others) he's be starting up a D&D campaign. So he sends out an e-mail detailing the setting and all the house rules in effect, and asks us to come up with decent backstories that fit the setting, or else you have got to come up with another character idea. 'Fair enough', I think. At least he's telling us all of this up front so we know what we're getting into.

Fast forward a bit. I've come up with a character who's taken the Leadership feat. I've run not only the character but his cohort by the DM several times as I created them to make sure he's happy. Next session of a game he and I are both in, I bring along the completed character sheets and show them to him (And the others who are going to be involved). Suddenly, he brings down the banhammer. No using X book (I'd asked earlier, he'd said yes), these two abilities don't stack (Previously he'd OK'd them), and I was to come up with a complete new cohort using only the Core and Complete series. Great. Now, I'll admit the cohort was a little stonger than most characters of an equivalent level (AC 56 at level 15, as well as 7d8 damage on a sucessful grapple on top of his already formidable unarmed damage), but to just ban it outright without even trying to work with me to tone it down or anything really annoyed me. He didn't say anything but "Banned, and you're only allowed to use X books". Oh, and by the way, this new rule only applies to ME. Isn't that just wonderful? Not only have I now got less resources to work with than the other players, but I'm also the newest player in the group, with the least experience and knowledge of D&D. Yay.

So, anyone else got any stories of when your DM has used his oh-so powerful Veto a little unfairly? Cases where Rule 0 shouldn't have been applied? Do tell, I'd like to hear.

Edit: What really gets me is that this cohort was designed to fill a hole in the party that the DM had been complaining about. Right now, I just have the urge to have 135 level one commoners following me around just to **** the DM off. I know that'd be stupid, but still
#2
kouk
Dec 15, 2008 9:02:47 I won't say your DM was particularly eloquent in explaining why the character was disallowed, but I suspect he was a little overwhelmed by the cohort once he saw it "in person."

Cohorts in 3.5 are essentially another player character who is usually subservient to the main PC in some way, and who make it so that the other players get less "screen time" than the one controlling the cohort. They can be fairly disruptive to games. If for instance the cohort had better defenses and attack bonuses than other PCs despite being 2 levels lower, that would likely be a source of group tension.

Obviously it would have been better to have not had it disallowed at the last minute though, after so much time and effort.
#3
merrshaulk
Dec 15, 2008 9:37:52 He doesn't mind the idea of having a cohort, or even one who's got better unarmed damage and AC. In fact, that is what he WANTED for the party. We have 2 martial characters and 7 magic users. A Tank of some kind was exactly what he wanted in the party, and when I gave it to him, he Vetos it. I can understand that he could have thought it overpowered. I myself thought it was too much as well, but he could have tried to tone it down or something... We'd previously sppken about the Cohort idea, and it had been agreed that he would be for combat only, increasing the survivability of the other characters. But anyway, thanks for the response. *sheepish grin*
#4
salla
Dec 15, 2008 11:56:26 The 'it only applies to you' part of the thread sends up a big red flag in my brain that says he's not going to be a fair DM.
#5
CCS
Dec 15, 2008 13:39:17 Ok, so the DM didn't like the cohort you made.

Just have him create the cohort. That way you still have your follower & the DM has what he wants....
#6
azraelthedark
Dec 15, 2008 13:44:40 Point your DM to this thread and make him explain his point of view. Like this, he sounds like a moron, but we have to hear another version to judge the situation.
#7
phoenix512
Dec 15, 2008 17:43:25 I'm still trying to fathom of how you managed to get a character with 56 AC at level 15. Is your cohort a dragon any chance?
#8
copycatzero
Dec 15, 2008 20:53:30
Now, I'll admit the cohort was a little stonger than most characters of an equivalent level (AC 56 at level 15, as well as 7d8 damage on a sucessful grapple on top of his already formidable unarmed damage), but to just ban it outright without even trying to work with me to tone it down or anything really annoyed me. He didn't say anything but "Banned, and you're only allowed to use X books". Oh, and by the way, this new rule only applies to ME. Isn't that just wonderful? Not only have I now got less resources to work with than the other players, but I'm also the newest player in the group, with the least experience and knowledge of D&D. Yay.

So... lemme get this straight.

You're the least experienced player in your group. And you made a 15th-level cohort (not even a real PC, a cohort) who has an AC of 56.

So, how about linking the CharOp thread you got the idea from?

Unless everyone else in your playing group are a bunch of min/maxers who are running around with characters one little detail short of Pun-Pun, the DM was COMPLETELY justified in his actions. "A little stronger than most characters of an equivalent level"? Are you serious? There are epic level monsters that have trouble hitting that AC.

The DM complained that the party didn't have a meat shield. He wasn't complaining that they didn't have a "let's make this encounter trivial" button. And if he did approve your choices before hand, he obviously had no idea what they would entail until he saw it -- which, more than anything, tells me you're NOT playing with a bunch of min/maxers.

Until you demonstrate that your cohort will be so completely gimp without your obviously broken combination (again, this is a cohort, not a PC), I have zero sympathy for your situation.
#9
merrshaulk
Dec 16, 2008 5:00:00 Pheonix- Combination of Deepwarden and Fist of the Forest (They stack, One adds Con to AC, while keeping Dex, the other replaces Dex with Con as long as Con is higher), as well as Vow of Poverty for a +6 to Con, and a few other bonuses too (Racial, Manual of Bodily Health +5, etc). His Con was the only thing going for him, everything else just plain sucked. And no, no Dragons were harmed in the making of this cohort :P.

CopyCat- You should see some of the combinations people in this group have come up with. The person DM-ing this game has a level 4 character with at least +10 to all saves, and the best damage output of the party. We are a bunch of munchkin min/maxers, and he's one of the best. I understand what you're saying though. I'm currently re-working the cohort to drop his AC by quite a bit (Losing FoF, Vow and the Manual).
#10
crinos43
Dec 16, 2008 9:50:14
Pheonix- Combination of Deepwarden and Fist of the Forest (They stack, One adds Con to AC, while keeping Dex, the other replaces Dex with Con as long as Con is higher), as well as Vow of Poverty for a +6 to Con, and a few other bonuses too (Racial, Manual of Bodily Health +5, etc). His Con was the only thing going for him, everything else just plain sucked. And no, no Dragons were harmed in the making of this cohort :P.

I may be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure the Vow of Poverty states that you cannot use magic items.

Were I the DM for this, I'd not allow him to use that manual since it would violate his Vow of Poverty.
#11
legdiwena
Dec 16, 2008 10:17:43 Unless he read the book before he took the vow. Still cheesy, but legal. Wait, would the bonus from reading book and bonus from VoP stack? Don't have book with me.
#12
copycatzero
Dec 16, 2008 10:37:32
Unless he read the book before he took the vow. Still cheesy, but legal. Wait, would the bonus from reading book and bonus from VoP stack? Don't have book with me.

Yes. VoP's bonus is enhancement (as if you had an amulet of health, etc.), while the manual is inherent. That being said, no, I wouldn't have allowed the manual, even IF he did read it before he took the vow.

You should see some of the combinations people in this group have come up with. The person DM-ing this game has a level 4 character with at least +10 to all saves, and the best damage output of the party. We are a bunch of munchkin min/maxers, and he's one of the best. I understand what you're saying though. I'm currently re-working the cohort to drop his AC by quite a bit (Losing FoF, Vow and the Manual).

Ah, okay, I take back what I said, then. It's still possible that he didn't understand the impact your combination would make, so he quickly scrambled to veto it at the last minute, but if everyone is min/maxing and your the only one who can't, then, yeah, that is a little unfair.
#13
kyros_tachyus
Dec 16, 2008 13:31:15 The DM had a right to do this. There may have been several reasons as to why he changed his mind. Pull him aside without the rest of the group and ask him "whats up? I thought we ok'd this."

POLITELY AND CIVILLY.
#14
SteelMirror
Dec 16, 2008 15:38:11 AC 56 at level 15 is ricockulous! Your campaigns are certainly different from mine so I pass no judgement, but I am astounded.

As a sidenote if you're playing with min/maxers to the extent that such a build isn't even substantially powerful in comparison, it's a wonder anybody is playing anything but a mage!
#15
thazerdedelmarcus
Dec 16, 2008 16:00:43 Ah Vow of poverty. I was only able to use once before my DM banned it. That being said your vow of poverty cohort broke the vow when it used the manual.
It says that to fulfill your vow you can not own OR use a magical item, page 48 of book of exalted deeds.
#16
syrsuro
Dec 16, 2008 22:59:06 Sorry - based on the information given, I would have to agree with the DM.

It may not have been handled well, but he is absolutely within his rights to ban anything that he feels is inappropriately balanced for his world.

In fact, if he felt that way about your character or cohort, I think he would have been failing in his duties as a DM to not do so.

Carl
#17
mccowen
Dec 17, 2008 12:41:48 Er. VoP isn't really necessary for Fist of the Forest + Deepwarden to get scary--in fact, I regard the whole BoED as a crutch without which 3.5 COers would really be better off. I won't go any further into that.

However, there is something I feel like I should point out, as one (albeit reformed) min-maxing power-gamer to another. You're at a table with seven people and a DM who, like you, enjoy testing the rules to destruction. That has some direct implications for you and your characters.

First, it means that someone at the table will be familiar with any trick you use, and they understand both sides of all the ambiguities you twist one way to puff up your stats. That means that the DM likely has rationales for the banhammers he brought down. (Springing them on you at the last minute was rude, but we'll get to that.)

Second, it means that the DM likely has balance issues in his game. I generally found in 3.5 games that scaling back a little bit on my characters was more than rewarded by the fact that the party's challenges could then be more consistent. If instead you try to out-nuke the DM, you're going to find that he can--as demonstrated--simply rule out any aspects of your character that he doesn't like. It's unfair, but you invited it.

Finally, it means that you likely have a table full of people who are, on multiple levels, trying to out-do each other. The DM has the easiest time "winning", because he has the power to make arbitrary rulings against PCs. Not every DM in that case will exploit the potential for abuse, but many will, and it looks like you may have overstepped his invisible boundaries.

Basically, this has been a long post saying "I can see both sides". His ruling wasn't very nice or consistent, since you'd made sure to run concepts and rules by him beforehand, but it's certainly within his rights--and fairly predictable, from the personality type you describe. On the other hand, you tried to "sneak" a cohort with a 56 AC past him, and I can definitely understand the desire to take away some of your CO options for the next go-round on the build.

I can't stress moderation heavily enough. You should definitely have a character that can compete for face-time with your heavily optimized colleagues, but you don't need to take the nuclear option, either. You might discuss this philosophy with some of the other players, as well. Games that run on the bleeding edge of optimization tend to swing quickly from "boring" to "OMG TPK" with very little warning. If everyone backs off on their character-building just a little bit, the DM will have less stress, the challenges will be more interesting, and everyone can game a little happier.
#18
etarnon
Dec 17, 2008 19:51:32 Seems like the OP came in here looking for Agree that my DM is a bad DM that needs a spanking, without saying, I like to play a min/maxed character, and hate when any DM calls me on it.

56 ac? that's -46 ac old school 1e.

Har har. Banned here too. Good luck.
#19
Arcane_Guyver
Dec 17, 2008 21:56:27 Well, the DM was kind of lame saying "Yes" repeatedly until the last second.

However, I have a hard time faulting him when it sounds like you're trying to take this game for all it's worth, leaving it bloody and crying in a filthy alley.
#20
chaosturtle
Dec 18, 2008 9:46:18 ...150 commoners is +300 to ac or ab with aid another, just saying :D
#21
nowiwantmydmg
Dec 18, 2008 16:26:15 I'd say the DM was with his bounds, but was rude to spring his "tone it down" on you last minute.

This kind of optimizing is why I disallowed anything but core(with some spell restrictions) in 3e when I played it; I always had one guy trying to break the game, especially with BoED.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 merrshaulk Dec 15, 2008 8:05:00	Just recently, one of my friends told me (And a few others) he's be starting up a D&D campaign. So he sends out an e-mail detailing the setting and all the house rules in effect, and asks us to come up with decent backstories that fit the setting, or else you have got to come up with another character idea. 'Fair enough', I think. At least he's telling us all of this up front so we know what we're getting into. Fast forward a bit. I've come up with a character who's taken the Leadership feat. I've run not only the character but his cohort by the DM several times as I created them to make sure he's happy. Next session of a game he and I are both in, I bring along the completed character sheets and show them to him (And the others who are going to be involved). Suddenly, he brings down the banhammer. No using X book (I'd asked earlier, he'd said yes), these two abilities don't stack (Previously he'd OK'd them), and I was to come up with a complete new cohort using only the Core and Complete series. Great. Now, I'll admit the cohort was a little stonger than most characters of an equivalent level (AC 56 at level 15, as well as 7d8 damage on a sucessful grapple on top of his already formidable unarmed damage), but to just ban it outright without even trying to work with me to tone it down or anything really annoyed me. He didn't say anything but "Banned, and you're only allowed to use X books". Oh, and by the way, this new rule only applies to ME. Isn't that just wonderful? Not only have I now got less resources to work with than the other players, but I'm also the newest player in the group, with the least experience and knowledge of D&D. Yay. So, anyone else got any stories of when your DM has used his oh-so powerful Veto a little unfairly? Cases where Rule 0 shouldn't have been applied? Do tell, I'd like to hear. Edit: What really gets me is that this cohort was designed to fill a hole in the party that the DM had been complaining about. Right now, I just have the urge to have 135 level one commoners following me around just to **** the DM off. I know that'd be stupid, but still
#2 kouk Dec 15, 2008 9:02:47	I won't say your DM was particularly eloquent in explaining why the character was disallowed, but I suspect he was a little overwhelmed by the cohort once he saw it "in person." Cohorts in 3.5 are essentially another player character who is usually subservient to the main PC in some way, and who make it so that the other players get less "screen time" than the one controlling the cohort. They can be fairly disruptive to games. If for instance the cohort had better defenses and attack bonuses than other PCs despite being 2 levels lower, that would likely be a source of group tension. Obviously it would have been better to have not had it disallowed at the last minute though, after so much time and effort.
#3 merrshaulk Dec 15, 2008 9:37:52	He doesn't mind the idea of having a cohort, or even one who's got better unarmed damage and AC. In fact, that is what he WANTED for the party. We have 2 martial characters and 7 magic users. A Tank of some kind was exactly what he wanted in the party, and when I gave it to him, he Vetos it. I can understand that he could have thought it overpowered. I myself thought it was too much as well, but he could have tried to tone it down or something... We'd previously sppken about the Cohort idea, and it had been agreed that he would be for combat only, increasing the survivability of the other characters. But anyway, thanks for the response. sheepish grin
#4 salla Dec 15, 2008 11:56:26	The 'it only applies to you' part of the thread sends up a big red flag in my brain that says he's not going to be a fair DM.
#5 CCS Dec 15, 2008 13:39:17	Ok, so the DM didn't like the cohort you made. Just have him create the cohort. That way you still have your follower & the DM has what he wants....
#6 azraelthedark Dec 15, 2008 13:44:40	Point your DM to this thread and make him explain his point of view. Like this, he sounds like a moron, but we have to hear another version to judge the situation.
#7 phoenix512 Dec 15, 2008 17:43:25	I'm still trying to fathom of how you managed to get a character with 56 AC at level 15. Is your cohort a dragon any chance?
#8 copycatzero Dec 15, 2008 20:53:30	Now, I'll admit the cohort was a little stonger than most characters of an equivalent level (AC 56 at level 15, as well as 7d8 damage on a sucessful grapple on top of his already formidable unarmed damage), but to just ban it outright without even trying to work with me to tone it down or anything really annoyed me. He didn't say anything but "Banned, and you're only allowed to use X books". Oh, and by the way, this new rule only applies to ME. Isn't that just wonderful? Not only have I now got less resources to work with than the other players, but I'm also the newest player in the group, with the least experience and knowledge of D&D. Yay. So... lemme get this straight. You're the least experienced player in your group. And you made a 15th-level cohort (not even a real PC, a cohort) who has an AC of 56. So, how about linking the CharOp thread you got the idea from? Unless everyone else in your playing group are a bunch of min/maxers who are running around with characters one little detail short of Pun-Pun, the DM was COMPLETELY justified in his actions. "A little stronger than most characters of an equivalent level"? Are you serious? There are *epic level monsters* that have trouble hitting that AC. The DM complained that the party didn't have a meat shield. He wasn't complaining that they didn't have a "let's make this encounter trivial" button. And if he did approve your choices before hand, he obviously had no idea what they would entail until he saw it -- which, more than anything, tells me you're NOT playing with a bunch of min/maxers. Until you demonstrate that your cohort will be so completely gimp without your obviously broken combination (again, this is a cohort, not a PC), I have zero sympathy for your situation.
#9 merrshaulk Dec 16, 2008 5:00:00	Pheonix- Combination of Deepwarden and Fist of the Forest (They stack, One adds Con to AC, while keeping Dex, the other replaces Dex with Con as long as Con is higher), as well as Vow of Poverty for a +6 to Con, and a few other bonuses too (Racial, Manual of Bodily Health +5, etc). His Con was the only thing going for him, everything else just plain sucked. And no, no Dragons were harmed in the making of this cohort :P. CopyCat- You should see some of the combinations people in this group have come up with. The person DM-ing this game has a level 4 character with at least +10 to all saves, and the best damage output of the party. We are a bunch of munchkin min/maxers, and he's one of the best. I understand what you're saying though. I'm currently re-working the cohort to drop his AC by quite a bit (Losing FoF, Vow and the Manual).
#10 crinos43 Dec 16, 2008 9:50:14	Pheonix- Combination of Deepwarden and Fist of the Forest (They stack, One adds Con to AC, while keeping Dex, the other replaces Dex with Con as long as Con is higher), as well as Vow of Poverty for a +6 to Con, and a few other bonuses too (Racial, Manual of Bodily Health +5, etc). His Con was the only thing going for him, everything else just plain sucked. And no, no Dragons were harmed in the making of this cohort :P. I may be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure the Vow of Poverty states that you cannot use magic items. Were I the DM for this, I'd not allow him to use that manual since it would violate his Vow of Poverty.
#11 legdiwena Dec 16, 2008 10:17:43	Unless he read the book before he took the vow. Still cheesy, but legal. Wait, would the bonus from reading book and bonus from VoP stack? Don't have book with me.
#12 copycatzero Dec 16, 2008 10:37:32	Unless he read the book before he took the vow. Still cheesy, but legal. Wait, would the bonus from reading book and bonus from VoP stack? Don't have book with me. Yes. VoP's bonus is enhancement (as if you had an amulet of health, etc.), while the manual is inherent. That being said, no, I wouldn't have allowed the manual, even IF he did read it before he took the vow. You should see some of the combinations people in this group have come up with. The person DM-ing this game has a level 4 character with at least +10 to all saves, and the best damage output of the party. We are a bunch of munchkin min/maxers, and he's one of the best. I understand what you're saying though. I'm currently re-working the cohort to drop his AC by quite a bit (Losing FoF, Vow and the Manual). Ah, okay, I take back what I said, then. It's still possible that he didn't understand the impact your combination would make, so he quickly scrambled to veto it at the last minute, but if everyone is min/maxing and your the only one who can't, then, yeah, that is a little unfair.
#13 kyros_tachyus Dec 16, 2008 13:31:15	The DM had a right to do this. There may have been several reasons as to why he changed his mind. Pull him aside without the rest of the group and ask him "whats up? I thought we ok'd this." POLITELY AND CIVILLY.
#14 SteelMirror Dec 16, 2008 15:38:11	AC 56 at level 15 is ricockulous! Your campaigns are certainly different from mine so I pass no judgement, but I am astounded. As a sidenote if you're playing with min/maxers to the extent that such a build isn't even substantially powerful in comparison, it's a wonder anybody is playing anything but a mage!
#15 thazerdedelmarcus Dec 16, 2008 16:00:43	Ah Vow of poverty. I was only able to use once before my DM banned it. That being said your vow of poverty cohort broke the vow when it used the manual. It says that to fulfill your vow you can not own OR use a magical item, page 48 of book of exalted deeds.
#16 syrsuro Dec 16, 2008 22:59:06	Sorry - based on the information given, I would have to agree with the DM. It may not have been handled well, but he is absolutely within his rights to ban anything that he feels is inappropriately balanced for his world. In fact, if he felt that way about your character or cohort, I think he would have been failing in his duties as a DM to not do so. Carl
#17 mccowen Dec 17, 2008 12:41:48	Er. VoP isn't really necessary for Fist of the Forest + Deepwarden to get scary--in fact, I regard the whole BoED as a crutch without which 3.5 COers would really be better off. I won't go any further into that. However, there is something I feel like I should point out, as one (albeit reformed) min-maxing power-gamer to another. You're at a table with seven people and a DM who, like you, enjoy testing the rules to destruction. That has some direct implications for you and your characters. First, it means that someone at the table will be familiar with any trick you use, and they understand both sides of all the ambiguities you twist one way to puff up your stats. That means that the DM likely has rationales for the banhammers he brought down. (Springing them on you at the last minute was rude, but we'll get to that.) Second, it means that the DM likely has balance issues in his game. I generally found in 3.5 games that scaling back a little bit on my characters was more than rewarded by the fact that the party's challenges could then be more consistent. If instead you try to out-nuke the DM, you're going to find that he can--as demonstrated--simply rule out any aspects of your character that he doesn't like. It's unfair, but you invited it. Finally, it means that you likely have a table full of people who are, on multiple levels, trying to out-do each other. The DM has the easiest time "winning", because he has the power to make arbitrary rulings against PCs. Not every DM in that case will exploit the potential for abuse, but many will, and it looks like you may have overstepped his invisible boundaries. Basically, this has been a long post saying "I can see both sides". His ruling wasn't very nice or consistent, since you'd made sure to run concepts and rules by him beforehand, but it's certainly within his rights--and fairly predictable, from the personality type you describe. On the other hand, you tried to "sneak" a cohort with a 56 AC past him, and I can definitely understand the desire to take away some of your CO options for the next go-round on the build. I can't stress moderation heavily enough. You should definitely have a character that can compete for face-time with your heavily optimized colleagues, but you don't need to take the nuclear option, either. You might discuss this philosophy with some of the other players, as well. Games that run on the bleeding edge of optimization tend to swing quickly from "boring" to "OMG TPK" with very little warning. If everyone backs off on their character-building just a little bit, the DM will have less stress, the challenges will be more interesting, and everyone can game a little happier.
#18 etarnon Dec 17, 2008 19:51:32	Seems like the OP came in here looking for Agree that my DM is a bad DM that needs a spanking, without saying, I like to play a min/maxed character, and hate when any DM calls me on it. 56 ac? that's -46 ac old school 1e. Har har. Banned here too. Good luck.
#19 Arcane_Guyver Dec 17, 2008 21:56:27	Well, the DM was kind of lame saying "Yes" repeatedly until the last second. However, I have a hard time faulting him when it sounds like you're trying to take this game for all it's worth, leaving it bloody and crying in a filthy alley.
#20 chaosturtle Dec 18, 2008 9:46:18	...150 commoners is +300 to ac or ab with aid another, just saying :D
#21 nowiwantmydmg Dec 18, 2008 16:26:15	I'd say the DM was with his bounds, but was rude to spring his "tone it down" on you last minute. This kind of optimizing is why I disallowed anything but core(with some spell restrictions) in 3e when I played it; I always had one guy trying to break the game, especially with BoED.