Now, I'm not trying to whine. His rulings are his rulings and I keep playing using that as the new rule. However, it's getting to the point that there is almost no reason for me to be a defender because all the rulings take away my ability to defend the rest of the party. I'm the only defender, so it's starting to become a problem. So, I'd like to figure out the best way to talk to him about it, without it seeming like I'm being a whiny player or starting an argument because I don't like the way he's running the game.
So, here are the examples of rulings that are making it hard for my character.
Originally he said that fighters could only have 1 mark active at a time. If I mark a creature with an attack, and the attack allows me a second target to attack, I had to choose which one was marked. Couldn't have them both marked. Dragon breath wouldn't allow more than one of the targets to be marked. More like that. Eventually he changed his mind on this.
Last night, I had marked 3 guys with Sweeping Blow. On their turn, they teleported so they were flanking the Rogue. I didn't get my OA due to teleporting, not shifting. So far no problem. One of them was still in reach though. Now, on the Rogues turn, she provoked an OA from both of them. I declare I'll attack the one I have marked for attacking her. The DM ruled that I couldn't because OA's don't trigger my Combat Challenge.
Ok, now normally I don't argue rules at the table, but this time I did. I read him the description right from the book. It says plain as day that I get to make a Melee Basic Attack against any adjacent marked creature that makes an attack that doesn't include me as a target. His ruling was that the creature wasn't making an attack. He said to make an attack you have to declare a target. I don't remember the exact wording, but the jist was that, if you trigger an OA, the triggering person (in this case, the Rogue) is declaring the attack, not the one that actually hits you. So since the one actually swinging and hitting her didn't declare a target, he's just the one swinging against the declarer of the attack, it doesn't count as making an attack, so my Combat Challenge doesn't trigger.
Now, I wouldn't have dropped the attacker, the Rogue still would have dropped, and in the end we won the fight, so not much to complain about as far as that combat goes, but just like the first ruling, it takes away a tool that makes me a defender.
Another ruling that didn't effect me was that he said that should the Rogue crit, she doesn't max sneak attack damage. Same goes for the Rangers Hunters Quarry.
There were more, but again, I don't want to sound like I'm complaining just to complain. I'm seriously trying to figure out breech the subject without it blowing up into a big issue. Any tips?
If he doesn't improve reasonably (Don't expect him to be better over night) then you might want to look for another DM (Or BE the DM yourself!)
But I'd see if the rest of the forum has to say before you do anything.
Another ruling that didn't effect me was that he said that should the Rogue crit, she doesn't max sneak attack damage. Same goes for the Rangers Hunters Quarry.
This is actually by the book. Only base damage is maximized on a crit - all bonus damage (sneak attack, weapon crit bonus, etc.) is rolled normally.
The rest, you have a legitimate beef with. That's like the 3e game my wife and I are playing right now, in which the GM has been applying an utterly stupid houserule by which entering a threatened square provokes opportunity attacks, rather than leaving one - with the result that the two barbarians who wade into combat to keep the bad guys away from the three spellcasters and the ranged rogue generally get dropped by 40-90% of their hit points before they make their first attack (and, in one case, charged and was dropped to -8 on the first round before they got to do anything).
This is actually by the book. Only base damage is maximized on a crit - all bonus damage (sneak attack, weapon crit bonus, etc.) is rolled normally.
The rest, you have a legitimate beef with. That's like the 3e game my wife and I are playing right now, in which the GM has been applying an utterly stupid houserule by which entering a threatened square provokes opportunity attacks, rather than leaving one - with the result that the two barbarians who wade into combat to keep the bad guys away from the three spellcasters and the ranged rogue generally get dropped by 40-90% of their hit points before they make their first attack (and, in one case, charged and was dropped to -8 on the first round before they got to do anything).
Wrong. The only dice that aren't maximized are dice you roll BECAUSE of the crit... i.e. extra dice from high crit and magic weapons. Everything you would normally roll on that attack is maximized. Read where it says "Extra Damage" on p. 278 of the PHB... that's the exception. Everything else is maximized.
Today 09:51 PMChrisTheS Quote:
Originally Posted by kirezemog
Another ruling that didn't effect me was that he said that should the Rogue crit, she doesn't max sneak attack damage. Same goes for the Rangers Hunters Quarry.
This is actually by the book. Only base damage is maximized on a crit - all bonus damage (sneak attack, weapon crit bonus, etc.) is rolled normally.
This is incorrect unless they have errata im not aware of.
The rules are:
From the PHBI pg 278
✦ Maximum Damage: Rather than roll damage,
determine the maximum damage you can roll with
your attack. This is your critical damage. (Attacks
that don’t deal damage still don’t deal damage on a
critical hit.)
✦ Extra Damage: Magic weapons and implements, as
well as high crit weapons, can increase the damage
you deal when you score a critical hit. If this extra
damage is a die roll, it’s not automatically maximum
damage; you add the result of the roll.
This confusion comes for people thinking SA and Quarry damage is extra damage. It is not. It lists extra damage; Magic weapons and implements, as well as high crit weapons. SA and Quarry are part of the base damage which is part of the maximum damage that can be rolled. This has been confirmed on multiple threads and by customer service. The rules should read like this, "anything dice you get for critting must be rolled, all other damage is maxed." Poor wording once again.
Today 09:18 PM kirezemog
The DM in my campaign has made some questionable rulings for some things in our game, and I'm concerned because the ruling are kind of messing with the game balance.
Now, I'm not trying to whine. His rulings are his rulings and I keep playing using that as the new rule. However, it's getting to the point that there is almost no reason for me to be a defender because all the rulings take away my ability to defend the rest of the party. I'm the only defender, so it's starting to become a problem. So, I'd like to figure out the best way to talk to him about it, without it seeming like I'm being a whiny player or starting an argument because I don't like the way he's running the game.
i had a dm like this once, it wasnt that he changed the rules, It was he kept changing the rules from day to day. I never new what i was allowed to do. I left and have been much happier ever since. Sit down, or email, or something with him and tell him that if he doesnt give you a set of rules and HE has to stick to them, them your leaving. Your not having fun. It took me a Year of playing every Sat. cause those guys were my friends, but hey. I run a game and play a game, they are both AWESOME. The groups are great, and i run by the book. Our games last so much longer also. We use to start a new game every 3 months or so because of his b.s.; all of our games since them last a year or more. If your in the cleveland area, you can jion my game. (if the times work).
Wrong. The only dice that aren't maximized are dice you roll BECAUSE of the crit... i.e. extra dice from high crit and magic weapons. Everything you would normally roll on that attack is maximized. Read where it says "Extra Damage" on p. 278 of the PHB... that's the exception. Everything else is maximized.
thanks for the clarification. I was doing it wrong.
thanks for the clarification. I was doing it wrong.
Tell your players I said "You're Welcome" lol
If he thinks that he's right, then just play it his way for the session. Once the session is over, post the disagreement on the dnd boards. Then show him the results.
Similarly, if he thinks that it's overpowered, then just play it his way for the session. Once the session is over, ask the boards if they think if what you're doing is overpowered. Then show him the results.
Dozens of people who are knowledgable about dnd, all saying that your dm is wrong might make your dm re-think his decisions. If he ignores what everyone on the boards uniformly agree on, then he has his head stuck too far up his own butt to be a good dm, and you may want to think about switching up who DMs your games.
If he thinks that he's right, then just play it his way for the session. Once the session is over, post the disagreement on the dnd boards. Then show him the results.
I wholeheartedly agree. I suggest that you tell him you simply disagreed with his ruling, and wanted a consensus from the forums. When you post your question, make sure that you sound unbiased, as if you didn't have an opinion either way. That way the DM might not feel offended too much, and be more likely to be open to further suggestions.
Only being able to mark one opponent per turn would be a huge disadvantage for a Fighter, but it sounds like your DM came around on that one. Likewise, it doesn't sound like he's modified the rules for crits so much as he's just wrong about them. That only leaves the issue of denying Combat Superiority versus enemies' Opportunity Attacks, which is something that I don't really see as a gamebreaking ruling.
I should point out that I think that his reasoning behind the decision is off - Opportunity Attacks absolutely are attacks (it says so right in the name :P). That said, the guy who runs my group uses the same ruling, having decided that a reaction can't trigger another reaction. In other words, you can't counter a counter-attack. The ruling is more Final Fantasy than D&D, but I can see see where he's coming from with it, and there aren't honestly that many situations where it's going to be a problem. As long as your DM is being even-handed with it - ruling the same way when the enemy Soldier runs into the same issue, for instance - I'd honestly advise you to pick your battles.
There's my two cents; sorry for playing the Devil's Advocate.
You potentially have two different issues that you may be dealing with. Does the DM think that he's right, or does he think what you're doing is overpowered?
If he thinks that he's right, then just play it his way for the session. Once the session is over, post the disagreement on the dnd boards. Then show him the results.
Similarly, if he thinks that it's overpowered, then just play it his way for the session. Once the session is over, ask the boards if they think if what you're doing is overpowered. Then show him the results.
Dozens of people who are knowledgable about dnd, all saying that your dm is wrong might make your dm re-think his decisions. If he ignores what everyone on the boards uniformly agree on, then he has his head stuck too far up his own butt to be a good dm, and you may want to think about switching up who DMs your games.
This
What your DM may need is advice, both on the rules, and also on how to run encounters. If you as a player know the rules well enough to exlploit them to full advantage for your character, (I mean you play your PC well) then maybe tossing some of that advice the DM's way would be helpful, offer to advise him in the game if his monsters are making tactical errors, or aren't using their abilities to full advantage. Consider if the DM is making poor choices for the enemy as well.
It may be a case of the DM not fully understanding the rules, or rather the tactics of fighting vs the party. If he can't outthink the party's tactics then his other option is to limit their abilities to make up for his tactical failings.
I think this may be the issue at hand. If the problem is that he thinks that he is correct or that you're being overpowered, I'd talk to him after a game. Should he stick to his guns, say you're going to post about this on the DnD forums, and then next session show him this thread. Don't just go up and say "the internet agrees with me!" Posting a question to the internet before even talking to someone about it is a surefire way to tick them off.
If, however, the problem is that he just doesn't have the tactical mind to effectively use monsters against you (Nothing wrong with that) and therefore his only option is to nerf your ability to fight them, don't expect anyone to change his mind. If this is the problem, maybe having someone with a better grasp of monsters and tactics help him out would be the best way to handle the situation.
Either way, try to come at it with an unbaised approach. You don't want him to say 'no deal with it' just because you ticked him off.
Maybe you could just say "One of us should send these questions to customer service, or post on the forum". I probably wouldn't show him this thread, as depending on what type of guy he is, he might think you were being shady/rude/etc.
I wholeheartedly agree. I suggest that you tell him you simply disagreed with his ruling, and wanted a consensus from the forums. When you post your question, make sure that you sound unbiased, as if you didn't have an opinion either way. That way the DM might not feel offended too much, and be more likely to be open to further suggestions.
When I disagree with my dm and feel the need to bring in the boards to decide who is right, I will often show my dm the post that I plan on making on the boards before I post it to make sure that what I post accurately portrays both sides of the arguement in an unbiased way. All of the DMs that I have had (even the bad ones) accept that the collective knowledge of the dnd forums far exceeds his own.
Fighter Marks: A fighter can have more than one target marked. Your DM is probably not realizing (or forgetting) that a fighter's mark only remains until the end of the fighter's next turn....it's not a permanent mark. In addition, the attack granted by a fighter's mark is an Immediate action...and the fighter can only take one Immediate action per combat turn. So the fighter could get OAs against each target if they action would trigger an OA, but can only use the Marked effect once per combat turn.
Crit Damage/Striker: While the DM could rule that Sneak Attack damage is not maximized on a critical hit, he is penalizing Rogues, Rangers and Warlocks. Sorcerors and Barbarians don't have bonus Striker damage....their extra damage is built into their powers. So he's giving Sorcs and Barbs an extra advantage over Rogues/Rangers/Warlocks.
the "no AOing AOs is probably to prevent someone from counter attacking someone who is counter attacking them and the other person from counter attacking the counter attack of the counter attack.
sorry, but i'm being another devils advocate.
the "no AOing AOs is probably to prevent someone from counter attacking someone who is counter attacking them and the other person from counter attacking the counter attack of the counter attack.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with a series of chain-reaction counterattacks as long as the sequence isn't endless or absurdly long (and I'm aware of no situation in 4e in which it would be either). Even if the DM does have a problem with multiple counterattacks for some reason, he should have informed the player that he is house ruling the game in a way that weakens his character in case the player wants to change something in response.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with a series of chain-reaction counterattacks as long as the sequence isn't endless or absurdly long (and I'm aware of no situation in 4e in which it would be either). Even if the DM does have a problem with multiple counterattacks for some reason, he should have informed the player that he is house ruling the game in a way that weakens his character in case the player wants to change something in response.
In addition to this, you cannot AoO or have an Immediate action during your own turn. Also, you only get one Immediate action between two of your turns. Both these simple rules tend to terminate "chain-reactions" pretty quickly.
In addition to this, you cannot AoO or have an Immediate action during your own turn. Also, you only get one Immediate action between two of your turns. Both these simple rules tend to terminate "chain-reactions" pretty quickly.
Plus, you only get one opportunity action per combatant's turn. A fighter's OA and combat challenge abilities are designed very well. They let you be an effective defender without being remotely overpowered.
I whole-heartedly support the suggestion to direct your GM to these boards. In fact, I believe that, in addition to its many, many other awesomenesses, this forum is an excellent dispute resolution tool. However, I also think some GMs may take disagreements regarding their rulings as a form of challenge towards their abilities, so it's very important to explain to them why you think their adjustments to the rules may be detrimental to the overall game experience.
I agree with this 100%. Be diplomatic about it, but if it's affecting your enjoyment of the game, also be assertive.
I don't think he does it to make our characters weaker or to get an advantage over us. He just makes a judgement call when he's not sure. He doesn't like being proven wrong or challenged at the table, so if you do, he sticks to his guns even stronger.
My big problem with this ruling was his explination. It was just so absurd that it ticked me off. I've calmed down since then. We only play every 2 weeks, so I've got time to come up with something.
My question now is, does his ruling weaken the party?
My question now is, does his ruling weaken the party?
The "one mark at a time" ruling is annoying and weakens any multi-target powers you have, but it doesn't fundamentally weaken your role.
The anti-OA ruling does. Being able to disuade OAs against your teammates is one of the more potent defender abilities, and makes a big difference in helping them get away from trouble. As a limitation, you only get to do it once a round.
Side comment: I assume you're aware that "combat challenge" and "combat superiority" are similar but quite distinct powers. Combat challenge only applies to creature/s you've marked, is an immediate interrupt (once per round, not an OA), and triggers on shifts and attacks. Combat Superiority is just an improved OA (and can trigger once per opponent's turn).
In theory, you could trigger both CC and CS on a single enemy action. If a foe was stupid enough to make a ranged (or area) attack against someone else while you were standing next to them and had them marked, then you would get a melee basic attack from CC (as an immediate interrupt, your one for the round) and a melee basic attack with +Wis mod from CS (as an opportunity attack).