I was wondering what the community thinks of this situation I am in. I started playing a new campaign with someone using 5e yesterday starting at level 1. The biggest issue I will bring up first: The dm has been running backstory and optional quests for his brother who started the game at level 3 (as an arcane trickster rogue). When the other player characters asked if we would catch up to him the DM said no he will level up with you as well at the same time. Even the brother who is getting the special treatment didn't seem to think this was a good idea but the DM insisted this is the way it is. My brother and who are playing in this group are also experienced DMs having playing each others group and run our own so many times over the years we cannot recall them all so we understand everything from the DM perspective. We are both really upset about this and I just wanted to see how other members of the community have handled similar situations in the past or have any ideas on how to do it without it being rude?
The other strange issue I have is that he had us create characters with backgrounds (mine a folk hero and my brother a noble) only to have us, first session and immiediately) ripped from the D&D universe and placed in a magic the gathering type universe. The D&D universe is one of many worlds (I know nothing of Magic the Gathering but it seems to be a place with many planes and worlds/dimensions or something) and none of the player characters are aware there are other worlds either. Our backgrounds mean nothing and we are not going back. This seems odd. Why not just have the characters made to be in the Magic universe? I asked him this and he said he likes magic and this is the way he wants to do it. He has also allowed each player 3 actions per turn. Any action. Yes 3 attacks per turn. And yes we are playing 5e to remind you. I'm all for trying something new and different but this seems to be executed poorly. There were also a lot of minor things in playing that I can let slide because they arent that critical but seem amateurish. For example when my brother cast an illusion of a giant fireball that looked like it was ready to be thrown at the enemy, the dm had only my brother and his brother do a perception check, which they succeeded to notice that the attackers were fearful of the fireball. Both of those characters have a low perception while my character has a modest wisdom and is TRAINED in perception. This makes no sense to me.
Thank you for your input.
What do you want to hear? Walk away ! You're apparently all experienced, start somewhere without this DM
baldhermit wrote:
I think wehave all had bad experiences with DMs. The few times I really did not like a DMs style was never as obvious as what you're describing, and still after one, or perhaps a few sessions, I figured out I'd have more fun not playing with that guy.
We've fixed it by having a conversation with the DM about things he is doing that bother you. A conversation is not an accusation, or a name calling. It is bi-directional with the two of you coming to an agreement.
If you put forth genuine effort on this, and the DM does as well, things will improve.
If you put forth genuine effort on this and the DM does not, you should leave the group.
If you do not, and the DM does you will look like an ass.
If neither of you do you deserve one another.
I think this looks a bit strange, to word it carefully. But maybe your DM has a plan. You should catch up eventually with his brother’s character, if the xp are spread evenly (Or isn’t this the case in 5th ed?!). I’m more concerned about his tinkering / experimenting with the system - that’s the problem of everyone. So talk it over – and if you don’t enjoy what your DM is planning , you are in the comfortable situation, that you have enough DM’s and players!
Panartias wrote:
Zathris wrote:
Thank you everyone for your replies. I talked it out with him calmly and explained everything. We decided not to continue playing. He was willing to work with us but ultimately we felt like an hour drive wasn't worth it for someone we didn't know. To answer the issue of leveling: It was not an EXP type game, it was a level up whenever the dm says so type (which I don't have an issue with, for 4e I just did an every 10 encounters you leveled up type thing and the players knew it).
I've never been in a situation this bad, but I just started a new 4e as a Gnoll Ranger with a new group the other day and found the DM's crit. miss rules to be a bit unfair, so here's what I did in a few easy steps:
- When an instance of the unfair event next arose, I asked my DM if I could have a few minutes to speak to him about the campaign after we finished the game that night.
- All subsequent instances of critical misses that annoyed me, I ignored. I knew the issue would be resolved in a bit, so I figured I'd just wait it out (However much I nullified the Bard's healing spells by accidentally crushing my skull with my flail, annoying us both).
- I calmly negotiated with my DM about the unfair rule, and explained my reasoning. In the event that you're curious, it was a (Be warned: 4e roles system will be mentioned, if you hate 4e, skip over this bit) striker heavy group with a "crit miss is deal damage to yourself rule". As you can imagine, trained warriors that almost all have high-damage attacks and low health accidentally hitting themselves on a bad day frequently is a recipe for a quick and effortless TPK. I explained this to my DM, and he said he'd use a different system for critical misses next week.
If your DM is unwilling to negotiate the issue, then find a different group! Or host a game yourself!
Crit miss effects are shitty anyway. You already wasted an action not achieving what you hoped to achieve, why bring on the salt ?
baldhermit wrote:
Timpookie wrote:
Timpookie wrote:
If you think your party crippling themself instead of attacking is fun stuff, 1. Go play Traveller or some other game where you can die in chargen or something, 2. Stop being a sadist.
No, but the crossbow bolt you fired at the enemy breaking on his shield on a crit miss is a pretty minor thing that, if you crit miss enough, starts to add up when you need to buy new ammunition.
Timpookie wrote:
That's not "critical miss effect" that's "roleplaying".
And no, ammunition is, and should be completely inconsequential. Melee characters already enjoy a massive advantage over ranged weapon characters in every edition, penalizing them by forcing them to track non-magical ammunition is just bad DMing.
In 2nd edition and before, critical miss (fumble) was (as critical hit) part of the rules. To confirm a fumble, I had not roll the characters to hit themselves though (as in the rules) since that would mean the better to hit someone had, the more likely he would be to damage himself. As I felt the opposite should be true, I had to roll them against 20-TaC0 (below that). In 3.x it would be to roll below base attack bonus. I would include all modifiers: You are more likely to injure yourself with a weapon you aren’t proficient with for example.
And instead of just doing damage to oneself, I most often went with drop weapon (or has to readjust his grip).
I remember one time when there occurred a row of crits and fumbles in a fight:
The characters were fighting a group of Frost Giants. With one attack the paladin had a possible crit 20 – tried to confirm it (second attack roll) and rolled a 1. He then confirmed the fumble with a 16 or 18. I described that he used his sunblade to stab at the Giant (which he did expertly) but drove the blade so deep in the Giants leg that it got struck between the knee bones and he lost his grip on the weapon, because it was slippery from the blood.
Anyway, later in the same round, the mage decided to fireball the giants, and the wounded one rolled a 1 on his save (not surprising with a sword sticking out of his leg). But of course that meant saves for all “his” items – including the sword. Now metal has a good save versus magical fire (especially if magical itself). But a 2 was rolled where a 4 was needed. So I ruled the sword survives, but loses its enchantment (It was glowing).
I used this to create an adventure hook: The sword had to be placed on a special, holy altar to regain its powers (I secretly planned to upgrade the sunblade to a holy avenger).
Long story short: Crits and misses /fumbles can make live more interesting for players and DM’s if used sparingly. And coincidences like the above are truly memorable…
Zathris wrote:
Both of those lines seem to be opinion. So you can agree or disagree with them, but how are they wrong ?
baldhermit wrote:
Zathris wrote:
baldhermit wrote:
Timpookie wrote:
Zathris wrote:
You say that like it's a bad thing; and for multiple reasons, thinking that it IS important is just plain wrong.
CCS wrote:" Yes, after a point it becomes pretty irrelevant GP wise to replenish ammo. (Unless your in a game where $ is highly limited) But unless you can achieve some means of having ready access to infinite ammo, or play that the only time you actually fire a shot is when the dice say youd hit, tracking how much ammo you have left IS important."
Fardiz wrote:
Panartias wrote:
Lol – I’ll give you that, Fardiz!
It’s been a while since I read the Hobbit, but I can’t remember Azog, Bolg or the elven-dwarven romance. And nothing about Sauron already returning.
But I think Jackson wanted to
a) fill in some of the gaps in the original tale
b) make it more personal
c) get in more action
Have you noticed that Hobbit is supposed to take place before LOTR, but Legolas appears older in Hobbit?
Panartias wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Fardiz wrote:
Timpookie wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Timpookie wrote:
Reius wrote:
greenteaman wrote: