It's obvious the DM misread the rule. Regardless of your understanding, his implementation was obviously overpowered. Something that a re-read of the rule would clarify.
Its a catch-22, however. You either stop the game, and risk GM ire (and the possibility that if you're wrong, you're making problems), or you stay quiet and suffer the in-game consequences.
While the GM is the final arbiter of the rules, that doesn't mean he should disallow rules corrections by somebody in the know, or ruling questions. A good GM simply hears the evidence from the player, looks up a rule (or has another player do it), and then makes a final decision. That's the final part. it means AFTER considering new evidence.
When I ad-lib rules (like swimming), I'll usually ask, "does anybody KNOW the swimming rules? if not, this is how I'm going to handle it..."
When I use a rule that I think I know, I allow for the fact that I could be wrong, especially if its seldom used (like spells).
For the OP, I think that when he first declared the spell was cast and the outcome, I would have said:
"Excuse me, that doesn't seem to match the spell description. Can we pause and look it up, or is this actually a different, higher level spell?"
You're allowing for the possibility that the effect is right, but the GM misspoke the cause (allowing him to save face). You're also not outright saying he's wrong, simply that the rule should be looked up.
if he says no, then be quiet about it, until after the game.
If you calmly discuss it after the game and he is still adamant that his interpretation of a 1st level spell, you've got a different problem. Namely a GM who refuses to accept correction.
In the OP's story, the mis-interpretation had less to do with a +5 bonus. He could have rolled a 1 and still run away. The wrong ruling completely took him out of the major encounter. And worse, he was about to do it again. This leads to TPK, all due to a DM not knowing a rule correctly.
the GM may not want to revise history (I have that in my house rules that I won't retcon event outcomes). But he should certainly be man enough to read the rules, see he was wrong, and say, "whoah, I was way off. Sorry about that, I'll be more careful next time."
Its a catch-22, however. You either stop the game, and risk GM ire (and the possibility that if you're wrong, you're making problems), or you stay quiet and suffer the in-game consequences.
While the GM is the final arbiter of the rules, that doesn't mean he should disallow rules corrections by somebody in the know, or ruling questions. A good GM simply hears the evidence from the player, looks up a rule (or has another player do it), and then makes a final decision. That's the final part. it means AFTER considering new evidence.
When I ad-lib rules (like swimming), I'll usually ask, "does anybody KNOW the swimming rules? if not, this is how I'm going to handle it..."
When I use a rule that I think I know, I allow for the fact that I could be wrong, especially if its seldom used (like spells).
For the OP, I think that when he first declared the spell was cast and the outcome, I would have said:
"Excuse me, that doesn't seem to match the spell description. Can we pause and look it up, or is this actually a different, higher level spell?"
You're allowing for the possibility that the effect is right, but the GM misspoke the cause (allowing him to save face). You're also not outright saying he's wrong, simply that the rule should be looked up.
if he says no, then be quiet about it, until after the game.
If you calmly discuss it after the game and he is still adamant that his interpretation of a 1st level spell, you've got a different problem. Namely a GM who refuses to accept correction.
In the OP's story, the mis-interpretation had less to do with a +5 bonus. He could have rolled a 1 and still run away. The wrong ruling completely took him out of the major encounter. And worse, he was about to do it again. This leads to TPK, all due to a DM not knowing a rule correctly.
the GM may not want to revise history (I have that in my house rules that I won't retcon event outcomes). But he should certainly be man enough to read the rules, see he was wrong, and say, "whoah, I was way off. Sorry about that, I'll be more careful next time."
