Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 2585337" data-attributes="member: 22779">Heh, ok, toning down the rhetoric a tad.  My bad.  At least people have proven that they are pretty passionate about their hobby though eh?I'll take a stab at The Shaman's questions.  Although, allow me to pare them down a touch from a rather lengthy post.  I think I've got them.The questions are:1)The PHB and the DMG (both 3.0 - my 3.5 books are in a box in the garage) indicate that the most complex mechanical trap is DC 25 to disable - does this preclude the GM from creating a DC 27 or 28 trap? What about DC 30?2) Who decides what the "darn good reason" is, the GM or the players?I'm going to answer those in reverse order.  Mostly because I'm lazy and I don't want to look up the rules yet.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />A "darn good reason" will ultimately be decided by both.  A DM who changes rules on a whim will face resistence from the players.  And he should.  The players have a fairly realistic expectation that rules will be followed.  That's not an unreasonable expectation IMO.  Also, I think that the players should be able to expect that major rule changes will be discussed, rather than simply handed down from on high.  Granted, as I write that, I realize that campaign specific rules, such as race and class selection likely will be handed down from on high, but, I'm more thinking about in game mechanics rather than campaign creation.  During campaign creation, the DM has a fair bit more latitude to fashion whatever ruleset he wishes to use.  Certainly players should be encouraged to ask if this or that could be used, but, I don't think that they should be able to presume that something will be in use.  For example, if I'm running a Scarred Lands game, the players could reasonably assume that the Relics and Rituals spells will be used, but, not spells from Forgotten Realms.  Granted, they can always ask if they could use something, that's fine.  But, again, the RAW for that setting 100% supports the DM in saying no.  Conversely, I don't think that a player asking to play a Warforged in an oriental game really has much of a leg to stand on.  Again, the RAW for the setting completely supports the DM and not the player.During gameplay though, things get a little stickier.  The players will generally assume that rules will remain fixed throughout the session.  And, I don't see that as a problem.   If a conflict in interpretation comes up, obviously the DM is going to have to have final say, if just to get the game going again.  The issue could be shelved until after gameplay and then hashed out later.  That's how it's done in many campaigns anyway.  However, if the DM decides to change rules in the middle of the game, without warning, I think the players have every right to challenge the DM.  And, no, the RAW will not support the DM in this case.  The DM has chosen to move away from the RAW in any form and cannot expect the RAW to support his decision.  That's just silly to expect the rules as written to support unwritten rules.  In another thread, someone mentioned a DM who nerfed the flat-footed rules in the middle of the game.  Now, the RAW does not support that decision, of course.  A great deal of the game is built around the existence of being flat footed.  If the DM decides to do away with this rule, then he sets up a situation where it is completely his opinion vs the players and the players have the benefit of the RAW to support their viewpoint.  Should a DM be allowed to do this?  I'm not so sure.  I think that major changes in rules should be done outside of game with a great deal of deliberation between the DM and the players.  Simply imposing new rules without any feedback is a bad idea, IMO.Ok, I've strayed a bit from the question.  Sue me.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />The point of the thread has been, does the RAW support DM abilities to say no.  I think it does.  Certainly, books are being targetted towards DM's and players.  Of course they are, WOTC and others want to sell more books.  If they flat out state that Book X is for DM's only, then they can't sell as many books.  However, just because the books are being marketted to players in no way removes the support the DM's get from the RAW.  Once the DM, usually with the input from players, has decided what constitutes RAW for that game, those RAW support anyone who supports those rules.  They only fail to support those who deviate from those rules.  Well, isn't that precisely what RAW should do?  Support those who follow the rules and not support those who don't?Ok, back to question 1.I'm going to slip into 3.5 answers for this, because I'm not sure how to answer in 3.0, those books aren't here.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I see nothing in the RAW which precludes a higher than DC 25 mechanical trap.  Granted, the highest listed is 25, and, really, with the technological level of most campaigns, you won't see much higher than that, but, there's nothing stopping a DM from having one.  As I was told earlier about the wealth guidelines, they are guidelines, not hard and fast rules.  3e has always included the base concept that anything not specifically outlined should not be added in.  Since there is no specific prohibition from creating a DC 30 mechanical trap, then none exists.  Any DM or player who insisted that there was such a prohibition would actually be deviating from the RAW.Thus speaks an inveterate rules lawyer.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification