Bad GM rulings? How would you rule?

[green slime]

Did the characters get a chance to determine via a spellcraft check that the BBEG was casting an Ethereal Jaunt? That may have made a difference.

Personally, I don't see what all the big noise is about: They gained a phyrric victory in a minor battle, not the war. In RttToEE, you expect character deaths. Only one death sounds like a good battle to me...

 

[Quartz]

My players are upset with the way I ruled a few things tonight. I'd like some input from the hivemind regarding how I should've handled this.

1A. My BBEG cleric cast blade barrier. I ruled that it took an entire 5-foot square along a line of squares (one side of the room to another). To keep things simple, the line was horizontal across the battlefield so I didn't have to deal with angles. I ruled this way because I couldn't see how a creature could be caught in the barrier when it was cast if the barrier ran down a grid line instead of across grid squares. Did I do this wrong?

IMHO the Blade Barrier redefines the squares. The BB has no thickness.

1B. In the blade barrier example, can a creature with reach put their hand through the barrier to retrieve something on the other side (or attack with a touch spell, for instance) without taking damage? To my thinking, the damage would be automatic without any Reflex save.

Agreed.

1C. The spell allows a creature who is within the AoE at the time that the barrier is created to choose which side they end up on if they make their Reflex save. What if one side is occupied by (a) an ally or (b) an opponent? I ruled they could squeeze into a square with an ally, but couldn't move into a square with an opponent. Because the PC was Large (Medium-size creature who was under the effect of righteous might), they wanted to bull rush the opponent out of the way as they exited the blade barrier!

See 1A. You can't get a free move into an occupied square. If he wants to move there, he provokes an AoO.

2. A blinded PC wants to attack an opponent. I allowed a player to convince me that the PC knows where the (effectively invisible) opponent is by the noise it makes, so the PC can make an attack and then I roll the miss chance. However, the Special Ability Invisibility, says that only with a Listen check that exceeds the DC by 20 can an invisible creature be pinpointed. Should I have been requiring the PC to roll against DC 0 (the opponent was in combat and casting spells) modified by +20 to pinpoint them, for a total DC 20?

Correct.

3. A PC needs to be able to hear or see a spellcaster in order to use Spellcraft to identify a spell as it's being cast, right? Does sound penetrate a wall of force (actually, a forcecage in "windowless cell" mode)? Should someone trying to use Spellcraft while inside a forcecage be required to roll a Listen and/or Spot check to identify the spell? (Listen didn't really matter since the spell didn't have a verbal component, but it did have a somatic one.)

Yes, yes, and yes. Forcecage blocks neither sight nor sound.

4. What can my BBEG do with control winds while inside an acid fog area? Can the controlling winds be used to push the fog away from its current location? The fog spell only talks about dispersing the fog with a severe wind, but control winds let's the spellcaster shape the winds, which to me means that they don't have to be "dispersed" but could be "corraled" and pushed in a particular direction. What do you think?

Pushed? Yes. Directed? Yes. Shaped? No.

5. Last, the BBEG cast ethereal jaunt at the end of the encounter and fled by going straight down through the floor. The mage PC cast see invisible, but it was too late and didn't see anything. I asked the players if they wanted to stay in round-by-round mode (ie. were they going to chase after the BBEG or were they concerned about her coming back) and one of them said they wanted to drop out of combat and the others kept silent. Here's the problem: the BBEG had floated down one floor where the party had trussed up a character. The BBEG dismissed her spell and in the next round coup de grace'd the trussed up (and unconscious) character. Then made her escape without being ethereal. The players balked at having their companion killed, complaining that they could've gotten there in time to stop the BBEG. (That argument is actually debatable. They didn't know that the BBEG was even doing this and while they were in a hurry to leave, they had to maneuver around a blade barrier and a forcecage, so it would've taken them at least two rounds to be in a position to see their companion at the bottom of the stairs.) What is your opinion of this situation? I made sure that it was not I who made the decision to drop out of combat, yet two of the players (out of five) are blaming me and saying that the choice was mine. (Sigh)

No, nothing wrong there. They've hopefully learned a lesson.

 

[irdeggman]

I didn't think wall of force or similar spells would block sound. One of the BBEG's other prepared spells was Otiluke's resilient sphere and it's also "Evocation [Force]" and specifically says nothing can pass through the sphere, in or out. I have to assume that includes light and sound, too. That's backed up by the use of "shimmering" in the first sentence. The wall of force doesn't say that, so I figured it was supposed to work differently...

Be careful on this one. It works both ways. The person inside the sphere also can't see anythig outside the sphere either, which will casue all kind of "issues" in the long run.

And I know the "combat mode" question was a tough one. The BBEG had disappeared and I had continued combat for another 3 rounds before asking if they wanted to break out of combat. In the round in which the BBEG disappeared, she dropped 30 feet and saw the trussed up creature. While the party did other stuff, she finished moving to place herself and dismissed the spell. Then one round each for the two creatures there, both unconscious. This is where we left it.

Was the BBEG intent on fleeing? Did the BBEG know that the PCs were not pursuing her? (sounds like metagaming that she did and hence decided to pause and commit the CDG).

You can see that by the time I took the party out of combat, the attacks on their two companions had already happened. One player was upset because there was no noise. Huh?! With the blade barrier going, there's going to be some noise where the combat took place, and besides ... how much noise does it make to coup de grace an unconscious creature with a knife or dagger??

How much noise does someone make when their dying? That is real question.

Remember a CDG is not necessarily an auto-kill. It usually is, but it is an auto critical and a Fort save to avoid dying - if the damage itself didn't accomplish the act.

 

[KarinsDad]

My take on some of these issues:

a) I would rule that windowless Force Cage does not allow sound through. It is a windowless prison, not a screen porch. The only thing that should get through it is light. To me, solid is solid, not permeable by liquids, gases, energy, etc. If it stops sound attacks, it stops sound. IMO. No spell craft throught it except via Spot checks.

b) Creatures with Ethereal Jaunt should be used to opponents not following them. I do not consider the DM doing a CDG by an evil creature in this situation metagaming. Remember, the creature too knew about the Force Cage and the Blade Barrier, etc. Without more evidence of metagaming (of which there really is none yet), this is just an evil creature doing what evil creatures do. Again, IMO.

c) The DC for the Listen check could be 20, or it could be +5 more for the listener distracted for DC 25. DM call. Typically, a blind creature in combat would be heavily distracted IMO. I don't think blind creatures should have the exact same chance of attacking an invisible creature as sighted creatures should (since sighted creatures can have other visual cues such as where the floor is, where other opponents are, where furniture can be in the way, etc.) and I think the distracted modifier handles this nicely. The blind guy should be having major difficulty in a combat (ever try to navigate a pitch dark building, even when you know where objects are?).

d) Damage for Blade Barrier gets a Reflex save. It does not matter a full move through it or a "partial move" through (i.e. via reach).

You ruled correctly on the rest.


I too think your players need to get a bit of an emotional grip on the game. Bad things happen. If the DM goes way out of his way to make bad rulings, that's one thing. But, your rulings were fine if not a bit generous to the PCs. I think you should remind your players that you are the DM and that you are trying to be fair according to the rules and if they feel differently, maybe they should explain to you exactly how you were making a mistake because several members of the ENWorld community didn't see it that way.

 

[jaelis]

a) I would rule that windowless Force Cage does not allow sound through. It is a windowless prison, not a screen porch. The only thing that should get through it is light. To me, solid is solid, not permeable by liquids, gases, energy, etc. If it stops sound attacks, it stops sound. IMO. No spell craft throught it except via Spot checks.

A brick wall is a solid barrier that would stop sound attacks, but you can still make a listen check through it.

 

[Zelc]

d) Damage for Blade Barrier gets a Reflex save. It does not matter a full move through it or a "partial move" through (i.e. via reach).

Again, I would be really hesitant to make such rulings based on "common sense". There is no such thing as a "partial move" through an effect. If the spell doesn't specify dealing damage to people attacking through it, then you shouldn't rule that it does. Otherwise, you run the risk of changing the power of the spell. For example, such a ruling would make Blade Barrier pretty much stop all attacks through the wall, since trying to swing a weapon at someone on the other side will result in a severely damaged or sundered weapon. At the very least, you've basically added a Wind Wall effect into the spell (stops arrows by sundering them in midair).

a) I would rule that windowless Force Cage does not allow sound through. It is a windowless prison, not a screen porch. The only thing that should get through it is light. To me, solid is solid, not permeable by liquids, gases, energy, etc. If it stops sound attacks, it stops sound. IMO. No spell craft throught it except via Spot checks.

You realize at 2 hours per level, this ruling creates a no-save no-SR suffocation spell.

 

[MithrasRahl]

You killed a PC out of combat? That is really lame. Yes, by the rules, etc etc, whatever.

By your own words, even if they had gone round by round, they still wouldn't have been able to save the PC. So essentially you made a situation where the PC was going to die unless the entire party rolled perfectly.

This is a game played for fun. CdGing a PC in that kind of situation is not fun at all. If I were one of your players, that situation alone would have me rethinking whether I wanted to play in your campaign.

(my point being, you may enjoy that kind of gaming, and fair enough if you do, but that isn't everyone's cup of tea. If more than one of your players are complaining, it sounds like it isn't their cup of tea either. Take their hint, and change the way you deal with situation like this)

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

1A. My BBEG cleric cast blade barrier. I ruled that it took an entire 5-foot square along a line of squares (one side of the room to another). To keep things simple, the line was horizontal across the battlefield so I didn't have to deal with angles. I ruled this way because I couldn't see how a creature could be caught in the barrier when it was cast if the barrier ran down a grid line instead of across grid squares. Did I do this wrong?

Blade Barrier has no stated width but the description is reasonably clear. That is, if the barrier passes through an occupied square the occupant makes a save. If he saves he takes no damage and moves to one side or the other of the barrier. Failed save - he takes full damage and stays put, and then moves as desired when his turn comes up.

What's not clear is what to do if adjacent squares on one side or the other of the barrier are occupied. See below.

1B. In the blade barrier example, can a creature with reach put their hand through the barrier to retrieve something on the other side (or attack with a touch spell, for instance) without taking damage? To my thinking, the damage would be automatic without any Reflex save.

As a rule it is a BAD idea to expand the capabilities of a spell beyond what is written. BB is pretty clear in this regard. On the initial placement it's take full damage or save for none and adjust to one side of the barrier. The rest of the time it's save for half. That would include simply "reaching" through it if moving FULLY through it still allows a save for half.

1C. The spell allows a creature who is within the AoE at the time that the barrier is created to choose which side they end up on if they make their Reflex save. What if one side is occupied by (a) an ally or (b) an opponent? I ruled they could squeeze into a square with an ally, but couldn't move into a square with an opponent. Because the PC was Large (Medium-size creature who was under the effect of righteous might), they wanted to bull rush the opponent out of the way as they exited the blade barrier!

Myself, I'd say that at the very least open squares must be chosen first. If the only open square is on a side of the barrier that a PC doesn't WANT to be on - tough. The movement is not by CHOICE - it is FORCED as a result of the reflex save and the player should consider himself fortunate to get ANY choice of where to move at all. If you want to be nice then I wouldn't have a problem with allowing players to squeeze into occupied squares, but as another poster said - this is not an attack so there would be no bullrushing or anything of the kind. In fact, there would be no attacks of opportunity, etc. either. This is not MOVEMENT - it is a rules-dictated adjustment of positions on the battlefield in order to resolve the effects of a spell.

Of course there is also the idea that if there are no open squares on either side of the barrier to adjust position to, then the character remains where he is and must simply move out of the barriers effects with his movement on his turn, and I'm pretty sure that the intent was really to resort to this rather than squeezing or the like and is how I would rule myself. D&D rules really abhor the idea of two creatures in the same square at the same time. There are so few rules to cover it because it doesn't want the situation to EVER exist in order to AVOID the very problems associated with it. Allowing it to occur becomes the DM's own concern as do most of the solutions for solving the additional problems that WILL arise because of it.

2. A blinded PC wants to attack an opponent. I allowed a player to convince me that the PC knows where the (effectively invisible) opponent is by the noise it makes, so the PC can make an attack and then I roll the miss chance. However, the Special Ability Invisibility, says that only with a Listen check that exceeds the DC by 20 can an invisible creature be pinpointed. Should I have been requiring the PC to roll against DC 0 (the opponent was in combat and casting spells) modified by +20 to pinpoint them, for a total DC 20?

The latter is how it SHOULD have been ruled. I wouldn't have a problem with letting a player convince me otherwise if the circumstances warranted it but I don't see anything about UNUSUAL circumstances here. Whether the player pulled one over on you intentionally or not I'd let it slide - but also let them know that the next time it will be by the book.

3. A PC needs to be able to hear or see a spellcaster in order to use Spellcraft to identify a spell as it's being cast, right? Does sound penetrate a wall of force (actually, a forcecage in "windowless cell" mode)? Should someone trying to use Spellcraft while inside a forcecage be required to roll a Listen and/or Spot check to identify the spell? (Listen didn't really matter since the spell didn't have a verbal component, but it did have a somatic one.)

Again, DON'T grant spells the ability to do things they are NOT written to have. Neither Wall of Force or Forcecage says anything about interfering with vision or sound so DON'T infer that they do or should. Players may complain if you only ever LIMIT spells rather than let them go beyond their descriptions but it's better than the headaches of creating loopholes when you start letting spells exceed their descriptions. Worse still if you only go beyond the written rules when it favors YOU, the DM, but when players try to do the same with THEIR spells you rule against them.

And yes, spellcraft requires being able to see somatic components or hear verbal components, though it says nothing about needing both if both exist.

4. What can my BBEG do with control winds while inside an acid fog area? Can the controlling winds be used to push the fog away from its current location? The fog spell only talks about dispersing the fog with a severe wind, but control winds let's the spellcaster shape the winds, which to me means that they don't have to be "dispersed" but could be "corraled" and pushed in a particular direction. What do you think?

Keep the spells to what they are WRITTEN to be able to do - not more. Acid Fog/Solid Fog say nothing about being MOVED by winds - only dispersed. Control Winds says nothing about being able to MOVE spell areas of effect. What you're really talking about is applying metamagic to OTHER casters spells and THAT is just way outside the rules. If I were a player and saw you do this I'd raise the roof because I KNOW you'd never EVER let me get away with that kind of thing.

5. Last, the BBEG cast ethereal jaunt at the end of the encounter and fled by going straight down through the floor. The mage PC cast see invisible, but it was too late and didn't see anything. I asked the players if they wanted to stay in round-by-round mode (ie. were they going to chase after the BBEG or were they concerned about her coming back) and one of them said they wanted to drop out of combat and the others kept silent.

By rights you did all that you needed to and any complaining players can just shut up. They had their opportunity to say, "My character is going to do this so, yes, keep in combat rounds," or at the very least, "Give me a minute to think about that..."

Being the kind of DM that I am I probably would have asked a second time, "Are you SURE?" as an even broader hint that maybe there's something they're overlooking. I might even have kept it in combat rounds DESPITE anything the players might have said since I would want to keep myself honest about what the BBEG could and would accomplish in that time - knowing what the players wouldn't that a PC's life hinged upon it (and when they found that out they would SCRAMBLE for ways to retcon the situation and I'd need to be ready for that.)

Here's the problem: the BBEG had floated down one floor where the party had trussed up a character. The BBEG dismissed her spell and in the next round coup de grace'd the trussed up (and unconscious) character. Then made her escape without being ethereal.

Yep, this IS a problem IMO, but not regarding the passing of rounds, but of what the DM can and should do.

The DM can kill the PC's at any time. ANY time. It is as easy as breathing, or at least as easy as dictating the next encounter is 5 EL over their heads, or flatly NOT PROVIDING the PC's a means to survive. Now, by all means you run your game the way that you and your players agree to, but when it comes to PC's being captured IMO you have to STOP being rational, logical, methodical. Unless it is GENUINELY due punishment of that PC for the player being a clueless git you need to give the other PC's MORE than enough chance to rescue their comrade, rather than just CDG them at the first opportunity. It otherwise seems a lot like a random save-or-die effect being thrown at them as they walk through empty wilderness. It's POSSIBLE, maybe even PROBABLE - but that doesn't make it a good idea to follow through with it.

The players balked at having their companion killed, complaining that they could've gotten there in time to stop the BBEG. (That argument is actually debatable. They didn't know that the BBEG was even doing this and while they were in a hurry to leave, they had to maneuver around a blade barrier and a forcecage, so it would've taken them at least two rounds to be in a position to see their companion at the bottom of the stairs.)

And to my mind it shouldn't matter. You said to yourself, "I'm going to kill this captured PC SIMPLY BECAUSE I CAN. They can't make it down one floor in time. They can't (and don't)anticipate that this is what the BBEG will actually do. Therefore I am JUSTIFIED in killing the PC without allowing the other players ANY POSSIBLE RECOURSE TO STOP ME."

That is NOT the way to go about it IMO. The way to go about it would be to CONTINUE to give the players reason to continue to chase the BBEG. You should look for reasons for the BBEG NOT to kill the PC if you can't find a way to give at least a SLIM hope of rescue. You do this because THAT is your job as DM. As I said, you can kill the PC's any time you want in any way you want. You control EVERYTHING except the actions of the PC's. If you think your job is to kill the PC's then you win. Now let's play Monopoly. Your job is to find exciting, creative ways NOT to kill them because otherwise by definition you succeed in killing them - EVERY time.

I should point out that we're playing a very deadly module (RttToEE) and I've house ruled a number of player-friendly things:

Having rules that favor the PC's/players in one place doesn't mean you get permission to screw them somewhere else with house rules or in-game rulings. You're certainly not doing that intentionally, but that IS the justification you seem to be using.

 

[MithrasRahl]

Well said, Man in the Funny Hat, I agree completely

Edit: spelling

 

[azhrei_fje]

You killed a PC out of combat? That is really lame. Yes, by the rules, etc etc, whatever.

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. The BBEG was going to flee and did so using ethereal jaunt. The party mage Spellcraft'd it and in the same round cast see invisible, noting (out loud to the rest of the party) that the BBEG was nowhere within sight. END OF ROUND.

The BBEG saw one of the party members bound and tied, laying unconscious on the floor, along with an NPC who had been working for the BBEG originally but had turned traitor and spent time in the BBEG's "prison". The BBEG decided on-the-spot that neither would be allowed to go free. She dismissed the ethereal jaunt spell and became solid standing next to the trussed up party member. In this round, the party mage moved in order to be able to see around physical objects that blocked line of sight, but stayed essentially in the same area. The party paladin coup de grace the other BBEG who had already gone down (and was at -25 anyway). However, the actions of the paladin are not being questioned here. (That'll be a separate topic later. ) END OF ROUND.

The BBEG coup de grace's the unconscious party member. The party cleric does some healing. The paladin wants to drag the dead body over to the stairs and the exit, but existing spell effects block the way (blade barrier and forcecage, primarily). I don't remember what the party mage did; I'd have to check my DM Genie combat log. END OF ROUND.

The BBEG coup de grace's the traitor (laying on the ground within a 5-foot step). I joke with the party paladin about just pushing the body through the barrier and "slice and dice" the bad guy's body, but they want to loot the gear, so that's a no-go. Dropping out of combat would remove the blade barrier (since it's duration is in rounds and it had less than 10 rounds left). I did not say that out loud, but I asked the paladin if they wanted to drop out of combat. They said, "yes."

Once out of combat, the BBEG would have returned to her room, found her stuff gone, and finished fleeing. The party mage was upset because when the party did get down to the next level, they found the unconscious party member dead. (They didn't care much about the traitor! ) Then I got the 3rd degree about taking them out of combat.

Part of the problem is that the party doesn't know that the BBEG only needed the ethereal jaunt to get from Level 9 to Level 8 of the building. Once on Level 8, she could step into a part of the tower and drop to lower levels pretty much without being detected. That's what she did. The player argued that there's no way a BBEG would dismiss the jaunt and then have to run down the stairs. I suppose I could've spilled the beans, but I felt that I played it fairly and I shouldn't have to divulge the methods that the bad guys were using just because a player doesn't understand.

(That player in particular is a bit of a rules-lawyer, though. During the evening, I ruled in his/their favor multiple times in order to avoid an argument -- like the Listen check question -- and perhaps he thought that I had gotten fed up with his objections and decided to punish him. That was not the case, but should I have to prove it? I think I'll need to offer some kind of explanation...)

This is a game played for fun. CdGing a PC in that kind of situation is not fun at all. If I were one of your players, that situation alone would have me rethinking whether I wanted to play in your campaign.

I'm not sure if you read the rest of my post, but there are numerous extenuating circumstances. First, there were 8 characters under party control and often only 4 of the 5 players showed up. As the party has reached higher levels, I felt that they were not playing their characters as well as they should have on the one hand, and on the other the combat were taking longer as they struggled to play each character to the max.

I had warned them multiple sessions prior to last night's that the chaotic evil bad guys were going to be played to the hilt. No holds barred. And that at the levels they were at now, there would be difficult repercussions from save-or-die spells.

Do players expect to win? Of course they do. Should they expect to win? Of course not. There is always a bigger fish in the pond and PCs should know that running away is sometimes the best choice. A couple of other posters to this thread are aware of this module and how deadly it is; I doubt they would find the death of two PCs in one of the two climatic battles to be so unusual. (A mage was hit with destruction and a fighter was plane shift'd away. The mage likely won't be coming back, but they have the tuning fork to potentially find the fighter and the coup de grace'd rogue can easily be raised. And hopefully you read my note on the raise dead spell and how lenient I am with death in this campaign.)

(my point being, you may enjoy that kind of gaming, and fair enough if you do, but that isn't everyone's cup of tea. If more than one of your players are complaining, it sounds like it isn't their cup of tea either. Take their hint, and change the way you deal with situation like this)

I have one player complaining loudly. And I have his girlfriend -- with no personal stake in the deaths of the PCs -- sort of going along with him. I actually value her input more than his, because one of the two mages he was playing was destroyed while both of hers survived. That leads me to think that she may have reacted in a more level-headed manner. I should point out that none of the other 3 players sided with the mage player. In fact, when the angry player left, the player who's rogue had died told me that she didn't think it was any big deal! And the player of the paladin did not object when I stated that the party had decided to drop out of combat.

I think one of the other posters who said that emotions can run high during an epic combat encounter hit the nail on the head. I think the player of the mage was hit pretty hard by losing a character and instead of sucking it up and moving on, may have let it get to him. So when the party found out that the BBEG had killed the rogue, he lost it.

It is tough as a GM to know when to stay in combat and when to drop out. As I2K pointed out, the players start to metagame if you keep them in combat longer than they think necessary. In the past, I have kept them in combat beyond the end of the encounter when it wasn't necessary (only once or twice), so keeping them in combat mode last night wouldn't have seemed tooooo unusual. And that's why I gave them the choice. I asked multiple times if they were going to chase the BBEG. If they were, we'd stay in combat rounds so that movement could be precisely marked (remember: this is after the two coup de grace rounds). They opted to drop out of rounds.

I'm really upset about this. Perhaps not as much as that player, but still... I run my games as fairly as I can. The players know that actions they take might be taken by the bad guys. For example, I've never used Sunder on PC equipment and while they've discussed using it, they know that once they open Pandora's box, it can be tough to close it. And I always listen to player arguments about rules, but once they express their opinion if I stick to my original ruling, I expect them to go with the flow. Most of them do. Most. A recent case in point: in order to get around an area that required a Will save, the entire party jumped into a Type 4 bag of holding and the one player who had succeeded on the save, carried the bag. Unfortunately, that character drew The Void from a deck of many things and dropped the bag when he slipped into a coma. No way for the players to get out. (Think about it.) I had fudged things a little to let them get into the bag in the first place, and I had to retroactively fudge things to let them survive this latest event. But it seems that players have a short memory when it comes to fudging on their behalf and the GM sticking to the rules when it might go against the players. (sigh)