NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Flamestrike" data-source="post: 6848276" data-attributes="member: 6788736">Im aware of this, but I dont see darkness as a binary [dark/ dim] thing. Its entirely reasonable that it could be so dim to be almost dark [limiting vision and ranged attacks even further], or shadowy without being dim [no bonus to stealth checks, but reduced visual range].I could also impose perception checks to locate something in darkness, or dexterity checks to avoid tripping over when in it, and the rules are quiet on those aspects.If youre intrested, here is some text from the recent adventure from WoTC:"Barovian daylight is bright light, yet it isn’t considered sunlight for the purpose of effects and vulnerabilities, such as a vampire’s, tied to sunlight."I expect you to write in to WoTC with a formal complaint about this 'incorrect use of sunlight'.As DM (in particular as DM of a rules light 5E game) it is my absolute perogative to include conditions like this. It's encouraged within the ruleset we are using. Rulings, not rules. The RAW in the DMG is clear on this, as is the RAI by the devs. Heck, the recent adventure released by WoTC themselves contains a similar 'changing of the goal posts' ruling onlight. The rules 'exist' in skeleton form only - many skill uses, environmental conditions and rulings on the fly are made by the DM. In a consistent, fun and fair manner.See also: My ruling that you could run to the Mountain with a [Con] Atheltics check.Trying to lob a fireball under a 1 inch gap in a wall of force might require a ranged spell attack roll to land it properly. Trying to richocet a thrown weapon or arrow to hit someone in cover, might be ruled as requiring an intelligence check to judge the angle correctly. Or whatever. The PHB doesnt cover all possible situations or environments, and as DM, I am required to make rulings as needed to challenge, engage and reward my players injenuity. Thats what I interpret the DMG to expressly tell me to do. You dont like it, find another DM.I know the rules. You'll note that this is magical gloom, which is a little different than normal dim light (its interaction with darkvision and so forth). This was an intentional feature of the demiplane, and designed to both surprise and challenge the players. Youre right, so I did. That being the case, I'll ignore it for the rest of the adventure.I am following the rules. Including the golden rule of 5E: Rulings not rules.Thank you.I'll save you the trouble. If at my table I experienced the level of rules lawyering and obstructionist gaming from a player as youve demonstrated here, I would have slapped it down before your PCs hit 2nd level. Politely at first, via a man to man chat with you, and then if that didnt work by simply uninviting you to the game.Ive really tried mate. I tried to create a fun and challenging adventure with intresting encounters, and a ton of flavor for you to engage in and have fun. Like a DM is supposed to do. You've instead spent most of it being intentionally obstructive (at first) to devolving into a bickering rules lawyer who accepts rulings in his favor (run to the mountain) without blinking, but has a tantrum about a ruling not in his favor (the effects of magical gloom in the demiplane).I'll continue to post the encounters, but unfortunately our in game relationship has broken down beyond the point of recovery. You have no faith in me as DM and clearly dont respect my rulings. On the same level, I have absolutely no faith in you as a player, and wouldnt want you at my table (and again, from the soudns of it you wouldnt want to be there either).Im trying to create intresting, fun and engaging challenges for you to immerse yourself in, and youre simply just not buying in. Its unfortunate, because those that are buying in are enjoying themselves immensely.Far from an example of 'why the 6-8 AD doesnt work', this is instead an example of how an intentionally obstructionist and rules lawyering player can ruin the fun of others, including other readers of this thread who are not participating. Its an example of why trusting your DMs rulings and realising the game isnt all about you, but a collective of [players and DM] getting together to create a shared experience.Ive had enough of it frankly, and I've tried on several occasions to have a civil chat about it with you but this seems to have fallen on deaf ears. Enjoy your gaming elsewhere, and no hard feelings.My thoughts exactly. Sadly we're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole here. Not that I am saying its objectively badwrongfun the way Celtivan plays. If that how he enjoys his home game, then more luck to him. My personal view is that we have radically different playstyles when we play, and behaviour that I find abhorrent (rules lawyering, obstructionist playing, metagaming) is par for the course at his table, whereas behaviour that he finds abhorrent (Rulings not rules, trusting the DM, improvisation, active as opposed to passive DMing) is par for the course at mine. Ive tried to explain that even despite these diffrerences, I am the DM and my rulings are final, but not even this has worked. He's elected to leave the game, as is his right and I wish him all the best in his home game. Seeing as this whole experiment started flowing from his proposition that a 6-8 [medium-hard] encounter AD cant challenge high level players, and from my counter argument that it can, Im not surprised he's been rather combatative and obstructionist from the get go.That said, if you read the paragraph above that I adressed to Celtivan, its now a moot point. We've gone our seperate ways to enjoy the game as we like to play it in our own lives.Will do mate. I'll post the next few when I get home tonight.</blockquote>

Verification