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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8166431" data-attributes="member: 71699">When it comes to the ruling itself, I believe a DM should exercise restraint in adding unspecified side-effects to spells and features. However, given levitate was ruled to work as it did, you might have just levitated something inanimate, set off all the traps, and then proceeded... unless the DM also ruled that the traps could indefinitely reset themselves. In which case....On the one hand, I am always as DM okay with a narrative arc ending futilely. Be that by TPK, crushed morale, party lacking skills to continue (and the initiative or funds to hire an NPC rogue!), etc. So had party proposed that - I would have been disappointed by their lack of initiative, but sure - they return to town and bury their fighter. Some other party presumably eventually solves the dungeon.I always have other lines that play can proceed along and my basic position is that the players - not me - decide if they want to take on any given challenge. If they turn back from the dungeon for no reason at all, and decide to wander that pleasant looking woods instead, I am okay with that. There could be consequences, of course, where that seems plausible.With the strong caveat that I was not there and perhaps you did not intend this to come across as it does, the situation sounds adversarial. By the time a group of players are strong-arming their DM with threats of abandoning play, it sounds like a group is off on a bad footing.</blockquote>

Verification