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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="BSF" data-source="post: 2483977" data-attributes="member: 13098">I can think of a couple of times when I have had to overrule a player's actions.  One was when the party barbarian got hit with a fear affect.  Now a Barbarian has a good move speed, so it is quiet possible to get well away from the demon they were fighting.  Rather than run directly away from the demon, the barb wanted to run sideways toward the cleric to get healing.  I might have let it slip except he was going to incur AOO to do that.  It's supernatural fear, the rules state run directly away, the barb could, and to do anything else would be taking more risk.  I pointed the problem out and the player corrected the action.The one that chapped me though was when the party bard was hit with a compulsion, failed the save, and was commanded to 'surrender'.  The player basically ignored the failed save and began casting a spell.  The 'justification' was that the bard wasn't attacking.  I decided to countermand that one and had the bard choose to throw down her sword and, well, surrender.  As for the exact circumstances listed?  As a messageboard post I can easily sit back and proclaim that the DM probably shouldn't intervene.  But without seeing the table environment, or a clear pattern of behavior, it is hard to say.  I would probably comment on the disparity and give the player the opportunity to explain what is happening in the PCs mind.  That might also give the rest of the players the opportunity to learn more about the PC in question.</blockquote>

Verification