A note: Can we try breaking these up less? This is a pain to try and respond to and I'm sure no one is eager to see these walls.
Grids are not accurate, grids are boardgamy. How can grids be accurate with the way 5e counts diagonals ? It's actually ridiculously Inaccurate. For accuracy, use a VTT measuring distance as you move, but honestly, it's usually not important except when you want a gamist approach. Grids are an option in 5e anyway, and a badly defined one because it's just an option.
Because DnD worlds are non-euclidean spaces. Which is actually kind of fun I think, not horridly inaccurate.
Plus, it saves me from having to do the Pyhtagorean thereom every time someone asks me if the enemy who is flying is in range of X, Y or Z abilities.
It's not even HIS character. So first, he should not even be talking. Second, he just spoke as much as the DM did to another player. So what would happen if everything did that ? The game would grind to a stop. Finally, and more importantly, the DM gave all the information in the initial description. The character of the Player 5 might not even have seen any of it, and even if he did, it's none of his business. He even actually forced the DM to repeat some information, and he is fishing for more that has nothing to do with him.
1) Just because it isn't your character doesn't mean you can't ask questions. What if he is a cleric who can remove curses, or has an ability to reduce damage, but the DM has ruled it can only affect non-magical damage (had a DM do that)
2) I'm sorry he talked more than you liked, but again, "you talk to much" is a very different objection than asking questions.
3) Yes, the player asked questions, and the DM ended up repeating information. So what? you seem very focused on it not being his character who was hit, but that doesn't invalidate anything. And yes, he is asking questions to get information. That is the point of questions.
Enemies are not forced to have classes, and they don't have their specificities tattooed on their forehead.
And? What does that have to do with anything? The player Is making assumptions, that doesn't need to be penalized
Basically, he takes all the verbal space of the game for his personal consideration. Extremely rude.
Okay? I'm sure no one who has ever sat down at a DnD table has had poor social skills, right? None of us. Even once. Because, I'm not exactly going to blame a guy for not having great social skills. Doesn't mean I'm not going to try and steer him towards being better if he is at my table, but not going to dismiss him for being a bit rude and unthinking.
Why ? It's only a verbal spell, with no visible effect, and the muttering was described. Do your PCs always have detect magic on ? Do they have natural +20 on arcana to recognise all spells when cast ?
The rules don't say there is no visible effect. Additionally "muttering" is different than casting a spell. If that is all you require then everyone can just mumble and who knows what they are doing.
Additionally, the party needs the opportunity to counter act the magic, and there are multiple ways they can do so. Therefore, there should be an indication that magic has been used. Heck, what if a player has mage slayer, that allows a reaction when someone casts a spell, does that mean they get that reaction on anyone who mumbles, or do they just get to guess if a spell is being cast?
Not "they", one of them did, whoever was the target.
Nothing in the rules say this. Re-read the SAC, and it has nothing to do with combat.
Once more, no. Again, read the SAC, it depends on the spell.
Again, not necessarily, read the SAC: "You’re aware that a spell is affecting you if it has a perceptible effect or if its text says you’re aware of it." It's certainly not the case with hunter's mark.
Mage Slayer can't work if spells are always subtle. And I am assuming the entire party had line of sight to the bandit, there was no indication that they were in seperate rooms. You are nitpicking. Also, if you read Xanathars it does say that the act of casting a spell is perceptible if it has somatic, material OR verbal components. They may not know exactly what the spell did, but they are supposed to know that a spell was cast. I did read the text you are referencing, they make a clear difference between knowing what the spell did, and that a spell was cast.
No it's not, again you are giving away arcana for free. It's not even obvious who is the target of the spell, by the way, it could have been the "ranger" himself.
Could have been, which could explain the d6 as well if it was a self-buff.
Because it might be something else entirely. You gave no description, and that is much worse than not spelling out technical details.
And again, spirit guardians might be very different from one caster to the next, and I might design a power that looks like it, but is subtly (or not so subtly) different. Why spoil it when the PCs have no knowlege of what is being used ?
Because it isn't spoiling it, it is fair play. You can't dispel magic a special ability, you can dispel magic spirit guardians. But, the description was more exciting and more thematic. Descriptions and mechanics don't need to match 1 to 1, but the technical information still needs to be conveyed.
He wants extreme details about the class of the NPC, what exact spell was used (it it was even a spell), all things that his character probably not even saw, nor had any reasonable reason to know.
He asked if they were a rogue and if the die he rolled as a d8 or a d6. Then he demanded answers, but before that he wasn't asking for "extreme details". And yes, knowing the enemy is a rogue is a technical detail, but it is also something that the party could figure out, because avoiding sneak attacks is something they can do.
Also, you continue to make assumptions. What class is P5? Is he playing a ranger? Because then recognizing an iconic ranger ability would be something he would reasonably be able to do. Was he standing right next to P1? you have no idea, you just keep assuming he couldn't have seen what happened. Don't push assumptions onto the scenario. It just muddies the waters.
And we have a different balance, we don't care about the initial scenario, actually we might derail it completely with our actions as players, and there might be huge pans of complete improvisation.
Next time, you will require auditing on the scenario to check that the DM did not deviate ?
You are misconstruing my point. It isn't that the PCs can't change the situation, it is that if I plan on the dragon's lair being a DC 15 and I make it a DC 17 mid-way through because I forgot and change things, that isn't how we want to play. If touching the red ruby causes fire damage, and I don't intend to change that, then dealing necrotic damage is a mistake. I could keep this up for a while. This isn't about auditing the game, or never deviating from the set plan, this is about not making mistakes that change the scenario unintentionally
Well, I come from a different culture, and from years and years of associative work in particular around caritative and LARP work. And even if people have personal reasons (including fun or not) for doing some work, respect is always due for work that has been done, especially by people who did not do anything themselves.
Not always, like any work of that kind, there are parts to be enjoyed and others less so, but in any case it's still more than doing nothing.
How do you know the players did nothing themselves? Did you go and survey them and find out, or are you assuming?
See, again, I'm not saying we should disrespect anyone, I just find it strange how often it comes up that the DM is provided MORE respect, because they are the DM. And how that always seems to tie in with not questioning them, because they did so much work, and you the player did no work at all, so you should respect and trust your DM and never once question their decisions.
And, isn't that a bit of an odd takeaway? "Well, I bought this copy of settlers of catan, and I did the work of setting it up, so you should respect me and not question me when I tell you what the rules are." That certainly wouldn't fly, right? In fact, it comes across as rather arrogant and rude.
I don't believe DMs deserve any more respect than the players. If you want more respect than that, I guess it is going to come down to how you act. Or, I would question how much respect you give your players if you feel that is an insufficient amount of respect to be given.
It's totally different. What I'm saying is that total coordination during fights as if you have a tactical net deployed giving you total information about what's happening on the battlefield seems a bit too much to me.
Okay. but people play differently, as you have said. And you have no idea the OP's stance on this, so why project your preferences? Also, while one may argue what the character can see, you can't argue that the player knows. So, if the fight is all happening in the same room, and the characters are all together, there is a lot of coordination unless you specifically try to avoid it. I mean, just healing alone requires someone to be keeping track of what is happening to their allies.
D&D is not presenting anything remotely like the way you are playing it either, certainly not in 5e. You are assuming way too much here, none of the examples presented support this.
Actually, as I have shown in regards to knowing that a spell is cast, it does support that. And there is no discussion anywhere in the books of the fog of battle and how you as the player have to have tunnel vision and not observe the battlefield.
Not necessarily, no. They might not want help, you might be butting in.
If you ask me to help you write a story, and then I help you with grammar in that story and you say "I never asked for your help" then you are insane. I literally started this premise off with two people working together. You can't "butt in" on a collaboration.
And sometimes the PCs are discussing amongst themselves, and don't want the DM butting in. Happens all the time. They might be making mistakes, they might not be remembering things differently from the DM, they might also just be roleplaying, it's not an invitation to force your views.
And if the players seem to be misremembering or making mistakes, I will butt in and double check that they know the score. The players might be working on three week old information, and they have lives outside the game, I'm not going to sit back and let them make boneheaded decisions just because they didn't memorize my script about what is going on. I've had DMs do that, and it is frustrating and makes me feel stupid because suddenly my character wasn't paying attention to the quest they got an hour ago.
The fact that I don't need it for a whole evening does not mean I'm not playing the character defined there, and thinking about what I could technically do. It's a bit insulting that you claim that I'm not playing D&D because I'm not using rules and dice for a while. Tell me, where is the rule that says you are right about this, that you stop playing D&D when you don't use rules visibly for a certain amount of time ? Because, on the contrary, I have shown you the place in the books where they tell you that rules and dices are not important for playing the game well, and not what is best in the game.
If I'm insulting you then I'm insulting myself at the same time, because like I said, I've got games that have run like that. Personally, I don't feel insulted to be told that when I'm engaging in zero of the mechanics of the game, I'm not really playing the game.
There are games designed to run slice of life stories. DnD isn't one of them. That isn't an insult.
And when we say that we ruin the game more by having technical discussions and pointing out others' mistakes than by making small mistakes, that's just clearly our preference, please don't tell us that it makes the game worse.
I never said it made it worse for everyone, I said it makes it worse for us. You keep talking about people having different preferences, but you seem to approach every question only from your own perspective and make judgements based only on your own biases. Maybe it is a phrasing issue, but you also constantly quote the rulebook at people who disagree with you like we have no idea how to play the game.
And if I did not ? And why should they get any information before they try anything ? Right at the centre of the dreaded Tomb of Horrors, and they have no clue that they could find terrible and unknown magic ? Does it all have to be scripted and tame and according to the RAW ? You will have a very bad time proving to me that it's forbidden, especially since I have given you plenty of official excerpts that prove that what I'm doing is not only according to the rules, but also full in the spirit of the game (especially 5e).
No, you are the one defining the game that your players are playing because you impose the rules. But again, nothing in the game rules and in its spirit forbid you from doing differently, and im particular completely improvise any situationl, including their abilities and the effect that it has on players. If the players do something so absurd or so clever that it completely falls out of the realm of the rules, why do the rules matter more than the story ?
Again, you have very specific assumptions about the game, it's fine to enforce them at your table if this is what your players expect, but don't try to enforce that on the overall community, especially when the rulebooks tell you that you are wrong about your understanding of the spirit of the game. And don't call us cheaters for improvising monsters on the fly.
I wonder why you keep bringing up the players actions in this discussion. Here is what player 1 did in that demilich examples. Attack the lich. Is that so absurd that it falls outside of the realm of the rules of DnD for attacking and damaging a monster?
There is a big middle ground between tightly scripted where nothing can deviate, and LOLZ Random where the rules get tossed in the trash and the DM decides that since you didn't attack leftly then you die. And if the players can't have a solid grounding in how the world works, then they can't make meaningful tactical decisions. They have abilities that do certain things, if you just take that away from them with no warning, no explanation and no really really good reason, then that isn't the type of game I want any part of.
OK, I'll drop this, 4 other contributors have told you that you are incorrect in this view, it's your right to stick to your guns, but don't think that you'll ever convince me of anything there, or the other contributors either.
Yeah, I find it interesting how many posters are so VEHEMENTLY opposed to the concept
that a DM can cheat. Yet, the idea that players can cheat is accepted without anyone batting an eye.
And again, WHERE IS THIS OBGLIGATION TO CLUE THEM ? WHERE ?
You are inventing constraints and trying to pass them as absolute laws, but not only is it written nowhere in the rules, I have shown you time and time again that it's not in the spirit of the rules as written, it's actually the contrary which is written.
In the social contract between you and your players. I've played the game where the DM alters the fundamental aspects of the world without telling anyone. Then gets smug at us because we couldn't figure out how he had changed the world.
And is it really such a burden to give them a bit of foreshadowing? Is it so contrary to the spirit of telling a good story together that you let your fellow writers in on the fact that something is up? Foreshadowing is a literary term after all, and a lack of foreshadowing before a plot twist is often derided as poor storytelling in books, comics, movies and television. So, I think you are dead wrong on foreshadowing being against the spirit of the rules.
This is childish. If a DM was bad enough to want to win, he does not even have to change the rules. Just being 100 tarrasques. Instant win, no cheating according to your definition.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. You can be childish within the rules, and be childish and cheat.