Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8392929" data-attributes="member: 6801228">We use flanking. We like it. But, I immediately see a big difference. Most games I play are on a gridded map, because many players have had troubles with TotM and trying to keep things accurate. Which does matter, as I've had GMs in the past who have attacked a character in melee whom they couldn't reach, because they forgot where people moved to. We only really use Theater of the Mind for fights that are super simple or going to be super fast, like everyone ganging up on a single target. Because the game has shown us that 5ft/1square is a significant distance to track, through things like reach and wood elf movement, so we try to be accurate to that scale.I don;t know what you mean by the "spread between the two attacks" but you are right about the radiant damage. The player is assuming that it doesn't matter, because gnolls don't have resistance or vulnerability to radiant in general. Just like I as the DM might combine the necrotic and bludgeoning damage on the return strike, but in both cases the receiver of the damage might ask for more clarity. And I'm not going to talk around what they are asking by describing it, I'm going to give it in technical terms.Sure, but the OP is talking about a person asking questions about what the enemy did. And that question was answered in this exchange. Because the paladin said they were spending a 3rd level spell slot on Divine Smite. That is the technical information that was being asked about in the OP. Same as the player saying they are using colossus slayer, or hunter's mark or sneak attack. The DM also never needs to ask "is he a rogue" because you should know if one of your players is playing a rogue. Let's look back at the questions the OP gives us.Exchange #1: "Wait, how is that 6 points? Why did you roll another die? Is he a rogue? <PC-1> isn't flanked, so there shouldn't be sneak attack damage."There seem to be three questions here, but the OP lists them all together. P5 in this instance isn't waiting for answers, he's thinking out loud. Q: how is that 6 points. A: Oh wait, I see another die. Q: Why did you roll another die? Observation: Must be some sort of ability. Q: (Possible answer) Is he a rogue? Complication: P1 isn't flanked, so that doesn't work. The player, to my mind, is clearly thinking out loud, and following the logic. He isn't disputing that the character took 6 damage, and he knows it must be some sort of ability of the bandit, but the ability he can think of doesn't make sense in the context. And, this might be important. Was the bandit using magical arrows? Do you take more damage if you are standing in the light? Is it poison? These all matter, and some of them could be the DM hinting at something else. Then the OP confirms that is wasn't sneak attack, and there are more questions.Exchange #2: "It's all piercing damage? So it's not an elemental buff. Is he a Ranger? Oh, <PC-1> was already wounded, is it extra damage from Colossus Slayer? Isn't that a d8? Wait, did you roll a d6 or a d8?"Again, this is mostly thinking out loud to my eye. Q1: It's all piercing damage? Conclusion: So it's not an elemental buff (this eliminates many cantrips and spells like elemental weapon.) Q2: Is he a Ranger? (one of the only other classes that reliably adds non-elemental damage to their attacks without a save) Observations: Oh, P1 was already wounded Addendum, assuming enemy is Ranger: is it extra damage from Colossus Slayer? Complication: Isn't that a d8? Q for Clarity: Wait, did you roll a d6 or a d8?"I'd say it is important to note that in both strings, the last part is the only real question.And then we get to the final exchange, and the one place I'll say both parties kind of messed up at. First, the DM doesn't tell them it is a spell, which I feel he should have done, instead he asks for Arcana. But the player derails here too, because if you are assuming ranger already, and arcana is being asked for, it is a spell, and therefor you can assume hunter's mark. Instead, they demand answers.But, I think the player is right in their objection, up to a point. They saw what the bandit did, and spells are not supposed to be subtle to that degree during combat. Now, if the DM told them that they know the bandit cast a spell before firing, and the player demands to know which spell, I'd agree with the DM, you can roll arcana to figure out the specific spell, but knowing that P1 is under a spell that causes them to take more damage is information the party should have.Well, that would be silly since he was casting Spirit Guardians. And, why not tell them he casts spirit guardians, and outline the effects. You can do that and still describe at the same time.Actually, as I was showing earlier, I don't think he does want extreme details. The majority of his questions he answers himself, he's mostly thinking out  loud and then asking a single question that seems pertinent.We also abide by the PHB. You can't win or lose the game, but that certainly doesn't mean you can't win or lose a battle. I don't stop players from declaring that they claimed victory over the dragon by saying "Actually, the real victory was that we told a good story". No, they won against the dragon. They beat the challenges before them. And that is very different from "winning the game" But, that achievement would be significantly lessened if in a pique of artistic flourish, I declared that the first critical hit dramatically struck the dragon's heart and did a Smaug death scene. Very dramatic for a book or a movie, much much less satisfying for the players in a game who are going to feel cheated out of their challenge, because it was just a matter of getting a single good blow in. There needs to be a balance. And part of that balance for us is everyone agreeing to run the scenarios straight. Which means that I want to make as few mistakes as possible.See, I don't believe that the DM is afforded any more respect than anyone else at the table. I am a DM. Yes, I have done work to prep the game. I also had a ton of fun doing it, and I chose to do that work because I wanted to run the game. The idea of somehow getting more respect than my peers because I wanted to do something fun, and volunteered to do that work is just alien to me. It would be like someone saying "I wanted steak tonight, so I went to the store and bought and prepared steaks in the way I want them. All you had to do was sit and eat the steaks I prepared, so you should give me respect for all this work of buying and preparing steaks." No... if you didn't want to do the work or spend the money, don't do it. You did, so you don't get to start demanding more respect because you made that choice. Everyone should be courteous to everyone, and if you want more than that, just because you volunteered to run a game, then I question your motives. Did you really want to run the game, or did you just want people to respect you for running the game? If it is the first, then why are you asking for respect above and beyond the players? I think it shoudl also be noted, I've never run a game out of my own home. I've also eaten food provided by the other players. So, do I get more respect than the person who spent money to feed us? Or the person whose house we are in? What if you are using a sourcebook provided by the player, and not the DM? Again. The title of DM is singular, it doesn't mean that you are the one whose house and food everyone is using, it doesn't mean that the books are all yours. All it means is that you prepped and are running the game. And while that is work... generally it is work you volunteered to do, because you enjoy it.Yes, magical effects are generally very noticeable.No, this is fairly basic. Magic isn't The Force where it is completely invisible to the eye. And at the very least the person enchanted should be aware of it.It seems you generally avoid major combats then, which does change things a lot. "Quick scuffles" aren't really what we bother with. I don't generally even consider it a fight unless it lasts part way through round two.And you are wrong about me. Fairly consistently too.This determination of knowledge that "the character should not have" gets thrown around a lot. But, again, the reality of the game world would give the character enormous amounts of knowledge that the player has no access to, so I find it generally silly to try and determine that a player should not have certain knowledge, when there are clear ways that the character would be able to infer an awful lot of it from the context they are in.And being all LARPers would definitely once again make your expeirence different from the norm. My players want coordination, and I encourage it because the tighter the team is, the fewer issues we tend to have. I ran a game for a bunch of people whose characters didn't get along, and it was a mess. No one was having fun.Your idea of "the game can't be won" seems to be far too broad. Just because people want to succeed at overcoming challenges doesn't mean they are trying to win the game. Those are two different things. And facing challenges is not competing with the DM.Not in any of the movies, books or comics I've ever seen. Combat is often very easy to follow. LARPing might be giving you a different style for how combat in DnD is being presented.I never said you were stupid, or that you always make mistakes. Just acknowleding that mistakes can happen, and that technical discussion is far better suited to fixing those mistakes than trying to do it "in-character"Um, if I am helping them write the story, then yes, they asked for my help. Otherwise, why am I involved at all? And DnD is a collaboration. The players and the DM are working together. It would find it beyond bizarre to meet up with a group of people, agree to work together, but then specify that unless I ask for help they are never to try and help me, because any mistakes I make can just be ignored.I have watched critical role, not the second season as much, but the entire first season. I saw Laura Bailey for instance constantly getting frustrated by forgetting to cast her spell in the right order, and messing up. I saw people noting used resources and declaring their spells and to-hits. There is a lot of technical talk going on. And, I'm sorry, but you are wrong. I've read and seen slice of life stories. Things like daily spell slots, damage values for weapons, number of attacks per round, ect do not matter. I'm playing in a game that does have some heavy elements of slice of life, to the point that many of us forget what is on our character sheets, because it does not matter. And if you are playing an entire session without looking at your character sheet once, you weren't really playing DnD. Because you never interacted with the game of DnD at all. You were siting down and LARPing, which is fine, but you don't need DnD for that. These two are not mutually exclusive. You can have fun and still be struggling unfairly because of a mistake. Yes, it isn't devastating, the game isn't ruined by a single mistake, but that doesn't mean that I want to keep making them.Did you set that up ahead of time? Give the players any indication that this monster is somehow different and doesn't interact with hp? If you did, then that's extreme, but fine, you just put an extreme challenge. If after the first blow is struck you decide, "nah, my demilich is going to die too quickly. Okay, player 1's attacks will only do 1 damage per attack, player 2 is using magic so no damage from any of his stuff, and player 3 does 0 damage because his maul isnt' enchanted" then you have cheated. Especially if you don't tell your players, who then proceed to waste resources on things you have decided no longer work. You have arbitrarily taken away abilities and effectively rewritten their character sheets with no reason or explanation. You have basically started playing an entirely different game than the players think they are playing.Childish DMs exist. Childish 10 year old DMs exist. Just like the player who cheats by only subtracting 1 hp each time they get hit or uses loaded dice is being childish and cheating, so is the DM. Again, I am not saying you can't alter the rules ever for any reason. If you have a good reason to homebrew, and you clue your players in on more extreme changes to the game, then it can be a lot of fun. I've done it. And that isn't cheating. But, declaring unilaterally that no DM can ever cheat, because they make the rules, is setting yourself up for disaster. Obviously Good DMs never cheat, just like Good Players never cheat. But for the good to exist, so too must the bad, the childish and ect. And I'm willing to use strong language in those cases. You aren't just acting childish if you start manipulating the rules so you win, you are cheating. And DMs are capable of doing so.</blockquote>

Verification