Help please. Complaints by players!

[JacktheRabbit]

a) Getting Bluffed in combat doesn't make you flat-footed, it makes you lose your Dex bonus against the next attack from the enemy that feinted.

b) The idea that a trained fighter needs Sense Motive or Intelligence checks to realize he just got faked out after getting sneak attacked twice as a result of a Feint is just a prime example of your patented "Player can't find own ass without a map, a lantern and a DC 20 Intuit Direction check" DMing style.

"Hmm... He looked like he stumbled, but when I tried to take advantage of it, he was ready for me and stabbed me in the left kidney... Ouch! How did he manage to hit the other one, all off balance like that... What is it called when they do that? Right on the tip of me tongue... Oh, look he dropped his weap... Arrgh! There goes the spleen... Hah! I know, A FEINT!"

A successful sneak attack following a feint kind of gives the game away...
I

Flat footed or denied dex bonus, its basically the same thing.

The only reason I gave him the intelligence check was because the player himself had no clue what was going on. I described the situation quite obviously saying how horribly the rogue missed on the bluff round. The player just didnt get it and I wanted to give him a chance without just explaining all the rules involved and turning a role play session into a board game.

 

[Quixon]

GALLO22 For the record you were correct in assigning a DC for the check. IS EVERY slime covered bridge the same? Does each have the same amount of slime? Are they each swaying the same amount? OF COURSE NOT.

If your player thinks the DC was too high, ask him how high was it supposed to be? Did he know all the conditions you applied? Bet not.

To say "Hey, The PHB says this is what the DC is supposed to be" is , and only this, is STUPID. You as the DM determine what the diffuculty for a given task should be, NOT the PHB, it has guidelines, but these ARE NOT WRITTEN IN STONE.


Bottom line-tell the player this is how hard you judged this DC to be, if he doesn't like it-maybe he should be DM-then we can question his calls whenever he decides a DC.

 

[Ravellion]

I remember losing a PC to falling off a bridge in a certain adventure. The reason? the Dm said I could make it quite easily (in fact I had a 1 in 400 chance ).

I wonder hom much information the player had to go on, and I wonder at what time the DM here decided the bridge was slimy - it seemed to be a suggestion from one of the other posters here on this board which he adapted later.

Questions like this make me wary... why would he post if he didn't feel as though he were in the wrong slightly? Especially if he "has been a DM for three years with plenty of players lining up for his game..."

I used to make posts like this, in my first year of DMing. I remember I did it for attention whoring and the need for people to agree with me, but I can't honestly say why this thread was started.

Rav

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Re: In 5 levels?

I think Gallo is in the right on this one but I'd like to ask (as Tsyr might): "In 5 levels, if the PCs encounter a similar bridge, will the DC still be 20, or will it now be 25?"

This is the crux of the matter for me. If a DM's consistent with what constitutes a DC 20 bridge and what constitutes a DC 25 bridge, and remains consistent, then he can set those DCs at whatever he deems appropriate. Once the same type of bridge starts getting harder for no reason, there's a problem.

And I'm with you, Tsyr. Don't let Doc Morriarty get to you. He's confrontational and just likes to argue.

 

[rounser]

Gah. Bring back DEX checks (with bonuses/penalties for situation). The NWN guys had it right when they complained about not being able to set DCs based on character level; IMO, the skill system often creates more autosuccess/no chance of success situations, scaling problems and overhead than it's worth...

 

[Marimmar]

Even if Gallo is no longer attending this thread, it just itches me to add my 2 cents.

Having rules lawyering players myself, the only way to survive as DM in my group is to know the rules or to play by the book. Since most of the time my adventures are old 1e modules without anything like Skill checks I just do the following:

1) When I specially prepare an encounter I make shure I know all the facts and can give my players some good answers afterwards. Gallo should have thought of some answers beforehand to explain the difficulty in crossing the bridge. With those good answers and some warning that the crossing would be difficult it wouldn't have been an issue after all.

2) When I didn't have time to prepare something like that rope bridge, I just would have made a mental note to require a balance check for crossing the bridge and asked the first player trying to best the bridge to just look it's DC up in the book.

Both methods work for my group.
~Marimmar

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I had a very similar scenario play out in a previous adventure i dm'ed. I had a river crossing that required a dc 17 swim check, or in the golem's case, a dc 17 balance check. The golem slipped on the mud and debris bottom.

One player went NUTS. Said I was making things up (wtf?).

Default dc 15 + 2 for being harder (current and river bottom).

Anyway, what that player did was the best possible way to undermine the confidence and authority of the dm and make him never to want to do a similar encounter again.

My final opinion is that this particular player wants a safe world of comfort zones to adventure in and no surprises. In short he is horribly wrong and the dm is totally justified.

 

[mmu1]

Flat footed or denied dex bonus, its basically the same thing.

The only reason I gave him the intelligence check was because the player himself had no clue what was going on. I described the situation quite obviously saying how horribly the rogue missed on the bluff round. The player just didnt get it and I wanted to give him a chance without just explaining all the rules involved and turning a role play session into a board game.

When you get bluffed in combat, your count as having lost your Dex bonus during your opponent's next one attack. (So the enemy shouldn't have been able to make two sneak attacks) Being flat footed makes you lose your Dex bonus against everyone and stops you from making attacks of opportunity... Hardly interchangeable.

 

[Tom Cashel]

The DM is always right.

I wouldn't have set it up that way, though, Gallo. A slimy rope bridge isn't a "trap," it's an obstacle. A slimy rope bridge that has frayed ropes which will snap when pressure is placed on them--now that's a trap.

The way you set the DC--high enough to be a challenge, as you say--results in a higher-than-average chance of multiple PCs falling into the muck pond. But isn't it "challenging" enough to have a moderate-DC obstacle placed right before the climactic ambush encounter?

Every time players roll the dice, there is the possibility of catastrophic failure. Even if the DC for the bridge was 10, there's a chance one or more PCs (with armor check penalties and such) will fall or, worse yet, plunge right over the side.

So you have to consider what effect the obstacle will have on subsequent play. Personally, I think the off-chance of having one PC muck-plunged during the big battle is a better design choice than stacking an obstacle (and calling it a "trap") and risking half the group. What happens when half of them plunge, and then the Big Bad just happens to jump out? And then the PCs look into their Player's Handbook and it tells them that the DM is stacking DCs on rope bridges that lead to the final encounter?

If you want the PCs to trust your authority as DM, give them a reason. Just make the bridge an honest-to-goodness trap. Or stick to the rules, when they are well-defined.

Then you can get back to the natural order of things: where the DM is always right.

 

[drnuncheon]

What would you have done if the DM had the "bad guys" find the rope and cover it in a greasy substance or magicly altered the rope. You would have ruined the encounter by having the DM explain "the rope has been tampered".

Well, I think I'd be well within my rights to believe that such tampering might well be noticed.

"Hey guys...this unusually slippery rope that we've been sliding down for the past hour...it's been greased!"

If a DC is higher than expected, then there generally ought to be an explanation, and in many cases, it ought to be obvious.

The question is. why is the knotted rope DC 20? It shouldn't just be arbitrarily tougher - the DM should have a reason for the DC increase, so that he can judge how the player's actions affect it. For example, if the rope were greased, the players ought to be told that it is very slippery and difficult to keep ahold of. If there were high winds making it difficult to climb, they ought to be told that. Most things that affect a DC are things that a PC is going to be able to notice.

Saying "It's DC 20" and not telling them why (or even worse, not having a reason) is a great way to just toss out all suspension of disbelief, and have the players thinking that you are completely arbitrary and a poor DM.

In the rope bridge case, all you needed to do was say 'the rope bridge is unsteady, swaying under your feet, and the slime that coats the surface makes it exceptionally difficult to keep your balance'.

J