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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mort" data-source="post: 7986496" data-attributes="member: 762">As long as it's a consistent ruling - then it's fine.I'll give you a real world example of a DM ruling (set of rulings) in what I believe to be (epic) bad faith (this happened to a friend of mine in under Pathfinder, the Legacy of Fire):My friend is playing a mage. He wants to create some potions of shocking grasp. The DM rules (after the potions are created) that the shocking grasp occurs to the person who drinks the potion. My friend thinks this is a stupid ruling, but accepts it and moves on.A few sessions later, right before their next session, my friend gets an email from the DM that basically says: I change my mind, the potion should allow you to touch a target and administer shocking grasp - let's play it that way. OK then.The next session comes: The PCs fight a creature that's essentially a Sarlacc - one big mouth in the ground. Obviously, the original shocking grasp rule would have been perfect against this creature! My friend thinks the sudden rules reversal was convenient and annoying - but whatever, it's the way he was advocating in the first place.But wait -there's a coda: after the session with the big mouth creature - The DM again emails my friend with - you know, I think my original ruling was correct, I'm going to change it back to the potion of shocking grasp works on the person who ingested it.Epic bad faith, would you agree? My friend ghosted this campaign shortly thereafter (this ruling was not an isolated incident of the DMs behavior).</blockquote>

Verification