Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 2233815" data-attributes="member: 4937">I'm not sure what you mean.&nbsp; I&nbsp; think you mean, &quot;Why are you even bothering to play a game that uses published rules to begin with?&quot;.&nbsp;&nbsp; In which case, the answer is, &quot;Because it's usually alot easier than writing up your own and making 4-6 copies&quot;.Errr...&nbsp; This dives deep into the difference between player and character knowledge.&nbsp;&nbsp; Had the character ever encountered a blink spell before?&nbsp;&nbsp; Had the character ever cast a magic missile at a blinking character before?&nbsp;&nbsp; If the answer is 'No', then the character has absolutely no basis for evaluating how a magic missile spell interacts with the blink spell, and the player should be aware that all those rules in the PH and DMG are only guidelines.&nbsp;&nbsp; In many cases they are very good guidelines, and I respect DM's that break them willy-nilly less than I respect DM's that break them only rarely.&nbsp;&nbsp; But I don't argue with the DM's right to break them.&nbsp;&nbsp; I agree that the DM should follow the rules unless he has a specific reason not to, but maybe this DM specifically thinks that the magic missile spell is overpowered, or maybe the DM thought 'I really need this NPC to live long enough to convey the secret to the PC's' and couldn't improvise better on the fly, or maybe he thought that the blink spell is underpowered, or maybe the DM specifically wrote down in the evening's entertainment, 'Improved Blink (ex)':&nbsp; 'This creature's blink ability causes even force effects to miss'.The key to consistancy is not following the published rules, but once you make a ruling sticking to it.&nbsp; The DM is only jerking chains around if he is not sticking to his own ruling.&nbsp;&nbsp; If the PC sorcerer now learns the blink spell, he's got a reasonable expectation that magic missiles have a chance of missing.&nbsp;&nbsp; And it's not like this particular ruling (extending the miss chance on a spell to include everything) is really bizarre.&nbsp;&nbsp; Really bizarre would be ruling that Energy Resistance (fire) didn't apply to this particular fireball, but even that is potentially explainable (Sacred Spell for instance).&nbsp;&nbsp; The real question here is was the DM presenting the players with an unreasonable challenge?&nbsp; Did having a miss chance on your magic missiles somehow ruin the entertainment of facing the bad guy?&nbsp;&nbsp; Is magic missile somehow now a bad spell because blink provides partial protection?Which he did.Whatever.&nbsp;&nbsp; For the DM to simply ignore a rule doesn't imply pig-head obstinacy, nor does it break the implied 'play-fair' contract.&nbsp;&nbsp; Now, it may be in this particular case that the DM is a jerk or a hypocrite, but that's irrelevant to his right to break the rules and I dare say that if the DM quit, then he wasn't the only one being a pig-headed jerk nor was his ignoring a minor rule the main reason that the session failed to entertain.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 2233815, member: 4937"] I'm not sure what you mean. I think you mean, "Why are you even bothering to play a game that uses published rules to begin with?". In which case, the answer is, "Because it's usually alot easier than writing up your own and making 4-6 copies". Errr... This dives deep into the difference between player and character knowledge. Had the character ever encountered a blink spell before? Had the character ever cast a magic missile at a blinking character before? If the answer is 'No', then the character has absolutely no basis for evaluating how a magic missile spell interacts with the blink spell, and the player should be aware that all those rules in the PH and DMG are only guidelines. In many cases they are very good guidelines, and I respect DM's that break them willy-nilly less than I respect DM's that break them only rarely. But I don't argue with the DM's right to break them. I agree that the DM should follow the rules unless he has a specific reason not to, but maybe this DM specifically thinks that the magic missile spell is overpowered, or maybe the DM thought 'I really need this NPC to live long enough to convey the secret to the PC's' and couldn't improvise better on the fly, or maybe he thought that the blink spell is underpowered, or maybe the DM specifically wrote down in the evening's entertainment, 'Improved Blink (ex)': 'This creature's blink ability causes even force effects to miss'. The key to consistancy is not following the published rules, but once you make a ruling sticking to it. The DM is only jerking chains around if he is not sticking to his own ruling. If the PC sorcerer now learns the blink spell, he's got a reasonable expectation that magic missiles have a chance of missing. And it's not like this particular ruling (extending the miss chance on a spell to include everything) is really bizarre. Really bizarre would be ruling that Energy Resistance (fire) didn't apply to this particular fireball, but even that is potentially explainable (Sacred Spell for instance). The real question here is was the DM presenting the players with an unreasonable challenge? Did having a miss chance on your magic missiles somehow ruin the entertainment of facing the bad guy? Is magic missile somehow now a bad spell because blink provides partial protection? Which he did. Whatever. For the DM to simply ignore a rule doesn't imply pig-head obstinacy, nor does it break the implied 'play-fair' contract. Now, it may be in this particular case that the DM is a jerk or a hypocrite, but that's irrelevant to his right to break the rules and I dare say that if the DM quit, then he wasn't the only one being a pig-headed jerk nor was his ignoring a minor rule the main reason that the session failed to entertain. [/QUOTE]

Verification