Re: Re: Re: Re: Bah! Humbug!
I have e-mailed him with an initial set of comments, and he replied. Since some of the comments have gotten a little personal already, I'm skeptical that this will be resolved favorably. But, I have e-mailed him with a second set of comments with the hope that we can resolve this and indicated to him that we should sit down face to face to discuss the campaign issues, and hopefully resolve them. I have indicated that a campaign needs to be fun for the players and the DM, and that if any of us are no longer having fun, the campaign has failed.
I have already given him the option of removing me from the group, and also indicated that at this point (after his initial e-mail response) that I may no longer be playing. Hopefully, we can come to a resolution.
I orginally indicated that I felt his ruling of the destruction of all of the mundane and magical equipment was not specified in the rules, and that there were several alternative and equally plausible outcomes which could have happened including the "ravening beast" wererats attempting to escape by gnawing through the stone door, or even attacking each other. My point was there were alternatives that he didn't even consider, and simply made a decision that may have suited his campaign needs.
Below are some sanitized excerpts from the initial e-mail response:
Methos: "Well, I'm not sure that stone really matters. In case you didn't know, rats have been known to gnaw through concrete, stone, etc."
DM: "This may be true, but not in an 8-10 hour period. In fact, were we to simply use the rules, stone has a Harness of 8 and wererats only do 1d4 points of damage. Hence, they cannot harm it."
Methos: "As for not hurting each other in rat form...why not????? How did you <come to that conclusion??? Does it say that anywhere??? What I'm <saying is that you arrived at a decision which is not implied anywhere in the lycanthrope template. There are many other plausible and possible outcomes,
DM: Actually, I was wrong with this point (them being unable to harm one another). Upon further review of the Damage Reduction ability, similarly protected creatures can harm one another with their natural weapons. But to be honest, this is a moot point, since I initially ruled that since they were like creatures that they would ignore one another, even cooperate to a certain point. This case is not specifically addressed in the MM, but I felt that such tainted creatures would feel a natural affinity for one another. DM's call, I guess."
I will continue to post sanitized responses to the last e-mail that I sent. I'm surprised at all of the posters on this particular thread. To be honest, I didn't think that it would illicit such insightful responses by so many posters.
LokiDR said:
Not that I neccessarilly agree that all DMs can do better than the rules, you have a point.
Methos, what is your DM's take on all of this?
