Kinda changing rules without telling players.

[JacktheRabbit]

Okay I guess I'll chime in on this subject, but I need a clarification on the situation. The crux of Doc's arguement is that if a rule isn't explained in the PHB, then a player shouldn't know about the mechanic of it? Or the reverse being if it is a rule described in the MM or DMG a player shouldn't know about how a specific mechanic works.
Obviously certain information in the DMG is required by a player, Spell creation, point buy info, item creation etc. But generally that is the statement correct?

That is it basically. There are a few items like character creation rules and the PrC's that a player will know about but items like DR are purely behind the scenes rules that a player doesnt need to know the specifics in my opinion.

 

[RigaMortus]

DocM didn't do anything wrong. He's the DM, he can change whatever he wants whenever he wants. He is actually being more than fair IMO, letting the players "meta-game" a little bit by having some knowledge from the PHB.

Those who disagree, let me ask you this... Do you ever have custom monsters in your games? A monster that YOU made up? If so, this is exactly the same thing. If not, then I can see where you are coming from (but still disagree with you).

The player(s) have NO RIGHT to argue in this instance.

 

[Baron Von StarBlade]

That is it basically. There are a few items like character creation rules and the PrC's that a player will know about but items like DR are purely behind the scenes rules that a player doesnt need to know the specifics in my opinion.

Okay, so the definition of what an Enhancement bonus (from the Magic Weapon spell) should not be known by the players, ie that enhancement bonuses bypass DR.

 

[Forrester]

It can still make a difference. It's only courtesy to the player.

Greg

First, I want magic to be, well, a little more magical than it is commonly in 3E. In other words, a first level wizard (that is, the *character*) doesn't have complete access to the PHB. He may know that teleportation spells exist, but not offically What Level they are, etc.

Second of all, I can't figure out every single house rule in advance . I may know that I want to tinker with, say, teleport, or some save-or-die spells down the line, but know that I'm not going to have to worry about it for months (as the characters are first level and these are fifth or sixth level spells). And so I decide to just hold back on figuring out exactly what the changes are.

So while it may be courtesy to tell them what all the changes are, it's both jumping the gun *and* decreasing the mystery I want to add to the campaign.

I will say, though, that generally speaking I've told everyone I reserve the right to tweak spells right up to the point before when they pick them, though I usually don't. Or, in the case of some spells, I actually buff them up . . . Shout, for one, needs a serious amount of help . Hasn't been any problem so far.

 

[RigaMortus]

Ehhh I disagree. I don't cotton to the whole "I shall plan out the advancement of my character 19 levels in advance" school of character creation. I think it's fair to warn them two or three spell levels in advance, but I certainly don't feel obligated to warn the 1st level sorcerer about changes I'll be making to 5th level spells.

I like that school of character creation actually. I mean, it IS the PLAYER'S character, isn't it? I think they should have some control of how their character progresses.

If you don't like them plotting out their character progression ahead of time, then why bother having them make character sheets? Just make up the character sheets yourself and hand them out. Everytime they level up, have a new leveled version of their character to hand out. That is essentially what you are doing. Limiting their freedom of choice.

Do your players often "abandon" (purposely have them killed off, decide to leave the party, etc.) their characters to make new ones?

You should read the editorial in the latest Dragon. It mentions how one of the funnest (I know that isn't a word) parts of playing DnD is actually character creation. You're nerfing the fun man!

 

[Zhure]

First, I want magic to be, well, a little more magical than it is commonly in 3E. In other words, a first level wizard (that is, the *character*) doesn't have complete access to the PHB. He may know that teleportation spells exist, but not offically What Level they are, etc.

Second of all, I can't figure out every single house rule in advance . I may know that I want to tinker with, say, teleport, or some save-or-die spells down the line, but know that I'm not going to have to worry about it for months (as the characters are first level and these are fifth or sixth level spells). And so I decide to just hold back on figuring out exactly what the changes are.

So while it may be courtesy to tell them what all the changes are, it's both jumping the gun *and* decreasing the mystery I want to add to the campaign.

Wanting magic to be magical is a laudable goal. I always feel that if a wizard or sorcerer plunks skill points into Spellcraft, he has every right to know, or at least get a roll to know, the basics of a spell. If one is changing it completely, even if the DM doesn't make the decision until later, the only courteous thing is to allow the player to make alterations to the character in retrospect. The player might be a "Mad Planner" kind of character builder and it could be very important to the character arc the player is trying to construct.

Conversely, as a DM I certainly understand not wanting to do spell-nerfing and house-ruling out to the nth degree, in this case, thinking ahead to a 5th level spell for 1st level characters, so the way I handle it is tell the players as soon as I know I'm implementing a change and letting them talk to me about any changes they'd like to make because of the new ramifications.

Greg

 

[RigaMortus]

Okay, so the definition of what an Enhancement bonus (from the Magic Weapon spell) should not be known by the players, ie that enhancement bonuses bypass DR.

I am at work and don't have my books with me, so if you could do me a huge favor and post the actual PHB, DMG or MM definition of "Enhancement Bonus" and let me know what book it is from, I could probably give you my answer. And since I am in 110% agreement with DocM right now, I am sure it would help him answer the question as well.

Thanks!

 

[ichabod]

DocM didn't do anything wrong. He's the DM, he can change whatever he wants whenever he wants. He is actually being more than fair IMO, letting the players "meta-game" a little bit by having some knowledge from the PHB.

Those who disagree, let me ask you this... Do you ever have custom monsters in your games? A monster that YOU made up? If so, this is exactly the same thing. If not, then I can see where you are coming from (but still disagree with you).

The player(s) have NO RIGHT to argue in this instance.

It's not the same thing. Changing a creature is completely different from changing the rules. And I think the players do have a right to argue here. You are asking them to play a game and refusing to tell them the rules by which it is played. I fail to see how that is fair.

 

[Murrdox]

Metagaming can be a problem.

In the campaign that I'm DMing, I don't allow players to look up stats of monsters, or leaf through random books trying to find a way out of the current situation. They're pretty good about playing under my rules, and metagaming doesn't happen very often as a result. I ALSO do tricks like Doc has mentioned, and I change stats for monsters all the time. (However, while I might change the DR for a specific creature, I wouldn't change the fundamental rules behind it without at least mentioning it to the players.) I never tell them specifically what they're facing unless they've encountered them before. Even then, I might say "You see a rat-man creature similar to the two you killed a few minutes ago."


HOWEVER, I've seen how much a problem it can be.

In a campaign where I'm a PLAYER... last night we ran into a Nightshade. We'd never seen ANYTHING like this before. After a couple of rounds not hurting it, the DM mentions to everyone that it has 25/+3 DR.

IMMEDIATELY, all the players bemoaned that they couldn't hurt the thing (we didn't have any +3 weapons) and started trying to figure out ways to do more than 25 points of damage. The party had ONE +5 weapon in the form of an artifact mace, and immediately everyone tried buffing up that character as much as possible.

In the GAME - our characters had maybe taken two swipes at the thing, and a pittifully failed Knowledge: Undead check would not have revealed its DR to us.

Well, I'm not one for metagaming. My character spent 3 rounds swinging at it, and missing - but he didn't know his weapons would be ineffective, so he kept attacking. Then he finally hit twice, and rolled near maximum damage each time. Thus, he realized that his weapons weren't strong enough to hurt the beast. When the Nightshade used its Finger of Death ability on the character with the artifact, I jumped down, grabbed it, and switched to that weapon. We barely managed to kill it before it fled.

My point? Well, our DM in that group really doesn't care one way or another if we metagame... I do though.


EDIT: Goddamnit I actually used the word "Buff" when describing enhancement spells. ARGH! See what bad influences you guys are on me??

 

[Tsyr]

It's not the same thing. Changing a creature is completely different from changing the rules.

I've tried to make this point before... It's been ignored, for the most part. Occasionaly someone says that is *is* the same thing, though I disagree with that view.