Kinda changing rules without telling players.

[RigaMortus]

No. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. The cause of an effect is important. I can get a job and earn 30 dollars for a new WotC book, or I can steal 30 dollars off a person on the street and buy it, or I can rob a store and steal it, or I can highjack a shipment of books to get it, or whatever. Same result, yes, but they are not the same thing. And that's an important distinction to me.

???

You lost me here

No, it's not. By the default rules, an enchanted weapon over-rides silver-based damage reduction. It's not that it's for that one specific creature... hell, if he wanted to give them damage reduction +10/60 (epic level), I'd be fine with that, from a rules standpoint. This is fundamentaly changing how the system works.

We aren't talking "default rules". We are talking, "rules the players are ALLOWED to know, as set by the DM." Remember? Remember DocM specifically mentioned which rules he wants his players to use, and which ones he didn't? Specifically, what's in the PHB is allowed. What's in the DMG and MM is not. Players using info from the MM would be meta-gaming and is looked down upon by him.

Who cares if it's for 1 single creature, 1 specific tribe of creatures or all creatures universally? This is HIS world. They are playing in HIS world by HIS rules. The best part of DnD is to expect the unexpected.

FWIW - I was playing in a campaign where the magical healing potions had a chance of making you vomit them back up (a Fort save) without any effect. They tasted vulgar but healed wounds just the same. No one knew this ahead of time except the DM. Did anyone bitch when they first tried to drink the healing potions and failed their save, thus wasting the potion? No... It was a fundamental change to the game world, which we did not know ahead of time, and it added a sense of "newness" for us.

Of course, since A) this isn't what was happening (Making a new monster), and B) No one has said anything of the type Re: new monsters and C) Everyone has said he didn't have to tell them the specifics of what changed, this is a straw-man arguement that I'm not gonna bother with.

He threw a were-rat at them, that didn't react to magic weapons as a were-rat normally does... I'd say that qualifies as a NEW monster. Just because it has the name "were-rat" doesn't mean anything...

I want to mention that I DO understand what you are saying. That changing DR as a whole doesn't just affect these were-rats, but will affect ALL creatures with DR in his campaign. I get that. I still think it isn't a big deal, nor is it "unfair" for him to do w/o first telling his players. It pretty much sets him apart from your average DM that just runs things strictly by the book.

 

[Forrester]

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?

Umm . . . huh? They can control how their character progresses just fine, for the most part. (Though I'm never going to let a 13-year old orc barbarian take a level of wizard out of nowhere.)

They can plot plot plot away, but that doesn't mean I have to give them specific and exact spell and ability listings for every level. If you want to be a sorcerer, be a sorcerer. A spell or two might get nerfed along the way -- deal. It's not as though the Entire Character Concept is going to be thrown out the window because teleport or poly self works differently.

In my experience, people who plot out feat and spell chains 19 levels in advance do so in order to powergame to absolute and total maximum effectiveness, NOT to create an interesting character to play.

And no, no one in my campaign has killed themselves off to play something else . Though there is a goblin bard who has been looking a tad suicidal lately. Not because of any house-rules, but because, damn, bards can be lame sometimes .

 

[Murrdox]

I hate stuff like that. Once he told you the DR the encounter went from "role" playing to "roll" playing as everyone frantically pulled out their calculators and figured out how they could add maximum twinkage to the one character with a +5 weapon.

As far as I am concerned that game got boring right then and there. Might as well be playing a computer game with a hint button.

Doc, you're definitely correct. That encounter got extremely boring for me after that, and I was pretty disappointed, because personnally, I don't have the stats for Nightmares memorized anyways, so OUT of game I had no idea what I was up against, which was cool. Then I had to suddenly fake my character's ignorance. Of course, the DM didn't mention it could cast Finger of Death until our Cleric was dead, so I suppose that was a surprise.

Everyone just kept chattering about how we're all going to die... and I just kinda sighed, "Well, okay, but my Fighter still doesn't know he can't hurt this beast... He yells a curse at it in Netherese, and swings his Guisarme at it a couple more times..." *roll* *roll*, "Okay, I miss, who's next?"

 

[Tsyr]

???

You lost me here

My point is, just because you get the same result (Creature is hard to damage) doesn't mean it's the same thing. If you fundamentaly change the reason *why* it's hard to hit him, I think the players should be informed. You disagree. *shrug*.

???We aren't talking "default rules". We are talking, "rules the players are ALLOWED to know, as set by the DM." Remember? Remember DocM specifically mentioned which rules he wants his players to use, and which ones he didn't? Specifically, what's in the PHB is allowed. What's in the DMG and MM is not. Players using info from the MM would be meta-gaming and is looked down upon by him.

Who cares if it's for 1 single creature, 1 specific tribe of creatures or all creatures universally? This is HIS world. They are playing in HIS world by HIS rules. The best part of DnD is to expect the unexpected.

FWIW - I was playing in a campaign where the magical healing potions had a chance of making you vomit them back up (a Fort save) without any effect. They tasted vulgar but healed wounds just the same. No one knew this ahead of time except the DM. Did anyone bitch when they first tried to drink the healing potions and failed their save, thus wasting the potion? No... It was a fundamental change to the game world, which we did not know ahead of time, and it added a sense of "newness" for us.

I would have been upset, for the record. Again, this is just that we feel differently about this issue I guess.

He threw a were-rat at them, that didn't react to magic weapons as a were-rat normally does... I'd say that qualifies as a NEW monster. Just because it has the name "were-rat" doesn't mean anything...

I want to mention that I DO understand what you are saying. That changing DR as a whole doesn't just affect these were-rats, but will affect ALL creatures with DR in his campaign. I get that. I still think it isn't a big deal, nor is it "unfair" for him to do w/o first telling his players. It pretty much sets him apart from your average DM that just runs things strictly by the book.

I don't think it has anything to do with running things "by the book"... I have pages of house rules, and rules from a dozen different books besides the core books. The difference is my players know of the changes. They know the counterspelling works differently. They know that certain creatures have to be defeated both on the material plane and then again on the astral plane to be defeated. They know that their astral soul can be damaged by attacks they aren't even aware of. They know that magic items can easily allow their creator to scry on whoever caries them. They know that magic leaves a residual signature which can be identified as to who cast the spell. Etc etc.

But if their CHARACTER acted on this knowledge, things would happen... XP taken away, if it's a minor infraction... Conditions of the fight might change... etc. Or I might just say "No, there is no way in hell your character would know that, it doesn't happen. End of story." I don't change the rules and not tell my players, though.

Thankfully, I'm blessed with good players. For the most part.

 

[RigaMortus]

If that is your idea of fun go sit at home and make some characcters. If I introduce a new organisation with a new prestige class in my game and offer it to you as a player, I am nerfing your fun because you hadn't planned that out? Male bovine excrements!

You can pick your feat when you level up. Cahracter creation can be fun, but if that's how it's going to be (going to make just a stupid analogy as you just made : ), I am going to tell my DM that there is no use in going to 20 levels worth of adventure, since I have got my character all planned out anyway.

Actually, my idea of fun isn't JUST making the character. Primarily it's the story. If the DM is a good story teller, it doesn't matter what kind of character I make.

You know what the best part of designing a character from level 1 to level 20 is? The freedom of choice that the PLAYER has to abandon that idea if he sees fit. Just because I design a specific path for my character doesn't mean I have to stick with it. The game influences that.

So let me ask you this... Let's say I design a character who will eventually be a Duelist. I mark down ahead of time the character progression I plan on taking. I start at level 1 in game and as I advance, I take all the prerequisite feats/skills/etc. that is needed for the Duelist PrC.

You, the DM, introduces a new Organization into the campaign. To join the Organization, you need to take on one of the DM-created PrCs that is available ONLY to this Organization. I think this is a great idea, and even though I planned on being a Duelist (taking all the feats/skills/etc. for it, up until this point) I would like to join this Organization instead. Now, since you put all this time and effort in creating this Organization and the PrCs, are you going to screw me over by making a PrC that I don't qualify for? If so, then what is the point of introducing it and giving the player's this "illusion" of this option to begin with? Would it be any different if I didn't "plan" my character and took different feats/skills/etc? The result would be the same. Either you design a PrC which I qualify for, or you don't. Regardless if I "preplanned" my characters progression from 1 - 20 or not.

To the main discussion again: The creature might have read: DR 30/+5

Special vulnerability: Silver weapons do normal damage to this creature

Completely within 3e rules, doesn't change the situation at all. So the player is a metagaming git. DOne. Over.

And Tom Cashel... I think it is a bit rude to state a bottom line in a discussion which is merely your own opinion, and not the true bottom line at all.

Rav's Bottom Line:

Since it is the DM's prerogative to change creatures as much as he wants, and the rule change can be easily explained as a creature variation completely within the rules, any player who restates that his weapon should damage the creature, which he doesn't even know is a wererat, is metagaming.

Edit: Im a one slow typer... my position has been stated three time sin the alst few posts. I disagree with Tsyr, because the players simply can not know which was made: rules or creature.

Well said.

 

[RigaMortus]

Umm . . . huh? They can control how their character progresses just fine, for the most part. (Though I'm never going to let a 13-year old orc barbarian take a level of wizard out of nowhere.)

Agreed...

They can plot plot plot away, but that doesn't mean I have to give them specific and exact spell and ability listings for every level. If you want to be a sorcerer, be a sorcerer. A spell or two might get nerfed along the way -- deal. It's not as though the Entire Character Concept is going to be thrown out the window because teleport or poly self works differently.

No you don't have to. The spell and abilities listings are already provided for them in the PHB.

If I want to be the best damn Teleporter in the Realm, and you nerf Teleport in such a way that it affects my "character concept" negatively, then it would...

In my experience, people who plot out feat and spell chains 19 levels in advance do so in order to powergame to absolute and total maximum effectiveness, NOT to create an interesting character to play.

I feel for you. You must have had some REALLY bad experiences with some REALLY bad players.

And no, no one in my campaign has killed themselves off to play something else . Though there is a goblin bard who has been looking a tad suicidal lately. Not because of any house-rules, but because, damn, bards can be lame sometimes .

If I was a goblin, or a bard for that matter, I'd be suicidal too

 

[RigaMortus]

I never called them were-rats. I origionally described them as feral looking people and when they switched to hybrid form I described how their snouts elongated, fur started to cover their bodies, and their teeth lengthened and took on a sickly color.

Ok, so they assumed they were were-rats, and you went along with it. Their mistake, not yours...

Our party once ran into a Flying Half-Orc who had a wand of (ranged) healing. Everytime he used the wand to heal an ally of his on the ground, he would sing a song. All the new players in this campaign assumed it was a Bard , because he was singing. So I played along and called him a Bard as well. Technically, my character would have assumed the same. I beleive he was a Fighter with magic gear that made him fly... ANYWAY...

In an earlier campaign, there was a similiar type of wand. It was a Wand of Cure Light Wounds created by a Cleric of Pelor. The activation for this wand was a "command" word of sorts. You needed to sing a song with the word "sunshine" in it (get it? Pelor? Sunshine?). So the user of the wand would sing songs like the Brady Bunch Song, "I think I'll go for a walk outside now.... sunshine day..."

So you see, even though I had meta-game knowledge that this flying, singing Half-Orc probably wasn't a Bard, I had to play along as such.

 

[Baron Von StarBlade]

Ok, you have a very good point. My only arguement here is (a) should a character who doesn't have DR himself OR hasn't ever encountered a creature with DR know how to bypass it? and (b) is the player a Monk with +1 Ki Strike?

True I was just illustrating the Enhancements bypassing DR is in the PHB so according to the rules DocM described it is fair game for character knowledge.

In one example, we have a player that can cast Magic Weapon. He should know what Magic Weapon does, since he can cast it and has used it before. So the only thing he has to go by is (a) the description of Magic Weapon in the PHB and (b) any previous encounters where he used Magic Weapon (or saw it in use). Since the description of Magic Weapon in the PHB doesn't mention anything about bypassing DR, the character wouldn't know. Also, since they never faced a DR creature before while using Magic Weapon, again they wouldn't know.

This right here is the key to the conversation. I feel that a spellcasting character will have intimate knowledge of any spell that they can currently cast. What this translates to is that your knowledge of that spell as a player will be accessible to the character.

Now following this idea, it is natural that when a Player reads the description of Magic weapon and he gets to the term Enhancement Bonus, he want to understand the benefits and drawbacks from using it (ie whether or not it stacks with other bonuses of the same type, what it will actually do). This is where he would scour the PHB looking for references to enhancement bonuses and see that from the Ki Strike ability, a +1 weapon will bypass DR or n/+1 or less. The next step in this process is finding out what DR means and what is less than n/+1 DR. This would point the player to the Glossary and read up on Damage Reduction and finding out that a +1 weapon will indeed bypass 10/Silver. I characterize this as the character (not the player) doing his research when learning a new spell.

In the second example you have DR. Since none of the characters have DR themselves or previously encountered a creature with DR, they shouldn't know how it works exactly. They *might* know that if they don't have the proper defense available (whether that is a silver weapon, a +2 weapon or a flaming holy weapon), that they won't do AS much damage as they could to the creature. And that's it.

This may be the case, but since a spellcaster would have an understanding of what an enhancement bonus is, they would naturally know what benefits you get from it. I agree that they shouldn't know that a Wererat is 15/silver, but they would know that anything with N/silver can be damaged via a magical weapon.

Well DocM said that he doesn't think the player's should use knowledge from the DMG anyway. However, you mention this is in the PHB as well, and it doesn't say anything about bypassing DR in the definition. So I think the player shouldn't "know" if it bypasses DR or not until they make the proper checks or use trial and error.

This would fall under the category of item creation so a spellcaster would know what it means to have an enhancement bonus applied to a weapon or armor. So if a character can actually provide an enhancement bonus somehow (read Magic Weapon), then again they should know what it does.



Now let's take a look at the the opposite end of the spectrum, let's say you have a newbie player and he is following these guidelines that you & Doc have put forth (ie only have access to PHB and only if they are on the character ability list). Let's say he casts Magic Weapon upon his dagger the first round, and not knowing the mechanics of Enhancement bonuses tries to cast Magic Weapon on it the next round to get a +2 bonus. Would you as the DM let the player do this and have him waste the spell because he as a player didn't know the rules, or would you say you can't do that because enhancement bonuses don't stack?

 

[RigaMortus]

My point is, just because you get the same result (Creature is hard to damage) doesn't mean it's the same thing. If you fundamentaly change the reason *why* it's hard to hit him, I think the players should be informed. You disagree. *shrug*.

Just because we agree to disagree doesn't mean we have to stop arguing about it, does it?

I would have been upset, for the record. Again, this is just that we feel differently about this issue I guess.

I see... You favor predictability over randomness. Np.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

I see... You favor predictability over randomness. Np.

Nothing wrong with prefering predictability over randomness, I do. When I play a game I like to know what the rules are, if I don't I don't enjoy it, but that is just me.