Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bran Blackbyrd" data-source="post: 814159" data-attributes="member: 1710">See, that's the thing. The change was not made to the monster, it was made to a rule that dictates how many different aspects of the game work. The creatures could have been vulnerable to silver, mistletoe, or pink panties with Al Gore embroidered on them, and the PC would still whip out that spell. In fact, if the vulnerability had been changed and not the rule, there wouldn't have been a problem.As far as what the PCs would know about these creatures; I don't know about you, but I knew the classic vulnerabilities of vampires, werewolves, and all sorts of stuff before I could even read, and it certainly wasn't because I went out and got knocked around by them first. Still, that's not even the issue. Any PC with that spell should know how it works. What it does in relation to DR is a part of that.Creatures with a special vulnerability usually have DR.Taking that into account; A PC fighting a creature who is rumored to be vulnerable to a particular substance can safely bank on the fact that it will have DR (or in the PC's mind, "can't be harmed by normal weapons, because if they could, their vulnerability wouldn't be so darn special).If you don't have that substance, then using the spell in question is probably a good idea. That doesn't sound like metagaming to me.Of course if the fundamental rules of how DR works has been changed without warning, none of this works.Yeah, I have to basically agree with that. At the end of the day, what matters is if everyone is having fun. If it's causing that much friction maybe the players are right. If the players all feel they are being screwed because of this rules-change ambush, then it probably wasn't such a cool thing to do. It's not as if they are complaining because they "lost the game". Giving in to petty player demands is one thing, but respecting their feelings is something else. I doubt those were-creatures are major NPCs. The DM can make more any time, but a PC is an investment that a player puts his/her time into for the long haul. If that PC gets killed because the DM pulled the rug out from under them, that just doesn't seem like good sportsmanship.I change creature's abilities, descriptions and vulnerabilities all the time. I have repeatedly told my group that they should NEVER assume that the monsters are the same as they are in the books. They have no problem with that. But I don't change the way basic game concepts like magic, AC, or DR work without a heads up. In my honest opinion that would be disrespectful, dishonest, and a slipshod way of running the game. They paid for the books, they spent the time making characters that worked in accordance with MY character creation rules, the least I can do is run a fair game and give them every opportunity to enjoy their hard-earned free-time.The power trip isn't worth the lost leisure time.If you don't want to hear dissenting opinions, if you won't accept any suggestion that you might be wrong, why did you start this thread? If you are absolutely certain that you were correct in your actions, why bother.You could have just gone the more direct route and said, "I think my players are whining about something they shouldn't be.", without any explanation and then simply request that everyone reply in the affirmative.If, like your original post indicated, you actually want everyone's opinions, why not just wait until the opinion-posting slows and then simply say whether or not you stand by what you did. This constant rebuttle just doesn't look good on you.The short of it is that not everyone thinks what you did was right. Is this honestly a surprise? No one can TELL you what to do in your game. That is completely your business. Whether your group decides to put up with it or not is theirs. They have my sympathy, if they desire it.</blockquote>

Verification