Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Pielorinho" data-source="post: 1353183" data-attributes="member: 259">die_kluge, in the example you just gave, I don't think there's any question but that PfE would provide temporary protection against the domination effect.&nbsp; The complications come in as follows:&nbsp;* You as the DM are perfectly free to change a monster's abilities at any time, and are under no obligation to have any of them work as described in the MM, except when those monsters are summoned or otherwise under the control of the PCs.&nbsp; When the monsters are fully under DM control, then they're fully under DM control.&nbsp; It's perfectly fair to rule that an aboleth is neutral, that its abilities are psionic, etc.* If a player doesn't realize there's a problem with a ruling by the beginning of the next session, then there's no problem with the ruling.&nbsp; Players don't get to keep a log of all rulings since the campaign's beginning and ask for redress at any point for any ruling.&nbsp; Willingness to retcon back one session is already very generous and somewhat dangerous to continuity.* The DM may decide on the properties of any magic item not created by the PCs.&nbsp; Be careful with identify; in this case, since the player didn't understand the properties of PfE when the identify was cast, however, you didn't mislead the player at all.&nbsp; * You were both working from the same mistaken assumptions about the ring's powers; therefore the player can't claim that you changed the rules under him.&nbsp; He understood perfectly well which rules you were using, even if those rules were different from the PhB rules.* The ring, as I stated before, is wayyyyy too powerful for an 8K treasure and should be considered more of a 43K treasure.&nbsp;I don't think you sound like a bad DM at all; on the contrary, the player sounds like a whiner to me, who needs to chalk the whole thing up to a learning experience.&nbsp;Daniel</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Pielorinho, post: 1353183, member: 259"] die_kluge, in the example you just gave, I don't think there's any question but that PfE would provide temporary protection against the domination effect. The complications come in as follows: * You as the DM are perfectly free to change a monster's abilities at any time, and are under no obligation to have any of them work as described in the MM, except when those monsters are summoned or otherwise under the control of the PCs. When the monsters are fully under DM control, then they're fully under DM control. It's perfectly fair to rule that an aboleth is neutral, that its abilities are psionic, etc. * If a player doesn't realize there's a problem with a ruling by the beginning of the next session, then there's no problem with the ruling. Players don't get to keep a log of all rulings since the campaign's beginning and ask for redress at any point for any ruling. Willingness to retcon back one session is already very generous and somewhat dangerous to continuity. * The DM may decide on the properties of any magic item not created by the PCs. Be careful with identify; in this case, since the player didn't understand the properties of PfE when the identify was cast, however, you didn't mislead the player at all. * You were [b]both [/b]working from the same mistaken assumptions about the ring's powers; therefore the player can't claim that you changed the rules under him. He understood perfectly well which rules you were using, even if those rules were different from the PhB rules. * The ring, as I stated before, is wayyyyy too powerful for an 8K treasure and should be considered more of a 43K treasure. I don't think you sound like a bad DM at all; on the contrary, the player sounds like a whiner to me, who needs to chalk the whole thing up to a learning experience. Daniel [/QUOTE]

Verification