Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Greenfield" data-source="post: 6147585" data-attributes="member: 6669384">I had a conversation with the DM last night.  He called to discuss the game, and the character of a new player.He said he was "sensing some frustration" on our part.  I bit my tongue, deciding not to go on a rant.  (I almost made it too<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> )He said that we needed "Knowledge - Biology".  I pointed out that science skills like that were for D20 Modern, not D&D 3.5.He said that it was the kind of thing any farmer would have, or we could ask a Druid.  I politely asked if his Druid (the one he plays when he isn't DMing) had it, and he admitted that he didn't.  So we discussed the difference between "Knowledge - Nature", and "Knowledge - Biology".  (Aside from the fact that one exists in D&D 3.5 and the other doesn't.)  Knowledge - Nature had been the wrong skill because genetically engineered fungi aren't natural.  He explained that the fungus was genetically engineered to stop the armies of the Pharo, and that such armies included spell casters.  Thus, implicitly, it would be 100% proof against anything resembling a magical resolution, as well as being 100% proof against anything that could be done by brute force or massive manpower.  When I mentioned the idea of tunneling under, he asked why we would think that the AntiMagic would extend upwards for hundreds of feet, but not downward underground?With a sinking feeling, I explained about "Line of Effect", knowing full well that he wouldn't feel that his "something else" had to follow the rules and limits of Magic.  I added that these were the only rules my character knew, and he had to work within them.I pointed out that I could go full Munchkin and bury his fields under a mountain of salt, or a few thousand gallons of alchemical fire, or acid, or ice, but that I wouldn't because that would break the spirit of the game.  Once you establish that "hulking out" is possible, there's no way to go back.I also floated the idea that would come into my character's head:  That this village didn't need "Saving" and never had, that this was a distraction, or even a planned death trap, engineered by the opposition.He was shocked by the idea that we might walk away.  I pointed out that, in character, we had no way of knowing that there was a DM out there, who had planned all this and was counting on us getting through. He admitted that there were really only two solutions to the problem, and that all others would fail.  I pointed out that we had no way of finding those solutions, since all attempts at in-game research were blocked.He seemed to have the idea that Knowledge skills could only help you with things you had seen before.  I tried to explain about Knowledge - Arcana being the catch all "know about weird stuff that doesn't fit into any other category", and that Knowledge skills in general were there to reflect study and research, not just personal experience.  I mean, who need to make a dice roll to handle familiar things?And while Knowledge - Dungeoneering wouldn't tell us about this specific fungus, it would tell us what worked against other fungus monsters people had encountered.  I don't think I got through.So, knowing in advance that tunneling will fail (he as much as said it would), and having learned that we need a successful roll on a skill that none of have, and none of us *can* have, I'm preparing my character for our next adventure.  I see us walking away from this one.In the past he's tried these opponents who, by definition, have thought of everything, and are prepared for anything you might try.  Then he wonders why we fail at those challenges.Apparently he thinks we can read his mind.</blockquote>

Verification