Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mengu" data-source="post: 5586820" data-attributes="member: 65726">I can see both sides of the argument.I'm a DM who likes to stick with the rules as is for the most part. So if the gelatinous cube is knocked prone, I just imagine it's cut to pieces and disoriented (easier to hit due to combat advantage), and needs to gather itself up before it can fight effectively (stand up as a move action).But if I was playing under a DM, and the DM said, no man, sorry you can't knock Tiamat over with your tiefling's tail swipe, I'd be perfectly fine. Player entitlement has gone overboard in 4e. Back in the day, when the DM said no, it was a no. All this "yes" talk is favorable in some circuits, but taking away the DM's power to say "no" is hindering some of the entertainment value in a roleplaying game. Defeating challenges is a big part of my fun in D&D. And if the DM says yes to everything I try, I don't know if I would feel challenged to think outside the box and come up with creative solutions.I want to see the occasional monster that can't be knocked prone, that can't be dazed, that can't be stunned, that can't be hurt by implement attacks, that can't be hurt by weapon attacks, etc. Not saying these should be common place, but if my wizard was reduced to "aid another" actions during an encounter because of a few monsters that were immune to implement attacks, I'd be fine with that. I'd run around trigger people's second winds, and maybe ask for some standard action history check to give people tactical advice, or even run by a creature to provoke an opportunity attack to get the defender to swing at him again.Anyway, I'll come down from my imaginary soap box, and back to reality where I run things by the book, but the idea of a game where the DM does a bit more heavy handed ruling is not an unattractive idea to me.</blockquote>

Verification