Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MrMyth" data-source="post: 5277943" data-attributes="member: 61155">Maybe I'm basing a lot of this off of experience with 3rd Edition, which did away with facing, and (at least in my experience) tended to encourage these sort of 'by the book' rulings. &nbsp;I think the idea that a DM could just rule the Bodak wasn't looking in the PCs direction (or roll a random chance to see if that was the case) is a good one - it also isn't anywhere in the rules. I think people's expectations for common sense or proper DM rulings is setting a pretty high bar, basically. The second you say that &quot;following the rules means you are a bad DM&quot; is the second I say, &quot;That says, to me, that the problem is in the rules.&quot;&nbsp;Are there logical circumstances in which a rogue could spy on a Bodak safely? Sure - the Bodak could be looking in the other direction, it could have its gaze disabled to protect its creator, there could be creatures scattered around outside dead from fright, etc. &nbsp;But there are also perfectly logical circumstances in which the rogue sees it, and dies. The Bodak is filled with hatred for life - it has no reason to turn its gaze off if it doesn't have allies to protect. It could as easily be looking in the rogue's direction as away. If its bound inside the cabin to guard a treasure, there is no reason for there to be warning signs outside. &nbsp;Look, when we ran into this scenario, we thought it was a poorly designed encounter. But our issue wasn't that we ran into a Save or Die monster and the DM didn't bend the rules to get us safely through it, our issue was that there was a Save or Die monster to begin with. &nbsp;There seem to be a lot of people saying that a good DM only runs these monsters in ways that give PCs plenty of warnings, or bends the rules to mitigate the Save or Die effects, or that it is ok to use Save or Die as long as you've led the PCs to take precautions to nullify the Save or Die mechanic itself. &nbsp;That just doesn't make sense to me. That isn't how they are presented in the rules - it is presented as a mechanic to kill the PCs. You can't simultaneously defend it as a mechanic - but blame the DM when they actually use it as such!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MrMyth, post: 5277943, member: 61155"] Maybe I'm basing a lot of this off of experience with 3rd Edition, which did away with facing, and (at least in my experience) tended to encourage these sort of 'by the book' rulings. I think the idea that a DM could just rule the Bodak wasn't looking in the PCs direction (or roll a random chance to see if that was the case) is a good one - it also isn't anywhere in the rules. I think people's expectations for common sense or proper DM rulings is setting a pretty high bar, basically. The second you say that "following the rules means you are a bad DM" is the second I say, "That says, to me, that the problem is in the rules." Are there logical circumstances in which a rogue could spy on a Bodak safely? Sure - the Bodak could be looking in the other direction, it could have its gaze disabled to protect its creator, there could be creatures scattered around outside dead from fright, etc. But there are also perfectly logical circumstances in which the rogue sees it, and dies. The Bodak is filled with hatred for life - it has no reason to turn its gaze off if it doesn't have allies to protect. It could as easily be looking in the rogue's direction as away. If its bound inside the cabin to guard a treasure, there is no reason for there to be warning signs outside. Look, when we ran into this scenario, we thought it was a poorly designed encounter. But our issue wasn't that we ran into a Save or Die monster and the DM didn't bend the rules to get us safely through it, our issue was that there was a Save or Die monster to begin with. There seem to be a lot of people saying that a good DM only runs these monsters in ways that give PCs plenty of warnings, or bends the rules to mitigate the Save or Die effects, or that it is ok to use Save or Die as long as you've led the PCs to take precautions to nullify the Save or Die mechanic itself. That just doesn't make sense to me. That isn't how they are presented in the rules - it is presented as a mechanic to kill the PCs. You can't simultaneously defend it as a mechanic - but blame the DM when they actually use it as such! [/QUOTE]

Verification