Sneak Attacks on Rays
- Thread starter Eccles
- Start date
(just kidding...again)
Storm Raven
First Post
Artoomis said:
I told someone he shouldn't DM because he was unable to figure out a really simple connection between two basic elements. In other words, he is not suited to be a DM. If you want to suggest that calling attention to someone's lack of skills in a particular area is calling them "stupid" then perhaps you need to go get yourself some thicker skin.
I think that is a useless standard, and one not prone to result in a worthwhile debate.
Here's an example: my wife loves the show American Idol, and, like most husband's, I end up watching whatever she is watching a lot of the time because I'm too unmotivated to do something else. On that show, Paula Abdul praises every single performance with a "good job", "great job" or "excellent job" or some such drivel. Another judge (Simon) tells the particpants who suck that they suck and tells the ones who did well that they did well.
Paula hates Simon because he does this, but watch the contestants: they ignore Paula's fawning, meaningless praise, and pay attention when Simon evaluates them, and are much happier when he praises them.
Why is this relevant? Eliminating "harsh statements" is to reduce your level of assessment to Paula Abdul's. I'd rather go the other route: when someone doesn't have the skills to do something, point it out to them. They will either improve or do something else, which is of infinitely more benefit to them than false praise.
Last edited:
drowdude
First Post
Storm Raven said:
Calling attention to a lack of skills is one thing... telling him that he is unfit to DM is another.
He may have other qualities that make it worthwhile to play in his campaign... judging by his respones thus far I'm not sure what those qualities might be... but I am sure that they are there
Last edited:
Artoomis
First Post
Storm Raven said:
That's pretty close to calling him stupid.
And not very close to:
What you are lacking here, at the least, is called "tact." It's what takes an unneccesarily harsh comment, bordering on a personal attack, and turns it into constructive criticism, which should always be welcome.
I trusts you see the difference?
Last edited:
Eccles...
First, I think the bigger issue is the rogue with a wand of ray of frost or one level of sor granting him something like 10 RoF per day. Wands are cheap and UMD works really well.
Second, while the rules are clear, sneaks and rays are fine, as a strong basis for a house rule, you could EXPAND the current "must be able to reach vital areas" limitation on sneak attacks (usually recommended as targets two size levels or more above rogue means no sneaks) to include "reach" as also meaning "gets around armor" and thus only granting sneak damage if they only if the attack also beats armor.
Third, as to your qualification to be a GM, no one here has any reasonable say on that. The ONLY people whose opinions matter are your players. if they enjoy your game, you are qualified enough in their eyes and thats all that is relevent.
Fourth, someone said mage armor works vs touch attacks... that is incorrect. Any armor or natural armor bonus from ANY source is ineffective. The sole exception is against incorporal attacks which are technically a different animal.
First, I think the bigger issue is the rogue with a wand of ray of frost or one level of sor granting him something like 10 RoF per day. Wands are cheap and UMD works really well.
Second, while the rules are clear, sneaks and rays are fine, as a strong basis for a house rule, you could EXPAND the current "must be able to reach vital areas" limitation on sneak attacks (usually recommended as targets two size levels or more above rogue means no sneaks) to include "reach" as also meaning "gets around armor" and thus only granting sneak damage if they only if the attack also beats armor.
Third, as to your qualification to be a GM, no one here has any reasonable say on that. The ONLY people whose opinions matter are your players. if they enjoy your game, you are qualified enough in their eyes and thats all that is relevent.
Fourth, someone said mage armor works vs touch attacks... that is incorrect. Any armor or natural armor bonus from ANY source is ineffective. The sole exception is against incorporal attacks which are technically a different animal.
kreynolds
First Post
Re: Re: Re: Sneak Attacks on Rays
You're welcome. Though no doubt your players will find them extremely valuable.
I also don't understand why lemmings jump off of cliffs to their deaths, but that's something else entirely.
Well, I already gave you my opinion, but you either ignored it or didn't notice it, so you've apparently already made your decision, which makes me wonder why you even asked.
I can also pretty much guarantee you that if you behave like a jerk, by calling your players munchkins when they are quite obviously using valid rules-based tactics, then you can most definately expect some backlash.
Then put it in the house rules. Sheesh.
EDIT: There is one thing that I'd like to clerify. My comment about you running the game was not a blanket one, as I was merely speaking for myself. I apologize if it appeared otherwise.
Eccles said:
You're welcome. Though no doubt your players will find them extremely valuable.
Eccles said:
I also don't understand why lemmings jump off of cliffs to their deaths, but that's something else entirely.
Eccles said:
Well, I already gave you my opinion, but you either ignored it or didn't notice it, so you've apparently already made your decision, which makes me wonder why you even asked.
I can also pretty much guarantee you that if you behave like a jerk, by calling your players munchkins when they are quite obviously using valid rules-based tactics, then you can most definately expect some backlash.
Eccles said:
Then put it in the house rules. Sheesh.
EDIT: There is one thing that I'd like to clerify. My comment about you running the game was not a blanket one, as I was merely speaking for myself. I apologize if it appeared otherwise.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
