The rules keep stealing my thunder!

[takasi]

One time a player wanted to use mage hand to drop a bucket on an opponent's head to temporarily blind him.

Another time I had a player who wanted to dump acid into a door's lock.

These are fine, but I want the players to at least try to come up with a mechanical definition of these actions in the rules. I get upset if they make absolutely no attempt to do so.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Nope. I roll a natural 20, resulting in a 22+ on the turning check. I am level 4. The creature is not turned.

I KNOW that it is at least 8 HD (or 6 with +2 or 4 with +4 turn resistance) or I am in a desecrated area. Either way, if a low level wizard takes it down with a magic missile after my cleric failed to turn it on a natural 20 then I'm not going to be happy.

Actually, you know that the creature has a combination of HD and Turn Resistance adding up to 8 or more, or that the creature is not of the Undead type.

This could result from:

1 HD, Turn Resistance 4, and a desecrate spell. Average undead hp: 7 - within MM range.

Non-undead creature that appears undead due to illusion or just its structure. HP could be anything.

 

[takasi]

Actually, you know that the creature has a combination of HD and Turn Resistance adding up to 8 or more, or that the creature is not of the Undead type.

This could result from:

1 HD, Turn Resistance 4, and a desecrate spell. Average undead hp: 7 - within MM range.

Non-undead creature that appears undead due to illusion or just its structure. HP could be anything.

True, true. Bad example. Go up another few levels, the point is the DM shouldn't change things willy-nilly just to mess with a PC's sense of "danger" or whatnot. It just makes him lose respect from the table and does the exact opposite of what he wants to achieve.

For example, you should be able to detect magic to see the desecrated area. Also, if the creature has turn resistance there should be a reason for that as well, not just arbitrary to make it more "exciting".

 

[Pbartender]

Actually, you know that the creature has a combination of HD and Turn Resistance adding up to 8 or more, or that the creature is not of the Undead type.

This could result from:

1 HD, Turn Resistance 4, and a desecrate spell. Average undead hp: 7 - within MM range.

Non-undead creature that appears undead due to illusion or just its structure. HP could be anything.

For that matter, it could be a dead body that was the subject of an animate objects spell... It looks like a zombie or skeleton and acts like a zombie or skeleton, but isn't undead and can't be turned.

 

[Brian Gibbons]

Maybe you need to change the tone of your games a little. Why are your players jumping for books to show you can't do something? That wasn't permitted in my games. If players wanted to argue or debate a rule, it was done after the game. Unless I specifically asked someone to check the rule for me, pulling out rulebooks for my actions as DM was not allowed. All it does is slow the game down and create more of an adversarial atmosphere.

My general philosophy is that a GM should feel no qualms about deliberately breaking the rules when he feels that doing so makes it a better experience for everyone.

However, for me to respect the GM as someone who knows what they're doing, the breaking of the rules needs to be deliberate--ignoring what the rules say is fine, being in ignorance of what the rules say isn't.

Of course, for the most part, "breaking the rules" often just means "I put enough forethought into this that I have a plausible explanation for how it doesn't really break the rules". For example, if the OP actually needed a highly magical weapon to do what he wanted to do, he just creates a special material that can sunder anything, or a +1-equivalent magic weapon property that allows the weapon to be treated as a +5 artifact for purposes of sundering other items, or a special oil that can be rubbed on weapons for that effect.

Naturally, that means that he now needs to follow through with the implications of what he's created, but that's just part of the game. (And, in some hands, leads to further interesting scenarios, like having to track down and stop the villain with the mine full of plotdevicium.)

If the response was, "I want to do whatever I think is cool, without having to worry about whether or not the rules allow for it, or concern myself with coming up with any plausible explanation for how the NPC accomplished it", then I would suggest that a more free-form system might be a better fit.

 

[takasi]

For that matter, it could be a dead body that was the subject of an animate objects spell... It looks like a zombie or skeleton and acts like a zombie or skeleton, but isn't undead and can't be turned.

That's exactly what knowledge checks are for.

 

[Pbartender]

That's exactly what knowledge checks are for.

Speaking knowing your rules...

It would actually be a DC 26 Spellcraft check to "Identify a spell that’s already in place and in effect." Seeing the dead body walking around would certainly qualify as being "able to see or detect the effects of the spell."

Also, if the caster is using detect magic he could make a DC 18 or 19 Spellcraft check (for animate dead) or a DC 21 Spellcraft check (for animate objects) to determine the school of the spell animating the corpse (Necromancy as opposed to Transmutation).

Though to be fair, if the player asked for it, I would certainly allow a Knowledge (arcana) or Knowledge (religion) check at the standard DC 10+HD (12 in this case) to give clues to the differences between an undead zombie/skeleton and a construct "zombie/skeleton"... For example, "This walking corpse appears to be far more mobile and agile than what you would normally expect a zombie to be, but unlike a ghoul the creature still appears to be relatively mindless in its tactics."

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

Heck, a winter-wight with a wig is "zombie-ish". That doesn't tell me anything about what the creatures capabilities are in intercepting my sprint towards the BBEG. They could have been faking the slow shuffle thing. A cheetah doesn't always move at 60 mph.

That is correct.

But would that really stop a PC who's going to try this? "Oh, look, it's a bunch of undead zombie things. I can do my cool wuxia and geek the mage in one go!"

What do you mean static? Surfaces in a campaign world are static?

That they don't change terribly often.

Balance DCs don't *actually* go higher than 32 in PHB (20 for a <2" wide surface, +5 for heavily obstructed, +5 for very slippery, +2 for angled/sloped). The PC may be subject to a -5 penalty if they move at full speed, but that's their choice.

Certainly, if my character were to attempt such an action, he'd likely have a sufficient Balance check.

Spilled oil in your campaign mops itself up?

No, but it isn't completely invisible, either.

Railing repair themselves, and structurally weak places are auto-fixed?

No, but those are usually visible, and generally accounted for in the aforementioned skill modifiers.

And if it happens that the railing collapses under my weight because I failed to notice it (i.e. didn't make the Spot DC), oh, well.

"Most" is irrelevant. Most, is not all, and as I said above, most is not good enough when you stand the chance of being wrong and getting killed.

Or you could be, you know, brave.

Given that an adventurer regularly risks bloody dismemberment for cash acquisition, it's not unlikely that they'll be less deterred by risks than you might think.

You don't know if you're facing a character that reqiures material components to cast spells or not until the DM tells you that you are.

Yes, the mob can carry a dummy pouch, or not use spells that require one, or just not have it out, though it'd have to waste an action to get at it, which is why they're generally carried on the belt. And, you know, visible.

And that doubt, mingled with the possibility of a horrible result, is the essence of fear.

On the part of the player. I'm not actually getting why you're so concerned about achieving that.

No, moving through an area does not require me to tell the player if it's trapped or not. It very well could be a timed device that doesn't activate for another 3 rounds.

Or, it could go off then. That depends on the trap, which the DM adjudicates.

I'm only required to give the PC his character information would have, and ruling out everything that didn't happen or that his character doesn't know about never falls into that category.

That is correct, so long as you provide all the information they should have.

Brad

 

[Slife]

No it isn't. Taking a weapon out of a person's hand uses an entirely different ruleset. We've had that conversation before.

I didn't say it was in combat...

Anyway, it's entirely possible to get above a +20 at level two. By the time you get to higher levels, you should be able to rob people blind as a free action. If they haven't drawn their weapon yet, they won't get a chance.

 

[gizmo33]

True, true. Bad example. Go up another few levels, the point is the DM shouldn't change things willy-nilly just to mess with a PC's sense of "danger" or whatnot. It just makes him lose respect from the table and does the exact opposite of what he wants to achieve.

I completely agree. But I'm not suggesting any willy-nilly changes. What I was trying to demonstrate with the example is that you really have exactly no idea what the chances are. And even just using the spells and monsters that you know about you still don't know what the turn DC is. At best you can maybe hazard a rough guess as to what the likely values are. And as far as I know an 8 HD wight can have 8 hitpoints (or 1 hitpoint for that matter since how do you know that it wasn't wounded prior to the encounter? Don't undead always look wounded anyway?) so I don't quite get the "there's gonna be trouble if a wizard takes it down with a magic missle" thing.

Now my point is NOT that this is a license for the DM to start some wholesale cheating thing where he just starts making up outcomes to suit his purpose. My point is the players really don't know hardly anything about how much danger they'e in until the DM tells them stuff that they shouldn't know or the battle's over.

For example, you should be able to detect magic to see the desecrated area. Also, if the creature has turn resistance there should be a reason for that as well, not just arbitrary to make it more "exciting".

Of course there should be a reason why an undead would have turn resistance. But for purposes of the short-run, you're not in a position as a player to be demanding answers from the DM about why things are designed the way they are. The wight in encounter area 2 might have turn resistance, but I don't need to justify the hows and whys of that to players. Do I need to submit by module design to them ahead of time for them to sign off on it? No. Do I need to show them the notes after the fact? No.

I think you're objecting mainly to something that I'm not saying. The DM does not have to change things arbitarily to make them more exciting. Things are going to be exciting by virtue of the fact that the players have no idea what's going on, and given the zillions of possible spells, creatures, and stuff in a fantasy world, they really have almost no chance of predicting anything, or not being worried, as long as you:

1. don't give them information that their character's wouldn't have
2. once in a while mix it up! If your players have really fought 500 Kytons in the campaign and each one was exactly the same to the point that they're certain that the 501st Kyton doesn't have +2 chains - then their certainty is a very solvable problem, and messing around with the rules is unecessary.