Was this fair?

[Norfleet]

A better house-rule could be that after you attack opponents can track you well enough to attack with a miss percentage and the -4 penalty for fighting an invisible opponent.

That's not a house rule! That's the way it officially works!

 

[Norfleet]

I wondered about that myself. with the Monks HD & SR that shouldn't have even been possible.

Yeah, putting a high-level monk to sleep with the Sleep spell? That just doesn't work. The only way you can put a high-level monk to sleep involves a two-by-four to the back of the head.

 

[Mordane76]

The only way you can put a high-level monk to sleep involves a two-by-four to the back of the head.

It was a bard... that what he calls his "Sleep Spell" special...

 

[BSF]

Actually, this whole thing sounds just a bit kooky to me. No offense to Gellion, but I think there must be some details that we don't have.

However, that has litle to do with "fairness" in this case. As a DM, it is fun to make neat NPC's. Especially if you don't get to play in a game very often. But, as a DM, you have to have your fun making the NPC and then give the PC's a reason to leave the NPC alive, or write off the NPC when the PC's take care of the problem. There is no reason to get too attached to your NPC's because the game should really revolve around the PC's, not the NPC's. And no, that does not mean that the game world revolves around the PC's. Without the full story, I would say that being put up against opponents so much higher than you is unfair.

Maybe the DM just needs a bit of a break? Maybe if somebody else in the group would be willing to run a module that everyone else could make up some characters for and take a few weeks to go through it. Then, the DM could get a chance to play a character and have some of the playing side fun.

 

[Czhorat]

I agree with BardStephenFox that something seems odd about this. I also agree that the bigger problem is the focus on NPCs as opposed to player characters. I have no real problem with a group of villains who are too powerful for the PCs to confront directly so long as there's a way for the players to realize that these foes are out of their league AND some alternative manner of dealing with them. What makes this feel suspect is that the DM nerfed one of the players' spells and seemed to grant unrealistic or unlikely powers to the NPC bard. This just puts the focus in the wrong place.

 

[Gellion]

My DM does stuff like that all the time. None of his NPCs really ever follow the core rules.

 

[Squire James]

I sense a certain adversarial relationship between the DM and the players that is not healthful to a long-term campaign. I tried to give some advice, but if the DM is not the sort to listen to anyone your only weapon against him are your feet... elsewhere.

 

[LuYangShih]

You should either leave the game, or sit down and have a talk with the DM about the style of the campaign. It is obvious you resent his DMing style so far, and you should not playing if you are no longer having fun.

 

[BSF]

My DM does stuff like that all the time. None of his NPCs really ever follow the core rules.

This would bother me. I don't mind occassional hand waving of the rules if it makes for a very interesting NPC. But, as a matter of course the NPC's don't follow the core rules? That would bug me to no end. As a DM, it is important to me that the players could create a character just like any of my NPC's. Then they know that I am not using a double standard and is not a pet favorite.

 

[Gellion]

The reason the player of the Dwarven Fighter is now playing a Human Monk, is because our DM is going to "punish" him by not letting him play a Dwarf, or a Fighter again.