PDA

View Full Version : Rules Arguments: Stubborn Players



Beelzebub1111
2010-02-10, 08:05 AM
Okay, I got into an argument with a player over the pricing of magic weapons/armor and it really bothered me. He said that a +1 keen scimitar should cost 4315gp and not 8315. His logic wast that it keen would cost as much as a +1 bonus in addition to the original +1 of the weapon. I told him that the enhancement bonus is added to the plus of the sword, making it cost as a +2 weapon and he just wouldn't hear it. The writing in the book isn't exactly made clear on that. I ended up pulling an "I'm the GM, that's why" on him. But I hate using that phrase, because I know I'm right in the rules.

Any thoughts, or similar situations?

Calmar
2010-02-10, 08:10 AM
You are completely right.


In addition to an enhancement bonus, weapons may have special abilities. Special abilities count as additional bonuses for determining the market value of the item, but do not modify attack or damage bonuses (except where specifically noted). A single weapon cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents) higher than +10. A weapon with a special ability must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus.

See more about magic weapons here (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/resources/systems/pennpaper/dnd35/soveliorsage/magicItemsAW.html#weapons).

Starbuck_II
2010-02-10, 08:12 AM
Okay, I got into an argument with a player over the pricing of magic weapons/armor and it really bothered me. He said that a +1 keen scimitar should cost 4315gp and not 8315. His logic wast that it keen would cost as much as a +1 bonus in addition to the original +1 of the weapon. I told him that the enhancement bonus is added to the plus of the sword, making it cost as a +2 weapon and he just wouldn't hear it. The writing in the book isn't exactly made clear on that. I ended up pulling an "I'm the GM, that's why" on him. But I hate using that phrase, because I know I'm right in the rules.

Any thoughts, or similar situations?

No, you are right this time. You stack +1 bonus with +1 enhancements for price.

Beelzebub1111
2010-02-10, 08:14 AM
That's not the problem, I know I'm right. The problem is, I couldn't convince him that I was, and had to pull an unnecessary fiat.

Tyger
2010-02-10, 08:17 AM
Ummm... point to that exact paragraph in the rule book, or on the SRD. If he can't read, that's another issue entirely.

This is not a contested issue, nor is it really ambiguous in its formulation. Its completely clear that a "weapon with a special ability must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus." There's no need for DM fiat discussion there, its just plain english.

Douglas
2010-02-10, 08:21 AM
Get out your DMG, turn to page 222, and show him table 7-9: weapons. In particular, point out the lines for +6 through +10 pricing and the #2 footnote, which has an example that quite explicitly confirms your interpretation.

Crow
2010-02-10, 01:30 PM
That's not the problem, I know I'm right. The problem is, I couldn't convince him that I was, and had to pull an unnecessary fiat.

How is this unnecessary fiat? You were completely in the right.

Beelzebub1111
2010-02-10, 01:34 PM
How is this unnecessary fiat? You were completely in the right.
Well, it just feels wrong to say that it's "because I'm the DM" when it's really "because those are what the rules say" but he wouldn't accept it any other way.

Viletta Vadim
2010-02-10, 01:36 PM
So, you're right. Now, to convince the player of this. If pointing out the above-mentioned passage doesn't cut it, I'd suggest drafting reinforcements. If the player isn't listening to you, maybe he'll listen to another player. Just find another player, talk about the situation, and send that player to talk to the player in question.

Alternately, send him to just about any gaming board to ask his question there. Er... here. Wherever.

illyrus
2010-02-10, 01:50 PM
I've dealt with players who will not admit they're wrong before. The rules in the game, DM, all the other players, and even basic physics agree that x activity would not work like the problem player wants it to. At a certain point you just have to make a ruling and they'll be unhappy about it.

With one player I had he'd try to use volume as a method of arguing, I'd just flip off listening to him within a few seconds of that tactic and he'd calm down as we'd started back gaming without him.

For less severe cases a calmly worded "I'm sorry but I disagree with you and we've been talking about it for quite some time so I'm going to go ahead and rule that it costs x, if we figure out later that I'm in the wrong then I'll retroactively reverse the gold cost but for now we're going to get back to playing" or similar seems to work well. That way the player knows that he's not being ignored and has some form of recourse if you made a ruling in error. Obviously you cannot retroactively alter all actions but for stuff like this it could be easy.