Worst interpretation of the rules ever?

[roarinflames]

I've never actually walked out of a session before today. started with a new group and dm that was running a gestalt game (i already expected shenanigans). the dm has little dm experience and was relying on another player who had "been playing this for close to forever."

so far, what ive picked up as far as their understanding of the rules.

1. bonuses of the same type stack as long as they come from different sources, except enhancement bonuses.
evidenced by the psion putting inertial armor over his full plate, and stacking.

2. the amount of attacks your BAB bonus allows is your number of standard actions per round, yes even for spellcasters. i dont even know how they came to that conclusion

3. encountered wooden doors that were booby trapped with fireballs when opened but only blasted the outside of the door, when opened from either side. (in a monk monestary, mind you. he was making it up as he went along)

4. no psi-mag transparency, but if theres a feat thats for magic with no psionic equivalent, it works for psionics (dont really care about this, but still it seems really dumb)

5. tried to tell me precise shot doesnt work for eldritch blast...im actually serious.

6. we're level 12, the phrenic grey elf erudite/warmage has an intelligence of 38 and a charisma of 26, someone explain plz

regardless i quit the game, there was so much dumb, i could not brain

please somebody tell me theyve had a worse experience than this

[MarsRendac]

Hahaha, no. I can't top that at all. :durkon:

Although my brother won't DM for our group anymore because he railroads everyone so hard we just try to subvert everything he tries to make us do. In one of his games, he decided that all elves were from "the mystic isles" and almost never left, and they were super powerful and awesome. His DMPC, naturally an elf, wore an ostentatious wizard hat to conceal his ears, so my CG swashbuckler and another party member stole his hat and played keepaway with it. Then he got mad and tapped me on the head with his staff, which as a level 2 wizard, was evidently sufficient to melt my mouth shut like Agent Smith.

[roarinflames]

dm malarkey. its so bad with new dm's, i just couldnt believe how bad it was. i understand dm has final ruling and all, but that was just so absurd.
on top of this, the dm was pressuring me to be a melee pc, i compromised with warlocks hideous blow, but even still. also, he wrote my character a backstory. i can write my own backstory, i dont need help.

i took a sense of honor when he mentioned the BAB standard action bs, by telling him that since i didnt feel thats how the rules are written, my character would not take advantage of that.
yeah the DMPC was the ubermensch of fighters as well.

i actually feel like ive been trolled into making a gestalt character. what a waste of time

[Ninjadeadbeard]

2. the amount of attacks your BAB bonus allows is your number of standard actions per round, yes even for spellcasters. i dont even know how they came to that conclusion

I...I actually...I don't know. This almost sounds like a good idea...Might be worth testing...

Everything else? Garbage. You couldn't possibly have run out of there fast enough. Nothing rankles like having a character taken away from a player like this guy tried.

[Kelb_Panthera]

............ I don't even........ what?........ how did..........

That is the single worst case of reading comprehension fail I have ever seen. Maybe all those primary school programs focused on reading comp are necessary after all.

Just..... wow. I am very nearly rendered speechless by that. I'll try to post something more productive after I've had a little while to process that.

[roarinflames]

i tested it, its bad. take my word for it. i had 2 maenads use sonic rays followed by multiple arrow shots from each, and they could follow me wherever, and then cast swift action powers.
it wasnt fun, it was dmrape, a blackbolt you might say.

[kardar233]

I'd just smile, nod and play a gish. Go Incantatrix/Spelldancer to stack ALL the stat/AC/damage boosters.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

i tested it, its bad. take my word for it. i had 2 maenads use sonic rays followed by multiple arrow shots from each, and they could follow me wherever, and then cast swift action powers.
it wasnt fun, it was dmrape, a blackbolt you might say.

Yeah, that sounds like suck. Maybe if Fighter's could exchange iterative attacks for standard actions it might be an interesting balance, but as you've put it it's just DMrape.

[roarinflames]

it doesnt matter how optimized you are, unless you follow their rules of stacking, the only thing that can survive is punpun, or like a quadriped half-dragon hulking hurler. it was really just .... so bad....my brain is hurting so much from the stupid. and even when i showed them where it said different in the books, theyd say i was misinterpreting it. ive made pc builds for the dm quite a few times before, i wonder whos got the better grasp of the rules?? prob him haha

[Kelb_Panthera]

I'm okay now.

Thankfully, I can't say as I've ever run into anything quite that bad. A railroady DM here, a munchkin or two there, but nothing even close to that.

On the bright side, you may have had the worst D&D experience that didn't end in violence or police presence ever. (Tongue firmly in cheek here. I'm sure there's been worse, but that is bad.)

[Dr.Epic]

Do rules of alignment count?: "I'm chaotic (neutral) so I can sometimes act evil and kill whoever.":smallwink:

[roarinflames]

I'm okay now.

Thankfully, I can't say as I've ever run into anything quite that bad. A railroady DM here, a munchkin or two there, but nothing even close to that.

On the bright side, you may have had the worst D&D experience that didn't end in violence or police presence ever. (Tongue firmly in cheek here. I'm sure there's been worse, but that is bad.)

no kidding, im surprised i didnt strangle the guy playing the erudite for influencing the dm


Do rules of alignment count?: "I'm chaotic (neutral) so I can sometimes act evil and kill whoever.":smallwink:

i didnt even get that far, i quit after about 4 hours of their shenanigans. i have the patience of a rock apparently.

i do know the dm railroaded everyone to only be neutral on the GvE scale.
whatever, a toddler can rp CN

[Sutremaine]

Maybe if Fighter's could exchange iterative attacks for standard actions it might be an interesting balance, but as you've put it it's just DMrape.
Maybe you could open it to all classes, but only allow move actions or standard actions that aren't spellcasting, psionics, SLAs, or supernatural abilities.

[roarinflames]

Maybe you could open it to all classes, but only allow move actions or standard actions that aren't spellcasting, psionics, SLAs, or supernatural abilities.
if it isn't broken ridiculously, don't fix it

[TheCountAlucard]

please somebody tell me theyve had a worse experience than thisMy GM once had me and two other players argue the interpretations of one bit of text.

For two hours straight.

Despite our numerous efforts spent pointing out reasons to do otherwise, he ended up choosing his interpretation, i.e., the one that screwed us over most.

Oh, and then there was the time in which we had an encounter with one of the imprisoned titans finding himself free; said titan stopped time and taunted us, individually. For about thirty minutes of game-time.

Still, not the worst session anyone's had, ever; one of our fellow playgrounders literally had his DM go psycho on him during a session. I don't particularly feel like looking it up, but you can probably find it with a search.

[Serpentine]

Hm. The worst I've had, as far as I can remember, was my very first game of D&D. Only the DM had ever played before, but she'd only played in one really heavily houseruled game. Trouble was, she didn't know what was houserules and what was RAW and assume it was all the latter. The main one I can recall is that "Clerics don't wear armour because they believe their god will take care of them". Not a terrible houserule (although shouldn't they then get some compensation, like Wis toAC or something?), but she thought it was an official rule.

[roarinflames]

My GM once had me and two other players argue the interpretations of one bit of text.

For two hours straight.

Despite our numerous efforts spent pointing out reasons to do otherwise, he ended up choosing his interpretation, i.e., the one that screwed us over most.

Oh, and then there was the time in which we had an encounter with one of the imprisoned titans finding himself free; said titan stopped time and taunted us, individually. For about thirty minutes of game-time.
the world is a terrifying place to game in. think im gonna just take a break for a while.
unless anybody knows how to optimize to their weird rulings to show the dm why its wrong, i dont have the motivation to fully plan up another gestalt build

[TuggyNE]

the world is a terrifying place to game in. think im gonna just take a break for a while.
unless anybody knows how to optimize to their weird rulings to show the dm why its wrong, i dont have the motivation to fully plan up another gestalt build

Pretty sure it would take far too much effort to have a reasonable chance of convincing them. Just let it go, and don't go back there. :smalleek:

[Slipperychicken]

unless anybody knows how to optimize to their weird rulings to show the dm why its wrong, i dont have the motivation to fully plan up another gestalt build

Doesn't work if the DM is sufficiently incompetent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect). If he's bad enough, all it'll do is create cognitive dissonance, which he'll resolve by calling you a munchkin and banning everything you mention for two weeks.

I'll post a partial version of my former-DM's horrible misunderstanding houserules list. They usually started as misunderstandings, which the DM declared to be houserules once I mention that they aren't RAW.


[Redacted]'s Stupid Houserules compilation

Vitals
Con damage doesn't cause HP loss (so ruled on the spot because [redacted]'s Sorcerer would have died otherwise)

Skills
Max ranks= 2*level, all skills are class skills for everyone. Yes, even Handle Humanoid, Iaijutsu Focus, and Lucid Dreaming.
Nat1 is usually auto-fail, 20 is auto-success. Depends on how [the DM]’s feeling.

Crits
Crit-range increases stack (abused only by NPCs who run around with 12-20 crit ranges, because the players aren't shameless munchkins)
Crits auto-confirm (again, only abused by NPCs)
Armor
Silk Weavings stack with Chain Shirt.

Combat Reflexes allows you to made [Dex Mod] number of AoOs... for the same provocation. It doesn't affect the total number you can make in one round.

[razorback]

the only thing that can survive is punpun

Gestalt, right?
Pun-Pun/Something Else (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=258580) might show them the error of their ways (I would suggest the Chicken Infested Commoner for, you know, flavor).

I've played in some bad games, with bad players and bad DM's but that seems so... minor league.

[The Random NPC]

To be fair, some types of bonuses do stack, and some only stack when the sources are different, namely dodge and circumstance.

[JoshuaZ]

*various silly house rules*

Actually, having crit ranges stack by itself might not be so bad especially on higher levels as a way of helping keep melee relevant. I do agree that doing this with auto-confirm would be ridiculous.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

2. the amount of attacks your BAB bonus allows is your number of standard actions per round, yes even for spellcasters. i dont even know how they came to that conclusion

I've actually seen someone try this before, something to do with the Invisibility spell's definition of an attack. It requires you to completely ignore the line, "For purposes of this spell," and impose that definition on the rules on making a full attack. It's completely silly, and luckily I was able to convincingly argue against it at the time.

[DontEatRawHagis]

In Spycraft the system is too complex to allow for anyone to interpret the rules correctly. Does fire damage also cause heat damage? How does full auto work? It is all just a mess and no one in my group understands it.

In 4e I had players think that the Reflex defense was a modifier for a saving throw. And since they all ganged up on me I had no say in the matter.

[BowStreetRunner]

Honestly its not the rules changes that are hard for me to deal with. Really, any set of rules, as long as they are consistent and known to the players, can be managed. Some are just harder to play with than others.

What bugs me most is when DMs hijack characters. If a DM wants me to play a pre-written character, then let me know before I join the game so I can choose whether I want to play under those terms. But don't give me the ability to create my own character and then change it once the game has begun.

I had a DM who changed my entire character - race, class and everything - by fiat. Oh, it was supposed to be the result of some magical effect - something that happened in-game. But there was no warning, no chance to see it coming and avoid it, not even a saving throw. In fact, this was considered the reward for defeating an encounter. I wasn't the only one in the party to receive such a reward either.

[VGLordR2]

I had a DM once who interpreted the Monk's Flurry of Blows ability to mean that the Monk gained a number of extra attacks equal to the Monk's BAB, as listed on the Flurry of Blows column. A 20th level Monk is supposed to make five attacks at +15/+15/+15/+10/+5. He interpreted it to mean that the Monk gets forty-five attacks with a +15 bonus, then ten attacks with a +10 bonus, then five attacks with a +5 bonus, for a whopping sixty attacks per round.

I don't even understand how he thought his interpretation worked at levels one to three.

[roarinflames]

Doesn't work if the DM is sufficiently incompetent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect). If he's bad enough, all it'll do is create cognitive dissonance, which he'll resolve by calling you a munchkin and banning everything you mention for two weeks.

I'll post a partial version of my former-DM's horrible misunderstanding houserules list. They usually started as misunderstandings, which the DM declared to be houserules once I mention that they aren't RAW.
yeah my previous group didnt know that skills werent autofail/success on 1/20 rolls. i was the one to point it out for them and they promptly fixed it.

To be fair, some types of bonuses do stack, and some only stack when the sources are different, namely dodge and circumstance.
i did try to make this point, they just didn't believe me. at that point, i told them i was out, couldnt handle the rule differences.

Actually, having crit ranges stack by itself might not be so bad especially on higher levels as a way of helping keep melee relevant. I do agree that doing this with auto-confirm would be ridiculous.
my old group did auto-confirm, didnt stack crit range tho. never saw too much of a problem, seemed to hurt the pc's more than baddies tho, but rounds circulated quicker. tends to keep players interested too if they have a few more opportunities to brain something

Honestly its not the rules changes that are hard for me to deal with. Really, any set of rules, as long as they are consistent and known to the players, can be managed. Some are just harder to play with than others.

What bugs me most is when DMs hijack characters. If a DM wants me to play a pre-written character, then let me know before I join the game so I can choose whether I want to play under those terms. But don't give me the ability to create my own character and then change it once the game has begun.

I had a DM who changed my entire character - race, class and everything - by fiat. Oh, it was supposed to be the result of some magical effect - something that happened in-game. But there was no warning, no chance to see it coming and avoid it, not even a saving throw. In fact, this was considered the reward for defeating an encounter. I wasn't the only one in the party to receive such a reward either.
yeah dm character hijack is really not okay without player approval, typically im fine if they need it to get me into the party, but i would still like a heads up so i can at least try and cater the character to their's and my needs.

I had a DM once who interpreted the Monk's Flurry of Blows ability to mean that the Monk gained a number of extra attacks equal to the Monk's BAB, as listed on the Flurry of Blows column. A 20th level Monk is supposed to make five attacks at +15/+15/+15/+10/+5. He interpreted it to mean that the Monk gets forty-five attacks with a +15 bonus, then ten attacks with a +10 bonus, then five attacks with a +5 bonus, for a whopping sixty attacks per round.

I don't even understand how he thought his interpretation worked at levels one to three.
thats pretty much how i felt when they mentioned the standard action bs, saying i can use eldritch blast (hellfire) 3 times and move, and take a swift/immediate.
i was like, ...um no:smallconfused:

[Allanimal]

He interpreted it to mean that the Monk gets forty-five attacks with a +15 bonus, then ten attacks with a +10 bonus, then five attacks with a +5 bonus, for a whopping sixty attacks per round.


With that many attacks, the monk may actually hit a few times. Statistically three 20's should come up...

[MarsRendac]

With that many attacks, the monk may actually hit a few times. Statistically three 20's should come up...

Who are you, who are so wise in the ways of Science? :smallsmile:

[Narren]

I had a DM once who interpreted the Monk's Flurry of Blows ability to mean that the Monk gained a number of extra attacks equal to the Monk's BAB, as listed on the Flurry of Blows column. A 20th level Monk is supposed to make five attacks at +15/+15/+15/+10/+5. He interpreted it to mean that the Monk gets forty-five attacks with a +15 bonus, then ten attacks with a +10 bonus, then five attacks with a +5 bonus, for a whopping sixty attacks per round.

I don't even understand how he thought his interpretation worked at levels one to three.

I would LOVE to see that in real life. That's ten swings per second!

[Medic!]

I would LOVE to see that in real life. That's ten swings per second!

Even worse, that's 10 chances that you hit per second....who knows how many swings!

[Valdor]

I just want to add that I know RoarinFlames IRL and also know this DM. I can attest to the..... I want to say ignorance of the DM but really, he is just stupid. *sigh* We used to try and help the DM play and learn the rules but even after a year long game the DM (lets call him Frank) still could not level up his own character.

I personally am glad that RoarinFlames walked away as he can be a bit of a short fuse (you know I love man *bro fist*) and it speaks well of him that he just quit the game. I am not surprised that alot of people here have encountered this level of horrible Dming and I pray to all the Gods old and new that no one will ever have to experience.

Now I understand that there are houserules and I used to use them heavily but really when Flames called me and told me what happened I just said walk away. Or something to that effect as I was half asleep. Somebody *nudge nudge Flames* just needs to restart their awesome game again

Sorry for just ranting, I just wanted to add my 2cp in and I am super bored at work

Edit: Flames, if you want you can try to go back for one more session but this time convince Frank to let me play. I may nkt be the best at optimization but you know I have some tricks up my sleeves. It would be good to break him again and show him the errors of his was.

[Sugashane]

If I DM and someone tries the crap about getting a standard action per attack being able to be used, I will have a monk 12/wizard 20 walk in, stare at the PC, and flurry of blows 5 spells at him, or better yet, time stop and delay fireball the hell out of him. Seriously, I'll describe it as this.

Me- "Remember Final Fantasy II?"
PC-"Yeah, why?"
Me- "The old man that stares at you disappears from your view, as does everything else."
PC- "What?!"
Me- You're dead, he basically cast 8 Meteos, 2 Nukes, and called Bahamut and Jinn all at the same time. An imp walks up an poops on your charred body. Golbez was the loved child, your father hated you, Rosa was cheating on you....with Kain...and Cid."

[Venger]

I've never actually walked out of a session before today. started with a new group and dm that was running a gestalt game (i already expected shenanigans). the dm has little dm experience and was relying on another player who had "been playing this for close to forever."

so far, what ive picked up as far as their understanding of the rules.

1. bonuses of the same type stack as long as they come from different sources, except enhancement bonuses.
evidenced by the psion putting inertial armor over his full plate, and stacking.

2. the amount of attacks your BAB bonus allows is your number of standard actions per round, yes even for spellcasters. i dont even know how they came to that conclusion

3. encountered wooden doors that were booby trapped with fireballs when opened but only blasted the outside of the door, when opened from either side. (in a monk monestary, mind you. he was making it up as he went along)

4. no psi-mag transparency, but if theres a feat thats for magic with no psionic equivalent, it works for psionics (dont really care about this, but still it seems really dumb)

5. tried to tell me precise shot doesnt work for eldritch blast...im actually serious.

6. we're level 12, the phrenic grey elf erudite/warmage has an intelligence of 38 and a charisma of 26, someone explain plz

regardless i quit the game, there was so much dumb, i could not brain

please somebody tell me theyve had a worse experience than this
yeah, I've had a worse one:

I rolled a beguiler because I wanted to do fun roleplay things and troll everybody with my disguise/bluff/etc.

first game: DM says "herp derp, left 4 dead, guys"

all undead. all the time. mindless zombies. cue 4 hours of damage rolling (roll damage to see how many zombies you kill, no atk/dmg roll)

we go to fortify ourselves behind a building and he randomly gave everybody guns and stuff (roleplay and story? what's that?) that don't precisely materialize out of the air so much as we just have them. everyone but me that is, I was graced with a weaboo katana, so I had to wait until the zombies were crawling up the wall (I guess they are all spider-man) to be effective.

the ranger, the DM's frat bro, has a brilliant energy everythingbane +5 force bow (we are level four) that makes touch attacks against everything that ignore armor and nat armor and let him shoot through multiple guys even if the arrow doesn't drop the first one. Yes. he is killing zombies with this bow. because that's how brilliant energy works.

the fighter, since he owns 3 weapons, apparently gets to make 3 attacks as a full attack action. at level 4.

we finally finish mindless dice rolling and then the zombies suddenly morph into a corpse gatherer (again, we are level 4)

the halfling rogue climbs up it for some reason and steals a shiny that is in its forehead and that kills it. he falls a million feet and dies. the DM says "oh no, you're alive, it's ok"

we GTFO and go back to a magic iceberg (no explanation in-game either) that teleports us to random places when you cast magic on it (no it doesn't matter what kind) I indulge myself with an ontological quandary by casting detect magic on the nonfuntional iceberg. I detect no magic, but as I keep my concentration up, more magic comes and eventually it turns into lasers (I am unfortunately serious) and we go find ourselves in new york city

unfortunately, I am serious.

through the DM's failure to describe anything right, I eventually determine we are in the 30s. no one will take our gp, because I guess gold wasn't valuable back then. we go to get some normal clothes because my character is a beguiler and damnit I am finally getting the chance to be fabulous.

we go into a hotel and the concierge makes a joke about me keeping the halfling, who we say is a child for simplicity's sake, as an illicit sexual companion

our characters are both dudes, but my beguiler is, as I wrote in the backstory that unfortunately never saw the light of day in this campaign, an absolute queen, so I just make a come-hither face at the DM and that shuts him up, because calling someone gay is only funny if they react negatively or something.

I realise at this point that the party never stays anywhere more than one game, they're just derpaported at the end of each session so there's no opportunity for my beguiler to build social networks

there's also no one following us.

I ask the concierge if there is work in this town, if he gets my meaning, and the DM has him ask what his hourly rate is, because since my character is gay, that obviously means he is a prostitute.

I use charm person to teach him some manners and tell him I'm looking for mercenary work since I might as well make a little money.

I duck into the coatroom and disguise myself as al capone (32 disguise check, beguiler, you are the best) to talk to the contact on the off chance that there is continuity in this trainwreck of a game

he tells me to kill a union member who lives at such and such location and I get to show off my chicago accent. I agree because there's nothing else to do in this awful game. the fighter is upstairs rolling "knowledge: architecture and engineering" (yes fighters get that as a class skill, didn't you know?) and sticking forks in the electrical sockets.

I go to the contact and become irish since the target is living in an irish ghetto. I masquerade as one of his coworkers to warn him there's a hit out for him and that I'm here to help him fight off those lousy mafia goons.

he foolishly lets me in (sense motive rolls? what are those?) and starts packing. I cast sleep and coup de grace him with my rapier, which I didn't bother hiding just to see if the DM would notice.

I make an open lock check to lock the door from the inside and it's okayed. I climb out the window with spider climb and down to street level wearing the target's face (metaphorically)

the party in my absence has decided to rob a bank, which sounds like it might be more fun than ganking commoners, so I tell them that I acquired in a totally legitimate manner, the accoutrements of a bank security guard (where the mark worked)

no one questions it, not even the paladin. it sucks being the only one that roleplays.

I use my cover ID to unlock the doors, spam sleep while the paladin (vanilla) kills everybody. I blink and look around the table. no one comments. I ask him if he played paladin because of wow and he of course says yes.

we empty the vault into my bag of holding (which can apparently hold the new york mint) and there's a secret tunnel in the vault leading underground.

we go down instead of, y'know, running away from the bank we just robbed and the people we just killed (democracy sucks) and we see a design on the floor with a cup in the center.

paladin casts create water (but it's create beer because everyone else at the table is a drunken frat boy) in the cup and something happens.

lich comes out and I leap on the opportunity to roleplay before a million hours of boring combat ensues.

beguiler:"why, hello there. you appear to be temporally displaced as well. we were just on our way out, would you care to accompany us?" (some obscene number on diplomacy)
lich: no, Imma kil u guyz, lol
beguiler:"why? we've just met. surely we can make some sort of arrangement." (I'm not getting anywhere with little piddly numbers like 35 at lvl 4 with diplomacy, no sir)
lich:uh, cuz imma lich and im evil.

I repress a sneer OOC and cast my advanced learning, entice gift, just to see if the DM has any idea what he's doing.

the lich fails his save and gives me his mundane light crossbow. against a mind affecting spell.

I run back and the party opens fire. cue a million hours of boring combat. none of my spells do damage, and even with the DM apparently forgetting that undead are immune to mind affecting affects, there's nothing I can do but cast silence centered near the lich so he can't cast any spells with verbal components.

ranger does a bazillion damage a round but combat still drags on for 2 hours. every round, we roll a ref save and those of us who fail get damaged as if by fireball (at lvl 4) I am a beguiler and since this is my first game, mistakenly thought I cared about dex, so I'm able to make them easily enough, even when they start at DC20 and get higher every round. I ask if the lich is getting burned since he has no visible means of protecting himself (not wearing any items)

dm says "it's a fire lich"

well gee willickers, I didn't know there was any such monster. :smallfu rious:

the ranger kills it with his pretty rainbow bow (that I remind you is brilliant energy) and he and the pally brofist and celebrate. I ask where its phylactery is. the DM gives me a blank stare and says he's wearing it. I say that when no one else is looking, I pocket it with an amazing sleight of hand check (beguilers have all the skill points) I do so because no one ever pays attention to anything that's not watching the ranger roll dice.

I quietly pack up and never come back.

moral of the story?

don't play D&D with people you don't know, they might all turn out to be jerks.

this was not the best first game.

[HunterOfJello]

I had a player for a while that we let DM once and things got really weird. Here are some of the rules he set up. They are in order.


1. If you do a ranged attack at a target and miss, it automatically hits someone standing in an adjacent square.

2. We convinced him #1 was absurd, so it changed into using throwing miss rules for all ranged weapons (specifically bows). Roll a d8 to determine which spot is accidentally automatically hit.

3. We then convinced him that automatic hits are retarded by intentionally missing targets and hitting things next to them. He then highly reluctantly changed it so that there was an attack roll at the target automatically shot at next to them on a miss.

4. Everyone stopped doing all ranged attacking whatsoever since it was retarded and the player who was playing a ranged (Ranger I think) character walked out.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Feather fall takes a standard action to cast, and can't be cast while falling.

Your move, internet.

[Venger]

I had a player for a while that we let DM once and things got really weird. Here are some of the rules he set up. They are in order.


1. If you do a ranged attack at a target and miss, it automatically hits someone standing in an adjacent square.

2. We convinced him #1 was absurd, so it changed into using throwing miss rules for all ranged weapons (specifically bows). Roll a d8 to determine which spot is accidentally automatically hit.

3. We then convinced him that automatic hits are retarded by intentionally missing targets and hitting things next to them. He then highly reluctantly changed it so that there was an attack roll at the target automatically shot at next to them on a miss.

4. Everyone stopped doing all ranged attacking whatsoever since it was retarded and the player who was playing a ranged (Ranger I think) character walked out.

I played with someone once who thought that you provoked AoOs for entering a character's threatened space. And that ranged weapons threatened out to their maximum range increment.

(enemies charge)
(PCs shoot him to pieces and he dies before he gets close to us)

(enemies have ranged weapons and outnumber PCs)
(we all just run the hell away, there's no reason to bother)

not a good game.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Feather fall takes a standard action to cast, and can't be cast while falling.

Your move, internet.

*Is utterly stunned*

[Lord_Gareth]

Feather fall takes a standard action to cast, and can't be cast while falling.

Your move, internet.

I was there when SKR explained "how Flurry of Blows actually works in Pathfinder."

Your move, Tylenol. The Internet Has Spoken.

[Venger]

Feather fall takes a standard action to cast, and can't be cast while falling.

Your move, internet.

uhhh


*Is utterly stunned*

ah ha! your reaction has given me the answer!

clearly, if you want to actually use feather fall, you must roll divine bard and go into medani prophet, hope that your visions will tell you every time that you will ever fall, taking mark of the dauntless feat to become immune to the stunning that occurs when you get a vision, take feather fall as one of your precious few spells known as a bard, and then cast it the round before you're going to fall (instead of avoiding the fall, that'd be unsportsmanlike)

clearly, that's what the writers of the rules intended. I mean, just look at the text (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/featherFall.htm) and try to tell me different

[Lonely Tylenol]

I was there when SKR explained "how Flurry of Blows actually works in Pathfinder."

Your move, Tylenol. The Internet Has Spoken.

LONELY TYLENOL is confused!

It hurt itself in its confusion!

[Krazzman]

I was there when SKR explained "how Flurry of Blows actually works in Pathfinder."

Your move, Tylenol. The Internet Has Spoken.

Sooooo how does it work in his little precious world and how does it really work in comparasion?

My DM was a bit in shock as I introduced ToB. He thought the Level needed to use a maneuver was class level... he was a bit spooked by the 8th and 9th ones...^^

[Kelb_Panthera]

I was there when SKR explained "how Flurry of Blows actually works in Pathfinder."

Your move, Tylenol. The Internet Has Spoken.
You poor poor man. I'm so sorry for the injury done to you by that foul heathen. (the messed up part here is that I'm not sure if I'm joking or not, or whether or not I should be.)

uhhh



ah ha! your reaction has given me the answer!

clearly, if you want to actually use feather fall, you must roll divine bard and go into medani prophet, hope that your visions will tell you every time that you will ever fall, taking mark of the dauntless feat to become immune to the stunning that occurs when you get a vision, take feather fall as one of your precious few spells known as a bard, and then cast it the round before you're going to fall (instead of avoiding the fall, that'd be unsportsmanlike)

clearly, that's what the writers of the rules intended. I mean, just look at the text (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/featherFall.htm) and try to tell me different

I'm not familiar with Medani Prophet, but I'm always interested in divinatory classes. Source please?

[Lord_Gareth]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

I just double-checked with Jason, and my statement is correct. Flurry works like TWF. You can't pick your best weapon and use it for all of your flurry attacks.

We're really talking about two different situations. Say we have a monk15 doing a flurry of blows. His attack sequence is +13/+13/+8/+8/+3/+3.

1) If all of his potential attacks are identical (for example, all he's doing are unarmed strikes and none of his unarmed strikes are enhanced by magic fang or any other effect that would give it a different attack bonus or damage value, it doesn't matter if you justify all six of those as punches, all six as headbutts, all six as kicks, or three as kicks and three as punches, or punch kick knee elbow elbow headbutt, because those attacks are identical in terms of attack and damage. That's what the "any combination" text in the flurry rule means--the difference between the attacks is just flavor and has no game effect, so you can use them in any combination because what you call it has no effect on the dice.
(Just like if you have a TWF fighter using two identical +1 short swords with identical attack and damage bonuses, it doesn't really matter for each individual attack if he's using the left shortsword or the right shortsword, declaring it doesn't affect the dice, he can roll all his attack dice at the same time and doesn't have to call them out separately.)

2) If even one of the monk's potential attack forms is not identical to the others, such as using a special monk weapon with an attack bonus or damage different than his unarmed strike, or having magic fang on one hand but not any other body part, now the order and identity of each attack matters, and you have to specify what you're attacking with and you have to abide by the TWF rules because your decisions affect the die rolls. In other words that monk15 is actually making attacks with two weapons, one with a main attack bonus of +13 and iteratives at +8/+3, and another with a main attack bonus of +13 and iteratives at +8/+3. So if you have a +5 sai in your left hand and a normal sai in your right hand, you can't say you're using the +5 sai for all six of your attacks, you're doing +13/+8/+3 with the left hand (adding the sai's +5 enhancement bonus, of course) and +13/+8/+3 with the right hand.
Jason says that in this situation, the "any combination" text means you can swap in a regular unarmed strike in place of any of those attacks (though that's not clear in the text). (Doing so affects the attack and damage rolls for that attack, of course.) So you could swap out your left-hand +8 attack for an unarmed strike such as a kick or elbow (losing the +5 enhancement bonus to that attack because you're not actually using the +5 sai to make that attack), swap out all of the right-hand sai attacks for unarmed strikes, and so on, but you're still abiding by the TWF setup in that you have a series of attacks with one weapon and a series of attacks with your other weapon.

TLDR: (1) Flurry is based on TWF. (2) If all your attacks are identical, declaring which weapon is which is pure flavor and doesn't affect the dice, so go ahead an call them whatever you want. (3) If even one of your attacks is different than the others, you have to follow the TWF rules when flurrying; you can't just declare all of your flurry of blows attacks to be your best weapon because you can't do that with TWF.

There you go. The original post in all of its glory. Here's the link. (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2nrci?Sean-K-Reynolds-clarifies-Flurry-of-Blows)

[Killer Angel]

Feather fall takes a standard action to cast, and can't be cast while falling.


This is not a wrong interpretation.
You can interpret wrongly a rule, only if you actually read the rule beforehand. And clearly this actually didn't happened.

The phrase "You can cast this spell quickly enough to save yourself if you unexpectedly fall. Casting the spell is a immediate action, allowing you to cast this spell even when it isn’t your turn." shouldn't be open to different readings...

Please, tell me that the DM never bothered to read the spell.

[Lonely Tylenol]

This is not a wrong interpretation.
You can interpret wrongly a rule, only if you actually read the rule beforehand. And clearly this actually didn't happened.

The phrase "You can cast this spell quickly enough to save yourself if you unexpectedly fall. Casting the spell is a immediate action, allowing you to cast this spell even when it isn’t your turn." shouldn't be open to different readings...

Please, tell me that the DM never bothered to read the spell.

I wish that were true. This was the heated argument that ended a year of gaming with the group that it happened in, after the already wounded Bardbarian was knocked off of a high tower to an uncertain fate, and I, knowing that he had cast only one spell in his entire time gaming with us, and that spell was feather fall, pointed out that he could cast the spell to save his life. The DM denied this, stating that feather fall can't be cast while falling, you have to cast it before you begin falling, and roll the fall damage. I continued to argue with him over this, and he said that since you can't cast spells while falling, and feather fall is a spell (and spells typically require complex hand gestures and time), no, you absolutely cannot cast feather fall to break your fall, roll the damage already.

So I pulled it up on d20srd.org on my smartphone, zoomed in real close on the immediate action casting time and the specific clause that says you can cast it while you are already falling, and he gave me a death glare and said, "you know I hate when you use sources from the internet, and I don't trust them. I'd rather use the real sources that I have right here, on my computer."

Of course, he had a physical copy of the Player's Handbook, 3.0 version, sitting on the chair next to him, so I immediately grabbed it, flipped to feather fall (page 203; I have a good memory for these types of things), pointed the free action casting time to him, and told him to show me the book on his computer that says otherwise... And he opened up the Spell Bible. Which, to his merit, absolutely did have a version of feather fall that was not an immediate action casting time... But it also required manifester levels, and probably wasn't official content (because the psionic equivalent is catfall).

Cue heated argument, "you're a powergamer"/"undermining my authority", followed by my quitting before the next game.

[Firechanter]

The shenanigans I've had to put up with don't reach the level of the OP by a long shot, but still there were quite a few... not so much "misunderstandings of the rules" as rather "not giving a damn about the rules".

Note that all of the following were with the same DM. The campaign started out quite nice, but as we climbed in level the DM became overstrained by the increasing capabilities of our characters and got ever more railroady and restrictive. Eventually, he turned the campaign over to me, around level 11-ish.

So what did we have...
* A natural 1 in combat is automatically a critical fumble. You hit an adjacent ally. If no ally is adjacent to you, you drop your weapon. Sometimes he'd allow the ally a Ref save to avoid being hit.
(I kept pointing out to him that this makes highlevel rangers more fumbly than lowlevel anythings, but he stuck to it until he actually saw it happen. Luckily I wasn't the one who played a Ranger.)

* Crits are automatically confirmed.

* Rangers cannot take Humans as Favoured Enemy. If anything, you'd have to take each subrace/culture separately (apparently Thayans' physiology is wildly different from Amnites' so you don't know where to strike)

* Night watch: at some point, he started to have us roll Con checks to see if the character can stay awake through his two-hour shift.
Also, it wasn't a regular D20-type check vs a DC, but "Roll Under", so a Con 16 character had a 20% chance to fall asleep.
At one point he had the Elf fall asleep from such a check.

* complete disregard for WBL.
At one point, there was such a discrepancy that one character had passed the 100.000GP threshold in item worth, while another only had second-hand stuff the others didn't need anymore. That was around level 7 or so. At one point, he allowed each player to roll once on the magic item table to see what we found. One player got a >70.000GP Vestment of Faith, another got a lemon (rest was in between).

* But that Vestment of Faith? Completely mistaken rule interpretation there. The DM and the player who got it were of the opinion that DR5/Evil meant it only protected against evil-aligned attacks. At first I didn't even notice, but after a couple of sessions I found it weird how they handle it. It was like "He hits you." - "Is he evil?" - "Nuh-uh." - "Damn." ^_^

[Killer Angel]

Of course, he had a physical copy of the Player's Handbook, 3.0 version, sitting on the chair next to him, so I immediately grabbed it, flipped to feather fall (page 203; I have a good memory for these types of things), pointed the free action casting time to him, and told him to show me the book on his computer that says otherwise... And he opened up the Spell Bible. Which, to his merit, absolutely did have a version of feather fall that was not an immediate action casting time... But it also required manifester levels, and probably wasn't official content (because the psionic equivalent is catfall).


This part is even more hilarious (in a horrid way) than the initial statement.

[rockdeworld]

Is it a contest? Because I think I might actually win it with my "7th level commoner can cast epic spells" argument. Granted that wasn't in a game, so no one suffered from it (unlike some of your stories, which I regard as almost tragic).

On the reverse side, for a "best rules interpretation ever" I had a DM for a star wars game give two of us "leviathans" to take down a Jedi stronghold (we were Sith). The beasts were apparently about colossal+ size and had a 60d10 breath weapon or something - he didn't provide stats. Needless to say, my strategy of "ride the thing around and have it blow them all to kingdom come" won us the battle quickly, although the other player had a the idea of getting off hers and fighting them in smaller groups, and so didn't get to controbute as much. We were level 3.

Only much, much later did I realize he had just made the creatures up for rule of cool (which ruled his games). Man, we had fun in those games.

[Incorrect]

Feather fall takes a standard action to cast, and can't be cast while falling.

Your move, internet.


Feather Fall changes your weight to that of a small feather, meaning that any slight breeze or anyone nearby as much as breathes, it WILL fling you into a wall causing massive damage. Because feathers take damage from hitting walls...
This rule made Feather Fall one of the deadliest spells in the game.


Luckily, I used it on a BBEG once :smallamused:

[Venger]

You poor poor man. I'm so sorry for the injury done to you by that foul heathen. (the messed up part here is that I'm not sure if I'm joking or not, or whether or not I should be.)


I'm not familiar with Medani Prophet, but I'm always interested in divinatory classes. Source please?

oh, it's a great class. it's from dragonmarked

[Xodion]

I'm not familiar with Medani Prophet, but I'm always interested in divinatory classes. Source please?

The Medani Prophet is a great class, I've played it a couple of times and about to play a third. It's a 5 level full-divine-casting class, you need to be a Dragonmarked member of House Medani (Eberron specific, the Dragonmarked book), and the basic gimmick is that you have full-on hallucinations about things that happened either in the recent past or the near future (complete with a will save or be paralysed for the duration). It lets the DM have fun with throwing misleading and confusing visions at you, though obviously requires lots of planning on the DM's part to be useful.

I always thought my first DM was the epitome of nonsense interpretations, but all of this makes him look sensible *shudder*. He was a horrendous railroader and would deus-ex-machina his way out of encounters that weren't balanced (frequently), but at least I got to have fun with using two gunpowder pistols that I could reload without actually putting either of them down...

[prufock]

I don't think this counts as a "worst," but maybe it gets points for being so common. I've played with people who misread the magic weapons and armor creation rules such that you could stack +1 equivalent enchantments on them for 2000 gp each.

[danzibr]

I'd just smile, nod and play a gish. Go Incantatrix/Spelldancer to stack ALL the stat/AC/damage boosters.
Haha, I was thinking something like that.

You can totally break the game. Not that you should do that :P

[roarinflames]

I don't think this counts as a "worst," but maybe it gets points for being so common. I've played with people who misread the magic weapons and armor creation rules such that you could stack +1 equivalent enchantments on them for 2000 gp each.

This was another arguement early on as well. As far as i could tell, someone had a +9 on a dagger with a burst effect and they added their str to the burst but i just shut my mouth about it.
I left pretty calm actually. Valdor is right, i can be a short fuse for sure but this time i got up, calmly and said i was leaving due to game rulings being something i wasnt prepared for.
Hell, i even took a page out of valdors book and told them my pc would not be following their weird standard attack ruling.

[Krazzman]

Not so much an interpretation of the rules more the description of the campaign...

The DM told us we would start as low-lifes (commoners) and would earn our first PC-level. Well guess as what we started? Level 2 PC-classes. Was quite odd but well...

Weapon enhancements were an everytime confusion for our old group. Basically I think it was a houserule but you could start your magic weapon with a +1 special ability. Means a Flaming Longsword dealt 1d8+1d6 dmg.

Again not so much rules but in the first campaign I played in the DM gave a +2 Flaming Shock Greatsword to the Archery-Fighter...

[gkathellar]

I'm going to transcribe a series of reactions I had to a portion of this thread.


Feather fall takes a standard action to cast, and can't be cast while falling.

Your move, internet.

Good ga...


I was there when SKR explained "how Flurry of Blows actually works in Pathfinder."

Your move, Tylenol. The Internet Has Spoken.

... well, that's checkmate. Just don't post it.


LONELY TYLENOL is confused!

It hurt itself in its confusion!

Oh god you're going to make him post it.


There you go. The original post in all of its glory. Here's the link. (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2nrci?Sean-K-Reynolds-clarifies-Flurry-of-Blows)

oh sweet hieroneous whyyyyyyyy

[Arbane]

* Rangers cannot take Humans as Favoured Enemy. If anything, you'd have to take each subrace/culture separately (apparently Thayans' physiology is wildly different from Amnites' so you don't know where to strike)


That reminds me of a bit of the actual rules that always struck me as humorously bizarre: Every single humanoid race is its own Favored Enemy type, but "Aberrations" are all one type. Apparently, humans and elves have less in common than beholders and flumphs. :smalltongue:

[Venger]

That reminds me of a bit of the actual rules that always struck me as humorously bizarre: Every single humanoid race is its own Favored Enemy type, but "Aberrations" are all one type. Apparently, humans and elves have less in common than beholders and flumphs. :smalltongue:

if you think about it, that might actually be true.

hear me out here. I can totally imagine someone mapping out the endocrine system of a human and a lizarfolk and saying "they are different in ways xyz. when fighting a lizardfolk, his pressure points are 6 inches lower because his tail gives him a different center of gravity. they have several fighting styles involving the use of the tail like humans have boxing for fists and muay thai for other body parts, here are the differences, there's a large artery in the tail, but don't go for it, lizardfolk can drop it off and grow a new one, there'll be no blood loss.

this is different from humans who (talks about real martial arts: escrima, capoeria, kung fu, etc)

but I absolutely dare you to tell me that someone can go "here's where a beholder's vital organs are" because the designers obviously didn't care enough to think that through. even though, say, humans and pigs look different on the outside, their organs are in the same places, so if you know how to shank a guy in the kidney, you can do the same to a pig. (and those are different types)

but is there any outward commonality at all between say a beholder and a flumph? no. why would there be inward commonality?

because nothing=nothing.

can you see anyone ever drawing out a vascular system for flumphs? no, of course not.

ergo, they're just pinatas full of gold, like all abberations are. and that's why you don't need a different favored enemy for them.

[/themoreyouknow]

[The Redwolf]

If I DM and someone tries the crap about getting a standard action per attack being able to be used, I will have a monk 12/wizard 20 walk in, stare at the PC, and flurry of blows 5 spells at him, or better yet, time stop and delay fireball the hell out of him. Seriously, I'll describe it as this.

Me- "Remember Final Fantasy II?"
PC-"Yeah, why?"
Me- "The old man that stares at you disappears from your view, as does everything else."
PC- "What?!"
Me- You're dead, he basically cast 8 Meteos, 2 Nukes, and called Bahamut and Jinn all at the same time. An imp walks up an poops on your charred body. Golbez was the loved child, your father hated you, Rosa was cheating on you....with Kain...and Cid."

I'm sorry to disrupt the topic, but that would really be Final Fantasy 4, they just labelled it as Final Fantasy 2 on Super Nintendo outside of Japan because they hadn't released the others. I realize it doesn't matter, but I'm a FF nerd.:smallsmile:

[awa]

i wouldn't be so sure no one has drawn out the internal organs of a flumph dnd can be weird some times. Im almost positive their was a second edition rule book that went deep into beholder biology

[MesiDoomstalker]

i wouldn't be so sure no one has drawn out the internal organs of a flumph dnd can be weird some times. Im almost positive their was a second edition rule book that went deep into beholder biology

Lords of Madnass in 3.5 does for Beholders, Aboleths, Mind Flayers and one other abberation who's name escapes me. As far as Beholder's go, there really isn't a spot that wouldn't be a weak point. Pretty much all their major organs are just below the skin. I mean, they are a giant ball of flesh.

[Careless]

There's also the fact that a Beholder is a giant floating eye. Its kind of easy to guess where you should stab/bludgeon/blast it. Unless it doesn't have a big eye, then you should hit the little ones.

Legend of Zelda gave me favored enemy: Aberration, I think.

[Medic!]

I had a DM ban the "Blinding Spittle" spell for my lvl 4 druid when he cast it against an ogre in a 10ft wide hallway.

The same DM had, in previous games as a player:

Cast Dance of Ruin from BoVD as a standard action.

Made a character based entirely on Necrotic spells from Libris Mortis, where the spell Necrotic Cyst suddenly allows no save and can be cast of up to a range of "line of sight."

Used a Barricade Buckler as a swift action to break a Balor's grapple while wielding his +4 holy adamantine keen vorpal fullblade of speed (at level 15). The sword was a gift from a friendly dragon at character creation.

Fired off hailstorms of arrows per turn as a ranged paladin, combining Rapid Shot and Manyshot on a full attack with a +blah blah blah bow of speed. Also "can I just roll the damage all at once?" Sure, nothing around CR 20 has DR that your [Magic] only bow wouldn't automatically pierce. And definately not high enough DR to make 1d8 insignificant. Side note: Not one of his ranged attacks missed until it came to facing down a Pseudonatural troll that was knocked prone the previous round by failing a save against Earth Reaver. The AC (51 or 54?) was exactly what his attack roll totalled...but missed because prone gives +4 to AC vs ranged attacks (whoops!)

Used a straight lvl 15 fallen paladin to "Jump up, grab [my scout/warlock gestalt, who was invisibly spider-walking the ceiling] by the head, fling him to the ground, kick him in the gut hard enough to send him flying into the party behind him, doing damage to all of us from the force of the impact." This was done before initiative was rolled, after a full round of dialogue between him and the party. His equipment: A vile +something or whatever bastard sword, and a suit of evil something something armor. Picking up the armor appearantly "revolted" my character and he was unable to use any of the gear because it was so extra evil. My scout/warlock was a Hellbred, with Evil Exception.

Also this strikes me as odd and I can't decide if it's basically cheating or just very crafty, but the same guy rolls attacks then arranges his d20s based on the result with his attack bonuses, giving the best chance to hit with as many attacks as possible.


Oh and that lvl 4 druid I mentioned earlier? We met up with the boss baddie in the lair, an evil wizard who was draining the life from the surrounding area making everything dead and rotten in a 1 mile radius. When our party started fighting him, the paladin decided to take the deal the guy offered to go kill his evil ex-lover. The druid fought on, and was promptly Power Word Killed. At level 4.

[Venger]

Also this strikes me as odd and I can't decide if it's basically cheating or just very crafty, but the same guy rolls attacks then arranges his d20s based on the result with his attack bonuses, giving the best chance to hit with as many attacks as possible.


I'm assuming you know everything else you mentioned is flat-out cheating, so I won't bother to explain why that's true (though you have my sympathies, idiots who know some of the rules are the worst)

but this is also cheating. If I'm understanding you correctly, he'll have say 3 attacks at 15/10/5 and then roll, say 19, 14, and 8 in that order

instead of having 15+19, 10+14, 5+8, he would rearrange them to 15+8, 10+14, 5+19 to have better odds of hitting?

that's just plain cheating. you're taking rolls that applied to bonus A, and applying them to bonus B. it's not different than if I rolled a will save against a fear-based enchantment effect with slippery mind, botched the roll, and then said "oh, no, I'm going to apply that to my autohyposis check instead" you just can't do that.

one easy way to circumvent this is to make him use 3 different colors of dice. even for players who don't want to try and cheat, this does save a lot of effort knowing which roll is at which bonus. that way you can always know "blue is first iterative, red is second, green is third" no matter how he tries to reshuffle them.

[Lonely Tylenol]

I'm assuming you know everything else you mentioned is flat-out cheating, so I won't bother to explain why that's true (though you have my sympathies, idiots who know some of the rules are the worst)

but this is also cheating. If I'm understanding you correctly, he'll have say 3 attacks at 15/10/5 and then roll, say 19, 14, and 8 in that order

instead of having 15+19, 10+14, 5+8, he would rearrange them to 15+8, 10+14, 5+19 to have better odds of hitting?

that's just plain cheating. you're taking rolls that applied to bonus A, and applying them to bonus B. it's not different than if I rolled a will save against a fear-based enchantment effect with slippery mind, botched the roll, and then said "oh, no, I'm going to apply that to my autohyposis check instead" you just can't do that.

one easy way to circumvent this is to make him use 3 different colors of dice. even for players who don't want to try and cheat, this does save a lot of effort knowing which roll is at which bonus. that way you can always know "blue is first iterative, red is second, green is third" no matter how he tries to reshuffle them.

Or, if he's using a dice roller app (as I do, sometimes), make sure he uses one that shows the rolled results as separate numerical values. I use Dice Box (iOS) for that, but the d20 dice roller online works just as well. Then, rolls are shown in left-to-right order, and can be resolved in that order. (If multiple enemies are attacking multiple party members asynchronously, I resolve them clockwise from me, so everything remains fair even in the oddest of cases.)

That, however, requires a level of trust that would allow a DM to use a dice roller without arousing suspicion in the players, which it doesn't sound like this DM has earned.

[Kelb_Panthera]

There you go. The original post in all of its glory. Here's the link. (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2nrci?Sean-K-Reynolds-clarifies-Flurry-of-Blows)

*twitches a little*.................*slaps the fire out of lord gareth* WHY?! Why would you inflict that on all of us!!!!????? :smallfurious:






:smalltongue:

[Kelb_Panthera]

Lords of Madnass in 3.5 does for Beholders, Aboleths, Mind Flayers and one other abberation who's name escapes me. As far as Beholder's go, there really isn't a spot that wouldn't be a weak point. Pretty much all their major organs are just below the skin. I mean, they are a giant ball of flesh. Three others actually; Neogi, Grell, and Tsochar. There were internal anatomy discussions for each of them. Tsochar are, IMO, the creepiest thing ever officially printed for 3.5. (I really like that book.)


There's also the fact that a Beholder is a giant floating eye. Its kind of easy to guess where you should stab/bludgeon/blast it. Unless it doesn't have a big eye, then you should hit the little ones.

Legend of Zelda gave me favored enemy: Aberration, I think.

If you see a beholder that doesn't have the big AMF eye, f***ing run. That's a beholder mage, and he -will- kill you.

(seriously, one of my favorite books.)

[Venger]

If you see a beholder that doesn't have the big AMF eye, f***ing run. That's a beholder mage, and he -will- kill you.

(seriously, one of my favorite books.)

an alternate and equally terrifying possibility is that it is either a polymorphed character or a momf.

take assume supernatural ability (eye rays) (chameleon 2 is my favorite way) and not antimagic field. you'll have a full field of range to shoot eye beams at enemies, even right in front of you! a really good way to lull enemies into a false sense of security. "I'm safe in front of him, no eye rays" (ZAP!) wrong!

[Kelb_Panthera]

an alternate and equally terrifying possibility is that it is either a polymorphed character or a momf.

take assume supernatural ability (eye rays) (chameleon 2 is my favorite way) and not antimagic field. you'll have a full field of range to shoot eye beams at enemies, even right in front of you! a really good way to lull enemies into a false sense of security. "I'm safe in front of him, no eye rays" (ZAP!) wrong!

I was assuming that the person I was addressing was talking about a beholder that didn't physically have the central eye, but yeah, if it's still got the eye, and it's opened, but you're not being AMF'ed, probably a good idea to assume it's either some sort of shapechanger or a spellcaster. Fleeing is still advised until you can get a clearer picture of the situation.

I have to disagree with your use of "equally" though. Nothing is as terrifying as a beholder mage.

[God Imperror]

On my first table we used to have everyone who rolled a 1 on an attack hit himself.

Monks tended to suicide.

We also did fail to understand the animal companion table, and believed that the -X thingie was that you could use said animal companion at X level (having all the bonuses for a companion of that level).

Due to almost not giving magical items vow of poverty ended being banned, it was overpowered.

I only used trip once, after that all the enemies were stable, four legged or levitated.

[awa]

i don't get whats the big deal with the pf monk two weapon fighting.


Also don't forget their are tons of variant beholders many lack the anti magic eye and are weaker then the standard version

[Dr Bwaa]

As someone pointed out, you haven't topped lankybugger's story yet :smallwink: But that one (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1263034&postcount=1) wasn't really (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1268854&postcount=61) a rules issue (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1269200&postcount=70) anyway (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1270895&postcount=131).

[God Imperror]

As someone pointed out, you haven't topped lankybugger's story yet :smallwink: But that one (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1263034&postcount=1) wasn't really (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1268854&postcount=61) a rules issue (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1269200&postcount=70) anyway (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1270895&postcount=131).

That was actually a great reading, thanks for sharing. :smallsmile:

[Slipperychicken]

take assume supernatural ability (eye rays) (chameleon 2 is my favorite way)

Fighter: Did you... what happened to your head? You kind of look like a Beholder. Maybe we should get the Cleric to...

Chamelon: Naw, naw man. It's all good. This is what real power looks li-

Cleric: WTF? :smalleek: BREAK ENCHANTMENT! [fails]

Chameleon: No, no. It's not a curse, it's a-

Paladin: WTF?! SMITE EVIL!!!! :smallfurious: [attacks Chameleon]

Chamelon: :smallfrown: OWW.... Calm down, it'-

Paladin: :smallfurious: BEGONE FOUL DEMON!! THE POWER OF HEIRONEOUS COMPELS YOU

[only1doug]

That was actually a great reading, thanks for sharing. :smallsmile:

Oh, there's more out there...

The day Lanky met his imposter, the inherited girlfriend.

The day lanky got stabbed...

Worth a google.

[Starbuck_II]

Oh, there's more out there...

The day Lanky met his imposter, the inherited girlfriend.

The day lanky got stabbed...

Worth a google.

Even worse the inherited GF flirted with in in front of his GF. He refused to send inherited GF away. This led to the stabby stabby by actual GF...

Sometimes I think Lanky isn't completely blameless.

[Darthteej]

The day lanky got stabbed...



I wrote a one-act play based off of that story in my high school english class, it ended up on stage.

To say it was a hit would be an understatement.

On topic: First campaign I''ve ever run, starts off with goblins charging the party on the surprise round and getting sneak attack damage.

One of my players immediately says that sneak attack won't work, because they're not sneaking.

I open up the SRD Hypertext and point to the clause that says that sneak attack works on any creature who is denied a dex bonus to their AC.

Me:"So it was a surprise round, that means you're flat footed, right?"
Him:"Right."
Me:"Therefore, you are denied your dex bonus to armor class, right?"
Him:"Right."
Me: "And because of that, sneak attack works."
Him:"No."
Me:" Yes it do- why not :smallannoyed:"
Him: "Because they were charging at us! That's not a sneak attack!"

[Threadnaught]

Some text that amounts to "MY DM IS AN IDIOT!" if interprated a certain way.

Seriously, new DM here, been DMing for 6 months, hi. My players complain about nearly every single thing I do ever, because it poses a severe risk to their character, since I usually give them something meant to challenge them and it ends up working too well.
A few mistakes here and there, biggest mistake I've ever made has to do with the Wizard's Spells, which was remedied in a way that had very little requirement for an explaination on my part about said screw up. Yes I had to explain myself, but I made it fit into the game and took away a free Wish. Tried to extract the other one, but they couldn't see anything in it for them.

Point is, new DMs should be expected to make more mistakes in general, than more experienced DMs. However, they should also invest more time in the game, reading up on the rules and creating their own unique stories for the players to involve themselves in, than any of the players. They shouldn't just be a tool that a player can use to tell a story about their "awesome character who never fails at anything." They should challenge all players and make the game as enjoyable as possible for everyone at the table.

If you're the only one upset by how your DM has been running things, then your group just likes playing a crazy broken system. If more of your group hate how things are run and the only two people who enjoy it are the DM and the PDM, then things need to change. And fast.


Me:"So it was a surprise round, that means you're flat footed, right?"
Him:"Right."
Me:"Therefore, you are denied your dex bonus to armor class, right?"
Him:"Right."
Me: "And because of that, sneak attack works."
Him:"No."
Me:" Yes it do- why not :smallannoyed:"
Him: "Because they were charging at us! That's not a sneak attack!"

Can't argue with his reasoning there, I like that in a player, logic. :smallamused:

[awa]

these were mistakes i made in my first game of 3.0
now 3.0 had just come out and we young and had played second edition for years before hand.

so im a level 1 ranger ex slave who ends up firebombing some slavers in a major city that has legal slavery.

1) im running away from town guard and we "know" monks are faster then normal since the free character generator gave my ranger the same speed as the monk we concluded that rangers must be faster then normal as well so i was able to evade them.
2) i open fire with 2 arrows a round as a standard action (that's how it worked in second edition)
3) I add +4 hit from favored enemy because that how it worked in second edition
4) the sorcerer cast mage armor which im pretty sure was not legal in 3.0 and it certainly wouldn't have stacked with my regular armor.

I eventually was killed becuase the monk "tackled" me which only involved an attack roll (also the monk was adding his unarmed strike damge to his weapon damge for 2d6 at level 1)

[LadyLexi]

I had a DM rule that Wizards only gain spells at 2 level and they have to pay for them by buying the scrolls. Not as a house rule, just as how he read it.

I had another DM decide that because 10 attacks in a row from an army of archers and swords men couldn't hit my AC (32 at the time), that she would just not roll any of their attacks as I pushed my way in to their general. Ruling in my favor, but still...

Lastly, I plainly and clearly laid down all of my house rules and had my players completely misunderstand. They were really simple too.

[Kane0]

Snip

If rogues weren't so dependant on sneak attack for combat viability I wouldnt mind putting in some houserules regarding how sneak attacks work.

[Augmental]

Some text that amounts to "MY DM IS AN IDIOT!" if interprated a certain way.

{Scrubbed}

Seriously, new DM here, been DMing for 6 months, hi. My players complain about nearly every single thing I do ever, because it poses a severe risk to their character, since I usually give them something meant to challenge them and it ends up working too well.
A few mistakes here and there, biggest mistake I've ever made has to do with the Wizard's Spells, which was remedied in a way that had very little requirement for an explaination on my part about said screw up. Yes I had to explain myself, but I made it fit into the game and took away a free Wish. Tried to extract the other one, but they couldn't see anything in it for them.

If you admit you goofed up and fix your mistakes, then that's okay, but it sounds like the OP's DM is too stubborn to do that.


Point is, new DMs should be expected to make more mistakes in general, than more experienced DMs. However, they should also invest more time in the game, reading up on the rules and creating their own unique stories for the players to involve themselves in, than any of the players. They shouldn't just be a tool that a player can use to tell a story about their "awesome character who never fails at anything." They should challenge all players and make the game as enjoyable as possible for everyone at the table.

Who said that, and where?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Seriously, new DM here, been DMing for 6 months, hi. My players complain about nearly every single thing I do ever, because it poses a severe risk to their character, since I usually give them something meant to challenge them and it ends up working too well.
A few mistakes here and there, biggest mistake I've ever made has to do with the Wizard's Spells, which was remedied in a way that had very little requirement for an explaination on my part about said screw up. Yes I had to explain myself, but I made it fit into the game and took away a free Wish. Tried to extract the other one, but they couldn't see anything in it for them.

Point is, new DMs should be expected to make more mistakes in general, than more experienced DMs. However, they should also invest more time in the game, reading up on the rules and creating their own unique stories for the players to involve themselves in, than any of the players. They shouldn't just be a tool that a player can use to tell a story about their "awesome character who never fails at anything." They should challenge all players and make the game as enjoyable as possible for everyone at the table.

If you're the only one upset by how your DM has been running things, then your group just likes playing a crazy broken system. If more of your group hate how things are run and the only two people who enjoy it are the DM and the PDM, then things need to change. And fast.



Can't argue with his reasoning there, I like that in a player, logic. :smallamused:

Mistakes are to be expected. We're all human after all.

It doesn't become a problem until the DM refuses to either see or admit to mistakes and/or remains willfully ignorant of the rules he's trampling on.

In many if not most other RPG's the rules aren't quite as deep or as important as they are in 3.5. (understated much?) IMO, if you're not willing to learn the rules, or to use them when you do learn them, then why play 3.5 to begin with?

For a DM at least, you choose to run a D&D 3.5 game because you -want- a system of deep and intricate rules to work with. If that's not true, you should try a different system.

[theMycon]

I would LOVE to see that in real life. That's ten swings per second!
That's exactly what I imagine when I think "monk that works". Not on par with "I can re-write the laws of physics as a standard action while summoning countably infinite angels", but worth playing beside someone that.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Have you actually read the original post?



If you admit you goofed up and fix your mistakes, then that's okay, but it sounds like the OP's DM is too stubborn to do that.



Who said that, and where?

Actually, the bold there is correct. The rules shouldn't just be a tool for making a character that's awesome at everything and never fails. Neither should they just be a tool for the DM to tell his epic story with no player input.

What the rules are supposed to be, in my (and I'd wager more than few others') opinion, is a tool for the group as, a whole, to tell awesome stories with awesome characters from both sides of the screen.

It's not just the DM's story and it's not just the players' story, it's everybody's story and a way to have a good time.

[Marnath]

There you go. The original post in all of its glory. Here's the link. (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2nrci?Sean-K-Reynolds-clarifies-Flurry-of-Blows)

I don't understand what I'm looking at.:smallconfused:

Can I get a summary?

[awa]

i agree i skimmed that and couldn't figure out what the big deal was.

[The Random NPC]

I don't understand what I'm looking at.:smallconfused:

Can I get a summary?

Summary:
Contrary to how everyone thought before, yes even when we told you different, Monk's Flurry of Blows is just like TWF.

[MesiDoomstalker]

Summary:
Contrary to how everyone thought before, yes even when we told you different, Monk's Flurry of Blows is just like TWF.

Furthermore, Flurry of Blows sucks even more than originally thought.

[awa]

maybe the books are worded differently but the pf srd say it works like two weapon fighting.

[The Random NPC]

maybe the books are worded differently but the pf srd say it works like two weapon fighting.

They do now.
EDIT: I realized this may be confusing. The PF SRD says it works like Two Weapon Fighting now, after SKR made the post.

[Darthteej]

But wasn't Flurry of Blows effectiveley like Two-Weapon-Fighting before? In that you took a -2 to all your attack rolls and got to stack a bunch of attacks on as a benefit?

Call me crazy(and you can, since I am now Sneak Attack On A Charge Guy), but I don't see any problem with this :smallconfused:

[Kelb_Panthera]

But wasn't Flurry of Blows effectiveley like Two-Weapon-Fighting before? In that you took a -2 to all your attack rolls and got to stack a bunch of attacks on as a benefit?

Call me crazy(and you can, since I am now Sneak Attack On A Charge Guy), but I don't see any problem with this :smallconfused:

The only things twf had in common with flurry were the penalty and the extra attack, they were otherwise entirely different animals. There was none of this main hand/off hand crap, you could use the same weapon for the whole flurry, and if you were so inclined you could stack it on top of twf for extra attacks (not always the best idea, but at least an option.)

I didn't actually read the quote from SKR (I didn't want to hurt my brain) but with his track record, I'd be surprised if any of that was still true.

How does PF handle it? (dare I ask)

[The Random NPC]

But wasn't Flurry of Blows effectiveley like Two-Weapon-Fighting before? In that you took a -2 to all your attack rolls and got to stack a bunch of attacks on as a benefit?

Call me crazy(and you can, since I am now Sneak Attack On A Charge Guy), but I don't see any problem with this :smallconfused:

I haven't played a lot of Monks, so I could be wrong, but I remember it being similar to, but distinctly different from, TWF.
EDIT:

I didn't actually read the quote from SKR (I didn't want to hurt my brain) but with his track record, I'd be surprised if any of that was still true.
To be fair to SKR, it seems he doesn't make all the rulings on his own. He's just the only one that tells us the rulings.

[TuggyNE]

I didn't actually read the quote from SKR (I didn't want to hurt my brain) but with his track record, I'd be surprised if any of that was still true.

How does PF handle it? (dare I ask)

They changed it so it works the way he said.

Which, among other things, means you can't use TWF and Flurry together, the justification being (roughly) that both involve "attacking all-out" (which could cover any number of things, such as Heedless Charge, Power Attack, Rage...).

[Darthteej]

So the only thing that changed was that the debate about whether you could stack TWF and FoB was rendered moot, something that no one in their right mind would do anyway.

And the clause about the +5 sai vs unarmed strikes, I thought they were just plain common sense. Now don't get me wrong, this rule still screws over the zen archer, but everything else seems to be how Flurry worked before.

[Gavinfoxx]

I wrote a one-act play based off of that story in my high school english class, it ended up on stage.

Can you post the play? Pleeaassee??

[Menteith]

So the only thing that changed was that the debate about whether you could stack TWF and FoB was rendered moot, something that no one in their right mind would do anyway.

And the clause about the +5 sai vs unarmed strikes, I thought they were just plain common sense. Now don't get me wrong, this rule still screws over the zen archer, but everything else seems to be how Flurry worked before.

Today I learned that I'm not in the right mind when I TWF + FoB on a Pounce, despite it seeming to be legal by RAW.

[toapat]

I am now Sneak Attack On A Charge Guy

can i sig this?

Also: i find it funny, because like in 3.5, monks still are not proficient with unarmed strikes in PF

i thought though that flury didnt stack with TWF

[Kelb_Panthera]

can i sig this?

Also: i find it funny, because like in 3.5, monks still are not proficient with unarmed strikes in PF

i thought though that flury didnt stack with TWF

Apparently they don't in PF, but there's absolutely nothing in 3.5's RAW to prevent it. The bigger issue is taking the extra -2 for a single extra attack. It's usually not a good trade-off, but it can be made to work.

[toapat]

Apparently they don't in PF, but there's absolutely nothing in 3.5's RAW to prevent it. The bigger issue is taking the extra -2 for a single extra attack. It's usually not a good trade-off, but it can be made to work.

eh, not like id ever roll a monk anyway, they arent really my thing

If i was insane though, id still stick to using a staff. no other monk weapon though.

[Kelb_Panthera]

eh, not like id ever roll a monk anyway, they arent really my thing

If i was insane though, id still stick to using a staff. no other monk weapon though.

I'm rather fond of a monk. I tend to play in low-op games, in spite of my optimization chops, though.

[roarinflames]

Actually, the bold there is correct. The rules shouldn't just be a tool for making a character that's awesome at everything and never fails. Neither should they just be a tool for the DM to tell his epic story with no player input.

What the rules are supposed to be, in my (and I'd wager more than few others') opinion, is a tool for the group as, a whole, to tell awesome stories with awesome characters from both sides of the screen.

It's not just the DM's story and it's not just the players' story, it's everybody's story and a way to have a good time.
this dm is of the mindset to make us play along to his story, strong armed a couple decisions i made in game to get his way. i recall an incident my main group had with him when he messed something up. our dm told him dont worry about, people make mistakes, its how we learn. His literal response, "i dont make mistakes." said in full-serious btw
we all stopped what we were doing and gave the death glare. so much arrogance

[Kelb_Panthera]

this dm is of the mindset to make us play along to his story, strong armed a couple decisions i made in game to get his way. i recall an incident my main group had with him when he messed something up. our dm told him dont worry about, people make mistakes, its how we learn. His literal response, "i dont make mistakes." said in full-serious btw
we all stopped what we were doing and gave the death glare. so much arrogance

Depending on how aggravated I was already, that's the kind of line that could easily push me into taking the first swing. Then again, I don't think I'd consort with anyone that arrogant long enough to -get- that annoyed in the first place.

[MarsRendac]

Depending on how aggravated I was already, that's the kind of line that could easily push me into taking the first swing. Then again, I don't think I'd consort with anyone that arrogant long enough to -get- that annoyed in the first place.

You're fine peeps, Kelb.

[Firechanter]

To be fair to SKR, it seems he doesn't make all the rulings on his own. He's just the only one that tells us the rulings.

Well I would expect his voice to have some weight among his peers, though. And when I hear SKR, I primarily think of his personal homepage and the hilarious nonsense he wrote there in full earnest. Really, read it to catch a glimpse of how this man understands the game he has helped write. It may cost some Sanity Points, though.
What's probably taking the cake would be his proposed "feat point system", where just for example he expresses the opinion that Skill Focus is twice as valuable as Quicken Spell.

So, yeah... when I read "SKR", I don't really expect anything more than a facepalm.

[Kelb_Panthera]

You're fine peeps, Kelb.

Ya see, the problem with text as a form of communication is that tone doesn't translate well.

I honestly have no idea if this is a genuine compliment, given because I have the good sense to walk away, or a sarcastic barb, because I'm of such violent nature to be inclined to attack someone for being an insufferable jackass.

This is why I'm glad the blue text for sarcasm is catching on.

[TuggyNE]

OT:
This is why I'm glad the blue text for sarcasm is catching on.

Any suggestions for a special color to indicate extra sincerity, or something? Sometimes I worry that merely the lack of blue does not quite convey it.

[Kelb_Panthera]

OT:

Any suggestions for a special color to indicate extra sincerity, or something? Sometimes I worry that merely the lack of blue does not quite convey it.

Still OT
Not a clue. I'd be surprised if one caught on though. Sarcasm is rather noticeably more prevalent than great sincerity in my experience.

Btw, you realize that there's not much point in spoilering that since nearly everyone will open it, given that you didn't address it to anyone in particular?:smalltongue:

[TuggyNE]

OT for great justice:
Not a clue. I'd be surprised if one caught on though. Sarcasm is rather noticeably more prevalent than great sincerity in my experience.

Heh, fair enough.

If one did, though, perhaps a sort of green?


Btw, you realize that there's not much point in spoilering that since nearly everyone will open it, given that you didn't address it to anyone in particular?:smalltongue:

I ... had not actually thought of that, but oh well, I got no other idea on how to handle that.

And I just did it again. :P

[Rejakor]

In a mid-op game, I gave people lower than t3, amongst other bonuses, an extra round of actions for each iterative attack they had.

t1 and t2 people still dominated the party's interactions with the world.

But the melee got to feel like badasses in combat (even though the fights were still being won by Solid Fog and Wall of Stone etc).

I'd only recommend it for mid-op to high-op groups, i.e. the ones that take druids/clerics/wizards off the rails and shove them up monsters' butts, but it did make taking a fighter a more attractive choice.


That group doesn't sound like it was the rules that were the problem, though, just complete derp and failure to play by any set of consistent rules. High power games can be fun, but games where there aren't consistent rules are horrible, because it becomes 'guess which way the DM is going to rule things' and becomes a social exercise not a roleplaying one.

[Threadnaught]

Have you actually read the original post?

Yes and to me it looked like the guy's DM is an idiot. That's how I interprated it.


Who said that, and where?

Me, every time there's an issue about the game because someone disagrees with the DM. If all players feel the DM isn't being fair and that the DM could be running a better game, then it's the DM's fault. If there's a problem player constantly whining about how the DM is being unfair because of their sucky dice rolls, or a rule that won't allow them certain advantages, then it's the player at fault.


The rules shouldn't just be a tool for making a character that's awesome at everything and never fails. Neither should they just be a tool for the DM to tell his epic story with no player input.

What the rules are supposed to be, in my (and I'd wager more than few others') opinion, is a tool for the group as, a whole, to tell awesome stories with awesome characters from both sides of the screen.

It's not just the DM's story and it's not just the players' story, it's everybody's story and a way to have a good time.

You mind if I use that as my sig?


this dm is of the mindset to make us play along to his story, strong armed a couple decisions i made in game to get his way. i recall an incident my main group had with him when he messed something up. our dm told him dont worry about, people make mistakes, its how we learn. His literal response, "i dont make mistakes." said in full-serious btw
we all stopped what we were doing and gave the death glare. so much arrogance

If the whole group hates how the DM runs things, you should elect a new DM, or have somebody step up and take charge. It's clear this guy's games aren't going to go anywhere the group as a whole will enjoy.
If all else fails, you could join my group, we've been looking for a Cleric since the DM decided on a tier 1 campaign. :smallwink:

[BobVosh]

Back when we first started playing 3.0, when it was first released, I'm not entirely sure any of us actually read the rules.

On incremental increases to class stuff, e.g. BAB/Saves: Those + signs mean we add right? So from lvl 1 to 2, it was 3. From lvl 2 to lvl 3 it was obviously 3+3. Same thing for saves!

So it wasn't uncommon to have level 12 characters with 3 forms of confusing Bab (+6/+1? obviously we get a second pool of bab! In other words +21/+1)

Greater cleave doesn't let you do those free 5 steps that you can do whenever you aren't moving? Our strategy vs everything was arcane archer storm of arrows, paladin g. cleaves everything. So after every cleave he moved 5 feet, usually going up to 80+ feet to kill everything. In full plate.

Saves were obviously obscenely high, making us wonder how anyone could lose to a mage.

Strangely we got spells right, I think because it wasn't too different from 2nd ed.

Characters came in at level 1, regardless of the level of the rest of the party. I died so many times trying to catch up to party level when they were 10+.

*edit* Oh yeah, Monks were sick good, as not only did you have the obviously better flurry chart due to the number of extra attacks, that eventually began to hit after peaking at -3/-3 to hit, began to hit pretty well. You could dual wield those attacks, with only a -2/-2 to the first chart first 2 numbers! The recent posts about monks flurry in PF reminded me of that. And the damage! A monk was dealing 1D6+1D6+1D6+1D8+1D8+str per hit at level five!

[Douglas]

A monk was dealing 1D6+1D6+1D6+1D8+1D8+str per hit at level five!
So no one noticed that the monk damage table, unlike BAB and saves, did not have a + sign in front of everything?

I imagine monks also ended up with crazy high AC after a while, with the level based bonus scaling up like that.

[Shaynythyryas]

I once had a horrific game which combined horrific home rules and terrible rp setting.

1- the DM decided (or vastly misinterpretated) to replace the str/dex bonus by the stat itself. As for CA, he decided to add the full str to heavy armor, full dex to light/unarmed and the better of str and dex to medium.

2- same rule, of course, applied to damage. Neeldess to say, after the first fight against a petty thief, the whole groupe was down to almost 0 hp left.

3- magic (well, divine) healing was "too overpowered, unrealistic", so he limited it to an off-combat, very long conjuring spell that could, in case of success make us regain life over time.

4- every spell was bound to a dex-based test to be successfully cast if it involved a gestual component.

5- at some point, our group was captured and split up in different cells. To reflect that, naturally, he made us play alone while others were in another room. The problem is that these scenes were awfully, terribly long, and we had to wait for a complete hour for each one. It was a disastrous mood killer.

[starship1]

Back when we first started playing 3.0, when it was first released, I'm not entirely sure any of us actually read the rules.

On incremental increases to class stuff, e.g. BAB/Saves: Those + signs mean we add right? So from lvl 1 to 2, it was 3. From lvl 2 to lvl 3 it was obviously 3+3. Same thing for saves!

So it wasn't uncommon to have level 12 characters with 3 forms of confusing Bab (+6/+1? obviously we get a second pool of bab! In other words +21/+1)

Greater cleave doesn't let you do those free 5 steps that you can do whenever you aren't moving? Our strategy vs everything was arcane archer storm of arrows, paladin g. cleaves everything. So after every cleave he moved 5 feet, usually going up to 80+ feet to kill everything. In full plate.

Saves were obviously obscenely high, making us wonder how anyone could lose to a mage.

Strangely we got spells right, I think because it wasn't too different from 2nd ed.



:smalleek: I smell a dnd fix! melee gets good things, monks are decent, and casters get a huge nerf! Totally playtesting this!

[only1doug]

Harldy a competitor for worst ever but a recent thread made me recall the time my new wizard (just rolled up, first few minutes of play) got jumped on and eaten by a Landshark (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/bulette.htm)...

The GM was kinda eager to kill PCs (my previous PC had died due to the GM deliberately misinterpreting what I said) and I had just met up with the party.

Why is this a bad interpretation? well the new Wizard was an elf, which Bulette's refuse to eat, and they have scent so it would know to avoid him (and eat one of the tastier party members instead).

[awa]

refluffing monsters or changing their habbits isnt really a bad dm call. Its more a setting thing.

also scent only pinpoints a creatures sqaure if hes within 5 feet of it so assume it poped out of the ground directly beneath you it would have no way to diferentiate an elf from any nearby huminoids. (That ignores the fact that ive had dms who required sense to have line of effect so you would not be able to smell anything underground)

[Kelb_Panthera]

@Threadnaught

You can try and put that quote in your sig if you want, but it may be too long to fit.

[Threadnaught]

A damn awful interpretation of the rules.

Back when we first started playing 3.0, when it was first released, I'm not entirely sure any of us actually read the rules.

On incremental increases to class stuff, e.g. BAB/Saves: Those + signs mean we add right? So from lvl 1 to 2, it was 3. From lvl 2 to lvl 3 it was obviously 3+3. Same thing for saves!

So it wasn't uncommon to have level 12 characters with 3 forms of confusing Bab (+6/+1? obviously we get a second pool of bab! In other words +21/+1)

Greater cleave doesn't let you do those free 5 steps that you can do whenever you aren't moving? Our strategy vs everything was arcane archer storm of arrows, paladin g. cleaves everything. So after every cleave he moved 5 feet, usually going up to 80+ feet to kill everything. In full plate.

Saves were obviously obscenely high, making us wonder how anyone could lose to a mage.

Strangely we got spells right, I think because it wasn't too different from 2nd ed.

Characters came in at level 1, regardless of the level of the rest of the party. I died so many times trying to catch up to party level when they were 10+.

*edit* Oh yeah, Monks were sick good, as not only did you have the obviously better flurry chart due to the number of extra attacks, that eventually began to hit after peaking at -3/-3 to hit, began to hit pretty well. You could dual wield those attacks, with only a -2/-2 to the first chart first 2 numbers! The recent posts about monks flurry in PF reminded me of that. And the damage! A monk was dealing 1D6+1D6+1D6+1D8+1D8+str per hit at level five!

Absolutely awful, and yet I can't help but think it looks like one of the most awesome games ever.

Also Kelb, I got what I think are the most important parts in.

[Medic!]

Speaking of DMs who are literally out to kill their party...



One of the members of our family + a friend or two group, had been playing with us for about a year and wanted to try his hand at DMing, we were, of course, exstatic to hear this!

The campaign idea was awesome...a traditional D&D setting but our PCs were all locked up in a mental institution, and each of us chose a mental disorder to RP. I don't remember all of them now, sadly, but I do remember that I was playing a paranoid schitzophrenic(sp?) guard/orderly in the facility. The adventure started with me breaking the party out and escaping into the sewers with a DMPC. We progressed down the sewers fighting moon-rats and other CR appropriates for a lvl 1 party until we came to a fork in the road.

The DMPC says "We should go right!" but my character, being paranoid, didn't trust him completely, nor did the rest of the party. So we said "Nope we're going left!"

Now...if it was me, I would say "Ok...you go left!" Then whatever I had planned on the right path would be on the left instead and no harm no foul. The DM decided that this ruined his campaign and foiled his plot and plan. His DMPC then revealed that it was, in reality, a CR 20+ Hellfire Dragon and fired off its breath-weapon in the tight sewer against the party.

One player rolled a nat 20 on his reflex, so he dived into the filth and survived the blast, but was then paralysed by his PC's germaphobia and promptly eaten. Campaign duration: 45 minutes.

[Darthteej]

can i sig this?


YES! Ahem, I mean yes.

[nyjastul69]

I don't know if this is the worst rules interpretation ever but, BITD, playing a weird amalgam of BECMI and 1st ed. AD&D none of us actually bothered to worry about, or look up what 'accumulated' HD actually meant. It was clear. Roll 1 HD at 1st level, 2 at 2nd, 3 at 3rd... Ummm.. yeah, that gets out of control right quick. We played as nigh on gods amongst mortal monsters. :redface:

[pwykersotz]

Heh, I've done a lot of these terrible interpretations in the past. Mostly because when I was introduced to D&D, it was with a GM that has been gaming for nearly 40 years and mixes up (sometimes purposefully, sometimes not) rules between editions. I still play with the group, and they still screw up my ideas of what is and isn't. Fortunately for when I DM (with different people), my players are good about throwing books at me when I need it.

Notable times I made a fool of myself as GM:
Ruling that 5ft steps couldn't be used with a full attack
Psh, +2 is lame, let's hand out artifacts!
No save vs a Wish to turn the party into Dire Rats
Hiding and moving at the same time is impossible!
Critical failure spot check, the sun is a sky palace, you want to get to it!

...I'm not proud of these. But, they were honest mistakes. Fortunately my friends stuck with me through the tougher times.

[Silus]

Not really a rules thing, but I had a DM that didn't know how snow worked with regards to tracking.

We were trying to track a goblin on a barrel (Running on it to roll it) through newly fallen snow while it was still snowing. The DM said we lost the trail after X-amount of time, while it was still snowing.

We obviously contested this, seeing as ~3 out of the 4 players had lived in snowy climates (Myself having lived in Virginia and Germany for some years). But alas, he DMed it away.

[Serpentine]

Critical failure spot check, the sun is a sky palace, you want to get to it!Usually if one of my players drastically fails a check*, I let them decide what happens, and that's just the sort of thing they'd come up with :smallbiggrin: Always so much harsher than I'd have happen...


*In case anyone cares: my houserule is that a natural 1 counts as -10, and a natural 20 counts as +30.

[BobVosh]

So no one noticed that the monk damage table, unlike BAB and saves, did not have a + sign in front of everything?

I imagine monks also ended up with crazy high AC after a while, with the level based bonus scaling up like that.

At this point the player making the character wasn't there for the first session. He was told just to add the values in the chart. It was an attempt to build the character in a short time to hop on into game. I don't believe any monk made it past 5th, and even then we had read that wisdom replaced dex I believe. I think we used a full wisdom value...I can't really remember, it didn't matter too much as the monk was level 1 vs a level 5-6 party. With these silly rules. Also I plead being 13. Not much of an excuse, but meh.


A damn awful interpretation of the rules.


Absolutely awful, and yet I can't help but think it looks like one of the most awesome games ever.

It was amusing mainly due to the DM loving rust monsters and spell casters. Nothing could really harm us with our ubersaves. (Fireballs are great, right?)

[CTrees]

Might be blind, but I don't think I've seen anyone bring up people missing the limits to augmentation of psionic powers.

Anyway, on PF's flurry=TWF thing, look at SKR's logic in conjunction with the Zen Archer, who flurries with a bow... there were threads here around that time dealing with all the problems it causes in a wide variety of situations, but it really goes to "SKR doesn't understand the rules and implications of his own game."

[olentu]

Might be blind, but I don't think I've seen anyone bring up people missing the limits to augmentation of psionic powers.

Anyway, on PF's flurry=TWF thing, look at SKR's logic in conjunction with the Zen Archer, who flurries with a bow... there were threads here around that time dealing with all the problems it causes in a wide variety of situations, but it really goes to "SKR doesn't understand the rules and implications of his own game."

I would consider the missing the limits on augmentation is less of a bad interpretation and more of just not noticing something. Perhaps if we were talking about a DM that knowingly removed the limit.

While zen archer is good, I would say the feral combat training FAQ entry is a better example.

[grarrrg]

Also: i find it funny, because like in 3.5, monks still are not proficient with unarmed strikes in PF

Actually, they are proficient, as is everyone, but now it's a 'general' rule, so it doesn't appear on the Monk class.

Link (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/weapons)
"All characters are proficient with unarmed strikes and any natural weapons they gain from their race."

[roguemetal]

This is horrendous, and I'm loving all these awful alternatives to the rules. I thought it was bad when my DM didn't understand how multipliers worked. (Of course I built an UberCharger just for him. :smallwink:)

I've also had a fair share of DMs who didn't know the DCs of skill checks well enough, placing some mundane checks in the epic levels, and epic checks as relatively simple, or just making some stuff up that didn't make any sense. I only need a 20 on sleight of hand to steal a weapon out of someone's hand? Who knew.

[Stegyre]

My meager contribution:

Way, way back, in the days of oD&D, my older brother and his friends thought that clerics' and wizards' spells available were all the spells they could cast until they leveled up.

Thus, a first level wizard could cast one first level spell. Not one-per day or per week, but ever, until he leveled up. Needless to say, casters tended to hoard their spells.

On the plus side, however, the armor and weapon restrictions on wizards were deemed to apply only to mundane items. Magical arms and armor were a-okay!

[Yahzi]

2. the amount of attacks your BAB bonus allows is your number of standard actions per round, yes even for spellcasters. i dont even know how they came to that conclusion

I didn't read the whole thread to see if this was answered; but if not, it probably comes from 1st ED where a Fighter got attacks per round equal to his level when fighting 0th level foes.

[Firechanter]

I just remembered one occasion at a con, where we were rolling up level 3 characters for a nice dungeoncrawl organized by a local game club. (Some of those characters were then carried over to a longterm campaign.)

There was one guy there who seriously had Knowledge: 3.5 Rules as Phantom Skill and who was going to participate. He kept walking around and gave really awesomely stupid advice.
For example, to the Dwarf Fighter player: "For your two feats, best take Toughness twice, then you have _six hitpoints_ more."
Or to the Halfling Rogue player: "You actually don't need Open Lock and Disable Device, just take Profession: Locksmith and you're good for both." And: "You really should take EWP: Hand Crossbow." And: "Halfling, good, they are awesome at Grappling because they get +4 to their rolls."

So basically, his "advice" ranged anywhere from useless over counterproductive to downright false.
And every time I called him out on something, he'd start an argument about it -- "I'm absolutely certain about that, I'm a DM myself.", then when I showed him the respective paragraph in the PHB to prove him wrong, he said nothing, and a minute later started the next argument about the next piece of bull****.

I mean, sure, everyone can be wrong about a rule here or there, but the reliability of his foulups and his stubborn refusal to admit his mistakes were the stuff of legends.

(FWIW, I helped those players make decent choices for their characters, as much as was possible with the material at hand.)

Later on in the actual game, he'd also start arguing with the DM, who already knew him from the game club, and at several points the DM just said "What did we agree on?" and that shut him up. Later, the DM told me that their "agreement" was that if the player kept arguing about the rules, the DM would take the player's PHB and burn it. xD

[Telonius]

A long while back, I had a DM who allowed an Order of the Bow Initiate to add their precision damage only on anything within 30 feet. I believe the theory was that if Point Blank Shot applied, so did the extra d8.

That wouldn't have been so bad, except he allowed it to combine with Manyshot ... and forgot the clause that precision applies only to the first hit. :smalleek:

[Battleship789]

A long while back, I had a DM who allowed an Order of the Bow Initiate to add their precision damage only on anything within 30 feet. I believe the theory was that if Point Blank Shot applied, so did the extra d8.

That wouldn't have been so bad, except he allowed it to combine with Manyshot ... and forgot the clause that precision applies only to the first hit. :smalleek:

Meh, that's not that bad (basically duplicates a Scout with Skirmish and Greater Manyshot, but with less attack rolls.)

My DM has run a game (which he consulted with me for some mechanics stuff) where he allowed any bonus type to stack. However, the game was gestalt and the players are rather horrible at optimizing, so it wasn't too bad (as far as gestalt goes.)

[Starbuck_II]

A long while back, I had a DM who allowed an Order of the Bow Initiate to add their precision damage only on anything within 30 feet. I believe the theory was that if Point Blank Shot applied, so did the extra d8.

That wouldn't have been so bad, except he allowed it to combine with Manyshot ... and forgot the clause that precision applies only to the first hit. :smalleek:

The Prestiege Class would suck otherwise I think would be a good reason.

[killem2]

Of course, he had a physical copy of the Player's Handbook, 3.0 version, sitting on the chair next to him, so I immediately grabbed it, flipped to feather fall (page 203; I have a good memory for these types of things), pointed the free action casting time to him, and told him to show me the book on his computer that says otherwise... And he opened up the Spell Bible. Which, to his merit, absolutely did have a version of feather fall that was not an immediate action casting time... But it also required manifester levels, and probably wasn't official content (because the psionic equivalent is catfall).


Yeah I have that PDF too.

Three version appear 3.0 PHB, 3.5 PHB, and then Psion Handbook 3.0. That dm was stupid. Everything in the PDF is arranged by sections, so if he had taken a min to scroll up he would have see that. You're better off.

[Shalist]

Protection from evil = mindblank.

Fear? Immune. Paralysis, sleep, confusion, dazed, etc? Yup, they affect your mind, so you're immune.

[jindra34]

I had a DM who did about the lesser half of these things. In a game with rotating DM's. And then claimed that because he was currently DM we couldn't throw him out of the group (not just the game the group). Needless to say he quickly got proven wrong.

[Threadnaught]

I had a DM who did about the lesser half of these things. In a game with rotating DM's. And then claimed that because he was currently DM we couldn't throw him out of the group (not just the game the group). Needless to say he quickly got proven wrong.

Rotating DMs with their own separate campaigns? Or rotating DMs all sharing the same notes therefore no allowance for any long term planning by any DM or characters?

If it's the first one, sure it's a lot of paperwork for every player involved as it means one character per campaign, plus their own campaign. However, it does allow players to experience many different settings and rule interpretations in a single group.

The second is just... How do people even do that? How do people handle having their character stomped by their own misfortune combined with the DM's good luck, without going all out to kill said DM's character when the roles are reversed?
Add to this the fact that every member of the group has to agree with exactly which rules are in play, the exact setting, the exact plot, exactly how NPCs behave and even more.

Let me summarize, if it's rotating DMs with their own campaigns, your group was harsh, at least without further information to explain how said D was a douchey player. If it's the second one, rotating DMs for a single campaign, fair play.

[jindra34]

Rotating DMs with their own separate campaigns? Or rotating DMs all sharing the same notes therefore no allowance for any long term planning by any DM or characters?

If it's the first one, sure it's a lot of paperwork for every player involved as it means one character per campaign, plus their own campaign. However, it does allow players to experience many different settings and rule interpretations in a single group.

The second is just... How do people even do that? How do people handle having their character stomped by their own misfortune combined with the DM's good luck, without going all out to kill said DM's character when the roles are reversed?
Add to this the fact that every member of the group has to agree with exactly which rules are in play, the exact setting, the exact plot, exactly how NPCs behave and even more.
Let me summarize, if it's rotating DMs with their own campaigns, your group was harsh, at least without further information to explain how said D was a douchey player. If it's the second one, rotating DMs for a single campaign, fair play.
It was mostly a series of micro-campaigns within one world and mostly with the same characters. And the DM in question had kinda been being an ass before, and we had already discussed the fact that he needed to get his act together or he was out. Also with the exception of him we were all pretty layed back about the actual game and just trying to have some fun.

[Threadnaught]

series of micro-campaigns within one world and mostly with the same characters

DM in question had kinda been being an ass before

Fair play then, you're better off without them.

[Firechanter]

To add my two cents about rotating DMs: it can work quite nicely, especially in published settings. In one game, we had a regular DM, who sometimes felt he needed a timeout and then he'd pass the sceptre to me. He typically dmed published modules for us and we switched only after a module was finished. So there wasn't really a "campaign" for the most part, the group just tiggered across Faerun and took on whatever task presented itself.

Except on one occasion, when after we wrapped up an adventure, he slipped me a note with the corner stats of the villain that escaped ("ECL 9 Tiefling Sorcerer" and stuff like that). So over the next two sessions, I had the group track down the villain, from Faerun over the Outlands and Curst all the way to Sigil. They managed to capture him, and take him back to the group's employer. We switched back and forth a couple more times before the game ended.

[Ganorenas]

I was not the DM or a player at the time, but a "power gamer" friend of mine, that truly couldn't optimize his way to tier 1 on a wizard, played a shadow dancer that killed Aeries (sorry of I spell his name incorrectly, the Greek diety of war) through a combination of the following:

Strength damage from wounding weapons
The shadow dancer ability didn't teleport him though shadows, it put him on the plane of shadows. Which made him immune to attacks from those on the material plane.

Combat went like this:

He would shadow jump, hide, sneak attack, sunder the ARMOR, shield, weapons, everything aeries had (who could not retaliate due to lack of knowing he was there.) then fought him and killed him straight up, mono e mono, with wounding weapons (killing him by Str damage).

What I learned:
The DM was lacking in the ability to read diety immunities.
Battle sense, and other sensing abilities were ignored.
Greek dieties cannot seethe future, or plane shift. Or teleport.
Greek dieties stand around while their items are being destroyed.

This player doesn't know how shadows work.
This player didn't point out any of the above, because he also had no idea, and refused to believe he would have lost had the diety been played by someone with a moderate amount of reading skill and an int score.

Wounding weapons pierce diety immunities "because it was all in his stuff"
Sundering armor works. =\



I still laugh to myself, since I DM for him, the day he will challenge a diety I control.


(I understand how it all shouldn't have worked, and pointing these out to him don't help, he is one of those guys that think they rule the game, without true system mastery)

[mishka_shaw]

(I understand how it all shouldn't have worked, and pointing these out to him don't help, he is one of those guys that think they rule the game, without true system mastery)

My god I understand that heh. So many times have I mis-read a rule than said to another player that the fight might of gone worse if done properly and so they should be careful when rushing that type of enemy again. They than go on about "well I would of done this instead" ...I than have to point out how that would of failed too but alas they never listen.

The worst intepretation of the rules so far has been when my friend DM stated that a PC can be intimidated and you HAVE to comply. Granted you can't intimidate someone to jump into lava but if I was told to sheaf my weapon or get off my mount, which would be suicide if I was ambushed after, than I have to comply. Same goes for intimidating loot to yourself. :smallconfused:

Although I myself intepreted a rule wrong when I first started my own campaign. I thought those additional spells per day, from attributes, were not restricted by level. So people with 18 charisma could cast level 4 spells at level 1.
I guess in my defence I eventually read the ruels and fixed it....a year later.

[hymer]

I remember a fellow player who was visibly distraught and a little angry, when he was informed that no, his singleclass Githzerai monk would not end up having a spell resistance of 15+(2*class level). The DM actually felt he should only get the better of the racial SR and Diamond Soul.
It was the same player who was very happy multiclassing as a fighter with his gish. Turned out it wasn't just the advantage of bonus feats - it was the belief that you don't have to live up to the requirements of bonus feats, and he really wanted Improved Precise Shot (or whatever feat it was) now, at level 4.

Edit: He also once asked if he could trade a first level spell slot into a permanent shillelagh spell, though I think that was in 2nd edition. And he had these wonderful ideas about how he would trade away 11th level class features (or somesuch) to very tangible bonuses now at level 2 he'd just got to.
Very... creative. Really a nice guy, though.

[Spuddles]

Well I would expect his voice to have some weight among his peers, though. And when I hear SKR, I primarily think of his personal homepage and the hilarious nonsense he wrote there in full earnest. Really, read it to catch a glimpse of how this man understands the game he has helped write. It may cost some Sanity Points, though.
What's probably taking the cake would be his proposed "feat point system", where just for example he expresses the opinion that Skill Focus is twice as valuable as Quicken Spell.

So, yeah... when I read "SKR", I don't really expect anything more than a facepalm.

Or how, on a ten point system, TWF is 11 points, Great Fortitude is is 10, and Natural Spell is worth 5.

[Venger]

mono e mono

deity rules are awful, but there's no excuse for that

NB: this gave me a great mental image of him beating the tar out of Ares with am amp or a radio or something, or him and Ares dueling on cheap electric guitars.

Mano a mano means "hand to hand" in spanish, with mano being hand (yes, it's "hands: the hands of fate" ) which sounds like what they were doing (somehow)

sundering armor, dude what?

[Razanir]

Me- "Remember Final Fantasy II?"
PC-"Yeah, why?"
Me- "The old man that stares at you disappears from your view, as does everything else."
PC- "What?!"
Me- You're dead, he basically cast 8 Meteos, 2 Nukes, and called Bahamut and Jinn all at the same time. An imp walks up an poops on your charred body. Golbez was the loved child, your father hated you, Rosa was cheating on you....with Kain...and Cid."


I'm sorry to disrupt the topic, but that would really be Final Fantasy 4, they just labelled it as Final Fantasy 2 on Super Nintendo outside of Japan because they hadn't released the others. I realize it doesn't matter, but I'm a FF nerd.:smallsmile:

Gah! I'm playing though that game for the first time! When I saw FFII, I thought it was the actual FFII. The one with the super exploitable leveling system that gave me 3 healers who use unarmed strike so I never need to buy weapons. Or healing potions, for that matter


There's also the fact that a Beholder is a giant floating eye. Its kind of easy to guess where you should stab/bludgeon/blast it. Unless it doesn't have a big eye, then you should hit the little ones.

Legend of Zelda gave me favored enemy: Aberration, I think.

Rule of thumb: Stab it either in the eye, the tail, the flashy spot or the oddly colored spot. Or also the head in older games.


I open up the SRD Hypertext and point to the clause that says that sneak attack works on any creature who is denied a dex bonus to their AC.

According to TV Tropes (I'll find the page later), sneak attacks, by RAW, can give extra healing power to wands of cure spells


So the only thing that changed was that the debate about whether you could stack TWF and FoB was rendered moot, something that no one in their right mind would do anyway.

And the clause about the +5 sai vs unarmed strikes, I thought they were just plain common sense. Now don't get me wrong, this rule still screws over the zen archer, but everything else seems to be how Flurry worked before.

Couldn't you just repeatedly stab the enemy with your magic sai and render this whole debate moot?


OT for great justice:

Heh, fair enough.

If one did, though, perhaps a sort of green?



I ... had not actually thought of that, but oh well, I got no other idea on how to handle that.

OT:
I second this decision to make green the sincerity color.


Or to the Halfling Rogue player: "You actually don't need Open Lock and Disable Device, just take Profession: Locksmith and you're good for both."

Wait. Does this actually work?

[Starbuck_II]

According to TV Tropes (I'll find the page later), sneak attacks, by RAW, can give extra healing power to wands of cure spells



Only to undead as sneak attack increases damage...so CLW can be used for sneak attack on a Skeleton (with Grave Strike spell).

[toapat]

Wait. Does this actually work?

No, and if it was a skill, it would only be +2 synergy or action reduction

[Venger]

you don't need to go to that trouble. rogues all dump wis, profession is difficult to do well in.

just put ranks in DD. the literal first sentence on it in the PHB (p72) says that you can use it to "jam a lock (either in the open or closed position)" if that's not opening a lock... then I don't know what your DM's thinking.

[White_Drake]

You could jam it in its current position, but not into another.

[The Random NPC]

You could jam it in its current position, but not into another.

Ah, but the RAW is you can do either, from either position. And the RAI is Disable Device replaces Open Lock. Also, if you know how to take the lock apart, you should know how to unlock it.

[Venger]

Ah, but the RAW is you can do either, from either position. And the RAI is Disable Device replaces Open Lock. Also, if you know how to take the lock apart, you should know how to unlock it.

yep, basic common sense FTW.

I never make anyone put points into open lock, I tell them straight up that DD does that too, and show them the part in the rulebook where it says so. they appreciate saving the points.

though seriously, if you're starting above 1st, a wand of knock will pay for itself many times over.

[White_Drake]

Huh... The one time I don't put in a qualifier or look up the rules... Still, that's good to know; I'm a fan of rogues.

[ngilop]

there was so much dumb, i could not brain

This has to be the best series of words I have ever seen on GiTP outside of anything debihuman says.. you sure Win the entire forum in my opinion.

[Telok]

Ah, but the RAW is you can do either, from either position. And the RAI is Disable Device replaces Open Lock. Also, if you know how to take the lock apart, you should know how to unlock it.

Cutting open the lock casing and disassembling the mechanisim does not allow anyone to subsequently unlock a similar lock without a key. Think about it this way, with a screwdriver and a wrench set you can disassemble a TiVo but that will not help you program one.


The Disable Device check is made secretly, so that you don’t necessarily know whether you’ve succeeded.

The DC depends on how tricky the device is. Disabling (or rigging or jamming) a fairly simple device has a DC of 10; more intricate and complex devices have higher DCs.

If the check succeeds, you disable the device. If it fails by 4 or less, you have failed but can try again. If you fail by 5 or more, something goes wrong.

The amount of time needed to make a Disable Device check depends on the task, as noted above. Disabling a simple device takes 1 round and is a full-round action. An intricate or complex device requires 1d4 or 2d4 rounds.


Disable Device is not a fool-proof substitute for Open Lock. It takes longer and, even if successful, leaves you with a broken/jammed lock. If you just want to bypass the lock you don't even need Disable Device, a hammer and Power Attack will do just fine. But if you don't want to leave a hole where the lock used to be (assuming that it's not a padlock) or you think that locking the door behind you might be useful then you'll need Open Lock or the appropriate magic ability.

[hymer]

I'm with Telok on this.


Ah, but the RAW is you can do either, from either position.

For a given value of RAW, sure. If they'd used 'into' instead of 'in' I'd have agreed. Can go both ways as it is now, leaning on the intention that 'jam' means 'make stuck where it is'.


And the RAI is Disable Device replaces Open Lock.

Does it really seem that way to you? Because to me it seems quite the opposite. There's all the difference between Intimidate and Diplomacy as far as I can see.


Also, if you know how to take the lock apart, you should know how to unlock it.

Anyone with a big enough hammer can take the lock apart. That doesn't take much knowledge of locks. I can disassemble most of my electronic equipment, but even if I took careful notes, it might not work properly when I've assembled it again. Because I don't know why what goes where or what gets permanently wrecked if I take it apart.
Also Disable Device does not, to me at least, read like an ability used for taking things carefully apart so you can reassemble them later. It's for wrecking things, albeit in subtle ways.

Aside from that, the house rules at our table make OL and DD into a single skill (like MS/Hide and Spot/Listen). So it's not that I disagree with the idea as such.

[Yomega]

Warforged are made of metal so a rust monster completly eats you after 2 rounds 3 if your lucky

[The Random NPC]

I'm with Telok on this.
For a given value of RAW, sure. If they'd used 'into' instead of 'in' I'd have agreed. Can go both ways as it is now, leaning on the intention that 'jam' means 'make stuck where it is'.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this.


Does it really seem that way to you? Because to me it seems quite the opposite. There's all the difference between Intimidate and Diplomacy as far as I can see.

Rules Compendium page 44 says that the only reason we have Open Locks is due to legacy, and suggests you replace it with Disable Device.


Anyone with a big enough hammer can take the lock apart. That doesn't take much knowledge of locks. I can disassemble most of my electronic equipment, but even if I took careful notes, it might not work properly when I've assembled it again. Because I don't know why what goes where or what gets permanently wrecked if I take it apart.
Also Disable Device does not, to me at least, read like an ability used for taking things carefully apart so you can reassemble them later. It's for wrecking things, albeit in subtle ways.

Aside from that, the house rules at our table make OL and DD into a single skill (like MS/Hide and Spot/Listen). So it's not that I disagree with the idea as such.

You can make a DC 20 Disable Device check to disarm and reset a simple trap (note: although the book doesn't say simple trap, it is a DC 25 check to disarm a complex trap). That suggests to me a level of care that would help you take apart a lock and put it back together. Also it requires thieves tools so you'd probably be making the same kind of actions as opening the lock.

[hymer]

@ The Random NPC:

I don't have the Rules Compedium, so I'll have to take your word for that. And, I agree, we disagree. :) Though it's almost entirely academic, of course, the best sort of disagreement.

[The Random NPC]

Yeah, the Rules Compendium is basically errata that you have to pay for, but I find it useful, being the rules lawyer I am.

[javijuji]

My DM Interpreted that the Warlock was able to activate magic items equipped on other people including enemies.

[TuggyNE]

My DM Interpreted that the Warlock was able to activate magic items equipped on other people including enemies.

Necklace of Fireballs: the gift that keeps on giving.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Warforged are made of metal so a rust monster completly eats you after 2 rounds 3 if your lucky

Oh ick :smallyuk: that is a bad one.

Please tell me someone corrected him and/or smacked the taste out of his mouth.

[Starbuck_II]

Oh ick :smallyuk: that is a bad one.

Please tell me someone corrected him and/or smacked the taste out of his mouth.

Don't worry, page 23 of ECS book says he take damage from a Rust monster, 2d6 damage Reflex 1/2 DC 17 (instead of being destroyed like normal metal).

[toapat]

Oh ick :smallyuk: that is a bad one.

Please tell me someone corrected him and/or smacked the taste out of his mouth.


Don't worry, page 23 of ECS book says he take damage from a Rust monster, 2d6 damage Reflex 1/2 DC 17 (instead of being destroyed like normal metal).

Why would composite plated WF be eaten by a rust monster? only their Internal structual skeleton is made of metal, the rest is rope and wood, so why would a rust monster go for the chew disgusting fiber guy instead of the fighter's longsword?

[Starbuck_II]

Why would composite plated WF be eaten by a rust monster? only their Internal structual skeleton is made of metal, the rest is rope and wood, so why would a rust monster go for the chew disgusting fiber guy instead of the fighter's longsword?

I'm guessing it is like metal alloy over wood, so the rust monbster eats the alloy?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Don't worry, page 23 of ECS book says he take damage from a Rust monster, 2d6 damage Reflex 1/2 DC 17 (instead of being destroyed like normal metal).

I know, that's why he can be corrected as well as smacked, instead of just smacked for making a bad houserule.

[toapat]

I'm guessing it is like metal alloy over wood, so the rust monbster eats the alloy?

Composite plating is Bark

[Lord Vukodlak]

Composite plating is BarkNo it isn't, first if you look at the picture of a warforged it clearly has metal on its outer body. And as stated above the campaign setting book says warforged are vunerable to rusting attacks.