DM's liberty of RAW

[hymer]

Some recent threads reminded me of something I read quite a while ago, I expect in some 2nd edition advice to a DM. It was something like this:
If the adventure calls for a prince turned into a frog, you don't have to know specifically which spell the witch used to achieve this effect, just how the effect interacts with the world and what the PCs can do to reverse it.

How do we feel about that in a 3.X game? I mean, some things haven't changed: If the unique effects are made to specifically defeat the PCs' abilities, this is frustrating to the players, at least if it happens much more than once in a blue moon. As such, it should be kept to a minimum.

I have a DM who comes up with all sorts of unique abilities and effects, but he seems to make them up on the fly rather than look for a RAW solution. Say a stone must be rolled aside; this requires four people working together, and all at the same time making a DC 15 str check. Had we been three people, we couldn't possibly have done it, and as per those rules, nobody could do it alone, no matter how strong they were. And, of course, there's no risk of failure. If four players want to get through they will, eventually. The danger is rather that they decide not to endure the rolling (or that they rebel and go in a different direction, I guess).

So where do you guys stand on unique effects? Is it acceptable that, say, someone can move a castle (http://alt.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=270584) with no recourse to spells in existence? That a certain polymorph effect can be cancelled only by the kiss of a princess? How important would it be to you that you could find the specific spell that did that specific thing in a wizard's spellbook somewhere?

[Talderas]

There are more spells than what is listed in the PHB, Spell Compendium, and other books. I believe the DMG or PHB calls out that a player may develop and research a new spell.

[Story]

Well I think you should be careful of abusing it. The rolling stone thing smacks of railroading. Why tell the Barbarian they can't do what they're meant to do?

[Deaxsa]

I try to make sure that my NPCs have a purpose, i try to define them as characters. it can be anything from "this character is a knight of the ice king" to "this character is the embodiment of stealth, avoiding detection at every turn." If the (nonplayer)character's definition ends up as "this character's entire purpose is to completely counter Meztar the wizard, and cause him frustration" THAT is when we have a problem. for instance, say Meztar the wiard is weak to cold energy, and the paladin of the ice king has many cold damage effects. that's fine, if they fight, it's a challenge, but it's a thematic challenge. if the paladin, however, has SR, cold energy up the wazoo, the ability to cast dispel magic as a SLA, etc, then he's not a real character. he's just a counter to Meztar.

So, to answer your question, if the NPC is a real character, or if the magical effect has more uses than "counter Meztar" or "Shut Meztar down," i'll put it into play. sometimes i, as the DM, DO put things in that counter the players, but only if i think they will gain from it(for insstance, needing to use a different tactic than 'we walk in and bash everything until i dies'. if i REALLY wanted to shut down my players, i could just send 6 Solars after them. but that's not the point of DnD, and neither is disallowing the PCs from doing the cool stuff they can do.

[Phelix-Mu]

The degree to which a DM should be resorting to exotic or unique rules is directly in proportion to the skill of the DM. A skilled, experienced DM will be aware that a rules basis for things going on in the campaign will help suspend disbelief, while arbitrary rules for specific situations are likely to be sussed out by players as being arbitrary (like the "four people to roll boulder" example by the OP).

Now, if the DM is skilled, then s/he should feel comfortable to occasionally do something plot-related that is ill-defined by RAW. The skill is necessary because, without a rules basis for this thing, one can't immediately and non-arbitrarily assess the precise interaction of this thing and the nearly infinite variety of things that the PCs could do in relation to the thing.

For instance, an epic curse of some kind has been set upon the kingdom, and now the sun shines for only two hours a day. But this can't be an epic spell, because we don't want any cheesy superb dispelling or similar epic spellcasting cheats to end-run the plot device. So it is some kind of quasi-magical effect that is unique to this situation, well beyond the scope of a 9th level spell.

Given this circumstance, the DM should go to every length to nail down exactly how the curse works. To circumvent the likely party problem-solver trying to bypass the obvious plot-based method to remove the curse, perhaps present three options for removing the curse, two of which are obvious, one of which can be given to any pc with the initiative to do additional research.

In other words, be reasonable and reward the efforts of the players, but don't feel obligated to allow the wizard with max ranks in RAW Mastery to be able to solve the plot device with a single spell, unless this fits the tenor of your game. It is well within the DM's purview to say that something that might normally be a solution is, in this case, not a solution. Epic curses contain clauses against wizards that prepare RAW four times in their 9th level spell slots.

[Flickerdart]

Existing spells define the power of what can be expected for that level in-universe. If a witch turned the prince into a frog, that's a 15th level effect. If that witch then turns out to be a 3rd level caster, it strains credibility, because everyone in the world that can make a Spellcraft check knows that turning people into frogs is an effect that only mages of certain power can achieve. There has to be a compelling reason for why a low-level character has access to this powerful ability.

Similarly, teleporting a castle is a more powerful effect than greater teleport, since even that spell limits you to maximum load for objects. A level 5 wizard moving a castle would also need a very good reason to justify it.

[Actana]

The degree to which a DM should be resorting to exotic or unique rules is directly in proportion to the skill of the DM. A skilled, experienced DM will be aware that a rules basis for things going on in the campaign will help suspend disbelief, while arbitrary rules for specific situations are likely to be sussed out by players as being arbitrary (like the "four people to roll boulder" example by the OP).

Now, if the DM is skilled, then s/he should feel comfortable to occasionally do something plot-related that is ill-defined by RAW. The skill is necessary because, without a rules basis for this thing, one can't immediately and non-arbitrarily assess the precise interaction of this thing and the nearly infinite variety of things that the PCs could do in relation to the thing.

For instance, an epic curse of some kind has been set upon the kingdom, and now the sun shines for only two hours a day. But this can't be an epic spell, because we don't want any cheesy superb dispelling or similar epic spellcasting cheats to end-run the plot device. So it is some kind of quasi-magical effect that is unique to this situation, well beyond the scope of a 9th level spell.

Given this circumstance, the DM should go to every length to nail down exactly how the curse works. To circumvent the likely party problem-solver trying to bypass the obvious plot-based method to remove the curse, perhaps present three options for removing the curse, two of which are obvious, one of which can be given to any pc with the initiative to do additional research.

In other words, be reasonable and reward the efforts of the players, but don't feel obligated to allow the wizard with max ranks in RAW Mastery to be able to solve the plot device with a single spell, unless this fits the tenor of your game. It is well within the DM's purview to say that something that might normally be a solution is, in this case, not a solution. Epic curses contain clauses against wizards that prepare RAW four times in their 9th level spell slots.

This is truth.

One of the main things in these situations is to remember that it's fine, but also to be consistent. If the BBEG uses a baleful polymorph-ish ability on a PC in their first encounter and it's dispelled via Spell X, then Spell X should work each time the ability is used. If the BBEG uses the same polymorph thing on the kingdom's princess, the same spell should work to dispel it. If not, it feels like an arbitrary rail to guide the players with. Of course, you could hint beforehand that the BBEG has found some more powerful spell to cast, or has patched his weakness to Spell X that makes it ineffective this time.

Single solutions to things are also bad. Players are really good at coming up with solutions, and have roughly 4-5 times more brainpower than the GM. If there's a direct obstacle that requires bypassing, having a single solution to it that is custom-made is a bad thing, because players will need to guess what the GM was thinking in that case. Having a more long term solution to a problem is fine, as long as you make it clear to the players of the solution and provide means (directly or indirectly) to achieve it.

A GM should be flexible when it comes to more unorthodox solutions, but also firmly know what works and what doesn't when it comes to custom created content.

[Flickerdart]

"It doesn't work" is a boring answer when someone tries to Remove Curse the curse that was placed on someone. If you have to fiat in order to make solving something a challenge, then it wasn't a challenge in the first place.

[Karoht]

IMO, magic is both too well defined, and too poorly defined, in DnD.

It's too well defined in that if something isn't in a book, it might as well not exist. A spell is well defined and has very specific use, it will always perform that way in every single instance. Fireball will always be fireball. Polymorph is Polymorph and will always behave as such. Random elements to magic don't really exist, because if they did then fewer casters would rely on those spells as effective tools, and would gravitate more towards the ones which do not have such random elements. There are exceptions to all this, Wish being the most well known such example. It has room for random effects, but still has concrete effects which are not really supposed to be messed with.
Such rigid rules are there to enchance the flow of gameplay, and so that magic is an equal-access weapon on both sides of the table, for better or for worse.

Sadly I don't have a quality arguement to back up my opinion that there are instances where magic is poorly defined, if necessary I will come back to this point later.

From a player perspective, the bad guys having access to all my tools is a double edged sword most of the time. I can fire off an uber powerful metamagic version of Disintegrate. Well, so can the bad guys, and there isn't much I can do about it other than strike them first, or try counterspelling and similar effects/counters. I can Celerity and start messing with action economy. So can the bad guys. I can use a Ring of Spell Battle to turn an uber-Disintigrate back on it's caster, no check required. The bad guys can do the same to me.
One could make the analogy of being able to walk into a gun shop and buy a gun in real life, just as easy as a Wizard scribing a spell into a spellbook.

So now we add on the bad guys having unique effects that I can not normally gain access to. It depends on the effect, but I can see why this might be daunting. If it's unique and has a specific counter for plot reasons, then who cares. If it's unique and has a specific counter for purposes of kicking the party in the junk, then we have a bit of a problem. Particularly if the counter is not exactly easy to come by.

Lets go back to the wizards and gunshops example. If we were talking about a world where magic is restricted/rare, therefore finding spells and learning them was difficult enough as is, and suddenly the DM pulls out tools that I can't get access to, or completely unique ones, this feels rather unfair in a hurry. It feels like the guy who goes to the trouble of getting a gun license, can only purchase a bolt action rifle. Meanwhile, the guy who robs a bank is packing an AR-15. When the cops bring out their AR-15's, bank robber busts out a Rocket Launcher.

Then there is sort of the gentlemen's agreements regarding certain effects. IE-Exploding Runes cheese. I don't bust it out at my table, because I don't want the DM busting it out on me, pure and simple. I could carpet bomb whole cities with that effect if I want, there is very little which prevents this. I don't because I know that if it is fair game for me to use, chances are it is fair game for the NPC's to use it too.

It can be done without issue. It can be for balance or thematic reasons. But this is what it feels like. The NPC's are playing by a different set of rules than the PC's. It might lead to problems, it might not be an issue.

Talk to your DM, make sure everyone is on the same page where possible, and be careful where you point that Rocket Launcher.

[Telonius]

Using the "prince to frog" example: well, no, you don't have to explicitly say that the witch is casting Baleful Polymorph to make the effect happen. You're the DM. If you say it happens, it happens.

But. If it's not actually Baleful Polymorph, you ought to know the caster and spell level, what the save DC is (if any), whether or not you want your effect to be dispellable, if an antimagic field will end the effect, if it takes a Break Enchantment or Remove Curse to fix it, if the PCs are going to try to sell the "prince to frog" recipe from the witch's cookbook when they beat her, if it's a one-time-only effect or if the witch can curse people with it as a spell or SLA ... you get the idea.

If you're introducing a new element to the game, you should really have a firm grasp of how it's going to interact with the game's existing mechanics.

[Vorr]

So where do you guys stand on unique effects? That a certain polymorph effect can be cancelled only by the kiss of a princess? How important would it be to you that you could find the specific spell that did that specific thing in a wizard's spellbook somewhere?

I use unique effects all the time and have no problem. Though I'm also an Old School Tyrant Killer DM. It's really not edition specific, it's more just playstlye.

If you play the game ''by the book'', it can get very dull and boring. Oh, the Evil Wizard cast Baleful Polymorph on the Prince Again, well ok then we cast Dispel Magic on the Prince Again. The unique effects can keep the game fun and interesting.

[Flickerdart]

If you play the game ''by the book'', it can get very dull and boring. Oh, the Evil Wizard cast Baleful Polymorph on the Prince Again, well ok then we cast Dispel Magic on the Prince Again. The unique effects can keep the game fun and interesting.
"Wizard turns prince into frog and then leaves" is not, in and of itself, a compelling plot. The ability of the PCs to solve it with spells they have access to is not what makes it so.

[Namfuak]

I think it's been said somewhat in the thread, but my opinion on this is that there are usually ways to create a situation that fall in or at least around the rules. In the example of rolling the rock, it could have been better represented by taking advantage of the aid another rules. So, let's pretend the barbarian has +5 to str, and no one else has anything close. If we set the strength DC at 21, he has a chance to succeed, but it is not that good. If the four party members aid him (+2 to his check if they get above 10), even with +0 strength they will usually get the DC down to 19 or 17, which is much more feasible. This means the barbarian gets to show off his big muscles, while the rest of the party gets to help, and helps keep the verisimilitude. The thing is, they don't necessarily need to know exactly how this works - when you describe what happens, you could say that all of the party members pushed their hardest and the boulder moved - but it makes a lot more sense within the rules.

In a more general sense, when I say falls "at least around the rules," I mean that sometimes to have a good story you have to have some effects or situations that the designers may have not thought of. Traps, for example, are insanely overpriced and I rarely pay attention to their price when I'm using them for a villain's lair. In the case of the frog, saying that the witch (who I'm assuming is a wizard, not a PF witch, because I haven't played PF) cast a custom baleful polymorph that has infinite duration in exchange for a weakness is not such a big deal. Of course, this means that the party should be able to cast dispel magic, or if you want to fluff it as a curse, remove curse and similar, and get rid of it. Once you start saying "no, this is a special curse, spells designed to remove curses can't touch it," you are now breaking verisimilitude.



If you play the game ''by the book'', it can get very dull and boring. Oh, the Evil Wizard cast Baleful Polymorph on the Prince Again, well ok then we cast Dispel Magic on the Prince Again. The unique effects can keep the game fun and interesting.

You can see my post above, but my counterpoint to this is if dispel magic doesn't do what it says it does, what was the point of having it? If you say at the beginning of the campaign "Don't take dispel magic, because I'm going to have you go against spells I've decided are immune to it," then that would be different.

I guess my point would be this - if the players are only allowed to interact with the world in the way you have decided they will, you aren't playing a game with them, you are playing a game with yourself while they watch. Or at best you are telling them a story.

[Darrin]

So where do you guys stand on unique effects? Is it acceptable that, say, someone can move a castle (http://alt.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=270584) with no recourse to spells in existence? That a certain polymorph effect can be cancelled only by the kiss of a princess? How important would it be to you that you could find the specific spell that did that specific thing in a wizard's spellbook somewhere?

Because the system rules and magic in particular is so rigidly defined in D&D, there's a tendency to think of everything in terms of RAW, both from the player standpoint and the DM standpoint. Many groups believe in this so implicitly that it's essentially part of the "social contract" when they sit down to play: the DM will play by the same rules the PCs use, and if the DM violates this, then he's cheating, trying to murder them, ego-tripping, etc. And there's nothing really wrong with approaching the game this way. Many, many exciting and entertaining campaigns are played this way.

The other end of the spectrum isn't any more "wrong", either, where the DM may make up things as he goes along or create plot elements out of thin air that don't follow the rules to create more dramatic tension or to move the story in an interesting direction. Establishing trust between the DM and players may be a little different, but it's just a "different" social contract, not a "wrong" one.

Personally, I favor trying to do everything within a RAW framework simply because I find it intellectually challenging to do it that way. I enjoy pushing RAW into uncomfortable corners and poking holes in it. However, there are times when I need to do something from a plot or story standpoint that blatantly breaks or ignores RAW. For those moments, I do my best to "Lampshade (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LampshadeHanging)" it for the players. I say explicitly, "Look, guys, I'm going to do something here that takes away narrative control from the players, but it's for story reasons, so just let me tell you what happens, and then you can get back to storming the castle." If it's a magical effect I can't replicate with the existing spells, I call it an "Epic Spell" (which is usually my DM codeword for "I'm making this up as I go") and pray that the PCs don't ask too many questions about it. Since I tend to do this to skip the boring stuff and get to the more exciting "PCs get to kill things" parts, I haven't gotten a lot of pushback on "trust" issues.

Obviously, all the other groups out there will do things differently.

[Mnemnosyne]

Custom effects are great and okay, but there's a few things to follow that others have already somewhat mentioned.

1: They should fall within a reasonable power range for their spell level and caster level. Compare to the most overpowered spells if you must, but if a spell effect is so powerful that it's clearly totally out of its league hanging around with every other spell of that level, it needs to be bumped up somewhat.

2: The players should be able to obtain them. If an NPC can create an effect, the players, if they so choose, must be able to also create the same effect. They might have to research it themselves, or interrogate the NPC until he gives it up, or search through the NPC's spellbook. But if an NPC can create an effect, unless we're talking god-level characters, the players should be capable of gaining access to it. Never put something in-game that the players can never have.

3: The one exception to rule 2 is artifacts. Those can break the rules. An artifact can do anything. But artifacts have their price and the wisest thing for a player to do is use the artifact once if absolutely necessary, then either destroy it or bury it somewhere it hopefully won't be found until the end of time.

Let's take the example of a spell that turns someone into a frog permanently. So, we compare to other effects that already exist in-game. We see that Baleful Polymorph does exactly that. However, it's easily removed via dispel magic. If we don't want this to be the case, we need to alter the spell. We can weaken the spell in some manner, while strengthening it on another side, if we want to keep it as a level 5 spell, or if we just want to make it harder to remove, we need to bump up the level.

Let's say we're willing to put some limitations on it. Since it's meant to be used against an enemy, a limitation might be to remove the will save part. The subject, once polymorphed, remains that way, but never loses their memories, etc. Additionally, we could throw in a limitation that doesn't prevent the subject from speaking. This, of course, allows the subject to run off and ask for help. These might justify making it harder to remove - can't be dispelled, needs Remove Curse or perhaps Break Enchantment, for instance.

Alternately, if we just want to make it harder to remove, we might turn it into a curse, only removable by Remove Curse by a caster higher level than the original caster, then we probably need to bump it up to 6th level, at least. Maybe even 7th. If we want it to only be able to be removed by a very specific condition, and not be subject to disenchantment at all, we probably need to bump it to 8th level. If we look at other 8th level spells, we find Binding, which also incapacitates a subject permanently, can be given specific release conditions, and isn't subject to anything less than an antimagic field or Mordenkainen's Disjunction. Sounds like we've found the right level for our 'turn into a frog' spell.

A DM can and should come up with new and unique effects to throw at the players, but he must also make sure these effects fit the appropriate power of the creatures using them, and that the players could theoretically gain access to the same effects if they took the right course of action.

[Vorr]

You can see my post above, but my counterpoint to this is if dispel magic doesn't do what it says it does, what was the point of having it? If you say at the beginning of the campaign "Don't take dispel magic, because I'm going to have you go against spells I've decided are immune to it," then that would be different.

I guess my point would be this - if the players are only allowed to interact with the world in the way you have decided they will, you aren't playing a game with them, you are playing a game with yourself while they watch. Or at best you are telling them a story.

I get this all the time. But you know the amazing thing? Dispel magic, for example, is not a deus ex machina spell. There are dozens and dozens of things that can not be dispelled. This is an official part of the rules. So why does a DM need to say ''oh, remember Dsipel Magic can not dispel everything''? You can't dispel a wall of force, nor can you dispel the frog form curse....it's exactly the same thing.

I guess plying a game has different meanings. And I'm the type that says ''D&D is a unique experience unlike any other game''.

[Urpriest]

A DM making up a novel effect in 3.5 needs to know how it interacts with everything the players could throw at it, because they might. A DM who feels the need to make up a novel effect does so because they don't know how to do what they're trying to do within the rules. Hence they don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of the rules, and unless the PCs are quite limited in power/versatility (low tier, for example), they won't know the interactions of everything the players can throw at a problem, and hence they don't meet the requirements for making up novel effects. Hence, there are very few DMs who can get away with making up novel effects outside of low tier games.

[NichG]

Really the important thing I think is to aim for a consistent feel. That way you can use that feel and variations in it to make a point about the nature or source of various effects and phenomena in the game world, which leads to players being able to use their prior learning to actually figure stuff out about what's going on.

This is the problem with the boulder example - the hard requirement of 'needs 4 people' feels forced to everyone because people are thinking 'what if a dragon tried it? a giant? a mouse?'. That line of thought stems from the design framework of 3.5 where, for the most part, there's shared mechanics for everything in the game. A human and a mouse and a dragon all determine carrying capacity using the same rules, determine their ability to break objects with a Strength check using the same rules, etc, but now there's this boulder which stands out as the one exception so it feels weird.

One way to get around this is to say 'I will only make custom things that fit the game's overall design framework, to avoid this weird feeling'. Thats fine. Another way to do it though is 'I will accept that this feels weird, and will make sure it has an in-campaign reason to be weird'. For the boulder case, I'm pretty sure most such justifications are going to sound forced - a god of teamwork dwells within, etc. But if you make the custom stuff with a particular weirdness in mind then it works better.

For example, lets say you decide that there's some plane where magic is created by people attempting the impossible and miraculously succeeding. The influences of this plane are going to leak into the world in specific places that you want to call attention to. So when PCs are in those places, they find that, say, they can crit succeed and crit fail on skill checks (perhaps to the tune of +40/-40 to the result on a nat 20/nat 1, since they aren't actually on that plane yet). They find crazy stuff that people have exploited this rule to do, such as a pile of twisted and ruined swords and one artifact-level blade being produced in the process, or a room where a bunch of sages have been locked up to desks and are being forced to search for a moment of insight into some cosmic puzzle. Instead of just 'wtf is my DM doing?' it becomes part of the game to actually figure it out. Instead of complete arbitrariness, it has an underlying reason. That reason may not be compelling to the players when they discover it (thats always a risk), but even the existence of a cause or reason for the weirdness makes it feel more fair.

[killem2]

"It doesn't work" is a boring answer when someone tries to Remove Curse the curse that was placed on someone. If you have to fiat in order to make solving something a challenge, then it wasn't a challenge in the first place.

Yeah, see this is where I would ask for a spell craft check to idenfity a constant effect.


And do that for anything you believe there could be a raw solution to it.

I like putting my DM on the spot :). He doesn't BS around, so fiats like that are not his thing, he accounts for the questions from his players.

[TuggyNE]

The degree to which a DM should be resorting to exotic or unique rules is directly in proportion to the skill of the DM. A skilled, experienced DM will be aware that a rules basis for things going on in the campaign will help suspend disbelief, while arbitrary rules for specific situations are likely to be sussed out by players as being arbitrary (like the "four people to roll boulder" example by the OP).

Now, if the DM is skilled, then s/he should feel comfortable to occasionally do something plot-related that is ill-defined by RAW. The skill is necessary because, without a rules basis for this thing, one can't immediately and non-arbitrarily assess the precise interaction of this thing and the nearly infinite variety of things that the PCs could do in relation to the thing.

For instance, an epic curse of some kind has been set upon the kingdom, and now the sun shines for only two hours a day. But this can't be an epic spell, because we don't want any cheesy superb dispelling or similar epic spellcasting cheats to end-run the plot device. So it is some kind of quasi-magical effect that is unique to this situation, well beyond the scope of a 9th level spell.

Given this circumstance, the DM should go to every length to nail down exactly how the curse works. To circumvent the likely party problem-solver trying to bypass the obvious plot-based method to remove the curse, perhaps present three options for removing the curse, two of which are obvious, one of which can be given to any pc with the initiative to do additional research.

I pretty much agree with this; essentially, DM fiating things is limited-use homebrew, which has its own skillset. Not everyone is good at homebrewing, but it's something you can get better at. As long as you're willing to accept that sometimes your homebrew is going to be flawed (and try to improve it), you'll probably be OK.

[Vorr]

A DM making up a novel effect in 3.5 needs to know how it interacts with everything the players could throw at it, because they might. A DM who feels the need to make up a novel effect does so because they don't know how to do what they're trying to do within the rules. Hence they don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of the rules, and unless the PCs are quite limited in power/versatility (low tier, for example), they won't know the interactions of everything the players can throw at a problem, and hence they don't meet the requirements for making up novel effects. Hence, there are very few DMs who can get away with making up novel effects outside of low tier games.

So a DM should never make anything up, but only use things in the rules?

[Morcleon]

So a DM should never make anything up, but only use things in the rules?

No. They should only do it when they have considered practically all the implications of their homebrew for the PCs and for the world as a whole.

[Vorr]

No. They should only do it when they have considered practically all the implications of their homebrew for the PCs and for the world as a whole.

Consider what? What does a Dm need to do?

[Morcleon]

Consider what? What does a Dm need to do?

Consider it's reactions against various abilities that the PCs have. You don't want to throw a monster at them that will completely TPK them or give them something that gives them a large power boost.

...unless, of course, that was your aim. :smallwink:

[Vorr]

Consider it's reactions against various abilities that the PCs have. You don't want to throw a monster at them that will completely TPK them or give them something that gives them a large power boost.

...unless, of course, that was your aim. :smallwink:

Oh, well the average DM can't do worse then Wizards....or most of the 3rd party publishers. How many ''my gosh what were they thinking'' things can you find in the rule books....lol.

I'm a TPK king, Tuckers Kobolds Rule!

[Morcleon]

Oh, well the average DM can't do worse then Wizards....or most of the 3rd party publishers. How many ''my gosh what were they thinking'' things can you find in the rule books....lol.

I'm a TPK king, Tuckers Kobolds Rule!

... >.>

You would be surprised at the stupidity of some people... :smalltongue::smallamused:

The original rules may be screwy, but at least they are (mostly) consistent with each other.

[Vorr]

... >.>

You would be surprised at the stupidity of some people... :smalltongue::smallamused:

The original rules may be screwy, but at least they are (mostly) consistent with each other.

Yea, that's true. I remember the Dreaded Dave DM with Beincia his four armed harlot turned archwizardes who could ''cast four spells a round, one from each hand''.

And poor Dave, Owen drove him crazy by saying his fighter was ''half-human'' instead of ''half-elven''....ah the old days.

[Newoblivion]

Apart from playing 3.5e I also had my share of White Wolf games. And if I took something from those awesome games it must be the Golden Rule.

The rules are what you make of them. The D&D universe is far too big; it can't be reflected accurately in any set of inflexible rules.

In a world of dragons and magic I am sure as hell not going to have the rules of the game tell me what can or can't be done. If I want witches to turn people to frogs in order to create an awesome story then I will do it. In how many published modules we saw special exceptions or made-up rules and artifacts and such? the rules are only guidelines if by ignoring them you are having more fun than by following them then go ahead.

All this taken into consideration I am still quite a rule abiding DM. The reason is that I think it creates consistency. And consistency is something every DM wants. I will never just improvise the a$$ out of an encounter just because I suddenly wish my monsters to shoot lightning from their eyes. Though, I might flatly add extra 10hp to all the monsters in the encounter if I wish it to be more challenging for the group. But mostly if I will change the rules or ignore them then it will be before I will start the campaign, I will decide on those things beforehand.

If WoTC can make black dragons that breath shadow instead of acid for no other reason than to confuse the players or made up many unique demons and devils then I am sure every other DM can twick and change things in his story as long as he is not destroying the fun for the group or change the rules so much that there won't be any system anymore and the players will just feel that they're being cheated on.

[Eugenides]

I feel that I need to throw an opinion in here.

Many people are going the route of "you must have a consistent power level in your universe, and any homebrew that just fiats away easy magic solutions is broken and shouldn't exist." Yes I know, this is an exaggeration, and you didn't really say this. Yes, I also know that a DM saying "because I said so" is one of the ****tiest methods of railroading a plot ever devised.
On the other hand, I feel that magic, in DnD, has evolved to the point where it can sort of make traditional plotlines moot. It doesn't necessarily do this, but there is a part that makes it easy to do so. Feel free to disagree with me here. But honestly, if I want to put my party through say, a modified mines of moria setting, a mage with stoneglide, invisibility and fly makes the entire experience pointless. Yes, it's thinking outside the box using the spells at your disposal, but as a DM, I don't want to spend 4-5 hours devising a dungeon, and then another few hours magic proofing it so that you can actually appreciate the work I put in.

The idea behind DnD is a story. As a DM, it's my job to make the story consistent to itself, and not railroad you into your story. As a player, you should at least try to appreciate the setting I'm giving you, so that your story can be told. If you just scry-dimension door-frag'n'bag, that's no fun for the DM either, because this world I just spent forever creating could have been a grid-mat and some stat blocks for all you care.

So yes, coming up with custom effects is perfectly fine. Don't use them to take away all the options of your players, don't use them to make your mage useless, don't waste player resources needlessly if you are making special rules. (If you don't want the player dimension dooring past your dungeon, it's pretty easy to work in a plot element that lets them know that this particular approach won't work.) Just, be aware of your player base, make sure they're ok with it, and also, perhaps if you feel that it's necessary, there might be some negotiating you can do with your players to minimize your need for it.