Should high spot & listen skills be penalized?

[Gwazi Magnum]

Our DM is putting in a kind of penalty for those who get really good spot or listen skills.

This penalty is pretty much when there is a lot of noise and/or stuff to see their senses get overloaded and it hurts the characters eyes or ears.

His reasoning is that their skills are high because their eyes and ears are better at picking up things and therefore more sensitive.

I've argued that it doesn't work that way and it simply means they are more aware or able to hear things.

But he brushes my arguments aside and insists that it's realistic and more proper to have penalties for listen and spot like this.

Note: He's scaling it by character level too, not just ranks.

So if a Level 1 and Level 6 character each has a listen and spot of 10, the level 1 would have a bigger penalty in this regard.

Essentially he's punishing anything that may boost spot or listen above what the ranks make it, this could be stuff like elf senses, awareness, high wisdom etc.

What do you guys think of this?

[MagnusExultatio]

Absolutely disgusting in every single way possible.

This would of course be slightly more acceptable if he similarly penalizes every single possible bonus if it goes above a certain threshold.

[Sylian]

It's a trained skill. As far as I know, you can't really train your eyes and ears to be stronger, but you can train to notice different things. Now, you could argue that this is the case for certain races with bonuses to spot and/or listen, such as elves.

So yeah, I'd agree with you, he probably shouldn't penalize high spot and listen skills. Perhaps he could create a Trait that gives bonuses to spot and listen but penalties when overwhelmed? That way, you could choose to get bonuses and get more sensitive, or skip the bonuses in order to avoid the sensitivity.

[Gwazi Magnum]

Absolutely disgusting in every single way possible.

This would of course be slightly more acceptable if he similarly penalizes every single possible bonus if it goes above a certain threshold.

He already is penalizing for pretty much every bonus outside of ranks.


It's a trained skill. As far as I know, you can't really train your eyes and ears to be stronger, but you can train to notice different things. Now, you could argue that this is the case for certain races with bonuses to spot and/or listen, such as elves.

So yeah, I'd agree with you, he probably shouldn't penalize high spot and listen skills. Perhaps he could create a Trait that gives bonuses to spot and listen but penalties when overwhelmed? That way, you could choose to get bonuses and get more sensitive, or skip the bonuses in order to avoid the sensitivity.

This I would actually like to see as an option.

However I doubt the DM would accept it.
His logic being that the penalties are 'realistic'

Honestly though I think he's just using this as

1) Another weapon in his aresenal to make a campaign challenging for players without actually having to be creative and clever with monsters and tactics

2) To prevent an awareness munchkin. In our current group we've got an Elven Druid with awareness, max ranks in listen and spot and there is literally nothing she cannot notice.

Note: This penalty rule is not for that group, but a future one starting in a few weeks. Its a different DM for the campaign we have our awareness munchkin in.

[Studoku]

I think that's moronic.

The basic idea of the d20 system is that higher results are better. If your DM chooses to run a game where higher results are worse, he should mention it before the game starts.

What's probably happening is that someone made a spot/listen check that was too good for his DMPC/Ninjas/train. He couldn't handle what might happen if someone saw it so he added this penalty.

[ericgrau]

It's a skill not a superpower. But it figures it would reach this level of absurdity, since DMs tend to think people without spot & listen are blind and deaf.

It's the ability to notice and distinguish, that's it. Think of it more as a distraction filter or a search algorithm (like google; D&D search is another thing), not an amplifier. Special senses are darkvision, low light vision and blindsense. Sometimes these come with light sensitivity in the racial description, but it will say so.

[Gwazi Magnum]

I think that's moronic.

The basic idea of the d20 system is that higher results are better. If your DM chooses to run a game where higher results are worse, he should mention it before the game starts.

What's probably happening is that someone made a spot/listen check that was too good for his DMPC/Ninjas/train. He couldn't handle what might happen if someone saw it so he added this penalty.

It is being announced before it starts, otherwise this thread wouldn't exist.

However it does still mean none of us can make a character that's aware of whats going on without worrying about the DM going 'it's too loud/there's too much to see for you to focus, you cannot complete your action/do what you wanted/etc.'

The group hasn't started yet, but I wouldn't be half surprised if part of the motivation for this is to guarantee stealthy enemies remains stealthy.


It's a skill not a superpower. But it figures it would reach this level of absurdity, since DMs tend to think people without spot & listen are blind and deaf.

It's the ability to notice and distinguish, that's it. Special senses are darkvision, low light vision and blindsense. Sometimes these even come with light sensitivity on the racial description.

Exactly what I've been saying, but he still insists it's 'how sensitive your eyes/ears are'

[MagnusExultatio]

He already is penalizing for pretty much every bonus outside of ranks.

Then I rescind my sarcasm. Your DM is a complete idiot whose sense of reality is completely warped.

[TuggyNE]

High-level fighter: "I roll to hit the orc. 43 vs AC of 13, right?"
DM: "Yeah, but your weapon skill is so great that you realize you shouldn't waste it on this measly orc. You miss."

No, I'm sorry, this just doesn't work; it's nonsensical. Magic, racial abilities, or a mental ability score that make you better at hearing or seeing useful things needn't make you oversensitive. The entire reason Wisdom is tied to those is because you're better at connecting the dots, paying attention, and focusing on relevant stuff.

For that matter, just how high are the penalties, anyway? Dogs, for example, certainly aren't thrilled by really loud noises, but they don't fall over when they hear them, either.

[Spiryt]

I propose Strength, Dexterity and Constitution related checks penalty for a lot of ranks in Knowledge.

After all, someone who knows that much, had to study a lot without much fresh air, exercise and general vigorous activities.

[SiuiS]

It's realistic

There's your problem!

It's more realistic to be a metabolically impossible, neurosystemically impossible übermensch nigh-immortal semi-fairy creature with over sensitive eyes, than without.

Note that I just described an elf. It's more realistic to be a creature which lives for millennia, zones out for a few hours to replenish itself, survives without regenerative capacity on a normal or web limited calorie diet compared to a human of similar mass despite the higher energy expenditure, so long as your eyes are penalized for being sensitive.

Wouldn't want someone to think this was a fantasy game. :smallwink: :smalltongue:


More seriously, this isn't so bad. He penalizes everything outside of actual skill; skill ranks, skill focus I suppose, and you could argue that the wisdom bonus is your mind's ability to parse data not the amount of data taken in.

Point to camouflage and spot. A high spot picks up camouflaged soldier better. But more sensitive eyes actually make it harder for you to realistically Pick out camouflaged soldiers. A colorblind observer has a higher chance of spotting them because they are used to seeing primarily contrast, even though color blindness is less sensitive to color and a less 'efficient' eye system.

[Gwazi Magnum]

For that matter, just how high are the penalties, anyway? Dogs, for example, certainly aren't thrilled by really loud noises, but they don't fall over when they hear them, either.

He hasn't given specifics on that.

And I believe (not 100% sure though) that I had asked for specifics before but he either hadn't had them built yet or he simply didn't want the players to know the specifics.


I propose Strength, Dexterity and Constitution related checks penalty for a lot of ranks in Knowledge.

After all, someone who knows that much, had to study a lot without much fresh air, exercise and general vigorous activities.

To be fair, they already would of had to prioritize Intelligence in favor of other ability scores :P


There's your problem!

It's more realistic to be a metabolically impossible, neurosystemically impossible übermensch nigh-immortal semi-fairy creature with over sensitive eyes, than without.

Note that I just described an elf. It's more realistic to be a creature which lives for millennia, zones out for a few hours to replenish itself, survives without regenerative capacity on a normal or web limited calorie diet compared to a human of similar mass despite the higher energy expenditure, so long as your eyes are penalized for being sensitive.

Wouldn't want someone to think this was a fantasy game. :smallwink: :smalltongue:


More seriously, this isn't so bad. He penalizes everything outside of actual skill; skill ranks, skill focus I suppose, and you could argue that the wisdom bonus is your mind's ability to parse data not the amount of data taken in.

Point to camouflage and spot. A high spot picks up camouflaged soldier better. But more sensitive eyes actually make it harder for you to realistically Pick out camouflaged soldiers. A colorblind observer has a higher chance of spotting them because they are used to seeing primarily contrast, even though color blindness is less sensitive to color and a less 'efficient' eye system.

I think somewhere in your long way of saying an elf I lost track of what you were trying to say.

@Camoflague: Are you stating that being better at seeing should make camoflague harder to see? o.O

[Berenger]

Oh yeah. Great idea. I've got other great ideas:

Jump DC beat by too much? Crush your head on the dungeon ceiling. Instant death.

Maxed Sense Motive? 2d6 WIS drain, cause you look right into the wicked soul of everybody you meet and therefore become depressive.

Too many ranks in Escape Artist? You're so slick, your clothes slip off your body. -10 Diplomacy penalty for running around naked at the king's court.

Seriously, is your DM some wish-twisting djinn or what?

[ericgrau]

Then I rescind my sarcasm. Your DM is a complete idiot whose sense of reality is completely warped.
I've come to accept that everyone has some kind of crazy. Beware those who seem totally normal, it is a veneer covering something far worse. It's all how you handle it.

Talking to him about realism is the wrong approach here, because it's a philosophical debate. First tell him this messes with the system and makes it so people don't want to bother with skills, stealth-nerfing any class that gets them. Second:

The Spot skill is used primarily to detect characters or creatures who are hiding

You need cover or concealment in order to attempt a Hide check...If people are observing you, even casually, you can’t hide.
This solves most spot issues right here. If you aren't making at least 51% (and perhaps 90+%) of your spot checks to find someone who is hiding, then you're doing it wrong. As in physically hiding behind a bush or pillar not video game auto-stealthy even when surprised or after they're found or w/e. Or in this case, not super-seeing something right in front of you, whether that magnifies it to your advantage or blinds you.

The RAW for listen does say quiet noises, so it's harder to make a case for listen beyond "it's a skill not a power".

You could also ask how rangers get big bonuses to some creatures not others if it's really a matter of heightened senses.

The next step for dealing with issues is to either tolerate it and work around it (build a character without them, use divination, etc.) or put your foot down and switch to another DM. I don't think this is a big enough deal for that, so try to get him to stop ruining certain characters but if that fails then stop playing those characters. EDIT @V: And then look at cuddly animals so you feel better.

[Rubik]

Tell the entire group of this, and have them all be blind/deaf/mutes. The entire group, all of them.

You'll get HUGE bonuses to spot/listen/social skill checks!

Also, everyone in the thread: look in the spoiler block in my sig for something relevant. Not really. It's just adorable.

[Ashtagon]

High ranks don't really mean your senses are more acute; it's more like you are better-trained in analysing the information you receive from your sense on the fly.

Contrast this with searching for data using a modern computer database vs. 1940s era index cards. Both contain the same raw data, but the computer is better suited to analysing patterns in that data.

[Gwazi Magnum]

I've come to accept that everyone has some kind of crazy. Beware those who seem totally normal, it is a veneer covering something far worse. It's all how you handle it.

Talking to him about realism is the wrong approach here, because it's a philosophical debate. First tell him this messes with the system and makes it so people don't want to bother with skills, stealth-nerfing any class that gets them. Second:


This solves most spot issues right here. If you aren't making at least 51% (and perhaps 90+%) of your spot checks to find someone who is hiding, then you're doing it wrong. As in physically hiding behind a bush or pillar not video game auto-stealthy even when surprised or after they're found or w/e. Or in this case, not super-seeing something right in front of you, whether that magnifies it to your advantage or blinds you.

The RAW for listen does say quiet noises, so it's harder to make a case for listen beyond "it's a skill not a power".

You could also ask how rangers get big bonuses to some creatures not others if it's really a matter of heightened senses.

The next step for dealing with issues is to either tolerate it and work around it (build a character without them, use divination, etc.) or put your foot down and switch to another DM. I don't think this is a big enough deal for that, so try to get him to stop ruining certain characters but if that fails then stop playing those characters. EDIT @V: And then look at cuddly animals so you feel better.

I've tried explaining that this messes with the system, and with other things he's done too like taking gear away from party members (and for said gear to never be seen from again) and his only response has ever been "If you don't like it then don't play"

Note: For the gear situation, he is stating it will be balanced by higher loot values than usual.


Tell the entire group of this, and have them all be blind/deaf/mutes. The entire group, all of them.

You'll get HUGE bonuses to spot/listen/social skill checks!

Also, everyone in the thread: look in the spoiler block in my sig for something relevant. Not really. It's just adorable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztVMib1T4T4&feature=related

I really wish this would work, but knowing the DM.

He'll just shrug his shoulders (with an evil grin on his face probably) and say it's our fault for not investing anything into spot and listen and then treat us like a bunch of blind/deaf fools being sneak attacked constantly.

[Gwazi Magnum]

High ranks don't really mean your senses are more acute; it's more like you are better-trained in analysing the information you receive from your sense on the fly.

Contrast this with searching for data using a modern computer database vs. 1940s era index cards. Both contain the same raw data, but the computer is better suited to analysing patterns in that data.

If this argument were used, his response would most likely be "How? That's not how senses work. Explain to me how we can 'train' our senses to be that like".

That or shoot it down instantly as being the moans of a player of isn't happy with his DM'ing style.

[Carth]

I've seen and read about a lot of bizarre and hare brained house rules in my years of D&D. And in my years, this makes a good argument for one of the most utterly and incomprehensibly idiotic things that I've ever seen. I'm not being hyperbolic. This really does explore the frontiers of the absolute stupidest.

[Rubik]

I really wish this would work, but knowing the DM.

He'll just shrug with his shoulders (with an evil grin on his face probably) and say it's our fault for not investing anything into spot and listen and then treat us like a bunch of blind/deaf fools being sneak attacked constantly.Say that not having any external senses means you have no distractions, and thus, big bonuses rather than penalties.

If he does that, when he asks for a Spot/Listen/Whatever check, start giving yourselves arbitrarily large bonuses for being incompetent. If he complains, say you're just doing the same thing he is but in reverse.


EDIT @V: And then look at cuddly animals so you feel better.You realize that editing in responses to people's comments before they make them is incredibly rude, yes? The person you're responding to has no chance of ever seeing it unless they reread the thread and happen to see it. The only reason I saw yours is because it was quoted after the fact.

Stop that.


I've tried explaining that this messes with the system, and with other things he's done too like taking gear away from party members (and for said gear to never be seen from again) and his only response has ever been "If you don't like it then don't play"Feel free to walk out, then. He can't play D&D with no players.

[Lord Haart]

and his only response has ever been "If you don't like it then don't play"Seems like a pretty good advice to me. I've got an impression that you've already got a stable group with DMing-in-turns tradition, so sitting down altogether, discussing the matter, proving that everyone else is also unhappy with his rules and staging a coup will be easy-measy. Now finding a new DM is a little bit trickier. The lawful good way is to propose yourself (you have some time to prepare, after all), the evil way is to roll a dice and coercise whomever it indicates into DMing, the way of simple luck is to discover that someone else is already willing to DM and he was just waiting for his turn.

[hymer]

"If you don't like it then don't play"

Well, he gave you the solution right there. Play or don't play. Don't be nasty about it if you choose not to, just thank him for inviting and tell him you're not interested in playing. Say you hope they'll all have a fun game. Don't go out of your way to explain yourself, but if people ask, tell them that the DM's unwillingness to listen to his players is what keeps you from playing.
It is also what's keeping him from improving (which it sounds like he ought to), but pointing that out will likely not be very productive.

[Gwazi Magnum]

Say that not having any external senses means you have no distractions, and thus, big bonuses rather than penalties.

If he does that, when he asks for a Spot/Listen/Whatever check, start giving yourselves arbitrarily large bonuses for being incompetent. If he complains, say you're just doing the same thing he is but in reverse.

You realize that editing in responses to people's comments before they make them is incredibly rude, yes? The person you're responding to has no chance of ever seeing it unless they reread the thread and happen to see it. The only reason I saw yours is because it was quoted after the fact.

Stop that.

Feel free to walk out, then. He can't play D&D with no players.

He'll take that as being stubborn and trying to ruin his campaign.

His arguments for high and low spot and listen checks though...

High: You're too sensitive, you take penalties and are hurt
Low: You chose not to put points there, you're just unaware. Don't expect me to give you freebies

He's been defaulting back to these two all the time.


Seems like a pretty good advice to me. I've got an impression that you've already got a stable group with DMing-in-turns tradition, so sitting down altogether, discussing the matter, proving that everyone else is also unhappy with his rules and staging a coup will be easy-measy. Now finding a new DM is a little bit trickier. The lawful good way is to propose yourself (you have some time to prepare, after all), the evil way is to roll a dice and coercise whomever it indicates into DMing, the way of simple luck is to discover that someone else is already willing to DM and he was just waiting for his turn.

Allow me to explain our group make-up...


Me = I DM'd once before, but it was ended early.
To explain how that ended early, I'll copy the description I just typed 5 minutes ago in another thread.

Note: This is a semi-quick version, if you want more details in a certain are and/or I skipped details somewhere you would like more details in please ask.

Essentially he started with a homebrew race (one I made, but lack of experience made me not relise how broken it was) that allowed him to fly at level 4. He abused this with insane archery to never be hit.

That's the mechanical sabotage. Roleplay wise, they ran into a plot device wizard character (far more powerful than them) and insisted it would be better if the wizard traveled with them. Not understanding (or ignoring) that they as adventurers had done nothing to prove that they were worthwhile enough for him to travel with.

But they keep repeating same arguments such as "He's better with us" when the wizard was leaving to gain reinforcements for a great evil coming, which he cannot do following a group of 4 random people.

They keep trying diplomacy checks and failing (and they weren't even trained in diplomacy to boot) and effectively halted the game refusing to go forward until this insanely powerful wizard joined them, which couldn't happen both mechanic and story reasons.


Getting to the point I had to ask him to leave the room so other players could get a chance to speak and roleplay. He chose to take this as "Kicked out of the group" (and yes, he chose to take it that way, it was well established after the fact he recognized he was only asked to leave the room) and began packing up all the d&d stuff, dice and books included (he technically owned them all having spent the money, the rest of the group was just borrowing them). This brought the group to such a conflict/standstill that the campaign fell apart that moment.

Now note, assuming if I did DM my own campaign he wasn't there so such a case couldn't repeat itself. I have to admit I still rather new to the DM premsie. I'm only good in star wars because I grew up on it. No preperation needed, I know star wars like the back of my hand.

D&D is different however and there's a lot of prep, world building, improvising to do where I don't think I possess enough world and lore d&d knowledge to accomplish at the moment.

Also note I do not mean to speak of this DM as a bad person, he isn't. He is one of my closest friends.

He just happens to be putting in some pretty stubborn and ridiculous rules as a DM and was a really damn disruptive player when I was DM.
But he was sort of treating it as 'revenge' for me ending his last campaign...

Where pretty much what happened there was he was adding similliar rules like being mentioned above the penalized players for the sole purpose of penalizing them. I spoke up about it rather than rolling aside and taking it, and this eventually lead to enough conflict that he lost his patience and quit at DM effectively ending his campaign.


Player A = He is our current DM on the campaign. Not the one who is putting in these rules. The person putting in these rules is taking over as DM once Player A finishes his campaign. He is by far the best DM among us, however he has expressed strong desires to be a player again and he has done such a good job as DM we don't want to deny him that.

Player D = Is currently having issues with violence and controlling his temper as a player.
I made a thread some time ago about a player who got violent at times and threw tantrums when things didn't go his way.
I'd link the thread but the site doesn't let me view previous threads I made and to find it manually would take forever with how fast this board goes.

Edit: I ended up finding it by chance when I sorted the threads by view count out of boredom.

Link is here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=276167) if you want the full story. Short version below otherwise.

On the forum most people suggested to outright remove him, but we are currently working on him fixing his violence in the next few weeks. If that works he will move on to future campaigns where we'll work on his tantrums. (Note: His parents are on board for working on these problems too, it's not just us as a group trying to address them)

Regardless though, even if he does get over his violence and tantrums he still lacks the patience, roleplaying skill and creativity to be a DM atm.

Player E = The person who is taking over as DM and is being discussed now for making rules like listen and spot take penalties

Player L = Is being a DM already, but for a seperate and smaller group.
But he is going with his own homebrew game system in general so it's not d&d anymore.
Also he is aiming for smaller group size so not everyone can join.
Plus he has had attendence issues the past while (hasn't shown up to d&d for the past month)

Player T = A very quiet and not often spoken player. A good roleplayer but she lacks the desire, directness and mechanic knowledge needed to DM campaign.

Player Z = Player for a year, has yet to learn how to level up his character.
Burns a city on fire after drugging their water supply because he was curious.
Enough said.



Well, he gave you the solution right there. Play or don't play. Don't be nasty about it if you choose not to, just thank him for inviting and tell him you're not interested in playing. Say you hope they'll all have a fun game. Don't go out of your way to explain yourself, but if people ask, tell them that the DM's unwillingness to listen to his players is what keeps you from playing.
It is also what's keeping him from improving (which it sounds like he ought to), but pointing that out will likely not be very productive.

He is open on other things though sadly like adding in out of book stuff, other than the whole no-magic like abilities periods deal.
But if I were hypothetically to just quit now and claim it was cause he didn't listen to players, people would think I was just being stubborn.
Maybe if I talked to the players a bit more seperately they'd agree more, but my goal here is not to plot to overthrow the DM behind his back, tell him he can't be DM and possibly destroy a long lasting friendship in the process.

[ericgrau]

I'd agree that an ultimatum is the last resort not the first solution. Talk to him, preferably coming early or staying after, then if that fails you put up with it. Only if it seems like no one is fit to DM in the least, then you push harder for changes mentioning that you're ready to leave, and if that fails you start looking for a new group.

[Berenger]

If this rule is an exception and not an example for his general style of DMing and you don't want to be too harsh about it in RL: is there a way to make it a non-issue ingame?

Riddick-style sunglasses as used by some drow? Wand of [custom-made protection spell]?

[nedz]

Turn it around. Play a caster who specialises in load noises and bright flashy spells. Insist that all of the monsters take a penalty.

[Ashtagon]

If this argument were used, his response would most likely be "How? That's not how senses work. Explain to me how we can 'train' our senses to be that like".

That or shoot it down instantly as being the moans of a player of isn't happy with his DM'ing style.

http://www.hhmi.org/senses/senses.pdf

http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/Development-in-Infancy-and-Childhood.topicArticleId-25438,articleId-25381.html
(under Sensory and perceptual development)

Those two contain information that show that how we process in sensory data in our brain is at least as important as the raw data that our senses actually receive.

[Amphetryon]

Echoing the complaint about the "it's not realistic" argument:

Ask the DM to explain, realistically, how a Druid's Wild Shape ability works. "It's magic" is not a realistic argument, and should be dismissed on those grounds.

If he has no realistic explanation for a Druid's Wild Shape, "it's not realistic" is simply an excuse to penalize non-magical Characters and abilities.

[Krobar]

Make him repeat everything he says in NPC character multiple times. EVERYTHING. "I just can't hear a thing you're saying, between the flies buzzing around, the whispered conversations across the street, the breeze, and all the other background noise, I just can't hear a thing."

This ruling ranks among the stupidest I have ever seen in D&D.

[Namfuak]

If he wants to prevent people from having really hopped up skills, add in diminishing returns, so after say (maxranks*1.5, round up) bonus to a skill, you only get (log(base total bonus*2)(total bonus-(maxranks*1.5))) per bonus point. It's perfectly legitimate to say that at a certain point you have reached a plateau in training, it isn't particularly harsh in my opinion (an elf maxing spot will reach exactly the threshold at first level and never hit it again without other investment), and it works the same way for every skill.

[jokeaccount]

I'm guessing in his world Rogues are hit by passing horses and horse-carts since they are so good at hiding they are invisible to people even when they don't mean to.

[Sylian]

His arguments for high and low spot and listen checks though...

High: You're too sensitive, you take penalties and are hurt
Low: You chose not to put points there, you're just unaware. Don't expect me to give you freebies

He's been defaulting back to these two all the time.What if you got a few skill points in Spot and Listen without maxing the skills, would that work?

[The Trickster]

Concentration: You concentrate so well you forget the outside world exists. You fall into a coma.

Bluff: You are so good at lying, you believe it yourself. You cast Mind Rape on yourself.

Swim: You have gotten so good at swimming from your extensive training. However, you have forgotten how to walk.

Intimidate: You are an incredibly intimidating individual. Everyone is afraid of you. Everyone who sees you has a Phantasmal Killer spell cast on them.

Escape Artist: You can escape binds so easy that even clothing can't keep on you. You are permanently naked.

[The Boz]

That man is an idiot.

[Renen]

If this argument were used, his response would most likely be "How? That's not how senses work. Explain to me how we can 'train' our senses to be that like".

That or shoot it down instantly as being the moans of a player of isn't happy with his DM'ing style.

How? Well, here's how
1) Lvl 1 peasant hears a twig crack. He ignores it.
2)I lvl 20 ranger with 50 ranks in listen hears the same twig "That's a brown bear with an arthritis and an ear infection taking a shi* behind that tree over there.

It really is about analyzing

[Rijan_Sai]

Turn it around. Play a caster who specialises in load noises and bright flashy spells. Insist that all of the monsters take a penalty.

I think I would second this. If it's going to be a "thing" in play, use it to your advantage.

Not necessarily disruptively so, but have a few Ghost Sounds (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/ghostSound.htm) and Dancing Lights (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dancingLights.htm) on hand to keep enemies at bay when they try to Spot/Listen against you.

[Gwazi Magnum]

Turn it around. Play a caster who specialises in load noises and bright flashy spells. Insist that all of the monsters take a penalty.

Non-Magical characters this campaign.
It was originally a player-set restriction so our team isn't overshadowing each other, but now the DM tries to eliminate anything too magical about our players, for no apparent reason.

Note: He is playing a highly technological world... where the power source for everything you can think of is magic.


http://www.hhmi.org/senses/senses.pdf

http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/Development-in-Infancy-and-Childhood.topicArticleId-25438,articleId-25381.html
(under Sensory and perceptual development)

Those two contain information that show that how we process in sensory data in our brain is at least as important as the raw data that our senses actually receive.

This is interesting, I'll try pointing out again that it's analyzing info, not amount of data coming in.


Echoing the complaint about the "it's not realistic" argument:

Ask the DM to explain, realistically, how a Druid's Wild Shape ability works. "It's magic" is not a realistic argument, and should be dismissed on those grounds.

If he has no realistic explanation for a Druid's Wild Shape, "it's not realistic" is simply an excuse to penalize non-magical Characters and abilities.

The 'It's magic' excuse is something he's been enforcing because of a non spell caster restriction the players originally put on themselves to not overshadow one another, but now he's taking it to the point of not wanting magical like abilities period.


Make him repeat everything he says in NPC character multiple times. EVERYTHING. "I just can't hear a thing you're saying, between the flies buzzing around, the whispered conversations across the street, the breeze, and all the other background noise, I just can't hear a thing."

This ruling ranks among the stupidest I have ever seen in D&D.

This does have a good point, but would accomplish nothing outside of pissing him off and making him more angry/annoyed.


If he wants to prevent people from having really hopped up skills, add in diminishing returns, so after say (maxranks*1.5, round up) bonus to a skill, you only get (log(base total bonus*2)(total bonus-(maxranks*1.5))) per bonus point. It's perfectly legitimate to say that at a certain point you have reached a plateau in training, it isn't particularly harsh in my opinion (an elf maxing spot will reach exactly the threshold at first level and never hit it again without other investment), and it works the same way for every skill.

Except it's not for all skills but listen/spot specifically.

But doesn't d&d also have some pretty high DC's for skills where if such a rule was put in it would make many skills far less useful or many tasks that much harder to accomplish?


I'm guessing in his world Rogues are hit by passing horses and horse-carts since they are so good at hiding they are invisible to people even when they don't mean to.

lol


What if you got a few skill points in Spot and Listen without maxing the skills, would that work?

It might, the problem is he won't give specifics so I don't know exactly how much I'd need to be immune to this.


How? Well, here's how
1) Lvl 1 peasant hears a twig crack. He ignores it.
2)I lvl 20 ranger with 50 ranks in listen hears the same twig "That's a brown bear with an arthritis and an ear infection taking a shi* behind that tree over there.

It really is about analyzing

Does get the point across, but he may start to claim it's impossible for people to gain info like that from such a simple sound.

Note: I relize the above is an exaggeration.

[Renen]

A very slight one. A good hunter can leads so much from the sound. Like the weight of the creature, general size, what feet it has etc.

[Amphetryon]

Characters above level 6 (or thereabouts) are already doing things it's basically impossible for real people to do. It's been pointed out around these boards before that the Lord of the Rings saga (possibly excepting Gandalf, who was fundamentally a Plot Device) and the Labors of Hercules both describe appropriate adventures for, at most, 6th level Characters in D&D 3.5.

If the rubric applied is "whether it's possible and realistic in our world," there are many different RPGs better suited to that play style. D&D 3.5 is inherently High Fantasy, High Magic, and shows serious strain trying to conform to a lower-powered set of rules.

[Kornaki]

Ask if you can save skill points after leveling. Don't tell him why, just say you're not sure how you want to spend your skill points yet - and it only hurts you not to spend them, so why would he turn you down?

Put a rank into listen. Bang some pots. Ask if you're disoriented. If not, put a rank into listen. Repeat until you get disoriented. Then everyone else skills up to one fewer modifier in listen.

When you level up, check if the high-listen character still gets disoriented from banging pots. If not, everyone can put a rank into listen, and that guy should put one rank into listen to check the next higher level.

The guy with the highest listen modifier should wear earmuffs at all times to prevent disorientation during combat, driving home the stupidity that the person with the best listen check is the only one who is not rolling listen checks

[thatryanguy]

So let's see if I understand this right.

Enemy assassin is hiding in the shadows, waiting to pounce on the team. He's got a great hide check, so is sitting at DC 35.

Party member rolls a spot check. Again, they have a bunch of ranks in spot, so they roll a 36.

Result: The player sees every single thing around them. The overflow of information shorts out their brain and they pass out on the cobble street. The assassin gets free reign.

This is 100% BS. If a spot or listen check is being required, it's due to a specific event: An enemy moving through the shadows, a monster stepping on a branch, someone crying out at a distance. When the spot/listen check is made, it isn't with the goal of noticing a flea farting on a dog's back 2 blocks away. It's to notice whatever triggered it. The higher the roll, the higher the chance of success.

[JusticeZero]

Why would you worry about whether the GM "thinks you're ruining his campaign" when you are, in fact, doing that by finding another GM? You aren't buying what he's selling. You don't care anymore. That's like a cook saying that you are "ruining their perfect meal" when you don't eat it because it's rotten. You just don't care about the cook's feelings. You aren't the one who ruined it, they are. You're just the link where that knowledge is becoming apparent to them.

[Gwazi Magnum]

A very slight one. A good hunter can leads so much from the sound. Like the weight of the creature, general size, what feet it has etc.

Oddly enough, the person making this rule hunts deer.
But also has bad hearing himself.


Characters above level 6 (or thereabouts) are already doing things it's basically impossible for real people to do. It's been pointed out around these boards before that the Lord of the Rings saga (possibly excepting Gandalf, who was fundamentally a Plot Device) and the Labors of Hercules both describe appropriate adventures for, at most, 6th level Characters in D&D 3.5.

If the rubric applied is "whether it's possible and realistic in our world," there are many different RPGs better suited to that play style. D&D 3.5 is inherently High Fantasy, High Magic, and shows serious strain trying to conform to a lower-powered set of rules.

This I believe I have read before, but d&d does at times need to exercise some realism or players can get away with anything. But this realism necessity is something the DM is twisting for his own use this time around.


Ask if you can save skill points after leveling. Don't tell him why, just say you're not sure how you want to spend your skill points yet - and it only hurts you not to spend them, so why would he turn you down?

Put a rank into listen. Bang some pots. Ask if you're disoriented. If not, put a rank into listen. Repeat until you get disoriented. Then everyone else skills up to one fewer modifier in listen.

When you level up, check if the high-listen character still gets disoriented from banging pots. If not, everyone can put a rank into listen, and that guy should put one rank into listen to check the next higher level.

The guy with the highest listen modifier should wear earmuffs at all times to prevent disorientation during combat, driving home the stupidity that the person with the best listen check is the only one who is not rolling listen checks

Yes we are allowed to save skill points, this was an except house rule variant across all our campaign despite who was DM.

However, this kind of solution is one I can find easily working in a video game.
But in real life all it does is annoy the DM and make him use a 'DM has final say' rule to stop the players.

[ahenobarbi]

I agree it's a poor rule. But don't be a jerk. If you keep complaining about it and making fun of it you probably will ruin everyones fun. Which will have much worse effect on the game than that rule.

[JusticeZero]

That's because he's using an unrealistic, video game rule. And he's being an idiot. There is no reason to humor this level of foolishness.

[Rubik]

If this dipstick isn't the only available DM, just refuse to play with him as DM. Let the current (and actually good) DM have his game for awhile until he's sick of the stupid rulings and gets back into DMing again, and rejoin later.

[Gwazi Magnum]

So let's see if I understand this right.

Enemy assassin is hiding in the shadows, waiting to pounce on the team. He's got a great hide check, so is sitting at DC 35.

Party member rolls a spot check. Again, they have a bunch of ranks in spot, so they roll a 36.

Result: The player sees every single thing around them. The overflow of information shorts out their brain and they pass out on the cobble street. The assassin gets free reign.

This is 100% BS. If a spot or listen check is being required, it's due to a specific event: An enemy moving through the shadows, a monster stepping on a branch, someone crying out at a distance. When the spot/listen check is made, it isn't with the goal of noticing a flea farting on a dog's back 2 blocks away. It's to notice whatever triggered it. The higher the roll, the higher the chance of success.

This is a very valid point I should bring up with him.


Why would you worry about whether the GM "thinks you're ruining his campaign" when you are, in fact, doing that by finding another GM? You aren't buying what he's selling. You don't care anymore. That's like a cook saying that you are "ruining their perfect meal" when you don't eat it because it's rotten. You just don't care about the cook's feelings. You aren't the one who ruined it, they are. You're just the link where that knowledge is becoming apparent to them.

I'm not looking for another DM.

People suggested it and I replied hypothetically as to how that might work and why doing so would be hard, but I am not actually looking to replace him as DM. Unless if the entire group agrees he is being unreasonable with these rules and making it too hard to enjoy.

However, all the players outside of one are those who would rather stick to core because it is easier for them and it's what they already know. So they tend not to concern themselves with d&d topics and conflicts like this.

Plus, we've got an issue with another play at the moment who has shown issues with violence and tantrums and are currently working on fixing that, with a risk of him not being able to play if it isn't fixed. The last thing they want is conflict with another person as well.

[Gwazi Magnum]

I agree it's a poor rule. But don't be a jerk. If you keep complaining about it and making fun of it you probably will ruin everyones fun. Which will have much worse effect on the game than that rule.

I do agree, but I part of the reason I made this thread is to find some good reasons to nip this bud before it becomes a giant problem in the campaign if possible and I have been given some points so far.

However, those fail to work I will end up dropping it so I don't end up killing the campaign by complaining about it.


If this dipstick isn't the only available DM, just refuse to play with him as DM. Let the current (and actually good) DM have his game for awhile until he's sick of the stupid rulings and gets back into DMing again, and rejoin later.

I don't plan on leaving atm.

But if he enforces these kinds of rules enough and/or gets overly aggressive/defensive with his rulings with stuff like "don't argue me", "I'm the DM" or "If you don't like it, don't play" then honestly he will be showing he hasn't learned from the last campaign where it under partially because he made rules that punished the players too much for no good reason and I'll end up leaving then just to avoid a repeat of the situation.

[Rubik]

You've already admitted that the guy is a seriously poor DM that ruins everyone else's fun on purpose. Don't play with him. You'll always have later games, and if he throws a tantrum just tell him that you don't have fun in his campaigns because of his stupid and arbitrary rulings that you tried to talk him out of in the first place. If he still throws fits about it, ignore him and move on. There'll always be later games.

[Gwazi Magnum]

You've already admitted that the guy is a seriously poor DM that ruins everyone else's fun on purpose. Don't play with him. You'll always have later games, and if he throws a tantrum just tell him that you don't have fun in his campaigns because of his stupid and arbitrary rulings that you tried to talk him out of in the first place. If he still throws fits about it, ignore him and move on. There'll always be later games.

You're thinking of two (maybe three) seperate people here.

Player E = The DM in question who puts in these rules, a number of which seem to have little purpose outside of penalize players in the name of challenge or realism

Player L = The other for the smaller non d&d group DM where as a player likes to annoy the others

Player D = The one who will throw tantrums when things don't go his way or is dealing with too big of a challenge.

[ahenobarbi]

That's because he's using an unrealistic, video game rule. And he's being an idiot. There is no reason to humor this level of foolishness.


If this dipstick isn't the only available DM, just refuse to play with him as DM. Let the current (and actually good) DM have his game for awhile until he's sick of the stupid rulings and gets back into DMing again, and rejoin later.


You've already admitted that the guy is a seriously poor DM that ruins everyone else's fun on purpose. Don't play with him. You'll always have later games, and if he throws a tantrum just tell him that you don't have fun in his campaigns because of his stupid and arbitrary rulings that you tried to talk him out of in the first place. If he still throws fits about it, ignore him and move on. There'll always be later games.

Yes, it may be a good idea to not play in this game (it's for OP to decide). I'm just pointing that if OP decides to play in the game it's a bad idea to be a jerk.

EDIT: And insulting people is probably against rules.

[Rubik]

You're thinking of two (maybe three) seperate people here.

Player E = The DM in question who puts in these rules, a number of which seem to have little purpose outside of penalize players in the name of challenge or realism

Player L = The other for the smaller non d&d group DM where as a player likes to annoy the others

Player D = The one who will throw tantrums when things don't go his way or is dealing with too big of a challenge.By your description of him, he fits in the same mold.

[Pesimismrocks]

There are two problems as I see it. The first is the DM. Not to sound repetitive but the best thing is to talk to him or if he is a dictator, leave.

The ither problem is the system. Trying to make things realistic in D&D is near impossible, not because of the fantasy setting, but because of rules there are hundreds of rule fails thanks to RAW and you can't fix most of them. You need to talk to your DM about RAW and common sense. Check out the dysfunctional handbook post for examples. Skills in particular are badly done as ranks are fat more important than ability score and random chance us above that. I've seen a wizard leap a chasm to see a monk with 10 ranks fall to his death. I'm writing a new skill system in homebrew which may help with this although raw will always be there.

[Gwazi Magnum]

By your description of him, he fits in the same mold.

He doesn't throw tantrums, he is just very headstrong/stubborn about things at times.

Granted I am the same way, but in this case the situations where he's being headstrong about are with the very rules you guys are tearing apart right now.

There's only two cases of him playing as an annoying player...

1. When I DM'd an earlier campaign and he played a character with the sole purpose of sabotaging/trolling it, seeing it as 'revenge' for 'killing' his earlier campaign. Where I had spoken up about other rules screwing players over such as

-Your eye is removed from torture, divide accuracy in half
-That clothing you found and put on? It's magic and lights you on fire for damage. Want to take it off? Take shock damage... it's still on.

2. In our current campaign, but that PC is now dead.
But he had made a lawful good character in a group of evil characters.
Granted he didn't know we were making evil characters, but the way he took it after was the guy would always run around trying to foil the group plans with stuff like trying to trap them in a pot. Which although was in character, you can clearly tell from the way he was acting OOC was mainly doing it to screw the evil guys over for ****s and giggles.


There are two problems as I see it. The first is the DM. Not to sound repetitive but the best thing is to talk to him or if he is a dictator, leave.

The ither problem is the system. Trying to make things realistic in D&D is near impossible, not because of the fantasy setting, but because of rules there are hundreds of rule fails thanks to RAW and you can't fix most of them. You need to talk to your DM about RAW and common sense. Check out the dysfunctional handbook post for examples. Skills in particular are badly done as ranks are fat more important than ability score and random chance us above that. I've seen a wizard leap a chasm to see a monk with 10 ranks fall to his death. I'm writing a new skill system in homebrew which may help with this although raw will always be there.

I admit d&d 3.5 isn't the best system and I highlighted this to the whole group before. But they don't want even want to change d&d editions let alone tabletop RPs in general because they want to stick with what they know.

[Another_Poet]

In real life, people become better at seeing or hearing things by paying better attention - blind people, for example, don't actually have more sensitive ears, they simply focus more on the sounds around them.

So I disagree with your DM on every possible level - it's a bad mechanic for all the reasons pointed out above, and it doesn't even make sense.

[Yogibear41]

By this rule all hawks are blind because their eye sight is too good, and all bats are deaf because of their amazing sonar, but then since they are blind and deaf they can actually see and hear better because they take penalties to spot and listen.

And then an endless loop of paradoxes happen unraveling the multiverse.....

[Gwazi Magnum]

In real life, people become better at seeing or hearing things by paying better attention - blind people, for example, don't actually have more sensitive ears, they simply focus more on the sounds around them.

So I disagree with your DM on every possible level - it's a bad mechanic for all the reasons pointed out above, and it doesn't even make sense.

This is also a pretty good point.

[Jeff the Green]

1. When I DM'd an earlier campaign and he played a character with the sole purpose of sabotaging/trolling it, seeing it as 'revenge' for 'killing' his earlier campaign. Where I had spoken up about other rules screwing players over such as

-Your eye is removed from torture, divide accuracy in half
-That clothing you found and put on? It's magic and lights you on fire for damage. Want to take it off? Take shock damage... it's still on.

I was all on board with the "don't quit, just make him see that his rule is ridiculous" argument. But with this, I think he's doing it just to be an ass. There is no way playing with this guy is going to be a good experience. He needs to be booted from the group ASAP, not just made not-DM.

[Gwazi Magnum]

I was all on board with the "don't quit, just make him see that his rule is ridiculous" argument. But with this, I think he's doing it just to be an ass. There is no way playing with this guy is going to be a good experience. He needs to be booted from the group ASAP, not just made not-DM.

He has been a good player in our current campaign.
To suddenly turn around and kick him out for something a year ago would be unfair, expecially something the rest of the group doesn't feel like blaming anybody for.

Also we already have an issue with another player possibly having to be removed if he can't fix his violence issues. So even if anyone wanted to remove the guy we're discussing us (and none of us do), it wouldn't work out well. We'd be tearing our group apart.

Also he is my friend, just a friend who can be controlling and power hungry when it comes DM'ing.

[Gildedragon]

Have you, as a friend, talked to him about the issues and that his rules make the game unfun?
This is the sixth thread about this group I've seen posted. The answer is really simple: the DM is an utterly bad one, provided you have not prevaricated, change DMs or leave.

[Fouredged Sword]

There is a chart for this

Listen DC Modifiers
Listen DC
Modifier Condition
+5 Through a door
+15 Through a stone wall
+1 Per 10 feet of distance
+5 Listener distracted

If there is a loud and or otherwise important distraction it modifies the DC for ALL people attempting to beat the DC of the check.

Yes an assassin can sneak up better if you are watching a street performer, but he can do so regardless of your ranks. There should be a flat environmental penalty for distraction across all characters to account for ambient noise/lights. A quiet forest is easier on the ears than a crowded street.

Point out that, if fact, there are rules for that already, and ask to play the game that is written, not the game that is in his head.

[Amphetryon]

He doesn't throw tantrums

OP,
Making a Character with "the sole purpose of sabotaging/trolling [the campaign] for. . . revenge for killing his earlier campaign" is a form of throwing a tantrum because he didn't get his way. You may choose to forgive this behavior, but you should see it for what it is.

[Gwazi Magnum]

Have you, as a friend, talked to him about the issues and that his rules make the game unfun?
This is the sixth thread about this group I've seen posted. The answer is really simple: the DM is an utterly bad one, provided you have not prevaricated, change DMs or leave.

I have tried.

They are what get one of the following responses:

"If you don't like it then don't play"
"Don't argue me"

[Gwazi Magnum]

There is a chart for this

Listen DC Modifiers
Listen DC
Modifier Condition
+5 Through a door
+15 Through a stone wall
+1 Per 10 feet of distance
+5 Listener distracted

If there is a loud and or otherwise important distraction it modifies the DC for ALL people attempting to beat the DC of the check.

Yes an assassin can sneak up better if you are watching a street performer, but he can do so regardless of your ranks. There should be a flat environmental penalty for distraction across all characters to account for ambient noise/lights. A quiet forest is easier on the ears than a crowded street.

Point out that, if fact, there are rules for that already, and ask to play the game that is written, not the game that is in his head.

It's not just distraction though, he also means stuff like there's too much noise, you're eyes and ears hurt.


OP,
Making a Character with "the sole purpose of sabotaging/trolling [the campaign] for. . . revenge for killing his earlier campaign" is a form of throwing a tantrum because he didn't get his way. You may choose to forgive this behavior, but you should see it for what it is.

Googled it's exact definition.

Tantrum isn't really the word to use, he didn't have a tantrum but I do admit the behavior was not sportsman like.

[Renen]

Have you tried putting him out of his misery? He seems to be a close minded jackass who can't DM, and doesn't care to improve. I hope to god you make him read these threads, and record his reaction to show us :-)

[Karnith]

I have tried.

They are what get one of the following responses:

"If you don't like it then don't play"
"Don't argue me"
Does the rest of your group see this phenomenally stupid rule (or any of the others, for that matter) as a problem? And have they talked with him about it?

[Gildedragon]

I have tried.

They are what get one of the following responses:

"If you don't like it then don't play"
"Don't argue me"

Then don't play either by walking or taking over as a DM. Voila.
If the game is unfun there's no point in playing outside of socialization
and there's a world of things to do to socialize with friends
actually with such an antagonistic mentality it might be best to use a more rules heavy, explicitly antagonistic system
Descent or other boardgames in their ilk feel like D&D but let the DM-type player be really opposed to the players.

[ellindsey]

As I get older, my hearing is starting to go. (Too much time spend working on noisy industrial equipment without hearing protection when I was younger). In D&D terms, my Listen checks have a penalty. The main effect of this is not that faint sounds are harder to hear, but that it's harder for me to make out what someone is saying when there is a lot of background noise. Having good hearing is not just a matter of hearing everything, it's also a matter of being better at picking out one sound from a noisy background. Someone with a better Listen skill should therefore be more immune to noisy backgrounds, not less. Your DM is an idiot.

[Gwazi Magnum]

Does the rest of your group see this phenomenally stupid rule (or any of the others, for that matter) as a problem? And have they talked with him about it?

I'm not 100% sure they're even aware of this rule yet.
I only found out early because I spend so much time working on characters (note: My own, for fun. Not those the DM uses) that it came out in conversation while talking with the DM.


Then don't play either by walking or taking over as a DM. Voila.
If the game is unfun there's no point in playing outside of socialization
and there's a world of things to do to socialize with friends
actually with such an antagonistic mentality it might be best to use a more rules heavy, explicitly antagonistic system
Descent or other boardgames in their ilk feel like D&D but let the DM-type player be really opposed to the players.

Issue here is we have a player who has issues with throwing legit tantrums and getting violent when things get too hard or don't go his way. It's being worked on as a group effort between the group and his parents but if we were to throw him into something more brutal, it would be suicide.

Though Decent the DM in question has already bought and me and him have played a bit already. But he keeps winning because he insists he's allowed to use all the monsters on the map before I even get there allowing him to kill vital characters, and prevent me from completing objectives.

He also never bothers telling me the winning and losing conditions, and then get's annoyed when I ask for them.

[Emmerask]

Our DM is putting in a kind of penalty for those who get really good spot or listen skills.

This penalty is pretty much when there is a lot of noise and/or stuff to see their senses get overloaded and it hurts the characters eyes or ears.

His reasoning is that their skills are high because their eyes and ears are better at picking up things and therefore more sensitive.

I've argued that it doesn't work that way and it simply means they are more aware or able to hear things.

But he brushes my arguments aside and insists that it's realistic and more proper to have penalties for listen and spot like this.

Note: He's scaling it by character level too, not just ranks.

So if a Level 1 and Level 6 character each has a listen and spot of 10, the level 1 would have a bigger penalty in this regard.

Essentially he's punishing anything that may boost spot or listen above what the ranks make it, this could be stuff like elf senses, awareness, high wisdom etc.

What do you guys think of this?

He should just properly use the distance rules for spot and listen.

Per 10 feet of distance -1 (penalty on the roll)

With these (core none optional) rules in play spot and listen become pretty worthless anyway except for extreme optimization :smallbiggrin:

Want to spot something 100m away? yes thats a 32 points penalty on your roll, have fun with it :smallwink:

[Gwazi Magnum]

He should just properly use the distance rules for spot and listen

Per 10 feet of distance -1 (penalty on the roll)

With these (core) rules in play spot and listen become pretty worthless anyway except for extreme optimization :smallbiggrin:

Want to spot something 100m away? yes thats a 32 penalty on your roll, have fun with it :smallwink:

How?

That would make our only obstacle distance.

[Juntao112]

Want to spot something 100m away? yes thats a 32 points penalty on your roll, have fun with it :smallwink:
How dare you bring the metric system into this? How dare you?

[Emmerask]

How?

That would make our only obstacle distance.

Distance is pretty much the most important part in noticing an ambush...
what difference does it make if you "spot" the ambush when the trap has pretty much already sprung :smallbiggrin:

If he doesn´t like your heroes spotting something that practically is in front of their noses then....
he has some issues I guess :smallbiggrin:


How dare you bring the metric system into this? How dare you?

damn, I mean 328.08399 feet of course!!!!

[Gwazi Magnum]

Distance is pretty much the most important part in noticing an ambush...
what difference does it make if you "spot" the ambush when the trap has pretty much already sprung :smallbiggrin:

But -1 per 10ft?

Maybe I'm too used to our awareness munchkin in our group but those penalties seem minimal.

[Killer Angel]

I have tried.

They are what get one of the following responses:

"If you don't like it then don't play"
"Don't argue me"

I'm sorry, but with this attitude, logical arguments are worthless, and arguing is simply a loss of time.

[Emmerask]

But -1 per 10ft?

Maybe I'm too used to our awareness munchkin in our group but those penalties seem minimal.

Well its a nice bonus they get, remember you would also need to beat their hide check to actually see the ambush.

So if the ambushers have something like +5 (circumstance bonus etc in hide) and put themselves in a semi circle 90 feet away from the ambush spot
the groups "spotter" would need to beat a 5 + d20 while having a -9 penalty himself and that is only to see the ambush in the zone where the ambush should happen, more if he wants to see the ambush beforehand.

For a seasoned veteran that is pretty easy but for a level 3 who maybe has 14 in spot it would mean a 50:50 chance ^^

And the higher the level the better the hide will become negating a lot of the additional skillpoints spend.

[The Boz]

But -1 per 10ft?

Maybe I'm too used to our awareness munchkin in our group but those penalties seem minimal.

If I'm reading you right, you seem to be worried about walls and such. There are rules out there (can't be bothered to go look right now) that list sypical materials for walls and such and list a "counts as X distance" per Y of thickness.

[Gildedragon]

Though Decent the DM in question has already bought and me and him have played a bit already. But he keeps winning because he insists he's allowed to use all the monsters on the map before I even get there allowing him to kill vital characters, and prevent me from completing objectives.

He also never bothers telling me the winning and losing conditions, and then get's annoyed when I ask for them.

...There's a rulebook for that. -sigh- I think that that that is proof enough to stop playing with this fellow

[Amphetryon]

the DM in question has already bought and me and him have played a bit already. But he keeps winning because he insists he's allowed to use all the monsters on the map before I even get there allowing him to kill vital characters, and prevent me from completing objectives.

He also never bothers telling me the winning and losing conditions, and then get's annoyed when I ask for them.The next time he starts to set up a map for an encounter, preemptively congratulate him on victory and announce that his bad guy(s) killed your Character. Tell him congratulations, and walk away.

From everything I've read of your descriptions of his DMing style, he runs games merely to stroke his own ego. Tell him he's won, and move on.

[Phelix-Mu]

So, if the enemies get the penalties to perception checks (after all, that would also be realistic), then make a stealth character?

I'd be interested to know how the DM will rationalize other nerfs to other high skills.

You hide too well...no one EVER sees you. (sounds pretty nice)

You lie too well. You can no longer distinguish lies from the truth. (- 1000 to Sense Motive)

You think too well...your brain rejects reality on the premise that it is unrealistic. Permanent microcosm effect.

It's not a good house rule. The DM has every tool of optimization that players have++. Circumstance bonuses/penalties alone pretty much allow the DM to arrange whatever plot device he or she needs. This penalty to Spot/Listen just seems like D-grade hackery.

[Worira]

So, if the enemies get the penalties to perception checks (after all, that would also be realistic), then make a stealth character?

I'd be interested to know how the DM will rationalize other nerfs to other high skills.

You hide too well...no one EVER sees you. (sounds pretty nice)

You lie too well. You can no longer distinguish lies from the truth. (- 1000 to Sense Motive)

You think too well...your brain rejects reality on the premise that it is unrealistic. Permanent microcosm effect.

It's not a good house rule. The DM has every tool of optimization that players have++. Circumstance bonuses/penalties alone pretty much allow the DM to arrange whatever plot device he or she needs. This penalty to Spot/Listen just seems like D-grade hackery.

A good collection of these. (http://macromeme.com/cat/roll-20.png)

[nedz]

Turn it around. Play a caster who specialises in load noises and bright flashy spells. Insist that all of the monsters take a penalty.Non-Magical characters this campaign.
It was originally a player-set restriction so our team isn't overshadowing each other, but now the DM tries to eliminate anything too magical about our players, for no apparent reason.

Yeah — I hadn't read the other thread when I typed this. It was good advice, except for the following.

I'm not sure we can help you: Your DM appears to be broken.:smallsigh:

[Arbane]

Characters above level 6 (or thereabouts) are already doing things it's basically impossible for real people to do. It's been pointed out around these boards before that the Lord of the Rings saga (possibly excepting Gandalf, who was fundamentally a Plot Device) and the Labors of Hercules both describe appropriate adventures for, at most, 6th level Characters in D&D 3.5.

I know it's terribly off-topic, but Heracles HELD UP THE SKY so Atlas could take a break. I don't think that's just a DC 30 Strength check....




They are what get one of the following responses:

"If you don't like it then don't play"
"Don't argue me"

Nice of him to state the obvious and simple solution up-front.

If you masochistically insist on trying to play in his game (which I don't recommend), get EVERYONE to make a stealthy character. This stupid houserule will vanish like the morning dew. :smallwink:


A good collection of these. (http://macromeme.com/cat/roll-20.png)

Those are great.

I've only seen one game with a workable 'you succeed TOO HARD' rule, and that was Teenagers From Outer Space, which was INTENDED as comedy.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Is this the same DM from your thread looking for a noncasting mental ability score using core classes only thread?

I was struggling to not tell you to just find another game in that thread as it was. DM is completely wrong and sounds like a huge control freak. Find a better game...

[Raven777]

This reaches levels of stupid on par with healing spells blowing people up (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=279678).

[nedz]

I was expecting threads about how wonderful monks were today, instead we get threads about defective DMs.:smallbiggrin:

[Juntao112]

Of course success should be punished. Inequality leads to dissatisfaction. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron)

[Twilightwyrm]

What I am about to say is kind of beside the point, and doesn't actually make your DM a more reasonable person, so let me just say for the record that this is some of the most unreasonable, unrealistic, crap I have ever heard of a DM attempting to pull, and you need to call him out on it. Why? Try this: If this is an attempt at adding realism, and not just a ploy to protect his stealthy enemies, why in the blood-soaked, disease-ridded, bone-charring hell is the penalty scaling with the person's level? A 10th level Fighter with no ranks in Spot will, all things being equal, have the same sight as a 1st level Fighter with no ranks in Spot. Why the hell do they suffer different penalties? Ask him to explain JUSTIFY that, in realistic terms. Now then:
If your DM is being moronic by trying to penalize Spot/Listen as a means of keeping stealthy foes stealthy, then the fairly simple approach is to simply circumvent this limitation; simply access to the Charm Person Spell/Invocation/SLA and some skill ranks give you access to the Mindbender PrC. You can then use the 100ft Telepathy to (in addition to the normal advantages of telepathy) pick up the Mindsight feat. Congratulations, you now find the foes whether the DM wants you to or not, assuming they are within 100ft. of your location. The thing is, penalizing the player's is a really crap way of keeping your stealthy foes stealthy, as overcoming their Spot/Listen is generally much easier than trying to overcome their other detection methods, detection methods I should add, that they will resort to if you penalize Spot/Listen.
Incidentally, how exactly does this work in the case of Spot, exactly? I can kind of understand your ears being "overloaded" with excessive sound, but your eyes don't get "overloaded" with excessive color. Sure, when something is shining brightly you can see as well, but there is already a -2 to -10 circumstance penalty for that. So what scenario does he envision this occurring in? Because even the most sensitive of human eyes does get "overloaded" during the normal course of the day. I just don't see how enemies could use this to their advantage. I mean, under this system you would, quite possibly, have a better chance of avoiding a Balor's sight by dressing in the shiniest, most multicolored, vibrant armor you could find, since it would give the Balor a massive penalty to spot, in addition to your current hide skill. Hell, the same would work for noise: you would literally be better off creasing in the loudest, most deafeningly obnoxious armor you could find to avoid a Balor hearing you, than silent boots and quiet clothing.

[chainlink]

Also he is my friend, No. No he is not. Look up the definition of friend.

[Juntao112]

You can then use the 100ft Telepathy to (in addition to the normal advantages of telepathy) pick up the Mindsight feat. Congratulations, you now find the foes whether the DM wants you to or not, assuming they are within 100ft. of your location.
"Your mind is overwhelmed by the telepathic chatter of the crowd. Take 2d6 Wisdom damage."

[Raven777]

"Your mind is overwhelmed by the telepathic chatter of the crowd. Take 2d6 Wisdom damage."

This thread has already drained all my Wisdom. I fall comatose, drooling.

[TuggyNE]

"Your mind is overwhelmed by the telepathic chatter of the crowd. Take 2d6 Wisdom damage."

Someone forgot their Dark Orchid text!

[Karnith]

Someone forgot their Dark Orchid text!
Is that the GitP standard for terrible DMing now? And shouldn't it be Comic Sans'd, too? You'll need to update your sig if it is.

[crayzz]

Dogs have a much better sense of smell than us and yet are capable of shoving their face in fresh poop without caring. Most bats are almost blind, yet get very disoriented by light.

The thing is, being sensitive does not equate to being fragile. It just means we see or hear or whatever at a better resolution. A massive amount of raw, blinding light will blind almost anyone by scarring retinal tissue. Better vision is just having more active retinal tissue, regardless of it's ability to be scarred or damaged. In fact, most animals with good eyesight also have the biological infrastructure for protecting those eyes from damage. The same goes for hearing.

Also, see if you can go to a library and get a copy of Carl Sagan's "Demon Haunted World". At one point, it describes a tribe in Africa that was able to recognize individual footprints, and accurately predict how long ago that person had passed by*. Literally. They could, at a glance, notice the unique characteristics of a foot print, then identify the owner and the time frame through which the owner passed by. All with regular human vision. This ability was great for tracking, and was their main tactic when hunting.

Not only is it possible to train ones eyesight, there have been entire civilizations dedicated to doing so. See if your GM can argue around that.

*Footprints decay at a reliable rate. The technique used was similar to the how geologists identify the age of craters; basically, the more the walls caved in and the print flattened out, the older it was.

[Gwazi Magnum]

Well its a nice bonus they get, remember you would also need to beat their hide check to actually see the ambush.

So if the ambushers have something like +5 (circumstance bonus etc in hide) and put themselves in a semi circle 90 feet away from the ambush spot
the groups "spotter" would need to beat a 5 + d20 while having a -9 penalty himself and that is only to see the ambush in the zone where the ambush should happen, more if he wants to see the ambush beforehand.

For a seasoned veteran that is pretty easy but for a level 3 who maybe has 14 in spot it would mean a 50:50 chance ^^

And the higher the level the better the hide will become negating a lot of the additional skillpoints spend.

Yea, I can see how it adds up. I remove my earlier statement.


If I'm reading you right, you seem to be worried about walls and such. There are rules out there (can't be bothered to go look right now) that list sypical materials for walls and such and list a "counts as X distance" per Y of thickness.

No, the penalty for 10 ft just seemed small to be at first, but the above post corrected me on the matter.


...There's a rulebook for that. -sigh- I think that that that is proof enough to stop playing with this fellow

To be fair, I read through it again myself.

There were one or two things he either missed or ignored, but the rule book is brief and skips a lot of details.
I personally couldn't find anything that argued for or against what he does.


The next time he starts to set up a map for an encounter, preemptively congratulate him on victory and announce that his bad guy(s) killed your Character. Tell him congratulations, and walk away.

From everything I've read of your descriptions of his DMing style, he runs games merely to stroke his own ego. Tell him he's won, and move on.

I should clarify since reading my earlier post I may of mis-worded it, he's not doing it before I get my guys on the board. But monsters all the way on the other side of the map will at turn 1 start killing civilians.


I know it's terribly off-topic, but Heracles HELD UP THE SKY so Atlas could take a break. I don't think that's just a DC 30 Strength check....




Nice of him to state the obvious and simple solution up-front.

If you masochistically insist on trying to play in his game (which I don't recommend), get EVERYONE to make a stealthy character. This stupid houserule will vanish like the morning dew. :smallwink:



Those are great.

I've only seen one game with a workable 'you succeed TOO HARD' rule, and that was Teenagers From Outer Space, which was INTENDED as comedy.

He and I both watch a series called Counter Monkey runned by spoony.

If he's been learning anything like that he'll know not to make his rolls public so we won't be able to know if he's adding the penalties or not, and he most likely will only look out for penalties for us. If we bring it up he'll probably find a reason the enemies don't get the penalty which boils down to "They were smart enough not to be somewhere to be effected".


Is this the same DM from your thread looking for a noncasting mental ability score using core classes only thread?

I was struggling to not tell you to just find another game in that thread as it was. DM is completely wrong and sounds like a huge control freak. Find a better game...

Yes this is the same DM.


What I am about to say is kind of beside the point, and doesn't actually make your DM a more reasonable person, so let me just say for the record that this is some of the most unreasonable, unrealistic, crap I have ever heard of a DM attempting to pull, and you need to call him out on it. Why? Try this: If this is an attempt at adding realism, and not just a ploy to protect his stealthy enemies, why in the blood-soaked, disease-ridded, bone-charring hell is the penalty scaling with the person's level? A 10th level Fighter with no ranks in Spot will, all things being equal, have the same sight as a 1st level Fighter with no ranks in Spot. Why the hell do they suffer different penalties? Ask him to explain JUSTIFY that, in realistic terms. Now then:
If your DM is being moronic by trying to penalize Spot/Listen as a means of keeping stealthy foes stealthy, then the fairly simple approach is to simply circumvent this limitation; simply access to the Charm Person Spell/Invocation/SLA and some skill ranks give you access to the Mindbender PrC. You can then use the 100ft Telepathy to (in addition to the normal advantages of telepathy) pick up the Mindsight feat. Congratulations, you now find the foes whether the DM wants you to or not, assuming they are within 100ft. of your location. The thing is, penalizing the player's is a really crap way of keeping your stealthy foes stealthy, as overcoming their Spot/Listen is generally much easier than trying to overcome their other detection methods, detection methods I should add, that they will resort to if you penalize Spot/Listen.
Incidentally, how exactly does this work in the case of Spot, exactly? I can kind of understand your ears being "overloaded" with excessive sound, but your eyes don't get "overloaded" with excessive color. Sure, when something is shining brightly you can see as well, but there is already a -2 to -10 circumstance penalty for that. So what scenario does he envision this occurring in? Because even the most sensitive of human eyes does get "overloaded" during the normal course of the day. I just don't see how enemies could use this to their advantage. I mean, under this system you would, quite possibly, have a better chance of avoiding a Balor's sight by dressing in the shiniest, most multicolored, vibrant armor you could find, since it would give the Balor a massive penalty to spot, in addition to your current hide skill. Hell, the same would work for noise: you would literally be better off creasing in the loudest, most deafeningly obnoxious armor you could find to avoid a Balor hearing you, than silent boots and quiet clothing.

It only scales with level in the sense of if it's invested.

Example:

Fighter 1 and 10 with spot 0 each, no difference.

Ranger 1 and 10 with spot 25, Ranger 1 has more penalties.

Reason being Ranger 1 has 9 less levels to invest ranks into so he must be using more modifiers like elven senses, wisdom, alertness etc to make himself 'extra sensitive'.

As for your magic advice, this is a non-magic spell using campaign. I made another thread that explains how that works right here. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=15098911#post15098911)


No. No he is not. Look up the definition of friend.

He is a friend, a close friend.

But I've found DM'ing or being in any overlord/story teller position in a game brings out his ugly side, fast.


Dogs have a much better sense of smell than us and yet are capable of shoving their face in fresh poop without caring. Most bats are almost blind, yet get very disoriented by light.

The thing is, being sensitive does not equate to being fragile. It just means we see or hear or whatever at a better resolution. A massive amount of raw, blinding light will blind almost anyone by scarring retinal tissue. Better vision is just having more active retinal tissue, regardless of it's ability to be scarred or damaged. In fact, most animals with good eyesight also have the biological infrastructure for protecting those eyes from damage. The same goes for hearing.

Also, see if you can go to a library and get a copy of Carl Sagan's "Demon Haunted World". At one point, it describes a tribe in Africa that was able to recognize individual footprints, and accurately predict how long ago that person had passed by*. Literally. They could, at a glance, notice the unique characteristics of a foot print, then identify the owner and the time frame through which the owner passed by. All with regular human vision. This ability was great for tracking, and was their main tactic when hunting.

Not only is it possible to train ones eyesight, there have been entire civilizations dedicated to doing so. See if your GM can argue around that.

*Footprints decay at a reliable rate. The technique used was similar to the how geologists identify the age of craters; basically, the more the walls caved in and the print flattened out, the older it was.

The dog argument is a good point too, but he may state that's dogs not people.

For the tribes, that is very interesting to know.
But in terms of d&d he's already labeled anything remotely like that under survival and track.

[nedz]

Someone forgot their Dark Orchid text!Is that the GitP standard for terrible DMing now? And shouldn't it be Comic Sans'd, too? You'll need to update your sig if it is.

I'm sorry we cannot help you, your DM is broken.

[metabolicjosh]

My dad is nearly deaf, yet he can listen better then anyone i know.... so its a skill not a trait

[Twilightwyrm]

"Your mind is overwhelmed by the telepathic chatter of the crowd. Take 2d6 Wisdom damage."

Which doesn't work unless they also have the telepathy ability. Otherwise, connecting to a none telepath is entirely optional.

[Gwazi Magnum]

My dad is nearly deaf, yet he can listen better then anyone i know.... so its a skill not a trait

I wish I knew someone in real life like that to point to as an example in this case.

[crayzz]

For the tribes, that is very interesting to know.
But in terms of d&d he's already labeled anything remotely like that under survival and track.

But he's trying to be realistic. He's saying that having better eyesight directly correlates with having more sensitive and fragile eyes. Yet we have a tribe that is able to notice details we simply can't, which is what it actually is. Using that talent makes tracking people easier, sure. But it's separate from tracking in and of itself. One could conceivably be able to recognize footprints, but be terrible at tracking them.

The point is, irrespective of D&D rules, we had (the tribe no longer exists) a tribe who was able to see details we never could, simply by training to look for them. Same information input, totally different sight. His house rule contradicts reality in several ways.

[Gwazi Magnum]

But he's trying to be realistic. He's saying that having better eyesight directly correlates with having more sensitive and fragile eyes. Yet we have a tribe that is able to notice details we simply can't, which is what it actually is. Using that talent makes tracking people easier, sure. But it's separate from tracking in and of itself. One could conceivably be able to recognize footprints, but be terrible at tracking them.

The point is, irrespective of D&D rules, we had (the tribe no longer exists) a tribe who was able to see details we never could, simply by training to look for them. Same information input, totally different sight. His house rule contradicts reality in several ways.

Good points, might be something I want to state too to him if I get a time to list some of the issues with his house rule you guys came up with, and you've all came up with a lot.

[TuggyNE]

Is that the GitP standard for terrible DMing now? And shouldn't it be Comic Sans'd, too?

Comic Sans is only for if it's really really bad. Like Comic Sans is. :smalltongue:

[Twilightwyrm]

It only scales with level in the sense of if it's invested.

Example:

Fighter 1 and 10 with spot 0 each, no difference.

Ranger 1 and 10 with spot 25, Ranger 1 has more penalties.

Reason being Ranger 1 has 9 less levels to invest ranks into so he must be using more modifiers like elven senses, wisdom, alertness etc to make himself 'extra sensitive'.

As for your magic advice, this is a non-magic spell using campaign. I made another thread that explains how that works right here. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=15098911#post15098911)


So...it is only added bonuses? Does it only penalize up to the bonus, or does it penalize further? (For instance, if say, the penalty exceeded the bonuses somehow, would it subtract from the total, or would the penalty cap at the amount of bonus is was penalizing?) This...almost makes even less sense. This would imply that, under loud circumstances, a person with no WIS modifier, can hear just as well, if not better, than someone with a high WIS. How in the bloody hell does that make sense? What, the sound is overloading your mind now?
This also does not explain the issue with spot.

[Gwazi Magnum]

So...it is only added bonuses? Does it only penalize up to the bonus, or does it penalize further? (For instance, if say, the penalty exceeded the bonuses somehow, would it subtract from the total, or would the penalty cap at the amount of bonus is was penalizing?) This...almost makes even less sense. This would imply that, under loud circumstances, a person with no WIS modifier, can hear just as well, if not better, than someone with a high WIS. How in the bloody hell does that make sense? What, the sound is overloading your mind now?
This also does not explain the issue with spot.

He isn't giving out specifics, so I can only make estimates in this case.

If the penalty was bigger than the bonus, I assume it would turn into a negative.

However, with how he explains it being slapped with a negative is probably lucky, with the other option being, you hurt too much and are stunned and/or can't make the check at all.

Wisdom would probably be related too, more sensitive hearing somehow.

This rule seems to put more emphasis on listen than spot, at least from what I've heard. But spot may get similliar things such as colour, sight, brightness overload etc.

[JusticeZero]

You have no responsibility to stay in this group. None at all.

You say you don't know other people to play with. I suggest you try harder.

[Gwazi Magnum]

You have no responsibility to stay in this group. None at all.

You say you don't know other people to play with. I suggest you try harder.

How exactly?
I'm not really eager to join people I barely know or don't even know.

D&D is something I like to play with friends.

[chainlink]

Free yourself. It's not as hard as you would think. When you look back on things, removing yourself from a bad situation brings peace and perspective. Do it. Meeting new people is good.

[JusticeZero]

"Bob gets mad sometimes and punches us in the face. He broke someones nose last week. Katie insults everyone and screams in their face about how awful they are for the whole session. And Jack always steals from everybody. But they're awesome friends and I can't imagine being in a better group!"

Seriously, you can do better. You can do better on accident. Any random group of people will almost certainly have a better group dynamic than you are depicting.

[Rubik]

Issue here is we have a player who has issues with throwing legit tantrums and getting violent when things get too hard or don't go his way. It's being worked on as a group effort between the group and his parents but if we were to throw him into something more brutal, it would be suicide.If you have a player who is already having violence issues, inserting him as a player in a game with the current DM is NOT going to help things in the least.

Hell, I think it would make most of the Playgrounders pretty darned violent, and we're a pretty easygoing bunch.

You can't have slaughter without laughter, after all.

[Kazyan]

Gwazi, I'm in a group that could use another player. It's running over roll20, a very easy and free virtual tabletop. We're currently level 34 gestalt with all the insanity that implies, and we're nowhere near strong enough to beat the BBEG. Interested? If so, I'll see if the DM is interested. :smallsmile:

[crayzz]

I'm kinda curious; short of training, how does your GM think your spot and listen skill is supposed to increase? Someone actively pumping those skills is going to get much better very quickly; fast enough that "the eyes/ears are more sensitive" just doesn't make sense. I don't even think it's possible to make your eyes and ear more sensitive. In game, you're only able to increase your strength every 4 levels, and muscle mass is something that's relatively easy (provided you're willing to sweat) to gain in real life.

[Arbane]

If he's been learning anything like that he'll know not to make his rolls public so we won't be able to know if he's adding the penalties or not, and he most likely will only look out for penalties for us. If we bring it up he'll probably find a reason the enemies don't get the penalty which boils down to "They were smart enough not to be somewhere to be effected".


So, he's a cheater on top of being a bad GM. GREAT!


He is a friend, a close friend.

But I've found DM'ing or being in any overlord/story teller position in a game brings out his ugly side, fast.

Then do both of you a favor and NEVER LET HIM GM.


If you have a player who is already having violence issues, inserting him as a player in a game with the current DM is NOT going to help things in the least.

I've got to agree, here. Unless you REALLY want to come back here with a Lanky-level bad game story one day, finding another playgroup might be a good idea for your health.

[Rubik]

I've got to agree, here. Unless you REALLY want to come back here with a Lanky-level bad game story one day, finding another playgroup might be a good idea for your health.Well, having a violence-prone player who gets easily frustrated would be a good way to get rid of a lying, cheating, player-screwing DM.

Pretty morally repugnant and dangerous for everyone involved, but...

[Arcanist]

If he's been learning anything like that he'll know not to make his rolls public so we won't be able to know if he's adding the penalties or not, and he most likely will only look out for penalties for us. If we bring it up he'll probably find a reason the enemies don't get the penalty which boils down to "They were smart enough not to be somewhere to be effected".

This is the straw, that broke the camels back for me. Leave the group. I assure you that you will be so much better off in the long run. Applying penalties and ignoring them for no reason is ridiculous, childish and something else I can't say on the forum...

[StreamOfTheSky]

If you have a player who is already having violence issues, inserting him as a player in a game with the current DM is NOT going to help things in the least.

Well, it could lead to a memorable "game from hell" post or series of posts. So, at least there's that.

[nedz]

Well, it could lead to a memorable "game from hell" post or series of posts. So, at least there's that.

That's a very good point.

My advice to the OP is to stay with this group (you are going to anyway) and report back on all the crazy DMing stuff. You could become a legend.

(Should the above be in blue ? Probably)

[VanIsleKnight]

Training yourself to make better 'spot' and 'listen' checks doesn't mean you're making your eyes/ears stronger or more delicate. It means you're actively training yourself to be more -aware- (Wisdom) of what your brain is processing. Like Sherlock Holmes (a big influence for this post), who could notice a crapton of details that were in plain sight and were excessively obvious to him, but everyone else just didn't recognize or realize what they were looking at or listening too.

My friend spent a fair amount of time working private security, and had to go on an extensive tour through a large area, twice, and then report what he had noticed was different between Trip 1 and Trip 2. There was apparently over a hundred different things, and most people only ever spotted 15-20 of them. He spotted almost 80, and that was because he actively trained himself to pay more attention to his surroundings. He also happened to be a fan of Sherlock Holmes and took the phrase "You see, but you do not observe. The distinction is clear" to heart.

I myself am used to working and living in areas where I have to tune out a lot of excessive background noise, and focus in on a particular person or audio playing. When I was younger I used to try to listen to different conversations in the cafeteria because I was a big fan of Sherlock Holmes and wanted to see if it was possible to clearly listen to one noise/conversation over a dozen or more others. I was successful about half the time.

Neither my friend nor myself are trained adventurers, as far as I'm aware neither of us have received any special training. We just both happened to be fans of the same fictional literary character whose powers of observation were fantastical.

There -are- ways, supernatural and magical, that improve the eyesight and hearing of an individual in the game. I believe there are also specifically mentioned rules for dealing with over stimulation of those senses. To claim that having a lot of (trained) ranks or high ability score for skills will somehow makes your body more vulnerable to the very thing you are trained to do is ludicrous and asinine.

This is not making the game more realistic, nor is it making the game more fun for anyone. It's an arbitrary penalty for an arbitrary reason that has no legitimate or justifiable reason to exist. If the DM doesn't like one or more players noticing things all the time, the DM should make use of situations, gear, or NPCs that are better at stealth. At the very least use red herrings, so that the PC's think they're on to something when in reality it's just a trap.

I mean, that, or have recurring/intelligent NPCs that will report back to the Big Bad Evil Guy or suitable Overlord the apparent strengths and weaknesses of the PC's so that they can plan accordingly.


I'm going to assume dropping this DM isn't an option, so instead hopefully some sort of growth/learning process can happen and they can become a better DM. Not everyone is going to be awesome at it, given the stupid amount of rules, houserules, errata, and online disputes about all of those things that exist.

[Gwazi Magnum]

Gwazi, I'm in a group that could use another player. It's running over roll20, a very easy and free virtual tabletop. We're currently level 34 gestalt with all the insanity that implies, and we're nowhere near strong enough to beat the BBEG. Interested? If so, I'll see if the DM is interested. :smallsmile:

I should note I have yet to play in a campaign as a Gestalt or as someone above level 17.

And in that level 17 example he's pure strength and melee where the group doesn't clue on that simple fliers and archers can stop him, even when I outright state "You know, something that flies or has a bow could be pretty dangerous for us right now".

So I'm doubting I'll be able to keep up with you guys.
But that being said it could be an interesting experience to learn more so if you don't mind someone falling flat on his face a fair amount to keep up with all the insane builds going on I think I might take you up on that offer. :)


I'm kinda curious; short of training, how does your GM think your spot and listen skill is supposed to increase? Someone actively pumping those skills is going to get much better very quickly; fast enough that "the eyes/ears are more sensitive" just doesn't make sense. I don't even think it's possible to make your eyes and ear more sensitive. In game, you're only able to increase your strength every 4 levels, and muscle mass is something that's relatively easy (provided you're willing to sweat) to gain in real life.

Yet another good point I should mention to him, god damn this list is getting big! XD


That's a very good point.

My advice to the OP is to stay with this group (you are going to anyway) and report back on all the crazy DMing stuff. You could become a legend.

(Should the above be in blue ? Probably)

Ehhh.... maybe.

But it mind end up being too stressful to be worth it.
I already do have a decent amount of messed up stories to share already.
Probably not that different from anything you guys have already seen on this site or been through yourselves, but amusing none the less. Like the one time we killed a red dragon at level 3... :smallbiggrin:


Training yourself to make better 'spot' and 'listen' checks doesn't mean you're making your eyes/ears stronger or more delicate. It means you're actively training yourself to be more -aware- (Wisdom) of what your brain is processing. Like Sherlock Holmes (a big influence for this post), who could notice a crapton of details that were in plain sight and were excessively obvious to him, but everyone else just didn't recognize or realize what they were looking at or listening too.

My friend spent a fair amount of time working private security, and had to go on an extensive tour through a large area, twice, and then report what he had noticed was different between Trip 1 and Trip 2. There was apparently over a hundred different things, and most people only ever spotted 15-20 of them. He spotted almost 80, and that was because he actively trained himself to pay more attention to his surroundings. He also happened to be a fan of Sherlock Holmes and took the phrase "You see, but you do not observe. The distinction is clear" to heart.

I myself am used to working and living in areas where I have to tune out a lot of excessive background noise, and focus in on a particular person or audio playing. When I was younger I used to try to listen to different conversations in the cafeteria because I was a big fan of Sherlock Holmes and wanted to see if it was possible to clearly listen to one noise/conversation over a dozen or more others. I was successful about half the time.

Neither my friend nor myself are trained adventurers, as far as I'm aware neither of us have received any special training. We just both happened to be fans of the same fictional literary character whose powers of observation were fantastical.

There -are- ways, supernatural and magical, that improve the eyesight and hearing of an individual in the game. I believe there are also specifically mentioned rules for dealing with over stimulation of those senses. To claim that having a lot of (trained) ranks or high ability score for skills will somehow makes your body more vulnerable to the very thing you are trained to do is ludicrous and asinine.

This is not making the game more realistic, nor is it making the game more fun for anyone. It's an arbitrary penalty for an arbitrary reason that has no legitimate or justifiable reason to exist. If the DM doesn't like one or more players noticing things all the time, the DM should make use of situations, gear, or NPCs that are better at stealth. At the very least use red herrings, so that the PC's think they're on to something when in reality it's just a trap.

I mean, that, or have recurring/intelligent NPCs that will report back to the Big Bad Evil Guy or suitable Overlord the apparent strengths and weaknesses of the PC's so that they can plan accordingly.


I'm going to assume dropping this DM isn't an option, so instead hopefully some sort of growth/learning process can happen and they can become a better DM. Not everyone is going to be awesome at it, given the stupid amount of rules, houserules, errata, and online disputes about all of those things that exist.

The DM in question is actually a very big Sherlock holmes fam so thank you very much for this example! :)
I might try using this relation with him and see if that changes anything.

Though note guys, even if the listen/spot rule is gone there's still the other big things that can cause conflict such as

-Lose your gear constantly, and never see it again
-No magic, period outside of say magic swords
-Any other realism rule he may add later and state 'don't argue me' or 'leave if you don't like it'

[Namfuak]

Though note guys, even if the listen/spot rule is gone there's still the other big things that can cause conflict such as

-Lose your gear constantly, and never see it again
-No magic, period outside of say magic swords
-Any other realism rule he may add later and state 'don't argue me' or 'leave if you don't like it'

Since your world still has magic people, but just PCs can't use it, take leadership and get an artificer cohort. Alternatively, become good friends with the wizard that runs the local magic-mart.

As for the third thing, it seems like you are expecting conflict. Knowing all the other stuff about your group, I think I have to put myself firmly in the "You should get out while you can" camp. However, if you don't, please do tell us when the violent guy throws a tantrum at some asinine houserule your DM makes up. I imagine it will be a funny story.

[Gwazi Magnum]

Since your world still has magic people, but just PCs can't use it, take leadership and get an artificer cohort. Alternatively, become good friends with the wizard that runs the local magic-mart.

As for the third thing, it seems like you are expecting conflict. Knowing all the other stuff about your group, I think I have to put myself firmly in the "You should get out while you can" camp. However, if you don't, please do tell us when the violent guy throws a tantrum at some asinine houserule your DM makes up. I imagine it will be a funny story.

Cohort is a loophole I know the DM won't allow and the other players will be as betrayal.

Friends with local wizard though? That's something I could do.

If I do end up staying and something humurous or big happens I will share, but we're trying to work with Player D to not have his violent issues and I'd rather not be unsupportive and laugh when at his failed attempts

Side note: If anyone has noticed I refer to everyone as 'Player __' note I am not one of those people paranoid that giving out names online leads to stalkers and pedophiles (though the DM in question is like that, not wanting his first name ever stated in a minecraft lets play he tried to make). I just refer to them as 'player __' because most situations I end up sharing aren't funny ones and I doubt they want themselves related to that throughout the internet so I respect their privacy.

I have no issues giving out my name however, it's Anthony to anyone who might be curious.

[Kazyan]

I should note I have yet to play in a campaign as a Gestalt or as someone above level 17.

And in that level 17 example he's pure strength and melee where the group doesn't clue on that simple fliers and archers can stop him, even when I outright state "You know, something that flies or has a bow could be pretty dangerous for us right now".

So I'm doubting I'll be able to keep up with you guys.
But that being said it could be an interesting experience to learn more so if you don't mind someone falling flat on his face a fair amount to keep up with all the insane builds going on I think I might take you up on that offer. :)

I'll talk to the DM and see what happens! :smallbiggrin: Don't worry about only being familiar with melee, because it's coming back into its own. I'm playing a Bardblade//Glaivelock which is melee + melee, and could use an ally who doesn't have the glaring weak spots of the other two characters. Harm-focused Duskblade//"Inverted" Radiant Servant of Pelor, and a Nercomancer//Druid build. There's a little hombrew going on here, yeah. Both of those two really struggle against anything with Death Ward or immunity to negative energy. Honestly, sword-to-the-face is becoming the most reliable way to actually beat monsters at these levels, despite the tier system. Epic is weird. Epic with Immortal's Handbook opponents is weirder.

You will have a preposterous amount of wealth to buy flight and immunities with our liberal use of the custom item rules; I can make a shopping list for you to cover all of your bases and not be overwhelmed by the planetoid of platinum you'd otherwise have to spend.

[Regitnui]

At the risk of contributing to the discussion, I'm going to see if I can't come up with an alternative to that 'plan'.

How would a DM realistically foil a high Spot or Listen stat? Illusionists. Ghost Sound is one spell I can think of that can fool a Listen check. Simply have the enemy/ies use Ghost Sound to mask their approach. This works better the more famous the PCs are, because then people likely to come up against them would know that x-player can see you coming, and plan accordingly.

Challenge smarter, not harder.

[Gwazi Magnum]

I'll talk to the DM and see what happens! :smallbiggrin: Don't worry about only being familiar with melee, because it's coming back into its own. I'm playing a Bardblade//Glaivelock which is melee + melee, and could use an ally who doesn't have the glaring weak spots of the other two characters. Harm-focused Duskblade//"Inverted" Radiant Servant of Pelor, and a Nercomancer//Druid build. There's a little hombrew going on here, yeah. Both of those two really struggle against anything with Death Ward or immunity to negative energy. Honestly, sword-to-the-face is becoming the most reliable way to actually beat monsters at these levels, despite the tier system. Epic is weird. Epic with Immortal's Handbook opponents is weirder.

You will have a preposterous amount of wealth to buy flight and immunities with our liberal use of the custom item rules; I can make a shopping list for you to cover all of your bases and not be overwhelmed by the planetoid of platinum you'd otherwise have to spend.

Honestly, I think I'm more at risk of being overwhelmed by build options than by items.
But yes, items would get insane too.

Assuming your DM says yes, can I have a general idea of when this group will be happening on?
Also what manuals/books are allowed? What about manuals not made by Wizards like the AEG books?

I also might need some help with setting up proper immunities to status's and proper ways to deal with certain magical creatures. I've read a good amount of d&d and how that works, but none of my groups have actually put anything like that into practice so I not really sure how to set up something like that.


At the risk of contributing to the discussion, I'm going to see if I can't come up with an alternative to that 'plan'.

How would a DM realistically foil a high Spot or Listen stat? Illusionists. Ghost Sound is one spell I can think of that can fool a Listen check. Simply have the enemy/ies use Ghost Sound to mask their approach. This works better the more famous the PCs are, because then people likely to come up against them would know that x-player can see you coming, and plan accordingly.

Challenge smarter, not harder.

This I would applaud him for doing, being able to psych/trick the DMs.

But sadly his idea of this is having us put on clothing, have it go on fire everyday damaging us, we can't heal it and can't take it off.

Note: His only pre-warning of this was a debatable whisper he declared. Debatable because no one there outside of him recalls any prior warning that it was a death sentence.

[Kazyan]

I'll get back to you on this after I get home and contact the DM. This will all be simpler than you think if the character is focused, and I can help.

[Gwazi Magnum]

Alright, thanks. :)

[Killer Angel]

If he's been learning anything like that he'll know not to make his rolls public so we won't be able to know if he's adding the penalties or not, and he most likely will only look out for penalties for us. If we bring it up he'll probably find a reason the enemies don't get the penalty which boils down to "They were smart enough not to be somewhere to be effected".


This is not a surprise. Your DM is constantly showing the attitude "I WIN D&D".
So, for him, cheat is definitely an option to reach the goal of "winning". :smallsigh:

[Corundum Dragon]

That's not DMing that's just plain childishness. The skill penalties that doesn't apply to them is like making safe bases every few feet in a game of tag that only they can use because they are shorter and can't run as fast. And telling you if you don't like it you don't have to play is the same as taking a toy and hiding with it or going home with it.
As it was pointed out there are rules to cover distractions and the sense. Making up new ones that you ignore is just plain cheating.
In real life when you train to spot and listen for stuff there are 3 (at least) main things you train: situational awareness, blocking out distractions, and recognition. Situational awareness you notice how people act, walk, dress, behave; anything unusual about the plants, building, dirt, animals. ex Is someone wearing a coat when it's to hot maybe carrying something underneath it. Is there any broken plant life or freshly disturbed dirt where someone could have set a trap. Are the animals and birds making no sound or alarm sounds where someone or something has scared them. Blocking out distractions and focusing on something is important driving, sports, hunting, fighting, etc. The more you do this you build knowledge base of what is and isn't unusual. As for being painful your ears and eyes aren't getting any bigger, and aren't gathering any more light or sound waves. Sherlock homes was mentioned earlier but I would also like to mention batman, or any detective, police officer, military, tracker, hunter, etc.
Even if you did have super senses it probably wouldn't bother you anyway look at Superman or almost any other super hero except Dare Devil.

[Regitnui]

I think the problem here is the DM approaching the game with the idea that it's a competition between him and the players. It isn't. It's a competition between the players and the rest of the world. That doesn't mean changing the rules, it means working within the rules to make things more difficult.

Penalising Spot because your eyes are sensitive? Bad Storytelling.

Giving all the NPCs improved Move Silently checks? Effective counter.

[hymer]

Giving all the NPCs improved Move Silently checks? Effective counter.

Nullifying PC strengths may be effective, but not all that fun.

[TuggyNE]

Nullifying PC strengths may be effective, but not all that fun.

I think it's a safe bet that it'll be more fun than what the DM is currently doing, no?

[hymer]

Oh, agreed.

[navar100]

You have a DM who hates his players, a DM who thinks it's an atrocity to gamedom that PCs be good at something. It is of gravest sin to these DMs for a PC to be just that good something he can't fail at a non-combat task. These DMs feel vulnerable they lose their power when the players succeed. It's really all about them and their insecurity.

[Gwazi Magnum]

I'd rather we not turn this into a 'Let's bash on the DM no one other than the OP has ever met before' thread.

Though, I do think I will be stepping out of this campaign because he is currently showing the same signs he did in our last campaign where he turned from a DM who pushed us along in a main story he made.

(Which btw was probably due to the fact it was:

1. His first time being a DM
2. His first time with D&D mechanics
3. His only previous table top experience was me with DM for star wars RP where I was new and read their first adventure off an adventure book)

To throwing penalties at players left and right with little (said) reason behind and then canceling the campaign soon after a player (me) spoke up about it.

I'm just too worried the same signs are showing that he has not changed from the last campaign and the same issues will arise causing conflict if I were to stay on board as a player, may this spot/listen rule be fixed or not.

[Barsoom]

You want to hear something scary? A high Listen skill really does penalize a character! There you go, directly from the SRD:


A sleeping character may make Listen checks at a -10 penalty. A successful check awakens the sleeper.

If your listen modifier happens to be +50 or somesuch, you will wake up in your comfortable bed at an inn every time someone walks down the next street. Don't get me even started at people talking in the common room below! Those will keep you awake all night!

And those are the actual rules ...

[Krobar]

You want to hear something scary? A high Listen skill really does penalize a character! There you go, directly from the SRD:



If your listen modifier happens to be +50 or somesuch, you will wake up in your comfortable bed at an inn every time someone walks down the next street. Don't get me even started at people talking in the common room below! Those will keep you awake all night!

And those are the actual rules ...

It says "may", leaving it to the discretion of the player as to whether he wants to make one, not "must."

[Gwazi Magnum]

You want to hear something scary? A high Listen skill really does penalize a character! There you go, directly from the SRD:



If your listen modifier happens to be +50 or somesuch, you will wake up in your comfortable bed at an inn every time someone walks down the next street. Don't get me even started at people talking in the common room below! Those will keep you awake all night!

And those are the actual rules ...


A sleeping character may make Listen checks at a -10 penalty. A successful check awakens the sleeper.

Nice try :P

[Gwazi Magnum]

It says "may", leaving it to the discretion of the player as to whether he wants to make one, not "must."

Ninja'd XD

[Cirrylius]

1. His first time being a DM
2. His first time with D&D mechanics

That's even worse. He's tossing rules out the window without regard for game balance before he even understands the game's balance. This is shockingly irresponsible at best.

[HurinTheCursed]

If you character had progressed from 0 to 10 ranks in a single level, he might not have been adapted and would not treat all these information the good way (like a blind person who'd get normal view after an operation). But if you are skilled and took the time to progress and adapt, that makes no sense.

This is supposed to add realism (in a high fantasy setting) and it is the opposite, but since it just disrupts the gameplay, it's twice really bad.

[Gwazi Magnum]

Just an update for those who were interested.

I did end up quitting this campaign before it started.

Player D also quit though soon after.
For those who don't remember, Player D was the one who had the violence and tantrum issues.

Why did Player D quit this campaign as well?
Because the DM didn't allow his Spell less Ranger variant because it had +10 speed and ignored speed penalties for medium and heavy armor.

He didn't allow this variant because...

1) It was 'too magical'
2) Apparently +10 speed and ignoring armor speed penalties was too powerful and broken.

--------------------------

Also on another note, two of the three players remaining being Player A (current and still awesome DM) and Player T questioned the future DM and his listen & spot rule and asked for a specific number they would get penalties for so they would know not to go that high.

He never told them, instead throwing out ridiculous numbers such as 'Anything below 60 past your character level' when the character in the current campaign that he is making this rule for to prevent from happening again only has a total listen/spot skill of 30 something at level 17.

[Cirrylius]

Your DM was a raving idiot. I'm sorry you lost out on your game.

[Gwazi Magnum]

It's fine.

There's the online group that Kazyan invited me into still.

Plus I am DM'ing a d&d game with this group later.
It's currently planned as an E6 low magic world.

The main goal being to make it so spell casters didn't take the spotlight.
But going E6 was the best time for me introduce a certain world concept I had in mind and the players seemed fine with it so we're going ahead with that atm.

However, if I am able to find a proper fix to balance out magic users the I might say to them "Hey guys, I found this fix for magic, would you rather play normal d&d with this fix, or keep with the E6 system?" and leave it up to them.

Though, I admit it would be nice to be a player with this group of players though too. I find I'm a better player than a DM. It's just also I'm a big fan of house rules and altering systems to fix a campaign or mechanic issues they were never seem to be implemented unless if I DM the campaign because the DM get's unsure about altering away from core so much with home made rules by one of their players, expecially since I know the mechanics a good amount better than anyone else in the group does.

On another note.

Since I have left, the DM has been trying to get me to play again. Saying he was looking forward to me being a player in it. But I've been continuing to say no because he is still refusing to change any of the rules and ideas that caused me to leave in the first place.

[Regitnui]

If you told him why you quit and he hasn't fixed the problem, I see no reason why you should say yes.

[Gwazi Magnum]

If you told him why you quit and he hasn't fixed the problem, I see no reason why you should say yes.

Which is exactly why I'm still saying no

[Gwazi Magnum]

*bump*

No reason for this bump other than when I tried to find it by sorting through view count and such this never popped up, but still arrived on google. So I'm just bumping this to see if it shows or if the thread is bugged some how.

[Grayson01]

Dude this is one of thouse situations where you take your DM's Advice, DON"T PLAY find a new DM. This seams like a over baring DM who dosn't even follow the rules give I would move on to a new DM.


I've tried explaining that this messes with the system, and with other things he's done too like taking gear away from party members (and for said gear to never be seen from again) and his only response has ever been "If you don't like it then don't play"

Note: For the gear situation, he is stating it will be balanced by higher loot values than usual.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztVMib1T4T4&feature=related

I really wish this would work, but knowing the DM.

He'll just shrug his shoulders (with an evil grin on his face probably) and say it's our fault for not investing anything into spot and listen and then treat us like a bunch of blind/deaf fools being sneak attacked constantly.