DM **** move or player over reaction?

[Azoth]

Okay so in a weekly Pathfinder game I am a part of, we got blind sided and one of the other players went off the rails over it. The rest of us thought it was funny that the DM managed to turn our in game assumptions against us, and congratulated him on the difficult fight that ensued.

The set up(TL/DR at the end):

We are in a start up village only a few months into ground breaking. Our party Sorcerer notices some workers ducking off into the woods while the rest of us are talking to locals and bargaining for room for a few nights. She follows them and after a while comes running back into the settlement dragging a half dead worker behind her.

A healthy dose of questioning and healing magic are used to find out that they were blitzed by something big, fast and strong. All four of the others were taken out in an instant and this survivor didn't get a good look at it before it nearly killed him. All he could say was it had scales, and in one bite nearly ripped him in half. The only other useful thing was that he heard a wolf's howl right before it happened.

So off we go, weapons drawn, spells at the ready, and a few townsfolk in tow that want to help despite being useless. I pick up the trail and track it up to a point. It seems someone tried covering the trail with a Silent Image while something else was cleaning and resetting the area to cover the tracks.

It takes a while but the sorcerer and I manage to get the start of the trail again. When we get it, there are solid footprints in fresh mud. I ask if I can attempt knowledge checks (with a penalty) to try and identify what I am tracking. The DM found it fair to allow an educated guess despite not seeing the creatures. My checks revealed a Large bordering on Huge canine creature, a Hydra of unknown heads, and an Elf. My character assumed the canine had to be an advanced Winter Wolf as we were in a northern region and no other local creatures could get that big. He also assumed the boot prints belonged to an Elf because of shallow prints despite being the size of a full grow man with a stride to match.

After several hours of tracking it is near nightfall, and the villagers have gone home. The trail leads us to a small cave system. I buff everyone with an Energy Resist (Cold), and our game plan is for our Enchanter Sorcer to stall the caster alongside the Rogue to buy me time to handle Hydra, while our Cavalier and Kineticist handle the Winter Wolf.

We go in and find a Fetchling (Shadow Caller/Blood Summoner) Summoner with a Large Canine Eidolon that looks like a Winter Wolf but has the full breath weapon/energy attack evolution routine using lightning and a 6 headed Cryo-Hydra. So we have to deal with miss chances due to lighting, a rampaging beast trying its best to trip/electrocute us, another trying to freeze us solid and failing, with a non-humanoid summoner backing them up with some good buffs/bfc.

After a long tough fight we manage to win...barely. We are all happy and congratulating one another even though our plan went to hell, and our assumptions were dead wrong. We were even complimenting the DM on the encounter.

Then came the Sorcerer player ranting that it was BS to give us wrong information on Knowledge checks that were easily high enough to identify the creatures. Then even more bull to design an encounter where our strategy was completely wrong and that she couldn't participate in because she only has Enchantment spells and the ones she has had HD limits too low to use or only affected Humanoid targets, and nothing was Humanoid even though my Inquisitor thought the tracks were Elf tracks.

TL/DR: Is it wrong for a DM to give false information on Knowledge checks even if they were high enough to succeed, but circumstances/conditions make the success invalid? (E.G. Identifying a creature and learning its weaknesses from tracks found in mud without actually seeing the creature)

[Zanos]

When you say "My character assumed..." do you mean that you actually made an assumption based on the information given, or that your DM told you your character assumed such and such? Because the first means that you made some incorrect assumptions based on your information, and the second is that the DM just fed you information that was obviously wrong on a good check.

I do consider it bad form to give plainly wrong information on a passed check. Factually wrong information is the province of a botch, if D&D even had such things.

[Azoth]

My character was told that he identified three separate sets of tracks traveling together. One canine, but with a stride far longer than a horses and easily twice as heavy. A second that was a set of boot tracks with a stride similar in length to a full grown man's, but nearly half as shallow. The third was that of a large creature that pulled itself on two powerful arms with a long body that slid across the ground leaving a deep groove like some kind of giant top heavy snake.

From this he ICly deduced the canine tracks were a Winter Wolf, the boot prints were those of an Elf, and that the slithering body being drug by forelimbs was a Hydra.

To me all seemed reasonable assumptions to make with the given information about the tracks, and the rest of the group agreed. When it turned out the suumptions were wrong the sorcerer had a meltdown.

[OldTrees1]

My character was told that he identified three separate sets of tracks traveling together. One canine, but with a stride far longer than a horses and easily twice as heavy. A second that was a set of boot tracks with a stride similar in length to a full grown man's, but nearly half as shallow. The third was that of a large creature that pulled itself on two powerful arms with a long body that slid across the ground leaving a deep groove like some kind of giant top heavy snake.

From this he ICly deduced the canine tracks were a Winter Wolf, the boot prints were those of an Elf, and that the slithering body being drug by forelimbs was a Hydra.

To me all seemed reasonable assumptions to make with the given information about the tracks, and the rest of the group agreed. When it turned out the suumptions were wrong the sorcerer had a meltdown.

If I look at the encounter first and the tracks second I see no misinformation. This was a case where your character leapt to conclusions but still had some decent information about the enemy. You knew you had to deal with 1 biped, 1 large canine, and 1 hydra(you guessed accurately here despite the tracks possibly being other top heavy 2 armed snake monsters)

[Necroticplague]

Sounds like the sorcerer should have selected better spells known. Why are all of his spells of a school where immunity is only slightly less rare than air?

Anyway, I do consider it a d*** move to give outright false information on succeeded checks. That being said, the sorcerer's poor spell selection is both A: his own fault and B: irrelevant. Even if he had known what he was going up against, his spells still would have been useless.

[Jack_Simth]

My character was told that he identified three separate sets of tracks traveling together. One canine, but with a stride far longer than a horses and easily twice as heavy. A second that was a set of boot tracks with a stride similar in length to a full grown man's, but nearly half as shallow. The third was that of a large creature that pulled itself on two powerful arms with a long body that slid across the ground leaving a deep groove like some kind of giant top heavy snake.
Well, if this is what came from the DM, then it's fine. It was a canine critter, a light humanoid, and a snake-like critter.

From this he ICly deduced the canine tracks were a Winter Wolf, the boot prints were those of an Elf, and that the slithering body being drug by forelimbs was a Hydra.
If this came from a player at the table making extrapolations on what the DM said above, then the DM is fine, and the Sorcerer player has very little grounds on which to complain, unless VERY low level with extremely thin spell selection options. Given that you buffed everyone in the party with energy resistance, the VERY low level probably doesn't apply.

If this came from the DM that your character assumed such-and-such IC, then I can at least see where the Sorcerer's player is coming from.

In either case, the Sorcerer player may wish to consider getting a couple of decent backup spells for when something isn't susceptible to the character's primary schtick. A few direct-damage spells, perhaps, perhaps a few party buff spells, or the standard "Will save or lose, Fort save or Lose, Reflex save or lose, a decent no-save spell, and Heighten Spell"

To me all seemed reasonable assumptions to make with the given information about the tracks, and the rest of the group agreed. When it turned out the suumptions were wrong the sorcerer had a meltdown.Given that it was apparently only one person reacting in this manner, the most likely case is that the one player with the reaction is just annoyed that (s)he couldn't do much in this particular encounter. However, clairification needed.

[Zanos]

Sounds like the sorcerer should have selected better spells known. Why are all of his spells of a school where immunity is only slightly less rare than air?
Also this. Elves get a racial bonus against enchantment spells, and a medium humanoid with two hulking monsters is probably a caster. It's unlikely they would have failed the will save even if they were a legal target.

[Azoth]

The assumptions were player based. Outside of the track descriptions the DM gave no information on the enemies until we saw them first hand.

The Sorcerer felt that I should have been told to make a Knowledge (Planes) check to identify the Fetching from boots prints, another Knowledge (Planes) check to identify the Eidelon by its tracks, and a Knowledge (Arcana) check to identify the Cryo-Hydra by the tracks.

This led to us arguing quite a bit OOC back and forth. I personally felt that being left to my assumptions was perfectly acceptable since my character didn't see the enemy before the tracks. The sorcerer felt that since I found the tracks I should be told what knowledge to roll to identify the enemy by the DM.

I pointed out that there are a lot of creatures that belong to different knowledge checks that are very similar. Without more than a foot print to go on being told what Knowledge to roll could ruin the game/encounter. She didn't seem to get it or care.

I pointed out a lot of the elemental/planar infused creatures are basically Human+ and being told to roll Knowledge (Planes) on a boot print would mean that a Human, Dwarf, Orc, Elf, ect. would automatically be ruled out as a possible suspect. The opposite holds true for being told roll Knowledge (Local) automatically ruling out Tiefling, Aasimar, Fetchling, ect.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Flat our there is no way tracks could tell a cryo-hydra. Hydra, sure, but not cryo. That being said the boot tracks cover an insane number of races (human, elf, Planetouched, orc/half-orc, etc.) given that there is enough variance in body type within a race to keep it broad. The other two are not as bad, but tracks at the bottoms of feet, which is not a lot in dnd.

I think the sorcerer is in the wrong here.

[Sian]

Sorcerer should remember that assume is a shortening of "ass out of u and me"

[Amphetryon]

Based on the info provided, this was not a jerk move on the part of the DM. This was a Player with poor spell selection, and entitlement issues, pitching a fit.

[Necroticplague]

It takes a while but the sorcerer and I manage to get the start of the trail again. When we get it, there are solid footprints in fresh mud. I ask if I can attempt knowledge checks (with a penalty) to try and identify what I am tracking. The DM found it fair to allow an educated guess despite not seeing the creatures. My checks revealed a Large bordering on Huge canine creature, a Hydra of unknown heads, and an Elf. My character assumed the canine had to be an advanced Winter Wolf as we were in a northern region and no other local creatures could get that big. He also assumed the boot prints belonged to an Elf because of shallow prints despite being the size of a full grow man with a stride to match.

Wait, this section seems kinda contradictory and confusing. The bolded part seems to indicate your were given some kind of check, and the dm told you based on your result. In that case, this is a d*** move of very high caliber. The italicized seems to indicate it was instead you making assumptions based on what the tracks were, in which case the sorceror's the one in the wrong here.

Basically, can you reeiterate on which of these it was?
DM: You see here a set of bootprints , long as a man's stride but half as deep. You also see a massive set of canine prints, and what looks like something with two claws dragging something very heavy.
PLAYER: O.k, so that's probably an elf, a winter wolf, and a hydra.
*Rolls Knowledge checks*
DM: You see here print of an Elf, Winter Wolf, and Hydra

[OldTrees1]

The Sorcerer felt that I should have been told to make a Knowledge (Planes) check to identify the Fetching from boots prints, another Knowledge (Planes) check to identify the Eidelon by its tracks, and a Knowledge (Arcana) check to identify the Cryo-Hydra by the tracks.

This led to us arguing quite a bit OOC back and forth. I personally felt that being left to my assumptions was perfectly acceptable since my character didn't see the enemy before the tracks. The sorcerer felt that since I found the tracks I should be told what knowledge to roll to identify the enemy by the DM.

I pointed out that there are a lot of creatures that belong to different knowledge checks that are very similar. Without more than a foot print to go on being told what Knowledge to roll could ruin the game/encounter. She didn't seem to get it or care.

I pointed out a lot of the elemental/planar infused creatures are basically Human+ and being told to roll Knowledge (Planes) on a boot print would mean that a Human, Dwarf, Orc, Elf, ect. would automatically be ruled out as a possible suspect. The opposite holds true for being told roll Knowledge (Local) automatically ruling out Tiefling, Aasimar, Fetchling, ect.

How your DM played this part is perfectly valid,

but not how I would have done it. If your character was an expert is extraplanar creatures then I would expect you to be able to possibly further narrow down your list of suspects via minor details in the tracks. So regardless of whether your character was such an expert, I would have allowed those knowledge skills to play a role. However you note the metagame knowledge from being told which knowledge check to roll. How I would have handled it was asking for an unmodified knowledge roll and then a list of your modifiers (at a reasonable penalty from the limited evidence that is tracks). Then I would tell you something like "the canine tracks are unusually smooth and you did not find any stray flakes like a hair or a scale". This way the type of knowledge check used is not player knowledge for this particular case.

[Bronk]

I agree... your character did the best he/she could without any real tracking ability, and it's not the DM's fault that everyone jumped to conclusions!

The DM probably thought he was giving you more than enough to go on in the first place. For the wolf construct, he was probably assuming that you'd guess 'dire wolf', then maybe be clued in to the construct part by the 'double the weight' bit. When you guessed 'winter wolf', he was probably happy that the cryohydra wouldn't outright kill you all when you buffed up with cold protection.

I'm not really sure how everyone got 'hydra' by 'two armed creature dragging a tail' bit, since hydras have four legs (check the pictures in the srd and pfsrd), but I guess that worked out for the best anyway.

As for the sorceress... Why did she think knowing all that ahead of time would have made a difference? Unless she was about to level up, her choices of spells were fixed. Plus, That would have happened no matter what nonhumanoid you ran into... Basically, she should calm down and take this as a wake up call to pick better spells in the future. It's not like her character died or anything!

[Azoth]

Wait, this section seems kinda contradictory and confusing. The bolded part seems to indicate your were given some kind of check, and the dm told you based on your result. In that case, this is a d*** move of very high caliber. The italicized seems to indicate it was instead you making assumptions based on what the tracks were, in which case the sorceror's the one in the wrong here.

Basically, can you reeiterate on which of these it was?
DM: You see here a set of bootprints , long as a man's stride but half as deep. You also see a massive set of canine prints, and what looks like something with two claws dragging something very heavy.
PLAYER: O.k, so that's probably an elf, a winter wolf, and a hydra.
*Rolls Knowledge checks*
DM: You see here print of an Elf, Winter Wolf, and Hydra

Sorry for the confusion. It was almost 7AM here, and I have yet to go to sleep so my brain isn't functioning at 100%. Yay insomnia!

The italicized and bolded sections should have read: " When we get it, there are solid footprints in fresh mud. I ask if I can attempt knowledge checks (with a penalty) to try and identify what I am tracking. The DM found it fair to allow an educated guess despite not seeing the creatures, but wouldn't let me roll specific knowledge checks. My Survival checks revealed three sets of tracks which I assumed to be a Large bordering on Huge canine creature, a Hydra of unknown heads, and an Elf."

Not much clearer, but sleep deprivation is working against me here.

To answer your question directly: Situation 1

@Bronk: The Hydra thing was an unfortunate bit of meta on my part. The way he was representing the impression of the track (by pressing the back of his hand into the table and having his fingers curl upward while splayed slightly reminded me of an old movie that had a Hydra in it. That happened to be how the Hydra moved in that movie and it just stood out and turned out to be the right guess.

[Gallowglass]

Reading between the lines here I note the following:


...We are in a start up village only a few months into ground breaking. Our party Sorcerer notices some workers ducking off into the woods while the rest of us are talking to locals and bargaining for room for a few nights. She follows them and after a while comes running back into the settlement dragging a half dead worker behind her....

This already sounds like the sorcerer wants to play solo games. My impression of this is the party is collectively having a conversation with an NPC and the bored sorcerer is like:

Sorcerer: "This is boring. I want to make a perception check to see if anything interesting is going on. I rolled a 27."
DM: "Uh okay... Well you see a few workers ducking off into the woods."
Sorcerer: "Great! I sneak off and follow them."
DM: "Sigh. Okay let me finish the conversation with the others first."
Sorcerer: *rolls eyes*
...
DM: "Okay, so you follow the workers into the woods. You lose track of them quickly, but hear sounds of battle up ahead."
Sorcerer: "I sneak up to see what's going on."
DM: "By the time you get there, the battle noise is over. You find one of the workers, bleeding badly, dragging himself back toward the camp."
Sorcerer: - several minutes of trying things while the DM tries to steer it back to where he can get the rest of the party involved again -
Sorcerer: "Fine, I drag the guy back to the others."

Now, I could be way off here, but that's the impression I get from reading between the lines.

Later on, when the sorcerer is complaining, it sounds like she was ineffective in the combat, probably bored, and, as she seems entitled, probably upset. It sounds like her complaining was her blowing off steam about it and doesn't seem like a legitimate complaint.

But that's based on this reading of what actually happened:

DM: You see here a set of bootprints , long as a man's stride but half as deep. You also see a massive set of canine prints, and what looks like something with two claws dragging something very heavy.
PLAYER: O.k, so that's probably an elf, a winter wolf, and a hydra.

As opposed to

*Rolls Knowledge checks*
DM: You see here print of an Elf, Winter Wolf, and Hydra

[Bronk]

Then came the Sorcerer player ranting that it was BS to give us wrong information on Knowledge checks that were easily high enough to identify the creatures.

TL/DR: Is it wrong for a DM to give false information on Knowledge checks


. The DM found it fair to allow an educated guess despite not seeing the creatures, but wouldn't let me roll specific knowledge checks.

Well there you go. There were no knowledge checks in the first place, it was all wild guessing.

[Azoth]

Well there you go. There were no knowledge checks in the first place, it was all wild guessing.

Fair enough. Again, sleep deprived brain.

@Gallowglass: You hit the nail on the head with that impression.

[Gallowglass]

@Gallowglass: You hit the nail on the head with that impression.

The only thing missing is that she is the DM's girlfriend.

[the_david]

I'd prefer the way your DM handled the check over the way your sorcerer would have liked. One way to handle this is telling your player to hand over his sheet and the rolling his knowledge checks in secret. It's less fun for the player, but it makes it harder to metagame. You could even houserule that failing by 5 or more would give the wrong information, though in this case I would just keep it vague. (Going from big canine prints to big paw prints.)

Now as for the encounter. It might have been a case of bad encounter design, in the sense that not everyone gets to contribute. He would be a bad DM if he would do this on purpose. (Or maybe even by accident.) However, that player did make some poor choices and it seems like he's blaming the DM for his own mistake. This is one encounter, and I can't really judge this based on a single fact.
Another thing is that the DM could have possibly changed the element of the Eidolon's breath weapon after Resist Energy was cast. That would be a **** move, but I can't prove that it happened as I wasn't there.

The whole cryohydra working together with a fetchling summoner is a bit vague, but I don't know what the story behind this was.

[Bronk]

Fair enough. Again, sleep deprived brain.

I just meant that you could remind the sorcerer's player of that when you see her next. Maybe that'll help.

[Necromancy]

How would you identify a fetchlings tracks (booted) with knowledge planes?

Players who sit at a lot of easygoing tables that let them get away with this crap will tend to forget exactly how hard the skills should really be. I'm of the opinion that using track skill untrained will barely tell you your quarry is humanoid at all let alone anything else. Try to keep in mind that boots don't have patterned rubber soles that say Wolverine.

Over the winter I was showing my son a little about tracking animals in snow (+10 modifier?) and we found tracks of some animal that had been trying to get into our chicken coop. Even using Google we can't figure out what it is, but I bet an expert tracker would know immediately.

[KillianHawkeye]

Then even more bull to design an encounter where our strategy was completely wrong and that she couldn't participate in because she only has Enchantment spells and the ones she has had HD limits too low to use or only affected Humanoid targets, and nothing was Humanoid even though my Inquisitor thought the tracks were Elf tracks.


Now as for the encounter. It might have been a case of bad encounter design, in the sense that not everyone gets to contribute. He would be a bad DM if he would do this on purpose. (Or maybe even by accident.) However, that player did make some poor choices and it seems like he's blaming the DM for his own mistake

I will give your sorcerer player half a point for this, although she is also to blame for having a spell list that is WAY too focused on doing only one thing. The DM should still refrain from designing any major encounters where any PC has basically nothing to do.

[OldTrees1]

How would you identify a fetchlings tracks (booted) with knowledge planes?

Players who sit at a lot of easygoing tables that let them get away with this crap will tend to forget exactly how hard the skills should really be. I'm of the opinion that using track skill untrained will barely tell you your quarry is humanoid at all let alone anything else. Try to keep in mind that boots don't have patterned rubber soles that say Wolverine.

Over the winter I was showing my son a little about tracking animals in snow (+10 modifier?) and we found tracks of some animal that had been trying to get into our chicken coop. Even using Google we can't figure out what it is, but I bet an expert tracker would know immediately.

Ooh, booted would make the DC even higher. You would be looking for flakes that might have fallen off the unknown booted creature. Skin flakes that are completely devoid of color would suggest a fetchling. However finding such flakes(given the boots and general clothing) and then being able to tell if there is color or not are both really hard checks. Only after that observation would knowledge the planes help identify fetchlings as one of the races with naturally colorless skin that also are light on their feet.

Yeah, for the fetchling the description the tracks revealed is the best one could hope for.

Edit:
Although the tracker could ask "Given that I know these tracks were made by a clothed biped that was light on its feet, what is the list of races I know of that fit this general description". I would grant 1 knowledge roll for each type and create a long list(longer the higher the checks). The more knowledgeable the tracker the more likely the correct race is on that list.

[Kelvarius]

To all the people latching on to the idea of erroneous info was given on a successful knowledge check, how do you know the knowledge check succeeded?

A high roll doesn't (And remember it comes with a penalty) doesn't mean it automatically succeeds. It still has to beat the DC, which could be exceptionally high. Whether it should be that high is another matter entirely.


You could even houserule that failing by 5 or more would give the wrong information, though in this case I would just keep it vague. (Going from big canine prints to big paw prints.)


Seems reasonable to me. And as evidenced by the original question, the wrong thing can easily be deduced.

[Elder_Basilisk]

How would you identify a fetchlings tracks (booted) with knowledge planes?

Players who sit at a lot of easygoing tables that let them get away with this crap will tend to forget exactly how hard the skills should really be. I'm of the opinion that using track skill untrained will barely tell you your quarry is humanoid at all let alone anything else. Try to keep in mind that boots don't have patterned rubber soles that say Wolverine.

Over the winter I was showing my son a little about tracking animals in snow (+10 modifier?) and we found tracks of some animal that had been trying to get into our chicken coop. Even using Google we can't figure out what it is, but I bet an expert tracker would know immediately.

I'm with you on this. If my players see tracks, they can identify shod humanoids--and can probably tell the difference between boots, sandals, and moccasins. But booted bipeds (I'd probably say humanoids but I wouldn't be excluding planetouched, monstrous humanoids (such as hags), or outsiders like fetchlings) roughly 5-6 feet tall, judging by their stride is all they're going to get. If they want to make a knowledge local check, I'll let them know that the orc tribes of the Griff mountains and foothills typically wear moccasins, that there are no known local elven tribes or cities, and that humans live to the south of the Witchwood a good fifty miles away and that the hills are known to hold hobgoblins and dwarves.

That's it. No, "these were hobgoblins" based on their boot tracks. (Though a good survival/perception check looking for the tracks might find some broken leather straps or other trash that might give further clues).

The other day, I had players ask for a knowledge check on things that could cause weakness and injury with a touch. Upon a successful knowledge check, I told them "lots of things. Touch of fatigue or some kind of metamagicked ray or variant ray of enfeeblement or ray of exhaustion would do it though they typically have shorter durations. Some hags have that kind of ability as do shadows; there are probably more but those are the first that come to mind."

All told, it seems the DM's approach was perfectly fair.

[Knaight]

This sounds like rock solid DMing to me. The creatures left evidence of their existence, and the evidence makes sense. The encounter was set up as a hard but doable encounter, which is exactly what it appeared to be. The sorcerer player is whining about nothing.

Also, what is their spell list? I'm not sure I buy their argument that they had no useful spells.

[Honest Tiefling]

Even if the DM had somehow goofed up the knowledge checks, I could see it being an issue of experience or making a snap judgement. It doesn't really seem to be malicious.

I think the DM should have tried to have some critters there for the Sorcerer, but the sorcerer is built BADLY. With the type of sneaking around and mystery, it might have been hard for the DM to include an army of mooks for them. If anything, I think the sorcerer should really consider trying to find a way to justify a rebuild.

[Quertus]

Different people have different levels of overconfidence. You show most people dragon tracks, and they'll either say "dragon" or "probably a dragon". You show my scout an actual dragon, and he'll say "probably a dragon" (it could be polymorphed, or an illusion, or a construct, or...).

So, my first read is, if the DM gave you misinformation, and you were fine with it, then it was in character for your character to be overconfident in his read of the tracks, and it's fine.

But the DM didn't give you any interpretation at all, not even a "most common cause" of "shallow like an elf's". The interpretation was entirely on you. So, if the DM is to be assigned any fault, it would only be in not telling a new player what they might know about that could make such tracks. Since you were able to make such assumptions yourself (your character did have the corresponding knowledges, right?), then the DM is in no way at fault.

But there is another issue here.

This was an encounter where the sorcerer could not really contribute.

If all, or even a disproportionately large number, of the DMs encounters invalidate the sorcerer, then the sorcerer complaining may well be warranted. Just not, you know, for the way the knowledge checks were handled, unless they had some clever plan to make that matter (grinding in the forest to level before facing this encounter or something?)

If the sorcerer is invalidated more often than their terrible spell selection would merit, stick up for them, and address it with the DM. If they are invalidated a "reasonable" amount of the time (or less!), talk with the player about whether this is the source of their discontent, and encourage them to retrain some of their abilities / encourage the DM to allow them to retrain some of their abilities.

... Total dejavu here - I think I've been in a game with a girl running a sorcerer who had a similar complaint.


I will give your sorcerer player half a point for this, although she is also to blame for having a spell list that is WAY too focused on doing only one thing. The DM should still refrain from designing any major encounters where any PC has basically nothing to do.

You're not wrong... But... this is only one valid style. I run - and prefer to be run in - games where the world exists independent of the characters. What's there is what's there, and doesn't changed based on whether you brought a telepath or a frenzied berserker. Of course, I also prefer to run more sandbox oriented games, so, if you are a one-trick pony, you don't have to always encounter creatures that are immune to your shtick. :smalltongue:

[Sian]

[...]if you are a one-trick pony, you don't have to always encounter creatures that are immune to your shtick. :smalltongue:

The reverse is also true ... If you are a one-trick pony, you shouldn't except never to meet anything that are immune to your shtick, or have the mental capability to make themselves so.

[Gallowglass]

But there is another issue here...This was an encounter where the sorcerer could not really contribute...If all, or even a disproportionately large number, of the DMs encounters invalidate the sorcerer, then the sorcerer complaining may well be warranted...If the sorcerer is invalidated more often than their terrible spell selection would merit, stick up for them, and address it with the DM.


... this is only one valid style. I run - and prefer to be run in - games where the world exists independent of the characters. What's there is what's there, and doesn't changed based on whether you brought a telepath or a frenzied berserker...

I find these two statements to be extremely contradictory.

If the Sorceress built a one-trick pony (Enchantress!) you are saying with the first statement that the DM should be spoonfeeding her enemies her trick will work on a "proportionate" amount of the time. With the second statement you are saying the exact opposite. That the DM should NOT be customtailoring any encounter to the mold the player(s) have built toward.

If I am running a game with five players and none of the five play an arcane caster, then I'm sure as heck not going to build encounters that require arcane casting to handle. If I'm playing a game with a psionicist, then I'm certainly going to include some content, treasure, foes and challenges that their psionics will let them interact with. If I have no clerics, necromancers or anyone else with any undead ties, then WHY bring in undead?

If I have a bunch of players who say "we want a dungeon crawl", I'm not going to force them into a kingmaker or cross-country race. Why would I? This is supposed to be a two-way interactive experience.

In this case, however, I'm reasonably confident to say that the sorceress probably DID have ways to make herself useful, she just didn't think of them. That or she started the game feeling ornery and looking for a reason to justify her attitude.

[Jay R]

Knowledge checks aren't mystical. They reveal only what it is possible to know.

"One canine, but with a stride far longer than a horses and easily twice as heavy." This is correct information, and all the information you could get from the tracks.

"A second that was a set of boot tracks with a stride similar in length to a full grown man's, but nearly half as shallow." I don't know if it's correct, but assuming it is, that's also all you can expect to learn from the tracks.

"The third was that of a large creature that pulled itself on two powerful arms with a long body that slid across the ground leaving a deep groove like some kind of giant top heavy snake." Also correct and complete.

You got all the information that you could possibly expect to get from tracks. You cannot find out the creature's hair color, species, or other details from tracks - only the size and shape of its feet.

The enchanter is specialized. That does not mean that the world will be specialized for his benefit. There will be times when a specialist is far more valuable than a general wizard, and times when he will be less valuable. That's all. The lesson for the enchanter and his player is that those powers aren't always useful, and he needs some plan for the situations when they won't work. He's acting like a paladin with a shark for a mount complaining that he doesn't get to use it in the desert adventure.

My Ranger has a Giant Owl as a cohort. When we spent a long adventure in narrow corridors underground, the owl went on her own way, returning when we were once again in the open. That's normal.

Finally, here's a rule of thumb. If you had a challenge that you eventually defeated, gaining xps and having an exciting time, then it's probably not a **** move. Your characters have not been hurt by the DM as long as your characters have not been not hurt at all.

[Gallowglass]

Well, he was an inquisitor. Now if he has been an INVESTIGATOR...

"The tracks are booted humanoid, size seven, but the tread is much lighter than a human. A humanoid then, of comparable height to a man based on the length of tread, but of lesser weight. Now, see here, from these treadmarks, this is no elven boot. I also see, that these tracks are about two hours old and, from where the sun would have been two hours ago, the wearer of the boots was taking care to walk only in the shadows of the trees even if the trail would have been easier to walk over there instead. Based on that, we are looking for someone with light sensitivity. A drow perhaps? But no, a drow would be taking more care to cover its tracks. This is someone unfamiliar with excursions to this kind of terrain. But the real clue is that I recognize the craftsmanship of this boot. See, the leather of this sole is no common terrestrial hide, no this boot was cobbled from the hide of a duskbeast, a planer creature from the plane of shadow. Based on THAT and on the craftsmanship of the work, this boot could only have been made by the tailor-shop Smythe, Smythe and Gunderson, who operate exclusively in the plane of shadow. This, my good friends, is the boot of a Fetchling!"

[GreyBlack]

To be honest? It sounds, to me, like the sorcerer was just upset because he couldn't participate. Which, granted ñ is fine, but it's the character's choice. There are a multitude of creature types who will be immune to his spell selection if this is how he's built; hell, throw a simple zombie at the sorcerer and he's hosed. As such, I would point out to him that he may want to consider a back up spell or two to make sure that he can participate.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I find these two statements to be extremely contradictory.

They're not contradictory, they just represent two points on the spectrum between spoon feeding, tailored to the charcaters encounters and encounters made completely without consideration of the PC's abilities. The ideal point along that spectrum varies between groups but it's pretty universally accepted that both extremes are bad.

[Quertus]

I find these two statements to be extremely contradictory.

If the Sorceress built a one-trick pony (Enchantress!) you are saying with the first statement that the DM should be spoonfeeding her enemies her trick will work on a "proportionate" amount of the time. With the second statement you are saying the exact opposite. That the DM should NOT be customtailoring any encounter to the mold the player(s) have built toward.

If I am running a game with five players and none of the five play an arcane caster, then I'm sure as heck not going to build encounters that require arcane casting to handle. If I'm playing a game with a psionicist, then I'm certainly going to include some content, treasure, foes and challenges that their psionics will let them interact with. If I have no clerics, necromancers or anyone else with any undead ties, then WHY bring in undead?

If I have a bunch of players who say "we want a dungeon crawl", I'm not going to force them into a kingmaker or cross-country race. Why would I? This is supposed to be a two-way interactive experience.

In this case, however, I'm reasonably confident to say that the sorceress probably DID have ways to make herself useful, she just didn't think of them. That or she started the game feeling ornery and looking for a reason to justify her attitude.

Thank you for pointing out the way my statements could be misinterpreted. Let me try again.

Let's say I chose to make a level 9 , 1-trick enchantress. Let's say that, of the 2000 encounters I've had at level 9, such a character would have been pointless in 1000 of them. If this were the case, I would therefore expect my character to be useless about half the time.

If, in 9 out of my enchantress's first 10 encounters, my character's abilities were invalidated, unless I really trusted my DM, I would be rather upset - and rightfully so, IMO. Consciously or not, the DM has skewed the encounters against my build in a way that seems highly unlikely to occur by chance*.

So that is what I mean when I talk about proportional invalidation.

I don't spoon feed. I will absolutely put in an encounter that requires an arcane caster to handle, even if I know that the party contains no arcane casters. This means they need to hire an npc, or find some other way around. Ideally, I create all the challenges before the party is created; in practice, I just ignore the party, and build what is there. It is the party's responsibility to figure out how to deal with it.

But my way is not the only valid playing style. Some people want the world to be custom tailored to their characters. Some people expect to be spoon fed some way to actually meaningfully contribute more or less every encounter. They expect the responsibility for being useful, game balance, etc, to fall on the DM's shoulders.

Neither way is "wrong". But what we may have here is different expectations for the game.

Is that more clear / less seemingly contradictory?

* if the DM had the encounters built ahead of time, most players like to be told that their characters likely won't work too well on an adventure. Alternately, the DM may just have a blind spot / be in a rut in building similar encounters.

EDIT

They're not contradictory, they just represent two points on the spectrum between spoon feeding, tailored to the charcaters encounters and encounters made completely without consideration of the PC's abilities. The ideal point along that spectrum varies between groups but it's pretty universally accepted that both extremes are bad.

Thanks for the summation. :smallsmile: Although I'd like to think my old school style isn't that terrible (or, at least, not terrible for playing the world without accommodating the PCs shortcomings, but rather making them overcome their limitations). :smalleek:


Well, he was an inquisitor. Now if he has been an INVESTIGATOR...

"The tracks are booted humanoid, size seven, but the tread is much lighter than a human. A humanoid then, of comparable height to a man based on the length of tread, but of lesser weight. Now, see here, from these treadmarks, this is no elven boot. I also see, that these tracks are about two hours old and, from where the sun would have been two hours ago, the wearer of the boots was taking care to walk only in the shadows of the trees even if the trail would have been easier to walk over there instead. Based on that, we are looking for someone with light sensitivity. A drow perhaps? But no, a drow would be taking more care to cover its tracks. This is someone unfamiliar with excursions to this kind of terrain. But the real clue is that I recognize the craftsmanship of this boot. See, the leather of this sole is no common terrestrial hide, no this boot was cobbled from the hide of a duskbeast, a planer creature from the plane of shadow. Based on THAT and on the craftsmanship of the work, this boot could only have been made by the tailor-shop Smythe, Smythe and Gunderson, who operate exclusively in the plane of shadow. This, my good friends, is the boot of a Fetchling!"

OK, this is the way I want my games run!

[Coidzor]

Yeah, telling the difference between a hydra, a cryohydra, and a pyrohydra is tough without evidence of it using its breath weapon, leaving scales, or something along those lines.

So that part was fair. Probably.

If the DM said it was a large canid but not like anything you can think of, that's also fair for a unique creature. If he just said it was a winter wolf when you should have noticed it was like a winter wolf but off in some notable ways, that's a bit more squirrelly.

The question mostly comes up of the fetchling and whether it would have made a difference if you all had known it was an elf or a fetchling or something human shaped but lighter than a human. Also, how well they did and what they had to go on. Because if they get a sufficiently high check, then they'd get the info that there is to get.

[dascarletm]

The only thing missing is that she is the DM's girlfriend.
Hey! Not all us DMs give our SOs preferential treatment... It isn't my fault they can do no wrong in our eyes...:smalltongue:

Well, he was an inquisitor. Now if he has been an INVESTIGATOR...

"The tracks are booted humanoid, size seven, but the tread is much lighter than a human. A humanoid then, of comparable height to a man based on the length of tread, but of lesser weight. Now, see here, from these treadmarks, this is no elven boot. I also see, that these tracks are about two hours old and, from where the sun would have been two hours ago, the wearer of the boots was taking care to walk only in the shadows of the trees even if the trail would have been easier to walk over there instead. Based on that, we are looking for someone with light sensitivity. A drow perhaps? But no, a drow would be taking more care to cover its tracks. This is someone unfamiliar with excursions to this kind of terrain. But the real clue is that I recognize the craftsmanship of this boot. See, the leather of this sole is no common terrestrial hide, no this boot was cobbled from the hide of a duskbeast, a planer creature from the plane of shadow. Based on THAT and on the craftsmanship of the work, this boot could only have been made by the tailor-shop Smythe, Smythe and Gunderson, who operate exclusively in the plane of shadow. This, my good friends, is the boot of a Fetchling!"
Brilliant deduction inspector Holmes Gallowglass

[Coidzor]

Is this the sorcerer player's first spellcaster? If so, did no more experienced player check their work and give feedback about how you don't want to be vulnerable like she made herself?

[kyoryu]

There's a difference of assumptions here that probably needs to be ironed out.

On the one hand, your DM is very definitely playing a "play the world" type of game, where you interact with the imaginary world first, and the rules are used to resolve conflicts in that world.

From that POV, the DM was fine, and gave the information that could realistically be found out from the actual situation at hand.

On the other hand, the sorceror is playing a more RAW game, where Knowledge checks give specific information at specific levels because that's what the rules say.

From that POV, the DM was wrong, because the mechanical interaction chosen did not yield the correct mechanical result.

It boils down to what happened - did the characters look at tracks in the snow to get what information they could, or was a Knowledge check rolled which should result in a particular response per the rules?

Now, I'm in favor of the DM's POV here. Strongly. HUGELY, even. But straightening out how the game is actually going to work should probably be done to ensure there's no miscommunications in the future.

[Keltest]

There's a difference of assumptions here that probably needs to be ironed out.

On the one hand, your DM is very definitely playing a "play the world" type of game, where you interact with the imaginary world first, and the rules are used to resolve conflicts in that world.

From that POV, the DM was fine, and gave the information that could realistically be found out from the actual situation at hand.

On the other hand, the sorceror is playing a more RAW game, where Knowledge checks give specific information at specific levels because that's what the rules say.

From that POV, the DM was wrong, because the mechanical interaction chosen did not yield the correct mechanical result.

It boils down to what happened - did the characters look at tracks in the snow to get what information they could, or was a Knowledge check rolled which should result in a particular response per the rules?

Now, I'm in favor of the DM's POV here. Strongly. HUGELY, even. But straightening out how the game is actually going to work should probably be done to ensure there's no miscommunications in the future.

You should only ever have a check or roll of any sort when there are multiple possible outcomes. In this particular case, what they had to work with would not have allowed for a check.

[Necromancy]

Enchantment focused sorcerer is a theorycraft trap. You will come across a build trick and see a way to make a sorcerer with very high charm spell DCs and suddenly you're in an undead campaign administering potions to NPCs so you can feel helpful.

When you have some hindsight on this you will realize that a spellcaster built to manipulate living humanoids would quickly realize they belong in the city and not the wilds.

[Eisfalken]

Gonna say I have to side with the DM here. It sounds more like the sorcerer player is mad they have a gimpy build and aren't as useful as they perhaps imagined themselves to be.

The DM gave you all about as much as I would have in similar circumstances. I only really give players the clues; if they create a false conclusion out of it, that's on them, not me. It doesn't happen often, but it is always at least slightly amusing to everyone. Nobody should get upset about a mistake like that.

And like you said, it's not like anyone died or you lost or something. You won. Maybe not as "efficiently" as you wanted to. But as they say in Warhammer 40K, victory requires no explanation, defeat allows none.

[Jay R]

Well, he was an inquisitor. Now if he has been an INVESTIGATOR...

"The tracks are booted humanoid, size seven, but the tread is much lighter than a human. A humanoid then, of comparable height to a man based on the length of tread, but of lesser weight. Now, see here, from these treadmarks, this is no elven boot. I also see, that these tracks are about two hours old and, from where the sun would have been two hours ago, the wearer of the boots was taking care to walk only in the shadows of the trees even if the trail would have been easier to walk over there instead. Based on that, we are looking for someone with light sensitivity. A drow perhaps? But no, a drow would be taking more care to cover its tracks. This is someone unfamiliar with excursions to this kind of terrain. But the real clue is that I recognize the craftsmanship of this boot. See, the leather of this sole is no common terrestrial hide, no this boot was cobbled from the hide of a duskbeast, a planer creature from the plane of shadow. Based on THAT and on the craftsmanship of the work, this boot could only have been made by the tailor-shop Smythe, Smythe and Gunderson, who operate exclusively in the plane of shadow. This, my good friends, is the boot of a Fetchling!"

This kind of thing is possible, but isn't the results of a mere successful roll. As written, would take a critical success on the Search, followed by a success on Knowledge(Plane of Shadow).

And, of course, the PC must have previous personal experience with the tailor shop Smythe, Smythe and Gunderson,

[Coidzor]

This kind of thing is possible, but isn't the results of a mere successful roll. As written, would take a critical success on the Search, followed by a success on Knowledge(Plane of Shadow).

So you're saying that it's not just rolling, but instead arguing that it's rolling well twice in a row.

That's...

That's not really categorically different from rolling, really.


And, of course, the PC must have previous personal experience with the tailor shop Smythe, Smythe and Gunderson,

Unless they're, like, famous enough in the setting or the character just knows that much due to having built a character to know things and specced for knowing things. Those are the sorts of factors which are going to vary wildly from table to table rather than being something you can just declare absolutely, especially online.

(Barring you secretly being or knowing the DM in question and this being specifically about the world that spawned this discussion, of course.)

Speaking of which, that allows us to segue nicely onto the general point of setting details, level of knowledge available during char gen and downtime, and so on. If, say, Eidolons are brand spanking new things that not even the most learned of sages know about anywhere in the planes and there's less than 6 Summoners in existence, then basically no one should know about them that isn't Vecna or Boccob or the equivalent thereof.

If planar travel hasn't been a thing until 1 month ago in-universe, then you don't know what a Fetchling is unless you've encountered one or had direct contact with someone who's been studying them or their notes.

These things are variable as all get out between games.

In my setting, for instance, none of the people native to the main world of origin know anything about the Infernal Bureaucracy of Hell, because it's a planar backwater only slightly less suicidally inconvenient to reach than Athas or Eberron. Whereas in Planescape, if your character is a Sigilite, born and bred, then they'd have to be barmy to not have some knowledge of Hell and the fact that they're real big fans of bureaucracy and contracts.

[Dousedinoil]

I feel bad for the DM. If the player doesn't appreciate the adventure, he knows where the door is. If he had a problem, maybe he should have sit down and talked to him with respect.

Still, these things happen. I've had useless arguments with my players that had ZERO baring on the game. Just laugh about and move on.

[DarkEternal]

From your post, OP, your DM did remarkably well, and that sorcerer player should check his privilege. He got wonderful insights in term of knowledge checks, and fairly close approximations of what he would meet. He knew it was large, what it was shaped like and the number of different tracks. For a knowledge check based on some footprints. If anything, he should be grateful the DM gave that info. As a DM, I would never, ever give the entire knowledge history for something that the player never saw in person, but just saw tracks or hints of a creature. No matter how many ranks or how high he or she rolled.

This was well done by the DM, and bad (though expected) reaction from a player.

[Gallowglass]

And, of course, the PC must have previous personal experience with the tailor shop Smythe, Smythe and Gunderson,


Any man with a solid sense of style and a craving for the finest in planar fashion knows Smythe, Smythe and Gunderson.

Plebian.

[kyoryu]

So you're saying that it's not just rolling, but instead arguing that it's rolling well twice in a row.

That's...

That's not really categorically different from rolling, really.


I'd say it is.

In the one case, the imaginary situation is driving the rolls required, in the other, the rules are being applied *regardless* of the imaginary situation.

Kind of a textbook "rules vs. rulings".

[Jay R]

So you're saying that it's not just rolling, but instead arguing that it's rolling well twice in a row.

That's...

That's not really categorically different from rolling, really.

I wasn't trying to say it was categorically different, but merely that it was way too much information to get from a single successful role. This much information would come from a critical success, plus, more knowledge, which might be modeled by success in another field, plus some additional knowledge that could not come from a roll at all, but only from experience.

[zergling.exe]

I wasn't trying to say it was categorically different, but merely that it was way too much information to get from a single successful role. This much information would come from a critical success, plus, more knowledge, which might be modeled by success in another field, plus some additional knowledge that could not come from a roll at all, but only from experience.

Skill checks don't have critical successes though. :smallconfused:

Rolling 19 with a modifier of +21 is the same as rolling 20 with a modifier of +20. Both give you a result of 40.

[Anlashok]

On the other hand, the sorceror is playing a more RAW game, where Knowledge checks give specific information at specific levels because that's what the rules say.

From that POV, the DM was wrong, because the mechanical interaction chosen did not yield the correct mechanical result.

No he wasn't. Knowledge checks to identify monsters based on their tracks is not even a little bit RAW. The sorcerer was completely in the wrong here in that regard.

Now the sorcerer does have a point insofar as that he has a specialist character that couldn't contribute to the fight at all, but that's a separate issue.

[themaque]

If I read this correctly...

The GM Said you couldn't directly Identify the tracks but gave you general information.

Then the PLAYERS made an educated guess as to what the tracks where from. The GM didn't say "Winter Wolf" just "Large Canine Creature".

If that is the case, than the GM is in the clear and the Sorcerer is being whiney.
If the GM told you what your character assumes it is, then he would have been wrong, but that's not what I'm reading here.

The Sorcerer is guilty of over-specializing but that's an easy trap to fall into and hopefully this will be a learning experience.

[elonin]

I don't see any issue with the dm's presentation if it happened the way described earlier. What did the knowledge checks reveal? The information could be have been gleamed from a survival check for information from the tracks.the Sounds like the issue is the sorcerer's player was expecting the dm to point out when his guess was wrong. Boot tracks could come from any number of things, there would be no way to tell the different hydras apart (or how many heads), and quite a few things could have left those canine prints as well.

To beat an already dead horse, it sounds like the sorcerer made a cardinal mistake by having such a limited scope of spells known and not having some other plan in case his spells wouldn't work.

[LTwerewolf]

No he wasn't. Knowledge checks to identify monsters based on their tracks is not even a little bit RAW. The sorcerer was completely in the wrong here in that regard.

Now the sorcerer does have a point insofar as that he has a specialist character that couldn't contribute to the fight at all, but that's a separate issue.

Indeed, nowhere in the knowledge rules does it have any mention of identifying them via tracks.

[prufock]

Then came the Sorcerer player ranting that it was BS to give us wrong information on Knowledge checks that were easily high enough to identify the creatures. Then even more bull to design an encounter where our strategy was completely wrong and that she couldn't participate in because she only has Enchantment spells and the ones she has had HD limits too low to use or only affected Humanoid targets, and nothing was Humanoid even though my Inquisitor thought the tracks were Elf tracks.

The sorcerer is being a crybaby. What, he doesn't have a freaking crossbow or what? No magic items he could use? Who's fault is that?

[Melcar]

I bet the real reason is just that the person playes a sorcerer, when clealy a Wizard is the way to go! :smallbiggrin:

[LTwerewolf]

I bet the real reason is just that the person playes a sorcerer, when clealy a Wizard is the way to go! :smallbiggrin:

Once you introduce staves and knowstones, a sorcerer is simply a more expensive wizard.

[Bohandas]

TL/DR: Is it wrong for a DM to give false information on Knowledge checks even if they were high enough to succeed, but circumstances/conditions make the success invalid? (E.G. Identifying a creature and learning its weaknesses from tracks found in mud without actually seeing the creature)

That particular example seems like it would be valid PROVIDED that a separate survival check to identify the creature and/or spot check to notice tampering with the prints had ALSO been failed.