Hagashager
2017-08-22, 11:08 AM
Hello all,
I GM a 2e DnD game about once-a-month and last session I ran into a bit of rules lawyering. Thankfully none of my players are aggressive about it, and I was able to avoid any kind of munchkinry, but I'd like to make sure I've got things right on my end too in case things like this come up again.
One of my players is a fighter class who's specialized in a Mancatcher, for those of you who don't know, the Mancatcher's description says that it allows the user to make a to-hit roll against modified target AC of 10, this is regardless of what armor is actually being worn, and also applies to magical armor as well so spells such as Mage Armor are set to AC 10. When in a mancatcher you can't cast most spells or attempt to fight back, you can only attempt to break free with a strength check, or submit to your capture.
This seems weird to me since it means some uber-level mage who can call upon 9th level spells could be incapacitated with a single swing of a mancatcher regardless of what spell protections they have on. I had a first-hand situation with this last session when the player got the idea to try and snare an archmage with the mancatcher when the mage had his back turned.
This lead to a rules-lawyering squabble in which I decided that this only applies to magic spells that alter AC, not generate physical shields, so stuff like Mantle, Absolute Immunity, etc. that create physical shields can still ward off a mancatcher.
needless to say, he agreed but I despise rules lawyering because it inevitably leads to grumbling and accusations of the GM being a tight-wad.
am I right in this logic? Is there a way to counteract a mancatcher? The prevailing strategy for this weapon to have multiple people present at once so as to heavily distract the user in the event he tries to snare a single target.
The other situation I encountered is my party druid uses a nice spell called Fire Trap. We got into a rules-lawyer sparring however since the description says that the trap activates when either the closed object is opened by someone not the caster, or the caster speaks a magic word.
The player interpreted this to mean it functioning like a grenade when the spell is shattered in anyway, essentially making fire-trap a makeshift grenade.
Okay, I decided to let this fly, only if the player speaks the word though, otherwise the object has to be opened. The player balked at the idea though that the spell fizzles if the object is simply broken.
The other thing, and this I did not relent on, however, is the idea of using pre-existing grenades and applying the spell to them to create multiple effects. Another player carries stink-pots and suggested that they open the pots (carefully) so that the druid could apply the fire-trap spell inside to make the stink-pot into a kind of napalm grenade.
I did not back down from that and insisted that was a level of cheese I would not allow, doing that would just release the vapors and poison everyone. They argued it would only dilute the vapors, which was a good enough pay off to cast the spell, I insisted on not allowing it, and set the record straight that I wouldn't allow "grenade stacking".
is this, too, sound logic?
I GM a 2e DnD game about once-a-month and last session I ran into a bit of rules lawyering. Thankfully none of my players are aggressive about it, and I was able to avoid any kind of munchkinry, but I'd like to make sure I've got things right on my end too in case things like this come up again.
One of my players is a fighter class who's specialized in a Mancatcher, for those of you who don't know, the Mancatcher's description says that it allows the user to make a to-hit roll against modified target AC of 10, this is regardless of what armor is actually being worn, and also applies to magical armor as well so spells such as Mage Armor are set to AC 10. When in a mancatcher you can't cast most spells or attempt to fight back, you can only attempt to break free with a strength check, or submit to your capture.
This seems weird to me since it means some uber-level mage who can call upon 9th level spells could be incapacitated with a single swing of a mancatcher regardless of what spell protections they have on. I had a first-hand situation with this last session when the player got the idea to try and snare an archmage with the mancatcher when the mage had his back turned.
This lead to a rules-lawyering squabble in which I decided that this only applies to magic spells that alter AC, not generate physical shields, so stuff like Mantle, Absolute Immunity, etc. that create physical shields can still ward off a mancatcher.
needless to say, he agreed but I despise rules lawyering because it inevitably leads to grumbling and accusations of the GM being a tight-wad.
am I right in this logic? Is there a way to counteract a mancatcher? The prevailing strategy for this weapon to have multiple people present at once so as to heavily distract the user in the event he tries to snare a single target.
The other situation I encountered is my party druid uses a nice spell called Fire Trap. We got into a rules-lawyer sparring however since the description says that the trap activates when either the closed object is opened by someone not the caster, or the caster speaks a magic word.
The player interpreted this to mean it functioning like a grenade when the spell is shattered in anyway, essentially making fire-trap a makeshift grenade.
Okay, I decided to let this fly, only if the player speaks the word though, otherwise the object has to be opened. The player balked at the idea though that the spell fizzles if the object is simply broken.
The other thing, and this I did not relent on, however, is the idea of using pre-existing grenades and applying the spell to them to create multiple effects. Another player carries stink-pots and suggested that they open the pots (carefully) so that the druid could apply the fire-trap spell inside to make the stink-pot into a kind of napalm grenade.
I did not back down from that and insisted that was a level of cheese I would not allow, doing that would just release the vapors and poison everyone. They argued it would only dilute the vapors, which was a good enough pay off to cast the spell, I insisted on not allowing it, and set the record straight that I wouldn't allow "grenade stacking".
is this, too, sound logic?