PDA

View Full Version : So, I know the it's the DM's choice, but what if he is just wrong?



Iamdead7
2007-10-12, 11:52 PM
Such as tonight. Druid wants to make a ranged touch attack. Doesn't know how.

Being as weird as I am (I have the ability to memorize stuff pretty quickly, hence me knowing most of the rules of D&D pretty thoroughly)

I tell them, BAB and Dex. The Druid was like "shouldn't it be wisdom?" (not sure if he was really asking or just trying to get in the extra attack point)

DM agrees, which is totally wrong. I mean, do I use Wisdom to shoot a bow?

I know it's DM's choice, and I usually accept that, but when the DM starts turning the rules upside down, how do I convince them to go with what the rules say instead of taking the cheap way out?

Saithis Bladewing
2007-10-12, 11:53 PM
It's BAB and Dex...unless you have a specific feat, that never changes. What is your DM on?

Personally I'd just tell him up front that he's wrong and should probably follow the rules for the sake of all players involved, exceptions to the rule should be stated well beforehand.

kpenguin
2007-10-12, 11:56 PM
Sounds like the DM I'm working with, who ruled that lullaby creates a widespread sleep effect despite being only a level 0 spell. He's okay now, since I threatened to leave the campaign and, being the only experienced player there, that would be disastrous to his game.

Try explaining why he's wrong and if that doesn't work, threaten to leave.

Ralfarius
2007-10-12, 11:58 PM
Open the book up to the rules for ranged touch attack, slam it down on the able, and shriek OBJECTION! at the top of your lungs. Read, quite succinctly, the rules for ranged touch attacks. Afterward, grab the heads of the DM and other player and clonk 'em together like a pair of coconuts.

Or, just mention it casually and then let it go.

triforcel
2007-10-12, 11:59 PM
It's bound to happen on occasion, but try pointing out that the books claim differently. Sure he might prefer ranged touch attacks to use wisdom bonus, but more than likely it's just a mistake. Unless he's an a$$, pointing this out in a reasonable manner shouldn't cause an issue.

Iamdead7
2007-10-13, 12:04 AM
I would have done that, but the rest of the party is against me (If it benefits them, they'll do it, even if it is wrong)

I tried to explain to the DM, but he just said "Why would you use Dex to throw a fireball at someone (spell was produce flame). You use wisdom to control the spell"

I tried explaining to him that dex was needed anyway, but he cut me off and went back to the fight.

Whenever he says something the rules don't, he just says DM's choice and moves on, and the rest of the party goes with him (it always benefits us)

I'm the only one who doesn't like this. Mostly because I'm the only one who actually enjoys roleplaying at all, and apparently, following rules.

Archpaladin Zousha
2007-10-13, 12:09 AM
I mean, do I use Wisdom to shoot a bow?

Depends. Do you have the Zen Archery feat?

Nowhere Girl
2007-10-13, 12:11 AM
I'd find it a little silly, but what the hell? If the DM wants to houserule that, okay. Whatever.

The only thing I'd do is if I'd built my character on the assumption that Dex was used for ranged touch attacks, ask, "Okay, since you're houseruling this way, do you mind if I adjust my stats accordingly, given I arranged them based on the rules as written?"

If the DM said, "Sure," I think I'd kind of go, "Okay, thanks," and be done with it.

If not, now, I'd be angry. Because them the DM is basically using houserules to arbitrarily gimp your character, which is obnoxious.

triforcel
2007-10-13, 12:19 AM
If that's how he likes to DM then there's not much you can do about it. Try talking to him outside of the gaming session so that you're not interupting the flow of combat. Failing that then you're probably better off finding a different gaming group. If you can't (I know that it's hard for me to even get a party together for a session, let alone a campaign) then you might want to stop playing for a while. The main point of playing is to have fun, if you're not having fun then don't play.

Nelphine
2007-10-13, 01:33 AM
Talk to the DM after the session. Sometimes there are good reasons for making on the spot houserules that are blatantly contradictory to the book.

If none of the other players are particularly up to date on the rules, then often they won't be all that proficient at combat, simply because they don't choose effective skills, feats or stats for their character.

The DM in this case can allow a different stat simply because even if it's 'wrong', it at least gives the character a better chance at doing something useful. It's all well and good to say 'BAB and dex' but if the player when they built their character didn't know anything about the combat system and went 'ooo let's have someone who falls down a lot - Dex 4!' then that character isn't going to do much in combat, which becomes no fun for the player, and tends to annoy the other characters simply due to their inefficiency in combat. But the low dex is fun outside of combat so instead of penalizing the character, allowing him to use a different stat gives the character a unique flavor; allowing him to be fun out of combat, and yet still be fun in a roleplaying sense.

Anyway, that was long. Real point is, there can be good reasons, and as long as you all have fun, it's all good. My suggestion is if he's doing it to benefit the party, don't worry too much about it; he's probably inadvertantly balancing the game and giving everyone the chance to be successful at their tasks, so that no one is left out regardless of the situation.

Dervag
2007-10-13, 03:50 AM
If, on the other hand, he's just pulling rules out of his *ahem* hat, and applying them to the PCs apparently at random for whatever reason seems fitting at the time ("You use wisdom to control the spell!" when many casters are clearly able to deliver devastating spells even with extremely low wisdom), you have a problem. In that case, I suspect things will get worse rather than better over time if you can't talk him out of it.

Does this DM have an autocratic temperment?

Kurald Galain
2007-10-13, 04:15 AM
Talk to the DM after the session. Sometimes there are good reasons for making on the spot houserules that are blatantly contradictory to the book.

Precisely.

In-game, just roll with it; it's only a few pips of difference on a d20, anyway. Then after the game, tell him in private that you've looked it up and it should actually be dex, and try to phrase this in a tactful way rather than coming across as "you're a bad dm".

Dode
2007-10-13, 04:22 AM
Eh, suck it up I say.

The more you guys play, the better acquainted everyone willl become with the rules of the game. Polite and courteous might not give you the immediate gratification over ranged attack rolls, but it'll serve you better then being an obtuse prat over a simple game rule.

Zincorium
2007-10-13, 04:34 AM
Eh, I'm going to have to disagree you on the 'ignore it' idea. From personal experience, I'd say that not bringing up rules misapplications or oversights gets worse the less is done about it.

Because what if next game, you use ranged attack rolls, use dex because that's what the book says to use, and get called a cheater by the other players because they still don't know any better?

Bring it up after the game. Tell the DM that changing basic rules, unless the DM is doing it intentionally to fix a problem, just messes up people who already know the old way of doing it. Barring a change back, have them write it down somewhere so you have some way of referring to it.

Shas aia Toriia
2007-10-13, 07:06 AM
Well, the way the DM worded it, it actually makes sense. I mean, if WIS is used to control the spell, it would make sense that WIS is used to move it around. Just keep in mind though, the casters don't need to be anymore broken. If your DM says casters aren't broken, send him here! :smallbiggrin:

However, if the DM says that WIS applies on ranged attacks, call your objection. That requrires a pretty good feat to do called Zen Archery.

Kurald Galain
2007-10-13, 10:21 AM
However, if the DM says that WIS applies on ranged attacks, call your objection. That requrires a pretty good feat to do called Zen Archery.

By the way, speaking as someone who has actually tried zen archery, that feat is entirely not what it means. It's just a nonsensical shift in the score used, with a funny label tacked on. Personally I would disallow it on grounds that it doesn't actually make any sense.

Serpentine
2007-10-13, 10:42 AM
Sorry, not on the OP's topic (I think that's been pretty comprehensively covered). But briefly on Zen Archery, I think it makes sense in a "Luke Skywalker Use The Force" kind of a way.

Iamdead7
2007-10-13, 10:43 AM
I did tell everyone casters are broken repeatedly.

I threatened to Time Stop/Force Cage/Cloudkill them all a lot. (we were level 2 though >_>).

Some times it might make sense to use wisdom to control the spell, but the rules for the spell say it is thrown. Hence Dex + BAB.

I'll tell him that I don't mind house rules, but stop going directly against the rules right in the middle of battle, even it is for us. (I've never felt threatened once in any of his adventures, so this makes it even worse, the constant house rules for us)

Solo
2007-10-13, 11:06 AM
I did tell everyone casters are broken repeatedly.

I threatened to Time Stop/Force Cage/Cloudkill them all a lot. (we were level 2 though >_>).



You don't know the half of it. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18500&highlight=batman)

At the level you'd be casting Time Stop, the Time Stop/Force Cage/Cloudkill is very, very weak.

Yahzi
2007-10-13, 11:07 AM
I know it's DM's choice, and I usually accept that, but when the DM starts turning the rules upside down, how do I convince them to go with what the rules say instead of taking the cheap way out?
The DM can never be wrong.

He can only be inconsistent. Which is bad, because it's unfair: it can't be a cooperative story-telling exercise if the rules change unpredictably.

If the rules of the DM's world are such that WIS grants a touch attack bonus, then it should always grant a touch attack bonus. Chances are the DM is going to find that rule makes his world really hard to tell stories in. That's what you should tell him - "Do you really want this to always be the case?"

Kurald Galain
2007-10-13, 11:18 AM
Sorry, not on the OP's topic (I think that's been pretty comprehensively covered). But briefly on Zen Archery, I think it makes sense in a "Luke Skywalker Use The Force" kind of a way.

In D&D, that's actually charisma, not wisdom.

Ganon11
2007-10-13, 11:21 AM
I dunno, I think in that particular case, it makes sense. If you're doddering old wizard who can barely walk, let alone throw a ranged weapon to save your life (read: low DEX score), you can still 'throw' a fireball at your enemies. Maybe it would make sense that, in the specific case of making ranged touch attacks with spells, spellcasters could use their primary ability bonus (that is, Wizards use INT, Sorcerers use CHA, etc.).

Dunno if that's broken or not, but I'm no power-gamer.

Pronounceable
2007-10-13, 11:32 AM
This sounds like my kind of DM. Keep the game going, don't slow the flow for rules, enforce Golden Rule... These are the signs of a good DM.

Yahzi is right. The DM can't be wrong. At worst, he can be inconsistent, but never wrong. Being right comes with the job. Inconsistency is bad, but it's not the end of the world.

And he's ruling in your favor, so he's a benevolent DM. But it seems he's TOO benevolent since you say you never feel threatened. Maybe you should mention this fact to him?

Lighten up. Unless DM is screwing you over with inconsistency and random houserules, it's all fun and games.

Serpentine
2007-10-13, 11:32 AM
In D&D, that's actually charisma, not wisdom.
How do you figure? I was thinking in the sense of putting on a blindfold and having to stop getting zapped that way. I'd call that more Wisdom than Charisma.

Starsinger
2007-10-13, 11:33 AM
I know it's DM's choice, and I usually accept that, but when the DM starts turning the rules upside down, how do I convince them to go with what the rules say instead of taking the cheap way out?
Does this rule work to everyone's advantage equally? I mean.. does everyone now use Wisdom for ranged attacks, or their casting stat? Because if so, then it's not so bad.. Although with touch ACs already being low, and dex being a secondary/tertiary stat for casters, you'll rue the day you guys encounter an enemy blaster and/or warmage..


By the way, speaking as someone who has actually tried zen archery, that feat is entirely not what it means. It's just a nonsensical shift in the score used, with a funny label tacked on. Personally I would disallow it on grounds that it doesn't actually make any sense.

You use your one-ness with the everything and nothing of the universe to guide your arrow instead of your ability to pick locks and do backflips.. or somethin' hand wavey and mumbo jumbo filled. :smallsmile:


In D&D, that's actually charisma, not wisdom.

I'd love a Charisma to archery feat, I tend to play elven sorcerers...

Drider
2007-10-13, 11:46 AM
How do you figure? I was thinking in the sense of putting on a blindfold and having to stop getting zapped that way. I'd call that more Wisdom than Charisma.

Jedi are just sorcerors with command, lightning bolt, and telekenesis. and some levels in fighter with glowy swords.

Jayabalard
2007-10-13, 12:03 PM
Eh, suck it up I say.

The more you guys play, the better acquainted everyone willl become with the rules of the game. Polite and courteous might not give you the immediate gratification over ranged attack rolls, but it'll serve you better then being an obtuse prat over a simple game rule.agree 100%

there's nothing to be gained by arguing over a ruling like that.

Starbuck_II
2007-10-13, 12:09 PM
Eh, suck it up I say.

The more you guys play, the better acquainted everyone willl become with the rules of the game. Polite and courteous might not give you the immediate gratification over ranged attack rolls, but it'll serve you better then being an obtuse prat over a simple game rule.

No, everyone will believe in false rules so when they go to another game (later in life they might not be with same DM): they will horrified that all the rules they learned are houserules so become worse players. Forgetting stuf you learn is harder than learning new things.

Just like education system: it fine to tell someone your personal belief (if a teacher does), but he should make it clear that it is a houserule.

Jayabalard
2007-10-13, 12:30 PM
No, everyone will believe in false rules so when they go to another game (later in life they might not be with same DM): they will horrified that all the rules they learned are houserules so become worse players. Forgetting stuf you learn is harder than learning new things.Rules, houserules, it's not all that important; D&D is much more than that. Unless they're a very specific type of person (and it's pretty obvious that they aren't or they would know the correct RAW and be using it) your prediction of being horrified that the rules that they played with were houserules is absurd.

Riffington
2007-10-13, 12:40 PM
This sounds like my kind of DM. Keep the game going, don't slow the flow for rules, enforce Golden Rule... These are the signs of a good DM.


This is absolutely right.
One vital thing from 2nd edition got lost on the way to 3rd: Don't be a Rules Lawyer. If the DM is keeping the game fast and interesting, then he's doing a good job. Stopping the action as if it were a court case instead of a game... it's annoying. If the book and he disagree, it's the book that's wrong.

After the session is over, if you want to have something something work differently (whether to make it more like the rules book or less), you can ask him. Ask about a maximum of one thing per session to avoid being too annoying.

Kaelik
2007-10-13, 02:52 PM
I dunno, I think in that particular case, it makes sense. If you're doddering old wizard who can barely walk, let alone throw a ranged weapon to save your life (read: low DEX score), you can still 'throw' a fireball at your enemies. Maybe it would make sense that, in the specific case of making ranged touch attacks with spells, spellcasters could use their primary ability bonus (that is, Wizards use INT, Sorcerers use CHA, etc.).

Dunno if that's broken or not, but I'm no power-gamer.

A) Fireball does not require a ranged touch attack.
B) Yes that would be ridiculous in how much it favors spell casters.

Iamdead7
2007-10-13, 03:34 PM
It goes faster when I can just tell the rules I read from the book instead of him deciding to go think about it.

artaxerxes
2007-10-13, 03:48 PM
Zen Archery makes complete sense, read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_in_the_Art_of_Archery
I have read the book, it is very interesting.

Mention the DEX vs WIS thing, but do not stop the game for a rules argument. Keeping the game flowing, reserve heated discussion for later, unless it is a dice roll that entails life of death; then all means be a bit more forceful. Generally, raise your objection then just accept the ruling and move on.

I perfectly understand your frustration... I advocate consistent implementation of the rules, prevents many concerns. However some DMs take an inspired view, will let skills do things they 'shouldn't' for example, just because it sounds fitting at that moment... for moments like these I rationalise that the gods, or fate have intervened to help or punish =)

Tallis
2007-10-13, 04:17 PM
If the DM wants to houserule that, okay. Whatever.

The only thing I'd do is if I'd built my character on the assumption that Dex was used for ranged touch attacks, ask, "Okay, since you're houseruling this way, do you mind if I adjust my stats accordingly, given I arranged them based on the rules as written?"

If the DM said, "Sure," I think I'd kind of go, "Okay, thanks," and be done with it.

If not, now, I'd be angry. Because them the DM is basically using houserules to arbitrarily gimp your character, which is obnoxious.

QFT.

The DM isn't wrong. Rule zero says he can't be. Just ask after the game if he's making this an official houserule. If it is, then that's it. Just as long as he's consistant.
You could also mention to him that you'd like to try some tougher challenges.
Ultimately if everyone else is having fun and you're not talk to them. Maybe you can work it out or maybe this just isn't the game for you. Talk to them, but don't disrupt the game to do it.

Collin152
2007-10-13, 06:08 PM
A) Fireball does not require a ranged touch attack.


The spell in question was Produce Flame, a Druid spell, which does require one. That is, after all, why wisdom was the relevant ability score.

Kurald Galain
2007-10-13, 06:30 PM
Zen Archery makes complete sense, read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_in_the_Art_of_Archery
I have read the book, it is very interesting.

No, the concept of zen archery makes sense, but what does not make sense is that this concept is in any way related to adding your wis mod, rather than your dex mod, to missile attacks.

Yes, it is as stupid as the ability that lets you add your int mod to jump checks. Hey, lookit me, I'm Einstein and I can jump high!

Tokiko Mima
2007-10-13, 07:05 PM
Or you could take the passive-agressive approach when next you roll your character: Make it a Druid specializing in ranged touches. Take a reserve Feat or two and go wild. With BAB + Wis on a touch spell, you'll almost never miss. That actually the problem with touch attacks in general at higher levels: Unlike a spell with a save, a touch attack is generally a guaranteed hit. It's a lot harder to boost your touch AC than it is to raise your saves.

Iamdead7
2007-10-13, 10:15 PM
The Spell description even says you chuck the flame, not guide it.

That falls under the category of Dexterity.

Serpentine
2007-10-13, 10:35 PM
Jedi are just sorcerors with command, lightning bolt, and telekenesis. and some levels in fighter with glowy swords.
What does this have to do with zen archery? *sigh* Okay, I'll go into detail about why I used that example: I was referring specifically to those points where Luke is blindfolded and getting zapped and when he turned off his navigational gear to blow up the Deathstar. Leaving aside the whole Magic Force Did It! thing, he had to rely on his other senses and intuition (Wisdom), rather than simply look-do (Dexterity) to get the shots right. That's all I meant by referring to Star Wars. So an ordinary archer will measure up a target by eye, line the arrow up accordingly, keep it still, and let loose (hand-eye coordination, Dexterity). A zen archer will use instinct and an awareness of his surroundings and own body to determine the best time to fire (intuition + self & environmental awareness = Wisdom). Same result, slightly different means.
I can make "Intelligence to Jump" work too :smallbiggrin: Normally, you run up, push off blindly, and use the strength of your legs shove you into the air. If you're intelligent, you can more easily judge the best length of runup, the best point at which to leap, the point in your stride (and how to coordinate the best point in your stride with best point at which to leap), and so on. But I've never heard of this ability, so I've never seen it done.
Regarding the matter at hand, I think that as a general rule it should take longer discussion before a RAW is changed than to argue the adherence to one. That is, the change has to be justified, not the RAW. Homeruling is fine, but there's a reason the Rules are As Written, and if you want to alter it you should have to explain why you think your idea makes more sense and discuss it with the rest of the group. I know from experience what damage excessive, arbitrary and unannounced homeruling can do. My first group, which was entirely made up by utter noobs, knew more about the rules than the DM, a fairly experienced player, because her DM changed so much stuff without telling her what was homebrewed that less than half of what she thought she knew was RAW. For example: she was adamant that clerics were not allowed to wear armor, because "they believe their god will look after them".
So. I think that at least, it's probably worthwhile asking your DM to announce when he's homebrewing something. If it's just a quick judgement to keep the game moving, make that known and look up the relevant rule afterwards so that you all know.
Alternatively, you could just insist that the player take Zen Archery the next time they get a feat if they're going to keep on using their Wisdom to aim :smallwink:

Skjaldbakka
2007-10-13, 10:42 PM
I played a level 10 barbarian in my first (3.0) game. We were fighting zombies, and somehow the DM got it into his head that "immune to death from massive damage" meant "can't be killed by anything that inflicts more that 50 damage in a shot."

I got to punch a lot of zombies to death, because my min damage was 48 or something like that with my great maul. Don't ask me how, I don't remember. I think it involved the Diablo II d20 rules.

Matthew
2007-10-14, 05:48 AM
Here's the thing. It's only you who are unhappy with the way the game is being run. You cannot force your desires on the rest of the group. As long as the DM is aware that he has created a House Rule, he's perfectly within his rights to alter the way the game works, especially if the majority of the players are in agreement. If you wish to express your disagreement, I recommend that you raise any objections only once for each subject within the session and then pursue the matter only after the the session is over. If you really object to the way the game is being run, you can always leave the game or run your own (the ultimate way to ensure that the rules you prefer are in play).


I'm the only one who doesn't like this. Mostly because I'm the only one who actually enjoys roleplaying at all, and apparently, following rules.

Not sure what these two have to do with one another. Following the predetermined rules of the game has nothing at all to do with roleplaying. If your group doesn't roleplay and doesn't follow the rules of the game, those are two distinct issues.

TO_Incognito
2007-10-14, 07:10 AM
I agree with letting it go pretty quickly during gameplay, but talking to him one-on-one later. Making house rules for no clear reason is bad DMing, no two ways about it; every house rule should fix an imbalance or problem or make the game more enjoyable for everyone in some way. But it doesn't sound like your DM is totally aware that his change was a house rule, or that it isn't a very good idea. Just ask to speak with him, explain to him the mistake he made (if he's under the impression he's following the RAW), and tell him you think it's best if he uses the rules as written unless he has a clear reason not to. He'll probably listen and implement it at the beginning of the next session. If he flat-out refuses, probably just let it go; it's a mistake, but not one that should seriously hurt anyone's fun.

Xuincherguixe
2007-10-14, 08:26 AM
He's wrong.

If he made a house rule it'd be different, but that would be acknowledging what the rules are, and then choosing to do something else.


As to if it actually matters or not is another question entirely. I would say it does a little, but a smooth game is more important.

Grey Paladin
2007-10-14, 09:26 AM
Rule 0, complain all you want but the DM IS the Law (Judge Dread FTW)

Ralfarius
2007-10-14, 11:52 AM
Yeah, you're pretty much up the creek on this one. I believe that yes, DM's can be dead wrong (like in this case). Unfortunately, as the DM is the one running the game, right and wrong are less important than authority/not authority.

I mean, in this particular case yes, the DM wasn't making a judgment call on an ambiguous or otherwise difficult to interpret rule, so much as just pulling something out of the air to supersede an already clear rule.

However, because the DM is vested with the power to alter/change/ignore the rules as necessary to improve game flow, one must defer to DM judgment during game play. You can certainly bring it up after the fact, as you have a pretty decent case. If you present yourself reasonably and eloquently, you'll have a better chance of being trusted to help people with the rules in the future.

I am a believer that if all players involved have a firm grasp on the rules, the game will be improved for it. After all, if everyone knows how a rule works, then no one is in the dark when an alternative is suggested. A firm grasp allows for a sensible process in developing house rules.

It's like Monopoly. Free Parking doesn't, by the rules as written, net you any sort of bonus (i.e. a pot of money collected from luxury tax, etc). However, Basically everyone knows the rules of Monopoly, and therefore can freely agree to a variant like that.

However, if someone sat down to a game of Monopoly and had a group that rolled 3 dice instead of 2 for movement, they would risk taking that as standard play. Then, if they sat down with someone else and tried to pick up a third die, they would look the fool and require the actual rules to be explained to them, anyhow. Better that they know how the game is normally played before they develop house rules, I would think.

Jayabalard
2007-10-14, 12:03 PM
Making house rules for no clear reason is bad DMing, no two ways about itThe game kept moving quickly and smoothly, and was at least as interesting/fun as it would be otherwise; that's good DMing by my definition. Stopping to figure out what the book says if you don't remember if is bad DMing. So there are "two ways about it"

As a DM, you should make a decision, even if it's wrong, and move on.

Ralfarius
2007-10-14, 12:11 PM
Also, I'm a little perturbed by the idea of "good DMing/bad DMing" being these concrete ideas. I would say that, if a group prefers to stay as close to the rules as possible, then a good DM for them would be one who is willing to take 30 seconds to look a rule up once for clarification. However, if the group is more focused on just hand-waving for the sake of a faster-paced game, then a good DM for them would follow that.

There are definitely two ways about it, like Jayabalard says.

Zincorium
2007-10-14, 12:16 PM
The game kept moving quickly and smoothly, and was at least as interesting/fun as it would be otherwise; that's good DMing by my definition. Stopping to figure out what the book says if you don't remember if is bad DMing. So there are "two ways about it"

As a DM, you should make a decision, even if it's wrong, and move on.

If the DM hadn't just been told the actual rule, I might agree with you (albeit still recommending that the OP talk to the DM later).

Instead of deciding to change it, the DM could simply have agreed with the OP and the game would have gone on just as quickly. There wasn't a need to look at the book. So the benefit you cite was nonexistent in this context.

Iamdead7
2007-10-14, 03:52 PM
I tried to talk to him, but I forgot he's one of the types that hates being argued with in anything. So yeah.

If he keeps this up, I'll actually yell at him.

And I have the authority to do this because we always play at my house and I feed them.

Matthew
2007-10-14, 03:58 PM
Uh, I hope that you're joking, because yelling at someone isn't likely to change their mind. If he doesn't like to be argued with, try another approach (and, seriously, taking an argumentative stance was a poor idea to begin with).

Try:

"Hey Bob, you know that rules call you made the other day? Well, I looked it up afterwards, and the book said X. Are we going to play it as X or are we going to keep playing it as Y? Personally, I like X, but it's your game, so it's up to you."

Nero24200
2007-10-14, 05:50 PM
OP: DM is a gimp. He is changing rules on the spot without the consent of the group, which, in my opinion, is never right. His logic is also flawed, Wisdom to through a ball of fire? Hes throwing the fire. Take a wise person onto the street, give him a rock, and ask him/her to smack someone right between the eyes with it who is 30ft away. If he makes it, then good for him/her. If every wise person you ask does this, then your DM is right. If, however, only those with steady hands who are good at throwing things (which, last I checked, was represeanted by Dexterity in D'n'D) can do it, then your DM is, without question, wrong.

I rarely agree to rules changes on the spot, because these kind of aurgments usally happen as a result. If in disagreement about whether this should apply to the mechanics I stick with rules as written unless -everyone- (including myself) in the group feels otherwise, which, you didn't. I wouldn't be too surprised if he is one of those DMs who even just say "Well, we're doing it this way because I'm the DM"

Kaelik
2007-10-14, 06:49 PM
The problem is that most of you aren't understanding what happened. What happened was:

1) The DM didn't know the rules (a very basic rule too)
2) He asked what the rule was
3) Someone who knows the rules better then him told him the rule
4) He said "That's dumb, lets just do something totally different for no reason except that I feel like it."

He is an idiot. He didn't speed things up, he doesn't need to have the rule explained to him, he doesn't need to be shown the rules. He doesn't care what the rules are, he's just an idiot.

Matthew
2007-10-14, 06:56 PM
Er... no. That's hardly a fair (or accurate - read the OP again) description of what has so far been related, nor are the rules of D&D inviolate. In fact, 'that's dumb' is an entirely valid reason to change the rule. As far as I am aware, that's the exact reason most people don't use the drowning rules. Indeed, the only person upset by the DM's decision is the OP, who has told us that the rest of the group are happy with the Wisdom Attribute governing this particular instance.

Riffington
2007-10-14, 08:36 PM
This isn't about logic (none of you have real-life knowledge of magic's workings, so none of you can say what attribute is most reasonable for druids).
It isn't about RAW since this isn't a tournament. Standardization is useful if you want DMs to be interchangeable, but that's not the case here.

It's about a player (the one using a power) and the DM both agreeing that Wis would be the most fun/reasonable way to target his spell. And an uninvolved player getting annoyed that his rulebook was misprinted with WOTC's rule instead of the actual rule in his game. The best way he can handle this annoyance in the future is to minimize his rules suggestions, offering them only when it's a big deal.

Zincorium
2007-10-14, 08:55 PM
This isn't about logic (none of you have real-life knowledge of magic's workings, so none of you can say what attribute is most reasonable for druids).
It isn't about RAW since this isn't a tournament. Standardization is useful if you want DMs to be interchangeable, but that's not the case here.

It's about a player (the one using a power) and the DM both agreeing that Wis would be the most fun/reasonable way to target his spell. And an uninvolved player getting annoyed that his rulebook was misprinted with WOTC's rule instead of the actual rule in his game. The best way he can handle this annoyance in the future is to minimize his rules suggestions, offering them only when it's a big deal.

If someone asks you how to do something, you tell them. That's all the OP did. Don't even pretend the OP was rules-lawyering afterwards, it didn't happen.

It would be far better to tell the other player to "minimize his rules suggestions, offering them only when it's a big deal" rather than the OP.

When you get together to play D&D, one of the things that is agreed to is that you are going to be using specific sets of rules. You can change the rules of any game, baseball (softball), chess (bughouse) and so on. But you don't very well change basic rules mid-game unless the rules stop everyone from having fun. Standardization isn't just for interchangeable DMs, as you claim, it's so people can play the game without having to ask the DM about things every five seconds.

Riffington
2007-10-15, 06:25 AM
If someone asks you how to do something, you tell them. That's all the OP did. Don't even pretend the OP was rules-lawyering afterwards, it didn't happen.

I see you didn't read OP as far as "but when the DM starts turning the rules upside down, how do I convince them to go with what the rules say instead of taking the cheap way out?"
Notice he asked "how do I convince them" not "should I convince them" - now the OP can correct me and say that actually he didn't try/fail to convince them already, but that's not what this sounds like.



When you get together to play D&D, one of the things that is agreed to is that you are going to be using specific sets of rules.

Maybe at your games. In mine, we agree on things like time/place to meet, what kind of setting it'll be, what kinds of themes we might explore, what kinds of characters would fit well into the story... we leave specific rules to the DM. And he often decides that stuff later in the story. For example, he might just streamline grappling until a player takes Improved Grapple (or he puts in a cool grappler opponent), at which time he might start using the book's grapple rules.

Zincorium
2007-10-15, 06:37 AM
I see you didn't read OP as far as "but when the DM starts turning the rules upside down, how do I convince them to go with what the rules say instead of taking the cheap way out?"
Notice he asked "how do I convince them" not "should I convince them" - now the OP can correct me and say that actually he didn't try/fail to convince them already, but that's not what this sounds like.


Please, please do not tell me I didn't read things. That really ticks me off, and there is no cause for it.

When the other player is CLEARLY convincing the DM of doing things in a way which is not supported by the rules, stating the OP is somehow out of line in convincing the DM the other way is a blatant double standard (without reason).


Maybe at your games. In mine, we agree on things like time/place to meet, what kind of setting it'll be, what kinds of themes we might explore, what kinds of characters would fit well into the story... we leave specific rules to the DM. And he often decides that stuff later in the story. For example, he might just streamline grappling until a player takes Improved Grapple (or he puts in a cool grappler opponent), at which time he might start using the book's grapple rules.

BUT, you agree to play D&D. Or GURPS. Or homebrew, freeform, whatever. In your case, you are playing D&D, but by your own admission not all of it all of the time. This is not wrong, but it is not the one true way of doing things.

In the case of D&D, there are rule books. Pretty much every group has them. Now, the books are not the way that things have to be done, but they are the default way, and before the game has a chance to begin, they are the only indication the players have of what the game is going to be like. Groups which do not operate by at least the baseline rules are the exception.

I don't walk into a D&D game and expect to roll gnosis + essentia. I also don't expect to use wisdom instead of dexterity to roll ranged touch attacks. Why? Because it clearly says so, and every group I've been in has done it. It's the way the game was playtested.

Changing rules, on a whim, leads to nobody actually knowing the rules, or understanding them.

Riffington
2007-10-15, 10:41 AM
In your case, you are playing D&D, but by your own admission not all of it all of the time.

My head asplode.

Tokahfang
2007-10-15, 12:58 PM
I tried to talk to him, but I forgot he's one of the types that hates being argued with in anything. So yeah.

If he keeps this up, I'll actually yell at him.

And I have the authority to do this because we always play at my house and I feed them.

Wow... you don't sound like someone I would like to have in my gaming group! Hosting the game means little more than authority to shotgun the comfortable seat, not carte blanche to be rude to your friends. It also sometimes has perks like you never having to miss a session, because if you're not coming it gets called off. That's about as far as it goes, though.

"So, I know the it's the DM's choice, but what if he is just wrong?"

Your answer was in your subject line. It's the DM's choice. If your DM makes a call that isn't RAW, just let the other players know for educational purposes, than move on. Maybe he won't like how it worked out, and fix it next campaign. Maybe he won't.

Alternatively, you could run a game yourself. You apparently have a knowledge of the rules and a place to host the game. Then you could be the DM, and try to get people to play in your particular style. It sounds like the rest of the group is having fun though, so you might need some new players. :smallwink:

tainsouvra
2007-10-15, 01:13 PM
I know it's DM's choice, and I usually accept that, but when the DM starts turning the rules upside down, how do I convince them to go with what the rules say instead of taking the cheap way out? Talk to him after the session. If he sees it your way afterward, great. If he consistently doesn't want to use the D&D rules, then politely inform him that, while his group appears to be having fun, it's not a good match for you and you will be leaving to find a group that plays D&D.

tainsouvra
2007-10-15, 01:24 PM
I tried to talk to him, but I forgot he's one of the types that hates being argued with in anything. So yeah. Don't argue. Inform him of the actual rule and let him use his best judgment. He's the DM.
If he keeps this up, I'll actually yell at him. This is an exceptionally immature response. Don't do that.
And I have the authority to do this because we always play at my house and I feed them. Being the host doesn't give you a free pass to be a jerk to your guests. If the group doesn't play in a way that you're comfortable with, ask them to play elsewhere...but do it after the game ends, and be polite.

Ne0
2007-10-15, 01:38 PM
Your answer was in your subject line. It's the DM's choice. If your DM makes a call that isn't RAW, just let the other players know for educational purposes, than move on. Maybe he won't like how it worked out, and fix it next campaign. Maybe he won't.

Yes, but I think the problem here lies that the OP didn't get a chance for these 'educational purposes'. He got cut off before he could even defend his point of view.

Now, I'm still a fair newbie at D&D, but in the few RL games I've played, each player got a 'veto' against the DM's choice, as in they could fight this decision. It was specifically designed for these kind of mechanic trivialties. When a player thought the DM was just plain wrong - not a housebrewing rule, but just accidently totally using the rules wrong and unfairly -, the books would be taken out, and after finding out what the rulebooks said, the DM could reconsider his decision.

Of course, you could only use your veto once or twice a session, but it didn't slow down the game, and kept everybody happy. (apart from some grudges between players... :smallwink: )

valadil
2007-10-15, 01:39 PM
I agree with what's been said. Keeping the game moving is more important than catering to every last rule. Your GM should certainly listen when you talk to him after game, but you're better off playing wrong and moving on than taking time out of game to read through books.

In this particular case it might be worthwhile to look up that rule in game. It's in the PHB, in the combat options section, probably around page 170 (actually more like 135 or 140 now that I've looked), and won't take more than a moment to look up. You'd be within bounds to say "do you mind if I look that one up real quick while we keep playing?" or something to that effect. Don't harp on it, just ask and look it up while combat continues. Now if the GM tries to say that he's houseruling it to wisdom and you want to provide zen archery as a counterexample, but aren't even sure what book that's in, then you're probably better off waiting till after game.

Kurald Galain
2007-10-15, 02:09 PM
Hosting the game means little more than authority to shotgun the comfortable seat, not carte blanche to be rude to your friends.

While that is true, I seem to be getting the impression that the OP isn't really playing with friends.

Kaelik
2007-10-15, 03:17 PM
I agree with what's been said. Keeping the game moving is more important than catering to every last rule. Your GM should certainly listen when you talk to him after game, but you're better off playing wrong and moving on than taking time out of game to read through books.

In this particular case it might be worthwhile to look up that rule in game. It's in the PHB, in the combat options section, probably around page 170 (actually more like 135 or 140 now that I've looked), and won't take more than a moment to look up. You'd be within bounds to say "do you mind if I look that one up real quick while we keep playing?" or something to that effect. Don't harp on it, just ask and look it up while combat continues. Now if the GM tries to say that he's houseruling it to wisdom and you want to provide zen archery as a counterexample, but aren't even sure what book that's in, then you're probably better off waiting till after game.

Yet another person under the mistaken impression that the DM would even need to open a book.

DM: What color shirt is your character wearing?
Player: Green.
Player 2: No Blue.
DM: Yeah it's blue. DM call.
Every poster in this thread: It's better to just keep the game going then spend all that time looking through your character sheet (for something we already know the right answer to, but are ignoring anyway.)

Tor the Fallen
2007-10-15, 03:26 PM
Yet another person under the mistaken impression that the DM would even need to open a book.

DM: What color shirt is your character wearing?
Player: Green.
Player 2: No Blue.
DM: Yeah it's blue. DM call.
Every poster in this thread: It's better to just keep the game going then spend all that time looking through your character sheet (for something we already know the right answer to, but are ignoring anyway.)

In that case, it looks like the DM would be playing by himself.


Looking rules up is good, even if it slows the game down. Why? Consistency. I hate building characters using a set of assumptions of how the imagined universe works, only to be informed later that due to the DMs incompetence and illiteracy, the character is inviable.

If the DM makes some **** up every time he's faced with a situation that's covered in the rules, you'll soon get a bunch of contradictory rulings, which will make it more difficult for you, as a player, to decide what to do with your character.

I find that an opaque rule set, ie, the DM just pulls it from his ass, makes it harder to play. It's like reality keeps changing for my character.

Kurald Galain
2007-10-15, 03:35 PM
Looking rules up is good, even if it slows the game down. Why? Consistency.

This is not really true.

A good DM can keep the game consistent even without having to look anything up.

A bad DM cannot keep the game consistent, even if he is looking things up all the time.

What you want is a good DM. Looking up rules is irrelevant to good DM'ing.

Riffington
2007-10-15, 04:01 PM
I hate building characters using a set of assumptions of how the imagined universe works, only to be informed later that due to the DMs incompetence and illiteracy, the character is inviable.


If it turns out that the numbers you put down on your paper don't best describe the character you had in mind, just ask the DM to work with you to change some of those numbers so that your envisioned character matches his mechanics.

Kaelik
2007-10-15, 05:45 PM
If it turns out that the numbers you put down on your paper don't best describe the character you had in mind, just ask the DM to work with you to change some of those numbers so that your envisioned character matches his mechanics.

Which helps right up until he changes something else, and something else, and something else. Until you end up with a Wizard with 18 Str 3 Int and all his ranks in Knowledge (History) because Str determines how forceful your gestures are for somatic components and therefore determines how powerful your spells are, Wisdom governs skill points and Int covers nothing at all. Oh, and you have to know the history of a spell to identify it when cast.

Matthew
2007-10-15, 05:55 PM
Yet another person under the mistaken impression that the DM would even need to open a book.

DM: What color shirt is your character wearing?
Player: Green.
Player 2: No Blue.
DM: Yeah it's blue. DM call.
Every poster in this thread: It's better to just keep the game going then spend all that time looking through your character sheet (for something we already know the right answer to, but are ignoring anyway.)

That's clearly not what happened. By omitting the motivation for the change and making it an arbitrary decision you completely change the context. This has nothing to do with opening or closing rulebooks and everything to do with the DM making a decision to change a rule of the game. He did it, the player objected, the DM over ruled him, now it's time to suck it up or leave.

Kaelik
2007-10-15, 06:32 PM
That's clearly not what happened. By omitting the motivation for the change and making it an arbitrary decision you completely change the context. This has nothing to do with opening or closing rulebooks and everything to do with the DM making a decision to change a rule of the game. He did it, the player objected, the DM over ruled him, now it's time to suck it up or leave.

Actually the DM just didn't believe him. If you read it carefully, two players disagreed about how ranged touch attacks were made. The DM sided with one of them, the wrong one. If two players disagree about something, and only one of them has a vested interest, believe the other one/look it up.

Matthew
2007-10-15, 07:29 PM
Actually the DM just didn't believe him. If you read it carefully, two players disagreed about how ranged touch attacks were made. The DM sided with one of them, the wrong one. If two players disagree about something, and only one of them has a vested interest, believe the other one/look it up.

I would be interested to know where you got that impression. As far as I can see, the DM just decided he was going to do it differently regardless of what the rules said, based on his conception of what Wisdom should govern. I guess we'll hear back from the OP as to whether he was not believed or simply over ruled.

Dervag
2007-10-15, 08:26 PM
The problem is that his concept of what wisdom should govern appears to exist without reference to the rules describing what wisdom and dexterity mean.

That's not intrinsically wrong; it is perfectly OK to redefine some of the roles of ability scores for purposes of a houserule. But you should know that you're doing it. You should be aware of the book rule before you make a house rule, so that you can keep an eye out for potential consequences of your houserule (such as making a cleric the world's best sharpshooter and making the dexterity-based archer-fighter unable to hit the broad side of a barn).

Based on the original post alone, there is no evidence that the DM in question does know the book rule. Which is extremely bad DMing, because ranged attacks are one of the basic aspects of the system. This isn't like being confused about a detail of the Attack of Opportunity rules.

Riffington
2007-10-15, 08:45 PM
Which helps right up until he changes something else, and something else, and something else. Until you end up with a Wizard with 18 Str 3 Int and all his ranks in Knowledge (History) because Str determines how forceful your gestures are for somatic components and therefore determines how powerful your spells are, Wisdom governs skill points and Int covers nothing at all. Oh, and you have to know the history of a spell to identify it when cast.

If your DM is that ridiculous, then it doesn't matter what rules you use, because he's an idiot. He could be playing with those houserules, he could be playing with the RAW houserule that some of you swear by, or he could be playing with super-awesome rules designed by Orson Scott Card. It wouldn't matter, because no rules can fix a bad DM.

If you don't trust your DM to make up rules, how the heck can you trust him to craft compelling plot, roleplay vivid NPCs, share the spotlight appropriately amongst the characters, etc?

Kaelik
2007-10-15, 09:22 PM
I would be interested to know where you got that impression. As far as I can see, the DM just decided he was going to do it differently regardless of what the rules said, based on his conception of what Wisdom should govern. I guess we'll hear back from the OP as to whether he was not believed or simply over ruled.

Reread the post?

DM: What is the rule?
OP: BAB + Dex
Other Player: No it's Wisdom.
DM: Yeah that's what it is.


If your DM is that ridiculous, then it doesn't matter what rules you use, because he's an idiot. He could be playing with those houserules, he could be playing with the RAW houserule that some of you swear by, or he could be playing with super-awesome rules designed by Orson Scott Card. It wouldn't matter, because no rules can fix a bad DM.

If you don't trust your DM to make up rules, how the heck can you trust him to craft compelling plot, roleplay vivid NPCs, share the spotlight appropriately amongst the characters, etc?

Actually, I can trust my DM to make rules, because he doesn't make up/change rules just because he can, he only does it for reasons, ("I don't know but I have a book right here that tells me the answer" is not a reason.) As such, he isn't that ridiculous, and I would never play with one who was, but you would, because each time the DM changes the rule mid-game for no real reason other then he feels like it you just nod along.

Matthew
2007-10-15, 09:25 PM
Reread the post?

DM: What is the rule?
OP: BAB + Dex
Other Player: No it's Wisdom.
DM: Yeah that's what it is.

Say what? No. The phrase was "Shouldn't it be Wisdom?", not "It's wisdom".

Kaelik
2007-10-15, 09:29 PM
Say what? No. The phrase was "Shouldn't it be Wisdom?", not "It's wisdom".

Right. Which means, "Shouldn't I (by the rules) add my Wisdom modifier to the role instead of Dexterity?" To which the correct answer is "No."

However, even if he asked, "Shouldn't Wisdom govern ranged touch attacks?" The correct answer would still be "No."

Matthew
2007-10-15, 09:33 PM
Right. Which means, "Shouldn't I (by the rules) add my Wisdom modifier to the role instead of Dexterity?" To which the correct answer is "No."

Well, I guess we're reading it differently, then. The follow up post (#6) seems to indicate that the DM knows that Dexterity governs Ranged attacks, but for this particular instance he has decided Wisdom will govern the throwing of Fire.


However, even if he asked, "Shouldn't Wisdom govern ranged touch attacks?" The correct answer would still be "No."

No, that's your answer and the answer the RAW gives. It isn't the 'correct' answer in any absolute sense.

Riffington
2007-10-15, 09:45 PM
Actually, I can trust my DM to make rules, because he doesn't make up/change rules just because he can, he only does it for reasons, ("I don't know but I have a book right here that tells me the answer" is not a reason.) As such, he isn't that ridiculous, and I would never play with one who was, but you would, because each time the DM changes the rule mid-game for no real reason other then he feels like it you just nod along.

You must have misunderstood this sentence, let me repeat it for you. "If you don't trust your DM to make up rules, how the heck can you trust him to craft compelling plot, roleplay vivid NPCs, share the spotlight appropriately amongst the characters, etc?"

My favorite DMs don't make up ridiculous rules. But they certainly do make up rules, and "Wis to target a Druidic spell" would be a pretty minor change compared to some they've made.

I trust them when they make up rules because they do so for solid reasons ranging from "it's simpler" to "it makes more sense" to "I want to give so-and-so a chance to shine" to "it just sounded like fun". And when they do it, it usually results in a good time.

If you find a great DM, you'll know it from the storytelling, acting, and caring. If she changes some rules, you should try nodding along and seeing where it ends up. You might have more fun.

Kaelik
2007-10-15, 10:42 PM
No, that's your answer and the answer the RAW gives. It isn't the 'correct' answer in any absolute sense.

Only if you are a relativist. In which case nothing really matters because any change could be "good" so therefore all changes should be treated as valid?


You must have misunderstood this sentence, let me repeat it for you. "If you don't trust your DM to make up rules, how the heck can you trust him to craft compelling plot, roleplay vivid NPCs, share the spotlight appropriately amongst the characters, etc?"

My favorite DMs don't make up ridiculous rules. But they certainly do make up rules, and "Wis to target a Druidic spell" would be a pretty minor change compared to some they've made.

I trust them when they make up rules because they do so for solid reasons ranging from "it's simpler" to "it makes more sense" to "I want to give so-and-so a chance to shine" to "it just sounded like fun". And when they do it, it usually results in a good time.

If you find a great DM, you'll know it from the storytelling, acting, and caring. If she changes some rules, you should try nodding along and seeing where it ends up. You might have more fun.

You must have misunderstood. My DM (also me when I DM) changes rules, makes rules, alters rules, and does all sorts of other things. The difference is he does so for good reasons, not stupid ones. As such, he is a good DM, not a bad one.

How major or minor a change is doesn't matter, whether it is a good change and how you go about changing rules does.

No one I play with agrees to a change in the rules mid-combat mid-campaign just because the DM says so. There has to be a real concrete reason. Which is of course not an issue because the DM actually thinks about rule changes instead of making them up on the fly just because some player wants that change.

JadedDM
2007-10-16, 01:07 AM
So...let me get this straight.

The DM made a ruling that is contradictory to what the books say. You object, but nobody else cares. The change is actually beneficial to the players (you, in fact, claim all changes he has made are beneficial). So it's not a matter of him screwing you guys over.

So, at worst, he's just making the game too easy. This in itself could be a problem, except everyone else in the party likes that. You're the odd man out, which means this is a matter of playstyle difference. You can basically either suck it up or find another game (or start your own).


It goes faster when I can just tell the rules I read from the book instead of him deciding to go think about it.

In other words, the game would be much better if the DM just did everything you told him to do, right? Maybe you should start your own game then.


If he keeps this up, I'll actually yell at him.

And I have the authority to do this because we always play at my house and I feed them.

But based on this quote right here, I wouldn't expect anyone to want to join a game run by you.

You seem to have this impression that any deviation from the books is 'wrong.' The books, however, are not Divine Law. The point of the game is not to follow the rules of the letter. The point of the game is to have fun. The DM seems to be having fun. The other players are having fun. Thus, the problem is not the DM. It's you.

So deal with it. Or leave the group. But don't be a jerk and try and force your views on the other players by abusing the fact you host the games. That is the height of rudeness and immaturity.

Dervag
2007-10-16, 01:51 AM
Only if you are a relativist. In which case nothing really matters because any change could be "good" so therefore all changes should be treated as valid?That is not a reasonable interpretation of his statement.

The rules invented by Wizards of the Coast are by no means perfect. They contain inconsistencies (the drowning rules, for instance), and in some ways they defy common sense (the falling damage rules, for instance).

As such, it is entirely reasonable for DMs operating independently to create their own versions of the rules, so long as these rules are consistent and sensible. If the rules are seriously inconsistent, it's a problem. If the rules are much more nonsensical than the standard rules it interferes with the fun, because the players have to overcome a greater barrier to their suspension of disbelief.

But even stupid rule changes are not inherently invalid rules, because the rules of a game are arbitrary. The fact that a rule is valid does not mean that it ought to be instituted.

As for the original poster, I'm torn between understanding his frustration and advising him to lighten up, but I lean towards the former. Essentially, his problem is that the DM's rule changes are putting him in a Wile E. Coyote kind of situation. He develops expectations of how the world works, then plans accordingly, then puts those plans into action. But his plans fail and his expectations are violated because the %&*(# laws of physics in the universe his character occupies aren't consistent. They keep changing. One day it's dexterity that governs ranged attacks, the next it's wisdom. Even if that doesn't hurt the party, it's certainly disconcerting. And what if tomorrow it's charisma that governs ranged attacks because a sorceror "used personal magnetism" to force a spell to go where he wants it?

I like having consistent rules of nature within any given setting, so I sympathize with this problem.

Tormsskull
2007-10-16, 05:48 AM
I think the OP has a valid point, but really this is just a difference in playstyles. I've been in groups before where I was the only one who knew the rules, and I would constantly be correcting the DM, but sometimes the DM would still decide not to use whichever rule he might have been wrong on.

In the specific issue in this thread, the DM altered a rule on the fly that as far as I can tell is not going to affect the OPer's character at all. The only difference it made was powerup another PC. Since the OPer explained that he is the only one who really knows the rules all that well, I'm guessing that this druid PC that got powered up isn't a powergamer. Therefore, I'd imagine that this minor rule being altered is not going to dramatically affect the game.

By that is all really besides the point, because the answer to the OPer's question is simply "Decide if the DM being wrong stops you from enjoying the game. If so, leave that group."

Iamdead7
2007-10-16, 06:25 AM
I suppose I did overreact, but I still want the several times I read the PHB to mean something.

And for houserules to make sense.

Accersitus
2007-10-16, 06:52 AM
In my group I'm established as "the rules guru", but I have a lousy pokerface. So if some other player starts a sentence with: "I think i can use * for *" all the DM has to do is look at my response to the statement to know how he should rule. Unfortunately this doesn't extend to the NPCs and monsters who often break the rules(even the ones that make sense) no matter how much we object.
This has the sad tendency to evolve into larger arguments that take up valuable gaming time. With the players complaining that some rules only apply to them and not the monsters.

Sam K
2007-10-16, 06:56 AM
I'd make sure to ask the DM if this was a houserule that would be in use from now on, and if he could clarify how it would work (ie do you always use wis for spell based ranged touch attacks, or do you use your caster score?) I would mention how this differs from the book to the players if they were new.

AFTER the game (or if it was a change I considered game altering, after the COMBAT) I would discuss the change with the GM, preferably in private. Its bad form to question the GM infront of the group, and VERY bad form to do it during play. If I felt I had a problem with it, either because of how it affects the game (making powerful characters even more powerful) or just because I didn't like how it was changed (the GM always asking me to help the new guys out with the rules, then cange the rules, making me look like an idiot). Now, if the GMs hosueruling was stupid (like using wis for ALL ranged touch attacks, even nonmagical, because he likes wisdom more than dex) or inconsistent (it only applies to that chracter, on weekdays, between 5 and 9pm) I would challenge him on it. Or just leave.

MrNexx
2007-10-16, 04:26 PM
Your statement is a logical impossibility. The DM is never wrong. He may disagree with the RAW, but he cannot be wrong.

Kaelik
2007-10-16, 04:40 PM
Your statement is a logical impossibility. The DM is never wrong. He may disagree with the RAW, but he cannot be wrong.

Um...Yes he can.

DM: I am wearing a blue shirt (is wearing a green shirt.)

DM: The book says X (The book says Y.)

DM: Ranged Touch attacks use Wisdom (Ranged Touch attacks use Dex)

Now if he wanted to be right, he would say, "I am changing the rules so that X."

MrNexx
2007-10-16, 05:38 PM
Um...Yes he can.

DM: I am wearing a blue shirt (is wearing a green shirt.)

DM: The book says X (The book says Y.)

DM: Ranged Touch attacks use Wisdom (Ranged Touch attacks use Dex)

Now if he wanted to be right, he would say, "I am changing the rules so that X."

With regards to what the rules of the game are, he cannot be wrong. Your third example is wrong.

Kaelik
2007-10-16, 06:34 PM
With regards to what the rules of the game are, he cannot be wrong. Your third example is wrong.

No it isn't. The DM can change the rules as much as he wants. But that doesn't mean that he can't be wrong.

If a DM makes a mistake and accidentally says the wrong word does that mean the rules change and then change back when he corrects himself? No. He was wrong.

Likewise if the DM does not know what the correct rule is, and thinks that the rule is something else, he has made a mistake and is wrong. When he later finds out that he was wrong he can then decide that he wants to change the rules.

The rules are what the books state they are. The DM can change those, but if he says that they are something else without first saying that he is changing them to that then he is wrong.

"Wisdom governs ranged touch attacks" is wrong.

If the statement is precluded by, "In this campaign/In my setting/I think it should be (and am changing it to)/I am changing it so that" then he is changing the rules and will be right when he says that. But a DM can be wrong about the rules if he doesn't know them or misunderstands them without intending to change them.

Ralfarius
2007-10-16, 07:04 PM
Your statement is a logical impossibility. The DM is never wrong. He may disagree with the RAW, but he cannot be wrong.
I am vehemently opposed to papal DM infallibility. The DM is a human being, capable of making judgment errors. Just because they are in control of the game at the moment does not make them 'never wrong'. It means they technically have final say. However, a DM's power is limited expressly by the players who grant it in the first place. No group? No power.

I remember a little item called 'potion of ultimate DM' from way back in the day. It was sort of a group consensus veto if the DM ever started to get out of control to the point where it was causing the group at large to not enjoy the game.

A DM can most certainly be incorrect. Whether that matters to the game is the point of contention.

Umbral_Arcanist
2007-10-16, 07:08 PM
After the session i'd e-mail the DM say that you were unsure about the ranged touch attack thing so you looked it up and give him a page reference in the PHB or an SRD link or whatever. That way it's non-confrontational and the DM learns the rules (everybody wins!!!)

VeisuItaTyhjyys
2007-10-16, 07:17 PM
I tried to explain to the DM, but he just said "Why would you use Dex to throw a fireball at someone (spell was produce flame). You use wisdom to control the spell"

I tried explaining to him that dex was needed anyway,

I don't see why Dex is really needed. Using Wisdom to control the spell makes much more sese. I don't think you're necessarily literally throwing the ball of flame, more projecting it with magical force. You also couldn't really throw a ball of fire without magic being involved, additionally, as throwing pure flame is impossible, and your hand wouldn't be able to guide a ball of very cool plasma, anyway. Thus, using magic as a guide makes a lot more sense than the RAW way of Dex. I'm with the DM, here.
I mean, going with the rules when they are totally nonsensical seems silly to me. One cannot throw a ball of fire. One can throw a ball that is on fire, but that's about as close as you can get. The D&D rules are really ridiculous in a lot of places, already, a little tweaking to make them form some degree of sensibility isn't so bad at all. So, while it may say you throw the flame, that's really stupid. Making it with magic isn't going to make it any easier to throw unless you also throw it with magic. Then you're guiding it with magic.

Tor the Fallen
2007-10-16, 07:33 PM
I don't see why Dex is really needed. Using Wisdom to control the spell makes much more sese. I don't think you're necessarily literally throwing the ball of flame, more projecting it with magical force. You also couldn't really throw a ball of fire without magic being involved, additionally, as throwing pure flame is impossible, and your hand wouldn't be able to guide a ball of very cool plasma, anyway. Thus, using magic as a guide makes a lot more sense than the RAW way of Dex. I'm with the DM, here.
I mean, going with the rules when they are totally nonsensical seems silly to me. One cannot throw a ball of fire. One can throw a ball that is on fire, but that's about as close as you can get. The D&D rules are really ridiculous in a lot of places, already, a little tweaking to make them form some degree of sensibility isn't so bad at all. So, while it may say you throw the flame, that's really stupid. Making it with magic isn't going to make it any easier to throw unless you also throw it with magic. Then you're guiding it with magic.

1. It's magic, any fluff reason can be given for throwing the ball of fire. Hell, you could require skill: "throw fire spell" to use it accurately, that's based on constitution. But dex works best, as every single ranged touch attack is made with dex. The spell is explicitly not 'guided with magic', like a fireball spell is, or magic missile; it's thrown. Your arm guides it. If you're a shaky old gnome, you're gonna miss. Same with ray spells.

2. Balance. Why roll everything into one stat for casters, who only need to worry about a few, and already smash everything to bits?

Arbitrarity
2007-10-16, 07:47 PM
The spell is explicitly not 'guided with magic', like a fireball spell is, or magic missile; it's thrown.


Actually, fireball isn't guided by magic. It's fired out of your finger, which is why you have to make touch attacks to go through holes. Magic guidance don't come cheap.

Stormcrow
2007-10-16, 07:51 PM
*shrugs* At the end of the day the rules are guidelines. The DM (who is far better named Storyteller by white wolf) can change what they like so long as people enjoy the game.
Do you have a problem with the changes because they inconvenience you?, Because they upset the game? or because they aren't what the book says?

Kaelik
2007-10-16, 09:43 PM
*shrugs* At the end of the day the rules are guidelines. The DM (who is far better named Storyteller by white wolf) can change what they like so long as people enjoy the game.
Do you have a problem with the changes because they inconvenience you?, Because they upset the game? or because they aren't what the book says?

He has a problem, if I read it right, that he changes the rules for no reason. Making rules changes for no reason might not cause problems, but this DM doesn't even think about it. Changes need to reviewed based on what they do to the game. There is a very specific reason that ranged touch attacks with spells are regular ranged touch attacks and not using caster stat. And that's because of balance. Casters are already pretty focused in one attribute, why would you make it worse?

Kompera
2007-10-16, 11:51 PM
The main issue here seems to be of two parts:

1) The GM and most of the game group is unaware of many of the rules;

2) The GM likes to be a "free thinker", and makes on the spot rulings about how things "should" work without having given these "free thinking" rulings much if any thought.

If the situation isn't a terribly key one, and this one was not, any GM worth their salt will use the rules as written. If a player brings up an alternative the GM can consider that for implementation after the game, when more thought can be given to the implications. Only in a momentous occasion should a house rule be implemented on the spot, and only then if it preserves the story line or otherwise furthers the game. All else is madness.

As I recently posted in another thread, the players have a responsibility to know the rules. If they have spells memorized which use a ranged touch, they should have those rules bookmarked, printed out, or at least review them before the game. The GM should also know the rules, or if s/he does not know the rules, at least be willing to play them as written when informed of them. If you don't know the rules, you're clearly not well informed enough to make spur of the moment rulings on how things "should" work in your opinion, since you don't even know how things do work.


I don't see why Dex is really needed. Using Wisdom to control the spell makes much more sese. I don't think you're necessarily literally throwing the ball of flame, more projecting it with magical force. You also couldn't really throw a ball of fire without magic being involved, additionally, as throwing pure flame is impossible, and your hand wouldn't be able to guide a ball of very cool plasma, anyway. Thus, using magic as a guide makes a lot more sense than the RAW way of Dex.

Well, the way the DM worded it, it actually makes sense. I mean, if WIS is used to control the spell, it would make sense that WIS is used to move it around.

VeisuItaTyhjyys and Shas'aia Toriia, you both scare me. Like the GM, both of you have reached a "feel good" conclusion about a rule which fails to consider how implementing this rule may impact the game. And....and, your Ivory Tower cogitation fails to even show any logical internal consistency. The action isn't "Ranged Spell Control", it's "Ranged Touch". The Ranged Touch rules apply to ray spells as well as splash attacks and a few other effects, all of which are logically, and perhaps even more importantly, according to RAW, adjusted by DEX.
"Ranged Spell Control" comes free with almost all spell, casters can put their non-ray spells wherever they want (within range and LOS limits) with 100% accuracy. This has the same "logic" as your conclusions above, and it's even better for casters, except for those spells specifically defined as requiring a martial type effort to accurately touch the foe.

If instant justifications apply, then everyone gets the stat bonus of their choice to Ranged Touch:

Fighter : It should be BAB and STR, "Because I'm very strong and that flattens the trajectory, making my throw more accurate."

Paladin : It should be BAB and CHA, "Because <Diety> loves me and guides my holy hand."

I could give an example for each stat, but I'm sure the point has been made.

The GM is welcome to make any and all rule changes s/he wishes. But they should be made in advance and published for the group prior to play. Any spur of the moment rulings should be open to review and repair after the fact, with no hard feelings on anyone's part. Sometimes expedience is better than accuracy, and as long as the GM is willing to give a subject some thought and again publish their decision, all is well.

MrNexx
2007-10-17, 09:34 AM
No it isn't. The DM can change the rules as much as he wants. But that doesn't mean that he can't be wrong.

If a DM makes an affirmative statement of what the rules are, then those are the rules.

MrNexx
2007-10-17, 09:36 AM
1. It's magic, any fluff reason can be given for throwing the ball of fire. Hell, you could require skill: "throw fire spell" to use it accurately, that's based on constitution. But dex works best, as every single ranged touch attack is made with dex. The spell is explicitly not 'guided with magic', like a fireball spell is, or magic missile; it's thrown. Your arm guides it. If you're a shaky old gnome, you're gonna miss. Same with ray spells.

Weren't you just arguing that it was silly that Flame Blade requires proficiency in a scimitar?

Kaelik
2007-10-17, 10:17 AM
If a DM makes an affirmative statement of what the rules are, then those are the rules.

Unless he's wrong. If he doesn't know the rules, he is wrong. Because you have to know you are changing the rules to change them. If a DM doesn't want to change the rules, but says something that contradicts the books, and then later when it is explained apologizes and follows the actual rules he was wrong.

What you are thinking is that because the DM can change the rules, everything he says changes the rules. Nope, doesn't work that way.

Having the authority to do something does not mean that every action you take is doing that thing.

MrNexx
2007-10-17, 10:28 AM
Unless he's wrong.

Rule Zero says you are wrong.

Wolfwood2
2007-10-17, 10:59 AM
To the OP:

I'm going to give you the same advice that anybody asking for relationship advice on a message board gets.

Leave the sucker. Tell the DM you're not playing with him anymore, and try to get as many of the other players to follow you as you can. You may have to suck down running some games yourself to get the other players to come with you, but the fact that the game happens at your place gives you a big advantage.

You may want to badmouth the DM to the other players while he's not around before you spring this. It lays the groundwork for your coup and makes you seem more reasonable.

With any luck, the DM will come crawling back after a few weeks, ready to play by the book.

tainsouvra
2007-10-17, 11:01 AM
Rule Zero says you are wrong. Not exactly. Rule Zero says that you play with the ruling that the DM gave until the DM reverses his decision or you stop playing. It doesn't make him right, it just makes him what you currently have to work with.

Matthew
2007-10-17, 11:07 AM
Right and wrong are very subjective terms. His decision can be unbalancing and it can be different from the RAW, but it is rarely outright and absolutely wrong, only subjectively wrong. That said, it can also only be subjectively right, which is why we are having a lot of disagreement.

valadil
2007-10-17, 11:59 AM
Yet another person under the mistaken impression that the DM would even need to open a book.


I think you missed my first paragraph. I said it's more important to keep the game moving than get the rules right. If bad rulings are problematic, they should be dealt with outside of game so as to not break the flow of the game.

The other paragraph was about how this particular rule is basic enough that it could be found quickly. I tried to emphasize that the player should make sure the DM is okay with this. Sometimes rules questions are welcome, sometimes they aren't, and I don't think we should generalize that it's always bad to take a moment from the game. It's up to the GM to figure out if there is a flow to the game and if it will be broken. If one player is in the bathroom and another is fetching Mountain Dew, it probably won't be a big deal to look at the PHB for a minute.

--

For what it's worth, whenever I DM and happen to change rules I always give out a reason and sometimes a duration of the rule. I'll regularly tell players we're doing something to keep the game moving and whether or not we're sticking with the rule of its contradicted in a book (which has to be presented after game).

Maltrich
2007-10-17, 12:14 PM
Sounds like the DM I'm working with, who ruled that lullaby creates a widespread sleep effect despite being only a level 0 spell. He's okay now, since I threatened to leave the campaign and, being the only experienced player there, that would be disastrous to his game.

Try explaining why he's wrong and if that doesn't work, threaten to leave.

Since when do you need experienced players to run a campaign? Hell, my friends and I had no idea how to run Shadowrun or AD&D properly (I'm STILL murky on some of the Shadowrun mechanics) back in middle school, but we still had a hell of a time killing things.

Sometimes it doesn't matter what the rules actually are... I usually just shrug and go with it when this kind of stuff comes up, because I want to get back to dying horribly/winning loot/having a drunken bar fight.

JadedDM
2007-10-17, 12:27 PM
No, that's an awesome idea. "Play my way or I'm leaving forever." Good luck with that in life.

Matthew
2007-10-17, 12:37 PM
No, that's an awesome idea. "Play my way or I'm leaving forever." Good luck with that in life.

Heh, heh. It makes me laugh... I seem to recall a horror story where a new Player turned up and insisted on this very thing. If I recall correctly, it was in London, but I'm not sure which Poster was telling the story now.

Isn't there some guidance or something in the DMG I or II for dealing with Players who know the rules better than the DM, or making decisions on the fly? I seem to recall a passage in the 3.0 DMG that basically said, "play on, worry about the RAW later...", but I guess it's slightly different when a Player knows the rule and DM doesn't (which I'm still not convinced was the situation in the original post).

Jayabalard
2007-10-17, 12:38 PM
Not exactly. Rule Zero says that you play with the ruling that the DM gave until the DM reverses his decision or you stop playing. It doesn't make him right, it just makes him what you currently have to work with.Nope; the GM is always right and if some book says something different than what the DM says, then the book is wrong.

There is nothing holy about the rules in the books... they are guidelines only.

tainsouvra
2007-10-17, 01:01 PM
Nope; the GM is always right and if some book says something different than what the DM says, then the book is wrong.

There is nothing holy about the rules in the books... they are guidelines only. That is completely and utterly wrong. D&D is D&D, and D&D has official rules. A DM can say "in my game, we're doing it this way instead of the official way" and be making a completely valid decision in doing so, but he doesn't change D&D itself or the D&D rules, he just changes his campaign's implementation of it.

When the DM invokes Rule Zero, the campaign uses his ruling until he changes it or the campaign ends. D&D itself doesn't change and it's downright laughable to pretend that it does. If the DM says "halflings are 20' tall" that is a valid, if unusual, use of Rule Zero. It would be the rule used during his campaign, unless he changed it later. It wouldn't make him right about the rules of D&D, it just means he has a right to change his campaign--a completely different statement.

Matthew
2007-10-17, 01:07 PM
I don't think the statement 'these are the rules of D&D' can stand on its own, actually. For one thing, these are only the rules of D&D 3e. For another, there are scores of official variant rules published for the system. It's certainly still D&D when those rules are in play, what it isn't is 'Default 3e D&D', which is different from just plain old D&D.

tainsouvra
2007-10-17, 01:15 PM
The difference between playing a different version or game variant intentionally and playing with ad-hoc rules due to an ignorance of the actual game's rules should be basic enough to not need explanation, though.

Matthew
2007-10-17, 01:23 PM
Only in certain contexts. D&D as a short hand for 'Default 3e D&D' is fine, but it is a short hand, not an absolute term. Certainly, the statement 'You're not playing D&D, you're using X Variant Rule' is not accurate.

tainsouvra
2007-10-17, 01:35 PM
That really doesn't have anything to do with what I was saying. The gulf between "playing D&D with X variant" and "playing D&D, except not even trying to use D&D rules" is so massive that I really don't see what you're trying to prove here.

Kaelik
2007-10-17, 01:51 PM
Heh, heh. It makes me laugh... I seem to recall a horror story where a new Player turned up and insisted on this very thing. If I recall correctly, it was in London, but I'm not sure which Poster was telling the story now.

Isn't there some guidance or something in the DMG I or II for dealing with Players who know the rules better than the DM, or making decisions on the fly? I seem to recall a passage in the 3.0 DMG that basically said, "play on, worry about the RAW later...", but I guess it's slightly different when a Player knows the rule and DM doesn't (which I'm still not convinced was the situation in the original post).

A) How can you not be sure? The DM asked what the rule was, the player answered. Why ask if you know?
B) The problem with any such guidance in the DMG would be that the DM wouldn't know about it and the player would, since we are talking about DMs that don't know the rules.

Matthew
2007-10-17, 01:51 PM
That really doesn't have anything to do with what I was saying. The gulf between "playing D&D with X variant" and "playing D&D, except not even trying to use D&D rules" is so massive that I really don't see what you're trying to prove here.

I'm not trying to prove anything. All I'm saying is that when people make the statement 'X is/isn't D&D' it needs to be qualified because D&D is not an absolute term. The question is, at what point does something cease being D&D and become something else? Is it still D&D if a Character uses Wisdom instead of Dexterity to direct certain Spells? I would say, yes it is, but it is no longer 'Default 3e D&D'. If you don't wish to recognise the distinction, that's up to you, but inability or failure to distinguish between the two is undesirable in the context of a debate, as far as I am concerned.


A) How can you not be sure? The DM asked what the rule was, the player answered. Why ask if you know?
B) The problem with any such guidance in the DMG would be that the DM wouldn't know about it and the player would, since we are talking about DMs that don't know the rules.

Because the Poster uses the phrase 'DM's choice', which suggests he is aware of the actual rule (having been informed by the player) and making a choice. The Poster has said nothing explicit to support your view that the DM did not believe the Player with regard to the RAW, nor has he said anything explicit to support the idea that he did. Until he clears that up, I prefer to err on the side of caution (which is to say I think either is possible).

tainsouvra
2007-10-17, 02:25 PM
at what point does something cease being D&D and become something else? When the rules of D&D stop mattering entirely, rather than being changed for a purpose, you aren't playing D&D anymore. You're playing the game you're making up, which is fine, but it's not the same thing.

Using a variant because it works for your group? Definitely D&D.
Not caring what the rules are because you're just going to make them up as you go anyway? Still roleplaying, but not D&D.

Monopoly has a set of rules. It has a lot of popular variants and common house rules, and each gaming group can always tweak things to suit them. Let's use that for comparison. If you play with a popular house rule in which there is a bonus/penalty for landing on Free Parking, you're still playing Monopoly, just with a house rule. If you play a popular variant in which the board has different street names listed, you're still playing Monopoly, just with a variant board. On the other hand, if you sit down to play Monopoly, but make up your own rules for dice, property, and the cards...you're playing a homemade game and not playing Monopoly anymore, and you are wrong if you claim to be playing Monopoly. At the point that you say "forget the rules, let's just do this" you're playing a different game.

Matthew
2007-10-17, 02:33 PM
Sure, but which D20 products are D&D? Many of them follow the same rules, indeed they may play exactly by the rules, but are they still D&D? Alternatively, are you playing D&D when you're playing a game based on the D&D rule set, such as Iron Heroes? There is more than one criteria involved in defining what is and is not D&D, it's a complex, nebulous and often relative question. Whether this DM changes twenty rules or a hundred rules, he's probably still playing D&D. He's not throwing the rule out for no reason, he's throwing it out because he doesn't agree with it and that's fine.

Presumably, he must know and be using some of the rules of the game, and for most people that is the case. Few people can claim to play the game exactly as written (indeed, the 3.5 DMG is missing some important rules about encounters that were included in the 3.0 DMG and are necessary to make sense of some parts of the 3.5 DMG). The Poster feels that his DM is changing too many of the rules of the game and that his DM's knowledge of the rules is insufficient. That's a fair criticism, but it doesn't follow that they are no longer playing D&D or that it's the 'wrong' way to play, it just means they aren't playing the RAW.

If he doesn't know any rules of the game and doesn't care what they are, then perhaps we are straying into 'no longer D&D territory', but we don't kow that such is the case.

Kaelik
2007-10-17, 02:59 PM
Because the Poster uses the phrase 'DM's choice', which suggests he is aware of the actual rule (having been informed by the player) and making a choice. The Poster has said nothing explicit to support your view that the DM did not believe the Player with regard to the RAW, nor has he said anything explicit to support the idea that he did. Until he clears that up, I prefer to err on the side of caution (which is to say I think either is possible).

Except that he asked what the rules are. He asked "What is used to calculate ranged touch attacks?" Why would he ask if he new the answer?

MrNexx
2007-10-17, 04:31 PM
Heh, heh. It makes me laugh... I seem to recall a horror story where a new Player turned up and insisted on this very thing. If I recall correctly, it was in London, but I'm not sure which Poster was telling the story now.

I'd love to see that one again. I remember it.

Matthew
2007-10-17, 05:11 PM
Such as tonight. Druid wants to make a ranged touch attack. Doesn't know how.

Being as weird as I am (I have the ability to memorize stuff pretty quickly, hence me knowing most of the rules of D&D pretty thoroughly)

I tell them, BAB and Dex. The Druid was like "shouldn't it be wisdom?" (not sure if he was really asking or just trying to get in the extra attack point)

DM agrees, which is totally wrong. I mean, do I use Wisdom to shoot a bow?

I know it's DM's choice, and I usually accept that, but when the DM starts turning the rules upside down, how do I convince them to go with what the rules say instead of taking the cheap way out?



I would have done that, but the rest of the party is against me (If it benefits them, they'll do it, even if it is wrong)

I tried to explain to the DM, but he just said "Why would you use Dex to throw a fireball at someone (spell was produce flame). You use wisdom to control the spell"

I tried explaining to him that dex was needed anyway, but he cut me off and went back to the fight.

Whenever he says something the rules don't, he just says DM's choice and moves on, and the rest of the party goes with him (it always benefits us)

I'm the only one who doesn't like this. Mostly because I'm the only one who actually enjoys roleplaying at all, and apparently, following rules.



I did tell everyone casters are broken repeatedly.

I threatened to Time Stop/Force Cage/Cloudkill them all a lot. (we were level 2 though >_>).

Some times it might make sense to use wisdom to control the spell, but the rules for the spell say it is thrown. Hence Dex + BAB.

I'll tell him that I don't mind house rules, but stop going directly against the rules right in the middle of battle, even it is for us. (I've never felt threatened once in any of his adventures, so this makes it even worse, the constant house rules for us)



It goes faster when I can just tell the rules I read from the book instead of him deciding to go think about it.



Because the Poster uses the phrase 'DM's choice', which suggests he is aware of the actual rule (having been informed by the player) and making a choice. The Poster has said nothing explicit to support your view that the DM did not believe the Player with regard to the RAW, nor has he said anything explicit to support the idea that he did. Until he clears that up, I prefer to err on the side of caution (which is to say I think either is possible).



Except that he asked what the rules are. He asked "What is used to calculate ranged touch attacks?" Why would he ask if he new the answer?
My emphasis.

The only people to present or ask about rules in the post are the players. The DM made a decision based on their input, but it is not indicated whether he knew or didn't know the rule nor which rule he believed to be RAW. The only thing that is stated is that the DM decided it should be Wisdom and that when confronted with the OP's objections replied that it was the DM's choice as to what Attribute would govern this case. That's all the information we have.

Ralfarius
2007-10-17, 06:11 PM
Monopoly has a set of rules. It has a lot of popular variants and common house rules, and each gaming group can always tweak things to suit them. Let's use that for comparison. If you play with a popular house rule in which there is a bonus/penalty for landing on Free Parking, you're still playing Monopoly, just with a house rule. If you play a popular variant in which the board has different street names listed, you're still playing Monopoly, just with a variant board. On the other hand, if you sit down to play Monopoly, but make up your own rules for dice, property, and the cards...you're playing a homemade game and not playing Monopoly anymore, and you are wrong if you claim to be playing Monopoly. At the point that you say "forget the rules, let's just do this" you're playing a different game.
I love the expansion on the Monopoly example I presented.

The thing to keep in mind about "Rule 0" is that it to, as a "rule" for playing D&D is that it too, has various interpretations and considerations for a group to make beyond the writing. The main thing is that it is not necessarily carte blanche for a DM to do as they please because they're the DM.

As I understand, its intention is more to indicate a DM can alter something to improve the play of the game for the group, usually by settling arguments instead of letting them continue unchecked. As long as everyone in the group is comfortable with the DM's judgment, then this means that things can be altered or hand-waved as is beneficial to the flow of the session.

However, the DM's authority to run a game is dependent upon the consensus of the other players. If one or more players becomes decidedly displeased by the way the DM is making rulings, the group as a whole suffers and a compromise should be reached.

I cannot stress this last point enough; rule 0 doesn't mean a DM is incapable of being incorrect or making mistakes. It means the DM gets the final say in a dispute. Right/correct and wrong/incorrect are completely independent of that particular authority.

The DM can be wrong. However, that doesn't matter in the running of a session because the DM gets final say.

Solmage
2007-10-17, 09:05 PM
Shrug, this may be the wrong board to try to find any sympathy OP.

You see, almost everyone has had their game interrupted/ruined/annoyed/made less enjoyable by a rules lawyer who argued with the DM.

Now, most of those lawyers thought they had perfectly valid reasons (the DM doesn't even know the rules for bullrushing! It's done THIS way! etc etc) and while this was important to them, and would have increased their enjoyment of the game it actually detracted from everybody else's.

By you stating that you are the only person who minded, and so on, you're playing so hard on that stereotype that very few people will manage to see beyond all their experience with such lawyers to even give you the benefit of the doubt, and the immature threat of yelling at him and 'it's my place' did not win you any points, indeed it did the opposite, by reinforcing the stereotype of the (often immature) rules lawyer.

A well reasoned argument, such as 'this fundamental change affects my character in a detrimental way, and the DM, by catering to a player who did not know the rules, is changing the game balance drastically, and without realizing it' would have earned you a significantly better response.

(Examples could be the wizard/rogue specializing in rays such as scorching ray, which has a very high dex to hit with them, and who needs this high dex for evasion, so he can't afford to have int or wisdom used for his rays, not to mention all the monsters who use rays who now will end up using some other stat to cast)

Indeed, I would suggest you try having a talk with the DM in question in which you, in a calm, rational, manner bring this up.

In the end however, I'm afraid that you need to decide a few things, such as:

i) Can you do it better?
ii) Is the non-combat (and thus non rules related) aspect of the game fun even if the combat is a mess?
iii) Can you try to find/create a separate group?
iv) Can you put up with it, and still enjoy the game?
v) Can you establish a system with the DM which everyone agrees to, and is happy with, such as everyone is able to ask for ONE rules lookup per session?

At the end of the day, it is indeed your house and you have no obligation to play host to a game you don't enjoy and wish to take no further part in. If on the other hand the game is still enjoyable in spite of the aspects you don't like, well, welcome to compromise land.

Tor the Fallen
2007-10-17, 09:22 PM
Nope; the GM is always right and if some book says something different than what the DM says, then the book is wrong.

There is nothing holy about the rules in the books... they are guidelines only.

What's so holy about about the DM?

MrNexx
2007-10-17, 09:48 PM
What's so holy about about the DM?

The players, by showing up and sitting at his table, agree to abide by his decisions. If they don't show up, they've decided they don't want to be bound by his decisions.

The game needs a referee; sometimes, the referee has to make a call to make sure the game runs smoothly. It may be a "Yeah, that reasoning makes sense, let's go with that." Sometimes, it's a complete overhaul of the rules as written.

In this case, it seems the DM went "Yeah, I'll buy that." The OP argued with him (either reasonably or not). The DM went against him, the rest of the party said "Quiet, we don't mind the reasons he's given", and this guy is still going. "The DM is just wrong!" No, he is. The DM, the rules-arbiter agreed upon by the group, made a ruling. The entire rest of the table supported him.

The only way the DM wasn't right was according to one page in the PH, and that's superseded by the other page in the PH which says "Your DM is right, even when he's in conflict with the rulebook." It's also superseded by the DMG, and by basic gaming etiquette, which is "Don't argue with the DM during the game."

Dervag
2007-10-17, 10:40 PM
Presumably, he must know and be using some of the rules of the game, and for most people that is the case. Few people can claim to play the game exactly as written (indeed, the 3.5 DMG is missing some important rules about encounters that were included in the 3.0 DMG and are necessary to make sense of some parts of the 3.5 DMG).If you can and may tell me what those rules are, could you please do so?

If you cannot or may not tell me what those rules are, can you please tell me what those rules govern, so that I can go find them myself?

I was not aware of any such hole in the rules given in the v3.5 DM Guide.


In this case, it seems the DM went "Yeah, I'll buy that." The OP argued with him (either reasonably or not). The DM went against him, the rest of the party said "Quiet, we don't mind the reasons he's given", and this guy is still going. "The DM is just wrong!" No, he is. The DM, the rules-arbiter agreed upon by the group, made a ruling. The entire rest of the table supported him.

The only way the DM wasn't right was according to one page in the PH, and that's superseded by the other page in the PH which says "Your DM is right, even when he's in conflict with the rulebook." It's also superseded by the DMG, and by basic gaming etiquette, which is "Don't argue with the DM during the game."However, the complaint is that the DM made this ruling out of pure ignorance. While "my DM is making the wrong rules!" is not the DM's problem, "my DM doesn't know the baseline rules and therefore makes up strange rules under the delusion that they are baseline rules!" is.

The zeroth law has been restated enough times to fulfill its role in the discussion; what some of us are getting at is that there is a problem here not covered by the zeroth law: that the DM is making rules that the DM himself would probably withdraw if he were aware of the contents of books that he really ought to be aware of.

Saying that the DM is "just wrong" appears to be an awkward way of saying that the DM is ignorant of important information that he really ought to be familiar with.

Jayabalard
2007-10-17, 10:46 PM
That is completely and utterly wrong. D&D is D&D, and D&D has official rules. A DM can say "in my game, we're doing it this way instead of the official way" and be making a completely valid decision in doing so, but he doesn't change D&D itself or the D&D rules, he just changes his campaign's implementation of it. Official rules are irrelevant. D&D is whatever people play, not what happens to be written in some official book; it has very little to do with any particular set of rules.


The difference between playing a different version or game variant intentionally and playing with ad-hoc rules due to an ignorance of the actual game's rules should be basic enough to not need explanation, though.I don't see a difference... they're both just variant forms of D&D.


when people make the statement 'X is/isn't D&D' it needs to be qualified because D&D is not an absolute term. The question is, at what point does something cease being D&D and become something else? When most (>75%) of the rules that you use are not in a D&D book (regardless of edition), that's when you are probably no longer playing D&D. All of the games that are somewhere between that and "the RAW, the whole RAW, and nothing but the RAW" are just a D&D variant; you might even want to call some of them or "slightly variant" or "highly variant" or even "extremely unrecognizably variant"

MrNexx
2007-10-17, 11:44 PM
However, the complaint is that the DM made this ruling out of pure ignorance. While "my DM is making the wrong rules!" is not the DM's problem, "my DM doesn't know the baseline rules and therefore makes up strange rules under the delusion that they are baseline rules!" is.

The DM made a ruling, based on player suggestion.
The OP pointed out the RAW.
The DM, and the rest of the table, said "No, we like this way better."
The OP apparently continued to argue, going from "helpful" to "time stealing rules lawyer."


The zeroth law has been restated enough times to fulfill its role in the discussion; what some of us are getting at is that there is a problem here not covered by the zeroth law: that the DM is making rules that the DM himself would probably withdraw if he were aware of the contents of books that he really ought to be aware of.

The OP said, in the OP, that he made his DM aware of the real rules. His DM, and party, decided against them.

Dervag
2007-10-18, 12:20 AM
I'm actually not certain whether this is a case of 'strong ignorance' (being so convinced of a false statement as to reject a true statement), or of houseruling. If the former, I would back the original poster; if the latter, I would advise him to back down.

Matthew
2007-10-18, 06:54 AM
If you can and may tell me what those rules are, could you please do so?

If you cannot or may not tell me what those rules are, can you please tell me what those rules govern, so that I can go find them myself?

I was not aware of any such hole in the rules given in the v3.5 DM Guide.

Let's see. It was during a rather precise discussion of RAW encounters that this came up. I started the Thread so it shouldn't be too hard to locate... here - Taking a Step Back - Opposed Rolls (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52780)

Basically, the 3.5 DMG omits the entirety of the Encounter Distance section of the 3.0 DMG (pp. 59-60), including the Spotting Distance and Spotting Difficulty Tables.


When most (>75%) of the rules that you use are not in a D&D book (regardless of edition), that's when you are probably no longer playing D&D. All of the games that are somewhere between that and "the RAW, the whole RAW, and nothing but the RAW" are just a D&D variant; you might even want to call some of them or "slightly variant" or "highly variant" or even "extremely unrecognizably variant"

That seems a sensible statement, but then you have things like OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, Castles & Crusades and Basic Fantasy Roleplaying - all of which are something like 90%+ compatable with various editions of D&D, but aren't literally D&D. In spirit, I would say all of the above are D&D, but in practice they aren't (as use of the D&D Trade Mark is not available to them). So, I think there are caveats, because D&D describes both Rule Sets and a Trade Mark.

tainsouvra
2007-10-18, 01:40 PM
If he doesn't know any rules of the game and doesn't care what they are, then perhaps we are straying into 'no longer D&D territory', but we don't kow that such is the case. This is true, but I was responding to the specific statements I quoted, not the OP. While it might not be true for the OP, it was definitely an option for those responses :smallsmile:

I love the expansion on the Monopoly example I presented. Thanks. It was a good idea, I was happy to steal and run with it :smallwink: