Something I would add is it is good practise for the DM not to allow a roll where failure (or success) is virtually certain. People expect a natural 20 to always succeed and that happens 5% of the time. If a group of friends are playing a game of dominoes in a bar a stranger asks to join them in reality the odds of being allowed are pretty low but probably high enough for a persuasion roll (for plot reasons the dm might allow a pc to join without a roll). For the group of friends to stop playing the game of dominoes and instead play poker, which they might never have played and is obviously a game the stranger is more skilled at and the chances of success are well below that 5%. Add on that the stranger has the only set of cards and it is screaming scam and 99.99% of the population would run a mile.
Dang. I'm not too sure what to say, but thanks. Out of everyone in the comments, it a bit obvious that you've seen a situation like this
I'm not sure about that . . . some of the people are saying you're selfish for playing the game. Or at least the point of the game. Role playing. Con artist tries a con . . . It's not a big deal. It's role playing. Most people might see cons in real life selfish, but it's part of your character. . . not you. Honestly, everyone is being absolutely ridiculous. And no, you are not wrong for being angry when a DM is being petty.
Dang. I'm not too sure what to say, but thanks. Out of everyone in the comments, it a bit obvious that you've seen a situation like this
I'm not sure about that . . . some of the people are saying you're selfish for playing the game. Or at least the point of the game. Role playing. Con artist tries a con . . . It's not a big deal. It's role playing. Most people might see cons in real life selfish, but it's part of your character. . . not you. Honestly, everyone is being absolutely ridiculous. And no, you are not wrong for being angry when a DM is being petty.
To be honest, it's hard. Sure, he deserves his moment in the spotlight, but in a party of 6, all the people each getting their 5 minutes in the spotlight means everyone is spending 25 minutes twiddling twiddling thumbs. We're also getting only one side of the story which might contain every pertinent detail, or might not.
Which is you could summarise my response to each of these "AITA" type threads thusly: Review your own behaviour and why it might be part of the problem. Approach the DM with an attitude that there is an issue and recognisance that the DM might not be the problem or at least not the only problem. If that fails to get a resolution, then decide if the status quo is something you can live with. If it is, suck it up and learn to enjoy it. If it isn't, find another game and bow out of this one.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Dang. I'm not too sure what to say, but thanks. Out of everyone in the comments, it a bit obvious that you've seen a situation like this
I'm not sure about that . . . some of the people are saying you're selfish for playing the game. Or at least the point of the game. Role playing. Con artist tries a con . . . It's not a big deal. It's role playing. Most people might see cons in real life selfish, but it's part of your character. . . not you. Honestly, everyone is being absolutely ridiculous. And no, you are not wrong for being angry when a DM is being petty.
To be honest, it's hard. Sure, he deserves his moment in the spotlight, but in a party of 6, all the people each getting their 5 minutes in the spotlight means everyone is spending 25 minutes twiddling twiddling thumbs. We're also getting only one side of the story which might contain every pertinent detail, or might not.
Which is you could summarise my response to each of these "AITA" type threads thusly: Review your own behaviour and why it might be part of the problem. Approach the DM with an attitude that there is an issue and recognisance that the DM might not be the problem or at least not the only problem. If that fails to get a resolution, then decide if the status quo is something you can live with. If it is, suck it up and learn to enjoy it. If it isn't, find another game and bow out of this one.
It is hard. That said, if (if, not saying it was) hogging the spotlight was the issue then this "solution" was a pretty bad one. If that's your concern as DM, just tell the player you'd prefer the group to stick together a bit more because there are too many PCs to let everyone go off and do their thing; don't take it out on the character in game as an implied lesson for the player. Better to talk it out, from both sides. DMs can tell their players when they do something that might be problematic, and players can tell their DM when they don't like what's happening. Doesn't mean either side necessarily has to get it 100% their way either, but at least that way everyone is aware of any issues.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Is this a newer GM by chance? It’s a fairly common thing for inexperienced GM’s to be adversarial rather than collaborative with their players. They get precious about their NPC’s, whom they want to succeed as extensions of themselves, GM’s who don’t want their “team” to lose. They have not fully internalized that the point of the game is for the players to succeed, more often than not by foiling NPC’s. The macro success of the game hinges on the GM failing on the micro, confrontation by confrontation, level but that can be a tough pill for some to swallow. It seems to me like this GM just didn’t like the idea of the character getting one over on the NPC’s so responded with the “rocks fall, you die” solution. I believe that there are no ******** here but prolly one rookie anyway, if not two.
Dang. I'm not too sure what to say, but thanks. Out of everyone in the comments, it a bit obvious that you've seen a situation like this
I'm not sure about that . . . some of the people are saying you're selfish for playing the game. Or at least the point of the game. Role playing. Con artist tries a con . . . It's not a big deal. It's role playing. Most people might see cons in real life selfish, but it's part of your character. . . not you. Honestly, everyone is being absolutely ridiculous. And no, you are not wrong for being angry when a DM is being petty.
To be honest, it's hard. Sure, he deserves his moment in the spotlight, but in a party of 6, all the people each getting their 5 minutes in the spotlight means everyone is spending 25 minutes twiddling twiddling thumbs. We're also getting only one side of the story which might contain every pertinent detail, or might not.
Which is you could summarise my response to each of these "AITA" type threads thusly: Review your own behaviour and why it might be part of the problem. Approach the DM with an attitude that there is an issue and recognisance that the DM might not be the problem or at least not the only problem. If that fails to get a resolution, then decide if the status quo is something you can live with. If it is, suck it up and learn to enjoy it. If it isn't, find another game and bow out of this one.
It is hard. That said, if (if, not saying it was) hogging the spotlight was the issue then this "solution" was a pretty bad one. If that's your concern as DM, just tell the player you'd prefer the group to stick together a bit more because there are too many PCs to let everyone go off and do their thing; don't take it out on the character in game as an implied lesson for the player. Better to talk it out, from both sides. DMs can tell their players when they do something that might be problematic, and players can tell their DM when they don't like what's happening. Doesn't mean either side necessarily has to get it 100% their way either, but at least that way everyone is aware of any issues.
I don't think he was punishing the players. I think he was just method acting the NPCs. If you were a gambler and you saw someone try to put a spell on you, you'd use violence to stop it. If you merely make a threat, they might finish the spell and it will be too late. Even if you grapple them, grappling doesn't prevent spellcasting.
The DM's only mistake was not understanding how to apply the rules of surprise, which, to be honest, after playing and DMing 5e for a few years, I admit I still don't 100% understand.
Dang. I'm not too sure what to say, but thanks. Out of everyone in the comments, it a bit obvious that you've seen a situation like this
I'm not sure about that . . . some of the people are saying you're selfish for playing the game. Or at least the point of the game. Role playing. Con artist tries a con . . . It's not a big deal. It's role playing. Most people might see cons in real life selfish, but it's part of your character. . . not you. Honestly, everyone is being absolutely ridiculous. And no, you are not wrong for being angry when a DM is being petty.
To be honest, it's hard. Sure, he deserves his moment in the spotlight, but in a party of 6, all the people each getting their 5 minutes in the spotlight means everyone is spending 25 minutes twiddling twiddling thumbs. We're also getting only one side of the story which might contain every pertinent detail, or might not.
Which is you could summarise my response to each of these "AITA" type threads thusly: Review your own behaviour and why it might be part of the problem. Approach the DM with an attitude that there is an issue and recognisance that the DM might not be the problem or at least not the only problem. If that fails to get a resolution, then decide if the status quo is something you can live with. If it is, suck it up and learn to enjoy it. If it isn't, find another game and bow out of this one.
It is hard. That said, if (if, not saying it was) hogging the spotlight was the issue then this "solution" was a pretty bad one. If that's your concern as DM, just tell the player you'd prefer the group to stick together a bit more because there are too many PCs to let everyone go off and do their thing; don't take it out on the character in game as an implied lesson for the player. Better to talk it out, from both sides. DMs can tell their players when they do something that might be problematic, and players can tell their DM when they don't like what's happening. Doesn't mean either side necessarily has to get it 100% their way either, but at least that way everyone is aware of any issues.
I don't think he was punishing the players. I think he was just method acting the NPCs. If you were a gambler and you saw someone try to put a spell on you, you'd use violence to stop it. If you merely make a threat, they might finish the spell and it will be too late. Even if you grapple them, grappling doesn't prevent spellcasting.
The DM's only mistake was not understanding how to apply the rules of surprise, which, to be honest, after playing and DMing 5e for a few years, I admit I still don't 100% understand.
That's quite possible. Regardless, I just wanted to reiterate that if it was because of hogging the spotlight as suggested by others, it'd be a bad approach. If they were playing out the actual situation in the way you describe, I'd personally have warned the player about spellcasting being obvious (Subtle Spell notwithstanding) as that's something the character would certainly be aware of. I'm sure some DMs would let the player take his lumps and deal with it, but I don't think that helps anyone either (especially a player who's new to the group and likely doesn't know the ins and outs of the table yet).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Dang. I'm not too sure what to say, but thanks. Out of everyone in the comments, it a bit obvious that you've seen a situation like this
I'm not sure about that . . . some of the people are saying you're selfish for playing the game. Or at least the point of the game. Role playing. Con artist tries a con . . . It's not a big deal. It's role playing. Most people might see cons in real life selfish, but it's part of your character. . . not you. Honestly, everyone is being absolutely ridiculous. And no, you are not wrong for being angry when a DM is being petty.
To be honest, it's hard. Sure, he deserves his moment in the spotlight, but in a party of 6, all the people each getting their 5 minutes in the spotlight means everyone is spending 25 minutes twiddling twiddling thumbs. We're also getting only one side of the story which might contain every pertinent detail, or might not.
Which is you could summarise my response to each of these "AITA" type threads thusly: Review your own behaviour and why it might be part of the problem. Approach the DM with an attitude that there is an issue and recognisance that the DM might not be the problem or at least not the only problem. If that fails to get a resolution, then decide if the status quo is something you can live with. If it is, suck it up and learn to enjoy it. If it isn't, find another game and bow out of this one.
It is hard. That said, if (if, not saying it was) hogging the spotlight was the issue then this "solution" was a pretty bad one. If that's your concern as DM, just tell the player you'd prefer the group to stick together a bit more because there are too many PCs to let everyone go off and do their thing; don't take it out on the character in game as an implied lesson for the player. Better to talk it out, from both sides. DMs can tell their players when they do something that might be problematic, and players can tell their DM when they don't like what's happening. Doesn't mean either side necessarily has to get it 100% their way either, but at least that way everyone is aware of any issues.
I don't think he was punishing the players. I think he was just method acting the NPCs. If you were a gambler and you saw someone try to put a spell on you, you'd use violence to stop it. If you merely make a threat, they might finish the spell and it will be too late. Even if you grapple them, grappling doesn't prevent spellcasting.
The DM's only mistake was not understanding how to apply the rules of surprise, which, to be honest, after playing and DMing 5e for a few years, I admit I still don't 100% understand.
That's quite possible. Regardless, I just wanted to reiterate that if it was because of hogging the spotlight as suggested by others, it'd be a bad approach. If they were playing out the actual situation in the way you describe, I'd personally have warned the player about spellcasting being obvious (Subtle Spell notwithstanding) as that's something the character would certainly be aware of. I'm sure some DMs would let the player take his lumps and deal with it, but I don't think that helps anyone either (especially a player who's new to the group and likely doesn't know the ins and outs of the table yet).
Yeah, I like the house rule of asking for a Sleight of Hand check. You can make the DC impossibly high, but at least this signals to the player that their somatic gestures are giving them away.
Dang. I'm not too sure what to say, but thanks. Out of everyone in the comments, it a bit obvious that you've seen a situation like this
I'm not sure about that . . . some of the people are saying you're selfish for playing the game. Or at least the point of the game. Role playing. Con artist tries a con . . . It's not a big deal. It's role playing. Most people might see cons in real life selfish, but it's part of your character. . . not you. Honestly, everyone is being absolutely ridiculous. And no, you are not wrong for being angry when a DM is being petty.
To be honest, it's hard. Sure, he deserves his moment in the spotlight, but in a party of 6, all the people each getting their 5 minutes in the spotlight means everyone is spending 25 minutes twiddling twiddling thumbs. We're also getting only one side of the story which might contain every pertinent detail, or might not.
Which is you could summarise my response to each of these "AITA" type threads thusly: Review your own behaviour and why it might be part of the problem. Approach the DM with an attitude that there is an issue and recognisance that the DM might not be the problem or at least not the only problem. If that fails to get a resolution, then decide if the status quo is something you can live with. If it is, suck it up and learn to enjoy it. If it isn't, find another game and bow out of this one.
It is hard. That said, if (if, not saying it was) hogging the spotlight was the issue then this "solution" was a pretty bad one. If that's your concern as DM, just tell the player you'd prefer the group to stick together a bit more because there are too many PCs to let everyone go off and do their thing; don't take it out on the character in game as an implied lesson for the player. Better to talk it out, from both sides. DMs can tell their players when they do something that might be problematic, and players can tell their DM when they don't like what's happening. Doesn't mean either side necessarily has to get it 100% their way either, but at least that way everyone is aware of any issues.
I don't think he was punishing the players. I think he was just method acting the NPCs. If you were a gambler and you saw someone try to put a spell on you, you'd use violence to stop it. If you merely make a threat, they might finish the spell and it will be too late. Even if you grapple them, grappling doesn't prevent spellcasting.
The DM's only mistake was not understanding how to apply the rules of surprise, which, to be honest, after playing and DMing 5e for a few years, I admit I still don't 100% understand.
That's quite possible. Regardless, I just wanted to reiterate that if it was because of hogging the spotlight as suggested by others, it'd be a bad approach. If they were playing out the actual situation in the way you describe, I'd personally have warned the player about spellcasting being obvious (Subtle Spell notwithstanding) as that's something the character would certainly be aware of. I'm sure some DMs would let the player take his lumps and deal with it, but I don't think that helps anyone either (especially a player who's new to the group and likely doesn't know the ins and outs of the table yet).
Yeah, I like the house rule of asking for a Sleight of Hand check. You can make the DC impossibly high, but at least this signals to the player that their somatic gestures are giving them away.
Nope. If the player wants to avoid the spell being noticed, the player has to take Subtle Spell, however they can get it. There is no other way to hide V and S components of a spell. Otherwise, it degrades the entire reason for Subtle Spell. When I have players tell me they whisper the V component so only they can hear it, I sadly shake my head, and say "nope, that is not how spellcasting works." Same for S components. Allowing a Slight of Hand roll, not matter how impossible, sets an awful precedent. It is simply not allowed, at all.
I know the RAW. I said it was a house rule, and I said exactly how I like to use it to set a good precedent.
The rules might be explicit, but for 50 years it's been the GM's prerogative to determine whether or not they want to make exceptions to them or even ignore specific rules.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
The rules might be explicit, but for 50 years it's been the GM's prerogative to determine whether or not they want to make exceptions to them or even ignore specific rules.
And if the DM ignores this most entrenched, most basic of rules, the DM might as well say "You know what guys, I want you to have fun. When you roll to attack or save, roll two d12's instead of a d20". Just how far down the rabbit hole of "Rule 0 is the DM can rule any way he wants", do you want to go?
I wouldn't allow Sleight of Hand and/or Stealth to mask casting a spell either, but this "most entrenched, most basic of rules" isn't even explicitly mentioned in PHB as far as I know. Let's not get carried away.
Regardless, the DM in question clearly chose the casting to be apparent yet not to warn the player. I wouldn't consider that a great display of DMing quality if I was sitting at that table, and I would have spoken up to warn the casting player myself if I didn't think the DM would.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The rules might be explicit, but for 50 years it's been the GM's prerogative to determine whether or not they want to make exceptions to them or even ignore specific rules.
And if the DM ignores this most entrenched, most basic of rules, the DM might as well say "You know what guys, I want you to have fun. When you roll to attack or save, roll two d12's instead of a d20". Just how far down the rabbit hole of "Rule 0 is the DM can rule any way he wants", do you want to go?
Think you're overreacting there a bit. This isn't some fundamental rule. It's not even a big deal.
Most games I've played in allow the houserule of using a Intelligence (Stealth) / Dexterity (SoH) check to conceal a basic V or S spell component. Environmental factors may offer advantage or disadvantage - wanting to be quiet with a V component as you cast the spell on a target on the other side crowded room - advantage. But in an empty, echoing chamber? Disadvantage. Disguising a S component as part of a theatrical performance - advantage, but when just in a tavern on the other side? Disadvantage. And you can rule in some circumstances it is impossible (like if you're at the table where gamblers are going to be watching your every move).
Doesn't detract from subtle spell. Using the rolls houserule you may only hide one component, but Subtle Spell gets rid of both S and V. With the houserule you have to roll which might have a high DC or have disadvantage depending on the circumstances. With subtle spell there's no roll, it's guaranteed success. The houserule only "hides" the component but it must still be provided - so no Misty Stepping while gagged, while Subtle Spell removes the component requirement.
It's not even remotely close to being as powerful as subtle spell and thinking of this as some massive fundamental change akin to changing all d20 rolls in game -- is bizarre and utterly nonsensical, so I must assume this is just a case of reductio ad absurdum that contributes absolutely nothing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Think about this from the perspective of a level 8 Sorcerer with Subtle Spell.
With only two metamagics, the opportunity cost for SS is incredibly high. This is literally half of your class-defining ability. You passed up Quickened or Twinned for this.
If a spell has only V or S components, the skill check has the same effect.
Between all the various mechanics, it's fairly easy to get a very high success rate on a given ability check.
In general I like creative uses of skills for stuff like this, but when a class has carved out a particular niche ability and must pay a fairly high price for it, I make it a priority not to cheapen that ability. Or in a more general sense, when the rules explicitly give you a method to achieve some thing and that method has a high opportunity cost, you should not undercut that cost by providing much easier ways to do that thing. I feel the same way when people try to assert that invisibility grants the effects of being hidden.
5e takes a pretty hard line with spell components. That general trend along with no examples given for masking casting when describing stealth/deception/sleight of hand/performance ability checks despite it being a pretty obvious thing for a player to attempt makes me believe the RAI is against it.
Allowing someone to make a Sleight of Hand check to try and mask only the S requirement of a spell, when a sorcerer can just spend one whole sorcery point to eliminate the S and V requirements completely, doesn't seem like some sort of horribly unbalancing approach to me, nor would it outrage me as a sorcerer if the DM took that approach
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The rules might be explicit, but for 50 years it's been the GM's prerogative to determine whether or not they want to make exceptions to them or even ignore specific rules.
And if the DM ignores this most entrenched, most basic of rules, the DM might as well say "You know what guys, I want you to have fun. When you roll to attack or save, roll two d12's instead of a d20". Just how far down the rabbit hole of "Rule 0 is the DM can rule any way he wants", do you want to go?
Think you're overreacting there a bit. This isn't some fundamental rule. It's not even a big deal.
Most games I've played in allow the houserule of using a Intelligence (Stealth) / Dexterity (SoH) check to conceal a basic V or S spell component. Environmental factors may offer advantage or disadvantage - wanting to be quiet with a V component as you cast the spell on a target on the other side crowded room - advantage. But in an empty, echoing chamber? Disadvantage. Disguising a S component as part of a theatrical performance - advantage, but when just in a tavern on the other side? Disadvantage. And you can rule in some circumstances it is impossible (like if you're at the table where gamblers are going to be watching your every move).
Doesn't detract from subtle spell. Using the rolls houserule you may only hide one component, but Subtle Spell gets rid of both S and V. With the houserule you have to roll which might have a high DC or have disadvantage depending on the circumstances. With subtle spell there's no roll, it's guaranteed success. The houserule only "hides" the component but it must still be provided - so no Misty Stepping while gagged, while Subtle Spell removes the component requirement.
It's not even remotely close to being as powerful as subtle spell and thinking of this as some massive fundamental change akin to changing all d20 rolls in game -- is bizarre and utterly nonsensical, so I must assume this is just a case of reductio ad absurdum that contributes absolutely nothing.
I have NEVER played in a game that allows a player to mask, in any way, the S and V components of a spell, without Subtle spell. I have seen players try to slide it past a DM, and get shut down flat. I even had a hour long argument out of game where my DM stated that my Hexblade's Curse was something that could be discerned by others within some arbitrary range. As soon as you open that door, even a crack, with Advantage, Disadvantage or what have you then the rules lawyers drive a great big wedge in that crack saying "wait a minute, you allowed X, and I am merely expanding it a tiny bit with Y".
So no, under no circumstances, can the the lid of this Pandora's Box ever be cracked open.
At your own table, sure, you can do whatever you want, and you can stick with RAW or deviate from it as much as you want. But this is not about you nor your table. This is about others and their table, and if they want to open the Pandora's Box, then by all means they should open it. How you want to play is completely irrelevant and contributes nothing to the discussion, and even more asinine and nonsensical is this petty need to force your play style on others.
The OP just wants to know if he was wrong for feeling angry, and by extension, seems to want a little more clarification on RAW and whether the GM acted appropriately since he described the whole encounter. I do not think it is wrong for anyone to feel a certain way, so he has the right to feel whatever he was feeling. I do not have the GM's side of the story, so I am not going to judge the GM. I personally would not shut a player down so blatantly like that (I would just stack the odds so heavily against the player that they will fail; this gives an illusion of possibility to placate players), but they may have a reason to do so. In my opinion, the OP should just leave the group since the OP and GM clearly do not enjoy playing with each other. Discussion on RAW is irrelevant if the people at the table do not enjoy each other's company in the first place.
This discussion is not about how you play or want to play the game. Both the player and the GM seems like they are okay with bending RAW. Unless somebody asks for it, noboday cares about, values, or wants to know your preferences. The world does not revolve around you, and you are not so special that you need to make your preferences known at every single table or in every single thread. Your post about the OP potentially hogging the spotlight was good and helpful, but nobody cares about how you keep Pandora's Box shut because it is not, and everyone else already had theirs wide open and like to keep it that way.
Something I would add is it is good practise for the DM not to allow a roll where failure (or success) is virtually certain. People expect a natural 20 to always succeed and that happens 5% of the time. If a group of friends are playing a game of dominoes in a bar a stranger asks to join them in reality the odds of being allowed are pretty low but probably high enough for a persuasion roll (for plot reasons the dm might allow a pc to join without a roll). For the group of friends to stop playing the game of dominoes and instead play poker, which they might never have played and is obviously a game the stranger is more skilled at and the chances of success are well below that 5%. Add on that the stranger has the only set of cards and it is screaming scam and 99.99% of the population would run a mile.
Dang cybermind. I'm not too sure what to say, but thanks. Out of everyone in the comments, it a bit obvious that you've seen a situation like this
I'm not sure about that . . . some of the people are saying you're selfish for playing the game. Or at least the point of the game. Role playing. Con artist tries a con . . . It's not a big deal. It's role playing. Most people might see cons in real life selfish, but it's part of your character. . . not you. Honestly, everyone is being absolutely ridiculous. And no, you are not wrong for being angry when a DM is being petty.
"Hero of the Heavens" (Title by Drummer)
To be honest, it's hard. Sure, he deserves his moment in the spotlight, but in a party of 6, all the people each getting their 5 minutes in the spotlight means everyone is spending 25 minutes twiddling twiddling thumbs. We're also getting only one side of the story which might contain every pertinent detail, or might not.
Which is you could summarise my response to each of these "AITA" type threads thusly: Review your own behaviour and why it might be part of the problem. Approach the DM with an attitude that there is an issue and recognisance that the DM might not be the problem or at least not the only problem. If that fails to get a resolution, then decide if the status quo is something you can live with. If it is, suck it up and learn to enjoy it. If it isn't, find another game and bow out of this one.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
It is hard. That said, if (if, not saying it was) hogging the spotlight was the issue then this "solution" was a pretty bad one. If that's your concern as DM, just tell the player you'd prefer the group to stick together a bit more because there are too many PCs to let everyone go off and do their thing; don't take it out on the character in game as an implied lesson for the player. Better to talk it out, from both sides. DMs can tell their players when they do something that might be problematic, and players can tell their DM when they don't like what's happening. Doesn't mean either side necessarily has to get it 100% their way either, but at least that way everyone is aware of any issues.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I acknowledge that there are two sides to the story, but the DM put that in the way of the fun of the players.
"Hero of the Heavens" (Title by Drummer)
Is this a newer GM by chance? It’s a fairly common thing for inexperienced GM’s to be adversarial rather than collaborative with their players. They get precious about their NPC’s, whom they want to succeed as extensions of themselves, GM’s who don’t want their “team” to lose. They have not fully internalized that the point of the game is for the players to succeed, more often than not by foiling NPC’s. The macro success of the game hinges on the GM failing on the micro, confrontation by confrontation, level but that can be a tough pill for some to swallow. It seems to me like this GM just didn’t like the idea of the character getting one over on the NPC’s so responded with the “rocks fall, you die” solution. I believe that there are no ******** here but prolly one rookie anyway, if not two.
I don't think he was punishing the players. I think he was just method acting the NPCs. If you were a gambler and you saw someone try to put a spell on you, you'd use violence to stop it. If you merely make a threat, they might finish the spell and it will be too late. Even if you grapple them, grappling doesn't prevent spellcasting.
The DM's only mistake was not understanding how to apply the rules of surprise, which, to be honest, after playing and DMing 5e for a few years, I admit I still don't 100% understand.
That's quite possible. Regardless, I just wanted to reiterate that if it was because of hogging the spotlight as suggested by others, it'd be a bad approach. If they were playing out the actual situation in the way you describe, I'd personally have warned the player about spellcasting being obvious (Subtle Spell notwithstanding) as that's something the character would certainly be aware of. I'm sure some DMs would let the player take his lumps and deal with it, but I don't think that helps anyone either (especially a player who's new to the group and likely doesn't know the ins and outs of the table yet).
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Yeah, I like the house rule of asking for a Sleight of Hand check. You can make the DC impossibly high, but at least this signals to the player that their somatic gestures are giving them away.
I know the RAW. I said it was a house rule, and I said exactly how I like to use it to set a good precedent.
The rules might be explicit, but for 50 years it's been the GM's prerogative to determine whether or not they want to make exceptions to them or even ignore specific rules.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
As far as it goes, as long as the game is fun and it annoys rules lawyers.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I wouldn't allow Sleight of Hand and/or Stealth to mask casting a spell either, but this "most entrenched, most basic of rules" isn't even explicitly mentioned in PHB as far as I know. Let's not get carried away.
Regardless, the DM in question clearly chose the casting to be apparent yet not to warn the player. I wouldn't consider that a great display of DMing quality if I was sitting at that table, and I would have spoken up to warn the casting player myself if I didn't think the DM would.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Think you're overreacting there a bit. This isn't some fundamental rule. It's not even a big deal.
Most games I've played in allow the houserule of using a Intelligence (Stealth) / Dexterity (SoH) check to conceal a basic V or S spell component. Environmental factors may offer advantage or disadvantage - wanting to be quiet with a V component as you cast the spell on a target on the other side crowded room - advantage. But in an empty, echoing chamber? Disadvantage. Disguising a S component as part of a theatrical performance - advantage, but when just in a tavern on the other side? Disadvantage. And you can rule in some circumstances it is impossible (like if you're at the table where gamblers are going to be watching your every move).
Doesn't detract from subtle spell. Using the rolls houserule you may only hide one component, but Subtle Spell gets rid of both S and V. With the houserule you have to roll which might have a high DC or have disadvantage depending on the circumstances. With subtle spell there's no roll, it's guaranteed success. The houserule only "hides" the component but it must still be provided - so no Misty Stepping while gagged, while Subtle Spell removes the component requirement.
It's not even remotely close to being as powerful as subtle spell and thinking of this as some massive fundamental change akin to changing all d20 rolls in game -- is bizarre and utterly nonsensical, so I must assume this is just a case of reductio ad absurdum that contributes absolutely nothing.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Think about this from the perspective of a level 8 Sorcerer with Subtle Spell.
In general I like creative uses of skills for stuff like this, but when a class has carved out a particular niche ability and must pay a fairly high price for it, I make it a priority not to cheapen that ability. Or in a more general sense, when the rules explicitly give you a method to achieve some thing and that method has a high opportunity cost, you should not undercut that cost by providing much easier ways to do that thing. I feel the same way when people try to assert that invisibility grants the effects of being hidden.
5e takes a pretty hard line with spell components. That general trend along with no examples given for masking casting when describing stealth/deception/sleight of hand/performance ability checks despite it being a pretty obvious thing for a player to attempt makes me believe the RAI is against it.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Allowing someone to make a Sleight of Hand check to try and mask only the S requirement of a spell, when a sorcerer can just spend one whole sorcery point to eliminate the S and V requirements completely, doesn't seem like some sort of horribly unbalancing approach to me, nor would it outrage me as a sorcerer if the DM took that approach
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
At your own table, sure, you can do whatever you want, and you can stick with RAW or deviate from it as much as you want. But this is not about you nor your table. This is about others and their table, and if they want to open the Pandora's Box, then by all means they should open it. How you want to play is completely irrelevant and contributes nothing to the discussion, and even more asinine and nonsensical is this petty need to force your play style on others.
The OP just wants to know if he was wrong for feeling angry, and by extension, seems to want a little more clarification on RAW and whether the GM acted appropriately since he described the whole encounter. I do not think it is wrong for anyone to feel a certain way, so he has the right to feel whatever he was feeling. I do not have the GM's side of the story, so I am not going to judge the GM. I personally would not shut a player down so blatantly like that (I would just stack the odds so heavily against the player that they will fail; this gives an illusion of possibility to placate players), but they may have a reason to do so. In my opinion, the OP should just leave the group since the OP and GM clearly do not enjoy playing with each other. Discussion on RAW is irrelevant if the people at the table do not enjoy each other's company in the first place.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
It's just a game. Not worth totally losing it over.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
My last table fell apart and ended friendships because one of the people totally lost it, so can confirm: not wort it.