The context I have mostly seen "wandering damage" in is as a simplification of the wandering monster tables (rather than rolling up a random monster encounter... just do some damage to the party, it will come out the same in the end)
It may have originated in an April issue of Dragon. (Or they could've used a joke that was already circulating.)
The context I have mostly seen "wandering damage" in is as a simplification of the wandering monster tables (rather than rolling up a random monster encounter... just do some damage to the party, it will come out the same in the end)
It may have originated in an April issue of Dragon. (Or they could've used a joke that was already circulating.)
Could have been both.... could have been something from their local table or club and then circulated more widely via publication. The Dragon was certainly influential enough (and one of the things really missed in modern D&D )
never in the players benefits never I died in 40 min. one time by lightning ! I was lv. 5 with 32 hp
If it was a lightning bolt, it doesn't require a roll to hit, just damage. That is just how the spell works straight from the book. They probably said you are struck by lighting, and the roll you heard was them rolling damage. You then would roll a save to see if you take full or half the damage.
I think you falsely accused your sibling (yes I have seen that other thread) of cheating when they didn't. And need to apologize.
That lightning bolt would have had to do at least 32 points of damage on a save. Since he died, it did far more where he couldn't save vs death? Sounds far worse than a 5 CR monster.🤷🏿♂️
We're lacking a lot a context from what the OP claims and their sibling in another thread claims.
Some DMs run campaigns where the best choice is avoid or run. Just had one where IF we messed with a tomb that was at the bottom of a canyon, the canyon was rigged to collapse unless the trap was found and disabled. A potential party wipe encounter if done wrong. But our party group runs a bit on the paranoid side and avoided it.
never in the players benefits never I died in 40 min. one time by lightning ! I was lv. 5 with 32 hp
If it was a lightning bolt, it doesn't require a roll to hit, just damage. That is just how the spell works straight from the book. They probably said you are struck by lighting, and the roll you heard was them rolling damage. You then would roll a save to see if you take full or half the damage.
I think you falsely accused your sibling (yes I have seen that other thread) of cheating when they didn't. And need to apologize.
That lightning bolt would have had to do at least 32 points of damage on a save. Since he died, it did far more where he couldn't save vs death? Sounds far worse than a 5 CR monster.🤷🏿♂️
We're lacking a lot a context from what the OP claims and their sibling in another thread claims.
Some DMs run campaigns where the best choice is avoid or run. Just had one where IF we messed with a tomb that was at the bottom of a canyon, the canyon was rigged to collapse unless the trap was found and disabled. A potential party wipe encounter if done wrong. But our party group runs a bit on the paranoid side and avoided it.
would you mind linking the other thread? I know I would like to hear both sides of the situation before I input
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Not getting cut into bloody littles slices, That's the key to a sound plan."
There's something to be said for "don't go to a game forum expecting it to resolve a table dispute". We don't have any particular way of knowing who's in the wrong, and even if we did, unlikely our judgment would be relevant to resolving the dispute.
never in the players benefits never I died in 40 min. one time by lightning ! I was lv. 5 with 32 hp
If it was a lightning bolt, it doesn't require a roll to hit, just damage. That is just how the spell works straight from the book. They probably said you are struck by lighting, and the roll you heard was them rolling damage. You then would roll a save to see if you take full or half the damage.
I think you falsely accused your sibling (yes I have seen that other thread) of cheating when they didn't. And need to apologize.
That lightning bolt would have had to do at least 32 points of damage on a save. Since he died, it did far more where he couldn't save vs death? Sounds far worse than a 5 CR monster.🤷🏿♂️
We're lacking a lot a context from what the OP claims and their sibling in another thread claims.
Some DMs run campaigns where the best choice is avoid or run. Just had one where IF we messed with a tomb that was at the bottom of a canyon, the canyon was rigged to collapse unless the trap was found and disabled. A potential party wipe encounter if done wrong. But our party group runs a bit on the paranoid side and avoided it.
would you mind linking the other thread? I know I would like to hear both sides of the situation before I input
There's something to be said for "don't go to a game forum expecting it to resolve a table dispute".
Especially if involves family.
To be fair, if these really are linked events, the DM was asking other DM's for help in how to handle it, with a caveat that they would rather not kick the player out due to RL concerns. The OP here seems to be asking all of us to call out the DM. The difference in approaches seems pretty clear.
If these are linked, that lightning bolt is sounding earned.
never in the players benefits never I died in 40 min. one time by lightning ! I was lv. 5 with 32 hp
If it was a lightning bolt, it doesn't require a roll to hit, just damage. That is just how the spell works straight from the book. They probably said you are struck by lighting, and the roll you heard was them rolling damage. You then would roll a save to see if you take full or half the damage.
I think you falsely accused your sibling (yes I have seen that other thread) of cheating when they didn't. And need to apologize.
That lightning bolt would have had to do at least 32 points of damage on a save. Since he died, it did far more where he couldn't save vs death? Sounds far worse than a 5 CR monster.🤷🏿♂️
We're lacking a lot a context from what the OP claims and their sibling in another thread claims.
Some DMs run campaigns where the best choice is avoid or run. Just had one where IF we messed with a tomb that was at the bottom of a canyon, the canyon was rigged to collapse unless the trap was found and disabled. A potential party wipe encounter if done wrong. But our party group runs a bit on the paranoid side and avoided it.
would you mind linking the other thread? I know I would like to hear both sides of the situation before I input
I think maybe you don't understand the dynamics of the game. As a DM I will fudge rolls in my favor (against the party) if I have erred in creating a challenging encounter, not if they simply figured out a clever way to win of course. I've changed rolls or hit points, eliminated or added reinforcements to make a good fight. I let the dice fall where they will as long as the fight is fun, if the players figure out an easy way to win, or if they do something blindingly dumb.
I think maybe you don't understand the dynamics of the game. As a DM I will fudge rolls in my favor (against the party) if I have erred in creating a challenging encounter, not if they simply figured out a clever way to win of course. I've changed rolls or hit points, eliminated or added reinforcements to make a good fight. I let the dice fall where they will as long as the fight is fun, if the players figure out an easy way to win, or if they do something blindingly dumb.
IMO fudging rolls against players isn't ok. Changing hit points or adding reinforcements like you said is better.
I think maybe you don't understand the dynamics of the game. As a DM I will fudge rolls in my favor (against the party) if I have erred in creating a challenging encounter, not if they simply figured out a clever way to win of course. I've changed rolls or hit points, eliminated or added reinforcements to make a good fight. I let the dice fall where they will as long as the fight is fun, if the players figure out an easy way to win, or if they do something blindingly dumb.
That's never been the dynamics of the game. Never. Fudging the dice in favor of the players is okay. If made bad judgements in challenges, then that's why you choose monsters who can summon other monsters/animals etc.
It's never fair when the guy who owns the world, also changes the dice against the PC's. They have no chance from that point.
That's never been the dynamics of the game. Never.
Yeah it has. The earliest example I can think of this is a classic example of things we tell modern DMs not to do, the section in Scourge of the Slave Lords where the PCs are to be captured and imprisoned. It contains such advice as "If characters are awake, pretend to roll a saving throw and ask the player if he has any bonuses vs poison. The character falls unconscious regardless of the die roll, but the player should never be told this".
That's never been the dynamics of the game. Never.
Yeah it has. The earliest example I can think of this is a classic example of things we tell modern DMs not to do, the section in Scourge of the Slave Lords where the PCs are to be captured and imprisoned. It contains such advice as "If characters are awake, pretend to roll a saving throw and ask the player if he has any bonuses vs poison. The character falls unconscious regardless of the die roll, but the player should never be told this".
That interaction is, importantly, outside of combat. That advice is given because that is how the adventure has to progress.
That interaction is, importantly, outside of combat. That advice is given because that is how the adventure has to progress.
I would not call that distinction important, nor is it the kind of distinction AD&D would have considered important, as it never drew a hard line between combat and non-combat.
That's never been the dynamics of the game. Never.
Yeah it has. The earliest example I can think of this is a classic example of things we tell modern DMs not to do, the section in Scourge of the Slave Lords where the PCs are to be captured and imprisoned. It contains such advice as "If characters are awake, pretend to roll a saving throw and ask the player if he has any bonuses vs poison. The character falls unconscious regardless of the die roll, but the player should never be told this".
That interaction is, importantly, outside of combat. That advice is given because that is how the adventure has to progress.
That interaction was there to essentially force the party to automatically lose combat no matter what precautions they had taken. Even back then, I thought that was too far over the line. Still do.
That interaction is, importantly, outside of combat. That advice is given because that is how the adventure has to progress.
I would not call that distinction important, nor is it the kind of distinction AD&D would have considered important, as it never drew a hard line between combat and non-combat.
There was no chance of PC death from failing that saving throw. I would say that is very different than combat.
I think maybe you don't understand the dynamics of the game. As a DM I will fudge rolls in my favor (against the party) if I have erred in creating a challenging encounter, not if they simply figured out a clever way to win of course. I've changed rolls or hit points, eliminated or added reinforcements to make a good fight. I let the dice fall where they will as long as the fight is fun, if the players figure out an easy way to win, or if they do something blindingly dumb.
That's never been the dynamics of the game. Never. Fudging the dice in favor of the players is okay. If made bad judgements in challenges, then that's why you choose monsters who can summon other monsters/animals etc.
It's never fair when the guy who owns the world, also changes the dice against the PC's. They have no chance from that point.
It surely is because the game isn't the DM against the players, its a cooperative story told by the DM and the players. If it suits the narrative and advances the story adjusting an encounter on the fly is the right call. If you wish to play an adversarial version of the game you can of course.
That's never been the dynamics of the game. Never.
Yeah it has. The earliest example I can think of this is a classic example of things we tell modern DMs not to do, the section in Scourge of the Slave Lords where the PCs are to be captured and imprisoned. It contains such advice as "If characters are awake, pretend to roll a saving throw and ask the player if he has any bonuses vs poison. The character falls unconscious regardless of the die roll, but the player should never be told this".
That interaction is, importantly, outside of combat. That advice is given because that is how the adventure has to progress.
That interaction was there to essentially force the party to automatically lose combat no matter what precautions they had taken. Even back then, I thought that was too far over the line. Still do.
Yeah poor design to force players hands without an option. That's just lazy/bad writing/DMing.
It may have originated in an April issue of Dragon. (Or they could've used a joke that was already circulating.)
Could have been both.... could have been something from their local table or club and then circulated more widely via publication. The Dragon was certainly influential enough (and one of the things really missed in modern D&D )
We're lacking a lot a context from what the OP claims and their sibling in another thread claims.
Some DMs run campaigns where the best choice is avoid or run. Just had one where IF we messed with a tomb that was at the bottom of a canyon, the canyon was rigged to collapse unless the trap was found and disabled. A potential party wipe encounter if done wrong. But our party group runs a bit on the paranoid side and avoided it.
would you mind linking the other thread? I know I would like to hear both sides of the situation before I input
"Not getting cut into bloody littles slices, That's the key to a sound plan."
There's something to be said for "don't go to a game forum expecting it to resolve a table dispute". We don't have any particular way of knowing who's in the wrong, and even if we did, unlikely our judgment would be relevant to resolving the dispute.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/dungeon-masters-only/193918-having-trouble-keeping-a-player-immersed#c15
Especially if involves family.
To be fair, if these really are linked events, the DM was asking other DM's for help in how to handle it, with a caveat that they would rather not kick the player out due to RL concerns. The OP here seems to be asking all of us to call out the DM. The difference in approaches seems pretty clear.
If these are linked, that lightning bolt is sounding earned.
If you read down the other thread, the OP from THIS thread literally says they are the sibling of the OP in the other thread. What a mess.
thanks
"Not getting cut into bloody littles slices, That's the key to a sound plan."
I think maybe you don't understand the dynamics of the game. As a DM I will fudge rolls in my favor (against the party) if I have erred in creating a challenging encounter, not if they simply figured out a clever way to win of course. I've changed rolls or hit points, eliminated or added reinforcements to make a good fight. I let the dice fall where they will as long as the fight is fun, if the players figure out an easy way to win, or if they do something blindingly dumb.
IMO fudging rolls against players isn't ok. Changing hit points or adding reinforcements like you said is better.
That's never been the dynamics of the game. Never. Fudging the dice in favor of the players is okay. If made bad judgements in challenges, then that's why you choose monsters who can summon other monsters/animals etc.
It's never fair when the guy who owns the world, also changes the dice against the PC's. They have no chance from that point.
Yeah it has. The earliest example I can think of this is a classic example of things we tell modern DMs not to do, the section in Scourge of the Slave Lords where the PCs are to be captured and imprisoned. It contains such advice as "If characters are awake, pretend to roll a saving throw and ask the player if he has any bonuses vs poison. The character falls unconscious regardless of the die roll, but the player should never be told this".
That interaction is, importantly, outside of combat. That advice is given because that is how the adventure has to progress.
I would not call that distinction important, nor is it the kind of distinction AD&D would have considered important, as it never drew a hard line between combat and non-combat.
That interaction was there to essentially force the party to automatically lose combat no matter what precautions they had taken. Even back then, I thought that was too far over the line. Still do.
There was no chance of PC death from failing that saving throw. I would say that is very different than combat.
It surely is because the game isn't the DM against the players, its a cooperative story told by the DM and the players. If it suits the narrative and advances the story adjusting an encounter on the fly is the right call. If you wish to play an adversarial version of the game you can of course.
Yeah poor design to force players hands without an option. That's just lazy/bad writing/DMing.