I'll back you up, dude. I firmly believe it's as much within the DM's purview to call out a player for being blatantly inconsistent as it's within his purview to ask, "Are you sure you wanna do that?" to the druid about to Pocahontas-dive off a thousand-foot cliff for the lolz.
Alignment checks are in the PHB for a reason, and it's to help the DM and the players tell a more congruent, immersive story. I don't think an INT check for a stupid spell idea is too different, especially if the DM handles it like "I'm pointing this out because it's for your benefit. You're welcome to act out of character, but for the narrative's sake, you gotta legitimize it with RP or a bad dice roll." I mean, heck, if my DM can make me roll an INT check to see if I'm smart enough to figure something out, it stands to reason he can ask me for an INT check to see if I'm dumb enough not to. It's just the other side of the coin.
When you don't have these character consistency checks, you wind up with Luke Skywalker randomly turning into some angry hermit in The Last Jedi, and now the fandom is convinced you ruined his character AND the story. Not that I'm bitter or anything.
P.S. I'm a tiefling ranger! Probably the most useless race-class combo there is, and my stats are almost complete trash from bad rolls, but she's the best character I've ever played.
“are you sure you want to do that?”
^^ this! 100% this!
this is you, as a DM, asking them why they want to do it because you don’t initially see what they are doing, and you aren’t trying to dictate their choices and actions, but want to understand why they are doing something that is different from what you would do.
I don’t know if mog is doing this or not, because he has made no mention of this kind of scenario. But based off what he has said it does not appear so. So I would say, that based off what has been said so far by you and him. While you agree with the “what” he does, you both are going about it in very different “how’s” and the “how it’s done” is the difference. And a very big and distinct difference.
I'm in the that's "meta" camp I guess. Unless I have encountered the enemy before or read about them or were given certain information about them, my spell selection is nothing special other than is it better to use a single target spell or an AoE spell. If I see 5 "rogues" but I don't know what a rogue is, I'm casting Fireball. Personally, in my campaign, our DM throws mostly monsters. We don't get ambushed by rogues or monks or wizards. Are there spellcasters and melee enemies?. Sure. But it's more goblins with a sword or a lich than it is an enemy Wizard or Monk.
I've done all of our group's one shots so I've seen the Monster Manual and know the stat blocks of some things our campaign hasn't seen yet. It's very tempting to "metagame" but I try not to. Do I know a particular enemy has a weakness to fire? Yes. Does my Barbarian who has never seen it before or heard of it or read of it know it's weakness to fire? No. How you believe your character knows something about the enemy is up to your character and potentially the DM.
On the topic of alignment - A characters alignment can change over the course of a campaign. Personally, my Barbarian decided to infiltrate the Zhentarim to be an inside man and get information. In the course he had to do things to maintain his cover that he wouldn't normally do. Instead of my DM saying "no your character wouldn't do that" or "roll an X check to see if your character would do it" by DM just said you are now Neutral Evil. I'm not telling you what is right or wrong, you DM the way you want to.
I think it is the DM's responsibility to question their players when they want to do something that is against their alignment, against their faction's code of conduct, against their patron or God's wishes, etc.
But it's not the DM's responsibility to question a player's strategy during combat just because the DM thinks the player is playing suboptimally. There's a big difference between "you're a lawful good Paladin, are you sure that you want to do this evil act?" and "you're a wizard, are you sure that you want to cast fireball at this group of enemies that I happen to know have high dexterity?" Or even worse, telling players what spells they have to choose for their character, so that their character has a spell for every type of enemy you could throw at them.
This is what happens when everyone is told that they are special and that they can do whatever they want. Egocentrism.
Did you ever consider that when you make the 8 INT Barbarian and decide to send him to the Vault of Knowledge to learn History, you might be stepping on the toes of the player that made a high INT Wizard with the Sage background? Of course it's just a game but, some people create a character with a traditional role/concept in mind. If you feel railroaded(asked to play somewhat within the more obvious strengths of your class), that's unreasonable?
To get back OT. I play a Grave Cleric and I have some nuke spells readied but, I usually cast damage cantrips as I picked the Magic Initiate feat and got a save for most attributes. I save spell slots for heals, buffs and utility spells. Can't stand blowing slots on DC saves or spell hit flubs.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
“are you sure you want to do that?”
^^ this! 100% this!
this is you, as a DM, asking them why they want to do it because you don’t initially see what they are doing, and you aren’t trying to dictate their choices and actions, but want to understand why they are doing something that is different from what you would do.
I don’t know if mog is doing this or not, because he has made no mention of this kind of scenario. But based off what he has said it does not appear so. So I would say, that based off what has been said so far by you and him. While you agree with the “what” he does, you both are going about it in very different “how’s” and the “how it’s done” is the difference. And a very big and distinct difference.
Watch me on twitch
I'm in the that's "meta" camp I guess. Unless I have encountered the enemy before or read about them or were given certain information about them, my spell selection is nothing special other than is it better to use a single target spell or an AoE spell. If I see 5 "rogues" but I don't know what a rogue is, I'm casting Fireball. Personally, in my campaign, our DM throws mostly monsters. We don't get ambushed by rogues or monks or wizards. Are there spellcasters and melee enemies?. Sure. But it's more goblins with a sword or a lich than it is an enemy Wizard or Monk.
I've done all of our group's one shots so I've seen the Monster Manual and know the stat blocks of some things our campaign hasn't seen yet. It's very tempting to "metagame" but I try not to. Do I know a particular enemy has a weakness to fire? Yes. Does my Barbarian who has never seen it before or heard of it or read of it know it's weakness to fire? No. How you believe your character knows something about the enemy is up to your character and potentially the DM.
On the topic of alignment - A characters alignment can change over the course of a campaign. Personally, my Barbarian decided to infiltrate the Zhentarim to be an inside man and get information. In the course he had to do things to maintain his cover that he wouldn't normally do. Instead of my DM saying "no your character wouldn't do that" or "roll an X check to see if your character would do it" by DM just said you are now Neutral Evil. I'm not telling you what is right or wrong, you DM the way you want to.
I think it is the DM's responsibility to question their players when they want to do something that is against their alignment, against their faction's code of conduct, against their patron or God's wishes, etc.
But it's not the DM's responsibility to question a player's strategy during combat just because the DM thinks the player is playing suboptimally. There's a big difference between "you're a lawful good Paladin, are you sure that you want to do this evil act?" and "you're a wizard, are you sure that you want to cast fireball at this group of enemies that I happen to know have high dexterity?" Or even worse, telling players what spells they have to choose for their character, so that their character has a spell for every type of enemy you could throw at them.
This is what happens when everyone is told that they are special and that they can do whatever they want. Egocentrism.
Did you ever consider that when you make the 8 INT Barbarian and decide to send him to the Vault of Knowledge to learn History, you might be stepping on the toes of the player that made a high INT Wizard with the Sage background? Of course it's just a game but, some people create a character with a traditional role/concept in mind. If you feel railroaded(asked to play somewhat within the more obvious strengths of your class), that's unreasonable?
To get back OT. I play a Grave Cleric and I have some nuke spells readied but, I usually cast damage cantrips as I picked the Magic Initiate feat and got a save for most attributes. I save spell slots for heals, buffs and utility spells. Can't stand blowing slots on DC saves or spell hit flubs.