So this is my confession. I don't think I am a wonderful GM or even player. But I do think I am a generally fair GM that cares more about the players story than mine.
However, I am starting to realize I might be a bad player or "problem" player at the least. So I don't mind a few bending of the rules especially if it is inline with the "rule of cool" as a GM, but man have I found out as a player, I might not be that kind. So what made me realize this you might be asking.
So my player cast Crown of Madness which in short lets you tell the charmed target to attack a specific creature. Guess what I learned about this spell is that if the charmed creature is within melee range of their target they can just do their normal round like the spell doesn't exist.
Mini-rant in spoiler
Which is why I now believe that unless you can control the position of a target, you should avoid this spell. It is basically useless in my opinion. Because yeah they might get one attack, but then all they have to do is step 5 feet back and the spell is basically over. So I got a little upset as I am a Bard and was basically stuck with a useless spell until I leveled up and I was forced to switch this one out because as a Bard you can only switch out one spell per level.
Alright so after I found out Crown of Madness is a terrible spell (IMO) the GM decided while let's have the Charmed NPC cast an AOE spell on everyone including the NPC and Myself, it was the only way to hit all of the players. And here is where I felt like I became a rules-lawyer type of player (which I don't mind those players it's just I personally would rather have the epic fight over making sure the rules were followed to the letter) because I spent the next 5 minutes arguing with the DM of the fact that a charmed creature can't target the charmer with an attack or harmful spell.
His argument was simple, he wasn't targeting me he was casting an AOE spell that happened to include me.
My argument was, if you are casting the spell in a manner to include me, you are targeting me with a harmful spell.
His argument was he was also targeting himself (the charmed npc)
My argument was, so you can do that with AOE spells, you cant target your charmer though.
In short, this went back and forth until he finally said, find everyone but you take damage. Which then started the argument of, well that isn't fair, because he couldn't have hurt the entire party unless he also hurt me (I was in the middle of two people). It was at this point I realized that I was being rather annoying and decided to just let the argument go.
Now personally I still feel as though, my point was valid. However, looking back at that from my usual GM position I realize that I was really disruptive to not only the session but towards the GM of the game.
So basically this is my post to kinda shame myself into remembering even if I feel as though I am right, it doesn't mean I have to be disruptive and argue of semantics during my games. I hope this story helps me improve on being a player and have more fun playing it.
Also, keep in mind this is just one story, I have others where I realized I could have handled the situation better as both a player and GM. This one was just one where I was probably way more annoyed because of how angry I was at the Crown of Madness spell.
Edit: To clear up a point that keeps being brought up. I am not admitting that my argument was wrong. I both admit that Crown of Madness is a terrible spell and I 100% stand by my stance that the Charmed NPC should not be allowed to include me (the charmer) within a harmful AOE spell.
However, I admitting to the fact that I could have handled the situation a lot better. I simply could have gone with it and later talked to the GM about the spells. Where I am admitting fault at is when I handled the situation, not that I that my arguments were wrong.
I agree with you on Crown of Madness and I’ve played in groups in the past where we had 1 or 2 characters with Evasion who took either half or no damage instead of full or half damage on AoE spells and our go-to strategy was to hit them with AoE spells. They could take it and our opponents couldn’t so they gathered our opponents together and we hit them. It worked so we kept doing it. Why wouldn’t an NPC do the same thing targeting himself in order to hit your PC at the same time? It’s a drastic strategy, but there are times when it’s the best strategy.
I fully believe and myself as a GM have had an NPC include themselves inside an AOE spell, my argument at that moment was that the NPC couldn't target my character because he was charmed by me. Which if you are playing strictly by the rules he can not. Then the argument became over the fact that the spell didn't say anything about targets just creatures inside the radius.
The whole thing boiled down to semantics, and I wish I hadn't spent that time arguing is all.
Yeah it sounds like you had a moment where you needed to get fiddly with the rules to be happy and that's never fun on either side.
Also if you thought you were disruptive you probably were, but that's constructive. You need to know how much room you have to breath. If your DM stormed off because you had a small problem its better you know sooner then later.
Also yeah, try not to get into drawn out arguments. At the end of the day the DM is running a game the best they can.
Yeah it sounds like you had a moment where you needed to get fiddly with the rules to be happy and that's never fun on either side.
Also if you thought you were disruptive you probably were, but that's constructive. You need to know how much room you have to breath. If your DM stormed off because you had a small problem its better you know sooner then later.
Also yeah, try not to get into drawn out arguments. At the end of the day the DM is running a game the best they can.
Technically I wasn't wrong. Creatures within an AOE are targets of the spell, meaning by straight rules he couldn't have used the spell in a way that included me within the AOE effect.
However, my whole point was it was disruptive of me, I know I was. That is why I said I was a bad player. Even if you are right as either the player or the GM once either starts to become disruptive they are being less fun to play with. I admit my wrong. I really should have just went with the call and just talked to the DM afterward. The damage wasn't going to kill me.
I fully agree with you though, players and GMs should avoid drawn-out arguments during the game, both just want to play and have fun. I need to work on talking to the GM for this campaign after the session. Which I am improving on this wasn't a recent event just one I wanted to share.
From reading the spell effects on DDB I'm not sure why he was even casting a spell. Crown of Madness states they need to make a *melee attack* on the target within range. From your post it seemed that the charmed target was in range and should have made a melee attack and not an aoe spell. If the charmed enemy was not in range of the target you choose then the aoe would've been fine.
'The charmed target must use its action before moving on each of its turns to make a melee attack against a creature other than itself that you mentally choose. The target can act normally on its turn if you choose no creature or if none are within its reach.'
Despite all the rabbit trailing with continuing the table argument in the thread, I appreciate the sentiment behind the OP. Good on you for self reflection and trying to become better going forward. That’s life done right.
From reading the spell effects on DDB I'm not sure why he was even casting a spell. Crown of Madness states they need to make a *melee attack* on the target within range. From your post it seemed that the charmed target was in range and should have made a melee attack and not an aoe spell. If the charmed enemy was not in range of the target you choose then the aoe would've been fine.
'The charmed target must use its action before moving on each of its turns to make a melee attack against a creature other than itself that you mentally choose. The target can act normally on its turn if you choose no creature or if none are within its reach.'
The NPC was not in range of a melee attack. However, the AOE was not fine, because he was still considered Charmed by me. Meaning he could not include me in the AOE of the spell he cast.
The argument I had was two-fold, first was me realizing Crown of Madness is a terrible spell because it is very very situational. I agreed with the GM on this point after re-reading the spell. However, the second part was the Charmed NPC including me in an AOE spell, which he can't do because he can't target me with a harmful spell.
Despite all the rabbit trailing with continuing the table argument in the thread, I appreciate the sentiment behind the OP. Good on you for self reflection and trying to become better going forward. That’s life done right.
Wouldn't this kinda be the point to discuss the argument? It is not during any one's session. No one is getting mad at each other. To me, if you are going to rabbit trail an argument you should do it off the table and not at it. But yes, the point of the thread was for me to self reflect and learn that arguing at the table was not the correct choice.
The NPC was not in range of a melee attack. However, the AOE was not fine, because he was still considered Charmed by me. Meaning he could not include me in the AOE of the spell he cast.
The spell stipulates that the creature may act normally if there is no target declared or no target in range. There are hundreds of examples of people and creatures using area effects to attack targets which also happen to catch "friendlies". They are not attacking friendly targets, the friendly targets just happen to be in the way.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
The NPC was not in range of a melee attack. However, the AOE was not fine, because he was still considered Charmed by me. Meaning he could not include me in the AOE of the spell he cast.
The spell stipulates that the creature may act normally if there is no target declared or no target in range. There are hundreds of examples of people and creatures using area effects to attack targets which also happen to catch "friendlies". They are not attacking friendly targets, the friendly targets just happen to be in the way.
Dude please read the Charmed condition. It specifically reads "A charmed creature can't attack the charmer or target the charmer with harmful abilities or magical effects."
Yes, in general, you can attack friendlies shoot in this fight alone one of the other players attacked another player. My point was a charmed creature can't by rules target the charmer with harmful abilities or magical effects.
From your story I can say I can't stand GMs like this. A GM's job is to offer up the story/adventure following the spirit of the game. His job is not to kill or defeat the players. The adventures job might be to defeat the players, and that's another story, but rule bending for the purposes of subverting a players tactic makes a crappy GM.
He didn't really rule bend, However, most people do mix up that whole AOE targets things. Its why it is one of those mucky things they had to clear up.
It's absolutely rule bending. Charmed clearly says you cannot target the spell caster with any negative anything. Arguing that AOE spells aren't targeting an individual is arguing semantics. From a player I can understand because they are trying to get the edge to potentially survive.... For a DM to do this then it is just being dickish to players.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So this is my confession. I don't think I am a wonderful GM or even player. But I do think I am a generally fair GM that cares more about the players story than mine.
However, I am starting to realize I might be a bad player or "problem" player at the least. So I don't mind a few bending of the rules especially if it is inline with the "rule of cool" as a GM, but man have I found out as a player, I might not be that kind. So what made me realize this you might be asking.
So my player cast Crown of Madness which in short lets you tell the charmed target to attack a specific creature. Guess what I learned about this spell is that if the charmed creature is within melee range of their target they can just do their normal round like the spell doesn't exist.
Mini-rant in spoiler
Which is why I now believe that unless you can control the position of a target, you should avoid this spell. It is basically useless in my opinion. Because yeah they might get one attack, but then all they have to do is step 5 feet back and the spell is basically over. So I got a little upset as I am a Bard and was basically stuck with a useless spell until I leveled up and I was forced to switch this one out because as a Bard you can only switch out one spell per level.
Alright so after I found out Crown of Madness is a terrible spell (IMO) the GM decided while let's have the Charmed NPC cast an AOE spell on everyone including the NPC and Myself, it was the only way to hit all of the players. And here is where I felt like I became a rules-lawyer type of player (which I don't mind those players it's just I personally would rather have the epic fight over making sure the rules were followed to the letter) because I spent the next 5 minutes arguing with the DM of the fact that a charmed creature can't target the charmer with an attack or harmful spell.
His argument was simple, he wasn't targeting me he was casting an AOE spell that happened to include me.
My argument was, if you are casting the spell in a manner to include me, you are targeting me with a harmful spell.
His argument was he was also targeting himself (the charmed npc)
My argument was, so you can do that with AOE spells, you cant target your charmer though.
In short, this went back and forth until he finally said, find everyone but you take damage. Which then started the argument of, well that isn't fair, because he couldn't have hurt the entire party unless he also hurt me (I was in the middle of two people). It was at this point I realized that I was being rather annoying and decided to just let the argument go.
Now personally I still feel as though, my point was valid. However, looking back at that from my usual GM position I realize that I was really disruptive to not only the session but towards the GM of the game.
So basically this is my post to kinda shame myself into remembering even if I feel as though I am right, it doesn't mean I have to be disruptive and argue of semantics during my games. I hope this story helps me improve on being a player and have more fun playing it.
Also, keep in mind this is just one story, I have others where I realized I could have handled the situation better as both a player and GM. This one was just one where I was probably way more annoyed because of how angry I was at the Crown of Madness spell.
Edit: To clear up a point that keeps being brought up. I am not admitting that my argument was wrong. I both admit that Crown of Madness is a terrible spell and I 100% stand by my stance that the Charmed NPC should not be allowed to include me (the charmer) within a harmful AOE spell.
However, I admitting to the fact that I could have handled the situation a lot better. I simply could have gone with it and later talked to the GM about the spells. Where I am admitting fault at is when I handled the situation, not that I that my arguments were wrong.
I agree with you on Crown of Madness and I’ve played in groups in the past where we had 1 or 2 characters with Evasion who took either half or no damage instead of full or half damage on AoE spells and our go-to strategy was to hit them with AoE spells. They could take it and our opponents couldn’t so they gathered our opponents together and we hit them. It worked so we kept doing it. Why wouldn’t an NPC do the same thing targeting himself in order to hit your PC at the same time? It’s a drastic strategy, but there are times when it’s the best strategy.
Professional computer geek
I fully believe and myself as a GM have had an NPC include themselves inside an AOE spell, my argument at that moment was that the NPC couldn't target my character because he was charmed by me. Which if you are playing strictly by the rules he can not. Then the argument became over the fact that the spell didn't say anything about targets just creatures inside the radius.
The whole thing boiled down to semantics, and I wish I hadn't spent that time arguing is all.
Just out of curiosity, what was the AOE spell?
Yeah it sounds like you had a moment where you needed to get fiddly with the rules to be happy and that's never fun on either side.
Also if you thought you were disruptive you probably were, but that's constructive. You need to know how much room you have to breath. If your DM stormed off because you had a small problem its better you know sooner then later.
Also yeah, try not to get into drawn out arguments. At the end of the day the DM is running a game the best they can.
I don't remember the name of the spell or really what it did.
Technically I wasn't wrong. Creatures within an AOE are targets of the spell, meaning by straight rules he couldn't have used the spell in a way that included me within the AOE effect.
However, my whole point was it was disruptive of me, I know I was. That is why I said I was a bad player. Even if you are right as either the player or the GM once either starts to become disruptive they are being less fun to play with. I admit my wrong. I really should have just went with the call and just talked to the DM afterward. The damage wasn't going to kill me.
I fully agree with you though, players and GMs should avoid drawn-out arguments during the game, both just want to play and have fun. I need to work on talking to the GM for this campaign after the session. Which I am improving on this wasn't a recent event just one I wanted to share.
It's probably unwise to create friction with your GM in the middle of the game. You can't even remember what spell was cast so it wasn't critical.
Maybe next time just go with the GMs call. It might lead to a better story =)
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Now that you're aware of it, do you think you can become a better player going forward?
From reading the spell effects on DDB I'm not sure why he was even casting a spell. Crown of Madness states they need to make a *melee attack* on the target within range. From your post it seemed that the charmed target was in range and should have made a melee attack and not an aoe spell. If the charmed enemy was not in range of the target you choose then the aoe would've been fine.
'The charmed target must use its action before moving on each of its turns to make a melee attack against a creature other than itself that you mentally choose. The target can act normally on its turn if you choose no creature or if none are within its reach.'
Despite all the rabbit trailing with continuing the table argument in the thread, I appreciate the sentiment behind the OP. Good on you for self reflection and trying to become better going forward. That’s life done right.
That was kinda the point.
Yeah, its something I now try to avoid during sessions when I am the player and talk about it afterwards.
The NPC was not in range of a melee attack. However, the AOE was not fine, because he was still considered Charmed by me. Meaning he could not include me in the AOE of the spell he cast.
The argument I had was two-fold, first was me realizing Crown of Madness is a terrible spell because it is very very situational. I agreed with the GM on this point after re-reading the spell. However, the second part was the Charmed NPC including me in an AOE spell, which he can't do because he can't target me with a harmful spell.
Wouldn't this kinda be the point to discuss the argument? It is not during any one's session. No one is getting mad at each other. To me, if you are going to rabbit trail an argument you should do it off the table and not at it. But yes, the point of the thread was for me to self reflect and learn that arguing at the table was not the correct choice.
The spell stipulates that the creature may act normally if there is no target declared or no target in range. There are hundreds of examples of people and creatures using area effects to attack targets which also happen to catch "friendlies". They are not attacking friendly targets, the friendly targets just happen to be in the way.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Dude please read the Charmed condition. It specifically reads "A charmed creature can't attack the charmer or target the charmer with harmful abilities or magical effects."
Yes, in general, you can attack friendlies shoot in this fight alone one of the other players attacked another player. My point was a charmed creature can't by rules target the charmer with harmful abilities or magical effects.
I agree with you that he shouldn't have been able to target you.
"Halt your wagging and wag your halters, for I am mastercryomancer!"
Check out my Expanded Signature
I agree that a creature with the Charmed condition should not be able to include the charmer in the AoE of a harmful spell.
Correct. As quoted, cannot attack the charmer or target the charmer.
The target of a Fireball is a point in space.
The target of Ice Knife is the target but Ice Knife has an AOE.
The target of Cloudkill is a point in space, but it moves on its own.
No matter, as long as you're consistent as GM.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
WoTC has specifically stated that an AOE effect targets everyone within the AOE.
In Sage Advice, Jeremy Crawford wades into the mire of spell targeting and clears away the muck to provide clarity.
- http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/wolfgang-baur-girl-scouts-midgard
From your story I can say I can't stand GMs like this. A GM's job is to offer up the story/adventure following the spirit of the game. His job is not to kill or defeat the players. The adventures job might be to defeat the players, and that's another story, but rule bending for the purposes of subverting a players tactic makes a crappy GM.
He didn't really rule bend, However, most people do mix up that whole AOE targets things. Its why it is one of those mucky things they had to clear up.
It's absolutely rule bending. Charmed clearly says you cannot target the spell caster with any negative anything. Arguing that AOE spells aren't targeting an individual is arguing semantics. From a player I can understand because they are trying to get the edge to potentially survive.... For a DM to do this then it is just being dickish to players.