So I have this question, my friends and I had been preparing to play The Curse Of Strahd module, and so for we started a while ago but before that our DM talked to me in private saying he wanted to do a cool little twist on the introduction, saying it kinda felt a bit too boring for him. He asked me if I was willing to do a little switcharoo with my character and the big bad right off the bat to mind**** with the party. We were going to have me play my character who wasn’t my character and have the party come across a coffin that actually had my character inside. After it was revealed we got into fight with Strahd himself. During the battle he used a legendary action to charm our paladin and attack us but the DM was never gonna kill us he just wanted to set up the atmosphere of the game by having us be paranoid which worked. However after that session my friend who played the paladin was messaging me that he shouldn’t gotten charmed due to some immunity he had.
So the question is was my friend right to be complaining about the DM’s decision or was the DM right to override that for a story purpose?
I personally think my friend should just stop complaining and realize it was a way for the DM to introduce us into the game. Since our DM told us after the session wasn’t gonna kill anyone, but I would like to know other people’s thoughts that aren’t my friends.
Elves have advantage on saving throws against being charmed. Paladins of the Oath of Devotion get an aura of charm immunity at 7th level. In either case, it's possible that your DM gave Strahd a way to bypass it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
It's bad form for the DM to outright ignore the rules of a character's features without clearly telegraphing that something extraordinary is happening. However, I find it unlikely a new character has immunity to the charmed condition. It's possible they're playing an elf, but elves only have advantage on saving throws against being charmed, not immunity. They could be playing an Oath of Devotion paladin, but Aura of Devotion isn't available until 7th level. Is your group really starting Curse of Strahd at such a high level?
Either way, the player should just talk to the DM. There's no point in complaining to you about it. They don't know why the DM did what they did, and only the DM can make it up to that player. No good will come from complaining to the rest of the group behind the DM's back. D&D is a co-op game and that requires mutual trust between all the players.
But I also think the player's concerns should be taken seriously. If they really do have immunity to the charmed condition and the DM deliberately ignored that with no hint of an explanation, of course the player would feel cheated! It sets a really bad precedent. Will it happen again in the future? What other abilities might the DM choose to ignore?
We were all starting with level 1 character and the paladin said he was using the oath of vengeance. I do see why the player would feel cheated. I just thought the complaining came from no where when the DM said he wasn’t gonna kill us just have Strahd toy with us.
So I have this question, my friends and I had been preparing to play The Curse Of Strahd module, and so for we started a while ago but before that our DM talked to me in private saying he wanted to do a cool little twist on the introduction, saying it kinda felt a bit too boring for him. He asked me if I was willing to do a little switcharoo with my character and the big bad right off the bat to mind**** with the party. We were going to have me play my character who wasn’t my character and have the party come across a coffin that actually had my character inside. After it was revealed we got into fight with Strahd himself. During the battle he used a legendary action to charm our paladin and attack us but the DM was never gonna kill us he just wanted to set up the atmosphere of the game by having us be paranoid which worked. However after that session my friend who played the paladin was messaging me that he shouldn’t gotten charmed due to some immunity he had.
So the question is was my friend right to be complaining about the DM’s decision or was the DM right to override that for a story purpose?
I personally think my friend should just stop complaining and realize it was a way for the DM to introduce us into the game. Since our DM told us after the session wasn’t gonna kill anyone, but I would like to know other people’s thoughts that aren’t my friends.
Elves have advantage on saving throws against being charmed. Paladins of the Oath of Devotion get an aura of charm immunity at 7th level. In either case, it's possible that your DM gave Strahd a way to bypass it.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
It's bad form for the DM to outright ignore the rules of a character's features without clearly telegraphing that something extraordinary is happening. However, I find it unlikely a new character has immunity to the charmed condition. It's possible they're playing an elf, but elves only have advantage on saving throws against being charmed, not immunity. They could be playing an Oath of Devotion paladin, but Aura of Devotion isn't available until 7th level. Is your group really starting Curse of Strahd at such a high level?
Either way, the player should just talk to the DM. There's no point in complaining to you about it. They don't know why the DM did what they did, and only the DM can make it up to that player. No good will come from complaining to the rest of the group behind the DM's back. D&D is a co-op game and that requires mutual trust between all the players.
But I also think the player's concerns should be taken seriously. If they really do have immunity to the charmed condition and the DM deliberately ignored that with no hint of an explanation, of course the player would feel cheated! It sets a really bad precedent. Will it happen again in the future? What other abilities might the DM choose to ignore?
We were all starting with level 1 character and the paladin said he was using the oath of vengeance. I do see why the player would feel cheated. I just thought the complaining came from no where when the DM said he wasn’t gonna kill us just have Strahd toy with us.
After the session? DM takes precedence. If the player had raised it at the time, that could change, but you snooze you loose
Homebrew is fun.
Paladins can't be Oath of Vengeance at level 1, they have to be level 3.
The player cheated if they used an ability they didn't have access to.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms