As a general rule, I try not to fudge the rules unless it hurts my players' fun not to do so.   In the final encounter of my last scenario, an NPC I had written as a hook into the next adventure was killed outright by a specter's Life Drain. When asked if that NPC was dead (during combat) I responded in the affirmative. He failed his CON save, and his max HP was lowered to 0 by the damage.  Albeit selfishly, I began rolling death saves for the NPC behind the curtain. One of my veteran players was confused after a previously-dead NPC stabilized and was able to talk with them once healed. We ended up in a drawn-out OOC discussion, and clearly he was unsatisfied. He seemed to think I overstepped my bounds as a DM, and I think he may be right.  Did I "cheat" my PCs with what seemed like a harmless fudge?
44100
When I started my first D&amp;D campaign as a DM, I accidentally rolled and confirmed a crit on a PC from a goblin. It was an instant kill as our campaign had no cleric. That time I decided to fudge the dice. Now, there's a similar problem, but this time the PCs are at 3rd level and they are dealing with a very important NPC. If they fail this one diplomacy check, the entire game world will fall apart, as the king would then send his entire army against the PC's homeland and will destroy it, plunging my entire game world into chaos, at which time drow that I wanted to save for a later adventure will have to come out, which will instigate a wizard's guild to release their secret ultra-deadly virus, and everything in my game world, including the PCs, will die. So should I fudge the dice roll? When is it good to fudge it?
4771
Since  and  you can get into a situation where your max HP is zero due to leveling up… what happens next?  What happens when your max HP is 0 because you leveled up with a negative Constitution modifier? Are you dead, unconscious, or what, and where do the rules say this? (The  assumes death, but that isn't established as fact anywhere yet.)
34053
Rule Zero: All other rules can be changed by the GM.   I appreciate that there is a massive amount of work that goes into being a GM and the last thing that any GM wants or deserves is to have his players constantly questioning everything they do. However, a group I am currently playing with has been having a huge problem with a GM who has been using rule 0 to deny virtually every skill check and give all his custom enemies powers that have either no save or unbeatable DCs. Then, whenever he realizes he has made the fight unwinnable he brings in one of his level 60+ GMPCs to instantly win the fight, making us feel even more helpless.  We try to hold our tongues and not be the dreaded Rules Lawyer, but he keeps pulling out stuff so ridiculous that we have to question it… and every time we do we find that he is either misunderstanding or completely disregarding the rules. When this happens he always jumps immediately to rule 0. He probably cited rule 0 around 6 times in our last session (and we only had one combat encounter).
22271
I GM a Dresden Files campaign, and I have a first time role-player that has become a problem in terms of advancement of the story.  At first I chalked it up to inexperience, but its become more and more pronounced, to the point that tonight he took up half of the time with an inconsequential inter-party conflict, then after he was rendered unconscious, left.  The players and I are becoming more frustrated with his antics as we have a very short time weekly to play, and much of that time is taken up by this player.  I've tried to talk to him both in-game and out-of-game (and other players have also) and though he appears to be understanding and receptive of the talks, it continues to be a problem, and in many cases, his retort is that this is important to his character, so we continue to work through this week after week, and I have to end the session in exposition rather than a gradual discovery/uncovering so that we can make progress.  I'm attempting not to exclude him from the game, but short of that is there something that as a game master I can do to enforce direction and advancement of plot?  NOTE: I was trying to make the question a bit generic, but to give a bit more insight about one of the situations: he was using the sight to assess the scene, and after he was finished with his assessment, he attempted to look at each of the players in turn.  As they'd seen him use the sight before, he was able to get a good look at one of the characters before they figured out what he was doing, and one of the other players took exception to the intrusion on their privacy IC.    The situation escalated and became physical.  In other cases where there's been inter-party conflict, they've played the combat a bit, then the person on the losing end concedes and they tell the story from that perspective.  But he wouldn't concede.  The other players used this as a cover as it happened to be a distraction, but as he's the only full wizard, when the combat started, they were a bit hobbled by the loss of their spell power going against a wizard.  So it's not enforcement of a particular plot.  If he was going in a different direction with the plot, I've done that before with this group, even to the point of improvising scenes when they do stuff I haven't planned.  It's the movement with any plot.
46289
I DM for a group of a group of rather intellectual players. They like to discuss the situations at hand and really try to do the right things. I use that a lot by posing them with moral questions and missions where the "good" solution is not always obvious or even contradicts the mission target.  So far this worked out very well, but last round a new player joined our game. She plays an impatient, man-hating Amazon (her self-chosen description). The man-hating part kinda does work since she frequently gets into arguments with the male players, which is funny, but the impatient part is the real trouble.  Whenever the group stops to discuss something, she interrupts and just wants to fight stuff. Whenever they talk (in character) about anything else than the mission she interrupts saying that it doesn't matter or doesn't help the group.  Also, whenever someone says anything against her, she does get a bit offended.  In the end of the mission I put a moral choice, where they had to retrieve a magical object, but by doing so kill a whole forest and everything within it. While the rest of the group was discussing it, and trying to find a different solution (of which there where some), she just went ahead and cut that object from it's socket, thus killing the whole forest. This in turn will have negative consequences for the group and the world they live in in the sessions to come.  I expected her to be like that so I included a couple of things where only thinking would get them ahead and just charging into fights would hurt them, but she doesn't care about consequences and just barges in.  Since she doesn't fit into the group at all, I'd usually just put her into another of my groups where she'd fit better, but she's the girlfriend of one of the core players of that group, so I can't do that.  I thought about having an NPC, that the rest of the group know, join the group and keep her in check every time she goes overboard again, but I fear that by limiting her I'd take the fun away for her.  My problem here is not that I don't want the players to commit mass murder. I have another group that is quite murderous and that's fine. The problem here is that I have a quite homogenous group and one player that really doesn't fit the group. It's not even so much about her murdering people (which can be quite fun in an otherwise good minded group) but that she is disrupting the kind of play that the other players want to have.  Do you have any ideas what I can do here?  This is not so much a My-Guy-Syndrome, but rather a clash of expectations. I talked to the player in question. It is really not about her "having" to stick to her character, but rather that her character reflects herself. She says of herself that she is impatient and that she rather wants to fight than to discuss. In the end she wanted to get transferred into my other group, which is more combat-oriented and generally more diverse.
14234
Player A has 3 life left. Player B attacks with a  that has been enchanted by Player A's . Does player B win, or does nothing happen?  On the one hand, "whenever" makes it sound like the trigger (dealing damage) and the effect (healing damage) happen simultaneously.  On the other hand, combat damage doesn't go on the stack, while most other things do. So, possibly the combat damage is dealt, state-based actions are checked, and now it's too late for the Soul Link effect to heal player A.  If anyone knows which way is correct, my thanks!
80719
I'm playing in the Paizo Pathfinder Jade Regent adventure path and we're having a good time so far (). However, as my character has gone up in power I'm now confronting a problem with him being just too effective.  As background, I'm not a big character optimizer, in fact I find the process a little distasteful.  I'm playing a samurai and deliberately built him as a switch hitter, both melee and archery, specifically to avoid min-max syndrome.  However, a combination of just being a strong class and good treasure has made him seem almost too good especially in the arena of dealing damage.  Why do I feel that way?  Well, as an example, last session, we knew some master ninja guy was hunting us. And sure enough, he was posing as some normal guy and got in a death attack on me.  He did a crapload of damage but I made the death save and he leapt away to disappear into the crowd.  I quickdrew my bow and put something on the order of 100 points of damage into him and down he went, encounter over. Which sucked from a dramatic point of view, this was supposed to be a really complex capstone encounter. The rest of the players groused a bit, though several did the calculation and realized that in optimal conditions they could deal out a hellacious amount of damage in a round too, so I wasn't an order of magnitude out of line (after review the other PCs are probably able to deal 30% less damage per round than I am under similar conditions), but still, I don't want to overshadow other PCs (or, frankly, our opposition!).   . I was a bow/sword switch hitter but then we got  - which turned a full bow attack with multishot, deadly aim, rapid shot, point blank shot, and the most common round 1 buffs from my party (haste and bard song) into +20(x2)/+20/+20/+15/+10 for 1d8+29 points of damage per arrow.  I think it's worthwhile talking about this problem from a system-neutral perspective; Pathfinder specific thoughts are fine but I can toss the bow, take crap feats next level, etc. without your help.  I've asked a separate question about the system issue,  The real question here is if I have a character that does or seems to outstrip the other characters in terms of effectiveness, how can I adjust to at least mitigate the resulting problems (over and done encounters, PC envy)?  For an example of an adjustment I already made, back when I only got challenge with my katana, I RPed not wanting to use the katana/challenge on "unworthy" opponents so I could shoot mooks and then just use the big damage on main bosses... But now we've grown past where that helps.
36459
So my party wanted to try a campaign book so we got the Lost Mine of Phandelver.   Problem is they are blood thirsty idiots and all they care about is killing goblins for xp. This lead to them letting Sildar die so they could make sure no goblins escaped.  At this point they have just had the redbrand encounter in town.   At first I though "oh well they screwed themselves". Sildar is dead, they don't get the reward for rescuing him but the more I read the more he seems to appear in the story. It appears that he is a big part of the campaign and a lot of material is left out without him present.   Seems silly to me that so much of the book is skipped because of an early decision.   Basically I don't know if I should just accept I'm only getting 2/3 of a campaign or if everything he would have done should be shifted to other NPC. If I do this though it makes his death meaningless.
14094
Does the following, very cheesy character concept, violate any RAW? Please cite rules or official rulings in your answer. (Apart from RAW, I expect my DM to disallow or limit the concept, in the interest of balance. That is not part of my question.)  Elf. Multiclass: Sorcerer 2+ / Warlock 1+ / Bard 1   Never takes a long rest. Ever. See question,  Specifically, whether adventuring or not, she makes sure that every 8 hour block includes more than 2 hours of combat or strenuous activity, to ensure that no interpretation of long rest rules would allow a long rest to be automatically triggered. Converts warlock spell slots into sorcery points. See . Converts sorcery points into sorcery spell slots (or into spellcasting spell slots, once also multiclassing Bard) via  Spell slots created from sorcery points disappear upon long rest, as per  and a ; therefore these created spell slots will not disappear until used, e.g. for a character taking no long rests Spell slots created from sorcery points are in addition to, and not restoration of the sorcerer's spell slots which refresh on a long rest. This is not 100% clear from RAW or clarifications. But: (a) Flexible Casting uses the phrase, "additional Spell Slots"; (b) the rule stating that created spell slots disappear on long rests is superfluous if created spell slots can only replace expended spell slots -- to have meaning it must be possible to create spell slots which are not replacements; (c) flexible casting does not use the word "recover", which is the word used for wizards'  Restores warlock spell slots on a short rest, and repeats the cycle above, converting warlock spell slots to sorcery points to sorcerer (or spellcasting) spell slots During periods of downtime, takes as many short rests per day as permissible, to build up a stockpile of created sorcerer spell slots Stockpiling requires using bonus actions out of combat,  Stockpiling requires having short rests on downtime days, discussed in a comment below While adventuring, during combat, uses created spell slots to cast spells, and/or uses flexible casting to convert those spell slots back into sorcery points While adventuring, after combat, will use created spell slots with Bard spells to restore hits points, since restoring hit points via long rest is unavailable, and via hit dice is mostly unavailable   I'm pretty sure this is not RAI, but does it violate RAW in some way?
49268
I've recently begun DMing a 5th edition D&amp;D campaign after a long time of quiescence as Dungeon Master. I really like this new take on D&amp;D, but still, soon a problem has resurfaced, that is: the (paranoid) use of the Insight (or, as of 3rd edition, Sense Motive) skill, and I'm struggling to keep it in check.  I'm curious to hear how you handle this aspect of social interaction. When I'm interpreting an NPC, players often ask me if they can roll for Insight, and soon everyone at the table starts rolling. I'm thinking of outright disallowing such rolls, as (in my opinion) a player should only make a check when the DM calls for it. However, PCs should get to put their skills and proficiencies to use from time to time. So, this is what I've come up with:  1) Let them roll at most once per social interaction. Actually, I should be rolling for them behind my screen, so that they can't do metagame reasoning on a 1 or a 20.  2) Simply do not allow them to roll if they don't know the person they're interacting with to some minimal extent, or in cases where it is objectively not possible to draw a conclusion (for example, asking a guard if he has seen someone they're chasing, and the guard plainly replying "no").  3) Substituting most of the active Insight checks with passive ones. This would mean that the most empathic or intuitive PCs would sometimes sense something is amiss or tension coming from the NPC, or the like.   4) Only allow Insight checks if a PC clearly starts an interaction being suspicious of an NPC, otherwise not let it happen.  But still, I'm really not satisfied. What do you say to a player who failed or succeeded at the roll? To me, Insight should not be some kind of lie detector, but it often becomes one. Have you ever had this problem, too? What do you do?
67667
We just had a scenario where the enemy set up a 'death trap' with arrow slits covering a corridor, allowing them to pop in, shoot, then pop out -- all without actually entering the corridor.  Which was fine in and of itself, until my cleric ran through the corridor at top speed, with Spirit Guardians up.  The DM and I discussed it, and as far as we can tell the spell doesn't require a line of sight and isn't blocked by walls -- just being 'in range' gets you the damage.  So I wiped out an entire encounter with one well placed third level spell.  In and of itself, that doesn't seem too OP -- at level 5/6 a third level spell is a pretty big investment!  But it still seems a bit odd that I can do it without even LOS.  Are there any rules I'm missing?
90229
A player left my group recently. It was mutual and not-unexpected, and during the last session, the character left for an unspecified purpose.  The character (lawful-good wizard) who left had a few magic items:   A powerful necromantic artifact. An evil necromancer's spellbook. Miscellaneous scrolls &amp; potions   These items were not an integral part of the story, and I feel OK letting them disappear together with the character. Since the player was a little problematic, I don't want the focus of the next sessions to deal with his character - I would like the spotlight to be on the players who remain.  However, It seems my players feel they are missing out on the monetary value of these items and wish to sell them to the highest bidder.  I would love some advice on how to handle the wizard's inventory and some generic advice on how such cases are usually handled in-game.
93314
In , they give rules so that players can make all the rolls, rather than the DM sometimes rolling for enemies. In one section, there are specifically , which the players roll against, rather than the DM. However, after doing some math, I think they've made a mistake. They say that you convert a Saving Throw into a Saving Throw Check by adding 11 to the defender's saving throw modifiers, and using that as the DC for the check.  The player then rolls against this DC, adding their spellcasing ability modifier and proficiency bonus.  However, according to the following math, this conversion does not produce the same results. In this math, I compare the chances of a player succeeding on a saving throw check, using the rules in the UA article, and of a monster failing its saving throw using the standard PHB rules. If the math is correct, both of these results should have the same chance. These are the formulas I used.  Chance to succeed Saving Throw Check = (20 - DC + 1 + proficiency + casting mod) / 20 Chance to FAIL a Saving Throw = (DC - 1 - save proficiency - save mod) / 20  Assuming a proficiency bonus of +2, +0 for all ability mods, and no save proficiency:  Monster's Saving throw Check DC = 11 + save mod = 11 Chance to succeed a saving throw check DC11: (20 - 11 + 1 + proficiency + casting mod) / 20 = 12/20 = 60% Player's Saving throw DC = 8 + proficiency + spellcasting ability mod = 10 Chance for monster to fail saving throw DC10: (10 - 1 - save proficiency - save mod) / 20 = 9/20 = 45%  If this were a valid conversion, both formulas would result in the same chance of success for the player, and failure for the monster respectively, however, they are off by 15%. This suggests that the unearthed Arcana's rules are not a valid conversion. Are the Unearthed Arcana rules wrong, or is my math wrong?
59253
My character was unaware of a group of bandits, but  my character cannot be surprised (I have a Weapon of warning) but the rest of my group is out of the range of my weapon of warning, do I get to take my turn even when the rest of my party was surprised? Do I take my turn before the attack of the enemy if my initiative is   high enough? Please help.
83220
(Yet another) follow-up from :   As someone mentioned in the question above, some 'friendly' spells (Calm Emotion, IIRC) specify that one can choose to fail the saving throw. In this case, the allowance makes sense, given that the spell has both a 'defensive' component--removes fear, charm--and an 'offensive' one--reduce aggro/threat, if you will. However, Banishment, and most other spells that require saves, are (meant as) offensive spells, so, it wouldn't make sense to allow the target to choose to fail the save--at least not explicitly. Can someone choose to fail a saving throw even for these spells?  The specific case that comes to mind (as per the question linked above) is using Banishment to return yourself to your native plane: if you are somehow transported to a different plane, casting Banishment on yourself, failing the throw, and then maintaining concentration for one minute should return you permanently to your native plane.  Considering non-spell saves/'defenses,' it seems that one can choose to fail (insofar as verisimilitude is a factor): a warrior can drop his shield, stand still, and allow his/her enemy to strike them down (effectively setting their AC to 0, so to speak, or even adopting/mimicking the Incapacitated condition); a PC making a strength check/contest can choose to give in/stop exerting strength; and the infamous/contentious issue (at least, in 4E I believe it was so), any character can presumably choose to hurt themselves with their own weapons, even if the PHB doesn't have a rule for it.
103038
I run two campaigns and decided to run them differently based on the PC desires.  In the combat-heavy war-torn campaign I expend all points except those over the leveling up threshold to make it longer and tougher thereby giving the players more combat.  The narrative heavy campaign I have been maintaining the accumulation of all XP so as to make it more fun because they wanted to find items and combat isn't such a high priority.  Both groups have decided they want to join forces and create a single campaign but I can't until I can make them close to equals so I wondered which version is the correct ruling.
76198
My GM has created a Mary-Sue-type NPC. She is a demigod with thousands of years of experience, and was once an enemy, but is now an ally of the party, though really of only a few favourite players. She is literally undefeatable, and I actually mean literally, not figuratively. Any attempts to defeat her will be vetoed.  To compound the problem, she is also pretty much a jerk, though to the GM's credit he has actually given some attempt to give her a heart of gold. The invulnerability and jerkishness don't combine well, e.g. a nother player character tried to become friends with her and make up for previous grudges—denied and his head is being used as a football.  This situation will only be worsened by the problem that our next game will be in the same setting, except that our new characters will be nerfed, due to the fact that our whole group agrees our last characters were too OP.  The Mary Sue, of course, will stay on the same power level.  This is making the game quite a bit less fun for me, though I don't know about the other players. It is quite seriously ruining it, due to the fact that she has an extremely short fuse and will kill anyone who annoys her.  What can I do to persuade the GM to make her less powerful/obnoxious? Please help!