Was I As A DM Not Letting My Player Be Creative? | Narrated D&D Story
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 гру 2023
- I love inserting a villain into the party dynamic. Some of the best stories will naturally evolve if you let your players interact with the villain on a regular basis. I hope we find out more about the cleric dating the BBEG! Share your stories about problem players are problematic BBEG relationships!
Before we take our leave, don’t forget to subscribe to our channel, All Things DnD. Stay tuned for more amazing Dungeons & Dragons content every Tuesday!
Submit your D&D story here: / allthingsdnd
Join our Discord: / discord
Follow us on Twitter: / allthingsdnd
Credits
Story Source: Reddit
Video Editor: Shawn Kadian
Editors: Lonny Foran (written4reddit@gmail.com)
Narration: MyLo (Twitter/VoMylo)
Thumbnail Art & Channel Artwork: NalaFontaine (Twitter/@nala_fontaine)
#dndstories #dnd #dungeonsanddragons - Фільми й анімація
The sunlight spell in that instance sounds like it could be a small little flash bang if it is completely dark. But then everyone needs to roll except for the caster unless said caster warns the team
Ya was looking at that. I'd either have a con save to recover or just give the party surprise. In both cases given it feels like the DM is to distracted by what the spell says it can do vs the current conditions and how he players actions would affect them.
Like with the ship and control water. It's 100% possible to place the ship on the sea floor well within the spells power. This isn't going to do a bunch of damage to the ship just immobilize it. The really way to sink a ship with control water is to put the water into the ship or a whirlpool
I will be frank, if I was used to complete darkness for more than a couple hours and someone turned on the lights I would probably close my eyes and look away. And if I kept them open it would hurt for sure. Even if it isn't a flash bang, I'd probably rule it to be a blind for one turn on those that fail a save and have to close their eyes, or a daze for those that endure the pain but still can't see very well.
@goncalocarneiro3043 it would literally be a surprise round which is in the game
First story, the character isn't trying to "think outside the box." They're trying to abuse rules in a way to get an advantage. I'm guessing that if the same thing were used against them in the same manner, they wouldn't be saying "awesome way to use that," but would instead be arguing how you weren't using things RAW and were trying to cheat just to get an advantage on them.
The GM's ultimate ruling is the best way to handle the situation.
Second story is a nice twist and good use of "Light is not good."
Fully agree on the first story unless they did something like "I guitar slide under him so that I can hit him with the eldrich blast from below in order to send him flying into the air." because then you're pushing them in a straight line from the point of origin which fits with the spell. You push them along the straight line path the eldrich blast takes. Just casting it normally you only get the normal effect.
I believe stretching what spells can do beyond what the rules say just contributes to the martial/caster divide, but allow swashbuckler physics for tools. If you can picture Robin Hood, Xena or Captain Jack Sparrow do something, you can do it in the game.
PSA for players who love cheesing shit, like myself - you *do not* say "I am going to", you say "Can I...?"
Under no circumstances are you in the right if you're stepping out of basic RAW and saying "I'm going to..."
or "I attempt to"
If you say "I am going to", expect your thing to fail and waste your resources, if you say "Can I" expect that you either have a chance of success or you do not need waste your action.
On the first one, I'll allow some levels of "action movie physics" on occasion, but I'll often still require something a little extra. Having that daylight spell blind them eats up a higher or extra spell slot as they REALLY juice it for brightness. Control Water might let you cause a ship to brake so hard it could damage the entire crew, maybe even breach the hull. And yeah, Repelling Blast CAN launch someone straight up... if you're UNDER them. So if you get into melee with the target, I'd allow an Eldritch Uppercut.
I've also let my players use Calm Emotions as something to literally calm a hysterical NPC or yank a PC out of a panic attack. That's not "rules as written", but seems well within the spirit of the spell. Likewise, fireballs have as much kinetic explosive energy as is needed to make the seen more fun. Wanna have it blow out all the windows? Sure. Launch a table into the air to give someone's jump check a boost? Why not.
But this player isn't "thinking creatively", they're just wanting to be able to do whatever they want.
Except I would have sided on them with the Control Water thing. From what I'm reading, they absolutely could have created a 100 foot deep trench and just dropped the whole ship in it. That alone would cause MASSIVE damage to the ship if not destroy it, even if it just landed in more water. And then just stop concentrating on the spell, and they'll be flooded with water and the ship would almost certainly surface capsized.
I concur with your entire comment.
The ship wouldnt even surface after that fall, They had a reasonable demand at that point.
The D.M. Has the responsibility as an arbiter to ban any number of spells from their world. There are many spells that can break the world. If you cannot deal with how a player uses magic, do not allow the easily breakable spells in your game.
Problematic players that only seek to destroy for the act of destruction alone should be avoided. Just like murder hobos are shunned by most D.M.’s.
You are providing a service/product to your players. It is meant to be an immersive platform. They should be given a certain degree of latitude.
They should also be aware that in the ways they can break a mechanic can also be used against them. Certain spells can be banned or adjusted prior to the start of any campaign. The revised understanding of a changed spell should be given to all players. A list of banned spells along with a brief understanding of why you feel it should be banned.
Once you allow a spell in a game you should examine how it can be broken and be able to deal with it.
Could a passenger on a ship be a magic user with an ability to thwart such a well known way to destroy a ship so easily. Sure, just like the defenders of a castle could anticipate flying adversaries, such as dragons. Plan for these eventualities just like an N.P.C. In the game world would to ensure their survival.
Don’t always jump to restrict the use of a spell because it is powerful.
Where powerful magics exist this means other powerful magic users exist that value their lives and their property.
They will take precautions to deal with known threats to either.
Can repelling blast actually launch someone straight up? Does the description state that it can or are you just assuming it can because it makes sense to you?
According to Sage Advice, there is not enough force to cause any additional damage if one was to try to "slam" an opponent into a wall. So it seems incredibly unlikely that spell has the ability to pick up a creature and hurl it into the air, which is quite a bit more force than just pushing a creature back 10'.
@timtauber5557 I mean. Not sure what that has to do with what I said.
I said to let em get away with a little cheese if they're willing to pay the toll.
And that one specific ruling was a bit off base. But yeah, one dude with counter spell or dispel magic isn't unlikely. At the same time, even in a world with unbelievable power doesn't mean everyone has access or expects to run into it. Plenty of people around right now driving without car insurance, and you're saying they should ALSO have meteor insurance.
@@craigtucker1290If an eldritch blast, regardless of your size can throw you 10 feet back due to sheer impact, A feat not even a warrior with a mace can do in a strike mind you, Then it is plausible that it *can* throw you into air.
The issue isnt the force or capability, its the angle. Eldritch blast has a strict path. Straight. It cant bend, it cant readjust.
The only way you can shoot someone into air is if you are directly underneath them. Even then it wont be a 90 degree push, it will be at very best a 120 degree push, throwing the enemy into the air AND backwards.
Which would push them around 6 feet into air. Not enough to deal fall damage.
Sounds like a player who conflates "creativity" with "trying to do things you can't."
A creative use of Repelling Eldritch Blast would be something like pushing them into spikes on a wall (or just into a wall), over an edge, or into another enemy combatant (could argue either, or both, may fall prone from it). But repelling blast doesn't let you levitate someone, it only pushes them away from you. Now if he ran up to them and fell prone voluntarily, and shot at them from below, you could argue that would be possible. But if you're standing 30ft away and wanting to use Repelling Blast to levitate an enemy against their will, at no save, knock them prone and deal fall damage... that's not "creative use of a spell", but rather trying to use the equivalent of Telekinesis as a cantrip.
You are spot on, though I would point out that Sage Advice has stated that there is not enough force to cause damage by repelling a creature into a wall, though a spiked wall would be different.
i feel your concentrating on the 1 mistake out of 3 on the players part here. the use of daylight may not be as written but reasoning a dark underground space suddenly gaining the light of day would be blinding is more then logical, and the use of control water was actually within how the spells written. the DM is restrictive.
@@tazkol Reasoning is not RAW and as Sage Advice has stated many times since Sage Advice was created, if something is not specifically stated in the spell description, even if it seems "logical," then that thing does not happen.
So no, daylight is not capable of a blinding effect because that is not included in the spell description or within the current rules (though it was part of the older editions). And while yes, the player should have been able to create the "pocket," the ship would not have been able to have been "dropped to its doom because the spell does not allow for that either.
The DM is actually doing their job and no, this isn't creative use of spells so much as trying to rules lawyer a result based on the player's "interpretation" of what they "feel" is logical as opposed to what is allowed by the spell. This has been the same problem since D&D first started and continues to haunt the game because players and DMs do not understand that magical effects are limited to only what they specifically state they can do, not what many "feel" or "think" they should do. If in doubt, ask Sage Advice and be prepared to be disappointed.
My dm has a rule that allows spellcasters to “reach beyond” and cast a spell they don’t have prepared but is on their spell list or to use a spell slot under a certain level when they have run out. This is because combats are super tough (it’s fun though) and make for some dramatic story moments we appreciate. There is a price though that leans into out variant exhaustion rules (it’s by points, not levels). I play a fighter though. This means these rules don’t often apply to me. This had me ask my dm if he would be willing to let me use a magic ability on my sword in this manner after I had used it once already (it has a one use per day for a big damaging effect). He said he will consider it, especially since he thinks it sounds fair. He just needs to review it. I told him not to worry and I’ll accept either answer, just figured it didn’t hurt to ask.
And that, I feel, is the proper way to ask for an allowance or bending of the rules of the table. I’m fine with any answer. And it’s perfectly fair that he have time to take into consideration the full effects such a decision will entail. After all, it feels worse for him to back track than to let him take his time deciding. So that’s how I see it. The player from the first story could learn a thing or two about how and when to ask for such bending of rules. Sure, sometimes it’s fun to do so and the dm might abide by it. Sometimes it’s not ok and you gotta be ok with that answer too. And sometimes you got to know how to ask for something that is not just beneficial to you, but fair to the entire table, including the dm. The moment might feel cool at first, but bend too much and you start taking things for granted and the pay off is less fun over all.
Anyway, just my thoughts.
PLUS ULTRA ELDRITCH BLAST!
"I'll allow it this time," is a phrase I'll use which my friends understand to be a temporary ruling. Stopping to read the books is no fun for my players, and they prefer that I make a decision and keep the game moving. But they are also understand that I will research it afterward and provide an official ruling. This system has served us well for a lot of editions and a lot of years.
I really like using this. While it isnt my answer EVERY time I am unsure, my players know there will be a discussion on it later to find a more long term ruling. It does require some prior setup so your players understand it though.
Some DM's instead say: "I don't allow it this time", even when it comes to using basic character abilities. It is no fun playing that way.
3:40-I use what other ability the creative spell use mimics as the guide. "No Jimmy, you can't use control water to dehydrate that guy and kill him. It's a cantrip, not power word kill." I try to offer up examples of the kinds of things I would be ok with it doing. Usually that gets their creative juices flowing again.
I do give leniency for especially creative things, but it only goes so far.
D.M. Has the final say in game. After a session have a chat with the player and listen to their perspective and see if it makes sense moving forward. You may not be able to ret con the session but perhaps you can adjust that situation in a way to satisfy the player and yourself. A spoiled child should not just get their way, and if they leave the game midway through in a huff. I would not invite them back.
Also I would like to add, let’s assume you instantly vaporized a 100’x100’x100’ cube volume of water directly below a very large ship.
Certainly the ship would immediately begin to fall, likewise the surrounding water would immediately surge to fill in the area the water was vaporized. So perhaps the ship fell 33’ feet before it hit the up surging water refilling that area. The ship might take massive damage, along with anyone on board. Would the ship be sunk? Maybe but maybe not. I think several arguments could be made there. This is where the D.M. Enters the discussion, he makes a ruling and the game continues.
@@timtauber5557 actually the water wouldn't move to fill it RAW the players use of control water was textbook and the DM made a wrong call. the daylight thing well not written as an effect is more then reasonable given conditions and the DM's ruling well not wrong is simply restricting what actually was a creative definition. the only time the player moved beyond the pale was repelling blast and that's only that they can't control the direction the enemy is repelled, had they managed to repel them up 20 feet then game mechanics kick in and fall damage happens. frankly this isn't spoiled child logic, this is DM being restictive logic.
For the repelling blast it can send them up, it repels them from the direction the blast hits... so if I'm level with them I cannot send them up, only back. If they were a halfling and under their opponents they could technically send them airborne but you can't just fire one and send them in a different direction than intended from the original ruling.
Also remember if the player can do something crazy, so can the DM.
Examples given
Control Water: 100 feet each side? That ship is going to have a bad time unless it is absolutely massive. Probaly should work.
Daylight: I'd probably give an bonus if the target was using dark vision and the creatures were not used to natural light. I'd probably be OK in that case only.
Eldritch Blast: It's away from you so this only makes sense if you are below them. This one isn't even clever, it's just adding damage to a repeatable cantrip.
Great job as always. Always fun to listen to these DnD stories.
the first story is a bit of a lark. the rule states you can control 1 cube which i interpret as 5x5 or one square up to 100 foot a side. which i interpret as a line. but thats the best part of DND. you as a DM have the ability to say yes or no to your players. if you are experiencing players who are constantly tryin to bend the rules or how they think a spell or ability works all you can do is your best. i spend alot of time as a DM playing pathfinder or 3.5 trying to find rulings that make sense for everyone and sometimes its hard. in cases where im having trouble finding anything online of other peoples campaigns i just suggest tossing it out there as transparently as possible. i ask my table. many who have also DM'd there own campaigns how they think it should be deciphered.
in this case if you look at the other spells or abilities you can do with control water... the whirlpool can have a 50 foot wide top and a 5 foot bottom and its 25 foot deep. which is a large amount of water....
but in my eyes. does not create a 100 foot wide trench that is also 50 foot deep. the amount of water differs imo. if you wanted to make a trench 10 foot wide and 50 foot deep now to me its more reasonable.
DMing isnt easy. i love it. but sometimes it can be down right stressful. especially if you have creative players that often test your limits by tryin to bend or change thing to benefit themselves. but its part of being a DM.
if you dont like how the player is trying to use spells talk to them about it. but at the end of the day... as a DM. my rulings are final. as i am GOD. sometimes i give in sometimes i tell them they are being ludacris i take it one crazy idea at a time.
also even if the trench was 100 foot wide and lets say 100 deep. it would last 1 round which is 6 seconds. and even if a ship went into a hole or trench like that in the ocean in 6 seconds the water lvls would rise back up to where they would normally been for the ocean or sea. ive seen many ships take on large rogue waves in my life. YES they are made of steel but that doesnt mean wooden ships would instantly sink to the bottom of the ocean especially with trapped air below the deck.
At the end of the day being a DM is about creating amazing adventures and stories with your players. and we have to use our own minds and hearts to create that for our players as best we can. thats all anyone can hope for. but i totally understand if a DM stops a player from completely railroading a campaign or story arc because of a simple spell interpretation. this is another reason why most DM hate having players above level 10 as there are so many game breaking abilities and spells to be had. everyone needs to realize also that it needs to be fun for the DM as well as the players. i put in like 20 hours of work a week before i even DM a session so if a player tries to destroy what ive put 20 hours into on a whim as much as id love to let them and sometimes do.... sometimes you just gotta say NOO. or figure another way around it.
GOOD LUCK AND REMEMBER ITS SUPPOSE TO BE FUN FOR EVERYONE. INCLUDING THE DM. having their hard work and hours of labouring and map building and story telling destroyed over silly things like spell rulings or whatever can make it so your FAVOURITE DM no longer wants to DM. and the same goes for your PLAYERS. if you are always saying NO then you will eventually lose players as they feel like there ideas are squished..
talk with your friends and move on as fast as possible. it also helps to have players who are adult and realize all of the above. I AM VERY THANKFUL i have players that understand and vice versa.
CHEERS
first story, on the EB one, they would need to be physically beneath to blast someone up. i feel like "push away in a straight line" is clear.
I've given inspiration for creative ideas. "That's not going to work in the way you want, and it's a cool idea so have inspiration." Still rewards them for creativity while also not breaking the game.
I believe stretching what spells can do beyond what the rules say just contributes to the martial/caster divide, but allow swashbuckler physics for tools. If you can picture Robin Hood, Xena or Captain Jack Sparrow do something, you can do it in the game.
so as far as using daylight in a cave that is something I have always thought about using but I always kept from using it because it was my understanding that if it can blind an enemy there is a risk that is can also blind my party which would cause more problems than solve them. A good balance would be to roll for the enemies and have the players roll. If any/all fail then blinded. Honestly as a DM if the party is that hard up for wanting to use it let them use it but warn them that actions have consequences cause if the enemies succeed and the party fails well you warned them. I've have had DMs in the past deal with stuff similar but not with daylight and they could be pretty heavy handed at times which made it fun. So if you wanted to kickflip off a wall to do an attack you could but you were rolling on the kickflip and if you failed would determine how well the rest went. So if you crit failed the kickflip then there was no reason to even roll for the attack cause you probably just injured your ankle or faceplanted. Some of the DMs would kind of give the party a chance if a plan like an ambush failed while others would take a chance.
Personally I always play my characters with the possibility of death and have a backup ready to go. I have been in games where the players didn't want their character to die no matter what and it kind of ruined the whole point of even combat knowing the DM was going to go easy up to fudging rolls in favor of the party. Stories were good but why even have combat at that point. I would try to keep my character alive best I could but if death happened then it happened. I played one of my characters how I thought she would act and she ended up dying by charging a black dragon since he wiped out almost all of a major city. The DM allowed my character to comeback as a Valkyre the next game. It was a way to bring in a new character without having to worry about playing into keeping memories and such.
So break down of each ruling
Daylight while underground should cause a blindness affect? Honestly it depends on how far you are underground and the monsters aka how accessible light is and say fighting against Drow instead of goblins. Like if your in a standard goblin cave, it wouldnt really affect the goblins as they come out during the day. Now if this is the underdark so 99% of the time no daylight and fighting against drow or Duergar (or similar monster) than absolutely should allow it than. These monsters are weak to daylight and just making it say a con save vs say d4 rounds wouldnt really do much.
Parting the seas to shipwreck a gargantuan pirate ship: Firstly is the ship within 300ft? Secondly you can only control a cube up to 100 feet on a side. Like heck you can part the sea, whirlpool it or redirect flow to shove it away. This was actually smart and really creative, I think you just didnt want the encounter to be cheesed here honestly.
Repelling Blast invocation, players choose which way the straight line goes: Yeah no I agree with you here. Had the player been underneath as say a halfling sure you can shoot upward but by raw you just pepper someone back 10ft based on the direction you shot. Also fall damage would be if he got the dude 11+ ft into the air (so at least 2 eldritch blast needs to hit.)
In terms of the what the player claims: Firstly outside of the pirate ship, everything the dm ruled WAS RAW. Like Im sorry but you cant decide that a spell gains a new special effect simply because your underground nor can you choose that a straight line means going any direction you want. Again besides the pirate ship you were trying to break the game instead of thinking outside the box nor where you problem solving. You were trying to find ways to cheese encounters. Look dude Im sorry but there was no "surprising way or ways that caught him off guard" you were trying to add effects to your own spells and abilities that do not exist. So outside the pirate ship as thats just him not wanting the encounter cheesed, he had every right to shut you down. Thats fair I agree dms should encourage creative choices but that is very suggestive and vague. Peppering someone with eldritch blast and demand they now get shot upward isnt very creative tho, its trying to break an a class ability and make it 10 times stronger. And in terms of Daylight underground that is smart but everyone would be blinded not just the monsters, you again were looking for a way to cheese an encounter instead of being creative. Based on what the dm said, you dude are the one not wanting an open discussion.
note the use of control water from what i've read is actually rules as written, the dm was simply avoiding a cheese and trying to make the player look bad.
@tazkol yep, everything else I could agree with as a dm. But he failed to plan for control water. Like heck could of just made a pirate mage and claim he has the spell so they can't overlap and boom no more issue
@@kingwildcat6192000 Except control water does not have the ability to inflict any damage on a ship when used in such a manner. If it did, it would have damage inflicted or capsize chance based on the depth of the partition, yet these are conspicuously absent even though when used differently, a capsize percentage is listed.
At best, the ship might have been on the seafloor, but unharmed.
@@craigtucker1290 Wow you really dont understand a thing. Not once did I mention that control water did damage. As by raw it doesnt but tell me something what do you think would happen if in the middle of the ocean your ship suddenly fell roughly 100 cubic feet (per spell you control a cube up to 100ft) with walls of water now on each side of it and from there those walls suddenly caved in and crashed onto you and the ship your on. Thats what Control Water does. You also could use it to drown a whole port city but besides the point. Also if its on the sea floor, everyone on that ship that doesnt have some for of water breathing would literally drown still CHEESING and ENDING the encounter without impacting the party at all. Like seriously if you can cast Control water you literally become Moses to any enemy (if there is enough water around.)
The creative uses of spells can be checked alongside of the "creating new spells" section of the DMG. It says that if your going to create a spell consider what other spells of that level allow you to do, a cantrip isn't going to do an automatic 2d10 bonus bludgeoning damage and a fourth level speak isn't going up instantly destroy a huge ship, maybe capsize it, but not destroy it outright.
*I would not rule the Trench Option to cause a 100 ft. instant drop.*
My reasoning is that the spell uses 1 Action. *1 Action is what you do for the 6 seconds of the Round* (while you move or don't), *not a fraction of the Round set aside just for you.* The Turn merely refers to when it is the creature's turn to act in the Initiative order as a means of keeping track of the order of Actions for gameplay. Nor is the spell Instantaneous, as that describes Duration. The spell's Duration 10 minutes, with Concentration.
As such, my reading of the rules is that the trench foms through 1 Action, which is what you do during the Round (6 seconds), as that is what the rules text states. The ship would not be suspended in the air, then fall 100 ft. from the sudden lack of water, it would follow the water-level down over 6 seconds (1 Action).
Ultimately, if there's something like a big rock, a reef, the bottom, or some other obstacle in the trench then the ship can still run aground on it and be in big trouble, possibly/probably even capsize, but if it just goes 100 ft. deep and is still on water then floats back up the crew might trip and fall if they're not holding on to anything, but the ship and crew would not be Falling. They do need to somehow stop their ship from moving into the 100 ft. wall of water on their turn though, so they are in *deep trouble* no matter what!
That is how I would rule it based on my understanding of the time required to perform 1 Action, which the spell and all its possible options require. 🤓
I rule that the Repelling Blast will launch upwards if the player is underneath the target creature, as that becomes the only direction that fits what Repelling Blast does. It repells away from you, so natural language means upwards if you are bellow the target and downwards if you are above it.
Honestly, if the BBEG really likes the PC I would start playing them as looking for reasons to delay the mission to see how things play out.
Avatars don't die of old age, so at worst (the relationship works out great) they might have to delay their plans until the PC dies trying to be a hero (or of old age) and live happily until then, while encouraging the party (and PC) to lay as much as possible of the groundwork for them so that things go smoothly once it's time to ascend and take over.
"Thanks for the -Righteous Crusade- heroic deeds! Now that all you heroes are all dead from old age, I'll be taking over. I'm sure that's what you would have wanted me to do!" 😉
Now your next campaign has quite the backstory for your BBEG, who chose love over power, and maybe even has children they care about in the world that complicate things for them. I enjoy some of my BBEG's as more nuanced like that.
As a GM I have the same game rules list. Since he was trying to hide his plans from the gm he was trying to PvP the GM which isn't conducive to a group fun gaming experience.
Imagine trying to enforce the rule of cool on your dm .
The first story is an example of the need to communicate, and not treating the DM as an antagonist. This player seems to be creative but the power gaming and us vs DM mindset sets them up for failure. The rule of cool is a suggestion, not a privilege.
Just because I like rewarding creativity I might of given a weaker form of the flashbang case, where there’s a con save for the attackers to instinctively turn away or be blinded for a turn. Rulings on the fly however should be done with deliberation as if you give it to players they will expect that the ruling will always be the case.
Daylight would work on an enemy with light sensitivity.
2:49 if the Eldritch blast was able to be angled vertically like being 5ft in range or beneath the opponent. Then of course that would work why couldn't it?
The Eldritch Blast one could work if they were postponed directly under the creature firing up(but they would have disadvantage for doing a range attack in melee range) but other wise it wouldn't work
Is it possible to have an item that can randomly alter part of the spells effect? (Includes a chance of spell failure, and the random alteration can't be selected by the spellcaster.)
It's important to remember that no DM however good, is perfect, and sometimes the DM just could not find a way for it to work in the game, or made a mistake. Don't jump to the conclusion right away that they are a bad dm.
When it comes to the control water thing:
I’m guessing the ship the player wanted to use it on was pretty big to the point to where being able to move 100 feet worth of water wasn’t gonna be enough to affect it.
At that point they need to up-cast: or I would say, make a con save. If they succeed, they used whatever spell slots they had left and possibly be able to do what they wanted.
But if they failed, they passed out from the strain, and took… say 1d4 of damage.
(their character strained, got a nosebleed and passed out)
And the Eldridge blast thing.
Only pushes people 10 feet, unless they tried to add something else it would not have knocked the enemy 20 feet up into the air.
That wasn’t trying to be clever, that was them trying to cheese it. Because I guarantee you if they got away with that the first time they would use it all the time.
I’m all for the idea of allowing people to try and be creative with spells. But there’s a very careful line between exploit and game break.
You are the DM your word is Law
Repelling Blast "Away from you in a straight line" so unless you were directly below them that is a NO. Secondly, the DM is being a bit too literal on what the spell and invocation says. If the repulsion would send them over a cliff that is incidental to the spell/invocation and not covered under the spell but it doesn't sound like the DM would allow that either.
Parting the water... ships flow with the water so the ship would move to one side. To be fair this is by far one of the worst written spells in the game so there is that. He probably saw Critical Role and thought he would try it and when the DM didn't rule as Mercer did he got upset.
I had a player that just didn't understand some of the rules on a fundamental level. He thought he could step into the shadow of another PC and teleport as a Shadow Monk, when I explained that wasn't how it worked he seemed dejected. He also had a fundamental misunderstanding about Hide and Sneak Attack and how in combat it was a bit harder than he thought to get those advantages. Ludicrously easy in 5E but still not the way he was playing it. All he had to do was target foes adjacent to his allies but instead he thought he could simply duck behind things and get SA every time... I told him once maybe but then they knew where he was and during combat everything has all around vision essentially according the rules so he wasn't firing from concealment anymore.
The daylight thing i understand not allowing because theres no BOOM in the spell. Kinda just turning on really bright light in the dark. Id say they could be blinded for one turn.
For the second one, if it makes sense thematically, like they are locked into combat, id say let them do it but the force from the blast also knocks them on their ass.
I understand wanting to keep things rules as written so that balance isnt thrown out the window but as long as you keep things consistent i feel like being flexible is better than being a rules lawyer.
Except what makes eldritch blast knock someone back is the force, its not magically pulling someone. There's no way it would cause vertical lift without being UNDER the target. That is creative use of the spell, not just demanding it work different.
@shadenox8164 well yes that's why I said thematically. I'm not going to let them blast them straight up in the air, but I'd probable let them Blaste them at an angle if they were say on a slope.
To me it seems like the player wasn't willing to communicate quite often and specifically tired to catch the DM flatfooted. When things are written in the spell, feat, or item description to keep things fair for everyone give the DM a chance to think on it. Even if at the table it dawns on you, "Hey So I want to do X with this spell. This is how I envision it happening. What do you think? Do I need a roll?" It's easier to do in narrative sections instead of combat. Also not every DM is used to doing that on the fly. Give them every opportunity to help you do awesome things within the world they've prepared for you to explore!
Not to mention quite often manipulations like that completely destroy logic of the world settings. Why the fuck would people make big expensive pirate ships in a society where normal people with "meh" level spells can just sink them at will? The entire logic of the world setting breaks down at that point. That's what usually causes me as a DM to limit "rule of cool" excesses. Mind you I usually run homebrew and will set aside a ton of things as off limits at the start of a campaign in session zero. Not to kill your fun, but to help you create characters that actually belong in the campaign I'm running, and if you're not willing to do that, well, find a different campaign.
An at will eldrich blast shouldn’t be broken like that.
The eldritch blast thing is something only a halfling can do on a larger opponent and is something I’ve seen in multiple UA-cam videos that hypothetically should work. I’m not sure of the others but magic is usually unbalanced and the reason martials are underpowered.
The game provides plentiful examples on just what you're supposed to do in cases like this. Just take *fireball* as a perfect example. Everyone in its area gets a Reflex/Dexterity save to avoid much of the damage, even if they're literally right freaking on top of the blast. That makes no logical or physical sense, and yet that's RAW, and no one complains.
Daylight 'flashbangs' against creatures not adapted to sunlight? Given the sunlight sensitivity of creatures like Dark Elves, I could see that. Fort/Con save for like 1d4 of them. But sinking a whole freaking ship by controlling the water? **NO.** The sheer amount of damage you are trying to cause with one spell is RIDICULOUS. If a player can do that, the whole world would live in fear of water mages crushing whole ships that way, and no one would give a crap about sirens, krakens, or sahaugin. Do *NOT* lightly make a ruling that has such drastic implications for the world.
7:00 Soo you mean the other celestial is Zuse, right?
daylight is not blindness/deafness. If daylight could blind a group there is no need for another player. The water one whatever you decide. Edrich blast is horizontal. The bigger issue is the player is not letting you DM the game specifically says the DM makes the final call.
Me and my DM will have a back and forth on the rules as written for creative spell usage. More times than not this takes place between sessions. Also as for the eldrich blast situation is says push not lift. You don’t push things up you lift them. I wouldn’t allow that to happen.
I would grant them the "use _daylight_ as a flashbang" idea... *if* the creatures they're targeting have the Light Blindness quality (since Light Blindness explicitly says that they're blinded for 1 round if exposed to bright light and specifically mentions the _daylight_ spell).
The other examples? No. Not a chance in hell. At that point you're blatantly twisting the wording of the spell or effect with the obvious intentions of breaking the game.
_Control Water_ *moves* water, it doesn't make it completely vanish from existence. The ship might go down with the water, but it's not going to just plummet.
Repelling Blast says that you push them "10 feet away from you", there's no mention of being allowed to choose the direction.
There's "encouraging creativity", and then there's "players trying to completely invalidate the GM's efforts through sheer bullshit."
Again; IMPO this is a blatant example of a not very confident DM adhering to the rules & enforcing rigid railroading.
It's a good idea (on both DM & player's side) to read the spells properties & other abilities & because of how exact the rules are written these can be interpreted in so many ways.
Though the DMs rules are law; a DM ought to be flexible with the rules when it comes to Player creativity.
They wanted spell buffs no one else had
I have been guilty of wanting unfair advantages which I came up with myself in the past
Hi there, 5e optimizer and homebrewer here. The DM is wrong in the first story. They state that repelling blast only works on the horizontal axis, which is not true. Spells and effects that move a creature forcefully all state that the creature is pushed horizontally if they mean horizontally. However, repelling blast does not. It just states that it pushed a creature 10 feet backwards and doesnt limit it to the horizontally plane, meaning that RAW it can push creatures into the air. And, for every 10 feet you fall past the first 10 feet you take 1d6 bludgeoning damage from the fall.
Is this how the designers intended it to work? We dont know because that is knowledge only the D&D 5e design team knows. Is this following Rules as Written (RAW)? Yes. Is it broken or OP? From an optimization standpoint, no. Warlock already does less damage on average than a fighter with no subclass, so having this as an added bonus should be allowed
frist story if you failed in persuasuaside dm then just keep rolling .
Letting players make interesting use of their spells and abilities is a good thing, but when they're taking a spell that says 'this spell doesn't set warn or carried objects on fire' for example and are using it specifically to set a worn object on fire, then they're stretching things too far and will just keep on doing that if you let them and encourage the others to start poking holes in the rules too.
Were you *what* as a DM for not letting player be creative?
It's grammatically correct, they just forgot the commas- "was I, as a DM, not letting my player be creative?"
Oh aight thanks@@nimbostratus1162
the DM wants to talk before the game or after the game, before you could know and after the fact, to pre plan the rule of cool or discuss what could have been done, If the DM is so inexperienced that they can't work it out during game play, then they either need to run a much lighter game or be a character player for a while.
I would leave also, the difference is I would just cut clean and dry and not respond. If the players are so terrible, then just let them go.
if the player is going to be a jerk, then let them leave. done.
Simple... have the player simply ask if they can try and do with a spell without pressuring you for it, use some logic, and if it's not exactly how a spell mechanically works, have them roll spellcraft or arcana to try and apply a small augment to the spell for that cast.
That's not creativity. That's either power gaming or cheating, and that rant at the end is attempted gaslighting!
Right, creativity is reading what the spells do and finding interesting ways to use them, not demanding the spell work differently.
@@shadenox8164 *actualy reads control water and realises the player used it as written*
@@tazkol Except for control water used in such a manner has no ability to damage a ship.
*What you are doing is gaslighting....*
@@craigtucker1290 in all fairness I feel as though if water was suddenly removed from below a ship it would fall. I also must say even if the fall doesn’t damage the ship, water being moved back into place would (I don’t condone most of it but I do agree with the player on the water one)
@@craigtucker1290it does have the ability to fill the ship with water causing it to sink. This is well within the ability of the spell it's up to the pirates to stop it
I think sometimes the rule of cool is ok as long as you help them understand it won’t happen again or very rarely. Allows cool moments but not allow shattered use of basic abilities. EB is a cantrip, it shouldn’t do all that shit, at least regularly. Imo the push should effectively toss them in the direction it hit, so like, if you have high ground and hit them, why not slam them into the dirt, ect ect. Allows creative plays if they are clever with positioning. Just my noobish take.
Repelling blast simply moves the target in a straight line from you. If you are at the bottom of a cliff it would acrk them back. If you are directly under them it would send them 20 feet straight up. Fall damage is calculated as 1d6 for 10ft.
@@saber5694 yeah so I had the right of it
@Majora48 basically ya. It's multiple different rules in play. The op may actually have an issue overall with taking spells too literal. Now the fun part of sending someone straight up is that they fall straight down. You know where the pc is currently standing
Daylight definitely has the potential to be a flashbang. Even if the creatures are accustomed to light, it would still blind them for a moment unless they either already had light like a campfire or have blind sight.
Control Water is a bit of a problem spell because you can do exactly that. Even if the ship was on the high seas (the player being close enough to cast the spell) and wouldn't drop to the ocean floor, it would probably still do some massive damage.
Eldritch Blast with Repelling Blast could push someone in the air if you hit them from an angle or below, which I guess was not the case.
100 ft means the deck would likely take on a massive amount of water when the spell ended, likely wouldn't have enough buoyancy to rise before sinking unless the ship is massive
Don't argue with the DM, they can shut you down in the game. Creative is fine but you got to follow the guidelines.
Control water 100 foot long trench gargantuan size 64 feet so the gm is wrong that absolutely does mess with the ship. Also, daylight should blind under dark creatures, especially since daylight sensitivity is a thing that comes from creatures in the underdark. Common sense on daylight and the GM is wrong on Control Water. The eldritch blast is correct on ruling unless the character is under the enemy they shouldn't go up. Overall, the GM is wrong 2 pit of 3.
they do sound a bit stifling
The "creative" player i the first story has me a little suspicious. I feel like if he were allowed to get away with some of his moves that were questionable by the rules, he would try to push the limits further beyond the rules until they were clearly being broken, but had already set a precedent from past actions. If he was already allowed to do X, why should he not be allowed to do Y? After all, he is being creative, and the rules were bent a little before, so why not?
I am all for the players getting creative, but if they really were creative, they should be able to do so within the context of the rules. Can't knock an enemy directly into the air, but you can knock him closer to a martial character, who can then attack said opponent when that player's turn comes back. Looking at Control Water, you can't instantly sink the ship, but you could revers the flow of the water, pushing it backward to slow it down, and allowing more time for range attacks to damage the ship and crew, or try running the water across the deck of the ship and see if it can wash any of the crew from it.
Spells only do exactly what is stated in their descriptions and nothing else. The player wasn't "being creative" they were trying to make spells do more than they do. The DM is fine and doesn't have to let that player break the rules just cause its fun for them.
Many do not understand this basic concept, despite it being stated many times by the game designers.
i mean control water directly states it can do what the player tried to do
@@tazkol It can create a pocket, yes, but causing damage to a gargantuan vessels is beyond the spell, nor can it "drop" a vessel.
*Yirbel Lives* this is nonsense on the players end, they still could've been creative with the spells used, the issue is they just using the wrong spells with the results they want.
Control Water was actually reasonable.
@@Kronosfobi was that how the spell worked? It sounds pretty extreme to be able to capsize the ship that early in the game.
@@GreaterGrievobeast55 I quote:
''Until the spell ends, you control any freestanding water inside an area you choose that is a cube up to 100 feet on a side. You can choose from any of the following effects when you cast this spell. As an action on your turn, you can repeat the same effect or choose a different one.
Flood. You cause the water level of all standing water in the area to rise by as much as 20 feet. If the area includes a shore, the flooding water spills over onto dry land.
If you choose an area in a large body of water, you instead create a 20-foot tall wave that travels from one side of the area to the other and then crashes down. Any Huge or smaller vehicles in the wave's path are carried with it to the other side. Any Huge or smaller vehicles struck by the wave have a 25 percent chance of capsizing.
The water level remains elevated until the spell ends or you choose a different effect. If this effect produced a wave, the wave repeats on the start of your next turn while the flood effect lasts.
Part Water. You cause water in the area to move apart and create a trench. The trench extends across the spell's area, and the separated water forms a wall to either side. The trench remains until the spell ends or you choose a different effect. The water then slowly fills in the trench over the course of the next round until the normal water level is restored.
Redirect Flow. You cause flowing water in the area to move in a direction you choose, even if the water has to flow over obstacles, up walls, or in other unlikely directions. The water in the area moves as you direct it, but once it moves beyond the spell's area, it resumes its flow based on the terrain conditions. The water continues to move in the direction you chose until the spell ends or you choose a different effect.
Whirlpool. This effect requires a body of water at least 50 feet square and 25 feet deep. You cause a whirlpool to form in the center of the area. The whirlpool forms a vortex that is 5 feet wide at the base, up to 50 feet wide at the top, and 25 feet tall. Any creature or object in the water and within 25 feet of the vortex is pulled 10 feet toward it. A creature can swim away from the vortex by making a Strength (Athletics) check against your spell save DC.
When a creature enters the vortex for the first time on a turn or starts its turn there, it must make a Strength saving throw. On a failed save, the creature takes 2d8 bludgeoning damage and is caught in the vortex until the spell ends. On a successful save, the creature takes half damage, and isn't caught in the vortex. A creature caught in the vortex can use its action to try to swim away from the vortex as described above, but has disadvantage on the Strength (Athletics) check to do so.
The first time each turn that an object enters the vortex, the object takes 2d8 bludgeoning damage; this damage occurs each round it remains in the vortex. ''
They could part water in a 100feet diagonal, let the ship fall, drop concentration for ship to get flooded.
@@Kronosfobi Reasonable, but not RAW with the spell. The spell does not state that it can sink or cause damage beyond what the spell description states. That means the Sage Advice default applies in that the spell can only do specifically what it states, even if it might seem logical it should be able to do more.
I would also point out that this a 4th level spell which makes it seem incredibly unlikely that RAI that this spell is meant to be able to insta-kill gargantuan ships (or creatures). However, if you feel this was a fair use of the spell, then do the same thing to the PCs and see how fast they call *BS* on being TPKd on a ship that was dropped in the same manner.
@@craigtucker1290 Spell states you can create a very deep trench which *slowly* fills up as soon as you either break concentration OR CHANGE into other alternative manipulation of water.
Which includes Waves that themselves are 20 feet with a 25% chance to capsize.
You can split the seas, and in your very next turn cause a large ass wave to instantly fill it back up.
It is doable, it is raw. Its a creative use of the spell that doesnt require homerule.
If players utilize this at one point, they deserve the win. You can always use it yourself in the future and see how they react, but outright denying the act is unnecessary especially when they are precisely following the guidelines.
I feel like the DM owes the player an apology for the Create Water one, that was RaW
That isn't using the spells creatively, because they're trying to use the spells more than what they can.
Much like how someone else already said Eldritch blast only pushes someone 10 ft so they could technically use it to shove an enemy into a spike pit, off a cliff or under a weak structure to collapse on top of them.
control water does exactly what the player tried to do
@@tazkol Except for the inability to damage vessels in anyway that you seem to neglect in mentioning.
An entitled player that wants to win win win instead of playing a game and have fun
I do understand the concept of fudging of the rules in Dungeons & Dragons however how is partying the seas in order to get rid of an entire pirate ship out of the way and one go fair or balanced
Only if the DM does it back to the players and TPK them...
dude read control water, that was rules as written.
@@tazkol No it isn't because it cannot damage, capsize, or TPK a pirate ship when used that way. Stop gaslighting everyone.
For Story 1: As a Dm my rule goes as follows with my players: Whatever you do, enemies can do, and if it becomes a problem we will talk about it.
I dont mind players doing wacky things, just got to be prepared for me to do the same bullshit. As the Dm you should always lay out a clear code with your players that wont stifle their creative process, but playing things by the rules all the time is kind of Lame, you are writing an interactive story and trying to have fun not rules lawyer everything.
For Story 2: Nice.
That is a good rule.
The players will find out rather quickly that they won't like getting blinded, shot up into the air by a halfling assassin, or TPK on ship very quickly.
At the end of the day, you're the DM. If they don't like your style and you are not breaking rules, that's a them problem. Your guidelines were created because your players aren't just being players.
except the use of control water was as the spell is written, that part at least the player wasn't wrong, the dm should have noted they where houseruling it if they wouldn't allow it.
No, trying to use spells outside of RAW is entirely up to the DM, but generally the spells won't do what the players "feel" they could.
Sage Advice used to state that if a spell does not specifically state something occurs, even if it might seem logical, then it doesn't. That has always been the BTB ruling. Players are always trying to bend the rules under the guise of being creative. Does the repelling blast state specifically that it can launch a creature into the air? If no, then it can't. And as stated in a Sage Advice question, the force of the push is not enough to injure a creature if you push them into a wall.
Control water does explicitly state it can do what the player was trying to do...
@@tazkol But it doesn't state that it will harm a ship in the way the player was attempting to use the spell, so while the player could create a pocket, the gargantuan ship would not be destroyed as that is not explicitly stated in the spell.
@@craigtucker1290 and it also specifically states when the spell ends it "SLOWLY" flows back to it's normal level.
The grammar in the title is awful. Do you get a lot of practice writing as a dm?
I wouldn't call that awful. A couple comma's fixes it just fine. Was I, As A DM, Not Letting My Player Be Creative?
This channel is nothing but a content farm. Nothing but stories read aloud over basic artwork because it generates views. The uploader likely doesn't even speak English fluently.
@@yourface2464 he has been a part of other channels and even read for commercials/ads. The title likely comes from the title of the first story.
@@noyou9379 the VA has gone on other channels and sponsored ads, yes. That doesn't mean this isn't a content farm.
Check the community posts for bad grammar. Check the channel description and replace the term Dungeons and Dragons with dentistry. See what changes.
@yourface2464 I was referring to the english part, not the content farm.
I find this DM a bit too restrictive for my tastes.
I'm with the player on this one
Uh what? The only one you can argue is RAW is control water.
Daylight definitely doesn't flashbang RAW so you're going to have to make a case for that.
Eldritch blast knocks the target away through force, it only pushes in the direction of the blast. If you want a different direction its your job as the player to get creative with your direction, not demand the spell change. That's just lazy.
@@shadenox8164 i mean, your imposing the light of day instantly in a space with previously no natural light, thats not too far out of the bounds of disbelief, the repelling blast though yes is wrong.
@shadenox8164 Translation: being creative is hard~
Rules as written means I don't need to think
@@tazkol Depends. In what direction are you aiming?