ok now im a little ticked off

164 posts / 0 new
Last post
so i created a lvl 1 human monk for the RPGA undermountain mods and i choose harmonious thunder for obvious reasons. until it gets erratad its an instagib, i figured i could get away with using it at an event because they play raw, no house rules. so in the campaign he threw the bbeg at us so i poped HT and an action point to attack again for the instagib and he house ruled on the spot the damage can only bounce from melee or ranged attacks, house ruled me! At a published event!


am i mad for no reason or is this wrong?
so i created a lvl 1 human monk for the RPGA undermountain mods and i choose harmonious thunder for obvious reasons. until it gets erratad its an instagib, i figured i could get away with using it at an event because they play raw, no house rules. so in the campaign he threw the bbeg at us so i poped HT and an action point to attack again for the instagib and he house ruled on the spot the damage can only bounce from melee or ranged attacks, house ruled me! At a published event!


am i mad for no reason or is this wrong?



Not speaking on the validaty of the power you used nor whether or not RPGA should do house ruling (IMO, they shouldn't)

It sounds like you knew that it would be raw and no house rules. Even if this isn't the case, the DM has the responsibility to inform the players of any house rules before hand (or interruptations, like how to handle Charging's "directly" text), not right when it comes up and then nerfing the player. We've had a few games where we tried something, our DM goes "I don't like that, next time/session it'll be like this..." That's the proper way to do it, let the player do it the way they were thinking it works and inform them that it's now house ruled.

I think you have reason to be mad. Personally, I would have fought it. Not only because it sounds like the event was supposed to be no house rules, but also because the DM completely sprung it on you and that's just not cool.
i choose harmonious thunder for obvious reasons. until it gets erratad its an instagib...
he house ruled on the spot...
At a published event!
am i mad for no reason or is this wrong?

Well, if it's as unbalancing as you portray it...
Part of the DM's job is to keep things fun (which can include smiting obviously cheesy wrongness, if that be the case).

Better to ask the question on the Character Optimization board or the RPGA general board.

Harmonious Thunder can reasonably be interpreted in a fashion that involves it not instantly killing both of them.  It's perfectly legitimate for an RPGA DM to disagree with your interpretation of RAW.

Until CustServ or other official source says "yes, harmonious thunder kills both of them", he isn't wrong to disallow it, unless his interpretation is clearly incorrect.
The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.
How is the Harmonious Thunder supposed to be an instagib...?

(edit) Oh wait, let me guess: You hit A, it damages B; B took damage so it damages A; etc.

Lol.

Kudos to the DM. 
"At a certain point, one simply has to accept that some folks will see what they want to see..." Dragon 387
Harmonious Thunder can reasonably be interpreted in a fashion that involves it not instantly killing both of them.  It's perfectly legitimate for an RPGA DM to disagree with your interpretation of RAW.

It looks like even the CharOp board (here) wouldn't allow this in a game. Off-hand: if a player brings an infinite damage loop to the table, he shouldn't get mad when the DM nerfs.

Anecdote: I used a legit, near-infinite damage combo (from just the 3.5 PHB) in a public game... run by one of the original writers... and only because the party was about to be TPK'd.

I didn't get mad when he nerfed my combo; indeed I appreciated it (even though it ultimately meant some PC's would die).

I don't much about RPGA but can DMs change rules like that
I don't much about RPGA but can DMs change rules like that

Although my understanding is that RPGA DM's must abide by RAW I can't say as I feel bad when a DM doesn't allow such a completely obvious unintended result of a power. I mean, nobody can honestly say that Harmonious Thunder is supposed to be instant gib regardless of how poorly it may be written, it's not like the intent is even remotely challenging to discern.

when it gets re-written ill have no problem with it but as it stands theres no limitation on how much damage is dealt or when it stops. im upset because even though it was supposed to be RAW he changed it on the spot. (also some DMs have a bad habit of getting attached to their monsters, hes already TPKed every group he's DMed for at least once including the undermountain mod)
Well, as per RPGA, he was wrong... if that answers your question. He isn't allowed to actually change or create a rule. No matter how frustrating a broken power is.
Well, as per RPGA, he was wrong... if that answers your question.



Where are these RPGA rules? 
"At a certain point, one simply has to accept that some folks will see what they want to see..." Dragon 387

Houserules aren't allowed in RPGA.... that's really about it. What he did is a houserule.

No rational DM is ever going to allow you to interpret a power in a way that allows for infinite damage.

The RPGA rules require a DM to "use the D&D rules whenever possible to resolve complications that arise during the game's play" and he "cannot make up new D&D rules wherein an existing rule will suffice."  It's the DM's job to adjudicate things "when the rules are unclear or to keep play moving.  If a rules call is necessary, it is the DM's job to make the call and continue with the action."  "The DM's golden rule is: Make decisions and adjudications that enhance the fun of the adventure when possible."

The rule that says "If there's more than one interpretation of a power, the DM must slavishly abide by the version that is most powerful and player-friendly, even if that leads to absurd results"?  That's not in there.

Saying that Harmonious Thunder does not trigger itself and automatically kill something is the most mild of DM interpretations you're ever going to see.  A DM who ruled any way other than that shouldn't be DMing in public, and if you can't handle a DM call like that, you probably shouldn't be playing public games.
Well, as per RPGA, he was wrong... if that answers your question.



Where are these RPGA rules? 



I think they are in here somewhere:

www.wizards.com/dnd/Event.aspx?x=dnd/4ne...

The RPGA rules require a DM to "use the D&D rules whenever possible to resolve complications that arise during the game's play" and he "cannot make up new D&D rules wherein an existing rule will suffice."  



Where do these quotes come from?

Found it. page 11 
"At a certain point, one simply has to accept that some folks will see what they want to see..." Dragon 387
Assuming BGibbons quotes are accurate I'll respond with "I'm with him."
Where do these quotes come from?

The RPGA CCG, page 11.

It should be noted, by the way, that even if an RPGA DM was completely required to allow you to use even the most absurd of interpretations, that doesn't really matter in this instance: D&D Encounter isn't an RPGA event.  Rather, both D&DE and RPGA are part of the D&D Organized Play division.
Assuming BGibbons quotes are accurate I'll respond with "I'm with him."

You can download the RPGA rules for yourself here: www.wizards.com/rpga/downloads/RPGA_Char...

RPGA or no, I agree that no sane DM would allow the OP's interpretation of the power.  By the OP's description of the situation, the DM did the right thing.

You can download the RPGA rules for yourself here: www.wizards.com/rpga/downloads/RPGA_Char...

RPGA or no, I agree that no sane DM would allow the OP's interpretation of the power.  By the OP's description of the situation, the DM did the right thing.

Thanks for the link although I knew where they were. I just don't play RPGA and didn't really want to wade through its rules looking for the information. =)

So, after reading the thread, you wanted to use a power with your level one monk that you think should allow you to create an infinite damage loop?

And if that's correct, you want us to think that the makers of the game intended a level 1 power to do that?

And so you think because a RPGA DM wouldn't allow that, he house ruled it?

So, after reading the thread, you wanted to use a power with your level one monk that you think should allow you to create an infinite damage loop?

And if that's correct, you want us to think that the makers of the game intended a level 1 power to do that?

And so you think because a RPGA DM wouldn't allow that, he house ruled it?


Life's unfair, right?

Where do these quotes come from?

The RPGA CCG, page 11.

It should be noted, by the way, that even if an RPGA DM was completely required to allow you to use even the most absurd of interpretations, that doesn't really matter in this instance: D&D Encounter isn't an RPGA event.  Rather, both D&DE and RPGA are part of the D&D Organized Play division.



The RPGA rules indicate that D&D encounters is considered part of RPGA, don't they?
I'm a big fan of RPGA DMs not changing RAW. But, this is a case where the reality of the bounds on how a power should work is absurdly clear. No designer intends for a power to do infinite damage. Any DM, RPGA or otherwise, should make a call that this doesn't work. It isn't an interpretation. It is just common rules logic. In fact, every player should make that call too.

Follow my blog and Twitter feed with Dark Sun campaign design and DM tips!
Dark Sun's Ashes of Athas Campaign is now available for home play (PM me with your e-mail to order the campaign adventures).

Assuming BGibbons quotes are accurate I'll respond with "I'm with him."

Ditto

he "cannot make up new D&D rules wherein an existing rule will suffice."  It's the DM's job to adjudicate things "when the rules are unclear or to keep play moving."

These two rules right here are enough to explain why the OP is upset.  There is an existing rule, and the rule is clear, and if he hadn't changed the rule play would have moved along just fine.  It's just a broken power. Until RPGA adds a rule that says "the DM is free to make up new D&D rules when the power is broken", the DM broke the rules that the players come to the table expecting to see in play.

That said ... more power to him.  CharOpd characters that use rules loopholes to become godly are the bane of RPGA play IMO, and I love it when DMs bust the RPGA rules to stymie them.
D&D's not a video game? That's unpossible!

[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy

so i created a lvl 1 human monk for the RPGA undermountain mods and i choose harmonious thunder for obvious reasons. until it gets erratad its an instagib, i figured i could get away with using it at an event because they play raw, no house rules. so in the campaign he threw the bbeg at us so i poped HT and an action point to attack again for the instagib and he house ruled on the spot the damage can only bounce from melee or ranged attacks, house ruled me! At a published event!


am i mad for no reason or is this wrong?



Hmmm....

Daily   bullet.gif     Implement, Psionic, Thunder
Standard Action      Melee touch


Target: One or two creatures


Attack: Dexterity vs. Fortitude


Hit: 3d6 + Dexterity modifier thunder damage.


Miss: Half damage.


Effect: When one of the targets takes damage, the other target takes thunder damage equal to your Strength modifier. This effect lasts until the end of the encounter or until one of the targets drops to 0 hit points.


Seems clear enough.  When you damage one target, the other takes thunder damage equal to STR modifier.

So, a reasonable interpretation would be:

1.  Hit critter 1.  Also damage critter 2.
2.  Hit critter 2.  Also damage critter 1.

This would follow RAW - it's not the only interpretation, of course, but it is legitimate as a reading of RAW.  If this was what you ended up being able to do, then the DM is correct.
*rolls on the floor in laughter*

hahahahaha!

..

Oh wait you weren't joking?

..

*laughs harder*

If I were you I would be ashamed to play D&D.

Go play Star Wars RPG, where breaking the game is just a matter of saying "I've got a bad feeling about this..."

::EDIT:: For the purposes of making this post not blatantly flammatory, I agree with all the sane people who think that even expecting this to have worked for a fraction of a second is ridiculous.
A DM is the arbiter of the rules and there is some fairly silly ambiguous wording in that power. End of story. It's been discussed on these board on more that one occasion and will be tied up in a future update... the DM came up with an adequate fix so you could get on with the game. Full points to him.

If you tried pulling that at my table (and I knew you were an experienced player), I'd have had to suppress a smile myself. 

Reminds me of the problem with that old Magic Card wording: 'Opponent loses next turn'.
so i created a lvl 1 human monk for the RPGA undermountain mods and i choose harmonious thunder for obvious reasons. until it gets erratad its an instagib, i figured i could get away with using it at an event because they play raw, no house rules. so in the campaign he threw the bbeg at us so i poped HT and an action point to attack again for the instagib and he house ruled on the spot the damage can only bounce from melee or ranged attacks, house ruled me! At a published event!


am i mad for no reason or is this wrong?



Hmmm....

Daily        Implement, Psionic, Thunder
Standard Action      Melee touch


Target: One or two creatures


Attack: Dexterity vs. Fortitude


Hit: 3d6 + Dexterity modifier thunder damage.


Miss: Half damage.


Effect: When one of the targets takes damage, the other target takes thunder damage equal to your Strength modifier. This effect lasts until the end of the encounter or until one of the targets drops to 0 hit points.


Seems clear enough.  When you damage one target, the other takes thunder damage equal to STR modifier.

So, a reasonable interpretation would be:

1.  Hit critter 1.  Also damage critter 2.
2.  Hit critter 2.  Also damage critter 1.

This would follow RAW - it's not the only interpretation, of course, but it is legitimate as a reading of RAW.  If this was what you ended up being able to do, then the DM is correct.



See, this is what totally cracks me up about anyone (Not you specifically Artoomis) using the idea of RAW to get their way. If there can be multiple interpretations of the rules, there really isn't any Rules as Written, is there? It's Rules as Interpretated then.

In many spots, there can be just that, multiple ways to read the rules.
I don't see how it isn't an instant kill on both targets. All they need for an errata is " This effect can only occur once per turn. "

I think the DM made the right call regardless of it being legal or not by RPGA rules.
I would've banned from all my games for all eternity for even thinking that you'd be able to get away with this crap.
Epic Dungeon Master

Want to give your players a kingdom of their own? I made a 4e rule system to make it happen!

Your Kingdom awaits!
Update 5th Sep 2011: Added a sample kingdom, as well as sample of play.
I see no reason to jump on this guy.  In a rpga game it looks like the DM has to follow what rules are given.

Looking at this purely logical, the DM should have let the power go.  According to the rules he can put houserules in.

If one DM can put a houserule even though it's obviously was not the intent of the power to instantly kill a creature, then other DMs who run RPGA can start running there own houserules.  Then whole system could start breaking down.  It would be like have a judge at a magic tournament saying a card does something because he thinks the card is to powerful

"Black lotus is to powerful, so it cost one to activate now" 

We all agree that the power was not intended to kill something in one shot.  I haven't seen a DM running a game at home has allowed the power to work RAW.

I am on the side in a RPGA event that clearly has a rule a DM can't make houserules, the DM shouldn't have.  Even in a power that was clearly not tested, read, or edited.

The power will be updated in the next batch of FAQ
he "cannot make up new D&D rules wherein an existing rule will suffice."  It's the DM's job to adjudicate things "when the rules are unclear or to keep play moving."

These two rules right here are enough to explain why the OP is upset.  There is an existing rule, and the rule is clear, and if he hadn't changed the rule play would have moved along just fine.  It's just a broken power. Until RPGA adds a rule that says "the DM is free to make up new D&D rules when the power is broken", the DM broke the rules that the players come to the table expecting to see in play.

That said ... more power to him.  CharOpd characters that use rules loopholes to become godly are the bane of RPGA play IMO, and I love it when DMs bust the RPGA rules to stymie them.


I disagree that he broke the rules.  RPGA rule clearly give the DM an out here--the insta-gibbing of a solo clearly wouldn't "suffice" (as I added emphasis above) to play DnD.  There isn't a single person EVER who thinks that the power is working intended, and the player was obviously abusing this typo in a malicious attempt to sabotage the campaign. Since the rules did't "suffice" to control this blatant abuse, the DM had to wing it.

Yes, this interpretation potentially sets up a slippery slope of DMs declaring that existing rules 'don't suffice' to rein in, say, Ranger/Pit-Fighters or Gnome Illusionists.  The rule should be used sparingly.  But in this particular case, from the wording of the RPGA rules as well as from the OP's obviously juvenile and antisocial behavior, I'm with the DM 100%. 
Check out my blog--now REACTIVATED with DnDnext feedback!
he "cannot make up new D&D rules wherein an existing rule will suffice."  It's the DM's job to adjudicate things "when the rules are unclear or to keep play moving."

These two rules right here are enough to explain why the OP is upset.  There is an existing rule, and the rule is clear, and if he hadn't changed the rule play would have moved along just fine.  It's just a broken power. Until RPGA adds a rule that says "the DM is free to make up new D&D rules when the power is broken", the DM broke the rules that the players come to the table expecting to see in play.

That said ... more power to him.  CharOpd characters that use rules loopholes to become godly are the bane of RPGA play IMO, and I love it when DMs bust the RPGA rules to stymie them.


I disagree that he broke the rules.  RPGA rule clearly give the DM an out here--the insta-gibbing of a solo clearly wouldn't "suffice" (as I added emphasis above) to play DnD.  There isn't a single person EVER who thinks that the power is working intended, and the player was obviously abusing this typo in a malicious attempt to sabotage the campaign. Since the rules did't "suffice" to control this blatant abuse, the DM had to wing it.

Yes, this interpretation potentially sets up a slippery slope of DMs declaring that existing rules 'don't suffice' to rein in, say, Ranger/Pit-Fighters or Gnome Illusionists.  The rule should be used sparingly.  But in this particular case, from the wording of the RPGA rules as well as from the OP's obviously juvenile and antisocial behavior, I'm with the DM 100%. 



I wouldn't say the guy was trying to sabotage the campaign. He certainly went into it knowing that the power would most likley get fixed soon.

Basically he thought he had a way to ease through the end encounter with a power he knew he wasn't going to stand. At best, he's just cheating. Now he's unhappy the DM didn't let him cheat.
he "cannot make up new D&D rules wherein an existing rule will suffice."  It's the DM's job to adjudicate things "when the rules are unclear or to keep play moving."

These two rules right here are enough to explain why the OP is upset.  There is an existing rule, and the rule is clear, and if he hadn't changed the rule play would have moved along just fine.  It's just a broken power. Until RPGA adds a rule that says "the DM is free to make up new D&D rules when the power is broken", the DM broke the rules that the players come to the table expecting to see in play.

That said ... more power to him.  CharOpd characters that use rules loopholes to become godly are the bane of RPGA play IMO, and I love it when DMs bust the RPGA rules to stymie them.


I disagree that he broke the rules.  RPGA rule clearly give the DM an out here--the insta-gibbing of a solo clearly wouldn't "suffice" (as I added emphasis above) to play DnD.  There isn't a single person EVER who thinks that the power is working intended, and the player was obviously abusing this typo in a malicious attempt to sabotage the campaign. Since the rules did't "suffice" to control this blatant abuse, the DM had to wing it.

Yes, this interpretation potentially sets up a slippery slope of DMs declaring that existing rules 'don't suffice' to rein in, say, Ranger/Pit-Fighters or Gnome Illusionists.  The rule should be used sparingly.  But in this particular case, from the wording of the RPGA rules as well as from the OP's obviously juvenile and antisocial behavior, I'm with the DM 100%. 



I wouldn't say the guy was trying to sabotage the campaign. He certainly went into it knowing that the power would most likley get fixed soon.

Basically he thought he had a way to ease through the end encounter with a power he knew he wasn't going to stand. At best, he's just cheating. Now he's unhappy the DM didn't let him cheat.



Indeed, he thought it would be fun/funny to one-shot the BBEG in an RPGA game.  The DM did what he should have in ruling that automatic damage didn't trigger the power's effect to preserve the fun and balance at the table.
This is another one of those examples where I just have to ask two questions.

1. How did the designers miss that? Do they read what they write?

2. Does this sound familiar to anyone? Infinite Orgeano maybe?

www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/commenta...
i wasnt saying if it was broken or not cuz it is. its very poorly written and should be erratad soon but as it stands

Harmonious Thunder

You punch one foe, then spin and deliver a kick to another. Thunder rumbles in the distance, rolls closer, and explodes between your two foes.


Daily   bullet.gif     Implement, Psionic, Thunder
Standard Action      Melee touch


Target: One or two creatures


Attack: Dexterity vs. Fortitude


Hit: 3d6 + Dexterity modifier thunder damage.


Miss: Half damage.



Effect: When one of the targets takes damage, the other target takes thunder damage equal to your Strength modifier. This effect lasts until the end of the encounter or until one of the targets drops to 0 hit points.

thats the powers effect and it is a loop. its quite clear.
i wasnt saying if it was broken or not cuz it is. its very poorly written and should be erratad soon but as it stands

Harmonious Thunder

You punch one foe, then spin and deliver a kick to another. Thunder rumbles in the distance, rolls closer, and explodes between your two foes.


Daily        Implement, Psionic, Thunder
Standard Action      Melee touch


Target: One or two creatures


Attack: Dexterity vs. Fortitude


Hit: 3d6 + Dexterity modifier thunder damage.


Miss: Half damage.



Effect: When one of the targets takes damage, the other target takes thunder damage equal to your Strength modifier. This effect lasts until the end of the encounter or until one of the targets drops to 0 hit points.

thats the powers effect and it is a loop. its quite clear.



By your own words, it's quite clear you know the damage loop is wrong.

What are you expecting people to say? You made a character so you could take advantage of something you clearly know isn't what it should be.

Hurray, you found a way to cheat in the RPGA events? Hurray for trying to ruin the fun for everyone playing? If you know that it's not whats intended, and you know it needs to be fixed, where is your responsibility to not try and use the power this way?

The DM's call was him being responsible towards the integrity of the session and encounter and everyone else playing, and you're upset not enough people are agreeing with you?

This is another one of those examples where I just have to ask two questions.

1. How did the designers miss that? Do they read what they write?

2. Does this sound familiar to anyone? Infinite Orgeano maybe?

www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/commenta...



Having worked in publishing, missing something like that is actually very easy. There is always so much going on.
i wasnt saying if it was broken or not cuz it is. its very poorly written and should be erratad soon but as it stands

Harmonious Thunder

You punch one foe, then spin and deliver a kick to another. Thunder rumbles in the distance, rolls closer, and explodes between your two foes.


Daily        Implement, Psionic, Thunder
Standard Action      Melee touch


Target: One or two creatures


Attack: Dexterity vs. Fortitude


Hit: 3d6 + Dexterity modifier thunder damage.


Miss: Half damage.



Effect: When one of the targets takes damage, the other target takes thunder damage equal to your Strength modifier. This effect lasts until the end of the encounter or until one of the targets drops to 0 hit points.

thats the powers effect and it is a loop. its quite clear.



By your own words, it's quite clear you know the damage loop is wrong.

What are you expecting people to say? You made a character so you could take advantage of something you clearly know isn't what it should be.

Hurray, you found a way to cheat in the RPGA events? Hurray for trying to ruin the fun for everyone playing? If you know that it's not whats intended, and you know it needs to be fixed, where is your responsibility to not try and use the power this way?

The DM's call was him being responsible towards the integrity of the session and encounter and everyone else playing, and you're upset not enough people are agreeing with you?




He never denied that he knowsthat the power should not work the way it's written.  His orginal post is that at a rpga event a DM can't houserule something.  The Dm must play RAW and in this case RAW makes the daily the best daily any class could ever have and it's only level 1.

His reasoning for playing this PC and why he chose that daily is moot. 

Under RPGA the daily should work that way

In any home guy a DM would not allow that to happen, but this isn't a house game.

I will say I don't know rpga rules, but from the little I know it seems a DM can't house rule anything.  If someone could post a rule to contradict this I would love to see it so a DM can fix broken things in a game