Lurkers must sign up now to visit our additional forums. Please register today and enjoy our endless banter. Instant access as of March 2019!

Metagaming.. What counts?

Discuss any non D&D roleplaying topics here.

Moderators: Stik, Brightmantle

User avatar
Halaster-Blackcloak
Knight
Knight
Posts: 1459

Re: Metagaming.. What counts?

Post#31 » Wed Jan 30, 2019 12:14 pm

Meph,the bottom line is that you're the DM and you're right. End of story. The fact that most of the other players agreed just validates that point. The explanation you gave makes sense. The DM can make rulings like this. I would think the player(s) would appreciate the idea that a DM was willing to dial back a monster just a bit so that the party had a chance to survive. Normally, I personally don't change fundamental powers of monsters (as I this case) if I can avoid it. But again, unless the game calls for it. If it makes the game more fun, more challenging and not just a TPK, then I'd do it. I'm especially fond of occasionally using golems with different spell immunities, since the PCs usually know what their weaknesses are. Or use tricks like the aforementioned ring of fire resistance on the flesh golem. :twisted:

The thing is, that player should take a step back and think...the DM and all the other players disagree with me. Who's wrong? I've played in games with other DMs of far less experience and have sometimes totally disagreed with their calls, but at worst I've only ever asked them to consider how I saw it. If they disagreed I would say fine, you're the DM, that's that. Often the DM and the other players would say "Sure that makes sense" and rule in my favor. But when they didn't, we just let it go and kept playing.

This is why I avoid telling the players if I change something without them knowing it, as in this case. Better not to mention it, and then when they encounter this larger pudding and say: "But...but...but the last one we faced didn't split in two!", you can always just say: "Well maybe that one was not fully developed, or was of a slightly different species or maybe this larger one is a mutated form of black pudding. You might want to spend some of that gold consulting a sage on the issue." :twisted:

User avatar
JadedDM
Guildmaster
Guildmaster
Posts: 704

Re: Metagaming.. What counts?

Post#32 » Wed Jan 30, 2019 12:34 pm

Halaster-Blackcloak wrote:What I really don't understand is why they changed the black pudding after how many years? It first appeared in 1974 and it's been divided by "blows" ever since, until what...5th edition? So 45 years? Insane. :roll:

No, they changed it way before that.

In 3rd Edition, they only split if struck with slashing or piercing weapons.
Split (Ex)
Slashing and piercing weapons deal no damage to a black pudding. Instead the creature splits into two identical puddings, each with half of the original’s current hit points (round down). A pudding with 10 hit points or less cannot be further split and dies if reduced to 0 hit points.


In 4th Edition, they changed it back to any kind of attack:
Split (when the black pudding is hit by a weapon attack; at-will) A black pudding spawn appears in a square adjacent to the black pudding or in the nearest unoccupied square.


And then in 5th Edition, they changed it to slashing and lightning damage only.
Split. When a pudding that is Medium or larger is subjected to lightning or slashing damage, it splits into two new puddings if it has at least 10 hit points. Each new pudding has hit points equal to half the original pudding's, rounded down. New puddings are one size smaller than the original pudding.


So your knowledge of how black puddings work is just 19 years out of date, is all.

User avatar
Halaster-Blackcloak
Knight
Knight
Posts: 1459

Re: Metagaming.. What counts?

Post#33 » Wed Jan 30, 2019 1:13 pm

JadedDm tries again...

No, they changed it way before that.

In 3rd Edition, they only split if struck with slashing or piercing weapons.
In 4th Edition, they changed it back to any kind of attack
And then in 5th Edition, they changed it to slashing and lightning damage only.
So your knowledge of how black puddings work is just 19 years out of date, is all.


Who cares when they changed it? Your argument simply shows that the idiots at WOTC can't make up their damned minds. The black pudding worked the same for 26 years, over a quarter century (1974 to 2000). From Original D&D to Basic D&D to 1E to 2E. Then over the course of the next 19 years, they waffle back and forth 3 times? Make up your minds, people! Again, who cares about those stupid editions? They are not Dungeons & Dragons games, just pale imitations. The writers are not gamers or game designers. They're idiots. They're certainly not professional writers, or intelligent people.

As you should realize by now :roll: , when I post something, I am coming at it from a REAL D&D/AD&D perspective (1E, 2E AD&D), not a Dabbler's Edition (3E, 3.5E, 4E, 5E) perspective, because I don't play those silly wannabe D&D games, nor do I care about their ever-changing, ridiculous rules. And when someone lists their main edition as AD&D, I default to that when I post, as I said before.

So it's not a matter of being "out of date", it's a matter of not caring about stupid editions.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests