I think the big issue with the first story is the dm played like it was Dm v player and they had to do everything in their power to win. Rather than the dm working with the players to form a good engaging story.

@kingwildcat6192000

8 ай бұрын

I gotta disagree, I think OP was the one making this a PC v DM game rather then the dm. As from the sounds of it, he goes out of his way to research each monster and how to defeat them in the easiest way possible and the dm just got sick of it. He even stated that he knew his antics were getting to the dm yet continued to force it like making a literal mirror into a shield.

@1Kapuchu100

8 ай бұрын

@@kingwildcat6192000You're making a fair few things up here. He doesn't "research every monster", it's just in his background to have knowledge of planar and monstrous creatures, and we have no reason to believe this was a habit of OP's. According to OP, their go-to strategy so far has been to gang up on monsters and just beat them up, and the DM later said that she was upset she didn't have a reason to give Inspiration due to lack of clever solutions and roleplay. That doesn't sound like he always researches every monster and find the easiest way to beat them. And yes, the DM was getting annoyed, but it isn't unreasonable to go "Let's find a way to carry this easier" if you know it's gonna be cumbersome. It also isn't unreasonable to ask the person who knows how to craft things, to try to craft a thing for you. OP's character had reason to know what a Medusa is and what they do, and have a reason to try to attach a handle to the mirror to carry it like a shield, since it would make things easier. The DM is the one who brought up "Winning" and "Losing" at the end, not OP. It's very clear which one of them has the toxic mindset here. If I had to criticize OP for something, it is that he should at least have asked if his character knew of Medusa's and such before buying the mirror. He had in-character reason to know, but it's good sport to at least ask first to be sure, and possibly make a roll to figure out how much he knows.

@tazkol

8 ай бұрын

@@kingwildcat6192000 this comment is an astounding amount of reaching to try and defend a point with little evidence, the dm meta gamed in the worst way possible man, if she wanted to bypass it she could have just reasonably said a mirror does nothing. this was a bad player vs dm mentality dm playing badly.

@kingwildcat6192000

8 ай бұрын

@tazkol I never said that the dm is innocent just what caused this to happen was the player. The dude even said he enjoys bullying monsters and that he was a "monster researcher" so something similar to justify all his knowledge in game. He even stated that he knew the dm didn't like what he was doing and said no/disagreed multiple times before letting him get his way. The dm dropped the ball yes. But once again the player is the one that came at this as PC vs DM and even used the excuse "dnd is about having fun and telling a story" yet purposely ruined any fun for the dm and disregarded the dms feelings. Tdlr a toxic player made a toxic dm that tried to handle the toxic player in a toxic way.

@1Kapuchu100

8 ай бұрын

@@kingwildcat6192000 "The dude even said he enjoys bullying monsters." No he didn't. Stop making things up. "He was a monster researcher to justify all his knowledge in game." That's a Character Background, which the DM would have had to approve. "DM didn't like what he was doing and said no/disagreed multiple times." Also not true. He said he could sense the DM was annoyed, but she NEVER said no to anything, or disagreed with anything. She just acted annoyed. Player didn't push anything until the DM agreed, he just asked and made suggestions, and the DM and other players agreed with him. I don't know why you insist on making OP out to be the villain here, and making so much stuff up. Watch the video again, and pay attention to what is *actually* said, not what you think is said.

First story: the player should have asked for a History or Nature check to either recall or learn about Medusas to prove they weren't meta-gaming. After that, the DM should've just followed the play for it with either adding immunity to petrification or letting things go. That said, probably give the DM a break by being a DM yourself sometime.

@acanthodoris_

8 ай бұрын

I 100% agree with you, without that history/nature check the player is now the meta gamer. It sounds like the DM is new to DMing.

@TheMightyBattleSquid

8 ай бұрын

I've seen it done multiple ways, even in the same campaign. This character was a scholar, whose specialty was studying monsters specifically similar to one they were running in to face. It's not random chance they've heard of it before. I'd just give it to them at that point because it falls under the scope of "background feature."

@guardsmen666

8 ай бұрын

easy to explain. how do you know what you read is accurate? heres the thing your dont even in modern times. medieval times its almost all hear say from hear say from a dude that got the info from another dude in a bar that "claimed" he fought it. or even fullied with info thats worth less then the paper its written on. like when you need info about how to fight a creature, why would you need to know it favored mates or how its teeth tells you how old it is? not much and books even now are full of such stuff. @@TheMightyBattleSquid

@NightArcher1

8 ай бұрын

Yeah completely agree with the need for checks here. The first story definitley sounded like both the player and DM were being metagamy. Even with the scholor background focusing on monster hunting, the player shouldn't automatically assume the character knows the most efficient way to defeat a monster without confirming with the DM that the character would remember it clearly. Though the DM definitley sounds like they need a break and burnt out with how the end of the story went.

@thatcrazyguyeveryonelikes4197

8 ай бұрын

Since the PC was a scholar that specifically studied this category of monsters, I don't feel they should've needed to make a check to recall the information. But if the PC studied monsters of a different variety, then a check should've been made to see if they recall coming across information about a Medusa before.

The DM's purpose is not to win by beating the party. It is to weave a story WITH the players, not AGAINST them. The DM wins, when everyone is enjoying themselves. Hell, I encountered a similar situation in which I tried to use a mirror on a Medusa. It didn't work and she actually preened herself while looking into it. We found out later that she was wearing an amulet of proof against petrification for just such an occasion. So what did I do? I grabbed my adventuring pack, emptied it out, pulled it over her head like a hood and then proceeded to "Ride this bitch till the party knocks her out." The DM had me make grapple checks every turn, the rest of the party moved in and began walloping her with impunity and I got carved up a bit keeping her from escaping ( She had disadvantage to hit, but my AC was only 14), but I held on, made all my checks and she eventually got knocked out. DM was laughing her ass off and impressed with my insane idea working. And EVERYONE enjoyed themselves.

@alekvillarreal3470

8 ай бұрын

Ayyy there we go! The DM is controlling the party’s enemies, but it’s never the DM versus the players.

If I was the D.M. I would ask the player where they had gathered any tactical knowledge of a Medusa’s magical cursed abilities and/or the knowledge that a Medusa could petrify herself if she saw her own reflection In a mirror. If this info was discovered in game prior to the encounter I have no problem with the mirror. I would also say a Medusa would then likewise be aware that any mirrors would create a serious danger to herself. There would be a range where a reflection could lose its potency. Perhaps: 40’ in excellent lighting conditions, 30 in reasonable lighting (torchlight), 20’ in dim lighting conditions, darkness no possibility. A clever Medusa would allow for careful monitoring of beings entering her lair from long range distances. Perhaps detecting the presence of a mirror being carried. Perhaps being prepared with a magic item that would plunge a room into magical darkness, where her familiarity with her surroundings would aid her and hinder any enemies. Those are just a couple of examples a clever monster could think of to defend against her bane instrument. Fighting with eyes closed would be a terrible solution to the problem in my opinion.

First story, reminds me of one of my long time DMs that I no longer play with. Very adversarial DM, was always trying to make things as challenging as possible. So the only way to get things to work was to blindside them. If the DM knew the plan, they’d come up with methods to thwart it. Much like the Medusa having never looked at the person with the mirror, it doesn’t make sense that they acted that way. Reminds me why I’m glad that I’m only friends with that person and not gaming with them anymore. Second story, honestly have no clue why they think they meta gamed. If that’s meta gaming, then I agree with meta gaming.

I say the idea is good, but how else is Medusa is supposed look good without a mirror? In mythology, (And Percy Jackson), a reflection was used to aim a sword to cut her head off. To be accurate, do that instead.

@WhiteDragonCM

8 ай бұрын

she's not :P Gorgons are actually hideous creatures. so hideous that just looking at them directly is what causes the petrification in some myths. they were rather like a mixture of a boar, a gargoyle and lots of reptilian features, and their visage was so terrifying, their likenesses of it were used to ward off evil spirits. a good looking medusa is a modern day interpretation, but yes, in direct decapitation is exsactly how it played out if memory serves x3 her turning herself to stone, is also a modern concept.

@henrywilson2136

8 ай бұрын

@@WhiteDragonCM Fair point all around. I primarily say it as a fan of classics.

@WhiteDragonCM

8 ай бұрын

lol same x3 as a fellow fan and a bit of a mythology buff, i was just playfully pointing out some context :P@@henrywilson2136

I think the first DM needs a break and is suffering burn out. She's starting to develop an unhealthy mindset that could become very problematic in the future.

the last one. not metagaming. metagaming involves looking things up, or bringing information from outside the game. you figured it out DURING the fight, and as its a custom homebrewed encounter by the DM, you had no way to look it up. he didnt tell you outside the game. so its not metagaming

@HamadaHamada-qx9bx

8 ай бұрын

I think it depends on the setup he said it was foggy and visibility was bad. Did his character reasonably have the ability to see the all the other clones and weapons to be able to make that connection. Or did he just know about it because of the nature of the game. I guess in a nutshell was this a group vs group scenario or were the characters scattered and fighting one v one fights and not able to gather the rest of the information.

The biggest issue with the first story in my eyes is, that both sides were metagaming, and both were pissed about it. The player would've needed to ask the DM first if their character might know about the abilities of a Gorgon for the logical basis of the plan. And the DM could've worked around that, too, easily, by changing the lore - this is DnD, not Greek Mythology. Turning someone to stone can be an active ability for a Gorgon, instead of a curse, and thus the Gorgon obviously wouldn't use that skill against herself. It could even be explained as a misunderstood legend within the world. That would've made it much more plausible and better for the player to have their plan foiled. In the end though, both wanted to be clever and "beat" the other one, and that never works well when it comes to Tabletop Gaming.

@kingwildcat6192000

8 ай бұрын

I 100% but also think it's less that the dm wanted "beat" the players. Just the problem player aka op. He went out of his way to tell us he likes and enjoys bullying monsters the dm throws at them. He even went to the extent of making his character a "researcher" to justify him knowing their strengths and weaknesses. And he even tells us the dm tried to stop him but relented to keep the game going. As such it sounds like the dm had burn out and just wanted to stop the bs this one player was doing as it was ruining every encounter the dm came up with

@fhuber7507

8 ай бұрын

Gorgon/Medusa original legends... the reflection doesn't turn any creature to stone. Look at the reflection all you want. Perseus looked at the Medusa's reflection in his highly polished shield so he could aim his sword strokes. After being cut off, the head was still dangerous to look upon and in one story (maybe more) held up by Perseus to cause another creature to turn to stone.

@shadenox8164

8 ай бұрын

@@fhuber7507 In every version he turns a guy to stone with it. The monster is sometimes.

@Rutanachan

8 ай бұрын

@@shadenox8164 Seeing how Medusa was cursed by Athena because she and Poseidon dared to *cough*hug*cough* in her temple, I wouldn't consider her a monster, no! She didn't went out to kill Perseus either, he invaded her home!

@Lorekeeper72

8 ай бұрын

@@Rutanachan Well that was a modification by Ovid, may eagles tear out his liver, because he had beef with Augustus. No argument about the home invasion bit, from what I understand she was largely minding her own business before Perseus showed up.

1st story-- DM is in the wrong in a few places. Doesn't want you to use the mirror?- don't let them buy it. Doesn't want the mirror to be a shield? - Don't ask for a blacksmithing roll. Wants the shield crafting to fail? - Don't ask for a roll (any roll has a potential for a nat 20) The Medusa 'knowing' there's a mirror with out being aware it exists is very META and that player would be better just not being at that table. All the players, actually.

@kingwildcat6192000

8 ай бұрын

I agree but do remember op said that the dm tried to stop him and tried to say no. But relented (prob to keep the game going) and as an end result is what we were told with both sides using heavy metagaming

@1Kapuchu100

8 ай бұрын

@@kingwildcat6192000The DM didn't try to stop OP, and never tried to say no. Stop making things up.

And this is why I, as a DM, refuse to get attached to my npcs.

Geez louise. That's such a sad mentality for the DM in the 1st story, & yes she 100% meta-gamed. The medusa had her eyes closed when they came in, and never once actually saw the mirror. Honestly I'd be inclined to just say a medusa is immune to its own Gaze attack, or has advantage on saving against it by default(so disadvantage can't be imposed, just the advantage negated). Beyond that though, d&d's not about winning/losing. Everyone's telling the story together, and I hope she grows to understand that as a DM.

Soamy ways where you could feasibly have the medusa learn of the mirror while also rewarding player creativity and turning an expected encounter into an unexpected one. One example could be that the medusa stalks intruders, waiting until they get to a certain spot to ambush them. The medisa can learn of the mirror naturally this way but would still risk being immobilized or petrified, plus the pc's could potentially spot her with perception checks, turning the encounter into a reverse ambush.

The second story the player that discovered that the party was fighting against clones of themselves did not do anything wrong, unless that character’s intelligence and wisdom scores were so low as to be equivalent to slightly above animal intellect. Such as having a (3) ability score in each. That seems wildly unlikely however.

Pet peeve of mine...but Hex doesn't target saving throws, it targets ability checks. And in 5e there aren't any ability checks that use constitution so just based off the narrative, I know they're using it wrong

@kingwildcat6192000

8 ай бұрын

I bet the op lied to his dm about its ability and is abusing the spell similar to how he didn't even roll to see what he knew anything about Medusas and just went to buy mirrors. I'm also guess that the dm is rather new to a degree or has been friends for a bit with the player that she just trusted him that hex also works on saves

@jasminebryant4238

8 ай бұрын

gonna give the op some benefit of the doubt...a lot of people think hex effects saving throws, but you may be right@@kingwildcat6192000

First, Hex doesn't affect saving throws. However that DM was clearly being a tool.

@RedHood5229

8 ай бұрын

I think that’s one of the most misunderstood aspects of Hex. Players always seem to assume it affects the ability entirely.

The title should be "Did my DM Metagame & Punish Me After I Metagamed"

I’m a DM myself and there’s a certain joy I get out of players solving my puzzles. They had a random encounter where a player found a longship with a sarcophagus on it. His pet drake accidentally opened it. Out comes a mummy lord named Lamemph. The party plays it cool, trying not to piss him off, and even gain valuable information out of him on a secret island when they asked him to look at a current map. Then they lock the rogue on the brig of their ship, knowing she’ll think of something. She lead the crew in setting 2 powder kegs next to the captains quarters, and set a fire in the kitchen (cook was in on it and could easily extinguish it). Powder kegs do 7d6 of fire damage each. So 14d6. It totaled 52, but due to the mummy lord’s vulnerability to fire, took 104 damage. Yup they one shot the mummy lord. One player even played the “wtf boom” meme.

First story: yes, the DM was 100% metagaming there. I get the feeling she might be having burnout or may not like DMing given she's clearly starting to see things as DM vs player rather than the collaborative game DnD is meant to be but honestly as DM there's tons of ways to get a medusa monster around someone using a mirror without being so blatantly petty about it (make the player do a relevant check the moment it became obvious what they were trying to do to ensure their character 100% knows what they're doing, have the medusa have an item that prevents petrification or some kind of IDK homebrewed 'timed cure' to let the player's cleverness work a little but not completely, etc) so... Yeah. All in all sounds like this DM needs a break to refresh her head and maybe get some help escaping that DM vs player mindset. Second story: No the player there did not metagame and far as I can tell seemed to have a good understanding of the idea. That said, if the DM was genuinely a little irritated this might just be a case of the DM wanting to have have had the mystery last longer and accidently making their self irritation (over dropping too many hints too early) too visible to the players. All the same might be a good idea to talk things out with the DM, if only to clarify if there is anything to be worried about actually and get all those worries that you're doing something wrong just by playing smart away from you (had very similar worries when I first started playing but thankfully my fellow players and DMs were very reassuring and earnest when it came to their own mistakes and such)

there's nothing wrong with letting the players be clever but if you really want a good ol fashioned brawl, just say that the medusa's gaze doesn't work like that in your world. Me, personally, if it had been one of my players who said that without making an int roll about medusa's that's exactly what i would have done. If they got mad about it i'd just point out that they never made a roll to know how the gaze worked, they just assumed.

For those wondering, as stated in the Basic Rules for Dungeons and Dragons 5th Edition on page 144, "If the medusa sees itself reflected on a polished surface within 30 feet of it and in an area of bright light, the medusa is, due to its curse, affected by its own gaze." HOWEVER, the ability being used is not a passive ability by the description of the Petrifying Gaze itself. I quote, "When a creature that *can* see the medusa’s eyes starts its turn within 30 feet of the medusa, the medusa 'can' force it to make a DC 14 Constitution saving throw if the medusa isn’t incapacitated and can see the creature." The word 'can' here implies the choice of the Medusa to use or not use the ability. This is consistent with the mythological origins of the creature, as Medusa herself only attacked those wanting to assail her. Now of course the myth and the 5e creature are not one in the same due to the contrary statement on its gaze affecting itself, which does not occur in the mythology when Medusa looks at her reflection in the shield of Perseus. An example here is if we look at an attempt to surprise a Medusa. You may think that to surprise a Medusa, you can't look at her while doing so, however the case is not true because the Medusa must be aware of the creatures presence to force the saving throw upon them, and as well the creature must be in range and in sight. This being the case, there is a clear argument that says the Medusa can opt out of using it's ability on itself while looking at its own gaze in a reflection. So while the Medusa is affected by its own gaze, as stated before in the rules, the gaze still requires the Medusa to choose to force the onlooking creature (in this case itself) to make the save. So the potential for petrification is there, but the risk is only present with negligence. That is how I would rule it, but I would not take away the player creativity and would allow the player to use the mirror as an immunity, or at least protection, from the gaze because the Medusa may hesitate to use the gaze on them with the risk of petrifying itself. Wow that was certainly an entertaining essay. Hope you enjoyed, readers!

@1Kapuchu100

8 ай бұрын

" there is a clear argument that says the Medusa can opt out of using it's ability on itself while looking at its own gaze in a reflection." There isn't though, due to the quote you linked above. *"If the medusa sees itself reflected on a polished surface within 30 feet of it and in an area of bright light, the medusa is, due to its curse, affected by its own gaze."* It doesn't specify that she needs to use the "Petrifying Gaze Action" for that to take effect. It just says that if it SEES itself: That's it, that is the only requirement for it to trigger on herself. Now you may rule it the other way if you want, but it's not RAW.

@moltenflames1750

8 ай бұрын

@@1Kapuchu100 My argument here still stands. While you are correct in stating that the Medusa, RAW in the word of the book, is "affected by its own gaze" (the word 'affected' is important here), this does not present a case for immediate petrification. The wording states specifically that it is "affected by its own gaze" when that condition is met, the condition being 'seeing itself reflected on a polished surface'. What it does not say is that it "is petrified by its own gaze" or "is turned to stone by its own gaze". What this quantifies is that when the condition is met, the following happens: it is affected by its gaze. The implication here, as you also believe, is that it is affected by the gaze which turns creatures to stone/petrifies them, and would thus turn it into stone. But remember that the wording doesn't say that it turns to stone or petrifies itself upon the condition, and the only gaze it has that could turn it (or anything) into stone is its Petrifying Gaze feature. Once the condition of 'seeing itself reflected on a polished surface' is met, it is then subject to the Petrifying Gaze feature, as would be the only way to turn itself into stone. THIS MEANS that what was already stated in my previous comment still holds true as the rules of the Petrifying Gaze now take place. The Medusa then "can force it[self] to make a DC 14 Constitution saving throw", at which point it will choose the latter option and choose not to force itself to make the saving throw, because it CAN rather than HAS TO. Wowza! Another really long comment, thanks again for reading, all you snazzy little DnD nerds out there!

@1Kapuchu100

8 ай бұрын

@@moltenflames1750 Doesn't work that way. Petrifying Gaze isn't an action or an attack, but an effect of having eye contact with the Medusa. When the ability says "can force it to..." it is referring to making eye contact with the target. That is why you can look away and be unaffected, because it's not an effect triggered by the Medusa, but a simple effect of looking her in the eyes. Remember, it's a *Trait*, not an ability or an action. For that reason, the Medusa would also be instantly affected by her own gaze if she looks at herself in the mirror, because she's locking eyes with herself which causes the Petrifying Gaze to take effect. She won't be instantly turned to stone unless she fails her saving throw of course, but it's not a case of being able to choose whether or not it happens. It just does. The "Can force it to..." is simply referring to whether or not the Medusa looks them in the eye, not whether or not it is activated. If she first looks at herself in the mirror, it's already too late, and the Medusa would have to follow the same rules as other creatures: Avert your eyes at the beginning of your turn, or suffer the gaze. The condition to trigger the Petrifying Gaze trait is simply: Medusa and Target looks at each other. Nothing else. If the Medusa then looks at herself in a mirror, that condition has been met, and the effect takes place, forcing her to make the Saving Throw as if anyone else had looked at her.

@J_Mock92

8 ай бұрын

It does specifically say that the Medusa is affected by its own gaze if it sees its reflection within 30 feet "in an area of bright light," while other creatures just have to be within 30 feet and able to see the Medusa's eyes..... So I'd argue that the Medusa would only be affected by its own gaze, unlike other creatures, if in a brightly-lit area (which most caves, dungeons, etc aren't). Now, if the encounter happened outside during the day for some reason, or a party member were to cast "Daylight" or something, then that's a different story and the mirror would work. That's how I see it anyways 🤷

My last session had a medusa and one player asked if he could use Shape Water to form a ball of water from his waterskin and use it like a mirror. He wanted it to be like a disk, but I reasoned that it would be too thin for it to properly reflect her, so it would be a ball. He wanted to do it from a distance, but I also argued that it would be hard to properly reflect her from a distance, and that he'd have to get close. Basically, he used a cantrip to produce a mirror and shoved into the medusa's face. Almost worked. He wanted to keep doing it but then i reasoned "she knows your trick now, she won't look into the water." and it almost TPKed them (they had one member petrified on round one)

I don't know why you'd use a fragile mirror instead of using a polished metal shield that would have basically the same effect without the risk of breaking.

Assuming this is 5e with a raw medusa it wouldnt work as the medusa CAN force a creature to make a save. Meaning they are not forced to.

oh hell yess the dm was just wanting to be annoyed just to be annoyed

A good point for story 2, if the fog was so dense they couldn’t see any opponents other than theirs, then technically speaking, their character might not know about the similarities between the weapons of their party and their foes. However, it would be on the DM to make that observation and keep trying to play it out. Seems like the DM dropped the ball when their plan was revealed and they lost focus. So, the player did potentially metagame (not enough details to be sure), but it was on the DM to catch and circumvent it rather than just sulking and holding it against the player.

First story: I believe the DM was working against you he shouldn't let you get the mirror in the first place.

The dms actions are justified only if the medusa had been previously aware of her petrifying gazes weakness, I would have rolled percentile set at 30% to see if she had previous knowlege or exposure to a tactic like this one in the past and if so would have been wary of the mirror otherwise i would have had her attack normally. I would also point out that I would have played the Medusa gaze attack as a triggered ability meaning she could have just looked at the party and not have triggered her petrification gaze.

Apparently the dm has never encountered a polished steel mirror before

The Clone Meta gaming is dependent on the stats of the character. If the character has low Int & Wis then you have to play below your actual logical skills. It isn't fair to pump your physical skills at the cost of the mental ones just to make it up with your real world intellect.

I think so and maybe a work around is just saying Medusa's in her world are immune to her own powers of prettification.

Now.. Amusing about this, is Medusa holding a mirror to mirror a mirror. XD

I've straight up given the party a mirrored shield on their way in to fight a gorgon (I'm not calling it a medusa, that's a specific gorgon. I also don't care if there is a creature called a gorgon. That seems more like a Khalkotauroi)

Story 1: It sounds like the DM has a DM V. Player attitude, and that's not the healthiest way to approach a game unless your players want it to be incredibly difficult. There are two ways of getting around it; 1. The DM could have homebrewed the Medusa to be immune to her own gaze attack (honestly, I would do this to up the challenge a bit, and they weren't doing badly in the lead up). 2. Say that she saw the glint from your shield as you entered, then have her keep her eyes closed for the entire encounter, taking disadvantage, but also making her not take the effect of her gaze. Story 2: You were fine. It can be irksome as a DM if you put work into a mystery, and they figured it out, but that's only a minor nuisance; not a game ending one.

Easy fix to first story: Make a check to see if you know ita a medusa. Even as a scholar, hunter, etc, always make checks for monster knowledge. Honestly, I get where the DM comes from, but that's because I suck at DMing.

1st story: the DM could just explain to the player that their character wouldn’t know that a mirror works against a medusa as this isn’t common knowledge in this world like it is in the real one instead of reluctantly agreeing to everything only to play the scenario out the way they did. Also since the player’s character had some knowledge of creatures due to their background they could ask the DM: Do I know anything about Medusas?

Well a Big mirror is effectively hard to carry. the only metagame is the fact that the medusa know that a character carry a mirror, but is easily fixable as a DM: have a minion encounter the PC and escape to meet the medusa. Than have other minion use "glitter bomb" against the mirror

1. Metal mirrors do exist. A bronze mirror, with a clear lacquer would work. 2. I would expect a medusa to have immunity to petrification, makes sense. But establish this early on. The player is an expert, you can't just wait until the battle to reveal this.

I honestly feel like story 1 was a bit of an esh. Honestly if I were dm, i think it'd be appropriate to tell the player ahead of schedule "the Medusa won't petrify at her own reflection, even in Perseus's fight with her it didn't do that to her, but it could make it so you can look at her without being petrified."

Bad DM with the medusa fight, D&D is about challenging the players and them having a good time, DM wins when that happens. I would probably throw some fights in the lair to make the dungeon part about protecting the guy with the mirror from harm, so the mirror could make it to the fight and then the dice would be the judge of the events (this way even if medusa gets one shoted, they still had the protection of the mirror part to challenge them).

If the DM wanted the mirror plan to not work, they could easily have done so without the BS. In the original Greek myths of Gorgons, their stone gaze only works with direct eye contact, so seeing reflections doesn't work. This is emphasised in the myth of Perseus and made famous in the original Clash of the Titans movie, where Perseus uses his shield as a mirror to watch for Medusa without being turned to stone. The DM could have just used this logic, saying how reflections don't work. It would at least not be metagaming BS and allowed the fight to flow naturally.

@666Vampirefromhell

8 ай бұрын

@@yarion4774 Fair enough but we should always remember rule 0

Story 1: DM was definitely being a poor sport. As the adage goes, shoot the arrows at the monk. If the DM had wanted things to be more dicey, they could have just said "someone saw a snake monster creeping into the caves and Jim's been missing for a week." Then have the party find a statue of Jim AT the dungeon and go on from there. And the whole "the DM always loses" thing is definitely a red flag. Story 2: OP did nothing wrong. Figuring out the ploy given the details described isn't astoundingly difficult, and if the character could still see the other silhouettes in the fight, deducing the situation wouldn't be difficult. If the fog situation was so much that the character was only able to see THEIR opponent, that's a little more a problem. Tho it did just make me imagine doing a fun but incredibly complicated fight on roll20 where everyone is separated and stuck in a fog, and in turn I have them all on different copies of the same map and use nothing but default token icons as the move around until they can figure out what's going on.

OP 1 should've asked to roll an arcana check

she shoulda left some details in the library or something that ur character could 'find' to make it all koseher maybe, tbh ihow did ur character know about medusa's powers was there some context they deduced it from? otherwise meta given meta received, coulda ended better tho.

All on the dm they forgot there's a fine separation between NPC and DM knowledge

It's kinda a double edged sword. I can see why both people would be kinda annoyed after it. In the dms defense, they did appear visibly angry and seemed to have some sort of plan for the encounter, yet the player continued to try and undermine whatever they had planned. I can say as a dm that I understand the feeling of having something surprising and challenging for my players, just to have it completely undone in 3 seconds. In the players defense, thinking outside of the box like this shouldn't be punished like that. As the dm you need to adapt and think of more clever ways to include the players ideas and still make it challenging and fun. And metagaming a players idea into the ground doesn't get that point across.

@TortoiseNotTurtle

8 ай бұрын

Honestly the best thing would probably be to make the Medusa immune or st the very least resistant. That way the mirror isn't totally useless but the encounter isn't entirely over

@kingwildcat6192000

8 ай бұрын

100% agreed.

@FaisLittleWhiteRaven

8 ай бұрын

Absolute worst case scenario the DM could've just flat out said "Hey I can see where this is going and it's clever but I'm concerned you'll steamroll my encounter and that might be unfun. Are you guys ok with that happening or should I just say 'you couldn't find any suitable mirrors for sale at the market?" but really, she just could've done something like make the Medusa a homebrew variant that had adv against her own petrification being bounced back or claimed the medusa had an item that that would 'de petrify' her after a turn to give the players a small win but not the full encounter, and those are both 'fixes' I thought of in like... 3 minutes tops? So yeah. 100% agree and I think that DM might need a break from DMing to be honest; both to help respark her creative thinking and to help get out of that toxic 'DM vs players' mindset (hopefully one of her players will be willing to sub in for the roll and give her a turn at being a player so she can maybe see the other side of things again).

The medusa can SEE the mirror......

A few things 1: hex gives disadvantage on skill checks, saves are another category that hex doesn't cover, so it wouldn't change her chances. 2: mirrors are such a common trump to petrifying gaze that presumably the reflection itself is harmless, so id rule the 'deusa wouldn't need to make a save anyway. I liked OP's creativity though I'd let the down easy in the moment, unlike this GM who handled it very poorly and made the issue one of being a GM rather than the session alone.

Yeahh? My dm. Group enter a tomb of a Mummy lord. When we discovered it, we all asked checks fo see if we knew mummies' weakness ... we didn't said "let's all uses fire"... we asked to roll to know it. 3 of us failed, one of us rolled a nat 20. Dm says "you studied mummies and believe Fire is a weakness you can explore agains that mummy. When we reaxhed it, it was in a LABORATORY of "Science and stuff" where it foregone mutations to change it's weakness from fire to lightening.

@TheMightyBattleSquid

8 ай бұрын

You think knowing bandages are flammable is meta gaming? You might be overthinking it. Trolls? Sure. The corpse rapped in flammable material? Not so much.

Had a dm railroad us by constantly "dm inspiring" my saves in a pvp situation because he didn't like that I had arranged with the others to save my character from a cursed object that he couldn't remove or say anything about. He went as far as claiming he didn't allow characters to maim each other (yet 2 sessions prior we had done blood letting to fake a death) to get around a nat 20 called hit that should have severed the hand with the object (something that I as the player whose character would be maimed was ok with). When confronted he just brushed off the fact that he had turned my character into a villager (stripped of all class feats/abilities and tried to do the same with racial abilities) and said the only way to fix it was to find a high level Mage to remove it.... my character was level 7

I have also played with a DM like this but also ones that weren't my favorite fight against a Medusa resulted in me turning them the stone by attempting to seduce them and then the DM let me use my cloud run from rune knight fighter to open two portals nearly overlapping each other making her look at herself from over my shoulder

Unsure if all these stories are supposed to be from D&D but no version of the medusa needed to keep their eyes closed. In earlier versions they couldn't force the save it just happened if you looked upon them 5E they basically just use it as a reaction. In any event, yes medusae are intelligent and understand their own weaknesses but it did seem a bit contrived.

Why did the PC in the first story not want to reveal the plan with the mirror to their teammates?

@TanukiTracks

8 ай бұрын

I feel like they were trying to be clever, though how the others didn't already know what they were up to I couldn't tell you.

1st Story: DM was being an ass if they seriously think their role as a DM is to "win." Its not, we're not supposed to be against the players, our job is to provide the setting. The world the players inhabit, the NPCs they interact with, and some source of conflict for them to overcome. Its up to us to be the party's story teller, providing the information they need to fill in our blanks with their choices. DM vs Player is a very bad mindset. 2nd Story: Thats not Metagaming. Metagaming is like how I as a Player know what Marut is. But my characters, who know nothing about the other Planes, especially the Plane of Mechanus, shouldn't know what a Marut is or what it can do in character, but because I know out of character, I use that knowledge in character even when my Order of Scribes Wizard shouldn't know anything about the Outer Planes

Yeah that first dm was the bad person. As soon as they said "i never win" thats a bad dm.

Channel name: All Things DnD Topics covered? Reddit stories No campaign reviews, dice comparisons, drama surrounding the various podcasts, WotC politics... "All... that word, I do not think it means what you think it means."

Unless the second story's character had a particularly low wisdom, deduction made by the player can reasonably also be made by the character.

Second story: That wasn't metagaming that was just speculation because the information that led up to it was based on what the DM told already not any information already known

I agree that the DM metagamed in the first story, but I also have problems with how the player acted. Now, it is true that the character was designed as a scholar, but that doesn’t necessarily mean he has specific or accurate knowledge on how to handle medusas, which in the setting of DnD, don’t have to act exactly like the Greek myth, and even if they did, would actually make OP’s plan not work how he thinks it would since Jason only used the mirror to direct his sword, the reflection didn’t turn the gorgon to stone. More communication was needed. The player should have asked if their character knew about Gorgons rather than assuming they just knew, and the DM should have been similarly direct in probing the character’s knowledge.

Wait, isnt a medusa immune to its own petrify?

@lockskelington314

8 ай бұрын

No, but it really should be!

@GreaterGrievobeast55

8 ай бұрын

In dnd I have no idea. In the myth I heard of she is, media people seem to switch the rules around a lot

@lockskelington314

8 ай бұрын

@@GreaterGrievobeast55 In Myth she is not turned to stoned but astonished by how well kept and cared for his Shield is (which was a symbol of Athena) that she hesitates in attacking him when he notices her and cuts off her head. Medusa only ever attacked people that were trying to kill her and she was a devote Worshiper of Athena!

@kingwildcat6192000

8 ай бұрын

Nope its affected by it

@falxblade1352

8 ай бұрын

...well, I found my first home rewrite rule, I guess...

1st Story) DM Metagamed, 2nd Story) Player did not, he figured it out just as his character would have

That is exactly what you’re supposed to do with Medusa, as per the original myth

@tylercoon1791

8 ай бұрын

In the original Myth, Perseus used his shield as a mirror, yes, however, he used it so that he could aim his sword at the Medusa without looking at it. She didn’t petrify herself.

@Echosinfireify

8 ай бұрын

@@tylercoon1791 I just meant turning a mirror into a shield

First story, why not Medusa take a page of Medusa from Fate, where a blindfold and be hot for fucks sake.

first story: beeing a DM is hard! And DMs make mistakes!

“DM always has to loose”. That’s a terrible mindset for someone who is DMing. A DM’s job is not to loose. A DM’s job is to tell the story and create challenging encounters that tell a good story, encourage character growth, and make the experience enjoyable for the players. A DM looses when they think of the game as “DM vs Players”, and no “Players vs the Game, with the DM crafting the story”.

Definitely not meta gaming. That's a conclusion the character could also come to

The first DM definitely needs a break. But it seems to me the first player was metagaming too. Like the player obviously knows the myth of Medusa. But how would the character know to make a mirror shield? Does the character have some previous experience or knowledge or is the player metagaming too?

It's easy, he was the only character with a shield. Also the PC metagaming about the Medusa was there as well.

As far as I'm concerned yes the DM definitely metagamed this player.

The DM 100% metagamed in the first story. There was nothing wrong with the plan, heck, it practically matched the mythology of the monster, yet instead of communicating that the DM did not want the encounter to go that way and hard vetoing the plan, they let it go through then did everything in their power to circumvent it. Either fudge the dice rolls to make the medusa win the skill check and validate the player's attempts, or hard veto the plan up front, be it out of game (i wont allow this) or in game (there is nowhere nearby selling a high enough quality mirror that would work for this plan). Those are the bare minimum answers, but there are plenty of more creative ones. Medusa is civilized and not the monster they thought, and had her eyes closed to try and negotiate with anyone who intruded in her lair until someone would listen (or she perished in the attempt). The mirror gits in the light of the lair, tipping the medusa off that a mirror was in play, and in her cleverness and experience seeing many other adventurers attempt the same thing, she closes her eyes and refuses to look in the mirror's direction, fighting blindfolded. Any homebrew twist on how her petrification works, from making her immune to it, to it being inflicted by some other method than gaze/eye contact.

I think there’s a challenge to the social contract here in the first story. First the GM is also a player and trying their best to provide a challenge and a heroic narrative. Second, think about it for just a moment: if a scholar could find lore to lead him to this conclusion: use a mirror for the win!, don’t you think an entire species of cunning creatures would have the same knowledge. Lastly, it is metagaming. Anytime you pit your real world knowledge against another player (including the GM) you make it a combative. I unfortunately have done this to GMs over the years, sometimes to the point of breaking their will to run a game. It’s ugly behaviour. This fellows GM just wanted to provide a heroic challenge. The player came up with a puzzle fix to undermine not the narrative but the GM. I personally might have GMed this different but the original GM was obviously stymied. How differently? Number 1: silvered glass is ludicrously expensive. A shield sized mirror would cost a couple of thousand gold and not be readily available at a general store. (“A mirror of such proportion? Yes of course sir! I will send a message to the glassworkers of Waterderp to commission such a thing! Perhaps we could discuss the deposit?” Number 2: ask the question: has an entire race never seen their own reflection? Not in a pool of standing water - ever? Medusa was a name. One of three sisters cursed for hubris. But as a race no way could they exist without some resistance. Lastly: if they WERE vulnerable, could you not surmise that this cunning creature could expect such tactics? “Oh how quaint. A shield sized mirror? NO ONE has ever thought of that before. How very clever you are little mouse….”

The first dm is never going to win, because winning to her it's beating up the players. To win is to write a fun story with your friends. If you are not having fun with that you are never going to win.

Hmmm, i feel like in the second story that would've been fine to mention. But I guess it does feel a little weird in character to come to such a conclusion unless the character is really perceptive...or paranoid? YIRBEL LIVES!

I wouldn't say they "punished" the player, but definitely unfairly targeting and unfairly used meta knowledge. Not quite antagonistic, but certainly oppositional and just being a poor sport. The player had a decent plan and the DM intentionally made it feel like a waste of effort. Even though a DM runs the monsters/enemies, you still have to be on the players' side. The adventure shouldn't have been about the Medusa dealing with the threat of the PCs, but the players dealing with the threat of the Medusa.

Personally; the fact that the player knew of the Myth of Perseus & utilities this to face the Medusa ought to be rewarded! (maybe a d4/d6 Inspiration dice) That DM perhaps maybe isn't playing D&D as intended! It's a story with tabletop rules! The 2nd story... Meh! This one's hazy, I'm sure the DM was planning on doing something unique & the player I can imply isn't really metagaming, more a hunch

As a DM since 1977 I say: the DM in the first story was wrong in how they worked to sabotage the OP's plans. The story behind the player wanting the mirror and it mounted as a shield... is reminiscent of the legend of the Medusa being slain using a polished to miror surface shield. There are a few stories of polishing shileds to act as morrors in legends and even some in actual factual accounts dating back at least to Archemedes time. Not knowing the hints the DM gave as to the nature of the creature they were going to run into, I can't say if it was really good guesswork or the DM outright told them what was in the dungeon. Either way, since they claim to have a PC with expertise in creature lore, the need for a mirror would have been obvious... if the PC passed a knowledge check about the creature. As a player, I'd have gone for the polished metal miror surface on the shield, thus it not being subject to shattering. Easily allowable with a few hours of PC's work. (and often ancient mirrors were polished metal or use of a metal bowl with water, not the more modern "silvered glass" which was finally cheap enough to mass produce mirrors of any size only pretty recently.) DM basically set themselves up to fail, then threw a tantrum. DM's job is to have their creatures generally die in 2 to 4 combat rounds... unless the players have the PCs make a pretty obvious mistake. "Facilitator of fun." Not opponent of the players.

@fhuber7507

8 ай бұрын

Story 2.. there are a few ways to have the PCs fight duplicates of themselves. The clone version, they might not be equipped exactly the same. Mirror of opposition and others, usually they are exact duplicates down to how much wine is left in their wineskin. A clasic encounter that has been in use since before the AD&D "First Edition" books got published. It's a nasty thing to do to a PC party because the copies can unload EVERYTHING, having only a need to survive one encouonter. the playesrs have to resource manage, expecting more encounters before rest. Recognizing the clues by DM description and having the PC wait until their turn to shout the warning... is not metagaming. Responding "out of character, out of turn" to a question by another player who comes AFTER them might have been a little meta, but was covered by the PC shout. I give the OP a pass. No harm no foul, continue the game as a DM slightly disappointed the ruse didn't last as long as hoped, but keep smiling as you "go nova" using the cloned PC/NPC opponents' full resources.

I want to point out that this is wrong on many levels. 1) a Medusa is not a monster, it’s a being with a name. So either it was cursed in this form, or it was born like this by other of his kind If the first, maybe she can get petrified by her own powers If the latter, its clearly auto immune. And the Dm could have just said so. Moreover, the Medusa Can see through her snake hairs!!! Otherwise how could she have fought?

I mean, who couldn't have seen the player's plan in the first story from the start? And a well polished steel or better yet silver shield would have been better. Player wasn't being as creative as he thought, but DM was kind of pushing things on her end. Maybe a bit annoyed at a player basically taking an idea straight from the classic myth involving that very monster and acting like he was all clever and original?

In the original myth, Medusa's reflection was harmless. Perseus actually used a mirror to be able to look at Medusa. As far as metagaming is concerned, using a mirror against a medusa is definitely more metagaming than using fire on a troll. "If hitting it until it stops moving does not work, try fire" is something everyone with weapon training would know. How to easily deal with a medusa would be far less common knowledge. But not knowledge that would be hard to obtain, considering the party had enough opportunity to do research.

@TheMightyBattleSquid

8 ай бұрын

Well, as mentioned, the PC was a scholar whose specialty was creatures of this sort.

1st story: How did the in-game character know to target a Medusa's constitution with Hex? That should be considered meta gaming as well. I do also beleive that the DM was being unfair in not allowing the Medusa to look at the charceter, however I have personally never been a fan of the idea that the stone gaze would affect the Medusa itself. So the DM could have rather chosen that option instead, as a DM is allowed to make alterations as they see fit, as long as the immersion of the game is still fun and enjoyable. Admittedly I do have a bias towards Medusa, as a mythological creature, but I remain on my stance that the reflection shouldnt cause the Medusa itself to be petrified.

2nd story: Player: *uses facts their character has just lived through to deduce what might be going on* Also Player: "Is this metagaming?" No, buddy. No, it isn't.

there is what the player knows and what the pc knows, there is what the dm knows and what the npcs and monsters know. yeah story 1: she metagamed you. find a new group

I think they are both dumb because Medusa can't turn herself into stone by the original lore or by anything in the rules so the entire argument is 2 dumb people arguing. Over failure to do anything smart on ether side.😊

1st story is metagaming due to the DM seemingly to "feel" that the player is trying to undo her "game." This is a common problem most DMs do not get. The game is about the PCs' stories, not the DM's. The DM starts the story, the players decide where it goes through their character's choices. 2nd story, no the player did not metagame. Their character might not know they were clones per se, but it would come out as "we are fighting ourselves" which is not metagaming, just a clever deduction. It would be metagaming if the player used knowledge of the clone spell to derive an advantage that their character did not know, but this does not appear to be the case.

If your DM wants to win then they are on the wrong side of the screen.

The first story is ultimately one sided. Often times when players recap previous sessions or recall information they simplify it, leave things out, or just get things wrong. From a GMs perspective saying no is usually seen as a sign of a bad GM by people. So a GM is generally forced to say yes and then need to rely on the dice roll to prevent it from happening. I have had players flip out over not being able to buy exotic items they wanted while in places I told them there would be zero chance to obtain it. Also someone has already mentioned not allowing the player to buy or modify the mirror. The player mentions that he is tired of combat just being "surround the monster and beat them up." I'm not sure how their tactic in the video is any different as the moment the Medusa is hit by their own Petrifying Gaze affect they will surround it and beat it up. Without context of the full adventure I can't tell if they had some other choices there but it just seems odd to me they would complain about what they don't like doing and then continue to do it. From the sounds of it the battle was a 1v5. So in hindsight the GM should have been mean and just throw in a bunch of minions that worked for the Medusa. If I found the right stat block. "If the medusa sees itself reflected on a polished surface within 30 feet of it and in an area of bright light, the medusa is, due to its curse, affected by its own gaze." "The petrification lasts until the creature is freed by the greater restoration spell or other magic." "Unless surprised, a creature can avert its eyes to avoid the saving throw at the start of its turn. " In hindsight a lot of Petrifying Gaze can be countered but trying to think up a proper way to counter on the fly that doesn't feel like cheating is a lot harder for the GM and may cause more problems. When the player brings up how the Medusa had her eyes shut when they entered the cave is where the story gets odd. In this situation the monster could have seen the mirror shield prior to it being wielded against it before the players saw the Medusa. Considering the size of the mirror and I assume the player was making no stealth test to sneak in there. I feel like it is more obvious for the Medusa to see or guess they have a mirror. Towards the end of the story the GM doesn't explain how the monster saw it but says it is clever. So I feel like there is a lot being left out of the story. Why would the GM be annoyed? The player made a character that researches monsters and just knows everything about monsters (?). It seems odd a monster like this would have a glaring weakness everyone could find out by reading a book or whatever. So in hindsight the GM should have been asking for tests to determine if the player had this info but on that same note the player should have asked if they had permission to read the monster stat block and if they needed to make test to recall information about the monster. (Probably something that was over looked in session 0 and their character's creation). Additionally, the GM could have said no to the whole monster scholar thing but that isn't a solution nor the problem. The problem I bet is the player has been using his monster knowledge without having to make skill tests and just assumes they should have that information. I have often played with players who know a lot of lore and play a knowledgeable character and then just assume all that meta information applies to them without asking my opinion on it. It does suck the fun out of things and not just because players win. Point is I just wonder how their previous sessions went that will likely better explain the GM's reaction.

I mean both sound kinda at fault and combative. Dms. Just because a player has a cool idea doesn’t mean you have to twist it or figure out a way around it. Also if you don’t like the shield mirror don’t get mad when you let them roll to craft it, but also I do have to agree that if the creature is smart it’s ok for the dm to play them as such. Overall just sounds like a player wanting to outsmart the story teller while the dm sounds like they often ruin plans they don’t like or one up players in order to “keep it interesting”. Communication was not used here.

@1Kapuchu100

8 ай бұрын

I agree that a smart creature should be played smart, but this Medusa was played as if she knew there was a mirror before she ever saw one, and knew that only ONE of them had a mirror. It would be one thing if the Medusa saw it, and chose to fight with her eyes closed, but she had her eyes closed before they even arrived. That's the biggest issue I have. The DM did everything to stop OP's plan short of saying "No", and it resulted in a shitty situation.

@MitchT97

8 ай бұрын

@@1Kapuchu100 yeah. Mostly on the dm, but still a player can’t be mad if their dm says no which they should have if they didn’t like the plan. Sure it’d still have been a killjoy but at least they could’ve moved on without further conflict. This dm seemed very much the trickster type that likes to screw up a good plan regardless if its a good/cool one that’d generally be fine.

@1Kapuchu100

8 ай бұрын

@@MitchT97The DM had every opportunity to say "No". She could have just said "No one is willing to sell you a mirror", and that would've been that. And You're right, the player had no right to be mad then. But that's sadly not what happened.

@kingwildcat6192000

8 ай бұрын

@@1Kapuchu100 well we were told the dm did disagree/try to make restrictions just that op fault against them and the dm gave in (probably to keep the game going) and allowed them to roll like the making it into a shield bit.

@1Kapuchu100

8 ай бұрын

@@kingwildcat6192000 The DM made reasonable arguments for why carrying a mirror around would be cumbersome. The player made a reasonable argument for a way to get around it. The DM allowed the attempt, and the attempt succeeded. That's not "fighting against restrictions", that's just thinking logically. If the DM wanted to restrict things, she should've said "No" to getting the mirror or "It can't be done" to putting a handle on it.

I can never understand the "DM vs Player" mentality some people have. DnD isn't a competitive game, its collaborative. A DM who gets mad that they aren't "winning" against the party shouldn't DM, or at the very least they need to take a break from DMing

I think the GM of the first story needs to learn what being a GM is about as it's not the gm vs the players the GM is the narrator and story teller who guides are party

The dm worked with him. She let him shut the Medusa down for 4 rounds where party is attacking with advantage against a blind opponent Player is just salty he wasn't allowed to 1 shit that main monster

No they didn't metagame, they just figured out the mystery in front of them. The DM prob wanted to do a big reveal or something.

There's no reason to have done any of this unless they knew ahead of time they were fighting a medusa, which at the beginning they say they're heading into a "mysterious dungeon". Of course they we metagaming, they must've seen the dm's notes. Plus, hex doesn't affect saves, just ability checks, and the medusa is going to know more about how to manipulate her powers than you do, they're just upset that the dm didn't let them Insta kill a monster by ignoring the mechanics. Stop bullying your dms, they're doing all the work so you can get most of the payoff, stop villianizing them.

Story 2, no that's not metagaming. Metagaming would be using out of game knowledge, such as years of dming, to know the exact creature put in front of you, and thus begin telling all its stats. That's metagaming. You figured out the trick in the heat of combat. Figuring out vs already knowing, that's what makes or breaks metagaming. And for anyone out there, if it's in the phb, it's basically common knowledge in any setting. So yeah knowing poison is not useful against dwarves or fire doesn't hurt tieflings as much isn't metagaming. Know that this specific ozz monster eats magic before a single spell has been throw, now that's metagaming.

First Story: A bit of Metagaming from both the player and the DM. But the real issue was the DM was very much "DM vs the Party"; DnD should be cooperative story telling not adversarial "I MUST WIN DND". In other words, DM was being a douchecanoe. This whole thing could have been handled better, but I think the DM (in this situation) was more wrong. Hopefully this wasn't typical and just a bit of frustration boiling over.

First story. If you hadn't mentioned the DM's reactions, i would've have said no meta gaming. If the mirror is large enough to hold as a shield, what Medusa is so stupid that she doesn't know her own reflection could turn her to stone. Once the DM revealed their tactic, you could have tried something different. Everybody line up behind you and fire range weapons, on action attempt to jump in front of other character she is attacking

@1Kapuchu100

8 ай бұрын

But the Medusa never saw the shield, is the thing. The Medusa NEVER looked at OP's character, and has no believably reason to know he had a mirror. The Medusa had her eyes closed when they appeared, only ever opened her eyes when she *wasn't* looking at OP's character, and constantly tried to attack the one guy who had the shield-Mirror that she had never seen. Medusa's aren't stupid, no, but they also aren't omniscient and know if someone has a mirror with some 6th sense of theirs. They would have to see it first. And this one never saw it.

>she >her

1st one: Metagamer gets upset about metagaming, also Hex doesn't hit saves. saves are not ability checks.

Neither player were in the wrong.

Yeah, don't expect the DM to want to play with you again Not cool attacking their DM style, especially right after. There may have been a reason that it was important for you all to battle

So heres some issues I have with this story... One hex only affects CHECKS not SAVES. Meaning this dude has been probably abusing hex to make monsters hella weak. Two the dm was bit of a dick with the medusa. Like I understand weapons and shields can be used as a mirror so it makes sense that they would be smart enough to try and avoid protentional gazing into them. But yeah, she metagamed at the start with the eyes being closed/only when facing OP. Three yeah this dude is a problem player. As a DM its hard to make stories and encounters that can be fun for all, including the dm. When one person power builds, metagames and or knows all the stats of a monster, that they simply know how to beat the monster OOC and ruin encounters. While its wrong for the dm to phrase her problem as "losing dnd" what she meant was "dude I cant build any fun or lasting encounter as you simply buy any and everything to kill it like its this is the JoJo meme." Also saying that "dnd is about the story and having fun" in this context its solely about his/the player players fun only. The dm is also a player and also wants to have fun, this dude doesnt see that and thinks "well I want the story to be about my character knowing all monsters so I can have fun just beating them up" and is just ignoring all the work and feelings of the dm. As he made it very clear he knew the dm was upset and didnt want to allow the mirror or allow it to be made into a shield and still pushed for it. As such he made this a DM v PC game not the dm. Four, its not cool to just know everything about the monster's weakness and abuse it before hand. Overall yes the dm did metagame to not make the encounter a walk in a park. But I gotta say the dude is a "that guy" and trying to make the dm sound worse than she probably was or if hes not, than this has been a long time coming as he probably does this with every encounter.

@kingwildcat6192000

8 ай бұрын

In terms of the second story, no you didnt metagame. You actually used in game knowledge of what your party looked like and used for their weapons and recognized that the enemy used the same exact things and looked mostly similar given the descriptions. Reminds me of one game where the dm (this was on a discord west marsh server that was play by post) described how there were people guarding a carriage. We ended up fighting them for whatever reason and I called them guards as thats what they were doing. After the encounter/quest was over the gm, dmed me and said "to stop metagaming" and I responded to him "I didnt all I did was call them guards, you literally could of used anything and I would of still call them guards" or something to that affect as with the 5e bot "avrae" you can rename monsters as something else like "troll" which be called "tr1" into being "hill giant" which be "hi1" and no one would know anything else, expect when they did something different like healing after being attacked