PDA

View Full Version : Destroying a magical weapon



KeresM
2009-02-22, 04:06 PM
How would a 9th level wizard go about shattering someone's magical weapon?

Yukitsu
2009-02-22, 04:13 PM
With disjunction usually. It's not a good or freindly idea however.

You can also just cast dispel on it to suppress the effect, then use shatter on it, which is typically a warlock tactic.

Please note that this tactic tends to make the party rather ticked off at whoever did it, as it's destroying party wealth.

Edit: Wait, ninth level wizard, not spells. Bleh.

Dispel shatter is the way to go.

ericgrau
2009-02-22, 05:08 PM
It's also a dispel check followed by a 1 in 4 chance that the weapon will be remagical by next round anyway followed by a will save. Pick your targets carefully.

martyboy74
2009-02-22, 05:47 PM
Throw the magic ring weapon into Mt. Doom a volcano.

Advocate
2009-02-22, 05:48 PM
I'm going to open with the obvious question. Why would you want to do that?

I think that guy that kept talking about 'sociopathic Wizards' and you might need to meet, depending on your answer.

KeresM
2009-02-22, 08:11 PM
An individual keeps threatening the wizard and brandishing the weapon, trying to boss the wizard around. The wizard is much smarter than this individual, who is a Leroy Jenkins type. Wizard, needless to say, is getting a bit fed up. Basically, it's nicer than just killing the individual, but lets the individual know the wizard is getting tired of his annoying antics.

NEO|Phyte
2009-02-22, 10:00 PM
If Complete Arcane is an allowed source, Orb of Acid or Orb of Force would be reasonable bets, dealing 1d6/level damage, of the appropriate types, on a ranged touch attack. At 9th level, that averages to 31 damage. Assuming the bonus on the weapon is only +1 and that it is not made of any special material, the average damage would be enough to ruin any weapon that isn't a two-handed sword or a metal-hafted weapon in one shot.

BizzaroStormy
2009-02-22, 10:12 PM
Problem here is, the person wont likely give you the chance to shatter it after casting your spell. More than likely, he/she will respond to your Dispel Magic, by charging you or full attacking you, easily dropping you into the negatives in a couple rounds.

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-02-22, 10:17 PM
Problem here is, the person wont likely give you the chance to shatter it after casting your spell. More than likely, he/she will respond to your Dispel Magic, by charging you or full attacking you, easily dropping you into the negatives in a couple rounds.

If a Wizard can be one-rounded at 9th level by a Leeroy Jenkins type... he deserves it.

Seriously, Dispel + Quickened Shatter = dead blade. Fly first, so he can't reach you.

BizzaroStormy
2009-02-22, 10:23 PM
Right, then the fighter shoots him down with a bow.

Crow
2009-02-22, 10:26 PM
Where did the 9th-level wizard get the 6th level slot for that quickened Shatter?

KeresM
2009-02-22, 10:27 PM
Well that gives me about 30 rounds to act, cause first the fighter would have to go purchase a ranged weapon and ammunition.

Or make his spellcraft check to figure out what I cast, then try to figure out why.

And since most ranged weapons do only about 8 points of damage max, I think a 9th level wizard can handle it.

But you've got a point. I guess I should just kill the fighter instead of trying to give him a chance.

Crow
2009-02-22, 10:30 PM
Why don't you set up a "random encounter" for the fighter with the aid of the Summon Monster line of spells? Should be able to waste him with those no problem.

ericgrau
2009-02-22, 10:31 PM
If Complete Arcane is an allowed source, Orb of Acid or Orb of Force would be reasonable bets, dealing 1d6/level damage, of the appropriate types, on a ranged touch attack. At 9th level, that averages to 31 damage. Assuming the bonus on the weapon is only +1 and that it is not made of any special material, the average damage would be enough to ruin any weapon that isn't a two-handed sword or a metal-hafted weapon in one shot.

You cannot sunder with a ranged attack. Specifically, ranged touched spells can only target a creature. If their gear is targeted it simply hits the creature instead.

Quickened shatter is a 6th level spell, which a 9th level caster cannot cast.


Right, then the fighter shoots him down with a bow.

And any PC with half a brain carries a backup ranged weapon. Or the fighter attacks him with a dagger or grapples him. Or he may carry a spare main weapon (perhaps just to have a spare or a cold iron version or etc.).



And since most ranged weapons do only about 8 points of damage max, I think a 9th level wizard can handle it.

... in the hands of a commoner. Try ~24-30 damage average over multiple attacks from a composite longbow, which is affordable enough. And the attacks have an excellent chance of hitting a wizard's AC even with just BAB + masterwork + dex. A 9th level wizard averages 24 + (con bonus x 9) HP. A little more from false life if he's smart & prepared, assuming he's worried about taking damage and not using his spells for something else.


Why don't you set up a "random encounter" for the fighter with the aid of the Summon Monster line of spells? Should be able to waste him with those no problem.

A summon monster V has the HP, AC, and attack bonus of a wizard, with a bit more martial damage. Instead of summoning why not cast greater magic weapon on yourself to get the damage and charge the fighter with a staff yourself, w/o spells? See how well that goes. Sheesh, the things people come up with. Next we'll be hearing that the wizard could win with cantrips (great now that I've said it someone is going to try...).

Destroying his weapon is a two round tactic with 3 points where it could fail, and even after all that it doesn't completely disable the target anyway. Like it's already been said, the wizard should just attack the fighter or w/e directly. Destroying something's weapon is a bit situational.

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-02-22, 10:35 PM
Right, then the fighter shoots him down with a bow.

How?

Seriously, first you have to hit the wizard, then you have to make it land. And of course, you can't apply all kinds of modifiers on it that you could with a melee weapon. He also likely cannot apply most of his feats to a ranged weapon.

Even if he were to be plinking at the Wizard for ten rounds, he'd still have only even odds of killing the wizard. And if a Wizard cannot destroy one sword in ten rounds, he needs to hand in his character sheet and roll something else.

Actually, a good idea might be Charm Person, ask to inspect the weapon, as you feel the enchantment may be fading, and you are wanting to ensure that it doesn't fail on him. Then, in your hands, you Dispel, then you Shatter. You shakes your head "Tsk, tsk... shoddy craftsmanship. You, sir, got robbed when you purchased that sword."

Crow
2009-02-22, 10:39 PM
"Just as I expected. The enchantment's gone bad." :smallbiggrin:

BizzaroStormy
2009-02-22, 10:45 PM
That one possibility. The other is...

Fighter: *succeeds will save and grabs wizard by the throat*

Wizard: *Not in the face! Not in the face!*

*Censored*

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-02-22, 10:48 PM
That one possibility. The other is...

Fighter: *succeeds will save and grabs wizard by the throat*

Wizard: *Not in the face! Not in the face!*

*Censored*

To which the Wizard says "Mirror Image... you have a 12.5% chance of grabbing the right throat, failure means you get an Enervation in the face for the next three rounds as I fly out of your reach. So the real question is: Do you feel lucky, punk?"

Flickerdart
2009-02-22, 10:48 PM
Quickened Grease on the weapon, then Entangle. Laugh as a free action. You still have your move action left and he's already incapacitated.

BizzaroStormy
2009-02-22, 10:51 PM
To which the Wizard says "Mirror Image... you have a 12.5% chance of grabbing the right throat, failure means you get an Enervation in the face for the next three rounds as I fly out of your reach. So the real question is: Do you feel lucky, punk?"

This would indicate that the wizard did not attempt the charm person. Therefore, the fighter would still have his sword. Really the issue depends on the current situation, as well as the rest of the party's reaction to it.

NEO|Phyte
2009-02-22, 10:55 PM
Specifically, ranged touched spells can only target a creature.
And here I was thinking that only spells with "Target: One creature" HAD to target a creature. Care to share the location of the rule stating that ranged touch spells are required to target a creature?

ericgrau
2009-02-22, 11:00 PM
And here I was thinking that only spells with "Target: One creature" HAD to target a creature. Care to share the location of the rule stating that ranged touch spells are required to target a creature?



Sunder
You can use a melee attack with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon to strike a weapon or shield that your opponent is holding. If youíre attempting to sunder a weapon or shield, follow the steps outlined here. (Attacking held objects other than weapons or shields is covered below.)

Sunder can only be done with a melee attack. I'll brb to see what I can find specifically in the spells section, but that's enough right there.

EDIT:

Ray
Some effects are rays. You aim a ray as if using a ranged weapon, though typically you make a ranged touch attack rather than a normal ranged attack. As with a ranged weapon, you can fire into the dark or at an invisible creature and hope you hit something. You donít have to see the creature youíre trying to hit, as you do with a targeted spell. Intervening creatures and obstacles, however, can block your line of sight or provide cover for the creature youíre aiming at.

There's that and the example of targetting a tower shield to hit a creature with a ranged touch spell. The spell then hits the creature not the tower shield, even though the tower shield is otherwise providing total cover against all ranged attacks. And naturally you also hit the creature even when the ray hits his armor; you're targetting his touch AC. So the sunder rules explain it best.

Wafflecart
2009-02-22, 11:01 PM
Right, then the fighter shoots him down with a bow.

not if he didnt take quickdraw to change weapons as a free action

NEO|Phyte
2009-02-22, 11:06 PM
Sunder can only be done with a melee attack. I'll brb to see what I can find specifically in the spells section, but that's enough right there.
Aside from the minor detail that sundering only applies if we're using the Sunder special attack. We're not. What we are doing here is smashing an object (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/exploration.htm#smashinganObject). Sundering is but one way of doing this. It is NOT the only way, or rules like this:
Ranged Weapon Damage

Objects take half damage from ranged weapons (unless the weapon is a siege engine or something similar). Divide the damage dealt by 2 before applying the objectís hardness. would not be needed, as, as you've stated, sundering can ONLY be done with melee attacks.

ericgrau
2009-02-22, 11:09 PM
Aside from the minor detail that sundering only applies if we're using the Sunder special attack. We're not. What we are doing here is smashing an object (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/exploration.htm#smashinganObject). Sundering is but one way of doing this. It is NOT the only way, or rules like this: would not be needed, as, as you've stated, sundering can ONLY be done with melee attacks.

From your own link:


Smashing an Object
Smashing a weapon or shield with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon is accomplished by the sunder special attack. Smashing an object is a lot like sundering a weapon or shield, except that your attack roll is opposed by the objectís AC. Generally, you can smash an object only with a bludgeoning or slashing weapon.


You're thinking of attacking an unattended object, which could be done with a spell or siege equipment or whatever. Against a weapon, the rules say specifically it is a sunder attack. And the sunder rules say this can only be done with a melee bludgeoning or slashing weapon.

Likewise you could not destroy someone's held sword with a catapult rock, though it'd be amusing to see someone try:
"Line up the shot!"
"Lining up"
"Fire rock!"
"Firing!"
"He didn't move his sword that time and it hit, but his arm gave out and the rock crushed him instead. He's pinned so we should have a better shot this time. Adjust 3 feet to the left, aim for the sword extending from the squirming arm."
"Adjusting catapult sir!"

NEO|Phyte
2009-02-22, 11:12 PM
Against a weapon, the rules say specifically it is a sunder attack.

Smashing an Object

Smashing a weapon or shield with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon is accomplished by the sunder special attack. Smashing an object is a lot like sundering a weapon or shield, except that your attack roll is opposed by the objectís AC. Generally, you can smash an object only with a bludgeoning or slashing weapon.
Emphasis mine.

ericgrau
2009-02-22, 11:15 PM
Okay, assuming for a moment that they didn't specify slashing or bludgeoning weapon because those are the only weapons you can use (and not because they surely mean to imply that the rules for sundering with a piercing weapon are later in the section)... where's the rule for smashing a held object with a ranged attack then?

Yukitsu
2009-02-22, 11:15 PM
Likewise you could not destroy someone's held sword with a catapult rock, though it'd be amusing to see someone try:
"Line up the shot!"
"Lining up"
"Fire rock!"
"Firing!"
"He didn't move his sword that time and it hit, but his arm gave out and the rock crushed him instead. He's pinned so we should have a better shot this time. Adjust 3 feet to the left, aim for the sword extending from the squirming arm."
"Adjusting catapult sir!"

Can you do this with the ranged sunder feat, or would that just be too silly?

NEO|Phyte
2009-02-22, 11:23 PM
Okay, assuming for a moment that they didn't specify slashing or bludgeoning weapon because those are the only weapons you can use (and not because the rules for sundering with a piercing weapon are later in the section)... where's the rule for smashing a held object with a ranged attack then?

I already linked them. Note that the smashing an object rules don't specify between held or unheld objects, so technically, smashing an UNHELD weapon with a bludgeoning/slashing weapon is done with the sunder special attack, despite there not being a defender to make an opposed roll. As for rules specific to ranged attacks...


Furthermore, if you take a full-round action to line up a shot, you get an automatic hit with a melee weapon and a +5 bonus on attack rolls with a ranged weapon.

...

Ranged Weapon Damage

Objects take half damage from ranged weapons (unless the weapon is a siege engine or something similar). Divide the damage dealt by 2 before applying the objectís hardness.

Nerd-o-rama
2009-02-22, 11:25 PM
Well that gives me about 30 rounds to act, cause first the fighter would have to go purchase a ranged weapon and ammunition.

Or make his spellcraft check to figure out what I cast, then try to figure out why.

And since most ranged weapons do only about 8 points of damage max, I think a 9th level wizard can handle it.

But you've got a point. I guess I should just kill the fighter instead of trying to give him a chance.If a melee specialist isn't smart enough to carry a backup ranged weapon, yeah, it's probably better in the long run for you to just kill him.

tyckspoon
2009-02-22, 11:26 PM
There's that and the example of targetting a tower shield to hit a creature with a ranged touch spell. The spell then hits the creature not the tower shield, even though the tower shield is otherwise providing total cover against all ranged attacks. And naturally you also hit the creature even when the ray hits his armor; you're targetting his touch AC. So the sunder rules explain it best.

Tower Shields only pass through actual targeted spells (which does not, let us remember, mean 'any spell you aim at something'. Targeted spells are those with Targets: One Creature or similar in their statblocks.) A Ranged Touch is typically not targeted. If I were to launch a Disintegrate at a Tower Shield somebody was using for cover, I would absolutely expect the Tower Shield to be dusted instead of the guy behind it. That's the purpose of using a Tower Shield for cover, after all- it prevents line of sight and line of effect for everything except the one exception of targeted spells.

ericgrau
2009-02-22, 11:28 PM
^ The rules specifically say in such an instance that the one carrying the tower shield would be hit (and dusted) and not the shield. Area of effect spells, however, would be blocked. Do I have to do all the quoting today? www.d20srd.org. It's under equipment => armor => tower shield, go look it up. I'm gonna go play video games now or something.


Can you do this with the ranged sunder feat, or would that just be too silly?

I think there was a gaming group somewhere on these forums that would allow such things on the sheer basis of silliness, but only once.

NEO|Phyte: Please quote the section of link with rules on sundering with a ranged attack. Especially how it works with a piercing melee or ranged weapon, since it seems they would fall under the same exemption. Hmmm.... catapult rocks too.

tyckspoon
2009-02-22, 11:43 PM
Equipment->Armor->Tower Shield (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/armor.htm#shieldTower):


Shield, Tower

This massive wooden shield is nearly as tall as you are. In most situations, it provides the indicated shield bonus to your AC. However, you can instead use it as total cover, though you must give up your attacks to do so. The shield does not, however, provide cover against targeted spells; a spellcaster can cast a spell on you by targeting the shield you are holding. You cannot bash with a tower shield, nor can you use your shield hand for anything else.

When employing a tower shield in combat, you take a -2 penalty on attack rolls because of the shieldís encumbrance.

..uh.. yeah. I *was* looking at that. It still fails to mention anything other than targeted spells. Rays are not targeted spells. I'm open to being told of other places the rule might be, but it certainly isn't under the description of a Tower Shield in the SRD.

NEO|Phyte
2009-02-22, 11:45 PM
NEO|Phyte: Please quote the section of link with rules on sundering with a ranged attack. Especially how it works with a piercing melee or ranged weapon, since it seems they would fall under the same exemption. Hmmm.... catapult rocks too.
There ARE no explicitly laid-out rules for how it works with a ranged attack, my last post quoted all the sections of the rules specifically relevant to ranged attacks. Since that post's on the last page, here's the sections again:


Armor Class

Objects are easier to hit than creatures because they usually donít move, but many are tough enough to shrug off some damage from each blow. An objectís Armor Class is equal to 10 + its size modifier + its Dexterity modifier. An inanimate object has not only a Dexterity of 0 (-5 penalty to AC), but also an additional -2 penalty to its AC. Furthermore, if you take a full-round action to line up a shot, you get an automatic hit with a melee weapon and a +5 bonus on attack rolls with a ranged weapon.

...

Ranged Weapon Damage

Objects take half damage from ranged weapons (unless the weapon is a siege engine or something similar). Divide the damage dealt by 2 before applying the objectís hardness.

If you specifically want sundering, as in the special attack, the Ranged Sundering feat is on page 104 of Complete Warrior. It allows sundering with ranged weapons if you're within 30 feet, and lets you deal full damage to objects with bludgeoning/slashing ranged weapons.

Advocate
2009-02-23, 07:50 AM
An individual keeps threatening the wizard and brandishing the weapon, trying to boss the wizard around. The wizard is much smarter than this individual, who is a Leroy Jenkins type. Wizard, needless to say, is getting a bit fed up. Basically, it's nicer than just killing the individual, but lets the individual know the wizard is getting tired of his annoying antics.

Incorrect. Destroying stuff, particularly a beatstick's stuff is a crueler thing to do than to simply kill the owner.

Is this an enemy you will encounter on the battlefield, or a PC, or what? Because casting a Chained Dispel, to remove all of his buffs and turn off his items for 1d4 rounds is practically assured of getting him killed by the other PCs (if an enemy) or the enemies (if a PC).

KeresM
2009-02-23, 11:05 AM
If a melee specialist isn't smart enough to carry a backup ranged weapon, yeah, it's probably better in the long run for you to just kill him.

And probably easier. Maybe I'll just go cliche and turn him into a frog.

I was looking for an object lesson in 'if your character keeps being a **** to the other PCs, they will eventually get fed up with it', but perhaps the lesson should be directed at the player rather than the character. So, kill the PC and let him see that due to his actions not a single one of the other PCs is willing to put forth the effort into rezzing him, and perhaps he'll learn.

Advocate
2009-02-23, 11:28 AM
And probably easier. Maybe I'll just go cliche and turn him into a frog.

I was looking for an object lesson in 'if your character keeps being a **** to the other PCs, they will eventually get fed up with it', but perhaps the lesson should be directed at the player rather than the character. So, kill the PC and let him see that due to his actions not a single one of the other PCs is willing to put forth the effort into rezzing him, and perhaps he'll learn.

Funny you should mention that, seeing as you are at the exact level to cast Baleful Polymorph. Might want to open up with Enervation/Ray of Sickness/Imperious Command to lower his saves with no save first, since it is Fortitude based.

Also, as an added bonus you get to loot the corpse.

Lapak
2009-02-23, 03:26 PM
And probably easier. Maybe I'll just go cliche and turn him into a frog.

I was looking for an object lesson in 'if your character keeps being a **** to the other PCs, they will eventually get fed up with it', but perhaps the lesson should be directed at the player rather than the character. So, kill the PC and let him see that due to his actions not a single one of the other PCs is willing to put forth the effort into rezzing him, and perhaps he'll learn.As is the case in nearly 100% of cases where one player is annoying the other players, it IS more productive to direct your efforts at the player. And not in a petty-revenge way, by harming his or her character, either - have you tried just talking to the player in question to let them know that they're irritating everyone? Getting back at them in-game, whether you're the player or the DM, tends to lead to one of two things: a group with escalated in-fighting ('He blew up my sword. I'm going to wait until we're all asleep, then stab him and dump him in the chasm.') or a smaller group as people get fed up and leave.

KeresM
2009-02-24, 09:03 AM
have you tried just talking to the player in question to let them know that they're irritating everyone?

Yeah, he laughs and has a 'so what are you going to do about it' attitude. Thus I wished to demonstrate that we were going to do something about it.

It is my belief that he has continued his behavior thus far because there have been no actual consequences for continuing his behavior.

Reinboom
2009-02-24, 09:12 AM
I would rather do things along the lines of (for such a player):
Dominate
Humiliate
Kill

Personally. :smalltongue:

Telonius
2009-02-24, 09:31 AM
At ninth level, the Wizard might summon a Celestial Brown Bear to sunder it for him.

Or, specialize in illusion, buy a potion of Glibness, and cast "Magic Aura" on a standard MW sword. Pretend it's a slightly more powerful sword with a different capability. Offer to trade it at a discount. Teleport out of there, and destroy it at your leisure.

Advocate
2009-02-24, 09:50 AM
If you're going to steal it, sell it. Use the cash to buy whatever you want.

Also, if he wants to try to get back at you after completely nullifying his ability, let him. First he has to figure out how to sneak into your Magnificent Mansion.

Riffington
2009-02-24, 03:46 PM
Yeah, he laughs and has a 'so what are you going to do about it' attitude. Thus I wished to demonstrate that we were going to do something about it.

It is my belief that he has continued his behavior thus far because there have been no actual consequences for continuing his behavior.

Look, no need to break things or kill him. Just summon something bigger to give him a wedgie.

KeresM
2009-02-24, 05:42 PM
Also, if he wants to try to get back at you after completely nullifying his ability, let him.

I'm really not sure why you keep claiming that sundering a weapon is completely nullifying him. I mean, seriously, any fighter of equal level could easily sunder the weapon. So why is it such a major issue that a wizard do it?

So I break his sword (a +1 longsword, btw) and he spends his share of the party treasure to buy another one and hopefully learns that people will get tired of being pushed.

Advocate
2009-02-24, 06:18 PM
I'm really not sure why you keep claiming that sundering a weapon is completely nullifying him. I mean, seriously, any fighter of equal level could easily sunder the weapon. So why is it such a major issue that a wizard do it?

So I break his sword (a +1 longsword, btw) and he spends his share of the party treasure to buy another one and hopefully learns that people will get tired of being pushed.

Yes, they could. However, the point is that without his shinies, he's nothing. No smart enemy Fighter would break it, as they would be destroying their own treasure. Surely your Wizard is more intelligent than a Fighter?

Steal the sword and sell it. Kill him. But don't be a douchebag.

Vonriel
2009-02-24, 09:08 PM
Honestly, this guy sounds like he doesn't know how to behave properly in the game, and any action you take against him would be fruitless. I think your absolute best course of action is to get the DM to sit him down and explain what is and isn't ok, and if he continues acting the way he is, he won't be welcome at the table any longer. If he refuses to change, it's time to get rid of him. Why, you may ask? Any actions you take to screw with him won't actually teach him a lesson, and he'll likely just continue being a jerk to the wizard (and other PCs, I'm assuming) just on a whole new level - instead of threatening you with his sword, he might try to kill you. If you kill him and don't resurrect him, he may build a character specifically with the goal of killing you in mind.

If you absolutely must mess with him, go nonlethal. Get your hands on a scroll of dominate person (or even better, learn the spell next level) and make him your slave. He follows you around for the full ten day duration, doing exactly as you order him to, and on the ninth day you make him sit peacefully while the rogue (or other skillmonkey) binds him, then you dismiss the spell See Edit. If there's any indication at all that he is going to do anything but sit there, you dominate him again and repeat the process. Eventually, he might get the message, though it's much more likely that he'll just try to get himself killed, the DM will intervene, or he'll just plain quit. If he does manage to lose the character, he will in all likelihood roll a character with high will saves and use him to attack you the first chance he gets, because people like him aren't likely to change through actions like this, they're just more likely to escalate the conflict.

Edit: Dominate isn't dismissable, but that changes little: you just make sure to bind him just prior to the time dominate is supposed to run out, and recast it, instead of dismissing it early.

KeresM
2009-02-24, 10:28 PM
Surely your Wizard is more intelligent than a Fighter?

Surely you don't think that a wizard is really going to care about a longsword that she could sell for about a thousand gold when she can go make several thousand gold a day casting teleports for people?

You seem to think the entire issue is about the treasure.


Steal the sword and sell it. Kill him. But don't be a douchebag.

I'm still amused that you think outright killing the character is less of a douchebag action than making him go to the local magical item shop and buying a new toy.

So thank you, you've convinced me that the better option is to instead kill the character he's been playing for the better part of a year from first level. Because it's nicer than making him grab another sword from the party loot bag.

DisgruntledFrog
2009-02-25, 08:03 AM
Some alternatives to breaking the weapon;

If you think the player will respond to a warning, wait until it your next watch and use Dream to send a warning. If that doesn't work, use Nightmare (take a snip of his hair before casting to get the nice -15 to his will save).

You could use Bestow Curse and only agree to remove it if he backs down.

Good old fashioned explosive runes could prove to be pursuasive. Or for something different, use a Sepia Snake Sigil to incapacitate him then feel free to do whatever to his helpless body.

You could remove his ability to bully completely with a well placed Feeblemind.

Arcane Mark "LOOSER" onto his forehead.

Use Magic Jar to poses his body. Go commit some crimes/destroy his reputation then return back to your body. Or just keep your new body.

Zen Master
2009-02-25, 09:43 AM
It's funny. From experience, the player who would stoop so low as to actually plan hostility against another party member, is the one causing problems.

Again, from experience, I've never seen anyone planning hostility towards other players/characters to actually contribute anything what so ever towards solving problems.

Kaiyanwang
2009-02-25, 09:58 AM
Equipment->Armor->Tower Shield (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/armor.htm#shieldTower):



..uh.. yeah. I *was* looking at that. It still fails to mention anything other than targeted spells. Rays are not targeted spells. I'm open to being told of other places the rule might be, but it certainly isn't under the description of a Tower Shield in the SRD.

Hey... in the Italian manual has been translated wrong. In this way makes a lot more sense...

Tyckspoon, you saved my day! :smallsmile: *

*Since we are in teh internet: seriously, no sarcasm.

KeresM
2009-02-25, 10:18 AM
It's funny. From experience, the player who would stoop so low as to actually plan hostility against another party member, is the one causing problems.

Again, from experience, I've never seen anyone planning hostility towards other players/characters to actually contribute anything what so ever towards solving problems.

{Scrubbed}

Advocate
2009-02-25, 10:26 AM
Surely you don't think that a wizard is really going to care about a longsword that she could sell for about a thousand gold when she can go make several thousand gold a day casting teleports for people?

You seem to think the entire issue is about the treasure.

1,157.5 gold in the bag, with no effort vs trying to arrange buyers and such for selling spellcasting. Hm... Bird in the hand, two in the bush? Also, if you can make a few k gold a day, you have infinite wealth, and can thus do far more creative things to him anyways.


I'm still amused that you think outright killing the character is less of a douchebag action than making him go to the local magical item shop and buying a new toy.

So thank you, you've convinced me that the better option is to instead kill the character he's been playing for the better part of a year from first level. Because it's nicer than making him grab another sword from the party loot bag.

Mostly because it is. Having stuff broken is literally a fate worse than death. At low levels, if you die you can just make a new character with a full set of gear. If your stuff gets broken you're forced to remain a gimp forever... unless you retire. See, it's possible to die well, such that death isn't a problem. But undignified retirement? Forget it. Even if you die poorly, at least you had a somewhat appropriate end instead of becoming just another bartender mid level Fighter NPC. Where do you suppose they all come from anyways? At higher levels, same thing except that being brought back from the dead is cheaper than replacing the item, so you can keep playing the same character if you want, and even if you lose a level from that it's not a permanent drawback due to Gravy Train.

Highly dangerous monsters? Sure. Save or dies? Bring it on. Breaking stuff? There's difficulty, and then there's douchebaggery. Breaking stuff is the latter, no contest. I could keep going, but most of the anti breaking stuff rant is only relevant when applied to DMs that do it.

KeresM
2009-02-25, 10:27 AM
Some alternatives to breaking the weapon

The reason breaking his weapon was considered is that whenever his character is being a jerk, he RPs brandishing this particular weapon. It's become a bit of a joke that the sword is secretly an intelligent weapon of the chaotic stupid variety and thus the actual source of the woe.

The other reason is, at the moment there are two other +1 weapons in the party loot, and a +1...can't remember if it is flaming or icy weapon as well. He just happens to like this one and thinks the wizard should be completely honored when he pesters her to increase the enchantment (no talk of compensating for these benefits or anything like that) instead of using one of the ones in the party loot.

Thus, the hardship incurred by shattering this particular weapon is next to nil, it's simply driving a point home that the next time the wizard says, 'leave me alone or else', 'or else' is not meaningless. It's quick, it's to the point, and it doesn't devastate anyone's ability to play the game.

We've nearly lost fights (and I've lost a PC) because he won't use ranged weapons and instead runs screaming into combat, thus negating the caster's abilities to use area of effect spells, and when confronted OOCly, says 'it's just my RP, he likes the sword, it's his style'.

Advocate
2009-02-25, 10:33 AM
So you should find a way to kill him with that sword. Gotcha.

...Does Backbiter work on swords?

KeresM
2009-02-25, 10:42 AM
So you should find a way to kill him with that sword.

If I'm going to kill him I'm just going to kill him. Orb of electricity + sucky reflex save + no ranged weapon = dead fighter.

Advocate
2009-02-25, 10:49 AM
If I'm going to kill him I'm just going to kill him. Orb of electricity + sucky reflex save + no ranged weapon = dead fighter.

Reflex save on an orb?

That works too of course, but if you're going for appreciation of irony...

KeresM
2009-02-25, 12:29 PM
Having stuff broken is literally a fate worse than death.

Um...okay. However, in our game, we play to roleplay, not to simply amass stuff.

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-02-25, 12:41 PM
Simple:

"Okay, I'll beef up the enchantment... let me see it a moment..."
Takes the sword. Pass a note to the GM:

"I'm casting Dispel Magic on the sword to render it temporarily non-magical. The next spell I cast will be targeted Shatter to destroy it"

Now you say to him "First, I shall lay an enchantment on it to give the blade a Keen edge..." *cast Dispel Magic*

"Now I shall improve the magic on it to such levels that even the mighty Tarrasque shall tremble in fear from it..." *cast Shatter*

You look dumfounded at the shattered pices

"I guess the blade was simply of inferior quality, and could not handle such potent enchantments...":smallbiggrin:

Hal
2009-02-25, 01:13 PM
Yeah, he laughs and has a 'so what are you going to do about it' attitude. Thus I wished to demonstrate that we were going to do something about it.

It is my belief that he has continued his behavior thus far because there have been no actual consequences for continuing his behavior.

I believe this situation calls for Evard's Penetrating Tentacles.

Zen Master
2009-02-25, 01:29 PM
{Scrubbed}

Oh good heavens no, I'm enitirely wet behind the ears. 21 years playing roleplaying games - I mean seriously, I can still hardly tell a d20 from a d12.

{Scrubbed}

Jack Zander
2009-02-25, 01:34 PM
You are making this way too complicated. He's a fellow party member. You know where he sleeps and where he keeps his loot. Destroy it then.

Though, it would be much more funny if you convinced him you were going to make it more powerful and destroy it instead.

The arbiter in me says to actually give the sword the throwing and returning enchantments so he can still have his sword and stay out of melee at the same time.

Advocate
2009-02-25, 01:50 PM
Um...okay. However, in our game, we play to roleplay, not to simply amass stuff.

Ok. Except you can't do that if you're dead, which you will be if you don't keep your stuff up.


I believe this situation calls for Evard's Penetrating Tentacles.

Tch. Evard's Spiked Tentacles of Forced Intrusion. Who authored your spellbook? :smallwink:

KeresM
2009-02-25, 02:10 PM
Oh good heavens no, I'm enitirely wet behind the ears. 21 years playing roleplaying games - I mean seriously, I can still hardly tell a d20 from a d12.

No no - don't mind me. What you're doing isn't the least bit immature, unnecessary, overreacting and completely out of touch with reality. You're not just playing a game with friends - clearly revenge is a valid option.

In 21+ years of gaming, you've never had any interparty conflict? Seriously? What game do you play?


Ok. Except you can't do that if you're dead, which you will be if you don't keep your stuff up.

Look, I've played a LOT of fighter types. The destruction of a single item should not devastate ANY character.

Advocate
2009-02-25, 02:42 PM
Look, I've played a LOT of fighter types. The destruction of a single item should not devastate ANY character.

Should not? I agree. However, it does in spite of your wishes, and because it just is you have to deal with it.

Origomar
2009-02-25, 03:00 PM
The reason breaking his weapon was considered is that whenever his character is being a jerk, he RPs brandishing this particular weapon. It's become a bit of a joke that the sword is secretly an intelligent weapon of the chaotic stupid variety and thus the actual source of the woe.

The other reason is, at the moment there are two other +1 weapons in the party loot, and a +1...can't remember if it is flaming or icy weapon as well. He just happens to like this one and thinks the wizard should be completely honored when he pesters her to increase the enchantment (no talk of compensating for these benefits or anything like that) instead of using one of the ones in the party loot.

Thus, the hardship incurred by shattering this particular weapon is next to nil, it's simply driving a point home that the next time the wizard says, 'leave me alone or else', 'or else' is not meaningless. It's quick, it's to the point, and it doesn't devastate anyone's ability to play the game.

We've nearly lost fights (and I've lost a PC) because he won't use ranged weapons and instead runs screaming into combat, thus negating the caster's abilities to use area of effect spells, and when confronted OOCly, says 'it's just my RP, he likes the sword, it's his style'.



i see how that would be annoying. but you dont have to use magic you could simply ask him for the sword and say your going to enchant it then throw it off a cliff. problem solved no magic wasted then if he attacks you use magic on him :D
or you can bribe the party druid to change metal to wood then make the wood strangle him. :D yay

Person_Man
2009-02-25, 03:27 PM
Destroying a magical weapon is always a bad idea.

If you're a PC destroying an NPC's magic weapon, you're depriving yourself of treasure.

If you're a PC destroying another PC's magic weapon, that PC will hate you for ever. Not just his character. The player will you with a bitter passion, and this hatred will most likely persist long after the campaign is over. As a DM I ban inter-party violence of any type specifically because it tends to lead to such problems.

If you're a DM destroying a PC's magic weapon, then the PC will hate you. And even if they do take it in stride, you're still screwing their build. Non-casters need magic weapons to remain competitive, and without them they're much weaker. This can sometimes be solved by giving them an even better weapon or pile of gold. But even then, they will most likely be pissed.

So in summary, do not destroy magic weapons.

Advocate
2009-02-25, 05:05 PM
Destroying a magical weapon is always a bad idea.

If you're a PC destroying an NPC's magic weapon, you're depriving yourself of treasure.

If you're a PC destroying another PC's magic weapon, that PC will hate you for ever. Not just his character. The player will you with a bitter passion, and this hatred will most likely persist long after the campaign is over. As a DM I ban inter-party violence of any type specifically because it tends to lead to such problems.

If you're a DM destroying a PC's magic weapon, then the PC will hate you. And even if they do take it in stride, you're still screwing their build. Non-casters need magic weapons to remain competitive, and without them they're much weaker. This can sometimes be solved by giving them an even better weapon or pile of gold. But even then, they will most likely be pissed.

So in summary, do not destroy magic weapons.

I like you. Other than that, only things I have to say in response to this is if you're going to turn around and give them something else right after anyways... what was the point of being a douchebag in the first place?

Also, that should be don't destroy magic items.

With that said, I would allow inter party violence if it was for a good reason. No Chaotic Stupid crap, that gets the Infinity Plus One DMG to the head. No breaking stuff either, that gets you full attacked by the Infinite Plus One D&D book collection. All at once. I might even break my own rule of 'no power tripping douchebaggery' to make an epic dragon appear and eat that character for their foolishness. Ok, no I wouldn't. But you gotta admit, that is a perfectly justified reaction to such immense stupidity.

KeresM
2009-02-25, 05:15 PM
Should not? I agree. However, it does in spite of your wishes, and because it just is you have to deal with it.

Except, you know, it doesn't, because there are better items available for immediate use, which frankly he should be using anyway.

I suppose I could bestow curse and take his strength score away. That's not a problem for fighters, is it?

Baleful polymorphing into a toad wouldn't devastate a PC, right? Even though it has that nagging chance of permanently destroying their mental capacity.

Frankly, of all the options available to a 9th level wizard, breaking a single +1 longsword is among the nicer.

Unless I break his weapon in the middle of a prolonged combat scene, this is a minor inconvenience. In fact, this thread has shown me that it's such a minor inconvenience that it's probably not enough.

Advocate
2009-02-25, 05:45 PM
Sure, why not? Knock his Con down. He can actually recover from that instead of being forever screwed. Turn into a toad? He can reroll since he's out of play.

You're a Wizard. Know how many ways you have to screw with a Fighter?

"IT'S OVER 9,000!"

If you can't up with something more creative, and less douchebaggish than breaking his sword you need to turn your spellbook NOW and report to Reject Fighter school immediately, as your lack of devious forethought is an insult to the Wizarding profession.

Note that the above is aimed at the Wizard character, and not the player. Just in case saying it several times didn't get through.

KeresM
2009-02-25, 05:52 PM
Sure, why not? Knock his Con down. He can actually recover from that instead of being forever screwed. Turn into a toad? He can reroll since he's out of play.

You've missed the part again where there are other (better!) weapons immediately available.

I'm seriously starting to wonder if you are the fighter in question.

The Glyphstone
2009-02-25, 06:04 PM
Get the DM to approve a Permanencied Grease on the sword? Hilarity Will Ensue, and unless the fighter can find an NPC wizard with a higher CL than yours, he can't even Dispel it.

MammonAzrael
2009-02-25, 06:04 PM
If there are better weapons he can be using, and is using this one purely because he wants to, then yes, destroying the sword is a good call. It will barely, if at all, affect your parties combat capability, and it destroys something the player has gone out of his way to use, even though there are stronger options out there. I'd suggest Sonic or acid damage, make friend with a Warlock, or simply through it over a cliff. Or have the rogue steal it at night, then hide it with an illusion in a tree or something.

That being said, you should not take this out in character. Since talking directly to the player hasn't worked, speak with the DM. If the DM doesn't get him to change his attitude, kick him out of the game. And that should be the end of it.

Advocate: Yes, martial characters rely on shinies more than they should have to. However, a +1 longsword is not a devastating loss, especially not by 9th level. It can be replaced with a simple Longsword and a level 1 spell.

Advocate
2009-02-25, 06:08 PM
You've missed the part again where there are other (better!) weapons immediately available.

I'm seriously starting to wonder if you are the fighter in question.

Doesn't matter. He's still permanently down x wealth.

Also, I would not play a Fighter 9. I would not be a jerk ass to other PCs, and if I did, I'd do so by pulling a Batman and pulling off some impossible to counter plan to kill your character, thereby getting all your loot and lots of free power. Of course, I'd need the tools to do that, which means I would not be a Fighter. I would be a caster myself, and stack the odds such so that you don't survive, you don't even get any warning, you just DIE.

Instead of, or in addition to that if it were me I would say nothing at all to this thread, then Magnificent Bastard the crap out of you for daring to act against me.

Since I am posting here, you know your character's ultimate destruction is not imminent. :smallamused:

Edit: Still missing the point. The point is, if you break your own stuff you are an idiot. Full stop. Breaking someone else's stuff is the same as breaking your own stuff, because if it isn't combat already it's going there right after... and what else are you going to do with it, now that you've killed them? The only difference is that it's a few seconds away from being in your hand instead of already there.

KeresM
2009-02-25, 08:54 PM
Get the DM to approve a Permanencied Grease on the sword? Hilarity Will Ensue, and unless the fighter can find an NPC wizard with a higher CL than yours, he can't even Dispel it.

The other option on the table was stinking cloud + permanency.


If there are better weapons he can be using, and is using this one purely because he wants to, then yes, destroying the sword is a good call. It will barely, if at all, affect your parties combat capability, and it destroys something the player has gone out of his way to use, even though there are stronger options out there.

Glad somebody got the point.


That being said, you should not take this out in character.

The GM wants us to deal with it 'in character' and the other player says it's his 'RP'.


Still missing the point.

Yes, you are. You'd rather I destroy his entire character, which he has invested a lot of himself into, instead of a piddling, easily replaceable item. Sorry, but I'm not a jerk, I think killing another PC should be avoided. I just want an object lesson of 'stop pushing around the other PCs, they can and will push back.'

He can earn the cost of the sword in one adventure. There are already replacement items. Get off the 'oh no, losing his sword will ruin him!' schtick.

MammonAzrael
2009-02-25, 09:08 PM
If your DM is insisting on fixing this in character, destroy the sword. Then, if he continues to be an ass, kill the character. If the next character is an ass, or if the player reacts poorly out of game and the DM does nothing, tell the DM you're finding another group to play with, one without jerks and people who make excuses for them.

Hal
2009-02-25, 09:40 PM
Tch. Evard's Spiked Tentacles of Forced Intrusion. Who authored your spellbook? :smallwink:

Ugh. The same guy who forgets to double-check the punchline of jokes before making them.

Zen Master
2009-02-26, 07:27 AM
In 21+ years of gaming, you've never had any interparty conflict? Seriously? What game do you play?

Oh, conflicts pop up time and again. But I never said anything about conflicts - I said something about how they should be resolved. What you want to do is counterproductive and pointless. It is an escalation of a stupid fight - which will only make it more stupid. It will not solve the issue, it will aggravate it.

But like I said - don't mind me. That whole 'mature adult' thing is most likely some **** old people like me like to throw about - just to look wise and benign in the eyes of the awestruck young. Propably resolving social disagreements with revenge is totally acceptable, and provides desirable results for all.

Kaihaku
2009-02-26, 08:04 AM
Actually, a good idea might be Charm Person, ask to inspect the weapon, as you feel the enchantment may be fading, and you are wanting to ensure that it doesn't fail on him. Then, in your hands, you Dispel, then you Shatter. You shakes your head "Tsk, tsk... shoddy craftsmanship. You, sir, got robbed when you purchased that sword."

That's about the best suggestion I've read in the thread. :smallamused: And it's not just another ego trip sort of suggestion either, but one with some good RP potential.

KeresM
2009-02-26, 08:07 AM
Oh, conflicts pop up time and again. But I never said anything about conflicts - I said something about how they should be resolved. What you want to do is counterproductive and pointless. It is an escalation of a stupid fight - which will only make it more stupid. It will not solve the issue, it will aggravate it.

But like I said - don't mind me. That whole 'mature adult' thing is most likely some **** old people like me like to throw about - just to look wise and benign in the eyes of the awestruck young. Propably resolving social disagreements with revenge is totally acceptable, and provides desirable results for all.

Yeah, cause somehow it never occurred to you that I've also been gaming 20+ years and that you do not know the people involved.

Reaper_Monkey
2009-02-26, 08:24 AM
We've nearly lost fights (and I've lost a PC) because he won't use ranged weapons and instead runs screaming into combat, thus negating the caster's abilities to use area of effect spells, and when confronted OOCly, says 'it's just my RP, he likes the sword, it's his style'.

Easy then, leave the weapon alone and area of effect away despite him. Maybe call out a warning first to let him know, if he still runs in, well then ya cant say you didnt warn him. When he challenges why your "attacking"/continuing and thus damaging him, the just say 'it's just my RP, my character likes mass damage, it's his style' and be done with it.

Damaging weapons and attacking people may not get the point across, but a little bit of "you coulda avoided that if youd listened" with some "its your own argument" to back it up means that the player really has to think. That, and its hard for them to retaliate on the same level, as they *would* have to target you, rather than just an area you could be in :smallamused:

Pyrusticia
2009-02-26, 08:35 AM
Player's Handbook, p 279:

Shout
<Evoc[sonic], V, 1StdAct, SR applies>
-All creatures and objects within the 30' Cone-shaped Burst take 5d6 Sonic damage (Fort 1/2) and are Deafened for 2d6 rounds (FortNeg).
-Anyone with an attended object is allowed a Reflex save to negate damage to the object.

It's not guaranteed, but depending on the fighter's Reflex save, it has a pretty decent chance. Furthermore, it's proof that spells can affect attended objects. :smallamused:

Edit:
If you want to be sneaky about it, wait until the next time he charges into the enemy, then use this area-effect spell. Warn him first that you're using AoE, as Reaper Monkey suggested. It's the best of both worlds...he gets damaged from not being a team player, and if the sword happens to shatter from the sonic damage, well...BONUS! :smallbiggrin: (Oops, I meant "Oh, terribly sorry about that, if only you hadn't run in, etc, etc).

Advocate
2009-02-26, 09:10 AM
This is why you shouldn't break your own stuff.

http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/7514/128750585766571885.jpg

Don't be That Guy.

And yes, I would rather you do something that doesn't permanently cripple his character than something that does. After all, killing allows rerolls, so he can just come back. It's called a warning shot. He gets to reroll as something that can both actually be relevant and not be a jerk ass. The next move is to Dominate him, suggest he take off all his gear and go for a swim, then steal it all, sell it for cash and just leave him there. With no equipment, his character is permanently useless, and the cash you get off it you can take as a 'pain and suffering' settlement. Also, he's naked in the woods. Cue grizzly hilarity.

If that doesn't work, then you change groups.

Riffington
2009-02-26, 09:40 AM
I'm not endorsing breaking things, killing people, or even customized curses of flatulence, but:

IC:
Breaking a fighter's sword is on the same lines as smashing a computer or a car. It's past a practical joke, it's going to make him mad, but it's a forgivable offense. Killing is, well, killing. I could forgive someone for breaking my computer; I'm not going to forgive anyone for killing a friend. Even if they get amazing care from the paramedics and come back right away. There is simply no comparison.

OOC: dude, it's a game. The worst that should happen is you buy the guy a drink and you're cool afterwards. If your gaming group is different, then start drinking during the game. That said, people do get a little attached to their characters, which is fine. They should be waay less attached to their characters' stuff. If you aren't cool with the possibility of your character dying, I understand, but maybe you should have your character stay away from pointy objects. If you aren't cool with the possibility of your character losing a prized possession, then you should play TOON instead.

KeresM
2009-02-26, 11:56 AM
And yes, I would rather you do something that doesn't permanently cripple his character than something that does. .

Then you should have absolutely no objection to breaking his weapon.

I mean, seriously, the 'solutions' you've offered are all inherently more crippling than breaking a sword. You really think it's nicer to utterly destroy the character he has been playing for 9 levels and built a ton of backstory for than it is to destroy a single +1 longsword? Wow...I'd hate to play in a game where character sheets are that disposable.

Advocate
2009-02-26, 01:27 PM
Then you should have absolutely no objection to breaking his weapon.

I mean, seriously, the 'solutions' you've offered are all inherently more crippling than breaking a sword. You really think it's nicer to utterly destroy the character he has been playing for 9 levels and built a ton of backstory for than it is to destroy a single +1 longsword? Wow...I'd hate to play in a game where character sheets are that disposable.

Break his stuff, he is permanently crippled and forced to retire, suffering an undignified end as Mid Level Fighter Barkeep #27,345.

Break his face, and his character is still out of play, but at least gets to go with some dignity via Karma Death. He still has to reroll, so eh.

Breaking stuff is literally a fate worse than death. You don't have to like that, but you do have to deal with it. Also, he might not be able to retire and reroll whereas death does mean you get a restart, which means you have forced him to permanently be a gimp. Which most likely will just mean he commits suicide in some Leeroy Jenkins way that gets you killed anyways. So yes, I consider making someone a permanent gimp crueler than putting them out of their misery. Especially since he's a Fighter! You don't have to TRY to make him crippled. You just have to wait a week or two, if it hasn't happened already.

By breaking his stuff, you're being That Guy who gets his jollies by beating up some wheelchair bound guy. Yes, I am aware your profile says you are female. Jokes about girls and the internet aside, being That Guy as a female is understandably worse. Alternately, you could be the one who notes that he has a short time to live, and just painlessly put him out of his misery.

There's no parallel between this and real world happenings as the real world isn't all about killing things and taking their (very expensive) stuff. Nor can you return from the dead.

Riffington
2009-02-26, 02:19 PM
Break his stuff, he is permanently crippled and forced to retire, suffering an undignified end as Mid Level Fighter Barkeep #27,345.
This is just false. Over the course of a campaign, stuff comes and goes. So for an adventure or two he has 5% less chance of hitting, and does 10% less damage. Life goes on. I'm not saying what Keres should do, but a broken sword is like gonorrhea, not like cancer. A DM can certainly add that in as a plot element without having squealing players.



There's no parallel between this and real world happenings as the real world isn't all about killing things and taking their (very expensive) stuff. Nor can you return from the dead.

People play for several reasons. One is to role-play. In role-playing, players take on the roles of characters in a fantasy world. Those characters have interesting lives, and having a sword shattered is not the craziest thing that happens all year.
A second reason is to war-game. In war-gaming, you take the good with the bad, always trying to find ways to minimize the bad and maximize the good. Sometimes you have an edge. Sometimes your equipment is stolen by a thief. You roll with it.
Some people like to win without trying. In that case, you must always gain stuff, and never lose.

Advocate
2009-02-26, 03:20 PM
Straw man, and you can't roleplay if you're dead. Anything else? {Scrubbed}

Riffington
2009-02-26, 04:40 PM
You think it's *indefensible* for a DM to set up an adventure where a thief takes something valuable from a character?

Dude, sometimes people get robbed. Sometimes, worse yet, they get level-drained. Sometimes they miss a few sessions, and are a bit behind on experience or treasure. None of that compares to killing off a character. Which also happens, of course.

lsfreak
2009-02-26, 05:00 PM
The biggest problem here is that Advocate seems to come from an easy-die, easy-rez, easy-reroll background; KeresM does not. Advocating the murder of another PC is inexcusable barring extreme circumstances in a low-death, hard-rez, no-reroll campaign (or merely one that is extremely heavy on the roleplay... in which case you're also going to have to figure out the impacts of murdering a companion for being annoying). Breaking their sword gets the point across clearly, it impacts the character intimately enough that it will mean something, but it won't completely piss off the player too.

Zen Master
2009-02-26, 05:46 PM
Yeah, cause somehow it never occurred to you that I've also been gaming 20+ years and that you do not know the people involved.

The thought has occurred to me - don't flatter yourself. I just really hope it isn't so. Honestly. That you should learn so little about people from playing a social game for so long ... well, that's just sad.

MammonAzrael
2009-02-26, 06:07 PM
Advocate, I'm honestly curious about this.

If a DM had you make a 9th level martial character, would you consider it completely crippling if you were only allowed 34,000 GP instead of 36,000 GP? What about a 14th level martial character with 148,000 GP instead of 150,000GP? Would you refuse to play? And on the other end, would you consider it completely overpowered if you were allowed to make a 9th level martial character with 38,000 GP?

From your other posts here I gather that you play in a very high-powered, optimizing group. Obviously there is nothing wrong with that, but why do you feel like killing off a character is a less damaging solution that destroying an inferior weapon (especially since the character has access to other, more powerful weapons and simply chooses not to use them)?

Zeful
2009-02-26, 07:17 PM
Break his stuff, he is permanently crippled and forced to retire, suffering an undignified end as Mid Level Fighter Barkeep #27,345.Except in this situation, this is just not true. There are alternatives readily available for use that have no disadvantage for use. It's like pulling a muscle, you'll feel it for a while and then get over it.


Break his face, and his character is still out of play, but at least gets to go with some dignity via Karma Death. He still has to reroll, so eh. And he has to explain why he should be allowed to travel with the group and take 1/n of their cash for doing so. Worse this new character has no reason to act any different. He didn't see the last guy get vaporised, looted and buried.

Flickerdart
2009-02-26, 07:32 PM
Worse this new character has no reason to act any different. He didn't see the last guy get vaporised, looted and buried.
"Hey, sleazy back alley thief? We'd like you to join our adventuring group. This guy is our Fighter." *horrid mauling* "That guy is no longer our Fighter. Don't repeat his mistakes."

Myrmex
2009-02-26, 07:48 PM
Oh, conflicts pop up time and again. But I never said anything about conflicts - I said something about how they should be resolved. What you want to do is counterproductive and pointless. It is an escalation of a stupid fight - which will only make it more stupid. It will not solve the issue, it will aggravate it.

But like I said - don't mind me. That whole 'mature adult' thing is most likely some **** old people like me like to throw about - just to look wise and benign in the eyes of the awestruck young. Propably resolving social disagreements with revenge is totally acceptable, and provides desirable results for all.

{Scrubbed}


This is why you shouldn't break your own stuff.

http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/7514/128750585766571885.jpg

Don't be That Guy.

And yes, I would rather you do something that doesn't permanently cripple his character than something that does. After all, killing allows rerolls, so he can just come back. It's called a warning shot. He gets to reroll as something that can both actually be relevant and not be a jerk ass. The next move is to Dominate him, suggest he take off all his gear and go for a swim, then steal it all, sell it for cash and just leave him there. With no equipment, his character is permanently useless, and the cash you get off it you can take as a 'pain and suffering' settlement. Also, he's naked in the woods. Cue grizzly hilarity.

If that doesn't work, then you change groups.

{Scrubbed} you continue to ignore the part where it's a piddling +1 longsword. It's worth what you can sell it for- about 1,200 gp. Do you know the wealth of a ninth level character? About 30x that. Do you know that in the course of going from level 9 to 10, you gain about 10x more longswords? Destroying a crap weapon that should have been turned into gold 4 levels ago is hardly "permanently crippling a character."

Though I do think that, if the fighter "doesn't get it" after having his favorite sword reduced to junk, and tries to escalate things, the whole party should just hold hands and teleport somewhere else. Maybe leave a dear fighter note

"Dear Fighter,
Sorry things didn't work out. It was you, not me.
Don't bother Sending.

Love,
the Party"


The thought has occurred to me - don't flatter yourself. I just really hope it isn't so. Honestly. That you should learn so little about people from playing a social game for so long ... well, that's just sad.

Why are you being so hostile and rudea?

pingcode20
2009-02-26, 08:41 PM
Breaking it will just give the fighter a reason to lash out.

No, far better to take it for enchantment, and curse it out the wazoo. All not especially harmful, but humiliating and appropriately 'annoyed wizard'-like.

Here's a few that might be nice:

- Curse the sword to prevent the fighter from using any others - "Like the sword so much? Why don't you marry it then?"

- Curse the sword to change the fighter's gender every time it's drawn - And this is every time it's drawn. Alternatively, make it turn him into a girl only when it's drawn, and back every time it's sheathed again.

- Curse the sword to polymorph the fighter into a kobold with a 5% chance each morning - This one would be fun. It's a magic item drawback, and doesn't grant a save against it. Better yet, make it so it checks at a particularly inconvenient time, such as the fighter's usual boozing hours.

- On command, it changes colours based on a slew of hopelessly common words that will get triggered constantly in normal conversation.

Flickerdart
2009-02-26, 08:45 PM
- Curse the sword to prevent the fighter from using any others - "Like the sword so much? Why don't you marry it then?"
Isn't that a standard part of cursed equipment? You need Remove Curse to relinquish the object.

NEO|Phyte
2009-02-26, 08:48 PM
Isn't that a standard part of cursed equipment? You need Remove Curse to relinquish the object.
Not being able to get rid of it is standard, yes, but he's talking like the -2 sword in the DMG.

After one week in a characterís possession, the sword always forces that character to employ it rather than another weapon. The swordís owner automatically draws it and fights with it even when she meant to draw or ready some other weapon.

KeresM
2009-02-26, 08:51 PM
Break his stuff, he is permanently crippled and forced to retire, suffering an undignified end as Mid Level Fighter Barkeep #27,345.

Really? Cause that's the only sword in the entire world?

bobspldbckwrds
2009-02-26, 10:43 PM
after reading this situation, i have to recommend another route to putting the person in their place.

there is a certain book, with a certain spell, the spell is called disrobe, after casting it cast an evocation that requires an attack roll...

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-02-26, 10:45 PM
after reading this situation, i have to recommend another route to putting the person in their place.

there is a certain book, with a certain spell, the spell is called disrobe, after casting it cast an evocation that requires an attack roll...Ah, the joys of the BoEF. No other book can be as fun or as cruel. If that's too mean for you, BoVD has some nice painful spells that make good punishments.

bobspldbckwrds
2009-02-26, 10:51 PM
i never thought that i would live to see the day that the book of vile darkness was considered the nice alternative

CapedLuigiYoshi
2009-02-26, 11:20 PM
I am anti-social, and have never played D&D in my life, but I can still say that killing off his character is off-limits. Having to reroll a character because of a fellow PC taking revenge is not something easily acceptable. Just break the sword, it's the best way to get the message across.

Though I do admit cursing it might be funny.

Leewei
2009-02-26, 11:51 PM
Keep suggestion memorized. Whenever the fighter becomes an ass, humiliate him. Some examples:

I bet you can't (cast suggestion here) throw that sword past the lip of that volcanic crater.

That armor must be getting mighty hot. Why don't you drop a snowball down your backside to cool down?

That helmet would look far better embossed with pink roses, don't you think? Hand it to me and I'd be happy to assist you. (cast prestidigitation)

Dacia Brabant
2009-02-27, 12:09 AM
The thought has occurred to me - don't flatter yourself. I just really hope it isn't so. Honestly. That you should learn so little about people from playing a social game for so long ... well, that's just sad.

So are you going to offer her any constructive advice from your decades of gaming experience as to how to deal with a bully PC (and a GM who insists the dispute be resolved IC), or are you just going to sit there and snark all day?


And Advocate: the Sunder rules are in the game for a reason. So is Mage's Disjunction, Antimagic Field, Dispel Magic, Shatter, several martial maneuvers and tactical feat lines for targeting objects and overcoming Hardness (Stone Dragon rocks at this, if you'll pardon the pun). Sounds like it's pretty defensible to me if the game expects these situations to come up.

Oh and Wealth By Level is not written in stone, this isn't 4th Edition we're talking about where you have X, Y and Z gear of +A, +B and +C values at given level N (note this is not a criticism of 4e). WBL is a good rule but this sense of entitlement that seems to come with it is annoying: If you lose stuff (Sleight of Hand is a core skill I might add) you can always go out and get more.


Anyway, I think there was a suggestion to have a spell approximate the Sunder rules and add an item saving throw to resist some of the damage, but honestly I like pingcode's idea more--bestow a curse on it, make him fall in love with it so much that half the time all he does is stare at it to the exclusion of all else, even (especially) in the midst of battle.

Khanderas
2009-02-27, 05:52 AM
Don't know why there is this much talk about "permanently screwing up his character" for breaking his +1 sword. Especially compared to permanently being turned into a toad or just plain kill him.

Yes, it is permanent insofar it doesnt regenerate after resting. But if his +1 sword is broken, the next time they loot something it will have a +1 or better sword. Better... because it was lost to RP reasons and +1 isnt really that impressive at that level.

As the player (and the character) go with the attitude "I can push you around because you are too puny to do something about it", inter party fight is, to me, justifiable. Perhaps the player would take it well, perhaps not. But if OOC asking him to quit it don't help, then IC action might.

Advocate
2009-02-27, 09:07 AM
You think it's *indefensible* for a DM to set up an adventure where a thief takes something valuable from a character?

Dude, sometimes people get robbed. Sometimes, worse yet, they get level-drained. Sometimes they miss a few sessions, and are a bit behind on experience or treasure. None of that compares to killing off a character. Which also happens, of course.

Rings the power tripping douchebaggery alarm. Also, further encourages PCs as paranoid murdering hobos. There is no parallel between this and level drain, and level drain is prevented via one of several means, and even if you do get level drained, you aren't permanently behind due to Gravy Train. If you lose stuff, you are permanently crippled. Full stop.


The biggest problem here is that Advocate seems to come from an easy-die, easy-rez, easy-reroll background; KeresM does not. Advocating the murder of another PC is inexcusable barring extreme circumstances in a low-death, hard-rez, no-reroll campaign (or merely one that is extremely heavy on the roleplay... in which case you're also going to have to figure out the impacts of murdering a companion for being annoying). Breaking their sword gets the point across clearly, it impacts the character intimately enough that it will mean something, but it won't completely piss off the player too.

Characters die. It's practically unavoidable. Even if you only have a 1% chance to die per fight, you have over 250 of the things to deal with. This means you have about a 1 in 8 chance of dying before level 2. 23% chance to die before level 3. By level 7, there is a 55.25% chance you are dead. 65.54% chance to die before level 9, which is the earliest level you can return from the dead. 79.98% chance to die before level 13. Know how many PCs live till level 20? 7.78% of them. The other 92.22% have died long before then. So you see, even in a 'low death' campaign where you literally have a 99% chance of surviving every encounter, you have to have res and/or reroll available, or your campaign WILL end abruptly, as everyone is dead... or at least enough are dead so that they cannot continue.

So, discussing such campaigns is moot, as they're going to implode long before their conclusion anyways unless they are very short, or the campaign is incredibly easy... after all, 99% chance to live is pretty much risk free in the short term, it's only when you get into Iterative Probability with many iterations it gets bad. Higher than that? You might as well spend the fight dancing the Macarena. It really doesn't matter, you'll win anyways. Or the DM can just cut to the chance and narrate you winning. Either way. However in such a campaign... gee, force them to stick around with a gimped character, or just take them out? Take them out is still better, as you at least aren't forcing them to waste more time on it.

Now. This character was stated to be acting in an idiotic, Leeroy Jenkins manner for a period of months. It's not just being a little annoying anymore, especially when the guy is threatening you with a sword. If he were just being a pest, but otherwise fine, no, don't kill him. Don't break his stuff either. Just talk to him. But, assuming Keres is telling the truth, this guy is being criminally negligent, behaving in an irrational, suicidal manner, and threatening his own allies with violence. Now, I dunno about you, but if I loved in the D&D world, where at least four different things tried to kill me on any given day, and the guy who's supposed to be watching my back is joining in the party I wouldn't let it escalate this long. The moment he starts threatening me with lethal violence I give him lethal violence. He dies violently, just like all the other enemies.

Would you just ignore an enemy in your own ranks? If so, remind me to go hide somewhere nearby, so I can get a lot of free loot after your 'buddy' shanks you.


Advocate, I'm honestly curious about this.

If a DM had you make a 9th level martial character, would you consider it completely crippling if you were only allowed 34,000 GP instead of 36,000 GP? What about a 14th level martial character with 148,000 GP instead of 150,000GP? Would you refuse to play? And on the other end, would you consider it completely overpowered if you were allowed to make a 9th level martial character with 38,000 GP?

From your other posts here I gather that you play in a very high-powered, optimizing group. Obviously there is nothing wrong with that, but why do you feel like killing off a character is a less damaging solution that destroying an inferior weapon (especially since the character has access to other, more powerful weapons and simply chooses not to use them)?

The DM would say make a 9th level character. He quotes an amount lower than WBL. I immediately scratch off all martial characters from the list and make a caster, because he's clearly established that's the only thing he wants to work in his campaigns. Assuming I did play at all, because lower than normal WBL is a large red flag for power tripping douchebaggery in other areas. The point is irrelevant. If I were going for a martial character and he says higher than WBL... eh. Martial characters need somewhere between 150% and 200% WBL just to be competitive anyways, so no it wouldn't be overpowered. Maybe if you got 2k more at level 3 or something... but then all that'd mean is getting +1 to one stat a little earlier.

As for my group, we do practical optimization only. If we were a 'very high powered optimized group' everyone would be adventuring via astral projection or simulacrum + ring gate proxy or something along those lines.

If you kill off his character, he gets to reroll, so he's not stuck screwed over. If you start messing with his stuff, he's stuck screwed over. It's the difference between maiming a man for life, and just shooting him in the head. It's more merciful to him, and he'll just 'remanifest' (make a new character) anyways. It really doesn't matter what the item is. Worst case is it's still gold fodder.

More to the point, 'Hurk Durk I break my own stuff' is the sort of blatant stupidity you might expect from a Fighter, but is simply unbecoming of a Wizard. So in addition to my rallying against blatant, self destructive stupidity, there is also basic dignity to consider.



And Advocate: the Sunder rules are in the game for a reason. So is Mage's Disjunction, Antimagic Field, Dispel Magic, Shatter, several martial maneuvers and tactical feat lines for targeting objects and overcoming Hardness (Stone Dragon rocks at this, if you'll pardon the pun). Sounds like it's pretty defensible to me if the game expects these situations to come up.

AMF doesn't turn off items permanently, it simply does so as long as they are in the area. Its purpose is to serve as a trap for those who actually think being a high level caster sans casting is a good idea. Dispel's purpose is the removing of buffs, and sometimes the temporary disabling of items. Note, temporary. As in 1d4 rounds. Even then though, having your stuff turned off tends to be very quickly followed by your violent death, as you have just fallen off the RNG. Shatter? It works on non magical items. Use it on troublesome doors and the line. Its purpose is breaking and entering.

Stone Dragon exists for the purpose of breaking down walls and such, that you aren't going to be looting anyways. Same as Shatter. Break Own Stuff and Game Disjunction? Aside from being Legacy throwbacks from when D&D was all about the DM utterly screwing you over in arbitrary ways, they exist as traps for the stupid. Just like AMF, but for a different reason.

So if you really want to get technical about it, those either have some legitimate use (that doesn't involve breaking lootables) or exist for the sole purpose of promoting Ivory Tower design, so that a stupid player can screw over his entire party while thinking he is helping.


Oh and Wealth By Level is not written in stone, this isn't 4th Edition we're talking about where you have X, Y and Z gear of +A, +B and +C values at given level N (note this is not a criticism of 4e). WBL is a good rule but this sense of entitlement that seems to come with it is annoying: If you lose stuff (Sleight of Hand is a core skill I might add) you can always go out and get more.

WBL = you get x cash. Some DMs say x cash for combat stuff, some say x cash ever period. With the main difference between the two being that the first DM is not forcing you to be a Murdering Hobo or suck... in other words, just a fluff difference. It comes with a sense of entitlement because it is. You get x cash at y level. You need x cash at y level to deal with level appropriate creature z. And if you don't have it you're boned. If you lose x cash, that x cash is gone forever. Sleight of Hand presumably exists to rob some NPC or another. Mostly it gets used by Chaotic Stupid Rogues to rob the party. So let's just call this one another legacy throwback and call it a day.

KeresM
2009-02-27, 11:29 AM
If you lose stuff, you are permanently crippled. Full stop.


This is simply not true. Repeatedly asserting this will not make it true. The above statement is just flat out wrong. It is incorrect. It is false. It is inaccurate. The above statement is illogical. It has ceased to be rational. Bereft of fact, gone round the bend, joined the ranks of the absurd. It. Is. Not. True.

Advocate
2009-02-27, 12:20 PM
This is simply not true. Repeatedly asserting this will not make it true. The above statement is just flat out wrong. It is incorrect. It is false. It is inaccurate. The above statement is illogical. It has ceased to be rational. Bereft of fact, gone round the bend, joined the ranks of the absurd. It. Is. Not. True.

*aims a mirror at your post*

*notes that it is now considerably more accurate, when redirected at you, the Sundercat*

*checks hair in other mirror*

Are you about done defending indefensible stupidity yet?

Myrmex
2009-02-27, 12:31 PM
This is simply not true. Repeatedly asserting this will not make it true. The above statement is just flat out wrong. It is incorrect. It is false. It is inaccurate. The above statement is illogical. It has ceased to be rational. Bereft of fact, gone round the bend, joined the ranks of the absurd. It. Is. Not. True.

Maybe he is using some other definitions of "permanently" and "crippled" that we're unaware of.

{Scrubbed} but this in particular needs addressing:

WBL = you get x cash. Some DMs say x cash for combat stuff, some say x cash ever period. With the main difference between the two being that the first DM is not forcing you to be a Murdering Hobo or suck... in other words, just a fluff difference. It comes with a sense of entitlement because it is. You get x cash at y level. You need x cash at y level to deal with level appropriate creature z. And if you don't have it you're boned. If you lose x cash, that x cash is gone forever. Sleight of Hand presumably exists to rob some NPC or another. Mostly it gets used by Chaotic Stupid Rogues to rob the party. So let's just call this one another legacy throwback and call it a day.

Most out-of-the-book monsters are horribly weak, and even a moderate amount of optimization will trash most CRs equal to the party's level. The CRs assume your fighters took toughness and don't run on power-attack death charges, or that your wizard prepared lightning bolt and fireball.

If the group isn't especially good at optimizing, or aren't familiar with trolls' weakness and other metagame aspects, then they will have difficulty with CRs that should be appropriate.

In other words, the CR system is a total joke, and you probably shouldn't use it for anything more than a rough estimate.

Likewise, any change in a party's wealth, especially as trivial as one described in the OP (a loss of 1% of a 4 person party's wealth), is going to have negligible effects on CR, given the vastly different capabilities of any group, given differing levels of optimization.

Furthermore, Advocate's characterization of all spells and abilities that destroy or steal equipment as purely traps for players is asinine. They're there for monsters, too. There's no better way to shut down an opponent than destroying his gear. For NPCs, who are in a fight for their life, should be shattering gear left and right. Given that the PCs are operating under the metagame assumption that they will live to fight another day and should suffer through the damage that enemy equipment is doing to them, so they can have a few more trinkets, it is only fair that an NPC operate under similar conditions, only that he must die, so he's going to cause as much pain as possible.

MammonAzrael
2009-02-27, 12:43 PM
<snip>Response to me</snip>

Then we simply have different play styles. *shrug*

Advocate
2009-02-27, 01:00 PM
The only part of that I'm actually going to respond to is the NPC part. No, the NPC doesn't know, or think of themselves as a DM pawn to be a douchebag to the players. He doesn't break anything, because he wants to steal it for himself, just like the PCs.

Myrmex
2009-02-27, 01:20 PM
The only part of that I'm actually going to respond to is the NPC part. No, the NPC doesn't know, or think of themselves as a DM pawn to be a douchebag to the players. He doesn't break anything, because he wants to steal it for himself, just like the PCs.

If he's an idiot, sure.

Advocate
2009-02-27, 01:34 PM
If he's an idiot, sure.

If this statement is referring to your own point, you are correct.

If you are honestly arguing that full blown Sundertardation is actually a smart thing... then just stay away from me, because I have nothing nice to say to those that think stupid = smart, Bizarro world style. Last I checked, this isn't opposite day, and the head banging stupidity from certain members of the other side has gone on far longer than 24 hours in any case.

It was bad enough when it was just a Wizard not acting their Intelligence via 'Hurk Durk I R BREAKIN' MAI OWN TREASURE!!!!!!!!!11111'

Stupid manner of writing intentional, to reflect the complete and utter intellectual failure present in such statements.

Myrmex
2009-02-27, 01:36 PM
If this statement is referring to your own point, you are correct.

If you are honestly arguing that full blown Sundertardation is actually a smart thing... then just stay away from me, because I have nothing nice to say to those that think stupid = smart, Bizarro world style. Last I checked, this isn't opposite day, and the head banging stupidity from certain members of the other side has gone on far longer than 24 hours in any case.

It was bad enough when it was just a Wizard not acting their Intelligence via 'Hurk Durk I R BREAKIN' MAI OWN TREASURE!!!!!!!!!11111'

Stupid manner of writing intentional, to reflect the complete and utter intellectual failure present in such statements.

Sundertardation. Cute.

Again; you're metagaming.

Advocate
2009-02-27, 01:39 PM
Sundertardation. Cute.

Again; you're metagaming.

Says the guy who plays NPCs as little pawns that exist for no purpose except acting as an avenue for DM douchebaggery. As opposed to actual people, with desires of their own. Which means they kill you and take your stuff, or die trying.

And yes, the term is very accurate. Not only is it a game about killing things and taking their stuff, but falling behind on stuff means falling behind on power, thus all those things that can or will take offense to you killing them instead kill you and take your stuff. Intentionally knocking yourself off the RNG is nothing short of retardation. Pure and simple. I despise idiocy. Especially when you're supposed to be smart (Wizard) which means metagaming. Again.

Myrmex
2009-02-27, 01:49 PM
Says the guy who plays NPCs as little pawns that exist for no purpose except acting as an avenue for DM douchebaggery. As opposed to actual people, with desires of their own. Which means they kill you and take your stuff, or die trying.

I don't believe I've mentioned anything of my style. You're also assuming that all NPCs have a desire to kill and take stuff. There are many monsters (or people) who would have no desire to take your stuff; just kill you. Or they would like to take your stuff, but find that killing you is difficult, so make it easier by breaking your stuff. This is an easy decision for most to make, when choosing between dying and not dying, given that NPCs have no option to reroll. As you pointed out, you shouldn't break stuff, cause if you die, you can always reroll. About a dozen times. If that isn't metagaming, I don't know what is.


And yes, the term is very accurate. Not only is it a game about killing things and taking their stuff,

Different play styles, then, between you & the OP. It doesn't appear that the game they are playing is "all about killing things and taking their stuff". Have you entertained the notion that their utility functions differ from yours, so perhaps losing a character would be a bigger deal than losing a minor magic item?


but falling behind on stuff means falling behind on power, thus all those things that can or will take offense to you killing them instead kill you and take your stuff. Intentionally knocking yourself off the RNG is nothing short of retardation. Pure and simple. I despise idiocy. Especially when you're supposed to be smart (Wizard) which means metagaming. Again.

Being smart doesn't define your utility function. I'm going to a public ivy, and I like to get drunk and get beat up. But that's because I derive utility from it. Clearly the utility function for slapping the fighter's wrist offers the OP's wizard more utility than slaying him, and presumably won't cheese off the fighter's player like slaying his character would.

KeresM
2009-02-27, 02:16 PM
Maybe he is using some other definitions of "permanently" and "crippled" that we're unaware of.

I guess. I mean, I wouldn't have thought 'walk to bag of holding, withdraw more powerful weapon, use that from now on' was an activity that would cripple a character.

The problem is, he's a roll-player, and I'm a role-player. Some types can't be happy unless they are the most powerful guy at the table. Me, I played a 3rd edition Ranger though 16 levels and enjoyed it.

Riffington
2009-02-27, 02:42 PM
Rings the power tripping douchebaggery alarm.

Power-tripping is not a specific action, it's a motivation. If you (as DM) are doing something to advance the plot, enhance the fun, or help promote character development, then you aren't power tripping. That can include minor things like stealing treasured items, as well as major things like cancer and the death of a family member. Basically, anything that can go into a movie.



If you lose stuff, you are permanently crippled. Full stop.

Just no. You have less stuff. Full stop.



you have over 250 of the things to deal with.

Well, that depends greatly on the game. Some people play with more combat than others, of course. I've played games where that's about right, and I've played campaigns where the correct number is "two". Not every challenge you face needs to be "combat to the death" (though if you like that style, then obviously there has to be a chance you'll die).


a gimped character, or just take them out? Take them out is still better, as you at least aren't forcing them to waste more time on it.
Even if you really meant a literal disability rather than one fewer item, characters with disabilities can still be fun and interesting.



The DM would say make a 9th level character. He quotes an amount lower than WBL. I immediately scratch off all martial characters from the list and make a caster, because he's clearly established that's the only thing he wants to work in his campaigns.
That's ridiculous. It's true that Druids would be more powerful than Fighters in that campaign (along with most others). That doesn't mean everyone has to play a Druid instead of a Fighter. Play what's fun. If it turns out that you're involved in lots of combat, and your Fighter isn't making a huge contribution, ask him for a little help. Same thing goes if it turns out that you're involved in lots of politics and your Druid isn't as interesting as you'd hoped.

Lower WBL isn't power-tripping or douchebaggery. It may simply mean that the DM wants a lower-magic campaign, wants the players to start out poorer, or feels that the WBL in the books is a bit high. He just needs to know that challenges of equal CR will be a bit more challenging than they would be with "standard" WBL. WBL isn't an entitlement, it's a tool for figuring out what CR a party can handle. And don't be an entitled player. It's not attractive, and it's not fun.

Keld Denar
2009-02-27, 02:46 PM
Wealth comes from other places than just killing mobs. D&D isn't an MMO with impartial GMs who watch from afar. If something comes up where someone loses a piece of loot, be he wizard, fighter, or level 20 commoner, the DM can and should adjust the adventure to account for this. Maybe their patron king/priest/leader/god gives them an advance on their reward, or loans the PC a personal peice of equipment until the PC finds a suitable replacement (which could easily be atained in a later adventure as loot off something you kill). In normal D&D, gear destruction isn't the end of the world because the DM has the final say in what gear any given PC has at any given time (within reason). Its not powertripping douchebaggery, its providing a non-standard challenge to see how the players adapt and deal with it. Now, a general fighter dude is less adaptable to this than a caster, but again, careful DMs touch can make it happen. This isn't "coddling" as you call it, its providing a challenge that doesn't involve rolling a d100, flipping to that page in the MM and throwing X of those at the party.

Now...I played Living Greyhawk for the longest time. LG is exactly as you call it. You have play a module, you get some gold and some xp. This conforms with WBL curves. You spend that gold on the gear you need to be an effective character. I have actually seen a player with an archer character retire his level 13 character with about 150 hours played because his +4 equivalent bow (like, ~80% of his character wealth or something) got sundered in a module. Except in LG, you don't reroll at level 13, like you would in a home game. You reroll at level 1 and play level 1 adventures until you level up to 2 and so on. Thats a HUGE time investment, tons of fun, but a huge investment none-the-less to essentially go down the drain because some author put in a mook with a +1 Adamantine Great Sword and the Improved Sunder feat in a mod where the mooks are almost garunteed a surprise round (single move charge + sunder). The guy almost cried.

But yea...thats Living Greyhawk, which is likened to a pencil and paper D&D version of an MMORPG. In a normal D&D game, the DM can make up for this by increasing monitary income, loan from a benefactor, lucky find, or just plain old divine intervention. Look at Roy from the OotS comic. He lost his sword, which made things challenging for him for a bit, but he recovered and his new sword is better than the old one. Stuff like that is possible in a game. Treasure tables are not absolute.

Sorry Advocate, thats one thing I think I'm gonna disagree with you on. Most everything else I agree with, but gear is not absolute. Regardless, Sundering as a PLAYER strategy is dumb, because the amount of wealth you burn through will end up hurting you in the end unless your DM is literally raining gold coins from the sky. One +1 sword won't hurt you in the long run, but half a dozen +2 and greater weapons over the course of a campaign will. It its not packing something worth sundering, you should probably just attack it and kill it anyways, because its just fodder.

Advocate
2009-02-27, 03:46 PM
{Scrubbed}

KeresM
2009-02-27, 03:54 PM
Wow...you are actually proposing getting physically violent with someone for using an option in the DnD RAW?

Because they created a minor inconvenience for your character?

Your post has been reported.

Roland St. Jude
2009-02-27, 04:37 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: This thread is going to remain locked.