PDA

View Full Version : [3.5e] Since "just because" doesn't seem to be enough...



TheCountAlucard
2010-03-24, 05:26 PM
So, I started DMing a 3.5 game a few weeks back. We typically play on Fridays, though we had a game session last night, since it's spring break and all.

However, we've had a bit of a problem: from the very beginning, one of the players has had it in his head that he should be able to play two characters.

And no, I'm not talking about taking the Leadership feat. I mean, he just wants to play two characters at the same time... and he makes a point of bringing it up almost every session. I try and explain that it would be unfair, unbalanced, et cetera., to the other players, who are more than content to have just one PC, but he doesn't seem to understand why that's the case.

In the very beginning of the campaign, out of some stupidity on my part (mostly because after twenty minutes of failing to get my point across, I was just plain tired of arguing it), I went ahead and let him play the second character. Said character ended up being shunted into the background and ignored for the majority of the session, except for a bit where he used the character's non-presence as an excuse to metagame.

After that, I made a point of having said second character go bye-bye via joining up on a crusade to reclaim a temple in the mountains. The player initially didn't have a problem with it at the time (well, he did, but he eventually accepted it), and we got on with the session.

Now, last session, he announced out of the blue that he wanted to retire his current character and have the secondary character rejoin the party. I explained to him that it wasn't an option at the time, since the secondary character was part of that crusade (and since the mountains in question were a week's journey west of the party's starting point, and that the party had traveled several weeks south since then).

"Uhh, no he isn't," the player countered, "he wouldn't do something like that."

:smallannoyed:

Anyway, we came to the agreement that he could retire the primary character after the party had finished their current task, by which point the crusade would likely be over and allow the secondary character to go adventuring with them.

The other players are starting to get annoyed with this (and frankly, I can't say I blame them), so I'd like some help in putting these arguments to rest once and for all. (I just called him on the phone to talk to him about this, and he still says he wants to play two characters, and sees no reason why he shouldn't be able to.)

I don't want to kick him out of the group or anything, but if we keep having these arguments, that may very well have to be what happens.

(Also, he's been complaining for the last three sessions about how he can't use his Reflex save to avoid attacks; any suggestions for dealing with that?)

Sinfire Titan
2010-03-24, 05:30 PM
The Reflex to avoid attacks is him trying to bring another system into the matter. Give him a Warblade if he wants stuff like that.


The second character thing? You are free to say no, but remember that he may just rush head-long into combat and intentionally try to get killed, to justify it. If it happens, let him make a new character and tell him it has to be a new one, not one that was previously in the party. Hound him for it too.


Oh, just remembered the feat Trickery Devotion, from Complete Champion. Show him it. It should shut him up.

MachineWraith
2010-03-24, 05:31 PM
However, we've had a bit of a problem: from the very beginning, one of the players has had it in his head that he should be able to play two characters.

Explain to him that his two characters would inevitably end up helping each other out more than the rest of the party. It may not be by much, and it may entirely on accident, but it will happen.

Maybe tell him that you've balanced all your encounters around having one character per party member, and that you don't want to have to go retool your entire campaign just so he can be special.




Also, he's been complaining for the last three sessions about how he can't use his Reflex save to avoid attacks; any suggestions for dealing with that?

Because the game is designed with your AC representing your ability to dodge/shrug off blows/deflect attacks, and your reflex save as your ability to avoid anything else. If he doesn't like getting hit, he should bump his AC. That's the way the game's designed, the game's not perfect, get over it.

Also, you have my sympathies.

JoshuaZ
2010-03-24, 05:35 PM
Reflex save and AC represent very different things. The rough idea is that reflex saves are what happens when something big but unguided occurs (say an explosion or a trap). That's distinct from AC in which a person is specifically trying to make contact with you and can change their movement in the process.

As to the one v. two character issue, maybe sit down with him and find out why he wants to play two characters so much? And why does he think he should be able to do so?

TheCountAlucard
2010-03-24, 06:07 PM
The Reflex to avoid attacks is him trying to bring another system into the matter. Give him a Warblade if he wants stuff like that.I've also noticed that he never seems to bring up the whole "Reflex save" thing when other PCs get hit with attacks, and I'm sure I'd catch some hell from him if a monster did it.


You are free to say no...I've said no, but that hasn't stopped the arguments.


Oh, just remembered the feat Trickery Devotion, from Complete Champion. Show him it. It should shut him up.Will look at it.


Explain to him that his two characters would inevitably end up helping each other out more than the rest of the party. It may not be by much, and it may entirely on accident, but it will happen.In fact, that's already happened, as well. I just tried this against him. "I won't," he said, "you don't have to worry about it."


Maybe tell him that you've balanced all your encounters around having one character per party member, and that you don't want to have to go retool your entire campaign just so he can be special.Brought that up as well, reminding him of the time the party took down a boss encounter in two rounds. "That's your problem," he insisted, "you're the one with the Monster Manuals." :smallmad:


Because the game is designed with your AC representing your ability to dodge/shrug off blows/deflect attacks, and your reflex save as your ability to avoid anything else. If he doesn't like getting hit, he should bump his AC. That's the way the game's designed, the game's not perfect, get over it....But he won't get over it. Actually, that was my very first argument against it the first time it came up. :smallsigh:

gdiddy
2010-03-24, 06:14 PM
Tell him that if he isn't getting what he wants out of your game that he should look into a different system. He can do all the research and maybe DM a session in that different system, with his rules. But right now, for this game, you are playing by a set of rules that everyone agreed to by playing.

If he doesn't stop complaining or put his money where his mouth is, tell him that his play style may not belong in the current game.

Nero24200
2010-03-24, 06:16 PM
Just no on the two character's thing. It's possible you built your campaign around only a certain number of PC's...but more than that, that entire game as a whole is built under the assumption that player's only have one PC each.

Why should he be the only one with an exception to the rule? I honestly can't see any way him having a second character will make the game better. It'll give him a unfair advantage in combat, so it boosts nothing mechanical. I don't see how having it as a second PC rather than a DM controled NPC makes RP any different, other than the fact that it makes it alot easier to potentially metagame.

If he really wants to be special, try using the "Rolling Armour" variant. It's pretty simple, whenever someone attacks you, roll a D20 and add all your armour bonuses. That's your AC against the attack. The D20 essentially replaces the base score of 10. That way it'll feel more like he's "dodging" attacks when they miss, rather than them just missing.

The varaint shouldn't be much of an issue if you use it, since it won't alter game mechanics as a whole if his PC is the only one using that variant rule.

Though personally, I'd talk to the group. If they feel much like yourself, it may be an idea to give this guy some space from your gamming table.

MachineWraith
2010-03-24, 06:18 PM
In fact, that's already happened, as well. I just tried this against him. "I won't," he said, "you don't have to worry about it."

He can't prove that he won't, so you won't accept it.



Brought that up as well, reminding him of the time the party took down a boss encounter in two rounds. "That's your problem," he insisted, "you're the one with the Monster Manuals." :smallmad:

Your response? "That's right, it's my problem, and I'm fixing it by not letting you play two characters."


...But he won't get over it. Actually, that was my very first argument against it the first time it came up. :smallsigh:

What level is your party at? I'd make him run two test battles, him vs. one monster. Naturally, I'd pick the highest-Ref monster I could find. Preferably one that would normally be fairly easy for him to beat. Let him fight it normally and (hopefully) destroy it. Then do the "Reflex to dodge" business and watch him get torn to shreds (again hopefully).

Honestly, at this point, I'd tell him, "Look, I'm DM, I'm running it this way. Period. If it's that big of a problem for you, find another group."

He's really just being an obnoxious little punk, from what I'm hearing.

Yuki Akuma
2010-03-24, 06:19 PM
Why are you playing with this person?

jiriku
2010-03-24, 06:23 PM
Your question isn't really a D&D rules question so much as an interpersonal relationships question.

Basically, you and he have a disagreement over how much power he has to set the rules of the game, and how much power you have to set those rules. He expects that he can get what he wants by demanding it insistently. I would not be surprised if he is like this away from the gaming table as well.

If you're good at defending yourself from pushy, overbearing people IRL, simply use that skill with him.

If you normally have trouble handling people who are like that, may I suggest The Broken Record Approach. Develop a stock line, such as "I understand you want that, but I run my game a different way." Say it every time he asks, and don't say one word more. Refuse to discuss, negotiate, or provide reasons. Do not engage. Respond to every counterpoint with "Oh, I know what you mean, but I run my game a different way." Be kind, be sympathetic. Be understanding. But tell him "I believe you would, but I run my game a different way." Be a broken record. If he is used to getting his way, you may need to repeat yourself 30 or 40 times (seriously, I am not exaggerating). However, eventually he'll get the hint that you have made up your mind and that the point is not subject to negotiation.

Kobold-Bard
2010-03-24, 06:25 PM
Why are you playing with this person?

Probably because they're friends. Maybe they're not especially, rather it's just a local group, so exiling one person from doing something they enjoy doing, especially if there's no alternative (which there often isn't for this particular hobby) seems a bit harsh.

Two characters: Why does he think he should get two? Just because he wants one, because that's not how it works. Would he get double money in Monopoly just because he wanted it?

Reflex Saves: That's just how the rules are. They may be silly, but that's how it works. Suck it up or get a book to the head.

Kurald Galain
2010-03-24, 06:29 PM
(Also, he's been complaining for the last three sessions about how he can't use his Reflex save to avoid attacks; any suggestions for dealing with that?)

That one is easy: have him targeted at least twice a session by an attack spell that grants him a ref save.

gdiddy
2010-03-24, 06:30 PM
This sounds like a very young person's manipulation tactic, something akin to what a four year old would try. Since their parents failed to teach them about rules, respect, common decency, or limitations, it's often the place of their DM to instruct them on how to be an adult human being. Afterall, they are trying to role play an adult and if they can't fake it in real life, how can they do it in game?

Evard
2010-03-24, 06:32 PM
Another vote for: Why do you keep that player around? Do you really need him?

If you are friends IRL this game could hurt that and really no one wants that...

Sinfire Titan
2010-03-24, 06:33 PM
Have you asked him to justify his request OOC? Literally saying to him "Why should I give you something that powerful when I'm not going to give it to the rest of the party", is likely all you need to do.

Forever Curious
2010-03-24, 06:33 PM
...could he not play a dvati? :smallbiggrin:

TheCountAlucard
2010-03-24, 06:34 PM
What level is your party at?They just got to sixth level.


He's really just being an obnoxious little punk, from what I'm hearing.I don't mean to badmouth him or anything, but it's seriously getting on my nerves.


Why are you playing with this person?Because we have the game over at the dorms, where he and two of the other players are living. Because before the start of this game, he was a pretty decent player who didn't argue with me like this. Because we also play Exalted on Saturdays, and Saturdays might get awkward if he's booted out of the Friday game.


Why does he think he should get two?I really don't know; he was playing two characters in the party during his brief stint as DM, and that might have a factor in it, but I wasn't playing under him at the time, so I can't really be sure.


Have you asked him to justify his request OOC? Literally saying to him "Why should I give you something that powerful when I'm not going to give it to the rest of the party", is likely all you need to do.Actually, yes, I did - his answer was that the rest of the party didn't want to play two characters. :smallconfused:

...though it was amusing to then see the other players say, "Actually, yeah, if he gets to play two characters, I wanna play two characters, too..." :smallamused: (I'm fairly sure they were just backing me up here, so we could get back to playing. Either way, it shut him up for a bit.)

Sinfire Titan
2010-03-24, 06:45 PM
Actually, yes, I did - his answer was that the rest of the party didn't want to play two characters.

That isn't exactly solid grounds. Ask him what he has done OOC to deserve two characters. And if he justifies it, remind him that the rest of the table doesn't want to play two characters.


Alternatively, Gestalt everyone.

Evard
2010-03-24, 06:51 PM
That isn't exactly solid grounds. Ask him what he has done OOC to deserve two characters. And if he justifies it, remind him that the rest of the table doesn't want to play two characters.


Alternatively, Gestalt everyone.

Gestalt everyone but him and let him actually have two different characters that he has to keep up with and roleplay (if he drops one in the background then is goes on a crusade again?)

TheCountAlucard
2010-03-24, 06:55 PM
Hey, some good news! I convinced him - at least, for now - to drop the whole Reflex saves thing!

Prob'ly won't matter anymore, since the character he's bringing in to replace the Rogue he's retiring is a Fighter. :smallamused:

And yeah, since he's retiring his Rogue at the end of the adventure, that means he'll just be playing one character. Hopefully we won't have to argue about it.

Still, thanks, guys! :smallsmile:

Temotei
2010-03-24, 07:14 PM
If another character "goes on a crusade," have him go to a "pleasure house" and rack up a massive debt to a "mafia." Then have the character killed.

Win. :smallcool:

Iban
2010-03-24, 07:33 PM
If another character "goes on a crusade," have him go to a "pleasure house" and rack up a massive debt to a "mafia." Then have the character killed.

Win. :smallcool:

I like the way this guy thinks :P


And congrats with solving your problem :smallsmile:

Evard
2010-03-24, 08:09 PM
I bet he brings up something else relatively soon though any takers?

Mafia? Nah even better is that the character caught X disease from a toilet (or from having fun) and died or is to depressed to go on :P

Thurbane
2010-03-24, 08:33 PM
...could he not play a dvati? :smallbiggrin:
I was going to suggest the same thing.

There's also the Vestigial twin trait in DMG II, but at a much heftier LA cost.

DabblerWizard
2010-03-24, 08:46 PM
It seems that you've done plenty of explaining and reasoning with the guy, but he doesn't give up.

It's your right to decide whether he can have two characters or just one. In the end, he just has to accept you decision.

A way to express this fact is to plainly tell him that (1) you have already made your decision, (2) you will not discuss this with him anymore, and (3) that if he continues being an annoying person, then... insert some consequence for his behavior that you're willing to uphold.

ericgrau
2010-03-24, 08:51 PM
and he makes a point of bringing it up almost every session
This should have been your biggest clue to ignore him. When his main line of reasoning is repetition not logic. I'd talk to someone in depth once, maybe twice. Then you ignore him and "just because" is enough after the first time. Heck, it's too much.

As for problematic players first you say no and just keep playing, then you talk to him, then if it's a major problem you talk to him and warn him that he'll be out of the group if it continues to ruin the game for everyone else, then when all other options are spent you follow through and really do boot him for the sake of the group. If it's a lesser problem, see above post.

Myou
2010-03-24, 09:24 PM
As a DM I'll listen to any idea from a player, and consider it. Once I've decided, I'll try to presuade them that my decision is for the best.

If I can't convince them to drop something, then I just tell them that while they may not agree, they are to drop it - I will not DM for someone who refuses to accept my judgements. So if he argues any more about it I would just tell him that the answer is no, and that I won't discuss it further.

magic9mushroom
2010-03-24, 09:30 PM
The guy's obviously just trying to cheat/munchkinise, and the way to beat him is to point out that the game is fun because and only because there's a challenge in it, and if one player is >> the rest then challenging everyone becomes impossible.

If he doesn't accept that, kick him out, he obviously doesn't want to play D&D so much as indulge his power fantasies.

KillianHawkeye
2010-03-24, 09:30 PM
You can always let him play two characters at half the level of the rest of the party. Maybe he'll learn something after all the deaths. :smallamused:

Coidzor
2010-03-24, 09:37 PM
...Yeah, definitely sounds infantile. Sorry you got stuck with him.

Caving in with a little kid in the first place makes reestablishing yourself all the more difficult. I mean, if he's not going to accept that you're running the game, he's just going to get worse and worse and more of a ****.

aivanther
2010-03-24, 09:49 PM
I would tell him this is a role playing game. You are effectively "acting" through another character. You can switch roles, but not play the same role at once. If you decide you want to play more than one character then you really want to write a book and you're in the wrong place for that.

If you want to re-establish your relationship as DM I'd recommend something my own DM told us after some regular arguments from a couple players:

Essentially he said: Okay guys, things have gone a bit wacky, so I'd like to lay down some ground rules. We may disagree, and I'll be free to talk through some things with you, but as DM once I've made a decision please don't re-hash it. This is meant to be fun for all of us, and when you keep after me I quit having fun and I want to quit. Also, we are agreeing to RAW from these books, with Rule 0 in force, but only as an executive order to keep it from breaking the game. If you don't like the books, talk about it after the session is over. I'll think about it, tell you my decision, and let's leave it at that.

the humanity
2010-03-24, 09:51 PM
quit being a pansy. just tell him 'play my way or play somewhere else', and then end it.if he keeps at it, start packing your stuff. the other players will be very pissed at him for being a retard.

Captain Six
2010-03-24, 10:52 PM
You can always let him play two characters at half the level of the rest of the party. Maybe he'll learn something after all the deaths. :smallamused:

Actually having two characters with divided exp (works out to 3/4th the level of the rest of the party level I think) would work out pretty well. I would be tempted with that option if it were presented. Loot conflict would be the only problem but there are ways to justify that in game. Perhaps the two characters ARE related or one serves the other, meaning they would get one share to split.

Compromises work.

Crow
2010-03-24, 11:44 PM
Let him retire his current character, and then inform him that his other character died on the crusade.

Then allow him to start over with a fresh character 1 level below the rest of the group.

CN the Logos
2010-03-25, 12:44 AM
I realize the situation is apparently resolved, but...

Couldn't you just let him take the Leadership feat and have him control the cohort too? I'd rather keep cohorts as NPCs in my games myself, but at least it wouldn't be totally game-breaking, and the cohort typically has a reason to follow the first character.

And if he rejects that option, you can tell him to go jump with no guilt whatsoever, since that was far more compromise than you were required to offer. Guy's gotta learn he can't always get his way at some point.

Sliver
2010-03-25, 01:05 AM
Some people seem to miss the point that this person is a decent human being outside the scope of this specific game (played before, all good, and he isn't complaining about him in their Saturday Exalted games) so while it may be annoying, doing things just to make him pay for always bringing it up isn't mature as well. I don't think that "let him retire, but kill the other character" is a solution to anything, and I agree with Captain Six's way of thinking.

While the Reflex for an extra line of defense is absurd in D&D, the two characters part is not that much, if in the hands of someone who can handle it without metagaming, or have a solid backstory for it (related, slavery, stuff like that) and you can trust him. This is not the case here as it seems(stuff like fade into background and others) so don't compromise your group. They deserve better then to hear you try to answer his demands every time. If these things come up again in your game, after the second time, stop paying attention to them. If he keeps nagging or talking louder or w/e, continue, even if it bothers everybody.

Coidzor
2010-03-25, 01:22 AM
Some people seem to miss the point that this person is a decent human being outside the scope of this specific game (played before, all good, and he isn't complaining about him in their Saturday Exalted games) so while it may be annoying, doing things just to make him pay for always bringing it up isn't mature as well.

Huh. I missed that being said at all. Still, the fact that he's arguing that reflex saves should substitute for Attacks against one's AC is just... ridiculous in its lack of understanding of the system. To the point of just seeming like a **** move.

Glyphic
2010-03-25, 02:05 AM
I've -always- hated anyone who suggests they can play two characters. Table time, for plot, combat, RP, dice rolling, counting, and whatever else, is limited. The presumption that you get double that amount of time to anyone else is plain rude.

absolmorph
2010-03-25, 02:51 AM
I've -always- hated anyone who suggests they can play two characters. Table time, for plot, combat, RP, dice rolling, counting, and whatever else, is limited. The presumption that you get double that amount of time to anyone else is plain rude.
Personally, I play three characters. I may add a fourth, simply because I have an idea for a hilarious character. I realize this is a fairly unique situation (of course, the entire group is rather unique: it's mostly pre-teens, with myself and two other teenagers as the only mildly mature players; the DM has 30-ish years of experience), and quite frankly would be amazed if it happened in another game. I tend to plan my actions ahead of when I need to, and focus on one character (who is the sorta-leader, anyways, by virtue of being the toughest, consistently useful [EVEN AS A MOUSE] and a duke) for role-playing. It can work, if the player is careful.

Ormur
2010-03-25, 09:11 AM
Playing two characters is mostly bad because then one player gets double the spotlight of the rest, takes twice as many turns and could theoretically roleplay twice as much. It would be pretty unfair to allow it for the sake of the other players. A second PC is different from a familiar, mount, animal companion and even a cohort in that it's a completely independent character. You're usually not roleplaying your animal companion, just directing him and I wouldn't even let someone have a cohort without knowing he could handle it and with good in-game justification.

Even if he wouldn't hog the spotlight it would simply mean one or both of the characters would fade into the background, being roleplayed less than the average character. Other players and would also have a hard time distinguishing between two characters played by the same person unless they were roleplayed very distinctively. I just can't see a golden mean here.

The justification that others just don't choose to play two characters is also wrong since you can't force the other players to play in ways they don't like just so you don't ruin the session. Even as a theoretical situation it's worse since two players would make roleplay and battles harder (OC not IC) and the DM's job almost twice as difficult, it would be a lose-lose scenario

Tyndmyr
2010-03-25, 12:03 PM
It's like getting to play two armies in risk, or two players in monopoly. It's not really designed for that, it's not going to work well, and it's not fair to the other players.

Either everyone plays normally, or EVERYONE plays two characters. If nobody else wants to, tough cookies for him. Rules have to be the same for everyone to be fair. He can invest in hirelings, or take on leadership if he wants extra characters, but you can't just get freebie extra power for nothing but begging.

And the reflex saves thing is either pure munchkinry, or not understanding D&D. If he complains he never gets to use it, add lots of traps, fireballs, etc. Make him use it. This is like a player complaining that fort saves never get used...what, you want to be poisoned? Wish granted.

Stubbed Tongue
2010-03-25, 12:29 PM
It might be time to just hand him the Player's Handbook and say "find in there where it says you can play too characters at the same time and I'll let you, till then, no".

Or alternatively quote page 5 of the PHB where it reads "The Player's Role".

Or simply say 'no'. If he persists ask him "what are you? Five years old? Right now you have a choice one character or no character; which will it be?" And have a back bone and stick to your guns because I assure you he will question many of your rulings if you cave in to his desires now.

Or (it's nice having options) explain that D&D is about fun and its only fun for him if he plays two character, and if none of the other players back you then maybe you need a different group.

TheCountAlucard
2010-03-25, 02:47 PM
And the reflex saves thing is either pure munchkinry, or not understanding D&D.I do believe it might be this second one.

I mean, he's played for a few months, but he doesn't seem to have the system down.

For instance, if you ask him what the difference between flat-footed AC and touch AC is, he has to look in the books for an answer. He was also of the opinion (until I explained otherwise) that "max ranks" for a skill was a cap on one's skill modifier. And so on and so forth.

Tyndmyr
2010-03-25, 02:51 PM
Happens a lot. 3.5 has a lot of rules to absorb. That said, adding a second character is not usually ideal for a new player. Powerful as leadership, druids, etc are, I tend to avoid suggesting them to newbies to avoid the added bookwork.

Probably best off just throwing stuff that targets ref at him until he gets used to what sorts of things generally have reflex saves. A dungeon of traps, perhaps.

At your level, a hireling is probably his best option for picking up a second character...and one that is sufficiently low investment that you won't feel bad about killing him off if it happens.

TheCountAlucard
2010-03-25, 03:01 PM
A dungeon of traps, perhaps.Well, they are currently in a kobold warren... :smallamused:

jguy
2010-03-25, 03:16 PM
I couple times I've wanted to play two characters simply because I love cooking up concept builds and I know I will never have the chance to play them all. I am actually thinking of making a character with Dissociative Identity Disorder and having two character sheets for the two personalities. Would be an interesting RP

Kobold-Bard
2010-03-25, 03:31 PM
I couple times I've wanted to play two characters simply because I love cooking up concept builds and I know I will never have the chance to play them all. I am actually thinking of making a character with Dissociative Identity Disorder and having two character sheets for the two personalities. Would be an interesting RP

Play Dvati who are convinced they're the same person and the other one is just in their head (sort of reverse Tyler Durdon style). Confuses the hell out of people, especially players when it's an NPC :smallcool:

Math_Mage
2010-03-25, 03:33 PM
The whole "he's a newbie" thing suggests a simple solution: point out that he now has to do double the bookkeeping, double the combat strategery, and not hold up the rest of the group--and if he's still at the "What good is Tumble?" stage, he will hold up the rest of the group with two characters.

Of course, the problem's been solved already, so this is just a hypothetical.

Golden-Esque
2010-03-25, 03:34 PM
Maybe have him scrap both characters and look into that class from the Draconomicon that lets you play as Twins who essentially do everything together. Its an interesting race; I didn't like it, but he might. It effectively lets you play two people (abet identical in personality and appearance) while counting as one.

Roderick_BR
2010-03-25, 03:34 PM
Easy. Say your group is not playing this kind of game, and you won't allow it. DM's veto based on group's gaming style. Say that the other character is simply not coming back. You're the DM. End.

If he doesn't like it well... you don't want to kick him out, but you shouldn't allow him to ruin the game for everyone else by requesting something no one else is getting. Hold your position on the matter.

taltamir
2010-03-25, 04:09 PM
as far the ref to AC thing... people have given good explanation thus far, but it also bears mentioning to him that dexterity adds EQUALLY to both AC and reflex.
your overall "dodge" ability is dexterity which adds to both... AC is then the total ability to not take damage from a blow in combat (which is armor + dodging), while reflex is used to avoid damage from explosions (mostly by protecting your head/soft spots; plus some unexplained moon logic), and balance skill is used to not fall... dexterity adds to all of these and if he wants to be good at all of those he should play a dex master... otherwise he is specializing in ONE kind of dodging and he just can't apply it to other types.

as for two characters... don't tell him he will "end up helping each other more then the rest of the group" because he will argue that is not the case (well, its theoretically possible but extremely unlikely), and that will just agitate him...
DO tell him that if he is playing TWO players, he is getting an unfair amount of DM attention and actions in combat... so every combat round he gets to two rounds for the one round every other person plays; so everyone else has to wait longer... tell him its no different than taking turns on a playstation where he gets 20 minutes for every 10 minutes of other players... it would be fair if everyone had two characters, but the other players do not want to make this sort of investment/commitment.

As for retiring current character to take the other one... sure, let him do it. But tell him he can't just swap the two constantly... every character can be brought back from retirement exactly 1 time... the second time it retires it retires for good. (that doesn't mean death, just that it finds another group to play with)

TheCountAlucard
2010-03-27, 04:56 AM
Well, guys, just had our game session, and now we really don't have to worry about him playing two characters. :smallamused:

The party descended to the depths of the kobold warrens. At one point, the Gnome got poisoned, taking some Strength damage. At the very bottom of a deep chasm, the PCs come to realize that the kobolds are being led by a red dragon (just a juvenile one, but still...). :smalleek:

So, lake of lava, island of rock in the middle. The PCs are on a ledge about three stories up, and would rather the dragon not fly up to engage them, so the Fighter and the two Rogues all jump down onto the island to do battle with it, while the Wizard, Factotum, and Ranger pepper at it with ranged attacks from the ledge... except that the Gnome Rogue failed on his Jump check. We did the math, and if he hadn't taken Strength damage, he'd've hit the DC right on the nose. Unfortunately, the immersion in lava was enough to kill him three times over. :smalleek:

So, yeah, Bromsby is very retired; he's dead. And afterward, the player turned down the offer to play Hunter again; he told me he was in the mood to play something new. His new character concept? A Hobgoblin Monk, geared toward going Drunken Master. Yeah, this should be amusing. :smallamused:

Party killed the dragon, by the way. Gnome was the only casualty.

PhoenixRivers
2010-03-27, 05:16 AM
Brought that up as well, reminding him of the time the party took down a boss encounter in two rounds. "That's your problem," he insisted, "you're the one with the Monster Manuals." :smallmad:

"And this is my solution. Being a DM is very work intensive. I spend a lot of pre-game time in preparation, in a largely thankless job. If you wish for me to add to my workload, you're going to have to provide me with a very, very good reason to allow it. And by that, I mean that you are going to have to demonstrate to me and the other players how allowing you to have two characters will make the game more enjoyable for us all. I'm willing to entertain alterations to my policy for the greater good of the group, but you're going to have to justify it under those terms, rather than 'I want it so I should have it and who cares about the extra work that puts on others as a consequence'. Understood?"

Kobold-Bard
2010-03-27, 05:19 AM
Ah Kobolds, is there any problem they can't solve :smallbiggrin:

Sliver
2010-03-27, 05:23 AM
Ah Kobolds, is there any problem they can't solve :smallbiggrin:

Next campaign I DM there will be someone that it is his motto!

"Sir, we have a problem. It's th-"
"Throw some kobolds at it."
"But you don't know w-"
"Anything can be fixed with kobolds."

Kobold-Bard
2010-03-27, 05:29 AM
Next campaign I DM there will be someone that it is his motto!

"Sir, we have a problem. It's th-"
"Throw some kobolds at it."
"But you don't know w-"
"Anything can be fixed with kobolds."

Everyone remember this day; Kobolds have officially replaced Fire as any circumstance, all purpose fix :smallcool:

Sliver
2010-03-27, 05:55 AM
Everyone remember this day; Kobolds have officially replaced Fire as any circumstance, all purpose fix :smallcool:

I can imagine an exploding Koboldball to be quite potent. :smalltongue:

Heliomance
2010-03-27, 07:51 AM
Everyone remember this day; Kobolds have officially replaced Fire as any circumstance, all purpose fix :smallcool:

What about duct tape?

I now want to see someone stat a Duct Tape Golem.

Duskranger
2010-03-27, 08:56 AM
What about duct tape?

I now want to see someone stat a Duct Tape Golem.

That would be impossible, beacause Duct Tape is like Chuck Norris. Unstattable and if you try you get roundhouse kicked in the face :P

Tiki Snakes
2010-03-27, 01:12 PM
Everyone remember this day; Kobolds have officially replaced Fire as any circumstance, all purpose fix :smallcool:

That's because Kobolds, as intelligent creatures, can bring fire to the situation if needed, but short of a very few odd situations, Fire struggles to bring Kobolds.

As the number of Kobolds increases, the number of situations they are incapable of resolving approaches zero.

Sliver
2010-03-27, 01:15 PM
Also, Kobolds reproduce faster then Fire.. Or so I heard..

Kobold-Bard
2010-03-27, 01:32 PM
Also, Kobolds reproduce faster then Fire.. Or so I heard..

Not really faster, just in far greater numbers.

AtwasAwamps
2010-03-27, 01:40 PM
Everyone remember this day; Kobolds have officially replaced Fire as any circumstance, all purpose fix :smallcool:

Bugger that.

Someone get me a torch and some kerosene, I've got a point to prove.

Kobold-Bard
2010-03-27, 01:52 PM
Bugger that.

Someone get me a torch and some kerosene, I've got a point to prove.

http://www.kraproom.com/pacman/aod/gallery/d/3512-1/kobolds.jpg

Continue at your own risk buddy. I'll sing at your funeral if you like :smallcool:

Duskranger
2010-03-27, 01:52 PM
Bugger that.

Someone get me a torch and some kerosene, I've got a point to prove.

Here you go mate, and some Duct Tape, so you can light the Duct Taped kobold and laugh.