PDA

View Full Version : Item decay, opinions?



Zellic Solis
2010-06-09, 11:00 AM
The minotaur champion is wielding a glowy battle axe of power and then when they beat him... it's only a +2 battle axe. The evil guy is wearing armor covered in magic of evilness.... and when they kill him it's only +2 full plate. What is the deal?

In the 3.5 campaign I'm playing in the DM handles magic loot a little bit oddly and I'm not sure if I like it or not. The gist is this. If you use a magic item it becomes attuned to you... soulbound for those of you who play wow. So what is a +4 greatsword of shocking burst for you is a +2 greatsword of shock for someone else... or just a +1 greatsword. The GM justifies it by saying magic items become attuned to their wielder's personal magic field. People will still steal them... after all that dinky +1 dagger is still a 400 gp token to some poor schmuck.

The DM has justified it personally because he is tired of his players doing mix and match loot. They are so focused on optimization whenever something drops that it can literally eat up hours of game. He also doesn't like people playing the "I'm going to take your stuff" game. He also likes pitting us against foes that are obviously as magically geared as we are but doesn't want us to become overpowered. As a DM myself I can approve on where he's coming from. One of our players brought it to a head when he was using a good weapon and wanted to put on evil armor. Hey, no conflict. He was neutral.

So now we have item decay and attunement. Apparently, if you want the good stuff it has to be built for you... specifically for you... by a wizard or cleric or whatever. Once that item is wielded or worn for a day or so then it becomes attuned and is yours. If it's separated from you and returned then it's still attuned to you. Apparently the item can be attuned to you if you undertake a quest or whatnot to really make it yours. This actually became part of a whole campaign where "Mr. Neutral so I wear everything" wore the full plate covered in evil glowing runes and became the target of the armor's forger, a pit fiend.

So it has its good parts, story and play wise. On the other hand it is a bit of a downer to do an epic fight knowing that the loot will be turned into garbage. I know the story's supposed to matter and fun over all. So I'm just not sure how to feel about this. I'm pretty sure that the DM was getting so fed up that it was implement this or quit so... yeah.

Thoughts?

Beorn080
2010-06-09, 11:07 AM
The answer is simple. Next time, take the BBEG alive, sovereign glue him to your shield, and have him use the sword. If he refuses, a few days alone with a permanent symbol of pain should convince him otherwise.

This has a side benefit. If he dualwielded, and you find another dualwielder, you can dual wield dualwielders.

PersonMan
2010-06-09, 11:09 AM
Or copy a miniature I saw. Tear off his arm and wait for rigor mortis to set in. Now you have a good sword, still in his possession so it gets full bonuses!

Jair Barik
2010-06-09, 11:10 AM
Seems a good idea in some ways. Maybe if he puts powerful magic items waiting to be attuned in amidst the treasure troves of the aforementioned epic fight it would work out well?

I used a similar system in some places whereby I described loot in manners such as 'rusted shortswords' and 'half rotten bows.' It meant the characters (a nice good party) didn't spend time after each battle looting corpses of every last sword and suit of armour to sell in town. They still picked up coins magical trinkets and any valuables or plot important items (keys letters and such) but that was fine, it just didn't seem right to me that a party would hoard various weapons and suits of armour stripping down corpses and such like. Also made it hard to track wealth. The system did work though and the players didn't complain, heck I think they enjoyed it as it meant when they came across something unusual it kept their interest much longer (I think the games highlight was them working out how to use the Alchemists fire flamethrower they'd picked up off some troglodyte corpse, and the guy using it quickly discarding his weapon upon seeing another trog explode whilst using one, they had a 10% chance of exploding with each use as they were highly experimental)

kamikasei
2010-06-09, 11:16 AM
I'm pretty sure that the DM was getting so fed up that it was implement this or quit so... yeah.

Is there no possibility of the group changing the behaviour that's so frustrating the DM?

Overall I like the idea, though not necessarily the exact implementation. I prefer the basics of a character's signature equipment - armor, weapon(s), shield if they have one - to be things they can keep and upgrade throughout their adventures instead of having to swap them out for newer versions looted from enemies every couple of levels. Your DM might consider implementing something like 4e's disenchant/residuum system, whereby you can convert looted magical items in to resources with which to upgrade your existing gear.

Zellic Solis
2010-06-09, 06:49 PM
Well I was against it at first, seeing it as arbitrary nerfing. When he had the pit fiend come after the armor as a major story arc (we basically were fighting for our lives through our castle HQ) made it more than just simple nerfing. Apparently wizards and clerics who enchant the armor have to cast multiple spells on the recipient to attune them to it... spells which automatically succeed. So you really have to trust the person making your magic items or one of those spells might be... oopse... disintegrate!

But when it comes to the group behavior, don't hold your breath. One of the players has a VERY "Us vrs the DM" mentality and goes out of his way to make the DM's job difficult. And Joe is a min-maxer who twinks his characters because he hates to suck. He's not happy unless his characters hit on a two or above. So no, not likely. :(

nargbop
2010-06-09, 06:54 PM
[Bad motive] I love taking away my player's shinies, especially when it makes them sad! [/Bad motive]

Alternatively, the DM can institute the 'Anything you say is in character, and here's the next NPC you're going to meet, and she wonders what you mean by plus four.'

Milskidasith
2010-06-09, 07:06 PM
Well I was against it at first, seeing it as arbitrary nerfing. When he had the pit fiend come after the armor as a major story arc (we basically were fighting for our lives through our castle HQ) made it more than just simple nerfing. Apparently wizards and clerics who enchant the armor have to cast multiple spells on the recipient to attune them to it... spells which automatically succeed. So you really have to trust the person making your magic items or one of those spells might be... oopse... disintegrate!

But when it comes to the group behavior, don't hold your breath. One of the players has a VERY "Us vrs the DM" mentality and goes out of his way to make the DM's job difficult. And Joe is a min-maxer who twinks his characters because he hates to suck. He's not happy unless his characters hit on a two or above. So no, not likely. :(

You do realize spellcraft can figure out if he's casting the attunement spells, right? Figuring out he's casting disintegrate is pretty easy.

Anyway: Letting monsters have powerful items so they can be decent threats but making them less good for you is reasonable, though it would be better if you could just take the magic items and use them to buff up your gear. Making it so that you get attacked just because you're wearing the BBEG's armor which the DM explicitly let you wear is bad.

Magnema
2010-06-09, 07:09 PM
Seems a good idea in some ways. Maybe if he puts powerful magic items waiting to be attuned in amidst the treasure troves of the aforementioned epic fight it would work out well?

I used a similar system in some places whereby I described loot in manners such as 'rusted shortswords' and 'half rotten bows.' It meant the characters (a nice good party) didn't spend time after each battle looting corpses of every last sword and suit of armour to sell in town. They still picked up coins magical trinkets and any valuables or plot important items (keys letters and such) but that was fine, it just didn't seem right to me that a party would hoard various weapons and suits of armour stripping down corpses and such like. Also made it hard to track wealth. The system did work though and the players didn't complain, heck I think they enjoyed it as it meant when they came across something unusual it kept their interest much longer (I think the games highlight was them working out how to use the Alchemists fire flamethrower they'd picked up off some troglodyte corpse, and the guy using it quickly discarding his weapon upon seeing another trog explode whilst using one, they had a 10% chance of exploding with each use as they were highly experimental)

I basically tell my players that, in any adventure where they will get a considerable amount of mundane treasure (i.e. most low-level adventures, facing Goblinoids, Orcs, and the like), they get 100 gp worth of mundane treasure. I make an exception for any armor a creature is wearing that is worth a lot (i.e. not Padded, Leather, Studded Leather or Hide, but rather Chain Mail, Breastplate & so forth). I haven't run any high-level adventures yet, so I don't know how I'll do it then, but we'll see.

Prime32
2010-06-09, 07:09 PM
So, everything is a legacy item basically?

Safety Sword
2010-06-09, 08:37 PM
So your DM added something to his world to give it character and depth... and you dislike it?

Holy Avenger anyone?

It's just like all items have an alignment requirement or another such thing... I really like items that have interesting powers that you can unlock as your character progresses, or do a quest. It makes items interesting and players want to research their items and history of same.

I think it's a great idea to explain it the way your DM does.... at least he did explain it.

In my opinion, giving the world depth by saying that items made by X's followers work better for followers of X is actually pretty good. Items attuning over time is a good one in my book.

AstralFire
2010-06-09, 08:39 PM
You do realize spellcraft can figure out if he's casting the attunement spells, right? Figuring out he's casting disintegrate is pretty easy.

Anyway: Letting monsters have powerful items so they can be decent threats but making them less good for you is reasonable, though it would be better if you could just take the magic items and use them to buff up your gear. Making it so that you get attacked just because you're wearing the BBEG's armor which the DM explicitly let you wear is bad.

...How is that bad? Plothooks are... bad?

I don't necessarily approve of the implementation, but I like the general idea.

Milskidasith
2010-06-09, 08:49 PM
...How is that bad? Plothooks are... bad?

I don't necessarily approve of the implementation, but I like the general idea.

The problem seems to be that it's not so much a plothook, as that the DM is saying "OK, this guy gets some armor, do you want to wear it?"

"Sure!" the player says.

"Oh, well, it's crappier for you and now you are going to get derailed by a pit fiend who wants to kill you for wearing it!"

"The hell?"

AstralFire
2010-06-09, 08:56 PM
It was presumably still a good item to be worn despite the nerfing. And they appear to be aware of it. I don't get it.

Safety Sword
2010-06-09, 09:36 PM
The problem seems to be that it's not so much a plothook, as that the DM is saying "OK, this guy gets some armor, do you want to wear it?"

"Sure!" the player says.

"Oh, well, it's crappier for you and now you are going to get derailed by a pit fiend who wants to kill you for wearing it!"

"The hell?"

I never ask my players to wear the armor from the BBEGs. They CHOOSE to wear it. If it doesn't work as they saw the BBEG do it, it's probably something that they don't know how to use/activate.

Their character wouldn't know whether the armor is being watched by a pit fiend.

Milskidasith
2010-06-09, 09:55 PM
It was presumably still a good item to be worn despite the nerfing. And they appear to be aware of it. I don't get it.

From what I judged from the OP, they were not warned that wearing the armor would cause them to be derailed by a pit fiend. If they were warned "Wearing items that enemies have will get the plot derailed because the creator will want to chase you down for..." no given reason, but I assume there was one in the game, then it's fine, but if you are just told "The item is weaker because you aren't attuned to it" and then you got attacked for wearing it, as a player I would find that annoying at best.

EDIT: Safety, are you the DM? If not, why are you acting as if I personally offended you by making a post? Regardless of whether or not your players "choose" to wear the armor, if you aren't the DM then your players aren't who the discussion is about, and if you are, then describing how awesome it is, is, in fact, telling them to wear it, or at least hinting it's a good idea.

AstralFire
2010-06-09, 10:03 PM
I don't jive with the idea that that's telling them to wear it. That's telling them that it's a wicked (pun intended) piece of armor. How an individual character decides to act on this information is totally up to them, and more than one of my characters would not have worn it.

Also, I really do not understand at a fundamental level how you are seeing the pit fiend as punishment. It is something that happens in a living world - unexpected, but totally explicable, consequences.

Icewraith
2010-06-09, 10:54 PM
This idea solves a lot of the "using powerful NPCs but the PCs loot their items but the NPCs aren't much of a challenge without lots of items" without significantly diminishing the value of signature items carried by the opponents, since the PCs will be motivated to attune to those.

742
2010-06-09, 11:24 PM
i like being able to personalize my items at least to some extent; it often lends a bit to the characters personality. maybe the UMD rogue is essentially a low level god-wizard with some cleric wands, or the wizard protects her spellbook(s) with crazy amounts of traps

the only sort of cahracter i can imagine just grabbing whatever they find is the barbarian type, and with the amount you need to specialize a fighter to not suck you cant even really do that.

Milskidasith
2010-06-09, 11:24 PM
I don't jive with the idea that that's telling them to wear it. That's telling them that it's a wicked (pun intended) piece of armor. How an individual character decides to act on this information is totally up to them, and more than one of my characters would not have worn it.

Also, I really do not understand at a fundamental level how you are seeing the pit fiend as punishment. It is something that happens in a living world - unexpected, but totally explicable, consequences.

I don't know what games you've played in, but typically when enemies drop items, the PCs are intended to wear them... it's an underlying assumption of the system. Violating that without warning is an exploitation of the PCs trust and seems to be vindictive purely for the point of being vindictive. It's on a similar level to, say, having a bunch of guys from an evil cult attacking you, and then getting arrested for killing them. Using the player's trust and sense of fair play against them creates a hostile environment that is no cohesive to playing a fun game, and such actions only exacerbate the problems the DM is trying to solve.

And why I'm seeing it as punishment: Because it makes no sense otherwise. It's not a normal consequence of games for you to get attacked for improving your gear, especially when it seems to make no sense why ("I forged this armor, so I'm going to go kill somebody because he's wearing it!" What does the Pit Fiend gain from that? Any justification is flimsy at the least). It's not a natural consequence of improving your gear, and from the OP it seems as if the DM is doing this purely to be vindictive against what he thinks is a powergaming player.

AstralFire
2010-06-09, 11:28 PM
Even the system has always made allowances for gear which is abnormal due to story importance. See: Artifacts.

There are plenty of instances of genre fiction where you get consequences for picking up the wrong piece of armor. See: Cursed Items.

From what we can tell, this piece of gear is still good enough to be worth wearing and it's giving them a plot hook. I don't see the problem.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-06-09, 11:34 PM
I don't see the problem.

What does the Pit Fiend gain from that? Any justification is flimsy at the least

That seems to be a problem.

A pit fiend? Really? A misguided adventurer wouldn't have been good enough for somebody walking around with evil runes?

AstralFire
2010-06-09, 11:41 PM
Come again? I don't understand what you just said there at all.

Milskidasith
2010-06-09, 11:44 PM
Even the system has always made allowances for gear which is abnormal due to story importance. See: Artifacts.

There are plenty of instances of genre fiction where you get consequences for picking up the wrong piece of armor. See: Cursed Items.

From what we can tell, this piece of gear is still good enough to be worth wearing and it's giving them a plot hook. I don't see the problem.

First off: Artifacts are artifacts, not common items. Yes, items can be important. +X armor is not.

As for cursed items: I don't use them in my games, for the same reasons I've listed. It messes with the players trust to arbitrarily screw them over, especially if they get the cursed item from an enemy who was actually wielding it with no signs of it being cursed.

For it being good enough to wear: When was that a point? Nerfing it is fine. The problem is that you're screwing with the player's trust by having a Pit Fiend show up for... I still don't get how he would possibly care that the item somebody bought from him was in possession of somebody else. I see that as a design problem; in Roguelikes, cursed items are expected, in D&D, they are just the DM being vindictive, and in this case it seems especially obvious the DM is just sending the Pit Fiend after them due to the DM being angry because he got mad about the power gaming character wearing the armor.

EDIT: Astral, he's saying that one of the problems is a Pit Fiend going after them for wearing evil armor makes no sense at all, but if a good adventurer saw the guy in glowing evil armor, attacking them would make sense. I'd actually be fine with that method, if only because the consequence actually makes sense.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-06-09, 11:45 PM
I'm a bit tired, sorry.
The fighter-guy who likes to wear everything decided to put on full plate covered in evil glowing runes. Now, I'd expect backlash from this action. Perhaps adventurers or other powerful humanoids react very harshly to the evil glowing runes. The sort of backlash I wouldn't expect would be a pit fiend gunning for this random mortal.

AstralFire
2010-06-09, 11:52 PM
First off: Artifacts are artifacts, not common items. Yes, items can be important. +X armor is not.

And yet, the only functional difference between some artifacts and a normal magic item is one or two special abilities which could usually be priced if someone tried hard enough.


As for cursed items: I don't use them in my games, for the same reasons I've listed. It messes with the players trust to arbitrarily screw them over, especially if they get the cursed item from an enemy who was actually wielding it with no signs of it being cursed.

I am far from a vindictive DM - I let my players change their entire builds between sessions as long as they're maintaining the same concept, I craft new classes for them, I give them custom weaponry; yet I have used cursed items with some regularity. My players have always trusted me fine to do one thing:

Provide a fun, interesting ride.

You're jumping the gun an awful lot to say this is violating trust when you don't know much about how this DM runs his groups in general.

The pit fiend going after them is perfectly logical - "I made this armor for such and such person, you are sullying it by wearing it." That's not an unheard of motivation for mythical smiths and inventors.

PersonMan
2010-06-10, 12:11 AM
I'm a bit tired, sorry.
The fighter-guy who likes to wear everything decided to put on full plate covered in evil glowing runes. Now, I'd expect backlash from this action. Perhaps adventurers or other powerful humanoids react very harshly to the evil glowing runes. The sort of backlash I wouldn't expect would be a pit fiend gunning for this random mortal.

But the problem is if that the player wasn't told "by the way, the armor is covered in glowing runes of EVIL". If I as a player found something like that, I'd probably destroy it. If I found +3 Armor, I'd wear it, and if the DM made random people attack me, I'd be annoyed. Especially if he said later that it was due to EVIL runes which he never mentioned.

Drakevarg
2010-06-10, 12:23 AM
Personally, I like this idea, and might consider using it... with the caveat that as the player continues to use the item, it'll attune itself to its new user over time and become just as powerful as it was for the original owner.

The Shadowmind
2010-06-10, 12:30 AM
At what level was the Pit fiend encounter at?
This is the Pit Fiend a creature that was at will blasphemy (caster level 18), create undead, greater dispel magic, invisibility, mass hold monster, persistent image, power word stun, unholy aura. It also has regeneration against all the unlikely to be seen good-aligned silver weapons, and [Good] spells. Who also has a few of abilities that could cause death after its own demise. And, that if it ignores its ability to summon/make help.

Edit:I agree with Psycho, about the item becoming attuned with use idea.

Drakevarg
2010-06-10, 12:37 AM
Perhaps when it get a new user, it always drops to a +1 bonus. Then, every new level the user takes, the weapon increases it's bonus by +1. Depending on either the user's personality or the weapon's design (depends on your taste, I suppose), it gains special abilities instead of just a larger bonus.

Zellic Solis
2010-06-10, 01:25 AM
The problem seems to be that it's not so much a plothook, as that the DM is saying "OK, this guy gets some armor, do you want to wear it?"

"Sure!" the player says.

"Oh, well, it's crappier for you and now you are going to get derailed by a pit fiend who wants to kill you for wearing it!"

"The hell?"

Actually it's more like this.

You kill the blackguard leader.

"Cool. I loot his armor."

"...The plate armor is inscribed with unholy sigils of Mephistopheles."

"It's cool. I'm true neutral so it won't mess with me. What are the stats?"

"This is armor that has been bathed in the blood if 999 innocent children in its forging."

"Sweet. So +4? +5?"

"You hear their sobbing voices begging you for release."

"Dude. What are the stats? I'll just have Dave break out the wand of identification."

"... +4 armor of Evil Fortification."

This is almost verbatim the exchange between DM and player prior to implementing this attunment stuff.

Drakevarg
2010-06-10, 01:32 AM
Actually it's more like this.

You kill the blackguard leader.

"Cool. I loot his armor."

"...The plate armor is inscribed with unholy sigils of Mephistopheles."

"It's cool. I'm true neutral so it won't mess with me. What are the stats?"

"This is armor that has been bathed in the blood if 999 innocent children in its forging."

"Sweet. So +4? +5?"

"You hear their sobbing voices begging you for release."

"Dude. What are the stats? I'll just have Dave break out the wand of identification."

"... +4 armor of Evil Fortification."

This is almost verbatim the exchange between DM and player prior to implementing this attunment stuff.

I'd probably have to resist the urge to have the armor devour the guy's soul after that, myself.

Zellic Solis
2010-06-10, 01:37 AM
At what level was the Pit fiend encounter at?
This is the Pit Fiend a creature that was at will blasphemy (caster level 18), create undead, greater dispel magic, invisibility, mass hold monster, persistent image, power word stun, unholy aura. It also has regeneration against all the unlikely to be seen good-aligned silver weapons, and [Good] spells. Who also has a few of abilities that could cause death after its own demise. And, that if it ignores its ability to summon/make help.

Edit:I agree with Psycho, about the item becoming attuned with use idea.

We were all lvl 11 when it happened. The pit fiend didn't summon help. Apparently he was trying to keep his recovery of his armor a secret from other fiends. He did slay almost everyone in the castle and animated them. However we'd just completed a campaign against a cult of Mephistophelez and so the paladin, cleric, and barbarian were all in possession of enchanted good aligned weapons courtesy of Selune. We fought valiantly and then the pitfiend critted the fighter and took his head clean off. With him and the paladin down yours truly offered a straight up deal... take the body, leave the head for a resurrection. Have a nice day. Nat 20 on the diplomacy roll and generous DM had the fiend take the deal. Of course now I have my own Qularr sulking around trying to tempt my wizard... sigh.

(Oh. On reflection, he didn't use greater dispel magic or mass hold monster. Dunno if that was DM playing him weak or not. He was Akazul the Forger or Woe and was a pit fiend with a maimed leg and arm that were reinforced with adamantite supports. So he might have been weaker than a standard pit fiend out of the book. He still took out both our meatshields and almost cleric though so still a nasty nasty fight.)

Safety Sword
2010-06-10, 01:50 AM
Actually it's more like this.

You kill the blackguard leader.

"Cool. I loot his armor."

"...The plate armor is inscribed with unholy sigils of Mephistopheles."

"It's cool. I'm true neutral so it won't mess with me. What are the stats?"

"This is armor that has been bathed in the blood if 999 innocent children in its forging."

"Sweet. So +4? +5?"

"You hear their sobbing voices begging you for release."

"Dude. What are the stats? I'll just have Dave break out the wand of identification."

"... +4 armor of Evil Fortification."

This is almost verbatim the exchange between DM and player prior to implementing this attunment stuff.

You actually deserved about 7 or 8 of the nine hells to spill forth at that moment...

Item attunement is pretty much standard in my games. As Pyscho said before. Magic items are just cooler when they evolve their abilities. Also makes players want to keep magic items and not just trade in as soon as the next thing hits the floor.

The Shadowmind
2010-06-10, 01:56 AM
We were all lvl 11 when it happened. The pit fiend didn't summon help. Apparently he was trying to keep his recovery of his armor a secret from other fiends. He did slay almost everyone in the castle and animated them. However we'd just completed a campaign against a cult of Mephistophelez and so the paladin, cleric, and barbarian were all in possession of enchanted good aligned weapons courtesy of Selune. We fought valiantly and then the pitfiend critted the fighter and took his head clean off. With him and the paladin down yours truly offered a straight up deal... take the body, leave the head for a resurrection. Have a nice day. Nat 20 on the diplomacy roll and generous DM had the fiend take the deal. Of course now I have my own Qularr sulking around trying to tempt my wizard... sigh.

Let see the regeneration requires both good aligned and silver to bypass. The Pit-fiend could of used the Blasphemy SLA, and pretty much make the entire party helpless for minutes in a single standard action. So the Pit Fiend wasn't fighting very smart, then again a Pit Fiend that cares what happens to his armor after he gets paid isn't that smart either. I'm guessing you're using a house ruled diplomacy structure, though almost everyone does; and possibly a houserule for so natural 20's on skill rolls, since a skill roll for a natural twenty is just twenty.
A Pit Fiend is a CR 20 creature, versus a level 11 party. The only way to survive was to be ridiculously min/maxed or DM Fiat.

Just read your edit: Ah so it was a old senile Pit Fiend. Since the maimed leg and arm could of been handled by just cutting it off, and letting a new one regrow.

PersonMan
2010-06-10, 02:04 AM
Actually it's more like this.

You kill the blackguard leader.

"Cool. I loot his armor."

"...The plate armor is inscribed with unholy sigils of Mephistopheles."

"It's cool. I'm true neutral so it won't mess with me. What are the stats?"

"This is armor that has been bathed in the blood if 999 innocent children in its forging."

"Sweet. So +4? +5?"

"You hear their sobbing voices begging you for release."

"Dude. What are the stats? I'll just have Dave break out the wand of identification."

"... +4 armor of Evil Fortification."

This is almost verbatim the exchange between DM and player prior to implementing this attunment stuff.

If the players are that stupid, they shouldn't complain when a Pit Fiend attacks them. If the DM goes out of his way to describe in detail about how Evil with a capitol E-V-I-L the armor is, you don't just ignore it.

Anyways, we don't know if the DM described the armor's...EVILness enough for that to make sense. If he just said "+3 Armor", then why would anyone expect a Pit Fiend to pop up?

Zellic Solis
2010-06-10, 02:13 AM
If the players are that stupid, they shouldn't complain when a Pit Fiend attacks them. If the DM goes out of his way to describe in detail about how Evil with a capitol E-V-I-L the armor is, you don't just ignore it.

Anyways, we don't know if the DM described the armor's...EVILness enough for that to make sense. If he just said "+3 Armor", then why would anyone expect a Pit Fiend to pop up?

The player intentionally made his character true neutral so that he could use alignment weapons with general impunity. He's sort of like a human Belkar minus the glee. He just apatheticly kills everything. The idea that something is evil or bad just doesn't register with him. He's said he'd drive a Ferrari with swastikas and "Jews must die" on it just because its a Ferrari. What's funny is that he once launched into an incredible relative moralist rant that would have been RP gold if he'd bothered to do it in character! It would have fit. His fighter has an int of 16 thanks to his stupid dice. But no. All that matters to him is the stats and how he benefits from them.

Drakevarg
2010-06-10, 02:15 AM
The player intentionally made his character true neutral so that he could use alignment weapons with general impunity. He's sort of like a human Belkar minus the glee. He just apatheticly kills everything. The idea that something is evil or bad just doesn't register with him. He's said he'd drive a Ferrari with swastikas and "Jews must die" on it just because its a Ferrari. What's funny is that he once launched into an incredible relative moralist rant that would have been RP gold if he'd bothered to do it in character! It would have fit. His fighter has an int of 16 thanks to his stupid dice. But no. All that matters to him is the stats and how he benefits from them.

So, he's a rollplayer in a roleplay-heavy campaign? I'd recommend he find a different group.

Zellic Solis
2010-06-10, 02:18 AM
Let see the regeneration requires both good aligned and silver to bypass. The Pit-fiend could of used the Blasphemy SLA, and pretty much make the entire party helpless for minutes in a single standard action. So the Pit Fiend wasn't fighting very smart, then again a Pit Fiend that cares what happens to his armor after he gets paid isn't that smart either. I'm guessing you're using a house ruled diplomacy structure, though almost everyone does; and possibly a houserule for so natural 20's on skill rolls, since a skill roll for a natural twenty is just twenty.
A Pit Fiend is a CR 20 creature, versus a level 11 party. The only way to survive was to be ridiculously min/maxed or DM Fiat.

Just read your edit: Ah so it was a old senile Pit Fiend. Since the maimed leg and arm could of been handled by just cutting it off, and letting a new one regrow.

I don't know. I didn't see the stats. We hurt it. It hurt us more. I know we did very well on all our saves. The dice were on our side for most of the fight. He was definitely crippled, might have been old, but wasn't senile. He tried tricking him out of the armor, buying it once, but Frank refused (personally guessing he was trying to tweek the DM's nose). So we had the nasty fight next. All in all most of us were happy with the fight results, except for frank. After all the Pit fiend took the body along with the armor. That included all his rings and other items he'd gathered before atunement.

The Shadowmind
2010-06-10, 02:21 AM
So the player is a munchkin, who character actions are from Chaotic Evil, to Neutral Evil, and Chaotic Stupid. Alignments change depending on actions, so his should of changed awhile ago. Though that isn't a reason to throw what should of been a walking TPK at the rest of the party.
What is wrong with a fighter with 16 INT? Normally they only pick up to 13 INT for combat expertise, but a few extra skill points isn't that bad.

Drakevarg
2010-06-10, 02:22 AM
What is wrong with a fighter with 16 INT? Normally they only pick up to 13 INT for combat expertise, but a few extra skill points isn't that bad.

He's probably complaining that while he had 16 INT, he wasn't playing the character intelligently.

Zellic Solis
2010-06-10, 02:24 AM
So, he's a rollplayer in a roleplay-heavy campaign? I'd recommend he find a different group.

No. He's just frank. And he owns the house we RP at. He's a big warhammer fan and he loves calculating armies. He just tends to always take a game as the players vrs the DM. Joe is more of a rollplayer, but he at least has a character. Frank made Erythorbic as a fighter to kill things and named him off the back of a can of Mtn Dew.

Three of us are the RP core of the group. The last person is new and RP's in fits and starts. What is unique about our games is we have 3 male players and 3 female players so for most of us it's pretty dynamic. Frank is just frank. The harder it is for the DM the happier he is.

Zellic Solis
2010-06-10, 02:27 AM
So the player is a munchkin, who character actions are from Chaotic Evil, to Neutral Evil, and Chaotic Stupid. Alignments change depending on actions, so his should of changed awhile ago. Though that isn't a reason to throw what should of been a walking TPK at the rest of the party.
What is wrong with a fighter with 16 INT? Normally they only pick up to 13 INT for combat expertise, but a few extra skill points isn't that bad.

It wasn't that. Frank is a smart guy. Ery is a smart guy. With a little effort Ery could be a decent character. Frank sees no reason to make the effort. Ery could have made a great argument that there is no such thing as good or evil as a justification for being true neutral and most of us would have accepted it. Instead he took his alignment from that which would let him do whatever he wanted and wield whatever weapons he wants. And he'll do good things too, but always for the reward. Never to help the poor NPC's who need saving.

Drakevarg
2010-06-10, 02:33 AM
A complex issue then, the problem apparently being Frank and his overwhelming Frank-ness.

Pink
2010-06-10, 02:33 AM
I'm not seeing a big problem about this.

As a houserule, as it seems all the players were informed about it when implemented, while not great there is definitely a meaning behind it, the DM has the right to create such a mechanic in the world, and while not the best implementation it's not the worst either. I would support my own interpretation as the "It eventually retains full potency after a while of attunement with a new user."

As for the pit fiend, it seems plenty of warning was given on the evilness of the armor, the fiend gave the players a couple of non-combat options, the DM was not TPK with it, and a reasonable role-playing solution was found and used. Honestly, that sounds like a wonderful gaming moment to me.

Safety Sword
2010-06-10, 03:34 AM
Need to bring an NPC with a "Sword of Apathy". Does double damage to people of neutral alignment and automtically confirms criticals on people who are chaotic stupid.

panaikhan
2010-06-10, 07:09 AM
At least the DM isn't implementing a modified 'Drow Taint of Nerfness', and letting you keep the (albeit lesser-powered) items.

For those who need an explanation - in one of the editions, it was noted amongst the fluff that all Drow equipment disintegrated in sunlight, and that even if kept completely covered, disintegrated after a few weeks away from a special source of 'radiation' which, naturally, was not within the PC's power to obtain or emulate.

Gnaeus
2010-06-10, 07:41 AM
If there is an occasional aligned item that characters can't use, I think that is fine.

If it happens more than occasionally, I will express my extreme displeasure to the DM.

If it remains a common event (Those 4 guys you just killed? All their weapons and armor were evil. No usable loot) then the DM can expect an alignment change in my immediate future. If he is transparently gaming the system, so will I.

If he continues to block players from using loot that was used against them, I will walk out of the game. Such a DM is a powermad jerk, and I will tell him so as I walk out.

sdream
2010-06-10, 08:33 AM
That rule sounds awesome and I'm going to push my family to go down that path.

- your foes can have cool and unique equipment without drowning the serial killer party in loot.

- you can expect plenty of opportunity for customization for your own items

- It explains why the world is not rolling in secondhand magic loot despite the skill to create it being common in a very reasonable way

On a related note, your DM sounds pretty awesome too. That Pit Fiend part doesn't sound derailed so much as interesting side event.

Zellic Solis
2010-06-10, 10:21 AM
All right then. The group was divided 2 for it, 2 against it, one abstaining, and me being the tie breaker. I'll go for it and suggest the "Attuning as we gain levels".

Incidently, Frank isn't chaotic stupid. He's neutral brutal. Kill a red dragon? It's good loot and exp. Kill a golden dragon. It's loot and exp. Kill bandits? Loot and exp. Kill guards? Loot and exp. The whole good and evil thing doesn't matter to him. Only tangible rewards matter.

Incidently x2: the next debate is whether or not we ressurect Ery or not. The cleric is a RPer so she'll probably guilt herself into doing it. "He's our companion!" "He's an *******!"

Irreverent Fool
2010-06-10, 07:28 PM
Bonded Magic Items, Dungeon Master's Guide II, pg. 231

No need to houserule anything. In a world of killing things and taking said things' stuff, it makes some sort of sense to make your +3 longsword of awesome less useful to the being that takes it from you.

Drakevarg
2010-06-10, 07:53 PM
Bonded Magic Items, Dungeon Master's Guide II, pg. 231

No need to houserule anything. In a world of killing things and taking said things' stuff, it makes some sort of sense to make your +3 longsword of awesome less useful to the being that takes it from you.

Well, there's still the whole "needing to buy new sourcebooks with the money I don't have" issue.

AstralFire
2010-06-10, 07:57 PM
Well, there's still the whole "needing to buy new sourcebooks with the money I don't have" issue.

Oh, just Enron it.

Drakevarg
2010-06-10, 07:58 PM
Oh, just Enron it.

1) I have no idea what that is.

2) I have a strict rule of "no meatspace = no use."

AstralFire
2010-06-10, 07:59 PM
1) I have no idea what that is.

2) I have a strict rule of "no meatspace = no use."

YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT ENRON IS.

-explode-

Drakevarg
2010-06-10, 08:00 PM
YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT ENRON IS.

-explode-

There's the company. I don't know what Enron as a VERB is.

AstralFire
2010-06-10, 08:01 PM
There's the company. I don't know what Enron as a VERB is.

Oh. Okay then.

I was just saying to borrow money, using money you don't have as collateral, and then spend it in order to get the books you need! :smallbiggrin:

Drakevarg
2010-06-10, 08:03 PM
Oh. Okay then.

I was just saying to borrow money, using money you don't have as collateral, and then spend it in order to get the books you need! :smallbiggrin:

That sounds oddly like an Aflac commercial...

Beorn080
2010-06-10, 10:22 PM
Might I suggest putting forth the idea of reforging or reattuning. After all, the magic IS there, you just can't use it. Research a spell for it.

Irreverent Fool
2010-06-11, 01:46 AM
I have a strict rule of "no meatspace = no use."

Excellent rule. No electricity should be needed to run a D&D game.