PDA

View Full Version : Cheating - how to deal with?



Adamaro
2010-06-11, 03:14 AM
I am the DM. Theres this guy in our gaming group who is a great roleplayer, but also a munchkin and much worse, a cheater.
It's surprising for me really, since he is really an ok guy, but so far we had:
- a misinterpretation of a feat
- complete misinterpretation of a spell
- not assigning skillpoints *is it really necessary? I have enough anyway*
- not defining maximised spells
- taking DIVINE feats!
- taking feats from banned books

... I mean guy cheats. He is not stupid or ignorant, just much like a lawyer, who tries to bend the law to his maximal ability.

I would like to know how to penalize such guy? All I would like is for him to define things and avoid these *completely in my favor* interpretations. He is still a great guy and a great roleplayer, but when given an opportunity to make a high-lvl character ... It all goes to hell.

Dracons
2010-06-11, 03:24 AM
Easy. Doesn't have any skill points? Fine, he gets to roll a D20 and add his ability mod and that's it.

Does a feat he doesn't have? Don't let him do it.

Casts a spell he doesn't have? Have the bad guys laugh at his feeble attempt as his spell fizzles for he does not have it. He puts up an incredible act of pretending to know a spell though.

Same with feats from banned books. They don't exist. Your the DM, and if you state they don't exist, they don't exist. He cannot have them, so if he does it, people laugh as he fails completly.

The mishaps with spells? Just as DM, correct him when he does it.


Not that hard.

Ozreth
2010-06-11, 03:35 AM
Easy. Doesn't have any skill points? Fine, he gets to roll a D20 and add his ability mod and that's it.

Does a feat he doesn't have? Don't let him do it.

Casts a spell he doesn't have? Have the bad guys laugh at his feeble attempt as his spell fizzles for he does not have it. He puts up an incredible act of pretending to know a spell though.

Same with feats from banned books. They don't exist. Your the DM, and if you state they don't exist, they don't exist. He cannot have them, so if he does it, people laugh as he fails completly.

The mishaps with spells? Just as DM, correct him when he does it.


Not that hard.

Couldn't have said it better myslf. In fact, I wish I was there to watch this go down ha. Poor guy isn't going to know what hit him.

Ingus
2010-06-11, 03:41 AM
From now on, check all the sheets of all the players. Make them specify how non core feats, spells and magic item work and where they're from. Then check the rules and the fonts.
It is a pain, but when you as a master are better prepared than the players you can stop your cheater in advance and, to be fair and to show to be fair, help him or other players with interpretations "better than you were thinking" (if there is any).

It works, and very well too.

On the skill ranks, it does matter, really to put ranks. Tell him that, at his level, he could try to accomplish epic tasks with his skills (given he has access to spellcasting) and then, to do such a great task, he need to put on paper his ranks. (Cha 20, Diplomacy maxed solution :smalltongue:)

Nidogg
2010-06-11, 04:01 AM
How is maximise spell misenterpreted? The spell does max damage, there are no other differences, even the saves DC is not altered.

Dracons
2010-06-11, 04:07 AM
How is maximise spell misenterpreted? The spell does max damage, there are no other differences, even the saves DC is not altered.

Simple. He doesn't prepare his max spell for the day, and later proclaims his fireball is the one max for the day, (even though he doesn't have the high enough spell slots to prepare it).


He basically took the feat, but never says what spell is maximize while preparing spells for the day.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-11, 04:14 AM
Simple. He doesn't prepare his max spell for the day, and later proclaims his fireball is the one max for the day, (even though he doesn't have the high enough spell slots to prepare it).
Get him to put his prepared spells on a written list that he gives to you. If he doesn't do this, he failed to prepare any spells.

Dracons
2010-06-11, 04:33 AM
Get him to put his prepared spells on a written list that he gives to you. If he doesn't do this, he failed to prepare any spells.

Yep. And if he tries to cast a spell he didn't prepare, it fizzles.



I don't get why DM's are so strung up and confused on how to stop players from cheating like the above. Your the damn DM. Just say NOPE, you have no feat, you don't have that many skill points, you don't have that spell, your ability scores isn't 50"


... I mean really. It's like... yeah.

Shpadoinkle
2010-06-11, 04:45 AM
This kind of thing is why I ask for up to date copies of each player's character sheet (and also so I don't accidentally TPK them with something I thought they could handle but couldn't).

I pretty much second what everybody else has said- if he tries something his character can't do, it automatically fails.

Every time he takes a new feat, double check to make sure he meets the prerequisites, and if he doesn't have them, tell him to pick one he qualifies for.

The Dark Fiddler
2010-06-11, 04:46 AM
Simple. He doesn't prepare his max spell for the day, and later proclaims his fireball is the one max for the day, (even though he doesn't have the high enough spell slots to prepare it).


He basically took the feat, but never says what spell is maximize while preparing spells for the day.

This sounds like an actual thing: Sudden Maximize.

Adamaro
2010-06-11, 05:14 AM
Yep. And if he tries to cast a spell he didn't prepare, it fizzles.



I don't get why DM's are so strung up and confused on how to stop players from cheating like the above. Your the damn DM. Just say NOPE, you have no feat, you don't have that many skill points, you don't have that spell, your ability scores isn't 50"


... I mean really. It's like... yeah.

I want to be fair. And guy has some very borderline explanations regarding most things. He totally missfired maybe twice, other things were ... highly borderline.

Dracons
2010-06-11, 05:23 AM
This sounds like an actual thing: Sudden Maximize.

Yeah, I know of the Suddens. But I'm doubting that's the feat he had, I'm bettingh he Maximise, and was trying to have all his spells as maximized, without paying the higher spellslots.

Math_Mage
2010-06-11, 05:26 AM
I want to be fair. And guy has some very borderline explanations regarding most things. He totally missfired maybe twice, other things were ... highly borderline.

Elaboration on the specifics would be nice for the sake of double-checking. For example, if Dracons' description of how this player is maximizing spells is correct (strange...is Dracons one of your players?), that simply means he took the Sudden Maximize feat rather than the Maximize Spell feat. Of course, if Complete Arcane isn't allowed in your campaign, it's still a problem, but of a different sort.

As for how to deal with it, that's simple. Just point to the rules you laid out, point to some places on his character sheet where your rules are broken. Tell him that he'd better get his character in line with the rules, and in the meantime his character won't be benefiting from anything that breaks the rules--feats, skillpoints, whatever.

weenie
2010-06-11, 05:27 AM
Hey, I'm the guy who's apparently been cheating :smallsmile:

While I agree that cheating is an unfun(yay for new words) thing to do, I assure the playground that it was not what I was going for. Here's my version of events(by the way, we're talking D&D 3.5):

- a misinterpretation of a feat

Ok, this one I don't remember, but misinterpretations happen.

- complete misinterpretation of a spell

I was using moment of prescience to boost my initiative. It's a lvl 8 spell, and I would allow it in my games, but I stopped using the spell in this way, after I was told that Adamaro saw it differently.

- not assigning skillpoints *is it really necessary? I have enough anyway*

It was for my cohort, the two skill points in spellcraft, that she would need to take Mage slayer. I just didn't bother wit my cohort's skillpoints, because well, it's a cohort. The real offense here is me taking the leadership feat, but this game is not a real campaign, it's more of an optimization challenge, so it felt dirty, but ok.

- not defining maximised spells

I'm playing a red wizard. We agreed beforehand on how many mages I have at my disposal and after some calculating I informed Adamaro that all the spells that need maximizing will be maximized, and all my spells that need heightening will be heightened, for the sole reason of avoiding further bookkeeping. If any of you ever played a lvl 20 wizard, you'll understand.

- taking DIVINE feats!

I took this (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/divineAbilitiesFeats.htm#knockDown) feat for my cohort. I think there is nothing wrong with that except if it is a problem of the next case(though I might also be wrong, and the feat is actually illegal, I admit I never took it to the Q&A thread):

- taking feats from banned books

Ok, this may be a bit more complex. We were playing a mini campaign before, where we were limited to the 3 core books + the spell compendium. My character was then, after that campaign ended, exported into an arena thingie, that we do across e-mails. After two fights I decided I wanted to use my cohort in battle, because AMFs were starting to get bothersome, so I created an new paladin of tyranny cohort in place of the wiz cohort I had before. And since the arena thing was no longer limited to core only(Adamaro's characters certainly used non-core material), I took a few feats form the srd and complete arcane(or wherever mage slayer is from), to make her a bit more caster-harassing.

@ Adamaro:

Hey, if you think that there is something wrong with how I do things, you can just tell me so, it's not like I'll be offended or anything.. You should know me long enough to know that I'm not intentionally trying to go around rules, but in an optimization challenge I will try to squeeze as much power out of my characters as possible, and that's a given. I mean, my honor as a gamer is at stake here! :smallsmile:

mucat
2010-06-11, 06:06 AM
I was using moment of prescience to boost my initiative. It's a lvl 8 spell, and I would allow it in my games, but I stopped using the spell in this way, after I was told that Adamaro saw it differently.

Not a matter of "seeing it differently"; the spell simply doesn't do that. Sure, you could houserule it into your games -- and as an eighth level spell, that could be a reasonable houserule -- but you can't simply start assuming that the spell does things not listed in its description.



I took this (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/divineAbilitiesFeats.htm#knockDown) feat for my cohort. I think there is nothing wrong with that except if it is a problem of the next case(though I might also be wrong, and the feat is actually illegal, I admit I never took it to the Q&A thread):

At the top of the list of feats you linked to, it says:
"Deities can obtain the feats described here, in addition to any standard feats."

So yeah, there's something wrong with it. :smallwink:

(And the Knockdown feat you reference is way pretty damned powerful. Your cohort gets a free-action trip attempt every time she hits in melee?)

weenie
2010-06-11, 06:29 AM
Not a matter of "seeing it differently"; the spell simply doesn't do that. Sure, you could houserule it into your games -- and as an eighth level spell, that could be a reasonable houserule -- but you can't simply start assuming that the spell does things not listed in its description.

The spell gives a bonus to opposed ability checks. Some people consider initiative an opposed ability check, some don't. I count myself in the first group, and would allow the spell to be used in such a way in my campaigns. Your views on the subject may differ, and if you were the DM I would follow your rules, but I'd still think initiative is an opposed ability check.


At the top of the list of feats you linked to, it says:
"Deities can obtain the feats described here, in addition to any standard feats."

So yeah, there's something wrong with it. :smallwink:

(And the Knockdown feat you reference is way pretty damned powerful. Your cohort gets a free-action trip attempt every time she hits in melee?)

Yep, it's pretty powerful, but my character can stop time, so it didn't worry me that much.

And that line doesn't say that only dieties can take these feats, just that they can take them. Much like regular feats. Also in the requirements it says your BaB should be at least +2, so I'd really like to see a diety with a BaB of less than +2. The Q&A thread seems to agree with me on this one.

AntiHeart
2010-06-11, 07:24 AM
Before each game I make a list of each of my players respective dump stats.
All infractions are dealt with by temporary ability drain.:smallamused:

Lev
2010-06-11, 07:29 AM
When people pull stuff like that you gotta realize who gave them room for that, if the party can't RP without being mechanically driven enough to provide a space for it, then that's fair I guess.

My advice is to only be as mechanical as the majority of your players need to ease them away from videogame dependency (VGD), my group works just as well as if we are all 3rd party hired guns in shadowrun4.0 or if we are level 1 commoners in adnd with no stat sheets.

I bet you if you took away everyone's stat sheet and asked them to draw a picture of themselves and you managed everything else the munchkining and cheating would completely vanish.

I'm not saying it's the best thing for your group, and I'm not saying your cheater wouldn't flat out leave the group, I'm saying it would vanish.

Bharg
2010-06-11, 07:38 AM
Burn the witch!

Swiftest
2010-06-11, 07:58 AM
Almost all of these feats (Knockdown being the one real exception) are reproduced in other 3.5 sourcebooks. For example Sharp Shooting is reproduced in Complete Warrior as Sharp Shooter. It's the exact same feat. Knockdown is the one feat that is a holdout from 3.0 (Sword and Fist), I believe.

That said, it's still listed as a [General] feat which means that despite the wording at the top of the list, it should be available to any character who has been given access to the SRD as a source in character building. Do the other playgrounders agree with this? I ask because if this interpretation is unusual or strange, my DM and I are going to have to have a long talk about a number of feats that I've taken from this and the Psionic Feat Section (general feats listed there too, such as Improved Manyshot, Reckless Offense, etc).

AstralFire
2010-06-11, 08:00 AM
Yeah, Knockdown is from Sword and Fist and is not a Divine feat. Quite a few of those feats at the bottom are reproduced from other books.

Swiftest
2010-06-11, 08:22 AM
And would you consider it cheating, then, to use Knockdown if you were allowed 'core books + SRD' as a source list by your DM? I am of the opinion that it would not be cheating, and as that's relevant to the OP I thought I'd ask here rather than in a new thread =p.

AstralFire
2010-06-11, 08:26 AM
Nope. In fact, I side entirely with weenie on everything, now that I look at it, except maybe that bit about the banned books where I'm sorta 50/50.

PersonMan
2010-06-11, 08:47 AM
And would you consider it cheating, then, to use Knockdown if you were allowed 'core books + SRD' as a source list by your DM? I am of the opinion that it would not be cheating, and as that's relevant to the OP I thought I'd ask here rather than in a new thread =p.

Didn't someone link to the SRD to show the feat?

DanReiv
2010-06-11, 08:49 AM
It's so big maybe he just don't know the rules.

Why don't you work it out with him ? Revamp his character if needed be.

Choco
2010-06-11, 09:02 AM
Tell him to cut the crap or he gets the boot. Tell him that this is his 1st of 3 strikes.

Yeah that seems a bit extreme, but we have a zero-tolerance policy for cheaters in my group. If it happens once, twice, hell even 3 times it could be a mistake. But once it becomes obvious the player is purposely cheating (like the guy you mentioned), they are given the above warning. At that point, they better be damn sure they never make so much as an honest rules mistake again, which is usually not an issue cause most of these cheaters know the system inside and out :smallamused:.

kamikasei
2010-06-11, 09:08 AM
Choco, did you read the thread?

okpokalypse
2010-06-11, 09:25 AM
Not a matter of "seeing it differently"; the spell simply doesn't do that. Sure, you could houserule it into your games -- and as an eighth level spell, that could be a reasonable houserule -- but you can't simply start assuming that the spell does things not listed in its description.


At the top of the list of feats you linked to, it says:
"Deities can obtain the feats described here, in addition to any standard feats."

(And the Knockdown feat you reference is way pretty damned powerful. Your cohort gets a free-action trip attempt every time she hits in melee?)

Just saying, I'd side with the player in viewing Init as an opposed roll personally. If Moment of Prescience isn't meant for acting swiftly, after all, what's the point. It's completely in-line with the idea of what the spell should grant.

Also, there's a 3.0 KnockDown feat from Sword & Fist which is similar which, by standard definition, should be grand-fathered in. There's also been errata on the 3.5 SRD version of the feat preventing certain abuses.

Choco
2010-06-11, 09:26 AM
Choco, did you read the thread?

Ugh, up to the post right before Weenie posted, quick scrolled to see if Adamaro posted again, then replied to the original question. I will not edit my original post so this moment of idiocy can be on permanent record. Yeah, my bad, but I still stand by what I said if there is actual cheating going on. I am VERY hardcore when it comes to cheaters, in case it wasnt obvious (WHY, dear God WHY would anyone feel the need to cheat in a COOPERATIVE GAME!?!?!).

But perhaps something actually helpful, how our group avoids these situations:

Every time your character gains a level, you gotta run everything you chose for the levelup by the DM. It is also encouraged to talk about interpretations of alignment and vague rules. If you even THINK that the DM can interpret something differently than you, then it is your responsibility to bring that up.

okpokalypse
2010-06-11, 09:26 AM
And that line doesn't say that only dieties can take these feats, just that they can take them. Much like regular feats. Also in the requirements it says your BaB should be at least +2, so I'd really like to see a diety with a BaB of less than +2. The Q&A thread seems to agree with me on this one.

You know, he's absolutely 100% right. I just checked the SRD and the feat type is [GENERAL]. It's stated in the Core Rulebooks (don't recall if it's PHB or DMG) that General Feat are open to anyone who meets the requirements.

It's totally legit via RAW, heading of the page non-withstanding.

kamikasei
2010-06-11, 09:40 AM
Ugh, up to the post right before Weenie posted, quick scrolled to see if Adamaro posted again, then replied to the original question. I will not edit my original post so this moment of idiocy can be on permanent record. Yeah, my bad, but I still stand by what I said if there is actual cheating going on. I am VERY hardcore when it comes to cheaters, in case it wasnt obvious (WHY, dear God WHY would anyone feel the need to cheat in a COOPERATIVE GAME!?!?!).

Heh. Well, my point was that, while you definitely should be hard on cheating, you should also make sure that what's happening *is* cheating. So what you said is correct, just needed more verification before being applied here.


Every time your character gains a level, you gotta run everything you chose for the levelup by the DM. It is also encouraged to talk about interpretations of alignment and vague rules. If you even THINK that the DM can interpret something differently than you, then it is your responsibility to bring that up.

I am 100% behind this. The DM needs to know what his players are going to be capable of, the player needs to know that their abilities will work the way they expect them to.

okpokalypse
2010-06-11, 09:49 AM
Ok, having read through this thread, I'm going to rant a second.

It sounds like, to me, the DM is frustrated with this gamer, possibly because he feels he can't prepare for him properly, or because other members of the group are bitching to him about this other player. The DM obviosuly values the player as part of the group - but just doesn't know how to handle him.

As the player spoke up - he defended himself very well - to the point that I agree with him on almost every point.

If a DM is going to create an optimization challenge and then NOT review the PC sheets before play, you've dug your own grave. When players seek to build the most competitive builds there's always issues of interpretation. In any such campaigns I was in we have to not only fully divulge our PC, we had to show the optimization build through to Epic as well as write explanations of synergies. But this was cool... know why?

Our DM was never the type to build an encounter that would be the achilles heel to all our abilities. He wasn't setting up a world to beat us down, he set up a world to challenge us. Sometimes we'd get beat. Sometimes we'd mop the floor. But we never became adversaries as DM / Players. It doesn't sound to me like you have that. It sounds to me like the DM wants to be able to dictate player actions and limitations to a degree. And that's fine - but if you're going to do that, then the responsiblity is on you to ensure a PC sheet is up to snuff beforehand - and once you let it in, if you missed something it's on you. Period.

I don't view anything Weenie did as cheating. Nothing. Was there possibly some stretching? Yeah, I can see that where Moment of Prescience is concerned. As for the maximized spells - if you had a verbal agreement with the player that spells are assumed maximized and you don't require him to have a spell sheet - it's your own fault for essentially letting him become a spontaneous caster :).

@ Weenie: Yes, I've played an Epic Wizard (Focused Specialist Conjurer / Master Specialist actually) and the bookkeeping is tedious - but it is necessary for yourself and for the game as a whole. I just recommend having multiple spell lists premade for the given day you're planning to encounter. I had mind for Combat, Utility, Home/Downtime and a Core w/ Flex List as a Conjurer. It was necessary. By the time I'd fired off 4 Empowered, Maximized, Twinned Melf's Unicorn Arrows in 2 Rounds there was an uproar of how I was doing that much damage (Just under 1,000). I had to justify - on the spot - feats taken, how I was reducing meta-magic costs, getting free Quickens (3/day) and how many spells I had of given levels. It literally ground the game to a halt for an hour as I defended the build - but you HAVE to be prepared to do that, ESPECIALLY in an optimization campaign.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-11, 09:50 AM
- not assigning skillpoints *is it really necessary? I have enough anyway*

It was for my cohort, the two skill points in spellcraft, that she would need to take Mage slayer. I just didn't bother wit my cohort's skillpoints, because well, it's a cohort.
If you want the advantages of having other characters to play, you also assume the responsibilities of following the rules for those characters.

Laziness is no excuse.

Ormagoden
2010-06-11, 09:53 AM
I'm actually guilty of misinterpreting feats.

I did it with daring warrior the feat that stacks fighter and swashbuckler levels for grace and feat qualifications.

It happened because I used heroforge to generate the character and forgot to actually READ the feat.

Maybe that's the case here.
Just correct the dude it all seems like legit stuff he might be mistaking.

AstralFire
2010-06-11, 10:00 AM
If you want the advantages of having other characters to play, you also assume the responsibilities of following the rules for those characters.

Laziness is no excuse.

Yes, except he's intentionally crippling himself here - he viewed his cohort's skills as utterly unimportant, meaning they will not get used at all. Not something I would count as cheating.

okpokalypse
2010-06-11, 10:11 AM
I am 100% behind this. The DM needs to know what his players are going to be capable of, the player needs to know that their abilities will work the way they expect them to.

It depends on the group. I, as the DM, just request that players run any feats and PrCs by me, but they're free beyond that because, quite frankly, I like the surprise of what they might have going. But I've also been playing with my current group for 10 years and trust them all implicitly as players...

As a player I was always suspicious of the DM who required full disclosure of my PC and, without fail, it always seemed that when I had lightning bolts memorized, we can into things with Elec Resist. If I had Fireballs, Fire Resist. If I had Cone of Cold, Cold Resist. It was tedious. It go to the point that my builds would be completely around untyped and non-resistable damage types (Melf's Unicorn Arrow, Radiant Assault) or Save or Suck spells.

Hell, I've used Elven Spell Lore to change Radiant Assault to "Holy" when things all of a sudden had resistances to "Light" damage or we'd encounter tons of blindsense creatures with Energy Immunities :).

It's why, in the end, I went with Melf's Unicorn Arrow. It's untyped Damage. Affords no Save. no Spell Resist. It's a Ranged Touch - so as long as I'm hitting I'm doing ok - and I'd focus on getting my ranged touch attacks up near the +25 and higher mark (I got to +32 the Last time I played the PC) so I'd be able to actually hit most things (hated those Vampire Monks).

Anyhow - coming back from my tangent - the DM has to be the most Mature person in the group. I know that sucks, but it's true. If you assume someone is cheating, you have to ask "how" and "did I allow this to happen" - but at the same time you have to be fair. As a DM you can't - ever - think of the PCs as opposition. You can't view them as a challenge to beat. If you're doing that, you're a bad DM because your role isn't to kill the PCs, it's to set up a world where anything can happen and where they should be challenged.

The instant the PCs view the DM as an opponent, you've failed - because now they're trying to overcome YOU instead of overcome the Campaign. That breeds ill will and frustration in a lot of Players.

The few times I, as DM, have had the misfortune to kill a player's PC, I've felt really bad. I'll fully admit that when a player's been very attached to a PC and brought it to life through great RP and such, I'd fudge the number to put them at -8 instead of -12 and gone. I'd give the rest of the party a chance to save them. I hated seeing beloved characters get killed - especially since resurrection is EXTREMELY rare.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-11, 10:15 AM
Yes, except he's intentionally crippling himself here - he viewed his cohort's skills as utterly unimportant, meaning they will not get used at all. Not something I would count as cheating.
So what happens when the DM calls for the cohort to make a Spot or Listen check? The temptation there would be to say "Well, of course he has max ranks in the skill!"

Characters are called upon to make skill checks all the time. Failure to allocate those skill points means the character isn't ready for play.

kamikasei
2010-06-11, 10:30 AM
It depends on the group. I, as the DM, just request that players run any feats and PrCs by me, but they're free beyond that because, quite frankly, I like the surprise of what they might have going. But I've also been playing with my current group for 10 years and trust them all implicitly as players...

I don't see it as a matter of trust, though. It's a few different things. At the most basic level it's just error checking, another pair of eyes making sure I haven't screwed up my math. Beyond that it's checking expectations beforehand - I tell the DM what I intend my character to be able to do, he says whether the abilities I've chosen will or will not achieve those goals in his game. And beyond that again it's setting goals and direction - I tell the DM that I want a character like this who'll develop in this general way, and he guides me in setting up the character's backstory to best fit with the setting and other PCs, and either takes my goals for the character in to account in his campaign planning or tells me in advance if I won't have the opportunity to pursue them for whatever reason.

AstralFire
2010-06-11, 10:53 AM
So what happens when the DM calls for the cohort to make a Spot or Listen check? The temptation there would be to say "Well, of course he has max ranks in the skill!"

Characters are called upon to make skill checks all the time. Failure to allocate those skill points means the character isn't ready for play.

I just say they don't get used if you didn't finish them.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-11, 11:08 AM
I just say they don't get used if you didn't finish them.
Exactly my point -- if we're talking about characters.

AstralFire
2010-06-11, 01:08 PM
No, talking about skills. I've done that before when I have too much bookkeeping, honestly. "We'll pretend this guy has no skills beyond the relevant ones I made at character creation."

Mystic Muse
2010-06-11, 01:26 PM
I am the DM. Theres this guy in our gaming group who is a great roleplayer, but also a munchkin and much worse, a cheater.
It's surprising for me really, since he is really an ok guy, but so far we had:
- a misinterpretation of a feat This could be an honest mistake.


complete misinterpretation of a spell There are a few poorly defined spells. Once again, this could be an honest mistake.

-
not assigning skillpoints *is it really necessary? I have enough anyway*
This isn't cheating. This is putting ranks into everything you care about and not caring about the remaining ones.

-
not defining maximised spells Yeah, This is cheating

-
taking DIVINE feats! This would be more of a problem if you actually explained which class/es he was.
-
taking feats from banned books Yeah, this is just wrong.

... I mean guy cheats. He is not stupid or ignorant, just much like a lawyer, who tries to bend the law to his maximal ability.

I would like to know how to penalize such guy? All I would like is for him to define things and avoid these *completely in my favor* interpretations. He is still a great guy and a great roleplayer, but when given an opportunity to make a high-lvl character ... It all goes to hell.[/QUOTE]

To penalize him (also, it'd help if you explained what level you're at) tell him "anything you can do, the enemies can also do." When he uses overpowered interpretations of spells do the same to him.

AstralFire
2010-06-11, 01:27 PM
Kyuubi, did you read the thread?

Choco
2010-06-11, 01:30 PM
Kyuubi, did you read the thread?

w00t it ain't just me!!

Mystic Muse
2010-06-11, 01:32 PM
w00t it ain't just me!!

Nope not just you. Sorry.:smallredface:

In my defense, this is the first time I did that.

EDIT: also, I regretted doing it directly after. I also agree with your player's interpretation of Moment of prescience. It's an eighth level spell and it looks like the SRD defines Initiative as an ability check.

Math_Mage
2010-06-11, 01:48 PM
I was using moment of prescience to boost my initiative. It's a lvl 8 spell, and I would allow it in my games, but I stopped using the spell in this way, after I was told that Adamaro saw it differently.

As far as RAW goes, you're correct:


ABILITY CHECKS
Sometimes a character tries to do something to which no specific
skill really applies. In these cases, you make an ability check. An
ability check is a roll of 1d20 plus the appropriate ability modifier.
Essentially, you’re making an untrained skill check. The DM assigns
a Difficulty Class, or sets up an opposed check when two characters
are engaged in a contest using one ability score or another. The
initiative check in combat, for example, is essentially a Dexterity
check. The character who rolls highest goes first.


Initiative Checks: At the start of a battle, each combatant makes
an initiative check. An initiative check is a Dexterity check.

Since Moment of Prescience can be used on ability checks, it can be used on Initiative. Of course, if the DM says otherwise, you follow the ruling.


It was for my cohort, the two skill points in spellcraft, that she would need to take Mage slayer. I just didn't bother wit my cohort's skillpoints, because well, it's a cohort. The real offense here is me taking the leadership feat, but this game is not a real campaign, it's more of an optimization challenge, so it felt dirty, but ok.

As long as you understand that you're surrendering your cohort's ability to make skill checks, then I wouldn't have a problem with this. I would have a problem with you using the Leadership feat, but if Adamarao doesn't, then okay.


I'm playing a red wizard. We agreed beforehand on how many mages I have at my disposal and after some calculating I informed Adamaro that all the spells that need maximizing will be maximized, and all my spells that need heightening will be heightened, for the sole reason of avoiding further bookkeeping. If any of you ever played a lvl 20 wizard, you'll understand.

I take issue with this. The point of the restriction is to prevent wizards from deciding what metamagic they need on the fly. Certainly you should have a complete spell list, metamagic and all, for your own character. If you have other mages at your disposal and it's just too much bookkeeping to deal with all of them, maybe you can work out a compromise...but it sounds like you already developed a spell list for them, in which case determining what metamagic to prepare is a relatively small amount of marginal effort to stay within the rules. In an optimization challenge, staying within the rules is important.

I'm not going to try to analyze the deal with Knock-down and campaign-switching, because that depends too much on who said what to who, and when. If you have access to the whole SRD, your cohort can take Knock-down, since it's a [General] feat. If you don't, it can't.

Chen
2010-06-11, 02:10 PM
I take issue with this. The point of the restriction is to prevent wizards from deciding what metamagic they need on the fly. Certainly you should have a complete spell list, metamagic and all, for your own character. If you have other mages at your disposal and it's just too much bookkeeping to deal with all of them, maybe you can work out a compromise...but it sounds like you already developed a spell list for them, in which case determining what metamagic to prepare is a relatively small amount of marginal effort to stay within the rules. In an optimization challenge, staying within the rules is important.

I assume he meant he maximized all his spells by using whatever ability red wizards (with other wizards under them) have. I don't recall exactly what it is, but I do recall something about red wizards using multiple people to make their spells better.

weenie
2010-06-11, 02:18 PM
Since Moment of Prescience can be used on ability checks, it can be used on Initiative. Of course, if the DM says otherwise, you follow the ruling.

Actually moment of prescience only works with opposed ability checks. That little word makes all the difference in this debate, because some people claim that it is an opposed check, while others say it isn't.


I take issue with this. The point of the restriction is to prevent wizards from deciding what metamagic they need on the fly. Certainly you should have a complete spell list, metamagic and all, for your own character. If you have other mages at your disposal and it's just too much bookkeeping to deal with all of them, maybe you can work out a compromise...but it sounds like you already developed a spell list for them, in which case determining what metamagic to prepare is a relatively small amount of marginal effort to stay within the rules. In an optimization challenge, staying within the rules is important.

You may not fully understand what's going on here. Red wizards(DMG) have an ability called circle magic, that allows them to "buy" metamagic effects with spell levels given up by other wizards during a ritual. I had enough spell levels from 5 mages I had in my circle(this was worked out and agreed upon before the start of the campaign) to make ALL my spells maximized(well, all the ones that could be maximized), so I saw no reason to write this down anywhere. I told this to Adamaro, but he may have misunderstood me(wouldn't be that surprising, since it seems to be happening again :smallsmile:) or forgotten about it, so he became frustrated when he saw that I didn't write anything in my already extensive and complex spells prepared spreadsheet.

Anyway we spoke earlier today and cleared things up, partly also thanks to this thread, since I got backed up in the areas that were a bit iffy.

Oh, and let me just say I played in games with people who tried to cheat as often as humanly possible, so I can fully understand all the negative sentiments expressed in this thread. Curse those blasted cheaters! May they fail their saves in the hour of their direst need! :smallannoyed:

Math_Mage
2010-06-11, 02:24 PM
I assume he meant he maximized all his spells by using whatever ability red wizards (with other wizards under them) have. I don't recall exactly what it is, but I do recall something about red wizards using multiple people to make their spells better.

Oh, circle magic. Guess I need to read all the source material. :smallredface: But...are regional books allowed in the campaign? Does he have enough other Tattoo Focus-ed wizards to metamagic all his spells? Does he have that uninterrupted hour in the morning? Circle magic doesn't let you choose your metamagic on the fly, either--it just gives you more metamagic to play with.

EDIT: Ninja'd, haha.

Mystic Muse
2010-06-11, 02:24 PM
To be fair, Moment of prescience is an eigth level spell. I don't think boosting your initiative is out of bounds for an eighth level spell.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-11, 03:14 PM
To be fair, Moment of prescience is an eigth level spell. I don't think boosting your initiative is out of bounds for an eighth level spell.
Of course it is, if that's outside the stated parameters of the spell's abilities. Remember, that's +CL (maximum +25) to opposed checks -- far outside what non-casters are able to accomplish. Spellcasters are already more powerful than non-casters, so there's absolutely no justification for giving them more capabilities than what's specified in a spell's description. Spell inflation is intrinsically unfair.

Mystic Muse
2010-06-11, 03:26 PM
Of course it is, if that's outside the stated parameters of the spell's abilities. Remember, that's +CL (maximum +25) to opposed checks -- far outside what non-casters are able to accomplish. Spellcasters are already more powerful than non-casters, so there's absolutely no justification for giving them more capabilities than what's specified in a spell's description. Spell inflation is intrinsically unfair.

It is in the spell's description depending on interpretation. Personally, I'd say that initiative does count as opposed checks. I'm comparing this to celerity which immediately gets you a full round action but leaves you dazed. Even with +25 your opponent can still go before you.

Severus
2010-06-11, 03:36 PM
I think this is a good example why you should be careful about using loaded language before you have talked things through.

Using the word "cheating" seems uncalled for here. I wouldn't, as a GM, permit all the things listed here, but I don't disagree with any of the player's points.

okpokalypse
2010-06-11, 03:48 PM
It is in the spell's description depending on interpretation. Personally, I'd say that initiative does count as opposed checks. I'm comparing this to celerity which immediately gets you a full round action but leaves you dazed. Even with +25 your opponent can still go before you.

Agreed, I would too say that initiative is an opposed check. It's just that, instead of a success failure for the two parties involved in an typical opposed check, it's an action-order of all those involved.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-11, 03:54 PM
It is in the spell's description depending on interpretation.
Only if that interpretation is beyond the stated rules. To be an opposed check a higher result must succeed, while the lower check must fail.
Opposed Checks

An opposed check is a check whose success or failure is determined by comparing the check result to another character’s check result. In an opposed check, the higher result succeeds, while the lower result fails. There is no success or failure in initiative checks, just higher and lower numbers. The Delay action (by which you voluntarily lower your initiative) is a direct testament to the fact that lower initiative is not failure.

This point, at least, seems to fit the OP's use of the word "cheating (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cheating)":
to violate rules or regulations: He cheats at cards.

Darklord Xavez
2010-06-11, 04:00 PM
Talk to him OOG. He'll understand that his character is a bit overpowered and that he should just change a few things on his character sheet and pretend it was always like that.
-Xavez

Mystic Muse
2010-06-11, 04:03 PM
I'd say cheating is to knowingly violate rules or interpretations. And that's assuming the violation isn't homebrew.

Okay, fine. By RAW moment of Prescience doesn't work that way. It's hardly a broken spell when used that way compared to other 8th level spells.

Severus
2010-06-11, 04:17 PM
I view being beaten on the initiative roll as 'failure'. I would rephrase, "everybody gets to go in the round, whoever wins the initiative roll gets to go first."

See? It is a matter of perspective. Calling someone a cheater because they have a different perspective is not useful or productive.

AstralFire
2010-06-11, 04:19 PM
I'm of two minds.

I agree with Curmudgeon that Moment of Prescience should not boost initiative; however, a quick search finds you that many people interpret the spell to work that way, so I would be very hesitant to start making accusations of cheating. Cheating requires intent, and frankly, if a DM says "I am running a high-optimization game," the onus is now on the DM to make sure what interpretations he is using of what rules. If he slips up and misses something - happens to everyone - fine, but don't blame the player for it.

okpokalypse
2010-06-11, 04:20 PM
Only if that interpretation is beyond the stated rules. To be an opposed check a higher result must succeed, while the lower check must fail. There is no success or failure in initiative checks, just higher and lower numbers. The Delay action (by which you voluntarily lower your initiative) is a direct testament to the fact that lower initiative is not failure.

What about when 3 or more Creatures are involved in a single grapple? What about when someone bluffs and 3 PCs simultaneously counter with Sense Motive and 1 is higher but the other two lower?

In initiative, the goal is to act first. Success or Failure is relative to that. Going 2nd is a failure against that person going 1st, but a success against everyone else behind. It's that simple...

okpokalypse
2010-06-11, 04:21 PM
I'm of two minds.

I agree with Curmudgeon that Moment of Prescience should not boost initiative; however, a quick search finds you that many people interpret the spell to work that way, so I would be very hesitant to start making accusations of cheating. Cheating requires intent...

True. Very true. In fact, the entirety of the Paizo has pretty much incorporated the stance that it does affect initiative. If you were to look there for high initiative builds, it would be commonly accepted as ok.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-11, 04:33 PM
In initiative, the goal is to act first. Success or Failure is relative to that. ... It's that simple...
No, it's really not that simple, nor do you understand the goal. The goal is to act when it's in your best interest. If you're a Rogue, you'll prefer to act after some ally moves into a position from which you can flank an enemy. Going first in this case is a failure to play the character effectively.

In fact, the entirety of the Paizo has pretty much incorporated the stance that it does affect initiative. If you were to look there for high initiative builds, it would be commonly accepted as ok.
Sometimes it seems the entirety of New York City has incorporated double parking into acceptable driving behavior. It doesn't keep their vehicles from being ticketed and towed. :smallwink:

AstralFire
2010-06-11, 04:36 PM
That can generally be attributed to willful ignorance, and traffic violations are almost always purely actus reus anyway, while cheating usually carries a connotation that requires mens rea.

As I said, I would not have used the 'c' word here. (And especially not when your player actually posts here. That's just... um. Not... very well-sighted.)

Balain
2010-06-11, 04:50 PM
D&D just makes initiative a simple roll when it really should be more complex. It comes down to they want simple rules.

There was an obscure system..Umm, Yisgard or some such name. It had a very elaborate initiative system. You had modifiers for your stats, your size and height compared to your target, the length of your weapon, the weight of your weapon, plus a few others, then your class could make adjustments to the roll.

Talking about initiative always reminds me of Yisgard or whatever it was called, so had to throw my 2 cents in lol

AstralFire
2010-06-11, 04:52 PM
Weapon speeds were removed for a reason, and not just simplicity.

Umael
2010-06-11, 05:45 PM
D&D just makes initiative a simple roll when it really should be more complex. It comes down to they want simple rules.

I don't think they are the only ones.

Aeromyre
2010-06-11, 06:06 PM
I am the DM. Theres this guy in our gaming group who is a great roleplayer, but also a munchkin and much worse, a cheater.
It's surprising for me really, since he is really an ok guy, but so far we had:
- a misinterpretation of a feat
- complete misinterpretation of a spell
- not assigning skillpoints *is it really necessary? I have enough anyway*
- not defining maximised spells
- taking DIVINE feats!
- taking feats from banned books

... I mean guy cheats. He is not stupid or ignorant, just much like a lawyer, who tries to bend the law to his maximal ability.

I would like to know how to penalize such guy? All I would like is for him to define things and avoid these *completely in my favor* interpretations. He is still a great guy and a great roleplayer, but when given an opportunity to make a high-lvl character ... It all goes to hell.

I just thought of a cool way to monitor actual dice rolls, if you use a computer as a DM screen set up a webcam so you can see the whole table and any fingers pressing the 2 on a d20 to a natural 20.

it's how i cheated when i first started playing...i should go smack my 7 year old hand

Lev
2010-06-11, 06:12 PM
I just thought of a cool way to monitor actual dice rolls, if you use a computer as a DM screen set up a webcam so you can see the whole table and any fingers pressing the 2 on a d20 to a natural 20.

it's how i cheated when i first started playing...i should go smack my 7 year old hand
haha wow, that's pretty messed up.
DnD is collective story telling, the term cheating is more figurative than anything.

But it would be kinda cool to set up a mic to get a recap.

Aeromyre
2010-06-11, 07:06 PM
haha wow, that's pretty messed up.
DnD is collective story telling, the term cheating is more figurative than anything.

But it would be kinda cool to set up a mic to get a recap.

What is messed up? Adjusting the die? or setting up a webcam? :D or time travelling 10 years in the past to hit myself on the hand?

Lev
2010-06-11, 08:22 PM
What is messed up? Adjusting the die? or setting up a webcam? :D or time travelling 10 years in the past to hit myself on the hand?
=]

Having to install video security on a mostly audio story telling game.

Aeromyre
2010-06-11, 09:37 PM
=]

Having to install video security on a mostly audio story telling game.

Haha yeah but i'm talking about being able to look at the screen while simultaneously watching your players roll their dice
Sure you could record it, and that'd be fun to post online
most webcams have a mic built in anyways

Roderick_BR
2010-06-11, 11:19 PM
Easy. Doesn't have any skill points? Fine, he gets to roll a D20 and add his ability mod and that's it.

Does a feat he doesn't have? Don't let him do it.

Casts a spell he doesn't have? Have the bad guys laugh at his feeble attempt as his spell fizzles for he does not have it. He puts up an incredible act of pretending to know a spell though.

Same with feats from banned books. They don't exist. Your the DM, and if you state they don't exist, they don't exist. He cannot have them, so if he does it, people laugh as he fails completly.

The mishaps with spells? Just as DM, correct him when he does it.


Not that hard.

First of all, talk to the player, and ask him to please stop it, that you are not dumb and IS seeing him cheating, and will not tolerate it.
Then if he continues, apply the afore mentioned in-game fixes by making his wrong skills/feats/spell not work since he doesn't actually have them.

About the dice rolls. Tell your group that you, the DM, will now rolls all the PC's checks, in the open. If they complain, you say someone is cheating in the game, and you won't play any other way. After complaining another 5 minutes, they'll probably start to look for the cheater themselves. Try to not let them get into fights or hurt any RL friendship, though.

AstralFire
2010-06-11, 11:31 PM
I'm guessing you didn't read the thread either.

Mystic Muse
2010-06-11, 11:51 PM
I'm guessing you didn't read the thread either.

This is becoming a problem isn't it?

Lev
2010-06-12, 12:42 AM
Haha yeah but i'm talking about being able to look at the screen while simultaneously watching your players roll their dice
Sure you could record it, and that'd be fun to post online
most webcams have a mic built in anyways

OMG BRILLIANT IDEAAAA

Why not run a live podcast of your DM sessions, then have a members-only chat window where people on the internets can post messages to the DM about what would be cool story hooks?

Might work?

Kylarra
2010-06-12, 12:43 AM
This is becoming a problem isn't it?
It's a common problem on forums.

Jolly Steve
2010-06-12, 02:22 AM
D&D just makes initiative a simple roll when it really should be more complex. It comes down to they want simple rules.

There was an obscure system..Umm, Yisgard or some such name. It had a very elaborate initiative system. You had modifiers for your stats, your size and height compared to your target, the length of your weapon, the weight of your weapon, plus a few others, then your class could make adjustments to the roll.

Talking about initiative always reminds me of Yisgard or whatever it was called, so had to throw my 2 cents in lol

Maybe Ysgarth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ysgarth)?

Hague
2010-06-12, 02:25 AM
Having read the thread I'd agree that Initiative is not an opposed check since there has to be a failure element based on the other character's result. Sense Motive<->Bluff, Spot<->Hide, and Listen<->Move Silently are opposed checks since failure (success) in either case is relative to the result of the other.

A craft-off would still not be an opposed check. For instance you want to use your Profession (Fancy Cake Maker) to win a cake-baking contest against that guy from the Ace of Cakes show. You would both make Profession (Fancy Cake Maker) rolls but they wouldn't be opposed since your ability to make a cake better has no bearing on the other's ability to make cakes as well.

Likewise with initiative, your ability to roll high initiative has no effect on another's ability to do the same and thus is not opposed by your initiative roll.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-06-12, 02:34 AM
Initiative is not an opposed roll, but figuring that out requires a close interpretation. Misinterpreting MoP here isn't the **** move; accusing someone of cheating for misinterpreting MoP is the **** move.