PDA

View Full Version : What to do with a PC that ignores the warnings.



Ash_Gazn
2010-10-11, 12:54 AM
A Fighter/Sorcerer fought a Wererat and took its Pipes of the Sewers.

The PC, Judging that the Pipes were EVIL, burnt the Pipes in his forge while working on his sword. (double checked w/ the player that he didn't just burn them, but burnt them while he was actively working on his weapon. Not making it magic, just doing standard sharpening and repairs). I Thought this was dumb, and that, at some point, there would be an effect of this.

A bit later, the PC acquired a function to throw their sword and do damage to all creatures in a line (like a ray). Well, at that point, just for grins, I decided that since he'd burned the pipes of the sewers while working on the sword, 25% of the time when he threw the sword like this, it would whistle and attract local mice and rats to the area, ie a bit of the summoning power of the pipes got stuck in the sword sitting in the forge. The rodents did not attack. They came around, and just hung out, occasionally dancing around the PC in joy.

The Player decided he didn't like this, and the PC started asking around trying to figure out how to get this latent magic of of this blade. He was told there was an anvil that could be used to get the magic out, in the dwarf colony that they were headed towards anyways. (I'd read about the Anvil in the Paizo RPG Superstar and really liked).

But the PC became impatient and decided not to run off to where the anvil was. Being a sorcerer with a fire and lightning fetish, he decided that one morning, while doing his pushups and meditation readying for the day, he would BURN all his spell slots of the day as lightning and fire spells, and channel them thru his blade, burning the magic out.

I might have just allowed this to have the intended effect, except the day he decided to do this, the party was standing in a clearing in a mountain range known for magic being disrupted, or having the "wild magic" trait, ie Spells Don't Work Right.

I triple checked. Yes, he was doing this, in this place, now.

What would you do, as a DM?

arguskos
2010-10-11, 12:58 AM
Roll each spell on the Wild Magic table. If they all work, the magic is burned out. If they don't work normally, do whatever the table says. :smalltongue:

This has a high chance to light the guy on fire/melt his face/destroy lots of stuff.

un_known
2010-10-11, 01:32 AM
I say make him go explodie! Boom! Smash! Explosion! Then after he's dead tell hi mthat he did burn the magic out of the blade isntead replacing his soul inside it. Now he is stuck inside the blade.... Have fun.

Golden-Esque
2010-10-11, 01:33 AM
Before I start, this shouldn't be in the homebrew forum.

I would say that your player successfully burns out the magic ... by overwhelming the sword with arcane magic, causing it to shatter into ninety-eight fragments. He's casting a whole bunch of spells at his weapon trying to "burn the latent magic" out, right? I wouldn't even bother with the Wild Magic chart; just say that his wild magic-enhanced powers overwhelmed the blade, causing it to ignore the sword's hardness and shatter it.

From a gameplay perspective, by casting a spell on his own weapon, it doesn't get a saving throw unless its Intelligent. Its a perfectly logical result of a fairly dumb move, and you can still force him to go to your anvil, because he's now got to repair his shiny magic sword, right?

Eagle
2010-10-11, 04:19 AM
{{scrubbed}}

Lix Lorn
2010-10-11, 05:49 AM
After he did something really, REALLY stupid.
Plus, it wasn't a penalty. It was decidedly neither good nor bad-if he got vermin empathy or something, he could make it an advantage.

Also, there's no need to swear.

Nero24200
2010-10-11, 06:35 AM
While I feel Eagle could have worded it better, I do agree with what he says.

Nothing in the rules even hints that putting a magical item into a fire makes the fire magical, and thus applies magical effects to any weapon forged with it. If it does, then I surely hope no PC ever dies in a mundane fire, otherwise his magic gear could cause all sorts of unusal effects in the flames.

Your PC didn't like the item, and is now trying to get rid of it. I'd let the spells destory the weapon if he wants (since you can't really burn magic out of a weapon, magic doesn't work that way in D'n'D) then let him rebuild it if desired, but I'd leave it there after that.

Leecros
2010-10-11, 07:25 AM
Roll each spell on the Wild Magic table. If they all work, the magic is burned out. If they don't work normally, do whatever the table says. :smalltongue:

This has a high chance to light the guy on fire/melt his face/destroy lots of stuff.

This is definitely the best answer in the thread so far.


avoiding any approval or disapproval for your actions(you're the DM so it was your choice), the deed is done. All there is to do now is roll with it.

Mongoose87
2010-10-11, 08:07 AM
While I feel Eagle could have worded it better, I do agree with what he says.

Nothing in the rules even hints that putting a magical item into a fire makes the fire magical, and thus applies magical effects to any weapon forged with it. If it does, then I surely hope no PC ever dies in a mundane fire, otherwise his magic gear could cause all sorts of unusal effects in the flames.

Your PC didn't like the item, and is now trying to get rid of it. I'd let the spells destory the weapon if he wants (since you can't really burn magic out of a weapon, magic doesn't work that way in D'n'D) then let him rebuild it if desired, but I'd leave it there after that.

This. It kinda feels like you're being a little silly, here. Did you at least warn him that there might be something, if he burned the pipes like that?

Starbuck_II
2010-10-11, 08:33 AM
While I feel Eagle could have worded it better, I do agree with what he says.

Nothing in the rules even hints that putting a magical item into a fire makes the fire magical, and thus applies magical effects to any weapon forged with it. If it does, then I surely hope no PC ever dies in a mundane fire, otherwise his magic gear could cause all sorts of unusal effects in the flames.

Your PC didn't like the item, and is now trying to get rid of it. I'd let the spells destory the weapon if he wants (since you can't really burn magic out of a weapon, magic doesn't work that way in D'n'D) then let him rebuild it if desired, but I'd leave it there after that.

Agreed. Giving a flavor ability that is disliked and making it hard to get rid of... are you punishing him for fun or not noticing that the ability upsets him?

Then you decide if he wants to get rid of it: punish him more. Why did you make the cure so hard?

Magicyop
2010-10-11, 10:26 AM
Agreed. Giving a flavor ability that is disliked and making it hard to get rid of... are you punishing him for fun or not noticing that the ability upsets him?

Then you decide if he wants to get rid of it: punish him more. Why did you make the cure so hard?

I disagree with most of the comments saying this. If this is the case, what is the point of having "Cursed Items"?

DM: You find a crystal ball.
Player: I scry on the sorcerer.
DM: Make a will save against a suggestion effect.
Player: Aww frick. Crystal Hypnosis Ball? That's stupid. I hate that. Make it a regular crystal ball.
DM: Okay!

No DM should be sadistic, sure, but unexpected things happening is a big part of D&D. I think it's a very cool idea to add this curse to the blade. That being said, if the player wanted to remove it, the anvil nonetheless should have been easier to get to, but I think even this is remedied when you said you'd allow him to burn the magic out through brute force.

However, if he's actually trying to just buffet his weapon with many spells, in an area that he knows is wild-magic affected, that falls in the category of whatever-happens-happens. Roll on the chart, make the effects happen as they should.

JKTrickster
2010-10-11, 10:59 AM
I just want to point out that the OP never meant for his attempt to fail and in fact says that he might just would have allowed it.

BUT the PCs ARE in a Wild Magic place. Using ALL of your spells, one of them is bound to fail in a spectacularly bad way. I would think that you are suspending disbelief if you just allow his attempt to go without any repercussions. Otherwise, what is the point of putting the Wild Magic area there?

ErrantX
2010-10-11, 11:38 AM
Agreed. Giving a flavor ability that is disliked and making it hard to get rid of... are you punishing him for fun or not noticing that the ability upsets him?

Then you decide if he wants to get rid of it: punish him more. Why did you make the cure so hard?

I think people jumping all over the OP for doing something that isn't expressly by the rules (i.e. magic items showering latent magic on a weapon when burned) is really just plain hypocritical. Any DM worth their salt has fudged a rule, made up rules on the spot to run a situation that isn't in a rulebook, or simply made a split second decision on their game.

Additionally, I would call it far from sadistic to make someone's sword friendly to rats. The PC doesn't like it? Boo-hoo, maybe they shouldn't have burned the pipe in the first place. Either go on the silly side quest, or sell the weapon and get a new one. Magic, at the end of the day, is MAGIC. It can do anything it wants to do, and if the DM says that it is that way, it is that way. End of story. If the player doesn't like it, maybe next time he won't be so cavalier about burning items in his forge fire while working on a weapon.

I thought it was a great idea. Perhaps if he goes to the forge to work on the weapon, he gains vermin-bane instead? Obviously, he hates rats. I see no reason why he couldn't just give a free +1 to a weapon through this situation. It's fun.

As far as burning the magic out? Roll on the table and see what happens, and each spell he burns through the sword should reduce the hardness of the sword by 1 and inflict 1d4 points of damage to it. Supreme stresses of heat will ruin any sword, and that just seems reasonable. The character is being dumb and deserves to lose his sword potentially, or at least wreck it. Either way, sure, if he runs a few spells through it, give each spell a cumulative 5% chance to burn the latent magic out.

2 cents,
-X

Scarlet Tropix
2010-10-11, 12:13 PM
I personally think that the Sword of Rat Attraction is quite amusing myself. I'd say it's a bit overmuch to call the OP a bad DM for something as minor and flavorful as that.

...That aside, I also agree with arguskos. Let him take the risk if he really wants to. The worst that could happen is that he ruins his own weapon. Or possibly himself. Or a good chunk of the mountain. But at least you let him make his own decisions, as ill advised as they might be!

wayfare
2010-10-11, 12:17 PM
Why do so many players want their DMs to be whipped? Should the guy run pre-approved campaigns read by the PCs too?

Come on, messing with your players is part of the fun of being a GM. And this was hardly a curse, sounds easy to get rid of, uses an optional rule (the sword throw thing), and has no meaningful play issue. It could be the stuff of good role-playing.

Besides, if you are convinced that you have an evil artifact on hand, would you burn it while forging your blade?

DracoDei
2010-10-11, 12:59 PM
I like your GMing style. That sort of weirdness can really add a lot of flavor to the game. I believe that PCs lives should be free to be the pits. When players start buying continuous items of Endure Elements that have no mechanical effect (due to the campaign's weather) on the excuse that their character's don't LIKE to be too hot or too cold (the same reasons central heat and air-conditioning were invented), THEN we can start talking about the character's fluff suffering being a punishment on the player... except that that intense of a character actor type roleplayer would probably LOVE roleplaying the character's ongoing "struggle with the evil magic".

I would go ahead and roll the standard stuff for a wild magic area as he channels his spells... but give him the option to stop after each wild surge(without prejudicing your wording or tone either way)... if he gets to... say the 3rd or 4th wild effect, then don't roll for that one on the usual chart (feel free to modify as you see fit):
1d100
1-10| The magic in the sword transfers to him, making any rodent that gets within 20' of him view him as their Best Fwiend Forevwa... unless he attacks that individual, in which case they go immediately to Hostile. This counts as a Bestow Curse cast by a 25th level sorcerer, and may be removed as such provided the caster level of the countering spell is at least 15th.

11-40| The blade sucks out all his remaining spell slots for the day(as if he had cast them all), gains the Bane property against rodents.

41-50| The blade explodes rids itself of the undesired enchantment in a burst of force without any negative effect to the sword, knocking him onto his back (no damage, but auto-stunned) and a white mouse falls onto his forehead, where tendrils on its belly burrow painlessly into his forehead bonding it to him. The tendrils include highly modified placental tissue so the mouse now gets all nutrient, repertory, and excretory needs via the tendrils interface with the blood-vessels in his fore-head. Any injury to the mouse should make it feel like the same sort of injury is occurring to the skin below since the mouse's sense of touch (pressure, heat, cold, pain, etc) are wired into the underlying nerves in the skin so that its beloved master will have decent warning if he is injuring it, but deals no actual damage to the host. Any heal-check can get MOST of the mouse off (killing it in the process), but unless it is at least a 20, bits of the tendrils remain in the skin, forcing saves against filth fever until they are properly removed (roll the heal check(s) in secret, and require a DC 15 wisdom check to even reveal what the roll is for). Successful or not, each attempt deals 1 point of damage. Being basically harmless (and initially Friendly to boot) Remove Disease, Remove Curse, Break Enchantment, Heal, etc etc are ineffective in getting it to release. If Speak with Animals is used the speaker may attempt a DC 25 Diplomacy check (which is pre-adjusted for "Your host would prefer you detach." and is regardless of if the speaker is the host or not) to get the mouse to release its tendrils. Any Domination effect that succeeds on the mouse can immediately force it to release. As a unique creature of magic, the mouse is worth 1,000 GP alive to the right buyer (the buyer will almost certainly bond it to themselves after careful research). EDIT: Or, instead of this, make it a celestial mouse (metallic silver colored fur, soulful golden eyes) which speaks common, and would beg for its life (in an INT 3, WIS 10, CHR 6 to 12 sort of way) as soon as people pulled out the dagger/scalpel. In such a case it is probably best to make it so removal by anything short of transferring it to another host via a Limited Wish would kill it. EDIT^2: With the exception of Mind-effecting effects, unless targeted directly and specifically (such as an sunder attempt, or being named as one of the specific targets of a multi-target spell) the mouse is treated as an unslotted magic item with hardness 0 and 1 hitpoint. Its death works the same as an unsuccessful attempt to remove it surgically (noting that further attempts to remove it surgically can be made afterward to prevent infection).

51-100| The sword explodes violently, dealing damage equal to half the 1d100 result that caused this... result to everything within 30'. Damage is half slashing and half fire. Reflex DC 21 halves.

I am sorry if the bit about the mouse was a bit long, but I have long wanted to write up that sort of thing as a purely fluff item (like an Ebberron graft, but smaller, cuter, and more of a fashion craze among the rich than adventuring gear). You would have to bond a significant number of them before they would start dealing Constitution damage.

Leecros
2010-10-11, 02:04 PM
I don't mind the occasional twists and turns and weirdness and things you just don't expect from a DM(like this). Unfortunately it is possible to have too much, i wouldn't complain about this, but my last DM messed with us all the time:smalltongue:


we had a wizard friend...The Wizard yes annoying, but we paid him to do our enchanting....and random stuff would always happen, we had a sword that shot lightning, a chain...something with 15 foot reach that shrunk to 5 during the process, a chain shirt that was always backwards...it got annoying after awhile. The DM used The Wizard as the way he nerfed things that were too overpowered or strengthened stuff that was underpowered

Iferus
2010-10-11, 02:09 PM
I disagree with most of the comments saying this. If this is the case, what is the point of having "Cursed Items"?

DM: You find a crystal ball.
Player: I scry on the sorcerer.
DM: Make a will save against a suggestion effect.
Player: Aww frick. Crystal Hypnosis Ball? That's stupid. I hate that. Make it a regular crystal ball.
DM: Okay!

No DM should be sadistic, sure, but unexpected things happening is a big part of D&D. I think it's a very cool idea to add this curse to the blade. That being said, if the player wanted to remove it, the anvil nonetheless should have been easier to get to, but I think even this is remedied when you said you'd allow him to burn the magic out through brute force.

However, if he's actually trying to just buffet his weapon with many spells, in an area that he knows is wild-magic affected, that falls in the category of whatever-happens-happens. Roll on the chart, make the effects happen as they should.

This contains all the answers you need.

@DracoDei: I like that table!

Debihuman
2010-10-11, 02:13 PM
A Fighter/Sorcerer fought a Wererat and took its Pipes of the Sewers.

The PC, Judging that the Pipes were EVIL, burnt the Pipes in his forge while working on his sword. (double checked w/ the player that he didn't just burn them, but burnt them while he was actively working on his weapon. Not making it magic, just doing standard sharpening and repairs). I Thought this was dumb, and that, at some point, there would be an effect of this.

From The SRD:
Magic items, unless otherwise noted, take damage as nonmagical items of the same sort. A damaged magic item continues to function, but if it is destroyed, all its magical power is lost.

The pipes are wooden. If they were destroyed in the fire, they'd just be a pile of ash and wouldn't be magical at all. Why did you think that this was dumb? Because the player thought attracting wererats would be EVIL?

I think you are making a bad call on this one. The PC is out one magic item. That's his consequence.


A bit later, the PC acquired a function to throw their sword and do damage to all creatures in a line (like a ray). Well, at that point, just for grins, I decided that since he'd burned the pipes of the sewers while working on the sword, 25% of the time when he threw the sword like this, it would whistle and attract local mice and rats to the area, ie a bit of the summoning power of the pipes got stuck in the sword sitting in the forge. The rodents did not attack. They came around, and just hung out, occasionally dancing around the PC in joy.

So forging the sword in the flame of a burning pipes of the sewers caused the sword to attract mice and rats. It sounds like you play in a high magic campaign, which can be a lot of fun. If all the rats and mice did was hang out, dance, and didn't attack; it doesn't sound like a problem.


The Player decided he didn't like this, and the PC started asking around trying to figure out how to get this latent magic of of this blade. He was told there was an anvil that could be used to get the magic out, in the dwarf colony that they were headed towards anyways. (I'd read about the Anvil in the Paizo RPG Superstar and really liked).

You should have talked to the player about this. It could have been a one-time effect if the player didn't like. Also, you gave him a clue about a magic anvil. So far, so good.


But the PC became impatient and decided not to run off to where the anvil was. Being a sorcerer with a fire and lightning fetish, he decided that one morning, while doing his pushups and meditation readying for the day, he would BURN all his spell slots of the day as lightning and fire spells, and channel them thru his blade, burning the magic out.

Sounds like he simply wanted to destroy the item. Fair enough. It's his item and he can do what he likes with it.


I might have just allowed this to have the intended effect, except the day he decided to do this, the party was standing in a clearing in a mountain range known for magic being disrupted, or having the "wild magic" trait, ie Spells Don't Work Right.

Did they know this beforehand or did you just throw that at them?


I triple checked. Yes, he was doing this, in this place, now.What would you do, as a DM?

There are charts to determine random effects. However, I'd rule that he destroys the magic item and gains one effect from the list of effects from a wand of wonder.

Also, what level is the PC? You can throw more weirdness as suggested by Draco Dei at higher levels.

Debby

DracoDei
2010-10-11, 02:15 PM
@DracoDei: I like that table!
Thank you, I have now edited the "Mouse on Forehead" result, both for clarity, and to add the "Celestial Mouse" option.

Lix Lorn
2010-10-11, 02:16 PM
The DM used The Wizard as the way he nerfed things that were too overpowered or strengthened stuff that was underpowered
Uh.
If that's why he did it, that seems fair to me.

DracoDei
2010-10-11, 05:00 PM
Why did you think that this was dumb? Because the player thought attracting wererats would be EVIL?
Destroying the pipes was good roleplay. Destroying them in a fire at the same time as giving his sword a tune-up was good roleplay as well... of a low wisdom character. Having a quirky (not harmful) side effect fits.
Also the pipes don't attract wererats... just regular rats. There former owner was a wererat though.

Silverscale
2010-10-11, 05:28 PM
I'd say that if the Player/PC has reasonable knowledge that he is about to attempt this in a place known for Wild Magic and he still thinks it's a good idea to go ahead with the foolish plan then by all means let it blow up in his face (or whatever random effect gets rolled on the Wild Magic Table)

Fable Wright
2010-10-11, 07:18 PM
My idea: Perhaps, as the pipes' powers were conferred onto the sword while they were both in the fire, perhaps the fire actually strengthens the bond between the pipes and the sword. And, as the character is trying to destroy the sword, the pipesword responds negatively. Thus, the sorcerer manages to summon an army of flaming rats shooting out of the sword and attacking him. This would only apply to the spells that did not blow up in the wild magic area.

DracoDei
2010-10-11, 07:20 PM
My idea: Perhaps, as the pipes' powers were conferred onto the sword while they were both in the fire, perhaps the fire actually strengthens the bond between the pipes and the sword. And, as the character is trying to destroy the sword, the pipesword responds negatively. Thus, the sorcerer manages to summon an army of flaming rats shooting out of the sword and attacking him. This would only apply to the spells that did not blow up in the wild magic area.

This sounds both less fun, and more cruel. I am against it.

Draconi Redfir
2010-10-11, 07:34 PM
My idea: Perhaps, as the pipes' powers were conferred onto the sword while they were both in the fire, perhaps the fire actually strengthens the bond between the pipes and the sword. And, as the character is trying to destroy the sword, the pipesword responds negatively. Thus, the sorcerer manages to summon an army of flaming rats shooting out of the sword and attacking him. This would only apply to the spells that did not blow up in the wild magic area.


this made me laugh. an army of flaming rats XD

^ this should happen. Maybe let the guy direct the direction the mice shoot out of afterwards so he can use them to attack his enemies


Then for the rest of the game, he can have various things involving vermin or rodents happen to/around him.

Leecros
2010-10-12, 12:04 AM
Uh.
If that's why he did it, that seems fair to me.

It wasn't so much whether it was overpowered or not, but whether he liked it or not.


One of the worst times was when a character wanted to use a spiked chain (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Spiked_chain). So the next time he had an opportunity he took the exotic weapons feat so he could use it and the next time they were in town he bought one. Mr. DM didn't read up on spiked chains. So he didn't mind. Well after a few combats our DM really started hating it for its trip attacks and 10 ft reach. So when this guy went to enchant his spiked chain(from the wizard because that was the only person who could do it apparently) it shrunk down to 5ft and he wasn't able to use it to trip things.

After this the character started to abuse the +2 bonus on opposed attack rolls made to disarm an opponent. Which the DM also didn't like. After the person went back to 'the wizard' to enchant it again it shrunk even more, to the point(according to the DM) where the best it could be used for was an elaborate hairpiece.

So now this player is out...not only a weapon, and the gold it costed to enchant the weapon without a refund, but he also basically lost a feat that he could have used on something entirely different and more useful to his class.


This was just one incident... So while yes, i agree with you that it was a 'fair' idea if used correctly. The execution of it was more often then not...very badly done.:smallfrown:

TheMeMan
2010-10-12, 01:32 AM
It wasn't so much whether it was overpowered or not, but whether he liked it or not.


One of the worst times was when a character wanted to use a spiked chain (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Spiked_chain). So the next time he had an opportunity he took the exotic weapons feat so he could use it and the next time they were in town he bought one. Mr. DM didn't read up on spiked chains. So he didn't mind. Well after a few combats our DM really started hating it for its trip attacks and 10 ft reach. So when this guy went to enchant his spiked chain(from the wizard because that was the only person who could do it apparently) it shrunk down to 5ft and he wasn't able to use it to trip things.

After this the character started to abuse the +2 bonus on opposed attack rolls made to disarm an opponent. Which the DM also didn't like. After the person went back to 'the wizard' to enchant it again it shrunk even more, to the point(according to the DM) where the best it could be used for was an elaborate hairpiece.

So now this player is out...not only a weapon, and the gold it costed to enchant the weapon without a refund, but he also basically lost a feat that he could have used on something entirely different and more useful to his class.


This was just one incident... So while yes, i agree with you that it was a 'fair' idea if used correctly. The execution of it was more often then not...very badly done.:smallfrown:

That's rather idiotic, I must say. If the DM is going to do something like that, he really needs to confer with the player that Action A will result in something less than desired(Doesn't necessarily have to specify what, just make it clear that things aren't going to be necessarily beneficial in all regards). Likewise, if he hated the Chain, he could have talked to the player about using it in a different means, or perhaps finding a way to get rid of it in game, and then give him a "free" feat replacement. Or do the ol' DM trick of "what goes around comes around", where if a player abuses something, it can be used on them. A DM being to lazy/unimaginative to understand how something can be a abused(While initially OKing it, then nerfing it completely) is unacceptible.

However, that doesn't mean everything needs to be spelled out. The OP, for instance, didn't provide any actual nerf, or detrimental effect to the player's actions. So long as a DM makes things that are outside of the box that he does not detrimental, then I see no problem. A good player could take a neutral situation like that and make it a positive through some mean. Still, The Player was given the relatively easy way of getting rid of it: Go to the dwarves in the city where they are headed anyways. Whoop. Dee. Doo. He chose not to, and is exhibiting a great deal of stupidity in channeling all of his magic into the item to begin with(Which I would think would destroy it outright to begin with), let alone in a Wild Magic area. If he knows its a wild magic area, then he deserves whatever comes to him.

Kuma Kode
2010-10-12, 05:16 AM
To the OP: I'd say roll on the table.

My Two Cents Into the Discussion: I can see either side. Yes, having the pipes transfer their effect to create a sword of Rat Attraction is amusing and not really a punishment, it's flavorful.

However, the problem arises with doing things that the rules don't imply or state, and the ramifications that has on the world. Players have certain expectations on how things will work. They assume things work as in the book unless you specifically state otherwise.

For instance, a friend of mine was complaining about a DM they had. In the game, the archer had been mind-controlled by a mind flayer and was attacking friends with his intelligent bow, which possessed a 1/day lightning bolt special power. The barbarian did the only thing he could really think to do, and ended up sundering the weapon. Both players understood why, but the DM ruled that the lightning bolt was released, and damaged both the archer and the barbarian, killing the already injured players.

The problem arises not so much in the DM's ruling, but that it conflicts with what the players expected. Nowhere does it state that intelligent weapons, or magic items in general, unload their offensive abilities when destroyed. If the players had known that was the case, they likely would have avoided harming the weapon at all costs.

On the subject of the pipes, you've now introduced the idea of transferring enchantments by destroying one object while tending to the other. Could the sorcerer then research a means of using this new quality he's discovered to transfer enchantments from one weapon to another, at seemingly no cost or experience requirements? If not, why not?

The problem with little flavorful things like that is that they're not consistent. If the player tried to exploit the mechanic you just introduced, would you be annoyed? Having magic be unpredictable and strange might work for a low-magic setting, but in high fantasy, magic should be reasonably understood. If no one understands it, after all, how do they study and manipulate it?

fil kearney
2010-10-12, 11:52 AM
magicyop +1

wayfare
2010-10-12, 12:05 PM
To the OP: I'd say roll on the table.

My Two Cents Into the Discussion: I can see either side. Yes, having the pipes transfer their effect to create a sword of Rat Attraction is amusing and not really a punishment, it's flavorful.

However, the problem arises with doing things that the rules don't imply or state, and the ramifications that has on the world. Players have certain expectations on how things will work. They assume things work as in the book unless you specifically state otherwise.

For instance, a friend of mine was complaining about a DM they had. In the game, the archer had been mind-controlled by a mind flayer and was attacking friends with his intelligent bow, which possessed a 1/day lightning bolt special power. The barbarian did the only thing he could really think to do, and ended up sundering the weapon. Both players understood why, but the DM ruled that the lightning bolt was released, and damaged both the archer and the barbarian, killing the already injured players.

The problem arises not so much in the DM's ruling, but that it conflicts with what the players expected. Nowhere does it state that intelligent weapons, or magic items in general, unload their offensive abilities when destroyed. If the players had known that was the case, they likely would have avoided harming the weapon at all costs.

On the subject of the pipes, you've now introduced the idea of transferring enchantments by destroying one object while tending to the other. Could the sorcerer then research a means of using this new quality he's discovered to transfer enchantments from one weapon to another, at seemingly no cost or experience requirements? If not, why not?

The problem with little flavorful things like that is that they're not consistent. If the player tried to exploit the mechanic you just introduced, would you be annoyed? Having magic be unpredictable and strange might work for a low-magic setting, but in high fantasy, magic should be reasonably understood. If no one understands it, after all, how do they study and manipulate it?

I get what you're saying, but a good DM can work around these precedents, or integrate them for an interesting campaign experience.

In the above example, the sword doesn't function exactly like the pipes -- its just a holdover of power. But maybe a player can do lots of research to find ways to transfer powers between items -- reducing the material cost by 75% and halving the XP cost.

Or heck, maybe the pipes were inhabited by a lesser rat spirit and the diminished creature is now possessing the sword. Maybe the characters can build it a body that functions like a figurine of wonderous power.

I'm not suggesting that the OP use these examples, I just think that a GM can and should use fluff as much as rules stuff. Both are valid tools in a campaign world.

Nero24200
2010-10-12, 01:07 PM
I get what you're saying, but a good DM can work around these precedents, or integrate them for an interesting campaign experience.

In the above example, the sword doesn't function exactly like the pipes -- its just a holdover of power. But maybe a player can do lots of research to find ways to transfer powers between items -- reducing the material cost by 75% and halving the XP cost.

Or heck, maybe the pipes were inhabited by a lesser rat spirit and the diminished creature is now possessing the sword. Maybe the characters can build it a body that functions like a figurine of wonderous power.

I'm not suggesting that the OP use these examples, I just think that a GM can and should use fluff as much as rules stuff. Both are valid tools in a campaign world.

I'm not against the idea of altering fluff and changing how magic works within the context of a setting. However, the DM should make such changes clear to the players before they become relevent.

If burning a magical object can transfer some of it's magical power to another object, then, at the bare minimum, the warrior/spellcaster with a focus on crafting should at least know that. By the sounds of it the PC didn't and didn't like the end result.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-10-12, 01:20 PM
Tricky situation here. On the one hand, provided the PC knew about the wild-magic area, the PC is being rather stupid. On the other hand, you did saddle him with an unwanted (and frankly impossible to predict) magical effect from a Rule 0 source (which is fine, but, again, something he couldn't know would happen without a precedent), and are now considering punishing him for a creative idea in disposing of the effect.

I think it's overkill to break the weapon. He's trying to channel magic through the sword, not at the sword. Seems a reasonable Rule 0 use of magic to me. I'd give him a nice little perk for creativity, without actually removing the weapon's quality.

Have the sword begin to glow when the first charge is placed in. The next time a vermin comes within, say, 30 feet of it, that creature is instantly immolated by flame, and turns to ash. Say 1-3HD of vermin per level of the spell infused, stacking higher with each additional spell added in. Each slain vermin (or rodents specifically) reduces the number of HD the sword has stored by an amount equal to its own HD.

So you infuse a 3rd level spell, and gain, say, 9 virtual "Hit Dice" of killing power. 8 rats (1/8 HD each) approach, and all are incinerated. The sword now has 8 HD of killing power remaining.

That way, you get some interesting flavor and maybe even a bonus for a creative player, without punishing him for his stupidity or giving him exactly what he wants. Nobody goes home sad or annoyed at the end of the day, and magic in your campaign becomes that much more interesting. You also get the added bonus of not having the effect be obvious immediately. :smallbiggrin:

DracoDei
2010-10-12, 01:27 PM
I'm not against the idea of altering fluff and changing how magic works within the context of a setting. However, the DM should make such changes clear to the players before they become relevent.

If burning a magical object can transfer some of it's magical power to another object, then, at the bare minimum, the warrior/spellcaster with a focus on crafting should at least know that. By the sounds of it the PC didn't and didn't like the end result.

If the character had the Craft Magical Arms and Armor feat then maybe... but to me that is like claiming that just because your rogue has skill-focus in Search and maxed ranks that he wouldn't ever forget to search something for traps. It was a stupid move on general principles, and if he was playing SMART he would have said that his character was going to consider the likely results first.

And the entire point of being a good GM is making stuff up on the fly. If someone wants total and complete regularity and predictability, then table-top RPGs are an illogical place to seek it out. MMORPGs are much better... the player did something very unusual (burning the pipes in the forge while working on his sword), and the GM had it produce a very unusual result... one that he provided a way to remove when it became annoying to the character.

The wild magic thing is just... stupid on the player's part (assuming he ISN'T looking for something random to happen). He is trying to perform a delicate operation (removing the rodent attracting without destroying the sword, or, presumably, the enchantments on it that he likes) in an area where magic gets really unpredictable.

thegurullamen
2010-10-12, 01:46 PM
I say go into the situation by

1) reminding the PC that he's in a wild magic area and
2) using that oft-used phrase, "Are you sure you want to do this?"

If he pauses long enough to think about it, you can then tell him the number of reasons he should wait and try his plan elsewhere (because, as a spellcaster, he should know this stuff already.) Above all, reaffirm the idea that the plan might work, just not there. If he completely disregards the obvious warning and forges ahead with no thought whatsoever, nuke him. It's what he deserves at that point.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-10-12, 01:52 PM
If he completely disregards the obvious warning and forges ahead with no thought whatsoever, nuke him. It's what he deserves at that point.

Once again I will argue against this. Maybe remind him he's in a wild-magic area (if his character would know that), but no more...repeated "are you sure you want to..." make a game feel somewhat railroaded, and restrict player creativity.

My proposed solution above fits with a wild magic area, doesn't reward the player with his desired success (because it obviously wouldn't work exactly as he thinks it might), but still gives him a non-detrimental drawback for creative thinking. Punishing players for creative choices is something that should be done infrequently and only if no other solution presents itself. My solution is neither punishment nor reward, but instead a flavorful addition to the item, a possible result of wild magic, and will make the player in question feel less annoyed at the DM than if he loses his favorite weapon trying to get rid of an effect that he feels is annoying and probably unwarranted.

thegurullamen
2010-10-12, 02:00 PM
Once again I will argue against this. Maybe remind him he's in a wild-magic area (if his character would know that), but no more...repeated "are you sure you want to..." make a game feel somewhat railroaded, and restrict player creativity.

My proposed solution above fits with a wild magic area, doesn't reward the player with his desired success (because it obviously wouldn't work exactly as he thinks it might), but still gives him a non-detrimental drawback for creative thinking. Punishing players for creative choices is something that should be done infrequently and only if no other solution presents itself. My solution is neither punishment nor reward, but instead a flavorful addition to the item, a possible result of wild magic, and will make the player in question feel less annoyed at the DM than if he loses his favorite weapon trying to get rid of an effect that he feels is annoying and probably unwarranted.

But it's not punishing him for creativity. It's punishing him for not paying attention to important background clues. Context matters. Imagine if he tried to pull this plan of his off in a king's throne room? All the guards would see is a guy drawing his sword and grimacing at it a lot while things got really weird around it. (Or, if they know anything about magic, they'd see a guy charging magic into a weapon.) Easily avoided battle ensues. Plan's the same but the results are different because he wasn't wise enough to do this special ritual somewhere safer (or saner.)

I will admit that yours is a creative solution and one I'd be tempted to pick in the same situation if only because it's more likely to end with group harmony. On the other hand, wild magic is (usually) dangerous and I think blowing your whole magical load in a wild magic area for an untested ritual that you just made up is a really, really bad idea. To reiterate: It's this really insane action that merits a beatdown, not the original plan.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-10-12, 02:09 PM
I will admit that yours is a creative solution and one I'd be tempted to pick in the same situation if only because it's more likely to end with group harmony. On the other hand, wild magic is (usually) dangerous and I think blowing your whole magical load in a wild magic area for an untested ritual that you just made up is a really, really bad idea. To reiterate: It's this really insane action that merits a beatdown, not the original plan.

Oh, agreed. However, the DM's goal is to make the game fun for the players. If he drew a sword in a throne room, he'd get what's coming to him. If he'd just seen that the last spell he cast turned into a violent, sentient Living Spell due to wild magic, then yes, he'll have a fight on his hands. In this specific situation, however, not giving him what he wants shows that you can't predict the effects of wild magic, and in a way which further the goal of the game: the players and DM all having fun and playing harmoniously together.

Nanoblack
2010-10-12, 02:37 PM
Let me get this straight– you put a bull**** flavor penalty on a player for no reason. He didn't like this and wanted to know how to get rid of it. And now you want to find a way to screw him over even MORE? This is like the posterchild of terrible DMing. I especially like how everybody is trying to tell you to explode or burn or kill him or whatever.

If he doesn't want the bull**** flavor thing you made up, just get rid of it. The game is only fun if everybody is having fun. Not if the DM is having fun at the expense of the players.

What is this? I don't even...

The player is making poor choices. The DM, rather than punishing player for poor choices, has instead established an interesting effect with neither positive nor negative effects. The player is now acting like a crybaby despite the fact that the sword has next to no effect mechanically. The DM has offered not one, but two ways to end crybaby's hissy fit. Crybaby opts to ignore DMs advice and instead channel all of his spell into his weapon... in a wild magic zone.

Keep in mind that channeling spells into a weapon isn't something that's even listed as possible and as such has no documented effect. (Yes I know the weird curse on the sword is basically the same thing, but DM fiat is different, especially when done to be flavorful.) Personally I think you should tell crybaby player to quit QQ-ing when his sword either blows up in his face (remember he had prepared all fire and lightning spells that day) or the wild magic leaves him as a colorful smear on the floor.

That being said, the next best option would be the rat immolating sword idea. With some creativity they might even be able to turn that into something good. Stick the charged sword into the ground with some cheese next to it and collect the cooked rats after the walk into range- instant dinner!

Finally I would like to restate that any who are pinning the OP as a sadistic DM or that he is punishing the player... well... you need to use your friggin' imagination! This is a pen and paper game for Pelors sake! :smallcool:

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-10-12, 02:41 PM
Keep in mind that channeling spells into a weapon isn't something that's even listed as possible and as such has no documented effect. (Yes I know the weird curse on the sword is basically the same thing, but DM fiat is different, especially when done to be flavorful.) Personally I think you should tell crybaby player to quit QQ-ing when his sword either blows up in his face (remember he had prepared all fire and lightning spells that day) or the wild magic leaves him as a colorful smear on the floor.

Whoa. Bad precedent here. Never assume that the players can't do something just because the rules don't say they can. DM fiat works both ways, and should work both ways. In this case, I'd rule that it makes tons of sense for someone able to bend magic to their whim to channel some of their power into an item without outright blasting it to pieces...magic wouldn't make much sense if it weren't somewhat fluid in nature.

If you don't allow some leeway on the player's part, the game bogs down into a rules-based slog through some dungeons, rather than the interesting game of creativity and story-telling it should be.

Kyouhen
2010-10-12, 02:43 PM
Tricky situation here. On the one hand, provided the PC knew about the wild-magic area, the PC is being rather stupid. On the other hand, you did saddle him with an unwanted (and frankly impossible to predict) magical effect from a Rule 0 source (which is fine, but, again, something he couldn't know would happen without a precedent), and are now considering punishing him for a creative idea in disposing of the effect.

I think it's overkill to break the weapon. He's trying to channel magic through the sword, not at the sword. Seems a reasonable Rule 0 use of magic to me. I'd give him a nice little perk for creativity, without actually removing the weapon's quality.

Have the sword begin to glow when the first charge is placed in. The next time a vermin comes within, say, 30 feet of it, that creature is instantly immolated by flame, and turns to ash. Say 1-3HD of vermin per level of the spell infused, stacking higher with each additional spell added in. Each slain vermin (or rodents specifically) reduces the number of HD the sword has stored by an amount equal to its own HD.

So you infuse a 3rd level spell, and gain, say, 9 virtual "Hit Dice" of killing power. 8 rats (1/8 HD each) approach, and all are incinerated. The sword now has 8 HD of killing power remaining.

That way, you get some interesting flavor and maybe even a bonus for a creative player, without punishing him for his stupidity or giving him exactly what he wants. Nobody goes home sad or annoyed at the end of the day, and magic in your campaign becomes that much more interesting. You also get the added bonus of not having the effect be obvious immediately. :smallbiggrin:

Maybe not have it glow immediately, maybe roll on the wild magic table for the first 2 or 3 blasts. If he's persistant enough to keep going at it after that, THEN give him that ability. Of course, if it were me I'd have the sword unleash a slightly modified wild magic on any rats that come near it instead. A rat approaches and turns into a butterfly, another one coughs up a small gem then runs away, that type of thing. :smalltongue:

And of course once the sword's burned all it's charges it just returns to normal and can't be recharged unless the player decides to go back to the wild magic area and try eating a few more random effects first.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-10-12, 02:45 PM
And of course once the sword's burned all it's charges it just returns to normal and can't be recharged unless the player decides to go back to the wild magic area and try eating a few more random effects first.

Meh...I'd probably let him keep it. It's a fun little feature that doesn't really affect the game that much.

Haarkla
2010-10-12, 02:50 PM
Roll each spell on the Wild Magic table. If they all work, the magic is burned out. If they don't work normally, do whatever the table says. :smalltongue:

This has a high chance to light the guy on fire/melt his face/destroy lots of stuff.
I agree. Casting all your spells at once, on your own sword, in a wild magic area is it's own potential punishment. There are already rules for it, why make up something extra?

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-10-12, 03:00 PM
I agree. Casting all your spells at once, on your own sword, in a wild magic area is it's own potential punishment. There are already rules for it, why make up something extra?

Because, from what was said, he's not casting his spells on the sword. He's expending his spell slots (and thus his magical potential) to channel that energy into the metal, trying to drive out the effect he doesn't want. Seems like something that is reasonable for a wizard or sorcerer to do, although it might require a spellcraft check.

There definitely aren't rules for that sort of thing, however.

Kyouhen
2010-10-12, 03:15 PM
Because, from what was said, he's not casting his spells on the sword. He's expending his spell slots (and thus his magical potential) to channel that energy into the metal, trying to drive out the effect he doesn't want. Seems like something that is reasonable for a wizard or sorcerer to do, although it might require a spellcraft check.

There definitely aren't rules for that sort of thing, however.

Actually some sort of check to avoid damaging the sword would probably be a good idea. You wouldn't want to make it too easy, or the player might just start acting like a Duskblade without taking the levels to do it.

pfvolpe
2010-10-12, 03:38 PM
To the OP: I'd say roll on the table.

My Two Cents Into the Discussion: I can see either side. Yes, having the pipes transfer their effect to create a sword of Rat Attraction is amusing and not really a punishment, it's flavorful.

However, the problem arises with doing things that the rules don't imply or state, and the ramifications that has on the world. Players have certain expectations on how things will work. They assume things work as in the book unless you specifically state otherwise.


This is a personal thing, but I really hate the view expressed above (no offense meant or implied, Kuma), in as much as expectations and rules. Yes, there is chaos without rules. But if I wanted to play something where there was no lee-way in interpretation, I'd play a video game, not a pen-and-paper role-playing game.

There is also needs to be a separation between what the character knows and what the player expects. in the example given, the Player was surprised by the ruling because there was no rule stating how a destroyed intelligent weapon behaves. The Character (barbarian) wouldn't likely know how it would behave anyhow! Yes, it's unfortunate that it resulted in a character death (something as a DM I would break my back to avoid if possible), but the DM is in his rights to make such a ruling. This isn't physics. The rules are GUIDELINES. The over-arching principle of role-playing should be the integrity of the story. The rules provide an agreed upon simulation mechanic -- the point is the story, not the rules.

As such, just because there is no rule for something, the player should not expect NOTHING to be the consequence -- that's exactly where the DM is supposed to step in and adjudicate.

If I held a bottle of nitro over my head and smashed it to the ground, I'd be a fool to think that nothing would happen. A magical item is a vessel for HUGE amounts of energy -- an intelligent weapon more so.

Back to the sword and the pipes. The energy released from the burning pipes -- where is it to go? And a cautious player would avoid mixing his repair work with the burning of the pipes. If he'd made a new fire, or waited a significant amount of time, sure, no harm no foul. But if he INSISTS on doing his work over the flames of the pipes, he gets what he deserves! More so for being IMPATIENT in a wild magic area. Impatience and magic -- two things that always go well together (end sarcasm here).

Draconi Redfir
2010-10-12, 04:04 PM
if there is a hunter or a ranger in the party, you could always feed the rats/mice to their animal companions.

Kuma Kode
2010-10-12, 04:41 PM
This is a personal thing, but I really hate the view expressed above (no offense meant or implied, Kuma), in as much as expectations and rules. Yes, there is chaos without rules. But if I wanted to play something where there was no lee-way in interpretation, I'd play a video game, not a pen-and-paper role-playing game. You engaged in a bit of argument ad absurdem right there, but I get your point. Rule 0 is fun, but there needs to be consistency. At least inform your players that magic doesn't work the way they might expect.
There is also needs to be a separation between what the character knows and what the player expects. in the example given, the Player was surprised by the ruling because there was no rule stating how a destroyed intelligent weapon behaves. The Character (barbarian) wouldn't likely know how it would behave anyhow! Yes, it's unfortunate that it resulted in a character death (something as a DM I would break my back to avoid if possible), but the DM is in his rights to make such a ruling. This isn't physics. The rules are GUIDELINES. The over-arching principle of role-playing should be the integrity of the story. The rules provide an agreed upon simulation mechanic -- the point is the story, not the rules. I find myself in the minority on this, but I disagree that magic is not physics. Magic is very much like a science. Magic has its own internal rules and consistencies that can be studied and acted upon. If not, then what is it that wizards study? It would be impossible to manipulate otherwise. Magic is so predictable, in fact, that an educated individual (read spellcaster) can write down instructions in a book or on a piece of paper of how to achieve a certain effect, hand this paper to another educated individual, who can then, using the instructions, reproduce the exact effect. Every time he casts it, the spell will have identical parameters (damage, range, etc.). Sounds like a physics peer-review to me.

Rulings on things like this have greater ramifications than simply the current adventure. One thing I hate about fantasy campaigns (usually when run by new DMs) is when villages act almost exactly like a historically accurate medieval village where no one has seen or believes in magic or monsters despite the party glowing like a Christmas tree and the monsters outside the gate. It's inconsistent. You're right, the barbarian would have only common knowledge about magic unless he talked to the sorcerer a lot. However, I suspect magic weapons exploding when they're sundered would be pretty common knowledge, as would supernatural flames if you burnt a magic item. In a world where even hamlets have sorcerers and wizards, I find it difficult to wrap my head around the idea of magic being something that common people know nothing about.

Lix Lorn
2010-10-12, 04:47 PM
And how often do people burn 'dangerous and evil' magic items while reforging magical swords?
Doesn't sound like something that would happen often enough for people to know about it.

Kuma Kode
2010-10-12, 05:00 PM
And how often do people burn 'dangerous and evil' magic items while reforging magical swords?
Doesn't sound like something that would happen often enough for people to know about it. So, what, wizards know how to produce practically any effect they want and then imbue those effects into an object, even choosing the word that will release the effect, but they don't know that burning the object could release its enchantment without destroying it?

You'd think something like that would turn into an old wive's tale or something.

Kyouhen
2010-10-12, 05:25 PM
It could be argued that there was something different about this magic item. Maybe it was created specifically to pass it's effect on to a new object when destroyed? Maybe the original creator required the use of those pipes for some evil purpose, and wanted to make sure their magic wouldn't be so easily disposed of. The effect they gave to the sword isn't that bad, so you could probably get away with something like that if the players dug around for more info on the pipes.

That exploding magic item thing wouldn't be acceptable for this though. Unless it had done something to let the players know earlier that it was a special case, you wouldn't be able to get away with just declaring that it doesn't work like normal magic weapons and leave it at that.

Vaynor
2010-10-12, 05:37 PM
The Red Towel: This belongs in Roleplaying Games. Moved.

Tharck
2010-10-12, 05:59 PM
What to do with a PC that ignores the warnings.

The same thing you do to the ones that dont.

Kill them anyway.

mangosta71
2010-10-12, 06:11 PM
Because, from what was said, he's not casting his spells on the sword. He's expending his spell slots (and thus his magical potential) to channel that energy into the metal, trying to drive out the effect he doesn't want. Seems like something that is reasonable for a wizard or sorcerer to do, although it might require a spellcraft check.

There definitely aren't rules for that sort of thing, however.
It's still a wild magic area, though. Even if he's just sacrificing spell slots to channel energy, he can't predict the effects in the mountain range. A wild surge of pure magic could easily weaken/shatter the weapon. Or it could break loose of his control and not go into the weapon at all.

Besides, if he's being a {{scrubbed}} about one effect that's not detrimental in any way, do you honestly expect him to not be a {{scrubbed}} if he gets another effect that isn't exactly what he wants?

Kami2awa
2010-10-12, 06:27 PM
Why do so many players want their DMs to be whipped? Should the guy run pre-approved campaigns read by the PCs too?

Come on, messing with your players is part of the fun of being a GM. And this was hardly a curse, sounds easy to get rid of, uses an optional rule (the sword throw thing), and has no meaningful play issue. It could be the stuff of good role-playing.

Besides, if you are convinced that you have an evil artifact on hand, would you burn it while forging your blade?

Indeed, I've noticed a worrying tendency for certain players to react very badly OOC when anything bad happens to their PCs, as if the GM is being unfair by putting challenges in their way (that's his job!)

Basically, having been warned thrice that magic will behave unexpectedly in this area and still doing something magical and reckless, the PC is asking for trouble. Note that Wild Magic is more or less specifically written so that the GM can have fun with spellcasters. Personally, I'd have him eaten by the vicious awakened gazebo that he accidentally summoned with his magic.

Starbuck_II
2010-10-12, 06:33 PM
It's still a wild magic area, though. Even if he's just sacrificing spell slots to channel energy, he can't predict the effects in the mountain range. A wild surge of pure magic could easily weaken/shatter the weapon. Or it could break loose of his control and not go into the weapon at all.

Besides, if he's being a {{scrubbed}} about one effect that's not detrimental in any way, do you honestly expect him to not be a {{scrubbed}} if he gets another effect that isn't exactly what he wants?

The effect of nothing: yeah, I think if he gets nothing he would be happy since he only hates getting something (the rats)

Weasel of Doom
2010-10-12, 07:25 PM
IMO the op's action was pretty cool and I think that sort of flavourful changes to the rules improve the game.

To those saying that the players should've known what was going to happen beforehand, how? Sounds like metagaming and blaming the dm when your OOC knowledge turns out to be wrong.

For what to do now though. I think DracoDei's table is pretty cool but could very easily make the player think you're just picking on him more. I'd probably just roll on the wild magic table a few times, if all the spells work then he's burnt the vermin power out (and maybe even given it some cool flame / vermin related benefit like extra flaming damage against rodents) if not well he probably explodes or something.

UserShadow7989
2010-10-12, 08:23 PM
However, the problem arises with doing things that the rules don't imply or state, and the ramifications that has on the world. Players have certain expectations on how things will work. They assume things work as in the book unless you specifically state otherwise.

For instance, a friend of mine was complaining about a DM they had. In the game, the archer had been mind-controlled by a mind flayer and was attacking friends with his intelligent bow, which possessed a 1/day lightning bolt special power. The barbarian did the only thing he could really think to do, and ended up sundering the weapon. Both players understood why, but the DM ruled that the lightning bolt was released, and damaged both the archer and the barbarian, killing the already injured players.

The problem arises not so much in the DM's ruling, but that it conflicts with what the players expected. Nowhere does it state that intelligent weapons, or magic items in general, unload their offensive abilities when destroyed. If the players had known that was the case, they likely would have avoided harming the weapon at all costs.

I don't believe the problem is surprising the player, but severely punishing the player for acting reasonably without indication that the action would have an effect.

If there had been some surprising but not lethal effect it wouldn't have been bad, but saying 'oh, it also explodes in a burst of lightning and kills you both' is a flavorful way of saying 'rocks fall, the two of you die'.

@Kami2awa: I have to agree, this guy is just asking for it. There's 'violation of common sense' and then there's 'Darwin Awards candidate'.

As for players being overly attached to their characters, can you blame them? It can take hours to make a character, and you're encouraged to make a thorough background and personality for them. It's the role you make for yourself carefully, with intent to be that role for a long time. Which becomes a problem when you realize how many different ways you can be killed with little warning if the DM isn't careful/merciful/some holy being of divine perfection.

Offtopic personal experience tangent:
It's the main reason I can't bring myself to play D&D. 5 bad DMs in a row. I don't remember the exact details, but I remember 1 was specifically enjoying making every failed skill check or save lethal, another had no idea what 'CR' was and kept sending things five times the group's level at us, and another repeatedly created no-win situations on the basis that we 'could've thought of something' (he admitted he had no idea what).

The final one I remember made an encounter specifically intending it to be too difficult for our injured party. He intended us to climb up a tree, without giving any indication we could run (we were in 'a small, grassy plain with a tree here and there' and our enemies could outrun us easily so escape, even by climbing a tree, seemed impossible) or should run (they were only a handful, and the DM's description was anything but 'dangerous, nasty things FLEE!). Cue TPK, and the DM face-palming and saying 'why didn't you just climb a tree'. One of the others succinctly pointed out A. he never stated the trees were tall/sturdy enough to be climbed as an escape/hold our weight and B. We couldn't possibly have gotten to the trees before the creatures were all over us.

He wasn't doing intentionally, and was a very experienced DM, but one slip up was all it took for hours of work to amount to monster chow. So with five different DMs, I have never made it past the third session. I got tired of making monster bait, so I haven't touched the game in years outside of homebrew.

DragonOfUndeath
2010-10-12, 08:40 PM
the "curse" in the blade doesnt seem that bad if all it does is summon rats when thrown. i think the effect is pretty reasonable and funny so maybe you should talk to the player and ask why he doesnt like the effect?

DracoDei
2010-10-12, 08:44 PM
UserShadow7989: Have you tried a campaign that started at 10th level or higher? Being a level behind the group isn't the end of the world and, to my way of thinking, Raise Dead is MEANT to be used from time to time. I was actually kinda annoyed when we had a 5+ member party make it through the Age of Worms campaign with only 3 deaths total... one revivified, one not interested, and the Paladin who nuked himself dealing the death-blow to the BBEG of the entire campaign who earned his eternal reward so well that he specifically wasn't really ALLOWED to be revivified.

Logalmier
2010-10-12, 09:02 PM
Let me get this straight– you put a bull**** flavor penalty on a player for no reason. He didn't like this and wanted to know how to get rid of it. And now you want to find a way to screw him over even MORE? This is like the posterchild of terrible DMing. I especially like how everybody is trying to tell you to explode or burn or kill him or whatever.

If he doesn't want the bull**** flavor thing you made up, just get rid of it. The game is only fun if everybody is having fun. Not if the DM is having fun at the expense of the players.

...

Ok, WHAT?

First of all, it's not a penalty. It's a perfectly reasonable and creative thing to add based off of something that the character did, not for "no reason." The DM even gave the "are you sure?" line to the player to see if he really wanted to do that.

And no, the DM is not acting sadistic and trying to "screw him over more." He has given the character a plot hook to fix the sword, a great way to keep the campaign moving and it fits in the setting.

Now the character has decided to try and channel the curse (which is not making the game unplayable for him) out through the sword by channeling his magic through it. This is pretty creative, only he is doing it in a wild-magic area. The DM is not trying to "have fun at the expense of the player," when he is trying to decide what to do about this character that has made some creative but stupid desisions. He is trying to do something that fits with the setting he created.

And what's with all the flavor bashing? Seriously, I don't know about you, but if I just went through the same dungeon right out of the book every time, I'd get kind of bored. You seem to be making the argument that Flavor=Bad. Really? It's bad that the DM has made a fantasy world? It's bad that the DM has created a game that isn't just monsters in a 10x10 underground room? It's bad that the DM has added some, I don't know, FLAVOR? Ugh.

Oh, and it might not be fun to have a DM randomly screw you over, but that's not what this DM is doing. You know what's also not fun? This:

DM: Ok you enter a room with a large scary monster. It looks at you and you take 2 negative levels.

Player: Aww, I hate monsters! I wish it wasn't there.

DM: You're right, the monster is now gone, your all lvl 20, and you have 999,999,999 gold pieces. You are now the most powerful people ever. Congratulations!

Player: Uhhhhh...

Yeah.:smallannoyed:

Serenity
2010-10-12, 09:10 PM
The plan to channel spells through the sword is certainly not a sensible one--whether its simply 'stupid' or a deliberate expression of frustration isn't so clear-cut. But burning the pipes was not dumb by any means. The player, being an arcane crafter, had a reasonable expectation to understand how magic items work, and, without prior hints, had no reasonable expectation that destroying a magical item could possibly have this effect. Yes, the quirk is trivial. But it is, at the least, understandable why a player could feel put upon, even punished by it. He performed what he justifiably viewed as a perfectly reasonable action, and then, some significant time after the fact, he enchants an item, and finds the cool effect he had been building his character towards undercut for reasons he feels he should have been able to anticipate if it was going to be a problem.

Of course the DM can and must exercise Rule 0. I'm the first to defend a DM's right or even duty to fudge or make house rules. But some changes should be made with caution and/or forewarning, as they impact upon the way characters perceive and understand the world, and how a rational person in the setting should behave.

Kaun
2010-10-12, 09:16 PM
lol rat sword a serious punishment.

I wonder what the players who first put a bag of holidng in a protable hole would have to say about that?

Tiki Snakes
2010-10-12, 09:21 PM
I know a player who would spend real world money on bribes to get a sword that summoned joyous, friendly and dancing rats every now and again.

Really, if you do random stuff to magic items with no expectation that something unexpected could happen, then you really haven't had the fear of magic put into you sufficiently yet.

I'd say another round of 'Are you sure you want to do that (in a wild magic area)?' is due, and should cover it. Then roll once for each spell slot used, as is only fair. If he survives, it works.
But do give him the chance to stop between rolls, don't just hit them all at once. :smallsmile:

miibtp
2010-10-12, 09:25 PM
?consider trying out some basic tutorial games for your players?:smallamused:
works for me: players who really don't consider things well before hand often get better with tutorial campaigns

just a suggestion...

UserShadow7989
2010-10-12, 09:30 PM
UserShadow7989: Have you tried a campaign that started at 10th level or higher? Being a level behind the group isn't the end of the world and, to my way of thinking, Raise Dead is MEANT to be used from time to time. I was actually kinda annoyed when we had a 5+ member party make it through the Age of Worms campaign with only 3 deaths total... one revivified, one not interested, and the Paladin who nuked himself dealing the death-blow to the BBEG of the entire campaign who earned his eternal reward so well that he specifically wasn't really ALLOWED to be revivified.

Only once, and that was the one who took joy in killing us over and over. The average survival rate after revival was... really low, can't remember the specifics from that long ago. One level behind is no big deal, but seven is a pain.

Kaun
2010-10-12, 09:33 PM
Of course the DM can and must exercise Rule 0. I'm the first to defend a DM's right or even duty to fudge or make house rules. But some changes should be made with caution and/or forewarning, as they impact upon the way characters perceive and understand the world, and how a rational person in the setting should behave.

Adding to this i dont think magic is ever "fluffed" as an exact science.

true_shinken
2010-10-12, 09:53 PM
+1 to rolling on the table

DragonOfUndeath
2010-10-12, 10:09 PM
He performed what he justifiably viewed as a perfectly reasonable action, and then, some significant time after the fact, he enchants an item, and finds the cool effect he had been building his character towards undercut for reasons he feels he should have been able to anticipate if it was going to be a problem.

he maintained his sword in a fire from a magic item and got a harmless effect that did absolutely NOTHING mechanics wise. summoning dancing happy rats 1/4 of the time you throw a sword is not stopping anything and seems like a good thing to roleplay

DranWork
2010-10-12, 10:22 PM
Id say let him do it. Then have the group ambushed by something and for him to find out that his once awesome sword is a brittle broken sword and he has no magic cause he used it all up.

You've done all you can to warn him now you can have some fun IMHO

Achernar
2010-10-12, 10:26 PM
Hm. Well, if he knows the area is Wild Magic, and you feel particularly charitable, have the flavor effect go off once per spell cast, summoning a horde of gleeful dancing rats to follow the PC to the Dwarven Colony. Then let him take the effect off, because he doesn't like it. He should, however, have an awkward diplomatic encounter with the city mage or priest to prove he is not the harbinger of doom and pestilence.

If you are feeling RAW, have him make a spellcraft of Arcana roll to know That Won't Work. Then another roll should be made to understand the perils of Wild Magic Zones.

Then, if he doesn't bite that, tell him Sorc's can't "burn" spell slots (at least in the version I play).

If he insist on casting every spell through his weapon (sound like the version of the game I do not play, which is to say 4e), then roll Wild Magic as if he'd just lit off his entire contingent for the day.

josh11_2000
2010-10-12, 11:36 PM
The one thing that I was always taught about any game was that the world is a dangerous place and it can kill you all by itself. So if he wants to use magical energy in an area with unpredictable effects then what happens happens. Sometimes you have to know when to hold em and when to fold em. Sorry if it sucks for him but next time he will know. And as long as you don't kill the entire party who's to say that he can't be rezed later. Maybe losing a level from raise dead will be enough to teach him to be mindful of his environment.:smallbiggrin:

Xuc Xac
2010-10-13, 12:46 AM
Does this character not have any knowledge skills for understanding how magic works? I think either the player should have asked for a skill check to determine how to solve this "problem" or the GM should have offered one to verify if the PC's plan was really the best way to achieve what he wanted.

It sounds like the player just assumes he knows the answer when it's actually a bad idea and the GM just assumes that the player knows it's a bad idea but is doing it anyway.

Tvtyrant
2010-10-13, 01:16 AM
I'm of two minds about it. On the one hand I can see deciding to do something that's not in the rule book with magic if the DM just did; its one thing to fudge dice and give an enemy an extra dimension door spell when people aren't looking to keep the game interesting, its another to openly add new elements you haven't explained into the game.

On the other hand, I can't for the life of me see why the PC doesn't want a sword that attracts happy dancing mice. Worst case scenario and the party runs out of food you have dinner!

I think the biggest thing I disagree with is the "nuking yourself" rolls people are advocating. I would make it a spell craft check, and if he fails the check then make him role a random effect. He can make as many checks as he has spell slots, but each failed one brings a slightly raised chance of critical meltdown.

NineThePuma
2010-10-13, 01:25 AM
A minor note to the people yelling "He's an arcane caster! He should know the rules!"

Sorcerers are NOT educated. They do NOT learn magic. Their magic is instinctive, drawn from their heritage. If he didn't take ranks in Knowledge (Arcana), having him be ignorant of the possible effects is fine.


My personal Opinion: Tell the other members of the group what he's planning and the likely result: Lots of destruction going off. He's sitting there casting spells at his sword (because he specified he wanted fire/lightning spells 'used' on it) in an area where it's liable to go wrong. He's also killing his spell potential for a day, which is a Bad Idea in the wilderness.

The ability is pure flavor, and I like it. It has no real effect on gameplay, and it could even be an advantage (speak with animals, Handle Animal, Wild Empathy, etc. To try to get them to swarm the enemy).

DragonOfUndeath
2010-10-13, 01:31 AM
i agree with the kobold. the ability could actually help the party and in no way hinders them so what exactly is the guys problem? why doesnt he like it? and why doesnt the just sell it and buy a new sword exactly like it?

Darastin
2010-10-13, 06:04 AM
The PC, Judging that the Pipes were EVIL, burnt the Pipes in his forge while working on his sword. (double checked w/ the player that he didn't just burn them, but burnt them while he was actively working on his weapon. Not making it magic, just doing standard sharpening and repairs). I Thought this was dumb, and that, at some point, there would be an effect of this.
Having the destruction of a magic item have side effects is both flavorfull and plausible... but why did you think that this was dumb?

If the character in question does have at least a basic amount of maical knowledge (i.e. ranks in Knowledge: Arcana), he should know of the possibility of side effects - and since this is not part of the RAW you should have told the player. Any given action can only be stupid if you should have known better - and it seems that the player did not know.

Now, on the effect itself: Why did it have to be undesirable? There is no real causality involved, so it cold have been anything remotely related to pipes or rats without hurting your world's consistency and credibility.

From a GMs perspective, if a player destroys a valuable item, he is hurting himself (because it could be sold for a significant amount of money, traded in for something useful, or used in apprpriate circumstances). Arbitrarily - i.e. not acting on nescessary in-game consequences - adding an undesirable side effect is just adding insult to injury. Some players take it with a chuckle, others... not so well. Unless you want to openly run the game against your players, you should put a little more thought in those things.


I might have just allowed this to have the intended effect, except the day he decided to do this, the party was standing in a clearing in a mountain range known for magic being disrupted, or having the "wild magic" trait, ie Spells Don't Work Right.

I triple checked. Yes, he was doing this, in this place, now.
How ecactly did you triple-check? Did you ask "Are you sure? Here? Right now?" The player might have forgotten that he's in a dead-magic zone - that's his fault, but not as stupid as you made it sound.

On the other hand, if you told him "You remember that this is a wild magic zone, right?" then yeah, I sense a Darwin Award incoming.


What would you do, as a DM?
Decide on an appropriate amount of spell levels that need to be successfully channeled through the blade to "purify" it. Successfully includes a not-so-hard spellcraft check... say DC 15 + spell level.

Have the player channel the spells one after another, do not resolve everything at once. For each spell, check for wild surges first. On a wild surge, the spell does whatever your wild magic table says it does. Otherwise, the character can attempt to channel it with the Spellcraft check. If the check fails, the spell fizzles and its energy drains away harmlessly. If successful, have the player keep track of the number of channeled spell levels.

If the player forgot about the wild magic, the first wild surge should remind him. He might decide to try it in a safer place or continue... well, now he knows the risk.

Just my two €-cents;
Darastin

Soulblazer87
2010-10-13, 08:20 AM
I seriously don't know why this discussion has gone on for so long. Let's look at the facts:

The player decided to do something idiotic; namely attempt to destroy a magicaal item in a fire while at the same time re-forging his sword. I am aware that many people have little knowledge of the arcane, but as a student (even a little bit) of eldritch traditions, what happened to the sword was completely predictable. Magic is magic. It is, by definition, unpredictable and untamed. I mean, the guy can spit fireballs. That is something that defies the very essense of logic. As for how he could undo it? A remove curse spell or maybe just a reforging of the blade while channeling a fire spell through the blade could cut it. The burning rat thing? It could start as a curse, but with a minor research and Craft Magic Arms and Armor or Craft Wondrous, he could gain control of the rats, giving him the ability to use them much like intelligent magic missiles.

Then, the player did something even more idiotic; he decided to use his magic in a magically unstable area. I won't speak anything about the fact that it should blow up in his face at least a couple of times. Had he decided to do whatever in the peace of his sanctum or forgery or home, I would have at least in part accepted it. Maybe give it a small side-effect of the sword glowing a bit when vermin came near. Think Sting from LotR, but small range, maybe 10-20 feet. But... he did it in a wild magic area. You should have him roll individually for the spells he casts as well as deprive him of that weapon in some way, have it turn into a rat or emit rat-like noises. Draco's table is also very good for his. Nothing like having an albino celestial rat stuck on your forehead.

In the end, I'd suggest taking a look through Mage books. Specifically the Paradox part. Give him something linked to the sword's effect only with a twist of irony and a touch of negativity. The ability to hear extremely high frequency sounds while the sword is out, coupled with the sword releasing these sounds, would be one example. He would be extremely annoyed by the sound, but if he's smart enough he can go for blindsense by learning to focus on the echo, like a bat. Maybe rat-like ears or teeth, needing a remove curse. That's of course if he doesn't blast himself to death in the magic area zone. After all, regardless of if he's casting the spells or expending their energy, he is trying to manipulate magic in an area where it's specifically RETARDED to do so. Give him a small albeit flavourfull punishment and tell the crybaby to walk it off.

Magicyop
2010-10-13, 08:22 AM
...he could gain control of the rats, giving him the ability to use them much like intelligent magic missiles...

This is just the best idea ever. RAT MISSILE! :smalltongue:

DracoDei
2010-10-13, 08:46 AM
Small note: It is a celestial mouse, not a celestial rat... when it comes to cosmetic purposes, this is an important distinction, both in size of the "blemish" and in terms of stereotypes (although the stereotypes might vary in a given campaign world).

Also, I tweaked that result so it explicitly DOESN'T destroy the sword, and DOES get rid of the undesirable enchantment on the sword (actually I may have forgotten this second part). I should probably put a clause about the mouse counting as a worn item for purposes of getting injured by Fireballs etc and Sundering and such (IE almost never an issue).

EDIT: I will also say that this debate is one I have heard years ago in a completely different context... I think the person I heard discussing it was firmly on the OTHER side from what he called "simulationist" (which is the side that says that the character should be disallowed from performing especially foolish actions even if the player narrates them as doing so, or that the GM should roll knowledge checks without prompting (but perhaps "prompting" includes via the characters obviously discussing and considering things) ). So... this isn't the first time people have consider this, nor will it be the last.

One thing is that I would explicitly explain the concept of asking questions... perhaps as an aside before the session starts... if the player doesn't jump in with "Wait, wait... before I do this with cleansing the sword, what does my character think the probable results will be?" or some such, the proceed with the rolling to see if wild-surges happen...

Amphetryon
2010-10-13, 08:52 AM
you did saddle him with an unwanted (and frankly impossible to predict) magical effect from a Rule 0 source (which is fine, but, again, something he couldn't know would happen without a precedent), and are now considering punishing him for a creative idea in disposing of the effect.
+1 to this sentiment.

I can't speak to how other players might perceive it, but the players I've been used to DMing would call this railroading. You created a minor annoyance for the player. Okay, fine, that's your prerogative as DM. You're now considering placing additional hindrances on his character for coming up with an outside-the-box solution to the original annoyance. At some point not far from here, my old group of players would just turn to me as DM and start asking me to play their characters for them, if they're denied making choices independent of what the DM thinks is best without being smacked for it.

DracoDei
2010-10-13, 09:01 AM
+1 to this sentiment.

I can't speak to how other players might perceive it, but the players I've been used to DMing would call this railroading. You created a minor annoyance for the player. Okay, fine, that's your prerogative as DM. You're now considering placing additional hindrances on his character for coming up with an outside-the-box solution to the original annoyance. At some point not far from here, my old group of players would just turn to me as DM and start asking me to play their characters for them, if they're denied making choices independent of what the DM thinks is best without being smacked for it.

Except that he isn't punishing him for the method (which was the creative part to come up with)... he said he liked the method I think... it is the LOCATION that is foolish.

dsmiles
2010-10-13, 09:04 AM
I'm a little late to this, but Pipes of the Sewers = Evil?

So, by logic, summoning rats = Evil. Rats are animals, so does summoning animals = Evil, too? Druids summon animals, so now druid = Evil? OH THE INSANITY!!!! WHERE DOES IT END?!?!?! :smalleek:

Just sayin'.

Starbuck_II
2010-10-13, 09:04 AM
Except that he isn't punishing him for the method (which was the creative part to come up with)... he said he liked the method I think... it is the LOCATION that is foolish.

I thought Wild magic only affected casting spells, nothing about channeling. :smallconfused:

Amphetryon
2010-10-13, 09:08 AM
I thought Wild magic only affected casting spells, nothing about channeling. :smallconfused:

Unless, of course, the DM is punishing the player for not using his prescribed method... yeah.

Tiki Snakes
2010-10-13, 09:12 AM
I thought Wild magic only affected casting spells, nothing about channeling. :smallconfused:

Given that the sorcerer doesn't even HAVE the ability to channel magic in the way he is doing so, he really can't complain if he gets a compromise result.

He might anyway, but then he failed to see the awesome in a Sword of Rat Attraction, so that's almost a moot point.

mangosta71
2010-10-13, 09:14 AM
+1 to this sentiment.

I can't speak to how other players might perceive it, but the players I've been used to DMing would call this railroading. You created a minor annoyance for the player. Okay, fine, that's your prerogative as DM. You're now considering placing additional hindrances on his character for coming up with an outside-the-box solution to the original annoyance. At some point not far from here, my old group of players would just turn to me as DM and start asking me to play their characters for them, if they're denied making choices independent of what the DM thinks is best without being smacked for it.
The OP said specifically that he would probably allow the PC's solution to work in a normal area. The problem is that he wants to do it in a wild magic zone. Assuming that the player knows that he's in a WMZ, he's being willfully stupid and he deserves whatever he gets.

DracoDei
2010-10-13, 09:20 AM
I'm a little late to this, but Pipes of the Sewers = Evil?

So, by logic, summoning rats = Evil. Rats are animals, so does summoning animals = Evil, too? Druids summon animals, so now druid = Evil? OH THE INSANITY!!!! WHERE DOES IT END?!?!?! :smalleek:

Just sayin'.
Actually, given that the character might not be completely familiar with said pipes, and that he got them off a WERERAT (Always Lawful Evil), I call this good roleplaying.

I thought Wild magic only affected casting spells, nothing about channeling. :smallconfused:
To me, "channeling" is the same as casting (same components), just that you send it into an object rather than sending the energy out in the normal way... so reloading a spell-storing item still requires all the usual casting time, verbal/somatic/material components, etc.

The OP said specifically that he would probably allow the PC's solution to work in a normal area. The problem is that he wants to do it in a wild magic zone. Assuming that the player knows that he's in a WMZ, he's being willfully stupid and he deserves whatever he gets.
Yep, you said it slightly better than I did.

dsmiles
2010-10-13, 09:29 AM
Actually, given that the character might not be completely familiar with said pipes, and that he got them off a WERERAT (Always Lawful Evil), I call this good roleplaying.

To an extent, yes, but personally (even as a LG Paladin), I would probably do some research first to see what the ramifications of using Pipes of the Sewers (really any item, unless it was blatantly evil, like an unholy sword) would be.

DracoDei
2010-10-13, 09:36 AM
To an extent, yes, but personally (even as a LG Paladin), I would probably do some research first to see what the ramifications of using Pipes of the Sewers (really any item, unless it was blatantly evil, like an unholy sword) would be.
Said research (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectEvil.htm) would, of course, take all of 18 seconds for said paladin... unless he was paranoid enough to think that the item had specific countermeasure on it for that. The character's working assumption was almost certainly that it WAS evil, just like an unholy shortsword +1. I agree that it was sorta a low Int/Wis thing to not do the research though, especially since he probably could have had the party cleric (or hired one if the party has a druid or whatever instead), cast Detect Evil on it first (well worth the price for the casting).

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-10-13, 09:37 AM
The OP said specifically that he would probably allow the PC's solution to work in a normal area. The problem is that he wants to do it in a wild magic zone. Assuming that the player knows that he's in a WMZ, he's being willfully stupid and he deserves whatever he gets.

Perhaps. But the repercussions, in my mind, shouldn't outweigh the benefit unless the player had recently seen something truly horrific happen in the Wild Magic area. Let's be frank: we've all made stupid decisions in gaming, and we've all forgotten important information (like the presence or strength of a Wild Magic area). D&D is a game about, ultimately, fun, not a game about having every mistake shoved back in your face tenfold. If you want to punish him for his mistake, don't over-do it. Don't cost him his favorite weapon as a price for trying to remove an unwanted enchantment...do something minor and unique instead. A rat immolating sword, or maybe the magic flows up the path of magic into him, giving him a 1/day Shifter trait that turns him vaguely rat-like (+2 to Dexterity, Scent, and a natural bite attack that spreads Filth Fever, for something like 3 rounds + 1 round per character level or something). Maybe the rats follow him now, but the sword is fine.

But don't nuke him or the item to the extent that some suggest. That's overstepping the boundaries of his enjoyment of the game, and imposing a needlessly harsh penalty on the player for trying to achieve something that is, in the end, just a bit of needless flavor he happens to dislike.

dsmiles
2010-10-13, 09:55 AM
assumption

And we all know what that does...

DracoDei
2010-10-13, 10:02 AM
And we all know what that does...
Yes, yes we do. But having your character make in-character mistakes is part of good roleplay.

Jan Mattys
2010-10-13, 10:03 AM
Why do so many players want their DMs to be whipped? Should the guy run pre-approved campaigns read by the PCs too?

Come on, messing with your players is part of the fun of being a GM. And this was hardly a curse, sounds easy to get rid of, uses an optional rule (the sword throw thing), and has no meaningful play issue. It could be the stuff of good role-playing.

Besides, if you are convinced that you have an evil artifact on hand, would you burn it while forging your blade?

This. Totally this.

A roleplaying adventure is working together to create something cool, unique or surprising. The DM is entitled to be the master and commander of this creation, and I applaude the OP for working with external elements to give birth to unexpected results.

Now, players might like or dislike unexpected results, but they are there to deal with them under the supervision of the DM, not to be cuddled.

I agree that frying the guy for trying something stupid is too much. I'd probably make the sword explode, or have something of equal "KABOOM" level happen. Possibly with further repercussions as plot hooks. After all, "Interesting development" is better than "punishment", if applicable.

But my point is: personally, I'd appreciate twice as much to have an inventive DM at my table.

dsmiles
2010-10-13, 10:08 AM
Yes, yes we do. But having your character make in-character mistakes is part of good roleplay.

Some mistakes, yes, but others might just get you a free opening on that can of whoop-ass the rest of the party has.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-10-13, 10:13 AM
I agree that frying the guy for trying something stupid is too much. I'd probably make the sword explode, or have something of equal "KABOOM" level happen. Possibly with further repercussions as plot hooks. After all, "Interesting development" is better than "punishment", if applicable.

...losing your favorite weapon is sometimes, in the D&D world, a worse punishment than death. Just sayin'. :smallwink:

I'm still opposed to the "destroy the weapon/fry the player" angle of things.

Nick_mi
2010-10-13, 10:16 AM
From only reading your topic title the correct answer is to kill them.

mangosta71
2010-10-13, 10:25 AM
Perhaps. But the repercussions, in my mind, shouldn't outweigh the benefit unless the player had recently seen something truly horrific happen in the Wild Magic area. Let's be frank: we've all made stupid decisions in gaming, and we've all forgotten important information (like the presence or strength of a Wild Magic area). D&D is a game about, ultimately, fun, not a game about having every mistake shoved back in your face tenfold.
So the DM reminds him that he's in a WMZ, and that magic is inherently unpredictable in the area. Possibly a reminder that there is such a thing as a wild magic table. These are things the character would know, even if the player has forgotten. The DM points out that the ritual would work if he performed it in a normal magic area. If the player insists on trying his ritual in the WMZ even after these warnings, well...

If you want to punish him for his mistake, don't over-do it. Don't cost him his favorite weapon as a price for trying to remove an unwanted enchantment...do something minor and unique instead. A rat immolating sword, or maybe the magic flows up the path of magic into him, giving him a 1/day Shifter trait that turns him vaguely rat-like (+2 to Dexterity, Scent, and a natural bite attack that spreads Filth Fever, for something like 3 rounds + 1 round per character level or something). Maybe the rats follow him now, but the sword is fine.
The problem arose because the player was complaining about not getting the exact effect he wanted. Do you honestly think he won't complain if he gets another effect that isn't exactly what he wants? He knows the risks, and a number of the results on the wild magic table are...not beneficial. Should the OP let his players reroll attacks/saves because failing is harmful to the PCs?

But don't nuke him or the item to the extent that some suggest. That's overstepping the boundaries of his enjoyment of the game, and imposing a needlessly harsh penalty on the player for trying to achieve something that is, in the end, just a bit of needless flavor he happens to dislike.
The wild magic table is needlessly harsh? I would agree with the majority and let him roll for one spell slot at a time with the option to stop at any point rather than slamming him with all of them at once. Unless he's just outrageously stupid, he should realize the danger after one or two spells. (Actually, if he's not outrageously stupid, he should have realized the danger after being asked three times if he was sure he wanted to do that.)

As an aside, I can't help but notice that all of your suggestions have been beneficial, essentially giving the character an extra enchantment with no cost in XP or materials. If you DM this way, I would have a field day as one of your players.

Jayabalard
2010-10-13, 11:01 AM
Nothing in the rules even hints Based on Golden-Esque's comment, this was originally posted in homebrew ... quoting rules is silly.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-10-13, 11:30 AM
As an aside, I can't help but notice that all of your suggestions have been beneficial, essentially giving the character an extra enchantment with no cost in XP or materials. If you DM this way, I would have a field day as one of your players.

I DM this way when I feel the situation is relatively harmless. Wild magic is...well...wild, and the player in question has come up with a relatively interesting and creative solution to the problem at hand. I reward creative thinking. In this case, given the wild magic, I'd reward it in a way that's not exactly what he wants.

Also, who said Wild Magic has to be all bad? It's just unpredictable, not 100% harmful all of the time. If he were trying to perform some incredibly delicate, campaign-altering ritual, yeah...things would go badly. If he were trying to circumvent large parts of the plot, gain benefits he shouldn't have, or exploit some system, things would turn on him. Trying a creative solution to a problem that I fiated on him, however, is something that I'd reward, if it were at all possible to do so. Maybe with a bit of backlash, just to remind him of why it wasn't the best idea...maybe he takes some damage from the process, but one of the things I suggested happens. Maybe the magic is flushed from the blade, but the ground at his feet turns into a thousand rats, and he falls into a pit full of rodents. Something wild magicky in nature, but not overly harmful in effect.

dsmiles
2010-10-13, 11:34 AM
I DM this way when I feel the situation is relatively harmless. Wild magic is...well...wild, and the player in question has come up with a relatively interesting and creative solution to the problem at hand. I reward creative thinking. In this case, given the wild magic, I'd reward it in a way that's not exactly what he wants.

Also, who said Wild Magic has to be all bad? It's just unpredictable, not 100% harmful all of the time. If he were trying to perform some incredibly delicate, campaign-altering ritual, yeah...things would go badly. If he were trying to circumvent large parts of the plot, gain benefits he shouldn't have, or exploit some system, things would turn on him. Trying a creative solution to a problem that I fiated on him, however, is something that I'd reward, if it were at all possible to do so. Maybe with a bit of backlash, just to remind him of why it wasn't the best idea...maybe he takes some damage from the process, but one of the things I suggested happens. Maybe the magic is flushed from the blade, but the ground at his feet turns into a thousand rats, and he falls into a pit full of rodents. Something wild magicky in nature, but not overly harmful in effect.

IIRC, in 2e Tome of Magic, the wild magic d% chart was approximately 25% harmful, 25% useful, 25% useless/WTF and 25% hilarious.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-10-13, 11:41 AM
IIRC, in 2e Tome of Magic, the wild magic d% chart was approximately 25% harmful, 25% useful, 25% useless/WTF and 25% hilarious.

Meh. I guess I just don't like the idea of a table for something as random, spontaneous, and just plain strange as Wild Magic is, in my mind, supposed to be. :smallbiggrin:

dsmiles
2010-10-13, 11:44 AM
Meh. I guess I just don't like the idea of a table for something as random, spontaneous, and just plain strange as Wild Magic is, in my mind, supposed to be. :smallbiggrin:

Yeah, but casting a 20' radius burst of flowers rather than fire is still a classic in my mind. Or perhaps turning purple while casting control weather? I used to use an almost identical chart for the Wand of Wonder. (Some of the 50% non-useful/WTF/hilarious rolls as I remember them.)

DracoDei
2010-10-13, 11:46 AM
Meh. I guess I just don't like the idea of a table for something as random, spontaneous, and just plain strange as Wild Magic is, in my mind, supposed to be. :smallbiggrin:
This is why the best wild magic chart would be one created by as many different authors as possible throwing everything and the kitchen sink in (within some power guildlines for both best and worst effects), and with an ever-growing number of entries. I know I have seen one with at least 100 different effects (but that might have been all my one author, and with some of the effects being variations on eachother). And, as I demonstrated, specialty purpose charts have their place. (And I didn't really expect people to like it THAT much!... thanks everyone!)

dsmiles
2010-10-13, 11:49 AM
This is why the best wild magic chart would be one created by as many different authors as possible throwing everything and the kitchen sink in (within some power guildlines for both best and worst effects), and with an ever-growing number of entries. I know I have seen one with at least 100 different effects (but that might have been all my one author, and with some of the effects being variations on eachother). And, as I demonstrated, specialty purpose charts have their place. (And I didn't really expect people to like it THAT much!... thanks everyone!)

The 2e one I mentioned had 100 different effects on a d% table, but it may have been written by one author. Some of those were downright silly (and FUN!). :smallbiggrin:

mangosta71
2010-10-13, 11:50 AM
How do you determine something that's unpredictable, then? Should something that's random, spontaneous, and just plain strange always be beneficial?

I'm not saying that the PC should auto die, or his sword should automatically be destroyed. That's what the table is for. Maybe it will work as the player intends. Maybe nothing will happen. Maybe disaster will strike. Wild magic is supposed to be a gamble, and players should only play with it if they're willing to face the potential consequences.

Nero24200
2010-10-13, 11:52 AM
Based on Golden-Esque's comment, this was originally posted in homebrew ... quoting rules is silly.

And yet was still a query rather than a peice of homebrew, so I don't see how quouting rules would be silly. If someone homebrewd a variant cleric class and asked how it compared to the 3.5 cleric class, would it be silly of me to quote segments of the cleric rules if relevent?

Also, you seem to be missing my point. I was explaining how I felt there should have been precedence for magic transferring via fire. The "rules quote" (if that, since I didn't actually quote anything) was to illustrate that there aren't any existing rules or fluff convaying such an idea within the current rules.

dsmiles
2010-10-13, 11:57 AM
Maybe nothing will happen. Maybe disaster will strike.

Maybe the character will channel fire through his sword and get flowers instead. Maybe he'll channel lightning and get frogs. I, personally, dislike disasterous wild magic, I like funny wild magic.

Starbuck_II
2010-10-13, 12:00 PM
Maybe the character will channel fire through his sword and get flowers instead. Maybe he'll channel lightning and get frogs. I, personally, dislike disasterous wild magic, I like funny wild magic.

Sword gets turned into a flower in looks (same damage, etc but looks like a flower)? Also curse removed.

dsmiles
2010-10-13, 12:02 PM
Sword gets turned into a flower in looks (same damage, etc but looks like a flower)? Also curse removed.

I think that this would have to be one BIG flower.

Kyouhen
2010-10-13, 12:05 PM
I think that this would have to be one BIG flower.

Also the PC would probably need Weapon Proficiency: Sunflowers to use the thing. :smallbiggrin:

Starbuck_II
2010-10-13, 12:05 PM
I think that this would have to be one BIG flower.


http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://7art-screensavers.com/flowers/2004-08-19-flowers-photos/reddish-big-flower.jpg&imgrefurl=http://7art-screensavers.com/flowersfree.shtml&h=768&w=1024&sz=154&tbnid=dMsb239ruLSpzM:&tbnh=113&tbnw=150&prev=/images%3Fq%3DBig%2Bflower&zoom=1&q=Big+flower&usg=__K-Gis6anZQU0pmC3JKXHguqDO-s=&sa=X&ei=f-a1TI6ZEcSclgeF-MzvBQ&ved=0CBwQ9QEwAA

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://farm1.static.flickr.com/3/4179020_24f0373283.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.flickr.com/photos/adrasteia9/4179020/&h=360&w=480&sz=42&tbnid=HFJ-pgi4NmxdIM:&tbnh=97&tbnw=129&prev=/images%3Fq%3DBig%2Bflower&zoom=1&q=Big+flower&usg=__tzq66kcxdAfTfR_O25rdrPpB7wI=&sa=X&ei=f-a1TI6ZEcSclgeF-MzvBQ&ved=0CCAQ9QEwAg

http://www.acclaimimages.com/search_terms/big_flower.html

http://www.digital-cameras-help.com/flowers.html?id=14

http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/1468387707053970579xtvUiC



Those are a few links to big flowers. Big flowers aren't uncommon.

Xuc Xac
2010-10-13, 12:06 PM
I like wild magic that is "wild" but not completely random. A wild spell should be like a wild animal. A wild dog, for example, might lick your hand or bite it, or he might urinate on you, or circle around you and growl at you before running away, or just bark at you, but he won't fly away on big fluffy wings because he's still a dog.

If you cast a fireball spell, it shouldn't create a big carpet of fresh daisies. Maybe the shape is altered so it's not a ball. Maybe it's a line (and not a straight one either) or maybe it's a collection of several small blasts instead of one big one so several non-adjacent squares are burned at one time leaving the spaces between untouched, etc. But it's still a blast of fire that burns things: it's just not "tame".

Lix Lorn
2010-10-13, 12:07 PM
Sword gets turned into a flower in looks (same damage, etc but looks like a flower)? Also curse removed.
Dragonfable has several swords which are fish...

dsmiles
2010-10-13, 12:08 PM
Also the PC would probably need Weapon Proficiency: Sunflowers to use the thing. :smallbiggrin:

Exotic Weapon?

Starbuck_II
2010-10-13, 12:09 PM
Also the PC would probably need Weapon Proficiency: Sunflowers to use the thing. :smallbiggrin:

No, same proficiency. It is magic appearance not actual transmutation.

dsmiles
2010-10-13, 12:15 PM
Dragonfable has several swords which are fish...

There's an Oblivion mod where you can slap people with a large Slaughterfish (re-skinned longsword). :smallbiggrin: That's always good for a laugh once and a while.

DracoDei
2010-10-13, 12:15 PM
I like wild magic that is "wild" but not completely random. A wild spell should be like a wild animal. A wild dog, for example, might lick your hand or bite it, or he might urinate on you, or circle around you and growl at you before running away, or just bark at you, but he won't fly away on big fluffy wings because he's still a dog.

If you cast a fireball spell, it shouldn't create a big carpet of fresh daisies. Maybe the shape is altered so it's not a ball. Maybe it's a line (and not a straight one either) or maybe it's a collection of several small blasts instead of one big one so several non-adjacent squares are burned at one time leaving the spaces between untouched, etc. But it's still a blast of fire that burns things: it's just not "tame".
Different strokes for different folks... like some cats, I prefer the backstroke.

Kylarra
2010-10-13, 12:18 PM
I think my response would tend towards DiT's ideals. It's not a huge campaign altering thing, so horribly disastrous results shouldn't come from it. Amusing results yes, but not disastrous.

dsmiles
2010-10-13, 12:21 PM
Different strokes for different folks... like some cats, I prefer the backstroke.

...and I like sammiches. Yummy! :smalltongue:

Kislath
2010-10-13, 12:43 PM
After reading the opening post, the solution is obvious.
Have it summon flaming rats.

Jayabalard
2010-10-13, 01:00 PM
If you cast a fireball spell, it shouldn't create a big carpet of fresh daisies. A carpet of fresh fire daisies would be fine though

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-10-13, 02:03 PM
I think my response would tend towards DiT's ideals. It's not a huge campaign altering thing, so horribly disastrous results shouldn't come from it. Amusing results yes, but not disastrous.

...is it bad that it took me a minute to realize who DiT referred to? :smallredface:

NineThePuma
2010-10-13, 02:22 PM
After reading the opening post, the solution is obvious.
Have it summon flaming rats.

Flaming rats. Then, later, Trolling Rats. XD

kyoryu
2010-10-13, 03:23 PM
I know a player who would spend real world money on bribes to get a sword that summoned joyous, friendly and dancing rats every now and again.

Really, if you do random stuff to magic items with no expectation that something unexpected could happen, then you really haven't had the fear of magic put into you sufficiently yet.

I'd say another round of 'Are you sure you want to do that (in a wild magic area)?' is due, and should cover it. Then roll once for each spell slot used, as is only fair. If he survives, it works.
But do give him the chance to stop between rolls, don't just hit them all at once. :smallsmile:

I'm a programmer. Languages (particularly C++) have areas of behavior that are undefined. When asked "what does this do?" the only valid answer is "it could do anything. It might (seemingly) work, it could format your hard drive. It could summon Cthulhu."

That said, some "undefined" behavior is remarkably consistent across compilers and platforms. But, it's still undefined, and could still summon an Elder God.

Saying to a player, "Are you sure you really want to do that?" is a direct warning that they are getting into the realm of undefined behavior. You could even get more brutal about it and ask for a Wis check, followed by "you don't think this is a good idea."

That being said, it sounds like this player is a little immature, and a little too attached to his character. Is his channeling spells through the sword an act of creativity, or simply him throwing a tantrum and wanting all the bad things gone NOW?

If it's actually creative, then work with him, and do something creative. Maybe have the spells push the spirit of the pipes out, in the form of a giant mystic rat or something which he has to defeat (without the benefit of spells, since he cast them all). If he succeeds, then you can use that as a plot hook to make his sword even more awesome in the long run.

But - it sounds like he's just throwing a tantrum, and wants the bad things GONE NOW because everything has to go HIS WAY. Did he ask if his plan of casting spells through the sword would work, or did he just assume that because it was his neato idea, it would? If the latter, you have no reason to give in - you've already given him an out for the side effect, he can put up with it for a few sessions.

Lix Lorn
2010-10-13, 03:32 PM
When asked "what does this do?" the only valid answer is "it could do anything. It might (seemingly) work, it could format your hard drive. It could summon Cthulhu."
Charles Stross supports this.

Another_Poet
2010-10-13, 03:35 PM
do damage to all creatures in a line (like a ray).

First off, rays don't work like that.

To answer your actual question, I would consider this. Subtracting the hardness of the sword, and halving the fire damage (or whatever % less objects take from heat), how much damage will all these spells do to the sword? How many hp does a masterwork sword have?

Whether the spells work right or not, there is no conceivable reason why buttloads of fire and electrical damage would remove magic. There is every imaginable reason why super-heating a metal, nonmagic sword in a rapid, uncontrolled manner would warp and ruin the sword. The tempering is shot, the shape may change... you destroyed your weapon.

Since the character evidently has some blacksmithing knowledge, I would have the player roll a Craft check and if the result is above 10 I would warn him, that, "You don't know if fire and lightning will remove the magic, but you are pretty sure that ,uch heat will destroy your sword."

If he does it anyway, then yes, roll on the wild magic chart or whatever; and whichever spells succeed, apply the damage against his sword's remaining hp. If it reaches 0 it is destroyed.

If, miraculously, he does not destroy his sword - have mercy on him and remove the unwanted magic effect.

ap

kyoryu
2010-10-13, 03:44 PM
Since the character evidently has some blacksmithing knowledge, I would have the player roll a Craft check and if the result is above 10 I would warn him, that, "You don't know if fire and lightning will remove the magic, but you are pretty sure that ,uch heat will destroy your sword."


I'd allow a roll even without blacksmithing knowledge. Most people that are proficient with an instrument know at least the basics of care of such an instrument. "Hey, don't stick your sword in a fire, it could screw it up" is clearly part of the basic care of a sword.

dsmiles
2010-10-13, 05:17 PM
Stuff...It could summon Cthulhu."

More stuff...But, it's still undefined, and could still summon an Elder God.


If something could summon Great Cthulhu or one of the other Elder Gods, it's probably a bad idea. Why would you write a program that could doom the entire multiverse? :smallwink:

Scow2
2010-10-13, 05:22 PM
Even if the guy doesn't know it's a Wild Magic area, don't change it now! "What you don't know WILL kill you" is a standard adventuring rule.

If he gets killed by Wild Magic misfires, well, he should have checked first. If something requires three confirmations, the player is too dumb for his character to live.

When GM says: Are you sure?
he always means: "Don't do this... it will just get you killed."

Starbuck_II
2010-10-13, 05:32 PM
Saying to a player, "Are you sure you really want to do that?" is a direct warning that they are getting into the realm of undefined behavior. You could even get more brutal about it and ask for a Wis check, followed by "you don't think this is a good idea."

Where does this meme come from?

"Are you sure you really want to do that?" means the DM is just checking that he heard you right.
that is what it means in plain english.

To a DM (or a previous DM): it means warning.

But not to the masses.
The Wisdom check thing is good: might give an actual warning not the lame, " are you sure".

dsmiles
2010-10-13, 05:37 PM
"Are you sure you really want to do that?" means the DM is just checking that he heard you right.
that is what it means in plain english.
Possibly.

To a DM (or a previous DM): it means warning.
True.

But not to the masses.
So very unfortunately true.

The Wisdom check thing is good: might give an actual warning not the lame, " are you sure".
Maybe.

And thank the gods that my players are all experienced enough to take, "Are you sure you really want to do that?" as a warning. Although sometimes they'll still say yes, just to see what happens.

Aotrs Commander
2010-10-13, 05:47 PM
If the DM looks right at you, and calmly says "Are you really?" in the right tone of voice and you don't get the hint, you probably will after the first time.

Doubly so if the DM first says something like "so, let me get this straight. You're going to channel your entire magical repatoire in a manner you've never used before in an attempt to clear out a magical effect you aren't entirely certain of the origin of, in an area of Wild magic."

Kylarra
2010-10-13, 05:49 PM
If the DM looks right at you, and calmly says "Are you really?" in the right tone of voice and you don't get the hint, you probably will after the first time.

Doubly so if the DM first says something like "so, let me get this straight. You're going to channel your entire magical repatoire in a manner you've never used before in an attempt to clear out a magical effect you aren't entirely certain of the origin of, in an area of Wild magic."If you emphasize the wild magic aspect, or at least reiterate it so that he's definitely aware he's in one, then he probably deserves whatever the table gives him.

dsmiles
2010-10-13, 05:57 PM
If you emphasize the wild magic aspect, or at least reiterate it so that he's definitely aware he's in one, then he probably deserves whatever the table gives him.

Like the aforementioned ginormous flower-sword.

kyoryu
2010-10-13, 07:30 PM
If something could summon Great Cthulhu or one of the other Elder Gods, it's probably a bad idea. Why would you write a program that could doom the entire multiverse? :smallwink:

Which is why you never depend on undefined behavior. Relying on undefined behavior makes Cthulhu happy, and that is never a good thing.

Come on, that's in every introductory book on C.

dsmiles
2010-10-13, 07:33 PM
Which is why you never depend on undefined behavior. Relying on undefined behavior makes Cthulhu happy, and that is never a good thing.

Come on, that's in every introductory book on C.

Sorry, I'm not a programmer. I'm a power engineer. (I hate the DnD lightning spells because electricity does not work that way. :smalltongue:)

Kaun
2010-10-13, 07:40 PM
Sorry, I'm not a programmer. I'm a power engineer. (I hate the DnD lightning spells because electricity does not work that way. :smalltongue:)

+1 to this.

Fable Wright
2010-10-13, 08:36 PM
Languages (particularly C++) have areas of behavior that are undefined. When asked "what does this do?" the only valid answer is "it could do anything. It might (seemingly) work, it could format your hard drive. It could summon Cthulhu."
This made me lol. Can I sig this?

Scow2
2010-10-13, 10:50 PM
Even if he didn't know the area was Wild Magic, it's his fault for not checking.

Or is it safe for my character, when raiding a dungeon, to kick in a door and be able to safely assume there's no dragon behind it because I didn't bother to check if there had been any draconic activity in the area beforehand?

Unlike, say, World of Synnibar, the DM is free to alter the effects of certain causes if it would make the game more interesting. The rules are just a baseline.

Serenity
2010-10-13, 11:01 PM
I seriously don't know why this discussion has gone on for so long. Let's look at the facts:

The player decided to do something idiotic; namely attempt to destroy a magicaal item in a fire while at the same time re-forging his sword. I am aware that many people have little knowledge of the arcane, but as a student (even a little bit) of eldritch traditions, what happened to the sword was completely predictable.

False. Utterly false. There is absolutely no way in which destroying the magic item in the forge fire was even remotely idiotic, because magic does not work this way. Or rather, if the DM wants it to, it can, but unless the DM has made it clear that he is altering the way magic works, there is absolutely no reason that a player should expect this to occur. The player was saddled with this effect because the DM made a house rule and didn't tell him about this beforehand, or even tell him to make a Knowledge: Arcana check to know that something might happen. However trivial the effect might be, it is perfectly reasonable for a a player to be frustrated by this.

Scow2
2010-10-13, 11:09 PM
Who are you to say magic cannot work that way?

Every campaign world would be VERY boring if doing unusual things didn't occassionally have unexpected results.

The DM doesn't have to explain how magic works. Rule 0 says it's the player's perogative to ask. Wizards spend their entire lives trying to figure out how magic works.

Most magic-item creation rules are the "Tried-and-True" method that people know gets results. Nothing says there aren't other ways to get similar effects.

3.5's rules are only a baseline to play. If anyone actually read the DMG and notice it frequently says "Feel free to change these rules to fit your campaign", often giving suggestions on how to do so, such as the creation of PrCs and new classes to augment the core ones, as well as outlining advice on letting players create new spells, and the DM create new monsters and magic items.

Also, not everything players do should have entirely expected results. Otherwise, cursed and intelligent items wouldn't exist.

Mystic Muse
2010-10-13, 11:22 PM
Who are you to say magic cannot work that way?

Every campaign world would be VERY boring if doing unusual things didn't occassionally have unexpected results.


The complaint might not be so much that "Magic doesn't work like that" as it is "I didn't know magic worked like that in this campaign world"


the problem arises with doing things that the rules don't imply or state, and the ramifications that has on the world. Players have certain expectations on how things will work. They assume things work as in the book unless you specifically state otherwise.

and once you break one universe defining rule without telling the players, it creates a bad precedent.

Scow2
2010-10-13, 11:25 PM
Again... magic is a pretty undefined source. It can do whatever the DM needs it to in order to create an adventure or interesting encounter.

Personally, I think having unforeseen ramifications of magic items being destroyed helps remind players that the item is MAGIC and special, not just a high-quality tool with some neat quirks.

Mystic Muse
2010-10-13, 11:37 PM
Again... magic is a pretty undefined source. It can do whatever the DM needs it to in order to create an adventure or interesting encounter.


Yes, but the players should be aware of any changes the DM makes. Unless stated otherwise, the game is assumed to work as it does in the books. If the DM changes one thing without telling me, I can only imagine what else he's changed without telling me. It isn't a problem if my character doesn't know the rules, but when I don't know which rules are valid and which aren't, it stresses me out.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-10-13, 11:40 PM
I really, really, really don't see what was stupid about the player's original action. Really. I cannot wrap my mind around the reasoning that moves people to call that a dumb idea. Neither common sense nor uncommon sense cover this sort of thing. The actual result of this thinking is understandable - oh, random magical quirk. Magic's weird like that, I can dig it. But if I were the player in question, and I read the intent behind the results, I'd be perplexed and more than a little offended.

Serenity
2010-10-13, 11:49 PM
Unless the DM states otherwise, a player must and will assume that the world operates in accordance with the RAW. And by the RAW, magic does not work that way. By the RAW, magic is predictable. It is tamed. It is defined. There are specific magical formulas which create specific magical effects. As many other D&D aficionados have pointed out, magic is so predictable and scientific by the RAW that a wizard should be able to deduce the existence of class levels from the way magic works.

This is the RAW. If the DM wants to change it, of course he can! I have never sought to deny Rule 0. But if he makes such a change, and never informs his players of it, he cannot blame the player for playing their characters in accordance with their RAW-based understanding of the world. The player's action can only be idiotic if he has a reasonable expectation that negative consequences would result. By the unaltered rules of D&D, he does not have that expectation.

Mystic Muse
2010-10-13, 11:50 PM
Unless the DM states otherwise, a player must and will assume that the world operates in accordance with the RAW. And by the RAW, magic does not work that way. By the RAW, magic is predictable. It is tamed. It is defined. There are specific magical formulas which create specific magical effects. As many other D&D aficionados have pointed out, magic is so predictable and scientific by the RAW that a wizard should be able to deduce the existence of class levels from the way magic works.

This is the RAW. If the DM wants to change it, of course he can! I have never sought to deny Rule 0. But if he makes such a change, and never informs his players of it, he cannot blame the player for playing their characters in accordance with their RAW-based understanding of the world. The player's action can only be idiotic if he has a reasonable expectation that negative consequences would result. By the unaltered rules of D&D, he does not have that expectation.

Said SO much better than I did.

DracoDei
2010-10-14, 12:08 AM
Except that what he did is the magical equivalent of doing your laundry in a vat that you didn't thoroughly clean out after you burned off the complex chemical mixture that was shipped in it... it "turned the guy's laundry a funny color"... now then, being the game-world's equivalent of a chemical engineer he would have known that there would be a weird effect, and perhaps could even have done some research to predict it... if he had paused to think. Which he didn't(even after subtle prompting by the GM)... and the thing with the WMZ is just... Darwin Award material.

Ajadea
2010-10-14, 12:20 AM
I'd roll for something like this, once per five spells cast or so, let him stop every once in a while and ask if he wants to continue. I mean, wild magic. Fire and Lightning. This is Darwin-Award Level idiocy, whether or not the DM is being unfair.

{table]Roll (1d100+Spellcraft)|Effect
Natural 1|The blade's latent magic is expunged. You summon a flaming Gargantuan rat swarm, which deals 2d6 fire damage on a successful swarm attack in addition to the normal damage, and feels a need to murder the dude who has the rat sword. The blade loses a +2 bonus worth of magical enhancments, and the rat curse is successfully removed.
2-20|Congrats, you blew up your sword. Expend no more spell slots. Roll as if you were affected by a rod of wonder.
21-40|The blade now summons something else. Roll on the table below to determine what.
41-50|Nothing happens except for the fact that you have lost spell slots.
51-69|+5 on your next Spellcraft Check to channel energy into the blade.
70-75|Mouse on Head. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9527894&postcount=16)
77-85|The rat enchantment is expelled. The sword's hardness is reduced by 5 and the sword's HP is permanently reduced by 15. This may or may not break the sword.
86-88|Celestial Mouse on Head! The mouse, in addition to all the other intelligence bits mentioned in the Mouse on Head link, has the spell-like ability to cast a randomly selected 2nd level fire spell once per day, Caster Level and Effective Casting Stat equal to whatever the dude's is right now, and this does not change if spells or magic items change the guys casting stat or he levels up. Expend no more spell slots.
89-97|Flaming Sword. It still summons rats, which now deal 1 fire damage on a successful natural attack in addition to the damage they already deal.
98-100|The dancing rat curse is expelled, the sword gains the flaming and rodentbane (for this purpose, rats, mice, bats, bunnies, beavers, and related animals) enhancements. Bravo.[/table]

21-40 on the above table changes the item summoned. Roll 1d10 to see how.
{table]Roll|Effect
1|Dancing Songbirds
2|A Snarky Weasel, who can use Inspire Courage as a 1st level Bard with 15 Cha with 4 ranks in Perform (Ignan Opera), and disappears when the Inspire Courage effect ends. Same weasel every time, and the Weasel will not be resurrected if it dies.
3|Rotten Fruit
4|1d4 Rank Peasant's Outfits or Glod (not a typo) (your choice)
5|The blade sings Ignan Opera when the curse is activated, but no longer summons anything.
6|2d20 Eyeballs
7|1d4 Flaming Spider Swarms, which obey the wielder of the sword for 5 rounds before disappearing.
8|A Pig
9|Animated Left Socks
10|1d10 Cheap Gems (worth about 20 GP each)[/table]

DracoDei
2010-10-14, 12:53 AM
Actually, I changed the "mouse on head" thing so that it didn't damage the sword... seemed too much of a double-whammy otherwise.

Also, does the snarky weasel inspire the PCs, their foes, or whichever creatures (perhaps some from each side depending on his tastes) strike his fancy at the moment?

Mystic Muse
2010-10-14, 12:56 AM
Except that what he did is the magical equivalent of doing your laundry in a vat that you didn't thoroughly clean out after you burned off the complex chemical mixture that was shipped in it... it "turned the guy's laundry a funny color"... now then, being the game-world's equivalent of a chemical engineer he would have known that there would be a weird effect, and perhaps could even have done some research to predict it... if he had paused to think. Which he didn't(even after subtle prompting by the GM)... and the thing with the WMZ is just... Darwin Award material.

Except this isn't the way it works in standard D&D. That's the complaint. It doesn't matter what the equivalent is because by RAW magic does not work that way. The complaint is that the DM changed the rules without informing the player, which, regardless of what the change is, you still need to inform your players. You don't have to be specific. For example, you change the monsters a bit. All you really have to say is "I'll be changing some things around on the monsters so that they can challenge you and will do my best not to gimp anybody by doing so"

Ajadea
2010-10-14, 01:44 AM
Actually, I changed the "mouse on head" thing so that it didn't damage the sword... seemed too much of a double-whammy otherwise.

Also, does the snarky weasel inspire the PCs, their foes, or whichever creatures (perhaps some from each side depending on his tastes) strike his fancy at the moment?

The PC's in Theory, but in practice, the weasel probably could inspire anyone.

Jayabalard
2010-10-14, 02:43 AM
The complaint might not be so much that "Magic doesn't work like that" as it is "I didn't know magic worked like that in this campaign world"So? He's not a student of how magic works, he just uses it innately. There are bound to be hundreds of situations where his character should say "I didn't know magic worked like that".


The complaint is that the DM changed the rules without informing the player, "are you sure" is informing the player, in a non-specific way.


For example, you change the monsters a bit. You seriously think the GM needs to tell the players that they're not going to use monsters strictly as written in the monster manual?

Foryn Gilnith
2010-10-14, 02:51 AM
There are bound to be hundreds of situations where his character should say "I didn't know magic worked like that".

That doesn't mean the player is dumb for going through with his action.

Mystic Muse
2010-10-14, 03:44 AM
So? He's not a student of how magic works, he just uses it innately. There are bound to be hundreds of situations where his character should say "I didn't know magic worked like that".

I mean the player, not the character. While the character might not know the player should know.


"are you sure" is informing the player, in a non-specific way. granted but it's also not one bit useful. "Are you sure" could just as easily mean "Do you really want to destroy a magic item"? Or a myriad of other things. It is in no way informing the player that magic works differently in the world. What I mean by "Non specific way" is something that's a blanket statement but has at least some useful information behind it. Saying "Magic works a little differently than normal this campaign" can lead to questions that may be relevant to your character or you might need to know. "Are you sure" doesn't really inform the player of anything.


You seriously think the GM needs to tell the players that they're not going to use monsters strictly as written in the monster manual? Yes. For the entire time I ran 3.5 I used standard monsters with a few exceptions and even then, those exceptions were just monsters with class levels.

I may not be communicating my thoughts clearly. It's very early and I have Insomnia.

Jan Mattys
2010-10-14, 04:36 AM
I mean the player, not the character. While the character might not know the player should know.

granted but it's also not one bit useful. "Are you sure" could just as easily mean "Do you really want to destroy a magic item"? Or a myriad of other things. It is in no way informing the player that magic works differently in the world. What I mean by "Non specific way" is something that's a blanket statement but has at least some useful information behind it. Saying "Magic works a little differently than normal this campaign" can lead to questions that may be relevant to your character or you might need to know. "Are you sure" doesn't really inform the player of anything.

Yes. For the entire time I ran 3.5 I used standard monsters with a few exceptions and even then, those exceptions were just monsters with class levels.

I may not be communicating my thoughts clearly. It's very early and I have Insomnia.

At the cost of sounding way too confrontational, I must say I pity those players who value the rulebook more than creativity, and think of roleplaying games as a pen-and-paper version of chess.

:smallmad:

dsmiles
2010-10-14, 04:37 AM
So, in theory, as a player, I should assume that I can/will become Pun-Pun?

It's all RAW.

Nobody should ever, as a player, assume that RAW is the standard. RAW is broken. Utterly, utterly broken (and everybody knows it). Any DM that goes strictly by RAW is allowing Pun-Pun directly into their campaigns, and Pun-Pun is no fun-fun (for the DM or the other players). (Pun-Pun intended. :smalltongue:)

RAI, however, is another story. People can argue RAI all day, because different points of view lead to different interpretations of RAI. But that's another story, for another time.

Mystic Muse
2010-10-14, 04:44 AM
So, in theory, as a player, I should assume that I can/will become Pun-Pun? If the DM has the books required for it? Then yes, you should assume it's possible unless he's brought up a rule forbidding it or trusts you not to be a jerk because until the DM specifies otherwise, RAW is all you have to go off of.



Nobody should ever, as a player, assume that RAW is the standard. RAW is broken. Utterly, utterly broken (and everybody knows it). Any DM that goes strictly by RAW is allowing Pun-Pun directly into their campaigns, and Pun-Pun is no fun-fun (for the DM or the other players). (Pun-Pun intended. :smalltongue:).

I'm aware of this. However, if the DM doesn't specify otherwise, I'm forced to assume RAW is standard because that's all I have to go off of.

Psyx
2010-10-14, 04:50 AM
That's not burning with latent magic... that's dropping a few million volts and a few thousand degrees of fire through the blade.

I'd check for wild magic results, and then trash the sword, to be honest. It's a dumb idea, and deserves the results due.

Jan Mattys
2010-10-14, 04:50 AM
until the DM specifies otherwise, RAW is all you have to go off of.

It is exactly the opposite.
Until the RAW specifies otherwise, the DM is your alpha and omega.

And guess what? RAW openly seconds this interpretation.

Mystic Muse
2010-10-14, 04:52 AM
It is exactly the opposite.
Until the RAW specifies otherwise, the DM is your alpha and omega.

And guess what? RAW openly seconds this interpretation.

And if he/she wants to change the rules I'm fine with that. I have never argued against this, or if I did, I didn't mean to. The issue is when the DM changes the rules but doesn't tell the players that rules have been changed. That is what I've been trying to argue against.

EDIT: And yes, if the DM doesn't tell me any rules have been changed, I'm forced to assume that no rules have been changed. Therefore, I have to assume the game operates under RAW.

Jan Mattys
2010-10-14, 05:01 AM
And if he/she wants to change the rules I'm fine with that. I have never argued against this, or if I did, I didn't mean to. The issue is when the DM changes the rules but doesn't tell the players that rules have been changed. That is what I've been trying to argue against.

EDIT: And yes, if the DM doesn't tell me any rules have been changed, I'm forced to assume that no rules have been changed. Therefore, I have to assume the game operates under RAW.

I do understand what you are saying. Really, I do. it's just that I find that attitude so very unimaginative and against the spirit of RPGs. But I guess that's different taste.

My point is not that DMs are allowed to trump /modify any rule. Of course they are.
My point is that even when a DM acts weird (not being a jerk, but just trying to add flavour, colour to the picture, if you want) it is so much easier, so much funnier, and so much better for the players to just ride with what the DM throws at them, that not doing so and instead complaining because "rules say thing X doesn't work like that" sounds like a very bad approach to the game.

But again, I am all for more "heavy on storytelling" systems than D&D, so ultimately the problem might well be that I'm the wrong person arguing against about what is ok and what is not in a D&D session anyway. :smallsmile:

EDITED to try and clean my awful english. Sorry.

Mystic Muse
2010-10-14, 05:16 AM
I see that side too. I'd just like the DM to bring something like that up before hand. I don't need to know the specifics unless it's going to make something on my character sheet obsolete.

I don't care how the DM changes the rules. I just like knowing what rules he's changing or if he's going to do it as he goes, allow me to modify my character if a change makes one of their strategies obsolete.

I don't put mechanics above roleplaying but messing with the mechanics without telling me, or telling me that something my character does is no longer allowed without me being allowed to change them so that they can do something else will greatly frustrate me.

I had a slightly bad experience with a DM who forgot houserules that were later relevant.

DragonOfUndeath
2010-10-14, 05:45 AM
if the character is complaining about RAW then hit him with everything RAW says should come to him, if there are any houserules he has used to buff himself delete them for the session then hit him with all the Wild Magic effects as he offloads his ENTIRE spell list into his mundane sword to get rid of a mechanically null flavor effect. before the session pull him over and ask why he doesnt like the effect and why he doesnt want to travel to the dwarf city to get it removed safely if its something like "RAW doesnt say its possible" or somesuch thing play the session as i just described it

Darastin
2010-10-14, 07:09 AM
Except that what he did is the magical equivalent of doing your laundry in a vat that you didn't thoroughly clean out after you burned off the complex chemical mixture that was shipped in it...
Only if you base his actions on your idea of "the destruction of magic items may have side effects". But why should he assume those side effects? Magic is not real; there is no way to apply any real-world knowledge. Magic could be and do anything - so just because you think that a certain magical behaviour is self-evident does not mean that someone else has to think the same way.

Question: Since when do you play D&D? Since when does the player? I remember the 2nd Ed. DMG actually mentioning such side effects (but even back then it told you "Don't overdo it!"), but 3rd Ed. does not. Thus, you may have "grown up" with a certain idea that newcomers never heard of. This does not make the idea itself bad (it's actually quite cool), but you can not rely on everyone else sharing that idea.

Just my two €-cents;
Darastin

DracoDei
2010-10-14, 09:51 AM
RAW makes no specific mention of the situation with the forge. It is the sort of thing that the GM COULDN'T explain in advance, because the player surprised him. He made something up on the fly, which is what GOOD GM's are supposed to do in my book.

Also, the idea that Player knowledge should be ENCOURAGED to exceed Character knowledge on any particular thing is utterly rediculous to me. It is an unfortunate truth that it often does, but the theoretically ideal game is one in which the two are exactly equal at every moment. A noticable facet of any experienced player's roleplaying ability, especially when playing a low level character is the ability to play said character as exactly as much of a newbie as their lack of XPs (especially from combat) and low or non-existant ranks in Knowledge skills would indicate. I have heard stories of EXCELLENT roleplayers who proved it by pulling the lever that set off the highly-predictable-from-an-OOC-POV trap that the other players were pointing out all the facets of that they saw around them. This was offered as proof of their roleplaying skill, and I accept it as such. In fact, it could be said to be the basis for my thinking that the original business with the pipes getting burned was GOOD roleplaying.

Lastly (but on a related topic to the previous point), I am homebrewer... I think a large part of the value of using homebrew monsters is that the players are much less likely to have any prior knowledge of what the creature is or does, and thus must rely entirely on information gathered IN-CHARACTER. Come to that, I have been in a Star War's session where one of the players was complaining that in the book Boba Fett didn't have all the gadgets the GM was giving him. The GM responded by giving him MORE gadgets. I find this rather appropriate, except for the fact that I would have prefered that he also start focusing the attacks on said character, rather than punishing the entire party for one player's poor roleplaying.

P.S.: I know you probably weren't asking me, but I have a small amount of 1st edition experience, a good chunk of 2nd, perhaps fewer hours of actual play, but definitely more variety of campaigns in 3.X, and have given 4E its fair chance by playing a single session.

Ash_Gazn
2010-10-14, 10:43 AM
Well, in regards to magic vs science, I'm more of the opinion that whether its "natural" or "magic", preservation of Energy exists, hence the transfer in the forge. Ofttimes destroying a magic item just lets the magical energy dissipate into the aether. Sometimes, in the case of very powerful magical items (ala a Staff of the Magi), that energy bursts forth destructively.

This time, due to the pipes and sword being in the fire at the same time and that this PC is called "the singing smith" because he sings while working in his forge, with the pipes being a musical instrument, the energy didn't go far.

AS for the wild magic zone...

The energy from the spells channeled thru the sword bounced from mountaintop to mountain top, creating a song that attracted all the mice and rats (and dire rats, and wererats) from leagues in any direction.

The summoning function of the sword is gone, and the sword is fine and untainted.

However, all the rat-creatures think the PC is their God, and are trying to adopt the same moral code as this Chaotic Good Elf.

dsmiles
2010-10-14, 10:58 AM
Question: Since when do you play D&D? Since when does the player? I remember the 2nd Ed. DMG actually mentioning such side effects (but even back then it told you "Don't overdo it!"), but 3rd Ed. does not. Thus, you may have "grown up" with a certain idea that newcomers never heard of. This does not make the idea itself bad (it's actually quite cool), but you can not rely on everyone else sharing that idea.

I like the potion miscability chart...good times, gooood tiiiimes.:smallbiggrin:

RAW makes no specific mention of the situation with the forge. It is the sort of thing that the GM COULDN'T explain in advance, because the player surprised him. He made something up on the fly, which is what GOOD GM's are supposed to do in my book.

Also, the idea that Player knowledge should be ENCOURAGED to exceed Character knowledge on any particular thing is utterly rediculous to me. It is an unfortunate truth that it often does, but the theoretically ideal game is one in which the two are exactly equal at every moment. A noticable facet of any experienced player's roleplaying ability, especially when playing a low level character is the ability to play said character as exactly as much of a newbie as their lack of XPs (especially from combat) and low or non-existant ranks in Knowledge skills would indicate. I have heard stories of EXCELLENT roleplayers who proved it by pulling the lever that set off the highly-predictable-from-an-OOC-POV trap that the other players were pointing out all the facets of that they saw around them. This was offered as proof of their roleplaying skill, and I accept it as such. In fact, it could be said to be the basis for my thinking that the original business with the pipes getting burned was GOOD roleplaying.

Lastly (but on a related topic to the previous point), I am homebrewer... I think a large part of the value of using homebrew monsters is that the players are much less likely to have any prior knowledge of what the creature is or does, and thus must rely entirely on information gathered IN-CHARACTER. Come to that, I have been in a Star War's session where one of the players was complaining that in the book Boba Fett didn't have all the gadgets the GM was giving him. The GM responded by giving him MORE gadgets. I find this rather appropriate, except for the fact that I would have prefered that he also start focusing the attacks on said character, rather than punishing the entire party for one player's poor roleplaying..
This is RP gold, right here. I adore homebrew. I ran an updated 'Expedition to the Barrier Peaks' where I replaced the robots and such with Aliens. (Yes, THOSE Aliens.) The players didn't know up from down by the end of that session. The Aliens attack so fast and deadly (and in the dark), that some of the players thought that one of the other characters was killing off the party (until said character was taken out by an Alien).
But my players generally don't use meta-knowledge without the say-so from the DM.
As in: The DM describes an ogre. The player asks if, being a druid/ranger/nature-oriented class, he would know about such things. The DM says yes. The player, and thus the character, is allowed to expound on the weaknesses/strengths of said ogre. (And actually know what an ogre is.)
Ok, maybe ogres are a bad specific example, but I'm sure you get the point.

TheGeckoKing
2010-10-14, 11:02 AM
If the Sorc is depserate enough to blow all his spells in a Wild Magic area, just get rid of the bloody effect. God knows what he'll do if you fuss about with MORE effects and summoning Dire Apocalypse Rats and whatnot.

Quietus
2010-10-14, 11:15 AM
I mean the player, not the character. While the character might not know the player should know.

Are you honestly suggesting that a player should, at all times, know exactly what mechanics will be used in any specific instance of the game they're playing, perhaps despite not having the stats on their character sheet to know these things? That puts a very heavy burden on the DM, to sit down and lecture to the players about things, and means that a DM cannot, ever, be spontaneous.

For god's sake, IT WAS A FLUFF THING. Oh no, mice show up every now and again, and do nothing of note. And when it was made clear that the player didn't like that, the DM made clear a very simple way to fix the problem, which would absolutely work 100%. This is good DMing, by any reasonable standards; If everything was predictable in how it worked, if not in how the dice would affect the outcomes, then D&D would be boring. We *need* DMs who are willing to stretch their creativity, put out interesting situations, and if players don't like it, and it's just a fluff thing in the first place, provide an easy way to fix the problem. I can't believe we're still arguing over whether "Oh no, harmless mice" is a good thing or a bad thing!

Doug Lampert
2010-10-14, 11:23 AM
What is this? I don't even...

The player is making poor choices. The DM, rather than punishing player for poor choices, has instead established an interesting effect with neither positive nor negative effects. The player is now acting like a crybaby despite the fact that the sword has next to no effect mechanically. The DM has offered not one, but two ways to end crybaby's hissy fit. Crybaby opts to ignore DMs advice and instead channel all of his spell into his weapon... in a wild magic zone.

Keep in mind that channeling spells into a weapon isn't something that's even listed as possible and as such has no documented effect. (Yes I know the weird curse on the sword is basically the same thing, but DM fiat is different, especially when done to be flavorful.) Personally I think you should tell crybaby player to quit QQ-ing when his sword either blows up in his face (remember he had prepared all fire and lightning spells that day) or the wild magic leaves him as a colorful smear on the floor.

That being said, the next best option would be the rat immolating sword idea. With some creativity they might even be able to turn that into something good. Stick the charged sword into the ground with some cheese next to it and collect the cooked rats after the walk into range- instant dinner!

Finally I would like to restate that any who are pinning the OP as a sadistic DM or that he is punishing the player... well... you need to use your friggin' imagination! This is a pen and paper game for Pelors sake! :smallcool:

All of the above.


I suspect magic weapons exploding when they're sundered would be pretty common knowledge, as would supernatural flames if you burnt a magic item. In a world where even hamlets have sorcerers and wizards, I find it difficult to wrap my head around the idea of magic being something that common people know nothing about.

Pull out your DMG, open it to the section on cursed items, read the possible origins.

Cursed items BY THE BOOK are often the quirky and unexpected result of something magical going wrong or of an unusual circumstance. The item DIDN'T transfer its powers, it gave another item a quirky, useless, and minor side effect that showed up only when the item was used in a VERY nonstandard way and even then shows up only a small fraction of the time.

Just how many people are going to burn items, AND put something valuable in the flames at the same time, AND then manipulate the item in bunches of nonstandard ways, AND repeat each dozens of times, in order to fine the USELESS power they've given the item by destroying something valuable?

I completely fail to see why that this can happen should be common knowledge. Will this PC burn dozens of more items in fires with other items to see if one of them actually does something really bad?

This isn't useful knowledge, it may have been learned a hundred times, and then fallen back into ENTIRELY DESERVED obscurity!


Unless the DM states otherwise, a player must and will assume that the world operates in accordance with the RAW. And by the RAW, magic does not work that way. By the RAW, magic is predictable. It is tamed. It is defined. There are specific magical formulas which create specific magical effects. As many other D&D aficionados have pointed out, magic is so predictable and scientific by the RAW that a wizard should be able to deduce the existence of class levels from the way magic works.

Except when it does. Like cursed items, which By The Book often "just happen". I agree that wizards should know about HD (that's in the rules for Trap the Soul) and that HP and XP are quantized and how they work and how big they are (any of dozens of tests), and NONE of that will change the fact that sometimes cursed items just happen and he DELIBERATELY did something VERY unusual involving destroying a magic item.

DougL

Knaight
2010-10-14, 11:30 AM
Are you honestly suggesting that a player should, at all times, know exactly what mechanics will be used in any specific instance of the game they're playing, perhaps despite not having the stats on their character sheet to know these things? That puts a very heavy burden on the DM, to sit down and lecture to the players about things, and means that a DM cannot, ever, be spontaneous.

D&D is a complete game with an implicit setting. If you are changing core elements of either the complete game or the implicit setting, then you should inform your players. In this case "Some tweaks have been made, magic is a bit less controllable" is everything. Explaining the exact mechanics of everything is ridiculous overkill, but if you take a game and tweak it, then tweaks should be done. On a similar note, if you create a game and setting, then both game and setting should get some explanation.

Mystic Muse
2010-10-14, 12:39 PM
Also, the idea that Player knowledge should be ENCOURAGED to exceed Character knowledge on any particular thing is utterly rediculous to me. And the thought that the players don't know the rules of the game they're playing is utterly ridiculous to me. If I'm going to join a game, the first thing I want to know is how things work. If I'm not allowed to know that, I'm definitely not joining that game.


Are you honestly suggesting that a player should, at all times, know exactly what mechanics will be used in any specific instance of the game they're playing, perhaps despite not having the stats on their character sheet to know these things? That puts a very heavy burden on the DM, to sit down and lecture to the players about things, and means that a DM cannot, ever, be spontaneous. Assuming this was me, If the DM just said "Magic is different in this world" and answered a question or two I'd be happy.



For god's sake, IT WAS A FLUFF THING. Oh no, mice show up every now and again, and do nothing of note. And when it was made clear that the player didn't like that, the DM made clear a very simple way to fix the problem, which would absolutely work 100%. This is good DMing, by any reasonable standards; If everything was predictable in how it worked, if not in how the dice would affect the outcomes, then D&D would be boring. We *need* DMs who are willing to stretch their creativity, put out interesting situations, and if players don't like it, and it's just a fluff thing in the first place, provide an easy way to fix the problem. I can't believe we're still arguing over whether "Oh no, harmless mice" is a good thing or a bad thing! I'm not arguing over that at all. Personally, I think the player is being pretty ridiculous about the mouse thing. What I'm arguing is what Knaight says here.


D&D is a complete game with an implicit setting. If you are changing core elements of either the complete game or the implicit setting, then you should inform your players. In this case "Some tweaks have been made, magic is a bit less controllable" is everything. Explaining the exact mechanics of everything is ridiculous overkill, but if you take a game and tweak it, then tweaks should be done. On a similar note, if you create a game and setting, then both game and setting should get some explanation.

Serenity
2010-10-14, 12:43 PM
Sorcerers might not be 'students of the arcane', but they have Knowledge: Arcana as a class skill, and this particular Sorcerer appears to specialize in crafting. If the DM decided that burning the magic item in the forge could have some side effects, he should have asked the player to make a Knowledge: Arcana check to see if the character knew that something could happen. Because otherwise, neither player nor character have any reason to expect that even a trivially negative consequence would occur.

I am in no way arguing over whether 'harmless mice' is a good or a bad thing. I am not advocating the abrogation of Rule 0 or a DM's ability to be clever. I am arguing about the hostile attitude the OP and others seem to display towards the player, calling the player 'dumb' and 'idiotic' for not anticipating a consequence that he had no way of knowing could exist.

Lix Lorn
2010-10-14, 12:46 PM
The only really dumb thing is doing it in a wild magic zone, assuming he knew.
I'd call him dumb for not liking the flavour, but that'd be emotive disagreement rather than an assessment of intelligence.

mangosta71
2010-10-14, 01:04 PM
That doesn't mean the player is dumb for going through with his action.
His reasoning is stupid. "I got this from a wererat, so it must be EBIL!" is all kinds of retarded. Did the character burn every scrap of clothing they wore, and destroy their weapons and armor as well? After all, they came from wererats, so they must be evil. And any cash and assorted valuables they may have had laying around; I assume he forfeited his share because he didn't want any dealings with cursed gold, right?

Lix Lorn
2010-10-14, 01:09 PM
That's the CHARACTER being dumb, not the player.

Amphetryon
2010-10-14, 01:11 PM
His reasoning is stupid. "I got this from a wererat, so it must be EBIL!" is all kinds of retarded. Did the character burn every scrap of clothing they wore, and destroy their weapons and armor as well? After all, they came from wererats, so they must be evil. And any cash and assorted valuables they may have had laying around; I assume he forfeited his share because he didn't want any dealings with cursed gold, right?

Setting aside the hyperbole, I see nothing in the OP that says the conclusion that Pipes of the Sewers were EVIL was based, in whole or in part, on their having been obtained from a wererat. They were obtained from a wererat; they were perceived by the player character to be EVIL. These two facts are not any more related than my saying "I'm a gamer; I like coffee." There could be a correlation, but the OP never said it existed.

Knaight
2010-10-14, 01:12 PM
Plus, superstitious characters can be fun.

mangosta71
2010-10-14, 01:20 PM
That's the CHARACTER being dumb, not the player.
So punish the character without punishing the player. In the epilogue, when you're telling everyone what happens to the characters after the adventure wraps up, reveal that this character discovers that he has a rat fetish and thus can't satisfy his wife unless he has an audience of vermin.

Doug Lampert
2010-10-14, 01:25 PM
And the thought that the players don't know the rules of the game they're playing is utterly ridiculous to me. If I'm going to join a game, the first thing I want to know is how things work. If I'm not allowed to know that, I'm definitely not joining that game.

Assuming this was me, If the DM just said "Magic is different in this world" and answered a question or two I'd be happy.

The unusual effect shows up ONLY when he uses a homebrew power which DOES NOT EXIST RAW!

The character's proposed "solution" is UTTERLY and COMPLETELY not allowed RAW. And if you try to adjucate it by the "closest match" to RAW we get the sword being destroyed and the character taking multiple rolls on the wild magic table.

Meanwhile random cursed items "just happening" IS ALLOWED RAW, and close exposure to a magic item being destroyed seems like exactly the sort of thing that might cause this. And if you actually ROLL the curse BtB then most of the time it will have a vague suggestion that the DM is supposed to fill out where the effect given would be quite at home (RAW the actual listed cursed items are actually a small minority of all cursed items found).

And the "Wild Magic Table" is part of RAW for any game with wild magic!

Damn near the ONLY thing that actually is RAW in this whole flipping scenario is the sword getting an oddball power and the high chance that the "solution" will fry the character and near certainty that it will destroy the sword!

Complaining about the non-RAW nature of the initial power appearing while swallowing all the rest is straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel.

Obviously the PLAYER in question isn't wedded to RAW or he wouldn't be doing maintenance at all and he wouldn't even consider "I channel all my magic into fire spells into the sword".

Really. There's NOTHING wrong with the oddball flavor effect by the RAW, the RAW do in fact allow this sort of thing. What they don't allow is the sort of thing the PC obviously does consider normal.

Achernar
2010-10-14, 04:04 PM
AS for the wild magic zone...

The energy from the spells channeled thru the sword bounced from mountaintop to mountain top, creating a song that attracted all the mice and rats (and dire rats, and wererats) from leagues in any direction.

The summoning function of the sword is gone, and the sword is fine and untainted.

However, all the rat-creatures think the PC is their God, and are trying to adopt the same moral code as this Chaotic Good Elf.

Glorious. Absolutely Glorious. Looking forward to stories of the wererats of the world becoming a force for Good, and the trials and tribulations of being a false (for now) deity. :smallbiggrin:

Loc
2010-10-14, 04:21 PM
Roll on the WMZ table for each spell slot. If he stops/is forced to stop by the rest of the group for bringing in horribleness on their heads, proceed to DorfMine and remove with the anvil.
If he succeeds, tell him his sword now has images of vermin etched into it by his magic, and over the next few sessions mention how his front teeth itch and never seem to stop growing. Yay, free Were-rat template!

DracoDei
2010-10-14, 04:22 PM
FWIW... there is a Tome of Battle (or MAYBE PrC ability of Bloodstorm Blade) maneuver that lets one do line attacks with a weapon you throw (including a melee weapon) then have it come back to you.

Ash_Gazn: What is the player's attitude towards this development? Did you explain the any of the concepts advanced in this thread to him? Especially regarding having to ASK the GM regarding what results an unusual action might create?

I also note with interest that without the ability to talk to animals, having a certain geographically localized set of INT 2 animals (redundant I know) like you doesn't help much, at least not if you don't do some pre-planning. Such pre-planning might include slowing down your travel so they can keep up, or carrying some of them along when you leave the area, and making sure to ACQUIRE said means of communication soon. Not that having some were-rat followers might not be nice in theory... but you do have to kinda explain them to people you meet if is a full moon. This again implies fore-thought and preparation, which MIGHT not be this character's biggest strengths...

mangosta71
2010-10-14, 04:24 PM
Letting him off that easy sets a bad precedent. Fudging rolls for dramatic effect or to advance the story is one thing - fudging them because one of the players is whining is another. One of the first rules of playing pen and paper RPGs is "don't provoke the DM". All these people crying about taking away from the players' fun are ignoring the fact that the DM is playing the game for fun, too. Frankly, I'd tell the guy that he'll be required to play characters with positive int and wis scores in the future and roleplay accordingly. If that's too big a challenge I wouldn't play with him at all any more.

DracoDei
2010-10-14, 05:14 PM
Frankly, I'd tell the guy that he'll be required to play characters with positive int and wis scores in the future and roleplay accordingly. If that's too big a challenge I wouldn't play with him at all any more.
The character might HAVE positive INT and WIS modifiers for all we know. One thing I would say is that if the player is just told this, he may feel frustrated because he was playing to the best of his own, personal abilities. Alternatively he might play very "timidly", never trying anything in the least innovative. For these reasons I want to re-iterate a point I made earlier and which is something I try to hammer into my own players (although for different reasons than the sorts of things this thread covers): "If you have a question, if you are unsure about something ask me. If you don't have a question, be trying to think of one." (note that the second part of this statement is a bit of hyperbole." I have never actually had a problem with a reckless PC... what I HAVE had problems with, both in newbies and people who hadn't played in a while (as in the vast majority of their play experience was in 2nd edition) is "locking up", or never trying anything interesting. I would present the group with tactical and social puzzles, and they just sorta... sat their... Now then, not being able to come up with a GOOD answer is not a problem... I run very "Brain" campaigns... said social puzzle was something that might in some ways parallel the CIA (or similar organization) trying to figure out how to recruit moles from within an opposing governments low-level employees. Hardly an easy task, so I don't blame them for not being able to come up with any usable plan necessarily, what bugged me was that they weren't even coming up with any hair-brained schemes just to get their thoughts moving. Basically, Knowledge/Spellcraft/Martial Lore checks are at the request of the player most of the time (at least for a non-newbie player), and the player should be aware of that. Of course, having the GM NOT roll the dice every time he answers a question is important for time saving... a lot of stuff such stuff should be handled at the GMs discretion, or the game just bogs down.

A minor note is that Knowledge/Spellcraft/Martial Lore doesn't sum-up everything the character knows... one (less than ideal, since I was running the character in question as an NPC) example of this was that in the game I am currently running, there was a Ranger in the party. Since I wanted a light-hearted campaign, I set it on the "Semi-Elemental Plane of Candy" (my thanks to whoever it was that had the idea of homebrewing Candy-land into a plane, although I modified it heavily). One of the party's leads in the mystery they were solving was a single word in the local dialect, which meant "hooked-ended-candy-cane" and the context made it sound like someone was perhaps going to get killed with one. The ranger's player wasn't there that session, but I decided to throw the players a bone and have the ranger say "hmmm.... follow me..." and lead them to a patch of candy-canes growing up out of the ground. After having someone notch one of the extremely hard canes with their sword, he had the strongest member of the party (actually a wizard, but that is another story...) break off the candy cane... he then proceeded to attempt to wield the cane as a weapon, swinging it through the air. Having completed this experiment, he declared it too thick, heavy and cumbersome to make an effective weapon (although he did note that it might less worthless as a tripping device than as a bludgeoning weapon)... Ergo, his BAB and proficiency with all martial weapons qualified in leu of a knowledge skill for determining if a candy-cane made any sense as weapon... when the party finally confronted the villain, they discovered that he was, in fact, wielding a pair of hook-end-candy-canes as weapons... but that they had been ground down and fitted with crossbars and handle-wrapping to turn them into a pair of hook-swords.

dsmiles
2010-10-14, 05:54 PM
I also note with interest that without the ability to talk to animals, having a certain geographically localized set of INT 2 animals (redundant I know) like you doesn't help much, at least not if you don't do some pre-planning. Such pre-planning might include slowing down your travel so they can keep up, or carrying some of them along when you leave the area, and making sure to ACQUIRE said means of communication soon. Not that having some were-rat followers might not be nice in theory... but you do have to kinda explain them to people you meet if is a full moon. This again implies fore-thought and preparation, which MIGHT not be this character's biggest strengths...

I think he said there were some wererats in that mix as well. They could be his high priests and interpret their deity's wishes to the lower life forms, couldn't they?
(But maybe that's just me and my ability to be corrupted by this particular development. I would probably soon be NE or CE and have a veritable army of rodents/wererodents doing my EBIL bidding all over the world. mwahaha. MwaHaHAAA! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!)

:smallredface: I'm sorry. Did I say that out loud? :smallredface:

DracoDei
2010-10-14, 06:23 PM
I think he said there were some wererats in that mix as well. They could be his high priests and interpret their deity's wishes to the lower life forms, couldn't they?
(But maybe that's just me and my ability to be corrupted by this particular development. I would probably soon be NE or CE and have a veritable army of rodents/wererodents doing my EBIL bidding all over the world. mwahaha. MwaHaHAAA! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!)

:smallredface: I'm sorry. Did I say that out loud? :smallredface:

I mentioned the wererats as well... only in passing, but I didn't quite remember the ability to speak to normal rodents... that does completely change the picture really...

Fuzzie Fuzz
2010-10-14, 07:37 PM
So maybe the original item was possessed by an evil spirit or some other non-standard piece of magic. The player doesn't know any better, nor does the character. Problem solved.

The D&D universe contains much that is unexplained. Magic as listed in RAW represents that which is known to work well. There are other items (cursed items come to mind) that don't conform to the normal ideas of a player. I don't think the player was stupid for burning the item (aside from wasting loot, but that's irrelevant) but I also don't think that the DM made any mistakes in giving the sword a minor non-harmful effect. (Nor would he have been wrong for giving it a significant, harmful effect either, as long as it wasn't permanent or too crippling.)

Also, DM should inform the players of rule changes IF it will make a significant difference to the player sans metagaming. For example, monster modifications? No need to tell the player. Banning book, class, species, etc. warrants telling the player. Eliminating five-foot steps? Tell the player. Having a magic item give a harmless magic effect to a nearby item when it's destroyed? No need to tell the player.

My 2 cents...

FelixG
2010-10-14, 08:12 PM
{Scrubbed}

The foolish player is using a home brew item in the first place, who cares if a home brew curse is applied to his home brew weapon, it doesnt even affect him, he could just stomp the rats and get em to run off, why is he crying so hard?

For those saying that nothing should ever absolutely come from non book material, i pitty your players, they should just play Baulders Gate or Never Winter Nights, at least then they could see some creativity!

"If the player wants to come up with some fun things for their character thats fine, if a GM wants to come up with something fun he should be strung up!"

{Scrubbed}

Edit: he is in a wild magic zone, have him nuke himself, he gets what he deserves, if his spells work, have him melt the sword into molten slag in his hand.

What do you think happens when you super heat metal?

Serenity
2010-10-14, 08:25 PM
I have been quite respectful and reasoned in my arguments. I have taken pains to state that I fully endorse Rule 0 and DM creativity. Of course it's wonderful to give magic quirks, if that's the flavor of the world you want to run! All I ask is that players be made aware that magic might be more unpredictable than they're used to. I ask that players with relevant Knowledge checks or other such skills might get warnings. And most of all, I ask that players not be called idiots for performing an action which they have little reason to expect to result in negative consequences.

And in response, people put words in my mouth, call me a whiner, and accuse me of 'never knowing creativity.' Joy.

FelixG
2010-10-14, 08:28 PM
I have been quite respectful and reasoned in my arguments. I have taken pains to state that I fully endorse Rule 0 and DM creativity. Of course it's wonderful to give magic quirks, if that's the flavor of the world you want to run! All I ask is that players be made aware that magic might be more unpredictable than they're used to. I ask that players with relevant Knowledge checks or other such skills might get warnings. And most of all, I ask that players not be called idiots for performing an action which they have little reason to expect to result in negative consequences.

And in response, people put words in my mouth, call me a whiner, and accuse me of 'never knowing creativity.' Joy.

You were not the one i was referring to to be honest, your ideas are well thought out and nice to read.

But there are others who make less...impressive arguments that was directed at. But in my opinion the player is a bit of an idiot for the reasons listed.

Mystic Muse
2010-10-14, 08:29 PM
"If the player wants to come up with some fun things for their character that's fine, if a GM wants to come up with something fun he should be strung up!

That isn't what I've been saying at all. I've been saying that if the DM is going to change the rules he should tell the players.

Knaight
2010-10-14, 10:11 PM
"If the player wants to come up with some fun things for their character thats fine, if a GM wants to come up with something fun he should be strung up!"

What is being said is that creativity is within a framework. A game set in the real world isn't going to allow blatantly magical tactics, a game about non anthropomorphic rabbits isn't going to allow things that require fine manual dexterity, and a game set in the implicit framework of D&D is going to operate of D&D fantasy assumptions. That implicit framework gets old after a while, and thus should be changed at will, but warning people of the change is a good idea. At the beggining of a campaign, you lay out the setting details. "This is the modern real world", "This is a near future campaign", "You are all playing sentient robots", and "I tweaked D&D a bit to make it less predictable" all fall into that category.

FelixG
2010-10-14, 10:28 PM
What is being said is that creativity is within a framework. A game set in the real world isn't going to allow blatantly magical tactics, a game about non anthropomorphic rabbits isn't going to allow things that require fine manual dexterity, and a game set in the implicit framework of D&D is going to operate of D&D fantasy assumptions. That implicit framework gets old after a while, and thus should be changed at will, but warning people of the change is a good idea. At the beggining of a campaign, you lay out the setting details. "This is the modern real world", "This is a near future campaign", "You are all playing sentient robots", and "I tweaked D&D a bit to make it less predictable" all fall into that category.

The thing is though, this player already knows things are not going by the rules completely, as noted with his custom little ability that has no support via raw.

Wouldnt his own ability be enough of a warning flag that he should expect somethings other than what can be read out of the MiC or DMG?

Knaight
2010-10-14, 10:34 PM
The thing is though, this player already knows things are not going by the rules completely, as noted with his custom little ability that has no support via raw.

The custom little ability came after RAW was already broken. So yes, weirdness should be expected at this point, but that doesn't change the fundamental point that one of the responsibilites as a GM is to inform your players of the style of game you are running, to the extent that you know. Sometimes things go in directions you didn't expect, for instance I accidentally GMed a romantic comedy, but the prediction of the style and an explanation of the setting are warranted despite the possibility for complete genre shifts and such.

Scow2
2010-10-14, 11:26 PM
Why should the DM have to say "Magic is not entirely predictable"? I've always understood that as a given, considering the amount of emphasis 3.0 gave on homebrewing and modifying everything to fit your campaign.

And again, the very existance of Cursed Items by the Rules is testament to magic items not being 100% reliable.

The "Rod of Wonder" also has (Or at least had in 3.0) the clause encouraging the DM to create new potential effects for it.

So, magic not being 100% predictable and samey is the DEFAULT for D&D, not the setting-specific exemption.

And monsters and magical effects are encouraged to be homebrewed and modified at will to trip up Metagaming players.

When a player feels confident he can do something "Because Magic Doesn't Work that way in the Rules", especially after being asked "Art Thou Sure", they deserve to be smacked down for Metagaming.

And I like the suggestion that the transfer was from an evil spirit possessing the item. It proves the player's character right :D

Knaight
2010-10-14, 11:35 PM
Why should the DM have to say "Magic is not entirely predictable"? I've always understood that as a given, considering the amount of emphasis 3.0 gave on homebrewing and modifying everything to fit your campaign.

And I like the suggestion that the transfer was from an evil spirit possessing the item. It proves the player's character right :D
Because the spell system is stupidly predictable. You want to cast a spell, you cast the spell. Its all a very quantified, scientific process, without even a realistic chance to screw up the spell, and with minimal randomness. Its magic as science, and comes off as predictable, so pointing out that that is changed makes sense. Every battle a PC spellcaster gets in consists of spell after spell cast with not a single failure, every item they make goes the same way. Basic observation confirms magic as predictable, not metagaming.

I like the spirit possessing the item as well, but then the idea of spirits, spirit possession, and all that is on my very short list of underused fantasy tropes, marking me as a less than objective source here.

dsmiles
2010-10-15, 05:01 AM
Basic observation confirms magic as predictable, not metagaming.

Basic observation may show that, but does RAW explicitly state that? I believe that's what started this particular argument was that RAW wasn't being followed in the "unpredictability/predictability of magic" area.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-10-15, 05:09 AM
This time, due to the pipes and sword being in the fire at the same time and that this PC is called "the singing smith" because he sings while working in his forge, with the pipes being a musical instrument, the energy didn't go far.
The PC is "the singing smith"? And he sang while burning a magical musical instrument? Well, that's a new piece of information. Yeah, that seems pretty dumb.


The summoning function of the sword is gone, and the sword is fine and untainted.

However, all the rat-creatures think the PC is their God, and are trying to adopt the same moral code as this Chaotic Good Elf.

And now the resolution. I retract any earlier statements, you handled this situation quite well. Whether this is good DMing is ambiguous - the PC might not want all this drama and just want his damn sword to get back to the fighting - but it makes for a good story.

Sliver
2010-10-15, 09:45 AM
Something happened. It wasn't RAW. The player didn't like it, but him not liking it didn't have anything to do with it not being RAW. We didn't hear once that the player voiced an objection to the change because it's not in the rules and the DM didn't warn him. He found a safe way to remove the "curse", a way which wasn't RAW. He didn't want to do it, deciding he wants to get rid of it in a different way, which wasn't suggested, and he just came up with, which was not RAW. In a wild magic zone.

Any argument about the player not knowing it can happen in this world is null and pointless by this point. He readily accepted not following the letter of the RAW.

I like this solution. I would do something random as well, as I never was the type to play strictly by RAW, and didn't force my players to this either.

DracoDei
2010-10-20, 09:42 AM
So.... how is this going? What is the character's reaction to the rats and such?

dsmiles
2010-10-20, 10:04 AM
Yeah...dish.

Kyouhen
2010-10-20, 10:57 AM
AS for the wild magic zone...

The energy from the spells channeled thru the sword bounced from mountaintop to mountain top, creating a song that attracted all the mice and rats (and dire rats, and wererats) from leagues in any direction.

The summoning function of the sword is gone, and the sword is fine and untainted.

However, all the rat-creatures think the PC is their God, and are trying to adopt the same moral code as this Chaotic Good Elf.

This is easily the best possible solution you could have come up with. The player gets his stupid sword uncursed, and he still has to live with the rats showing up all the time. :smalltongue: