PDA

View Full Version : [3.5]Was I In the Right?



Sintanan
2011-01-24, 05:45 AM
I have a party of five 6th-level characters in Sharn, none of them are optimizers (a healer cleric and nothing else in the tier 1 range), the closest thing is the Power Attacking frenzied berserker. This short discussion concerns only one of them, though. This is the quick story of Marvin the Monk.

Marvin is a Druid 1/Monk 4, who just gained enough experience to level up and got his share of the loot and his quest reward. I told the players their characters will have two weeks in-game downtime before we pick up next session. This gives them time to rest up, get new gear, and level up. So, a few handfuls of chips are removed from the snack bowls as the players pack up and start talking among themselves.

Meanwhile, the player of Marvin the Monk approaches me and asks if I have any qualms of him finding a wizard to cast greater magic fang in the downtime. I replied that he can find a wizard to cast it for a small fee as detailed in the PHB, but that high-levels casters are rare and not known for helping strangers knocking on their door.

- - -

Next session, the party sits down and gets ready to play. As sodas and snacks are being handed out and small talk made, I review the character sheets to update my quick-reference chart and notice something interesting on Marvin.
He's taken Vow of Poverty and has gained a permanent greater magic fang cast by a 20th-level caster. I queried the player on this, and he claimed Marvin leveled up to Monk 5, took Vow of Poverty, then paid 1,200 gold to get himself enchanted with greater magic fang and permanency by a level 20 wizard passing through the city.
Handwaving the fact that Marvin apparently didn't surrender his material wealth when he took Vow of Poverty (which got a couple side glances from the rules lawyer), nor did he pay the full amount for both spells; I asked the player if he was fully aware that permanency cast by a wizard onto someone else was affected normally by dispel. Marvin's player claimed that he fully read about the permanency spell, so I started the session.

Partway into the session, the barbarian and fighter (yes... straight fighter) pick a fight in one of the richer sections of Sharn. The fight slowly escalates out of hand with spell buffs being thrown all around that the guards step in with some magical assistance (in the attempts to reel the party in so the plot can get underway). The monk charges the wizard assisting the guards, only to be stopped when tumble attempt to move through a guard's square resulted in him being stopped.
On the wizard's turn, he drops a greater dispel magic as an area effect on the melee attackers (misses the cleric and ranged to hit Marvin) remove a few combat buffs. Since Marvin was basically off doing his lone wolf bit at the time, he wasn't buffed with anything, which results in one of two spells on him that can be targeted (permanency or greater magic fang).
Permanency was hit and dispelled, which I pointed out to Marvin's player, who shrugged and moved on (at which the rules lawyer started chuckling, as he figured out where this was heading).
The fight winds down, rages wear off, the party starts talking to (and getting arrested by) the guards, and I point out to Marvin's player that his greater magic fang wears off as the duration expires. At this, the player turns red with anger and starts shouting that the spell was permanent. I calmly point out that permanency is normally affected by dispel when the caster targets someone other than himself, which Marvin's player assured me he already knew.
At this point Marvin's player sits back down and in a huff demands the guards refund him the gold for his ruined spell. To which I reply that they would only refund him the money if he has a means to prove that he did have a permanency cast in the first place. And as an aside, I explain out of character that even if he did get his gold back, he would have to surrender it or break his Vow of Poverty.
Now Marvin is turning a deeper shade of red with barely controlled anger, the rules lawyer chuckles over this whole incident. Marvin basically snaps and starts yelling at both the rules lawyer and myself, to which I ask him to leave until he calms down.
Marvin pounds his hands down onto the table, knocking it over and sending papers and figurines scattering. I stand, walk over to him (I stand two inches over Marvin, and have a good 200 pounds of bulk on him), grab him, and unceremoniously throw him out. He storms off, gets on his bicycle, and rides away.
No one's in the mood for D&D anymore so we pull out some card games, get some pizza, and make the most of the ruined game night.
One of the players returned Marvin his character, PHB, and handful of figurines he brought the next morning after the session.

I haven't bumped into Marvin since.


------------


Now, I know tactically the wizard should have aimed to hit the cleric and ranger instead of reducing potential targets by one to hit the prone monk, and Marvin probably saw this as a personal attack. But at the time, I didn't see any other way to bring the monk back into balance with the party as a whole (I mean, a 6th level with basically a freebie +5 weapon...), and I didn't want to waste any more time arguing with someone being unreasonable.
In hindsight, I probably could have just threw a couple more hp on the encounters for the session and talked it over with Marvin afterward about his enchantment, but most the party was already tired of him hogging the spotlight in non-combat encounters while playing and I was worried that having the monk outshine everyone else in combat that I needed a quick fix.

So, I ask you, my fellow gamers. What I in the right dispelling this buff like that?

Comet
2011-01-24, 05:55 AM
Sure. I'm not the topmost expert on D&D rules around, but I see the scenario as entirely plausible.

More importantly, it seems that this Marvin dude is a huge manchild, which makes the point sort of moot. Either you let him rule over the game with his shiny toys or he throws a hissy fit and ruins the night for everyone.

I suppose you could try talking to him, say that you're kind of sort of sorry about his monk losing his mojo but that this sort of stuff just happens in a game sometimes. He might be a lost cause, in which case good riddance, but talking things over never hurts. Maybe he was just having a bad night that time.

DragonOfUndeath
2011-01-24, 05:55 AM
Yes. He was clearly over-powered and over-reacting. You warned him that Dispel could get rid of it before the session and it came up that he lost it. He had taken the Vow of Poverty so it was like he had never gotten the enchantment in the first place. Plus he took cheated by not paying full price and getting the enchantment AFTER taking Vow of Poverty

LansXero
2011-01-24, 05:58 AM
You were wrong in letting it go into the table first. You shouldve settled any issued you had with it before you sat to play.

Comet
2011-01-24, 05:59 AM
You were wrong in letting it go into the table first. You shouldve settled any issued you had with it before you sat to play.

This is a very good point, actually. It doesn't excuse Marvin's behaviour, but it's certainly something that's good to remember in the future.

MoelVermillion
2011-01-24, 06:02 AM
Well honestly if you can't justify the wizard in character hitting Marvin with dispel instead of the Ranger and Cleric than that was probably the wrong thing to do. The DM really shouldn't be metagaming with all his NPCs particularly not as a way to deal with problem players. You should have probably just taken the fudge the HP and talk to him later approach.

That said though Marvin was obviously being a blatant problem player. Its not right to blatantly ignore the side of effects of your characters feats or to ignore the actual price of services all just to make your character stronger. Its also not right to break your DMs trust as he did with asking you if it was okay to find a wizard to cast Greater Magic Fang without mentioning the permanency or blatantly ignoring the "Its harder to get high level spell casters to do something for a strange" line you spoke of. It is also not okay to get angry when a wizard casts dispel on a buffed party and you lose your ill gotten combat boosts.

Marvin probably got what he deserved because it sounds like he was being both a problem player and a general jerk. However you even admitted it yourself that maybe you didn't take the best course of action in this whole debacle but really you did have to do something. When it comes down to it there was probably a better way to go about it than what you took but you had to do something, you were more in the right than he was but you could have maybe done it with better methods.

Godskook
2011-01-24, 06:06 AM
1.You were absolutely in the right to have purview over player balance, especially when players are cheating.

2.Things of this nature should never be handled passive-aggressively IC as a first resort. If such methods are the only reasonable ways to maintain composure in your group fine, but ideally, OoC conversations where *everything* was made clear, should happen first.

3.To go back to an earlier point, he was blatantly cheating, and I hope he was smart enough to realize that. Even if he had gotten the order 'right', his 'combo', as you pointed out, was excessive and needed to be reigned in.

4.You warned him that what would happen could happen. He's got no one to blame but himself for expecting otherwise.

Escheton
2011-01-24, 06:10 AM
Ok, so he discovered VoP after he had already a few lvls under his belt and so wont get some of the benefits you would otherwise get had you taken it at lvl 1. He tried to balance this out by getting his hands enchanted with the little cash he had, before taking the VoP. And the dm godmodded his effort away. While the rest of the table laughed at him.

An unusual way of putting it, but I would not be suprised that the player in question sees it this way.

I'm thinking you probably could have talked things out with him about the VoP, the spellcasting and other plans with the character but didn't bother because you don't really like the guy.

Animosity rised when the disrespecting rule-lawyers took stabs at him, and with noone backing him because the dm has actually already given up on him, it climaxed into a breaking point where lack of support became expulsion.

He feels hurt and betrayed, the rest of you shrug it off and play some cards thinking you might have been more sensitive, but he's oversensitive anyways and what good would it have done, whatever, who's turn is it?


So yeah, noone was in the right, because there is no right in this situation

true_shinken
2011-01-24, 06:13 AM
I'm sorry, but you are wrong.

The player made a mistake. He bought stuff with wrong price and with VoP. Yes, this unbalances stuff. You should have said 'Dude, that's not within the rules', explained him the actual rules and moved on.
Instead, you tried to solve an ooc problem... in-character. That always leads to disaster.

Shpadoinkle
2011-01-24, 06:18 AM
Yeah... he tried to pull a fast one on you and you gave him VERY CLEAR signs it wasn't going to fly... Then again, some people can't read signs like that.

I say give him a few days to cool off, then call him to discuss the whole thing and see if you can't work out something more reasonable together.

Remember gauntlets count as unarmed strikes for... well, practically everything, except you don't need IUS to attack with them without provoking an AoO, so he can get a gauntlet and have it enchanted if that's what he wants, and still get his improved unarmed damage from being a monk. He can even get them glamered to look like fist wraps or something if he doesn't like the mental image of his monk walking around wearing gauntlets.

I agree, though, that you should have hammered this out with him before you actually started the game instead of pulling something like that a couple hours in.

blueblade
2011-01-24, 06:21 AM
As said, player was clearly cheating (even on having the gold to buy the spells), and you should have called him on it off the table. You seem to have been aware of that, but decided to avoid confrontation.

In your defence, chances are you would have had problems with him sooner or later.

Sintanan
2011-01-24, 06:25 AM
Thank you all for your input. I can see just from your responses that something like this would be seen differently from his side.


I'll give him a call tomorrow (since it's night here), and see if he's willing to talk. Hopefully he'll be interesting in playing again and get this all sorted out.

Starbuck_II
2011-01-24, 10:14 AM
Did you just combine words monk and overpowered? Is it really that time of the month? :smalltongue:

Look, you told him he could buy it. He took the feat after buying it. That was legal.

You arbitarily singled him out for dispel. Knowing there eas other potencial more logical targets (Ranger, Cleric).

First, Greater Magic fang doesn't stack with VoP so he only had a temporaily bonus as eventually hus Vop would outcompete his GMF.
So the problem would have solved itself.
Plus, he is monk so he deserves a boost.

The Glyphstone
2011-01-24, 10:56 AM
Did you just combine words monk and overpowered? Is it really that time of the month? :smalltongue:

Look, you told him he could buy it. He took the feat after buying it. That was legal.

You arbitarily singled him out for dispel. Knowing there eas other potencial more logical targets (Ranger, Cleric).

First, Greater Magic fang doesn't stack with VoP so he only had a temporaily bonus as eventually hus Vop would outcompete his GMF.
So the problem would have solved itself.
Plus, he is monk so he deserves a boost.

Even monk players aren't allowed to blatantly cheat. To start with, he violated his own VoP the instant he took it by spending his wealth on something for himself rather than donating it. And when he did, he gave himself a massive discount by pretending Permanency is a 3rd level spell and 'conveniently' forgetting that Permanency costs XP. Specifically, 1,500XP for a GMF spell. Wizards can't even cast GMF (though GMW is the same, so that's very minor), but it would have cost 600 for the enhancement, 1000 for the Permanency, and 7,500 to pay off the XP spend. That's 9,100 GP, not 1,200 GP.



OP: Right thing, right reasons, could have done it a bit more elegantly. But you're better off with Marvin gone from your table, if he tries to pull this sort of loophole stunts and flips out when he's called on it.

Havelock
2011-01-24, 11:33 AM
Well first of all, how the heck did he manage to find a 20th level caster in Eberron?

You need a 20th level Wizard, which there are less of in that world than you have fingers on your hand.

He needs to cast greater magic fang through limited wish, 7th level spell+300XP=1400GP+1500GP Then 1000 for the permanency and 7500GP for the XP.

So you can get it, by RAW, for 11400GP.

Alternatively, a CL20 Cleric, using two miracles to pull it off, costing 11100GP

I'd completely write off the posibility that you'd find a CL20 Wizard that has taken some obscure feat or class feature to cast greater magic fang, which would come in at 9100GP.

Just keep in mind that a permanencied spell can only be dispelled by someone with higher CL, so for a CL20 permanencied G. Magic Fang, the one throwing dispel magic must be CL21+.

This being Eberron, you probably should demand a sidequest just to find this Wizard or Cleric in the first place, assuming he'd exist at all. And then some others as well, espescially since money is rarely an issue for powerful characters like that.

You also should have stopped him right at the start of the session, in the sprit of VoP, he should have sold the permanencied magic to an artificier that extracts the XP of making it, then donate the money to the poor.

So, no, you were not in the right. You shouldn't have allowed it in the first place. But once you did, you could't dispel the thing either.

Keld Denar
2011-01-24, 12:03 PM
It coulda been worse. At least you didn't get stabbed (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95189) or kicked out of your own home (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23784).

But yea...being a monk, a VoP monk even, isn't an excuse to cheat. There are ways to work around this problem without cheating.

And honestly, this guy sounds like a bigger disruption than just one game. You're probably better off without him. I'd rather run a smaller, functioning group than a larger, disruptive group. One of my group sis currently looking at adding such as member, and I'm...not keen.

kyoten
2011-01-24, 12:08 PM
Hope things work out between you guys. If it doesn't at least you tried to smooth things out. Just learn from the past and err on the side of caution next time.

Discuss these things in depth away from the table before allowing such actions. Carefully weigh balance and fun. This is my input.

~Kyoten

Crow
2011-01-24, 12:14 PM
As others have said, I would have handled it before the game. This player was at the very least breaking the verisimilitude of the game world with his level 20 discount wizard.

Tyger
2011-01-24, 12:19 PM
Well first of all, how the heck did he manage to find a 20th level caster in Eberron?

You need a 20th level Wizard, which there are less of in that world than you have fingers on your hand.

He needs to cast greater magic fang through limited wish, 7th level spell+300XP=1400GP+1500GP Then 1000 for the permanency and 7500GP for the XP.

So you can get it, by RAW, for 11400GP.

Alternatively, a CL20 Cleric, using two miracles to pull it off, costing 11100GP

I'd completely write off the posibility that you'd find a CL20 Wizard that has taken some obscure feat or class feature to cast greater magic fang, which would come in at 9100GP.

Just keep in mind that a permanencied spell can only be dispelled by someone with higher CL, so for a CL20 permanencied G. Magic Fang, the one throwing dispel magic must be CL21+.

This being Eberron, you probably should demand a sidequest just to find this Wizard or Cleric in the first place, assuming he'd exist at all. And then some others as well, espescially since money is rarely an issue for powerful characters like that.

You also should have stopped him right at the start of the session, in the sprit of VoP, he should have sold the permanencied magic to an artificier that extracts the XP of making it, then donate the money to the poor.

So, no, you were not in the right. You shouldn't have allowed it in the first place. But once you did, you could't dispel the thing either.

I agree that this should have been handled more directly - i.e. "No, the spell doesn't work that way, and you can't have it anyway as it violates your Vow.

That said, Permanency can be dispelled by any caster, regardless of level, if they make the Dispel check, if the spell cast is on another creature or object. Only those which are cast upon yourself are included in the category which can only be dispelled by caster level greater than yours.

snoopy13a
2011-01-24, 12:26 PM
You were wrong in letting it go into the table first. You shouldve settled any issued you had with it before you sat to play.

Yes, by not calling out the player immediately, the DM acquiesced to the player's decision and basically accepted it. Finally, the use of dispell right off the bat comes across as vindictive metagaming.

Telonius
2011-01-24, 12:28 PM
Couple things in general ...

- This was an OOC problem to start with, and should have been handled OOC.
- IMO, if a player is trying to weasel anything, they're violating the spirit of Exalted Deeds and Sacred Vows. Even if there hadn't been any boobs pictured in the drawings, there's a reason the mature audiences tag is on the front.

To the specific issue... this really didn't need to escalate the way it did. There were a number of points you could have headed it off.

First, when the player asked about VoP. As mentioned above, he does not meet the prerequisites, whether he thinks he does or not. If any DM is going to let in anything from either Exalted Deeds or Vile Darkness into the campaign, they should monitor things extremely closely. I do not allow any player I don't completely trust to bring that stuff into my campaigns, just because of the headaches it can cause when somebody who doesn't know what they're doing gets a hold of it. BoED has plenty of game-breaking material in it. Not necessarily in terms of power, but in terms of people being so fed up with a person who's being a royal pain in the butt that they leave the game.

Second, when he supposedly found a level-20 wizard. I know it's Sharn, but still, level 20 Wizards would probably have a lot better things to do than see a level-5 adventurer. His secretary would have looked at Marvin's (now supposedly poverty-stricken) clothes and turned him away at the door, or set up an appointment for next February.

Third, when you realized that this would have cost more than he had. You are the DM; a big part of your job is to enforce the rules as soon as you notice they're being broken.


All that said, Marvin's player sounds like a gigantic jerk, and you are better off without him being in your group. However. If you don't take some steps to improve your DMing style, and head off problems before they happen, this sort of thing will probably crop up in the future. Not necessarily an immature jerk throwing the table on the floor and leaving. But some sort of conflict is going to happen, and fester, and blow up because you didn't deal with it assertively when it was still a minor problem.

Khatoblepas
2011-01-24, 12:36 PM
In this instance, you are all in the wrong.

-Marvin's player got a cheap buff by misreading the rules and insisted the rules were right. It should have stopped here.

-The rules lawyer, instead of helping his character with this problem and explaining a good way to get around this, kept quiet until it amused him, and was generally an ass. He should have stopped it there.

-You allowed him to get a permanency of greater magic fang without double checking the rules with him first and stating the price. Never allow a player to do something that requires an NPC out of game. Did he take Sacred Vow before VoP... something that would, in the long run, totally gimp his character? You should have stopped yourself here. If you wanted to say no, then you have to say no, not "high level casters are rare" - that is player-talk for "Yes."

-Then, in a fit of panic about balance (about a monk with a level in druid, no less. He's -1 BAB behind already, and his flurry of misses isn't exactly going to be effective.) you lay down the smack with a Greater Dispel Magic (the DC to dispel his permanency would be 31. Greater Dispel Magic comes at level 6, which means a 12th level caster = an overwhelming encounter to be sure... and even then, the wizard would need to roll a 19 on his dispel check to succeed.) In terms of tactics, the cleric or ranger would be a more effective choice for him simply because he'd have a 3/4 chance of dispelling their spells (AND they have more likely chance of hitting the wizard with something), versus a 10% chance of dispelling a monk's equaliser. Doing this was not only poor judgement, it was vindictive and metagaming on the wizard's part to be a poorly disguised fix. And then the duration of the spell ended minutes after the encounter ended (greater magic fang is hour/level, which is 20 hours)

- You presented him with something that has no rules precident and was also a catch 22. How is he supposed to prove he had a permanency cast on him? The Wizard would know - he dispelled the spell. Otherwise, there are no rules for determining the magical residue of ended spells. He could have had a receipt from the CL20 wizard who did him a kindness. But even so, as you said, he would have had to give up his Vow or give up his money so he had no net profit. This would have contributed to his revelation that he had written himself into a corner and you weren't going to bail him out.

- The rules lawyer's chuckling did not help Marvin's mood, who was already feeling betrayed and confused about this game. That would have been the last straw. Humans are fragile beasts, at heart. They don't like to be laughed at for their mistakes. Wouldn't the rules lawyer know about how monks are one of the weakest classes?

In all, noone gets out of this clean. Marvin behaved like a child, the rules lawyer acted like an ass, you were too quick in your judgements to see the real ramifications of your actions and you didn't stop it at the root. These things happen all the time, we're all human, we all make mistakes, but there's no vindication for anyone here.

Also, there's a power attacking frenzied berserker in the party? Frenzied Berserker has a +6 BAB requirement. He can't be level 6 and a frenzied berserker. Someone else is cheating, and I think it's that guy.

snoopy13a
2011-01-24, 12:59 PM
All that said, Marvin's player sounds like a gigantic jerk, and you are better off without him being in your group. However. If you don't take some steps to improve your DMing style, and head off problems before they happen, this sort of thing will probably crop up in the future. Not necessarily an immature jerk throwing the table on the floor and leaving. But some sort of conflict is going to happen, and fester, and blow up because you didn't deal with it assertively when it was still a minor problem.

I don't Marvin's player was a gigantic jerk. He didn't understand the rules fully but he:

1) Asked the DM if it was ok to find a wizard to cast greater magic fang which the DM said was ok.
2) Came up with a illegal combination (whether or not Marvin's player was actually cheating or was ignorant of the rules is unknown) but the DM said this was ok.
3) During normal gameplay, an NPC wizard casts greater dispel magic on him and not the cleric.
4) Marvin is informed that the combination that he sacrificed 1,200 gold and a feat for is now gone forever and another player is laughing at him.
5) Marvin gets angry, overreacts and pounds his hands on the table.
6) The much larger DM manhandles him and forces him out of the house without allowing him to take home his possessions (which are returned by another players)

The guy was likely ignorant and instead of taking the time to educate him, the DM essentially ambushed him.

Greenish
2011-01-24, 01:06 PM
4) Marvin is informed that the combination that he sacrificed 1,200 gold and a feat for is now gone forever and another player is laughing at him.Dispel Magic doesn't remove VoP, and 1200gp isn't a big chunk, even for level 5.

Kylarra
2011-01-24, 01:16 PM
Well if he keeps his money to try to get permanency back he loses the feat. :smalltongue:

Kuma Kode
2011-01-24, 01:20 PM
You weren't right.

But you weren't wrong.

You should have handled it out of character and much clearer. Dealing with it in-character is a problem lots of people make, at least once or twice, and when they realize it leads to hurt feelings they learn better ways. Welcome to DMing: it isn't easy.

He should have thought it through a bit more, considering all of this is over a spell that will not stack with the bonuses from Vow of Poverty in the first place (both are enhancement). The monetary cost was clearly wrong, and spending lavish amounts of money on yourself directly contradicts the Vow itself, even if he "technically" took it after he spent the money. The Vows are huge commitments that should be roleplayed, not put on like a shirt. Intending to gain the Vow and getting as much out of what it prohibits in the mean-time undermines the Vow.

Just like if someone who intends to take the Vow of Purity feat next level spends the next few days in a massive orgy until they level up is corrupting and undermining what the feat represents.

The Glyphstone
2011-01-24, 01:24 PM
Just like if someone who intends to take the Vow of Purity feat next level spends the next few days in a massive orgy until they level up is corrupting and undermining what the feat represents.

What if they're trying to 'cleanse' themselves by squeezing out every last bit of impurity left in their body and soul, as part of the preparation for said Vow?:smallbiggrin:

Crow
2011-01-24, 01:27 PM
What if they're trying to 'cleanse' themselves by squeezing out every last bit of impurity left in their body and soul, as part of the preparation for said Vow?:smallbiggrin:

Of course after you take the vow, you should also undergo periodic cleansing sessions, just be safe.

Greenish
2011-01-24, 01:31 PM
What if they're trying to 'cleanse' themselves by squeezing out every last bit of impurity left in their body and soul, as part of the preparation for said Vow?:smallbiggrin:It's not a sacrifice if you don't know what you're missing. :smallcool:

shadow_archmagi
2011-01-24, 01:32 PM
In my opinion, one of the worst things a DM can do is punish a decision in game rather than stating they're against it out of game.

You really, really should've said things like

"A +5 weapon on a 6th level character? No. Spending a pile of money on yourself just before taking vow of poverty? No. Taking vow of poverty after first level, can you ever do that? This is a bad idea and I'm against it."

That said, his reaction was totally inappropriate.

Kaldrin
2011-01-24, 01:42 PM
I'll chalk it up to you were all wrong. You didn't use your DM-authority to properly take care of an issue out of game. You chose to meta-game your NPCs to do it in-game. Your other players are ***** for laughing at him. He's an immature git for throwing a tantrum, though I can see how he might be viewing it as you all ganging up on him. I honestly can't comment on the cheating. He could have meant to cheat or just not understood the rules about it all.

rayne_dragon
2011-01-24, 01:43 PM
I don't think either of you are in the right. Maybe Marvin made some honest mistakes, or maybe he was being a bit cheaty... either way, it would have been better to deal with it before the game session and OOC. His response to your actions was also inappropriate.

It's good that you're willing to talk to him about this and hopefully the two of you can work something out.

hangedman1984
2011-01-24, 01:53 PM
Of course after you take the vow, you should also undergo periodic cleansing sessions, just be safe.

its the only way to be truly pure

Greenish
2011-01-24, 01:56 PM
Taking vow of poverty after first level, can you ever do that?If VoP was 1st level only feat, only humans could take it (without flaws, of course).

Fitz10019
2011-01-24, 02:09 PM
You need a 20th level Wizard [and] 11400GP.

Hey, maybe the 20th-level wizard took a Vow of Poverty, too. Maybe that's how the monk met him, in Vow of Poverty class. Heh.

Telonius
2011-01-24, 02:31 PM
Hey, maybe the 20th-level wizard took a Vow of Poverty, too. Maybe that's how the monk met him, in Vow of Poverty class. Heh.

Only 500gp to reserve your spot in the retreat. Run by the Church of Olidammara, of course.

Severus
2011-01-24, 02:35 PM
You were wrong in letting it go into the table first. You shouldve settled any issued you had with it before you sat to play.

This. The right way to handle this is, "No, you don't find said caster. First, 20th level casters have better things to do with their time than sell you spells. Second, sometime during the campaign, you're going to get hit with a dispel magic which will take out this ability and then you're going to be very upset and frustrated because with the vow of poverty, it is a one time only deal that can't be redone. So for those reasons, I'm not allowing this. Do you want to rethink what you want to do with this level?"

If I were GM now, I would say, "I'm sorry. I should never have permitted it in the first place. Can we rewind to your level point, and talk about you doing something else. I'm not going to permit the permanent greater magic fang."

MeeposFire
2011-01-24, 02:37 PM
You can take VoP after 1st level though you do lose out on bonus feats that are found on levels you missed. So if you enter at level 2 you miss out on the 1st level bonus feats.

Tyndmyr
2011-01-24, 03:06 PM
Yes. He was clearly over-powered and over-reacting. You warned him that Dispel could get rid of it before the session and it came up that he lost it. He had taken the Vow of Poverty so it was like he had never gotten the enchantment in the first place. Plus he took cheated by not paying full price and getting the enchantment AFTER taking Vow of Poverty

Pretty much this. Thems the rules, and those are the risks. You checked his sheet, talked to him, and ensured he knew what he was getting into. Those are good DM traits.

Dispel magic is gonna get tossed around a bit in any realistic campaign with a fair number of casters. If you invest in permanency, it's best to have some defense against it.

And munchkining up the getting of permanency doesn't earn him any points, either.

Chells
2011-01-24, 03:25 PM
No you weren't. Players can be jerks and they will try to weasle-deal all sorts of broken ideas past you. Your job is to plainly state "No that doesn't work" and "That is really not in the spirit of the (game/rule/campaign world/etc.)". Coming up with an ambush for your player (even if he is a PitA) drops you into the wrong category.

grimbold
2011-01-24, 03:26 PM
i think he thought that your initial mistake would allow him to get away with this
i believe you were right
but still
apologize

Tyndmyr
2011-01-24, 03:31 PM
Well, the cheaty bits aren't even the problem. Admittedly, I would have just said no at the start, as it is not at all the sort of thing that VoP is about. However, dispel is a risk. He told 'im it was a risk, to make sure he knew. The player took it.

When the DM asks you "are you sure", think about it before saying yes.

Warlawk
2011-01-24, 03:47 PM
I replied that he can find a wizard to cast it for a small fee as detailed in the PHB, but that high-levels casters are rare and not known for helping strangers knocking on their door.


This right here is the crux of the problem. One of the things I love best about Eberron in comparison to our usual FR games is that high level NPCs are rare. Mid level is powerful and noteworthy, compared to FR where you trip over abandoned staffs of power because they're so weak and useless to all the level 30+ T1 casters that roam the streets in packs and every innkeeper is a retired God.

*ahem* pardon the tangent... at any rate, yes, just finding a 20 wizard in eberron would be a monumental task. Letting something like that slide out of game was the wrong thing to do. That should have received a flat NO response. Something like that shouldn't just be passed off by out of game handwaving.

The player was clearly wrong, but the way you dealt with it was pretty badly handled IMO. A number of reasons and such have already been laid out in this thread so I won't rehash them. The best thing you can do is take it as a learning experience. Sometimes it really is much easier to just say NO and deal with the resulting whining instead of letting it get in game and then dealing with it in play.

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2011-01-24, 03:48 PM
I think you should have smacked down that +5 Magic Fang right from the start, but I would have done it something like this:

Does your character have any Spellcraft ranks? No? Well, the caster told you the Magic Fang was cast at +5, but it was really only a Magic Weapon spell at +1, you should have done more research and realized that one character cannot cast both Greater Magic Fang and Permanency. And the 'permanency' he cast on you was actually just a Prestidigitation, he used it to make you get all sparkly like you were suddenly super-magic but it wore off after he was long out of town with the money that you should have donated to orphans in the first place. Next time you're going to hire a spellcaster, don't go for one that will accept only a small fraction of the standard rates, their abilities typically aren't up to snuff.

RagnaroksChosen
2011-01-24, 04:00 PM
Honestly.

And I meen this in no offence. I belive you where in the wrong here.
Couple of reasons.

1. The player very obviously doesn't understand the system very well, and or has a certain expectation from you.
2. You handled the situation just as immaturely as he did. Just not as blatant.
3. If I was a player in your game I would have walked out. How can i trust a gm to let me play something if they think its overpowered they will make me loose it in game with no way of getting it back.
4. This is opinion of course but to me GM's are there as kinda a balance, I know when i gm and there is an argument in game or out of game i try to mediate as much as possible.

Now was his actions childish, yes. Should he have handled that differently, yes. Would this had happened if you had just stoped it in the begining and didn't handle it childishly. No.

Key here is even though the player "cheated" Which you knew and Let through,there for he didn't cheat as you where aware and let him. Though If some one had thrown a tantrum like that i would have thrown them out, but said tantrum could have been totaly avoided.
So unfortunatly the blame lies with you. I would appologise to the player, and talk about getting the group back to gether. Mabye this would be a good time to talk to the player about the other members feelings about his out of combat spot light hogging. (as long as you can do it nicly)

Keld Denar
2011-01-24, 04:05 PM
Aha! Now I know why I felt the way I did when I first read this thread...


Vincent: Whoa!
Jules: What the french's happening, man? Ah, shucks man!
Vincent: Oh man, I shot Marvin in the face.
Jules: Why the french did you do that!
Vincent: Well, I didn't mean to do it, it was an accident!

Best movie ever? Or bestestest movie ever?

Remind me not to name my children Marvin...seems like a bad gig.

Starbuck_II
2011-01-24, 04:44 PM
Wait if Level 20 wizards are rare there, how the heck did the enemy wizard dispel the spell?
Either 20th level wizards aren't rare or they are: it can't be both.

FelixG
2011-01-24, 05:32 PM
You were in the right. Your group will likely be better off without him.

Maybe you should have squashed the cheating at the very beginning, but hey you cut him some slack, it just happened to come back and bite you.

To those saying "OMG METAGAMER!" (paraphrased) at the OP for slapping the area effect on Marvin and the fighters...If i was the wizard I would have done the same thing! He knows many of the players are buffed and this one is coming straight at him, why wouldn't he try to slap a dispel on the one attempting to threaten him?

And so what if the rule lawyer type players laughed a bit? My group laughs when misfortune falls upon one of our group. Not their fault if this player just happens to be thin skinned if they jibe everyone equally.

Edit: I too am interested in how the dispelling mage managed to make that 31 check to pop the permanency.

mucat
2011-01-24, 06:03 PM
Yeah, you handled the original situation badly. Player cheating is a problem that should be dealt with out-of-game, not by trying to undo the cheat with in-game events. Ruling in his favor when you know he's wrong, then singling out his character to remove the advantage, is bound to lead to hard feelings.. So far, not a huge thing; you can just chalk the mistake up as a learning experience.

But then the guy yelled at everyone and knocked the table over?

That's not a normal response from an adult human, and it absolutely dwarfs anything you or the other players might have done wrong. If you still consider him a friend and value his well-being, then convince him to get psychiatric help. But until he shows that he understands just how out-of-line he was, and doesn't follow up with some kind of "...but if you hadn't made me angry, it wouldn't have happened" excuse, I would not invite him back to the table.

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2011-01-24, 06:12 PM
A Permanency on a Greater Magic Fang only has to be at caster level 11, the GMF itself would have had a dispel DC of 31, but to get rid of the Permanency it's only a DC 22.

Caphi
2011-01-24, 06:24 PM
Guys. Guys.

If I read the OP right, OP did tell the player "no" beforehand, just like a lot of people here are suggesting. Player came to the next session - with a game already underway - claiming an illusory +5 (or more) and refusing to budge. At that point, we have crossed into outright cheating territory.

Yes, OP handled it very very clumsily, and yes, he shouldn't have tried to fix it with an NPC rather than, say, interrupting the game to call the player out, but it's not as though he didn't try other options.

And yes, "he's a tier 5 so he needs the help" is not an excuse for cheating.

mucat
2011-01-24, 06:30 PM
If I read the OP right, OP did tell the player "no" beforehand, just like a lot of people here are suggesting.

The way I read it, he told the player "maybe," and the player took that and ran with it to ridiculous lengths. Yeah, this is bad behavior on the player's part -- even before the ridiculous temper tantrum -- but if the OP is looking for ways to improve as a DM, there is definitely a lot he could learn from here.

Warlawk
2011-01-24, 06:31 PM
Aha! Now I know why I felt the way I did when I first read this thread...



Best movie ever? Or bestestest movie ever?

Remind me not to name my children Marvin...seems like a bad gig.


Bestestest movie ever. It may just be my disturbing sense of humor, but I bust up laughing every time Marvin gets shot in the face. It gets me every single time. Used to have a weekly wednesday night group of friends who would hang out and watch pulp fiction. We usually watched something else as well but pulp fiction. Every week. Good stuff. For a good many years I could recite Joules' biblical quotation verbatim.

Benly
2011-01-24, 06:38 PM
Guys. Guys.

If I read the OP right, OP did tell the player "no" beforehand, just like a lot of people here are suggesting. Player came to the next session - with a game already underway - claiming an illusory +5 (or more) and refusing to budge. At that point, we have crossed into outright cheating territory.

Yes, OP handled it very very clumsily, and yes, he shouldn't have tried to fix it with an NPC rather than, say, interrupting the game to call the player out, but it's not as though he didn't try other options.

And yes, "he's a tier 5 so he needs the help" is not an excuse for cheating.

Except he didn't tell the player no. He said "yes, you can, but wizards who can do it are rare". Apparently Marvin decided that yes meant yes, and that the caveat meant he should write in a way he got contact with the rare high-level wizard ("he was passing through town" isn't terribly original, but that's not exactly a crime.)

The GM looks over the sheet and decides he's going to allow it. At this point, you can't claim Marvin is cheating - the DM has explicitly invoked Rule Zero to make what happened legal. This is the point where he should have shot it down if he had a problem with it. OP did not say "no, you can't have this, we can talk about it after the session", he said "okay. You can have this, do you know how it works?" Once again, Marvin assumes "you can have this" means "you can have this".

And then the DM throws a screwjob at him. A wizard six levels higher than the appropriate party EL shows up, throws a greater dispel, avoiding the otherwise-priority targets, and manages to successfully dispel a CL 20 spell. This is, I'll note, 1d20+12 vs. DC 31, and thus only successful on a 19 or 20. What this comes down to is quite straightforwardly "The DM said it was okay and then used DM fiat to screw you for it anyway". Marvin gets angry and is physically wrestled out of the house.


This is not a flattering depiction of the events for the OP, especially compared to how he described it - but I bet it's a lot closer to how Marvin saw it. It might even be closer to how it happened.

Weasel of Doom
2011-01-24, 06:49 PM
While your actions might not have been the best in the circumstances I think they were reasonable.

I would've told him no as soon as I saw the changes on his sheet (probably laughing at the fact he'd tried to get that past me). I think not dealing with this problem immediately and OOC was your only real mistake.

The wizard dispelling the monk charging at him is an understandable response and not necessarilly metagaming imo.

Marvin's actions (especially throwing a tantrum and pounding the table) on the other hand are very childish and I probably wouldn't be inviting him back.

FelixG
2011-01-24, 06:52 PM
And then the DM throws a screwjob at him. A wizard six levels higher than the appropriate party EL shows up, throws a greater dispel, avoiding the otherwise-priority targets, and manages to successfully dispel a CL 20 spell. This is, I'll note, 1d20+12 vs. DC 31, and thus only successful on a 19 or 20. What this comes down to is quite straightforwardly "The DM said it was okay and then used DM fiat to screw you for it anyway". Marvin gets angry and is physically wrestled out of the house.

I still dont get how people claim that the person coming charging at you isnt a priority target....

I have been in the situation in a number of games and the person charging me is always a priority.

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2011-01-24, 07:16 PM
CL 20 GMF: DC 31 did not get dispelled.
CL 11 Permanency: DC 22 THIS IS WHAT GOT DISPELLED! If the greater dispel was cast by a Wizard 5/ Master Specialist 6 who was specialized in Abjuration and had traded his Wizard 5 bonus feat for the Inquisition domain, he would have succeeded on a roll of 4. I'm not too familiar with Sharn, but I know it's a big town and I'd assume that they have some decently powerful wizards around to assist the guards when adventurers get out of hand. A wizard of that level could have a Permanency: Arcane Sight, in which case he would have seen a particularly powerful buff on the monk coming right for him and buffs on other characters, and chose his targets appropriately.


This was a presumptuous player who decided he'd put some kind of power in his character's hands and then see if the DM was ok with it. The DM let him think he could have that power only to take it away that same session, which definitely caused more problems than if he'd just told him 'no' in the first place. Not allowing the P:GMF initially would have been the better course of action, but he did point out just how vulnerable it is to permanent removal. The player was trying to use VoP without the drawback of not spending any of his wealth on himself, he was trying to get NPC spellcasting that was way out of his budget for a fraction of the cost (8650 gp at standard rates), and he probably deserved to be put in his place. It wasn't handled in the best way possible, but at least it got handled and he didn't ruin more than one session for everyone else by acting super-powerful and treating them like sidekicks.

Tyndmyr
2011-01-24, 07:33 PM
5gp says his vop bonuses were calculated as though he had it from first level.

shadow_archmagi
2011-01-24, 07:34 PM
he didn't ruin more than one session for everyone else by acting super-powerful and treating them like sidekicks.

Whoa whoa whoa, let's keep in mind that even with +5 hands, he's still a monk.

Aspenor
2011-01-24, 07:35 PM
You should've said something beforehand, but his reaction was inappropriate.

I wouldn't say you were WRONG, you just could (or should) have handled it differently.

He was definitely wrong in every way.

Benly
2011-01-24, 07:42 PM
CL 20 GMF: DC 31 did not get dispelled.
CL 11 Permanency: DC 22 THIS IS WHAT GOT DISPELLED!

The Permanency was cast by the same wizard as the GMF, as per the OP.


I queried the player on this, and he claimed Marvin leveled up to Monk 5, took Vow of Poverty, then paid 1,200 gold to get himself enchanted with greater magic fang and permanency by a level 20 wizard passing through the city.

Nothing is said about the permanency being lower CL.

Also, if high-level wizards are rare in this setting, why are level 11+ mages running around with city guard patrols fighting level 6 adventurers?

The Glyphstone
2011-01-24, 07:55 PM
Maybe it was the same wizard? He realized that the 'poverty-stricken' monk had cheated him, and decided to go reverse his generosity?

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2011-01-24, 08:04 PM
A character can cast a spell at a lower caster level if he chooses to do so. The difference between a CL 20 Permanency and a CL 11 Permanency is 450 gp. Judging by how much the player paid for the spellcasting services, he would have gotten the bare minimum.

Benly
2011-01-24, 08:05 PM
A character can cast a spell at a lower caster level if he chooses to do so. The difference between a CL 20 Permanency and a CL 11 Permanency is 450 gp. Judging by how much the player paid for the spellcasting services, he would have gotten the bare minimum.

Judging by how much the player paid, he didn't hire someone to cast Permanency at all. :smallsmile: I'm not sure reverse-calculating from costs people are already hollering about being incorrect is really a viable plan here.

Starbuck_II
2011-01-24, 08:08 PM
A Permanency on a Greater Magic Fang only has to be at caster level 11, the GMF itself would have had a dispel DC of 31, but to get rid of the Permanency it's only a DC 22.

But that would require 2 different casters to be hired. The monk only bought from one wizard (DM said he got as level 20 wizard).

A Caster 20 Wizard has no reason to lower his caster for permanency.

stainboy
2011-01-24, 09:25 PM
1) I don't believe there are any 20th level spellcasters for hire in Sharn. Any player who knows he can purchase spells in a city also knows he needs to look up what spell levels/caster levels are available for purchase. When the player puts some thought into an optimization and doesn't bother to research potential problems with it, that means he's trying to pull a fast one.

2) The player deliberately phrased his initial question in a way that disguised what he was doing. "Can I have someone cast Magic Fang on me?" Well, sure, obviously he can. He knew he also wanted the much-higher-level spell Permanency, and a 20th level caster, but chose to ask only about the most trivial part of what he wanted so that he could later claim the DM gave him permission.

3) The player claimed he knew how Permanency worked, but carefully didn't confirm that he knew Permanency was subject to dispel. This was after the DM called his attention to the issue. He was giving himself the opportunity to feign ignorance and argue later if the DM dispelled his Permanency.

4) The player was trying to work-to-rule Vow of Poverty, and should have realized from the tone of the Book of Exalted Deeds that he was on shaky ground.


In short, he was trying to cheat, he knew it, and treating this like an honest rules mistake would be playing his game. If he'd simply been told "no, you can't do that" he would have argued or come up with another cheat to try next session. OP did the right thing by taking him down a peg. Too bad he took it like a five-year-old.

Benly
2011-01-24, 09:49 PM
If he'd simply been told "no, you can't do that" he would have argued or come up with another cheat to try next session.

Too bad nobody tried that or you'd have a basis for these assumptions.

Yahzi
2011-01-24, 10:07 PM
Got to agree with the others saying you should have laid down the law at the start.

When he said, "Permancy," you shoulda said, "No."

So, you were wrong. Give the player his money back. What's that you say? He didn't pay you for the gaming session? Well then. :smallbiggrin:

In the future, though, you should exercise a firmer hand earlier to avoid these problems. Consider it a learning experience. (BTW this principle works in lots of other places beside D&D games, so it's a valuable learning experience).

Sintanan
2011-01-24, 10:16 PM
Well, he wouldn't answer the phone when I called after work, and on my way home I swung by his place where Marvin simply opened his door to slam it in my face before I could say more than, "Hi." :smallannoyed:

I'm thinking leaving matters as they are and just not inviting Marvin back until he takes the initiative to talk to myself.


Thank you all for your input. This is indeed a good learning experience; I'll have to keep an eye out for things like this in the future, but I don't think any more problems like this should arrive (The rules lawyer in the group does a good job at bringing up errors politely in play during downtime, but I could tell he was getting tired of Marvin from the way he stayed quiet during last session).

Shpadoinkle
2011-01-25, 12:21 AM
If he's going to get THAT upset about something like this and refuse to so much as speak to you, maybe it's best he not play with your group anyway.

FelixG
2011-01-25, 12:25 AM
Your group is most likely better off without em

Benly
2011-01-25, 03:02 AM
If he's going to get THAT upset about something like this and refuse to so much as speak to you, maybe it's best he not play with your group anyway.

Yeah, what kind of crazy doesn't talk to you the day after you humiliate him and physically wrestle him out of the building without his stuff.

LansXero
2011-01-25, 03:25 AM
Yeah, what kind of crazy doesn't talk to you the day after you humiliate him and physically wrestle him out of the building without his stuff.

Physical contact and agression is a line better not crossed, even between good friends it may break things permanently.

Cerlis
2011-01-25, 05:24 AM
enough has been said about how the situation should have been handled

I agree with the "You wherent right but you wherent wrong" sentiment ( I personally dont take criticism very well)


---
I do think a major point, for the future, was touched but not spoke out well enough (unless i missed it).

we dont know this guy, you do, and you did point out him being unsavory before and i'd keep that in mind when remembering what happened (that he may have been a jerk or a fragile friend, or tempered or whathave you)

However, i'd like to remind everyone here this is a game, and so far every gamer i've seen has been more and more adept at gaming. and a major part of gaming is "clever exploitation of game mechanics". as others DID point out, he could get Greater magic fang cast, high level wizards existed but where rare and blah blah.

-My- point is not that it was "allowed" or that he was some evil sinister game wrecker (as some people seem to insist, and he may well be. remember, you know him we dont). However i know more than a few people myself who would view the rules you set out as no different than "When flanking you get +2 to attack rolls"or "i dont need to talk to him, i'll just use diplomacy. I got a +13 modifier".

again, you know him we dont, you are the best judge here, and I am more on your side than not and he may just be a bad player or a jerk. but with him, now, future, other players, you will deal with people, good or neutral who are just gamers trying to win, and we all seek to find rules to support our winning. thats why people say druids are broken after all.

tl;dr basically, unless he really was a jerk, he may just be a gamer trying to "win the game". but i cant say for sure. I just wanted to bring up that very likely possibility (since everyone here can claim to be a gamer)

Escheton
2011-01-25, 07:13 AM
You did the right thing, you asked advice and made an effort to make amends. He will come around over time (he does not seem the type to recover from psychological setbacks well) and you can be civil if not friendly.

Obviously he and your group don't mesh well, you gave it a try anyways.
You now know how to better spot and handle the type.

So just chalk this one up to experience and don't let (misplaced) sympathy keep you from being a firm DM.

Good luck in finding a replacement member of the group btw.

Killer Angel
2011-01-25, 07:46 AM
Pretty sure someone already pointed it out, but...


To start with, he violated his own VoP the instant he took it by spending his wealth on something for himself rather than donating it. And when he did, he gave himself a massive discount by pretending Permanency is a 3rd level spell and 'conveniently' forgetting that Permanency costs XP. Specifically, 1,500XP for a GMF spell. Wizards can't even cast GMF (though GMW is the same, so that's very minor), but it would have cost 600 for the enhancement, 1000 for the Permanency, and 7,500 to pay off the XP spend. That's 9,100 GP, not 1,200 GP.


All of this is true, but the DM said "OK", and the only advice was regarding the dispel magic.
This was the mistake: he saw the cheating, and didn't stopped it OOG.

Tyger
2011-01-25, 08:00 AM
Really just a point on the casting of Greater Dispel Magic, and thus spoilered:

A couple people have wondered how the mage managed to dispel the permanency. I'm having trouble understanding why that is a question.

Greater Dispel gives you a caster check of 1d20 + your CL. A caster would be a minimum level 13 to cast the spell. So a bare minimum caster can dispel that Permanency with a roll of 18. Rare, but not unheard of. If the casting mage was higher than the minimum, it gets progressively easier. Why is there confusion on how this happened?

Or am I the one who is confused?

Amphetryon
2011-01-25, 08:35 AM
tl;dr basically, unless he really was a jerk, he may just be a gamer trying to "win the game". but i cant say for sure. I just wanted to bring up that very likely possibility (since everyone here can claim to be a gamer)Could you clarify what you think the difference is between "jerky" behavior and "trying to win the game"? In a game centered around team activities and social interaction, where "winning" isn't possible as it is conventionally defined, I honestly don't see the difference.

panaikhan
2011-01-25, 08:58 AM
Wading through the thread, I agree on several points.

1) It should have been 'NO' from the beginning.
"OK, you get yourself a VoP. You want to enchant yourself? What with? Oh, enchanting yourself BEFORE the VoP? Then you can't take it - you own something of value."

2) The issue about costs. Even discounting the above point, he couldn't afford it.

That said, I think the actions from then on are correct. The player was warned that he would get hosed, and then complained when he DID get hosed.

When I deal with power-gamers, I make sure they have enough rope to hang themselves. I even show them the rope before-hand.

Callista
2011-01-25, 09:03 AM
What a munchkin!

Yeah, you should've talked to him the minute you saw he had been buying spells after taking Vow of Poverty. Obviously, that breaks his vow--you should've given him the chance to rebuild that character without the vow or without the spell.

There's also an alignment issue here: Vow of Poverty requires a Good character. Monk requires a Lawful one. Druid requires that one alignment axis be Neutral. So this character would actually have been an ex-Druid Monk with a LG alignment. Was he aware of that fact?

Seriously, though, I think you were lucky to be rid of him that easily. Somebody who pulls crap like that isn't somebody you want in your game.

Starbuck_II
2011-01-25, 09:04 AM
Really just a point on the casting of Greater Dispel Magic, and thus spoilered:

A couple people have wondered how the mage managed to dispel the permanency. I'm having trouble understanding why that is a question.

Greater Dispel gives you a caster check of 1d20 + your CL. A caster would be a minimum level 13 to cast the spell. So a bare minimum caster can dispel that Permanency with a roll of 18. Rare, but not unheard of. If the casting mage was higher than the minimum, it gets progressively easier. Why is there confusion on how this happened?

Or am I the one who is confused?

He was a 20th level caster. The DM already said this. The guy hired a 20th level caster.
So the DC is 20 + 11=31 DC.
A level 10 caster needs a 21 on his roll to dispel this. You can't roll a 21.

Callista
2011-01-25, 09:09 AM
So the DM made a mechanical error... big frikkin deal. It's still munchkinery of the highest degree. I really doubt this guy was going to role-play an exalted monk properly to begin with; anybody who picks vow of poverty for its stat bonuses instead of because it fits his concept is not really thinking about role-playing.

Douglas
2011-01-25, 09:13 AM
He was a 20th level caster. The DM already said this. The guy hired a 20th level caster.
So the DC is 20 + 11=31 DC.
A level 10 caster needs a 21 on his roll to dispel this. You can't roll a 21.
Yes. And? The dispelling caster in question was at least level 11 at the absolute minimum, otherwise he wouldn't have been able to cast Greater Dispel Magic at all.

Tyndmyr
2011-01-25, 09:14 AM
But that would require 2 different casters to be hired. The monk only bought from one wizard (DM said he got as level 20 wizard).

A Caster 20 Wizard has no reason to lower his caster for permanency.

Sure they do. Price. It happens all the time in the real world. If you charged the same for minimum CL and max CL, everyone chooses max. If you charge more for max, you get more gold.

I would not assume more than minimum caster level on any buff or item unless I paid the appropriate extra moneys to do so. I ESPECIALLY wouldn't assume more than minimum if the DM let me skate by for a lower price. There's nothing particularly unlikely about taking a dispel. In fact, it almost certainly would have happened eventually. Dispel is an extremely common tactic, and is very pumpable.

If Marvin can't act like an adult and, yknow, at least talk about it, I see little reason to put more effort into it. Just don't invite him back. He doesn't sound like he's adding much to the game anyhow.

RagnaroksChosen
2011-01-25, 10:24 AM
So the DM made a mechanical error... big frikkin deal. It's still munchkinery of the highest degree. I really doubt this guy was going to role-play an exalted monk properly to begin with; anybody who picks vow of poverty for its stat bonuses instead of because it fits his concept is not really thinking about role-playing.

Really?? cuz if he was trying to munchkin he wouldn't have chosen VOP.
I know there are some groups that allow VOP with out the good tag. or exalted tag... I know its a house rule but as we can see the GM here was not playing by RAW.

Playing an aesthetic monk isn't that hard. Even before VOP I knew monk players that would give up worldly possessions.

The Glyphstone
2011-01-25, 10:27 AM
Really?? cuz if he was trying to munchkin he wouldn't have chosen VOP.
I know there are some groups that allow VOP with out the good tag. or exalted tag... I know its a house rule but as we can see the GM here was not playing by RAW.

Playing an aesthetic monk isn't that hard. Even before VOP I knew monk players that would give up worldly possessions.

No, if he was trying to munchkin he would definitely have chosen VoP. It's the quintessential munchkin-trap feat, in that it looks like AWESOME FREE STUFF with cheese on top. Only people who run the numbers realize how bad it is.

Pisha
2011-01-25, 10:28 AM
You know what would have been cool? If the guy had presented you with this combo, and it had been nixed with an explanation of "No, there aren't any 20th-level wizards passing through town. They're just not that common. But y'know, while you were looking for one, you did hear a rumor that there might be a powerful spellcaster in the city of Wulfsklen - hey, doesn't that name sound oddly familiar?"

Bam, right there you've got a side-plot that you could run alongside the main plot, giving the character something to work towards for a few levels. Make him earn it - through RP, through questing, through figuring out just what a low-level impoverished monk can do to convince a high-level wizard to help him (and, incidentally, convincing the rest of the party to help from time to time) - and by the time he finally got his cookie, it would feel like more of an achievement to him, and it would be more palatable to you, too (since he'd be higher level, and since he came by it honestly.) And yeah, at that point, hitting him with a Dispel would seem a little harsh (unless it was some grand climactic battle, and it was MEANT to be a crushing blow to his character) - but then, after putting him through all that to earn it, you'd be less likely to do so anyway.

RagnaroksChosen
2011-01-25, 10:31 AM
No, if he was trying to munchkin he would definitely have chosen VoP. It's the quintessential munchkin-trap feat, in that it looks like AWESOME FREE STUFF with cheese on top. Only people who run the numbers realize how bad it is.

maybe I'm miss understanding how the use of munchkin is being used.

The Glyphstone
2011-01-25, 10:42 AM
maybe I'm miss understanding how the use of munchkin is being used.

Munchkins are the black sheep of optimization. They want to be powerful - usually more powerful than anyone else, so they can 'win' D&D, and they don't care if what they do is legal or not. Rather than do the work to be knowledgeable about the game so they can pick the most effective options, they tend for 'get-rich-quick' schemes like VoP, or thinly veiled copies of TheoryOp builds they found on the internet.

Tyger
2011-01-25, 10:58 AM
He was a 20th level caster. The DM already said this. The guy hired a 20th level caster.
So the DC is 20 + 11=31 DC.
A level 10 caster needs a 21 on his roll to dispel this. You can't roll a 21.

Except you add your level to the d20 roll... and to cast a Greater Dispel you have to be 13th level. So you are able to roll a 33.

RagnaroksChosen
2011-01-25, 11:00 AM
Munchkins are the black sheep of optimization. They want to be powerful - usually more powerful than anyone else, so they can 'win' D&D, and they don't care if what they do is legal or not. Rather than do the work to be knowledgeable about the game so they can pick the most effective options, they tend for 'get-rich-quick' schemes like VoP, or thinly veiled copies of TheoryOp builds they found on the internet.

I assumed they where people who understood at least the basics of char op and would try to sneak overly optimized characters into campaigns.

Mabye im a bit jaded on it or what not. But i know to many times I have asked my players if they where sure understood what they took for a buff/feat/class/etc. and they tell me they understand but then when we get down to it they don't. To me other then trying to be a spot like hog this player was definitely not a munchkin/optimizer/etc. It honestly sounds like he just doesn't understand, mabye because hes a bit younger, who knows though. Mabye he was looking for a quick boost to make him better at combat. Im sure every one else in the group is easily outshining him.

Greenish
2011-01-25, 11:02 AM
Playing an aesthetic monk isn't that hard.Well, usually Cha is a dump stat for monks… :smallcool:

Douglas
2011-01-25, 11:09 AM
Ah, but competence at optimization is not a defining or required trait for a munchkin. Munchkins seek to gain character power as their primary overriding goal, and they are willing to bend or outright break rules in order to obtain it. They are not necessarily actually good at it, and Vow of Poverty's sheer incredible array of bonuses gives a strong impression of being extremely overpowered to anyone who doesn't have a good understanding of how much WBL really gives you. In fact, I think munchkins have a distinct tendency to not be competent optimizers because if they were good at optimization they wouldn't need to resort to rule bending/breaking to get the power they want.

If you're willing, in typical munchkin fashion, to try weaseling your way around the restrictions so you can keep some significant benefit of the wealth you're giving up anyway, then it becomes even more tempting. Add on the idea of "it gives a bonus meant to replace armor, but as a Monk I wouldn't use armor anyway but the bonus still works for me" and you have an inexpert munchkin's wet dream. Never mind that begging a Mage Armor from the party wizard does the same thing very cheaply and that high level WBL adds up to even more, getting the full picture of those bonuses takes a lot more work than just reading off a list already assembled for you of bonus after bonus after bonus.

RagnaroksChosen
2011-01-25, 11:31 AM
Ah, but competence at optimization is not a defining or required trait for a munchkin. Munchkins seek to gain character power as their primary overriding goal, and they are willing to bend or outright break rules in order to obtain it. They are not necessarily actually good at it, and Vow of Poverty's sheer incredible array of bonuses gives a strong impression of being extremely overpowered to anyone who doesn't have a good understanding of how much WBL really gives you. In fact, I think munchkins have a distinct tendency to not be competent optimizers because if they were good at optimization they wouldn't need to resort to rule bending/breaking to get the power they want.

If you're willing, in typical munchkin fashion, to try weaseling your way around the restrictions so you can keep some significant benefit of the wealth you're giving up anyway, then it becomes even more tempting. Add on the idea of "it gives a bonus meant to replace armor, but as a Monk I wouldn't use armor anyway but the bonus still works for me" and you have an inexpert munchkin's wet dream. Never mind that begging a Mage Armor from the party wizard does the same thing very cheaply and that high level WBL adds up to even more, getting the full picture of those bonuses takes a lot more work than just reading off a list already assembled for you of bonus after bonus after bonus.


So your saying any one who try's to get something that seems powerful to them and doesn't have a char op understanding of the system is a munchkin?
To me that seems ridiculous, unless its all about intent in which case i could understand i guess.
I mean if its based purely on intent then we have no proof that said player was a munchkin.
And all of my players at my home game would be too. Which i know they are not. Granted they don't bend try and break/bend rules but i know a lot of them don't understand the system fully.

The only reason i have sympathy for the player in the OP's example, is the fact that i've had almost exactly the same thing happen with a monk player. saved his money got a bunch of permenencied buffs then took VOP. I didn't care as much, he did get irritated that later on he was in the radius of a dispell. (though unlike the OP i didn't target him over more juice-y targets he happened to be standing next to the party transmuter). We talked and found out that he didn't have a full understanding of the implications of VOP, nor WBL. Which is why i belive that this player just didn't fully understand the system and was just trying to make his character better. It's not like VOP is very unmonkish, or any thing.

Greenish
2011-01-25, 12:02 PM
To me that seems ridiculous, unless its all about intent in which case i could understand i guess.
I mean if its based purely on intent then we have no proof that said player was a munchkin.It's based on intent, obviously. A munchkin is defined by it's singular goal of becoming more powerful than others and "winning" the game.

And of course we don't have proof that the player in question is a munchkin, but we do have some evidence to suggest that. Only in mathematics can something be proven. :smalltongue:

RagnaroksChosen
2011-01-25, 12:04 PM
It's based on intent, obviously. A munchkin is defined by it's singular goal of becoming more powerful than others and "winning" the game.

And of course we don't have proof that the player in question is a munchkin, but we do have some evidence to suggest that. Only in mathematics can something be proven. :smalltongue:

Fair enough,

What evidence is there? I think thats my issue, the lack of evidence... He was just trying to boost his character which, might i add the GM allowed.

Greenish
2011-01-25, 12:12 PM
What evidence is there?He "finds" a level 20 wizard (in Eberron!) to enchant him on discount just prior (or after) taking Vow of Poverty.

That seems rather munchkiny to me. It's not the matter of him trying to power up, but the manner of said power-up, which managed to violate the rules, the setting and the intent of VoP.

The Glyphstone
2011-01-25, 12:15 PM
Fair enough,

What evidence is there? I think thats my issue, the lack of evidence... He was just trying to boost his character which, might i add the GM allowed.

Trying to boost his character via illegal means, both in pricing of the spell and spirit of the Vow, plus the rather shady way he found the means for that boost as noted. The GM is also at fault for not checking his math, and for not calling him out on the vow-warping, but that doesn't absolve the player for attempting to cheat.

RagnaroksChosen
2011-01-25, 12:27 PM
He "finds" a level 20 wizard (in Eberron!) to enchant him on discount just prior (or after) taking Vow of Poverty.

That seems rather munchkiny to me. It's not the matter of him trying to power up, but the manner of said power-up, which managed to violate the rules, the setting and the intent of VoP.

I'll have to disagree with you there.
As the op said they where rare.


Meanwhile, the player of Marvin the Monk approaches me and asks if I have any qualms of him finding a wizard to cast greater magic fang in the downtime. I replied that he can find a wizard to cast it for a small fee as detailed in the PHB, but that high-levels casters are rare and not known for helping strangers knocking on their door.

I can see how a player could here that and think he is fine. I know I've done it before not relising that the gm was trying nicly to say no.
So the finding a wizard issue isn't a good argument. I've learned to specify when players ask me questions like that to say something like yes you can find a wizard no higher then level x to cast the spell for you.

I agree about the gold count. I'm interested to see how he got that number?

I as a gm would have no problem with some one who has vow of poverty to have buffs permenancied on them. Though it may be specified in the feat or passage I'm not sure i haven't read it in a while and i have no access to books.
I know in the past it has been a discussion point, what counts as a material object?

So i find that just that alone is hardly evidence of munchkinery, it just sounds like dumb assery more then any thing. lack of understanding rather then malice.


EDIT:
@The Glyphstone - Does a lack of understanding realy constitute cheating, as well as vow warping is very subject to opinion, Like i said above i wouldn't inatly think its a violation.
Plus he may not of understood how vop works fully he only said he had read permenancy not the rest of the stuff.
So again is it realy cheating?

Tyndmyr
2011-01-25, 12:33 PM
No, if he was trying to munchkin he would definitely have chosen VoP. It's the quintessential munchkin-trap feat, in that it looks like AWESOME FREE STUFF with cheese on top. Only people who run the numbers realize how bad it is.

This is so true. You wouldn't believe how many people tell me that VoP monks are broken due to being overpowered. It seems to be a common perception based on sheer size of benefits list from each.

Ragnarok, it's not so much any one of those things, but the combo that screams munchkin. I can think of plausible reasons for getting the gold wrong. Or for messing up VoP and a buff. Or for finding a level 20 wizard when the GM said they are extremely rare. Etc, etc. The point is that each of these are fairly unlikely, and I find it difficult to believe that a clueless player acted so munchkiny repeatedly by random chance. The evidence strongly supports that the player was trying to game the system/gm for added power. Like the optimizer in his group, I would have been amused by the inevitable shutdown.

Greenish
2011-01-25, 12:33 PM
So i find that just that alone is hardly evidence of munchkineryIt is not proof, as I said, but I do think it can be construed as evidence towards such a conclusion.

I'm not saying that's the only conclusion that could be drawn from there, let alone the correct one.


Getting permanencied buffs cast on you just prior to taking VoP directly contradicts what VoP is about.

The Glyphstone
2011-01-25, 12:36 PM
EDIT:
@The Glyphstone - Does a lack of understanding realy constitute cheating, as well as vow warping is very subject to opinion, Like i said above i wouldn't inatly think its a violation.
Plus he may not of understood how vop works fully he only said he had read permenancy not the rest of the stuff.
So again is it realy cheating?

Absolutely, as if he had actually read Permanency as he claims, he would have noted this passage:


Magic fang, greater = 11th = 1,500 XP

And the only way he could have known how much to spend on a GMF spell would have been to look at the chart for Spellcasting, which also has the note that a caster who spends XP will charge 5GP/XP for it. So he was either cheating or lying.

RagnaroksChosen
2011-01-25, 12:38 PM
It is not proof, as I said, but I do think it can be construed as evidence towards such a conclusion.

I'm not saying that's the only conclusion that could be drawn from there, let alone the correct one.


Getting permanencied buffs cast on you just prior to taking VoP directly contradicts what VoP is about.

I guess it is i don't know it just doesn't feel right to me.
Seems like the gm is more of the problem here, Granted i think every one can agree the player over reacted. though im sure he was in a super defensive position at that point.

How does getting permanencied buffs casts before taking vop contridict vop.

I know if we use real world examples(bad idea i know), there are plenty of people who will splurge right before taking a vow. It's kinda like people about to go into rehab alot of them will get realy screwed up right before hand(even the ones that are serious about it).


edit:

I should just wait before i post.
@The Glyphstone: I agree with the permenancy but i disagree with the chart reading.
Granted I can't figure out how he got the price he did. Which I can't justify, and mabye he was cheeting as far as the price goes. But I know people get the prices mixed up for spell casting services all the time. I also know that alot of my non experianced players get spell level/caster level and all that jazz mixed up especialy ones that typicaly play martial types.
Heh this is a stretch, but i know eberron has the discount price thing for mundane stuff. Maybe he thought spell casting counted as mundane because its in the equipment section. I mean there are tons of things that could have happened.

The Glyphstone
2011-01-25, 12:43 PM
I guess it is i don't know it just doesn't feel right to me.
Seems like the gm is more of the problem here, Granted i think every one can agree the player over reacted. though im sure he was in a super defensive position at that point.

How does getting permanencied buffs casts before taking vop contridict vop.

I know if we use real world examples(bad idea i know), there are plenty of people who will splurge right before taking a vow. It's kinda like people about to go into rehab alot of them will get realy screwed up right before hand(even the ones that are serious about it).

It's not splurging like you describe, because he continues to benefit from his spending after the vow. It's not so much splurging before rehab as, say, buying an expensive racing bicycle right before taking real vows of poverty, then continuing to ride that bicycle every day after breakfast. Or, to use a more nontangible example, buying a lifetime subscription to your favorite magazine/membership to an expensive social club/whatever.

Greenish
2011-01-25, 12:46 PM
How does getting permanencied buffs casts before taking vop contridict vop.You forswear all material possessions, vow to live in poverty and donate all money you come across to charity.

There's a disconnect between the willingness to do that and the idea that you'd burn enough money to buy three orphanages to make your fists a bit better.

RagnaroksChosen
2011-01-25, 12:51 PM
It's not splurging like you describe, because he continues to benefit from his spending after the vow. It's not so much splurging before rehab as, say, buying an expensive racing bicycle right before taking real vows of poverty, then continuing to ride that bicycle every day after breakfast. Or, to use a more nontangible example, buying a lifetime subscription to your favorite magazine/membership to an expensive social club/whatever.



Fair enough,
However i do remember reading that you can keep certian things like a sword, or armour, Actually i believe it specifically say's that, granted that's going off memmory and it could be taken way out of context.


For example, buying that expensive racing bike. If say the person was a bike mail currier or delivery boy of some sort, He could be in the mind set that i need to by this now so it will last me and because i need it for my job.
I could understand where you where coming from if it the player bought something frivolous.
I guess its a matter of disagreeance on the severity of a vow of poverty.

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2011-01-25, 12:52 PM
Cheating under a veil of ignorance is still cheating. Cheating due to genuine ignorance is still cheating. These are often mistaken for each other, but both need to be stopped immediately.

A player cheating under a veil of ignorance should be dealt with in a similar manner as the OP's experience, otherwise it will become a recurring problem.

A player cheating due to genuine ignorance often becomes a player cheating under a veil of ignorance, especially if he managed to get away with it while genuinely ignorant.

I believe that their gaming group is better off without Marvin's participation. He wasn't treated very fairly, and while the OP wasn't wrong (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQl5aYhkF3E), he may not have been right, either. What's done is done, though, and I think his gaming group will be better off for it.

The Glyphstone
2011-01-25, 12:55 PM
Fair enough,
However i do remember reading that you can keep certian things like a sword, or armour, Actually i believe it specifically say's that, granted that's going off memmory and it could be taken way out of context.


For example, buying that expensive racing bike. If say the person was a bike mail currier or delivery boy of some sort, He could be in the mind set that i need to by this now so it will last me and because i need it for my job.
I could understand where you where coming from if it the player bought something frivolous.
I guess its a matter of disagreeance on the severity of a vow of poverty.

the vow is very explicit on what you're allowed to own - one nonmagical, nonmasterwork weapon, one set of nonmagical clothing (not armor), one day's worth of food, and a spell component pouch if you need it. Nothing else.

And...if you've taken a vow of poverty, why would you be working?:smallconfused:

RagnaroksChosen
2011-01-25, 01:01 PM
Cheating under a veil of ignorance is still cheating. Cheating due to genuine ignorance is still cheating. These are often mistaken for each other, but both need to be stopped immediately.

A player cheating under a veil of ignorance should be dealt with in a similar manner as the OP's experience, otherwise it will become a recurring problem.

A player cheating due to genuine ignorance often becomes a player cheating under a veil of ignorance, especially if he managed to get away with it while genuinely ignorant.

I believe that their gaming group is better off without Marvin's participation. He wasn't treated very fairly, and while the OP wasn't wrong (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQl5aYhkF3E), he may not have been right, either. What's done is done, though, and I think his gaming group will be better off for it.


I disagree. If you don't know the system well. and you do something that is within the rules even though it is breaking of the rules, and no one stops you. To me that is not cheating. that is just not understanding the rules. Or for that matter if you misinterpet something.

Now if you lie about misunderstanding somthing or lie about not understanding the rules thats totaly different.



You forswear all material possessions, vow to live in poverty and donate all money you come across to charity.

There's a disconnect between the willingness to do that and the idea that you'd burn enough money to buy three orphanages to make your fists a bit better.

I could see justification of getting a buff permanenced as some one who has the vow.
Also i don't consider buffs to be material possessions. I'm gonna have to look up vop now... cuz alot of this makes sense but doesn't at the same time.

RagnaroksChosen
2011-01-25, 01:03 PM
the vow is very explicit on what you're allowed to own - one nonmagical, nonmasterwork weapon, one set of nonmagical clothing (not armor), one day's worth of food, and a spell component pouch if you need it. Nothing else.

And...if you've taken a vow of poverty, why would you be working?:smallconfused:



Hahaha I agree.. Which is why VOP doesn't make sense for adventurers.

Also I would argue weather you realy own the spell when its permenancied... I meen if some one visous dispells you wouldn't the caster of the buff get hit.

The Glyphstone
2011-01-25, 01:08 PM
Hahaha I agree.. Which is why VOP doesn't make sense for adventurers.

Also I would argue weather you realy own the spell when its permenancied... I meen if some one visous dispells you wouldn't the caster of the buff get hit.

No, you would get hit. Vicious Dispelling deals damage to the person you stripped the buff from, not the caster of the spell.

As for VoP and adventurers - it does make sense unless you consider adventuring to be a job. In most cases, adventurers don't have a regular paycheck the way a delivery boy or mailman would, their income is in rewards for deeds done and loot stolen from the corpses of their enemies. In both of those cases, the Vow stipulates that they must donate their share to charity...so I guess you could have a mailman with a vow of poverty who donated all his wages to charity, but it'd be very odd.

Douglas
2011-01-25, 01:09 PM
So your saying any one who try's to get something that seems powerful to them and doesn't have a char op understanding of the system is a munchkin?
To me that seems ridiculous, unless its all about intent in which case i could understand i guess.
I mean if its based purely on intent then we have no proof that said player was a munchkin.
And all of my players at my home game would be too. Which i know they are not. Granted they don't bend try and break/bend rules but i know a lot of them don't understand the system fully.
No, it's all about the measures the player is willing to take. Finding a bunch of abilities with unexpected synergy and building a legal character that combines them into something horrifically overpowered? That's optimization and powergaming, but not munchkinism. Honestly misunderstanding how things work? That's just innocent ignorance. "Forgetting" restrictions or drawbacks, adopting dubious rules interpretations that are obviously not RAI, misleading a DM about what a feat or ability does and getting away with it just because the DM hasn't looked it up, and in general deliberately bending and breaking the rules? That is being a munchkin. It just so happens that a lot of munchkins are poor optimizers and use their rule bending/breaking as a crutch to make up for it.

Now, we can't definitively say the player this thread is about is a munchkin, but there are several indications that make it likely. Jumping from the DM saying "spellcasting for hire is available, but high level casters are rare" to "20th level caster is available so easily I can just say so" is a huge leap, the price he calculated is wrong in at least 2 ways, commissioning the buff goes against the spirit of the Vow in an extremely obvious and basic way, and his choice of Vow of Poverty and immature reaction to his Ultimate Combo being broken are typical of common behavior of munchkins.

It's possible that he genuinely misunderstood the DM's statement, really forgot both Permanency's XP cost and that it's a separate spell with its own level rather than copying what it's affecting, assumed everything beyond "no material possessions" and the bonuses list was fluff text he didn't need to read (and buffs aren't material), thought the Vow was very flavorful for a Monk, and thought the DM was being a deceitful betraying ******* taking back an agreed on bonus by DM fiat, but if so he really needs some education and extra maturity.

NichG
2011-01-25, 01:11 PM
Hahaha I agree.. Which is why VOP doesn't make sense for adventurers.

Also I would argue weather you realy own the spell when its permenancied... I meen if some one visous dispells you wouldn't the caster of the buff get hit.

I don't know Vicious Dispel off the top of my head, but something like Reciprocal Gyre affects the target of the spell not the caster.

You own it because you paid for a thing to be done to you that makes you more powerful. It is the equivalent of, say, getting plastic surgery. Getting plastic surgery at some point of your life and then taking poverty vows would be fine; getting plastic surgery a day before taking poverty vows feels like cheating the vow.

RagnaroksChosen
2011-01-25, 01:26 PM
...
Now, we can't definitively say the player this thread is about is a munchkin, but there are several indications that make it likely. Jumping from the DM saying "spellcasting for hire is available, but high level casters are rare" to "20th level caster is available so easily I can just say so" is a huge leap, the price he calculated is wrong in at least 2 ways, commissioning the buff goes against the spirit of the Vow in an extremely obvious and basic way, and his choice of Vow of Poverty and immature reaction to his Ultimate Combo being broken are typical of common behavior of munchkins.

I disagree about the 20th level thing. Alot of newer players make similar mistakes. not understanding the rarity. Going by what the OP said i would have made the same assumtions, there rare yes but he never said not to be allowed, nor where there any stimpulations on caster level. I know alot of GM's don't want to deal with the side quest of getting a hire level wizard to cast x on them.

Against the spirit of vow i disagree with as i've stated before. I agree though he did calculate the price wrong, im sure he misunderstood how permenancy worked even though he said he read it over.

I belive his over reaction wasn't to the fact that his ultimate combo was broken, it was more to the fact that after just getting it it was ripped away same session by a GM who allowed it. and that people where heckaling him. Again sounds like an inexperianced player(both in game and life), I;d be curious how old he is.



It's possible that he genuinely misunderstood the DM's statement, really forgot both Permanency's XP cost and that it's a separate spell with its own level rather than copying what it's affecting, assumed everything beyond "no material possessions" and the bonuses list was fluff text he didn't need to read (and buffs aren't material), thought the Vow was very flavorful for a Monk, and thought the DM was being a deceitful betraying ******* taking back an agreed on bonus by DM fiat, but if so he really needs some education and extra maturity.
OR didn't realise that the xp actualy cost gp.

I'm not saying the kid acted imaturly. I agree he did... But I can under stand where the kid was coming from. I know had i been in that group i prolly would have left the game as well. Though with more tact.

Starbuck_II
2011-01-25, 01:44 PM
I disagree about the 20th level thing. Alot of newer players make similar mistakes. not understanding the rarity. Going by what the OP said i would have made the same assumtions, there rare yes but he never said not to be allowed, nor where there any stimpulations on caster level. I know alot of GM's don't want to deal with the side quest of getting a hire level wizard to cast x on them.

Against the spirit of vow i disagree with as i've stated before. I agree though he did calculate the price wrong, im sure he misunderstood how permenancy worked even though he said he read it over.

I belive his over reaction wasn't to the fact that his ultimate combo was broken, it was more to the fact that after just getting it it was ripped away same session by a GM who allowed it. and that people where heckaling him. Again sounds like an inexperianced player(both in game and life), I;d be curious how old he is.


OR didn't realise that the xp actualy cost gp.

I'm not saying the kid acted imaturly. I agree he did... But I can under stand where the kid was coming from. I know had i been in that group i prolly would have left the game as well. Though with more tact.

Don't forget he lowered the durarion of Greater magic Fang to rounds/level without telling the kid.
He said a few rounds after Permanency was dispelled GMF ended.

RagnaroksChosen
2011-01-25, 01:46 PM
Don't forget he lowered the durarion of Greater magic Fang to rounds/level without telling the kid.
He said a few rounds after Permanency was dispelled GMF ended.

true true...

lesser_minion
2011-01-25, 01:55 PM
Don't forget he lowered the durarion of Greater magic Fang to rounds/level without telling the kid.
He said a few rounds after Permanency was dispelled GMF ended.

My understanding of the rules is that that's generous -- the instant the permanency is dispelled, the GMF ends, because its duration is set back to normal, which is far less than the amount of duration that would have already been 'expended' before the fight.

It's the same principle as with things that are limited to a certain number of uses per day -- you track the number of uses that have been expended, and compare it to the number of uses available, because this prevents characters using a single +stat item for effectively infinite uses of the ability.

Tyndmyr
2011-01-25, 01:55 PM
Don't forget he lowered the durarion of Greater magic Fang to rounds/level without telling the kid.
He said a few rounds after Permanency was dispelled GMF ended.

Honestly, it probably wouldn't have mattered. It's not like he could buy a new permanency. It's just a matter of when you get the reaction.

Jayabalard
2011-01-25, 02:04 PM
How does getting permanencied buffs casts before taking vop contridict vop.It's the equivalent to spending a week bouncing from brothel to brothel before taking a vow of chastity.

Not everyone who takes a vow of poverty gains powers... only those that really buy into what it means to own no wealth, that really sacrifice do... going out and spending your money on permanent advantages right before taking such a vow is contradictory with that.

Fawsto
2011-01-25, 02:08 PM
Holy cow!

That Lanky dude has some serious bad luck on him. Sorry, I was shocked when I discovered that both really bad gaming sessions happened to him.

Back to the topic:

Man... I've had some really long discussions about rules going on... The thing is, if the guy can't behave nice and respectful during a discussion, then things go to hell.

RagnaroksChosen
2011-01-25, 02:17 PM
It's the equivalent to spending a week bouncing from brothel to brothel before taking a vow of chastity.

Not everyone who takes a vow of poverty gains powers... only those that really buy into what it means to own no wealth, that really sacrifice do... going out and spending your money on permanent advantages right before taking such a vow is contradictory with that.

I guess... I don't got an argument for that. i disagree, and i can see how others could misunderstand it. To me the feat symbolises the backing of some other entity(ususaly a diety, or spirit etc), which then would require what ever was backing the VOPers view on it.

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2011-01-25, 02:59 PM
It's the equivalent to spending a week bouncing from brothel to brothel before taking a vow of chastity.

Not everyone who takes a vow of poverty gains powers... only those that really buy into what it means to own no wealth, that really sacrifice do... going out and spending your money on permanent advantages right before taking such a vow is contradictory with that.

I agree with this 100%. If a character desires to donate all his wealth to ease the suffering of those in need, he wouldn't start out by spending everything he has on himself. VoP is often treated as a purely mechanical cost-for-benefit, in which trivializing the cost has no drawback on the benefit. Every mechanical benefit printed in the BoED has a fairly steep RP prerequisite.

The VoP Monk charging the Wizard who was assisting the guards probably would have lost his exalted status by doing so, neither that wizard nor the guards were evil, they were actually acting in the best interests of the innocent citizens of that city, so attacking them should have been construed as not necessarily evil but definitely not something an exalted character would have done.

BoED is intended for mature players, because it takes maturity to adhere to the RP restrictions of playing an exalted character, which is required to gain any of the mechanical benefits printed in that book.

Jayabalard
2011-01-25, 03:10 PM
Don't forget he lowered the durarion of Greater magic Fang to rounds/level without telling the kid.
He said a few rounds after Permanency was dispelled GMF ended.but the duration of GMF would have already expired, since it had already been on for several days; without permanency to keep it on, it should have vanished immediately. The GM was nice enough to let him keep it on for a while rather than having it immediately disappear.


I guess... I don't got an argument for that. i disagree, and i can see how others could misunderstand it. To me the feat symbolises the backing of some other entity(ususaly a diety, or spirit etc), which then would require what ever was backing the VOPers view on it.Exalted feats don't require an outside power source; they are powered by the purity of the exalted individual alone.

Benly
2011-01-25, 03:12 PM
The VoP Monk charging the Wizard who was assisting the guards probably would have lost his exalted status by doing so, neither that wizard nor the guards were evil, they were actually acting in the best interests of the innocent citizens of that city, so attacking them should have been construed as not necessarily evil but definitely not something an exalted character would have done.

Leaving aside the rest of the arguments, because I've already weighed in and people have made their decisions so nobody's gonna be convinced, I don't think this is the case. Monks can deal nonlethal damage at will. I could certainly see an exalted character in this case jumping into an emerging violent situation to knock people out and prevent larger damage and casualties.

RagnaroksChosen
2011-01-25, 03:49 PM
Exalted feats don't require an outside power source; they are powered by the purity of the exalted individual alone.

I can't argue with that. atleast not on a forum to much ethical questions come up. Specificaly what qualifies as purity. which is why boed to me is divine/what not. But im not here to argue that point. All i'm saying is VoP when you don't know BOED very well can be mis construde for all kinds of things. Along with its RP requirements. All im getting at is intent of VOP is subject to opinion thats all. So saying he was going against the spirit of vop isn't a good reason to say hes a munchkin.

The Glyphstone
2011-01-25, 03:52 PM
I can't argue with that. atleast not on a forum to much ethical questions come up. Specificaly what qualifies as purity. which is why boed to me is divine/what not. But im not here to argue that point. All i'm saying is VoP when you don't know BOED very well can be mis construde for all kinds of things. Along with its RP requirements. All im getting at is intent of VOP is subject to opinion thats all. So saying he was going against the spirit of vop isn't a good reason to say hes a munchkin.

That's not what we've repeatedly argued though. It's been one of many points brought up against him, all of which are excusable in isolation, but together constitute pretty strong evidence of munchkinry. Tyndmyr put it best:



Ragnarok, it's not so much any one of those things, but the combo that screams munchkin. I can think of plausible reasons for getting the gold wrong. Or for messing up VoP and a buff. Or for finding a level 20 wizard when the GM said they are extremely rare. Etc, etc. The point is that each of these are fairly unlikely, and I find it difficult to believe that a clueless player acted so munchkiny repeatedly by random chance. The evidence strongly supports that the player was trying to game the system/gm for added power. Like the optimizer in his group, I would have been amused by the inevitable shutdown.

Greenish
2011-01-25, 04:00 PM
Holy cow!

That Lanky dude has some serious bad luck on him. Sorry, I was shocked when I discovered that both really bad gaming sessions happened to him.Both? It's a Trilogy!

Part One: The Insane DM (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23784) "I think I just dealt with the worst gaming session"
Part Two: The Stolen Story (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=93633) "In which the worst session comes back to haunt me. Sort of."
Part Three: The Fleshwound (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95189) "New Worst Session: How Lanky got hisself stabbed!"

Callista
2011-01-25, 04:13 PM
People like this are what ruined Vow of Poverty. I've wanted to try it for some time; but I'm just too leery of looking like some kind of munchkin for doing it. The sad thing is, it's not actually overpowered, and it's a great concept that just turns so many fantasy stereotypes on their heads. Playing a guy who cares so much about his god and his morals that he can get along with nothing but a robe, some shoes, and a day's worth of food is just... well, it's an odd kind of badass, really! Here's your paladin buddy, charging at the dragon with his fancy horse and his +5 sword and his tricked-out armor, gleaming with magic; and you're running at that same dragon with a plain old stick that isn't even pointy! That image--that is cool. I want to do that. But... like I said, the whole concept's just kind of ruined with all the munchkins trying to twist it into some kind of UberPC.

RagnaroksChosen
2011-01-25, 04:16 PM
That's not what we've repeatedly argued though. It's been one of many points brought up against him, all of which are excusable in isolation, but together constitute pretty strong evidence of munchkinry. Tyndmyr put it best:

Again i guess i've had all those things go wrong with party members that just didn't read into it enough. Granted not those exact things but similarly enough. And I do remember when i was younger and starting dnd hardcore(like late middle school) I remember making similar mistakes. What by it seems like your guy's definition of munchkinary we would all be, but it was just lack of understanding the system. Also not having an understanding of rarity(that was a big one for my group).
Which is why i have been harder on the GM as ultimatly any thing that gets into his game is his fault. As I know I as a gm have screwed up multiple times.
I also know as a player then when a GM lets something in and then is worried about balance if he handled it the way this particular GM did i would be rip ****.

I'm sorry i didn't respond to Tyndmyr. But I think the issue is yes he did it for power. He took a feat / spells/ what not that would boost his characters effectivness, was it a good RP choice for his character... I have no idea i don't know his character. Do i understand why he took it and do i think it was Just to "WIN" no. VOP is very monkish. Regardless of the exhalted feat.

Again all put to gether it just sounds like he was making a decision on trying to make his character better and not fully understanding the RP value. Which to be honest wasn't really stressed enough by the GM.

The issue he blew up about was the spell. and being backed into a corner. Which again is very reasonable with how things unfolded.

Mabye your guy's groups know the ins and outs of the system. I have a lot of players that i've been playing with since way back in the day that still have trouble building level 3 characters. I do know how there mentality goes and it is far from winning. even though they have made mistakes like the OP.
I know they look through books for abilities and feats they like and build fluff later. Are they munchkins far from it.. some times i wish they would power game more. Do they look at what a feat does and pick it because of the increase absolutely. I meen mabye if the kid was bragging or doing something that would indicate the intent to cheat or swindle the system, but to be honest the kids playing a druid/monk. That alone makes me look at it like he's hardly trying to cheat.
I know one of the players in my group has had issues with wizards from day one. Constently gets spells per day screwed up. reads tables wrong, ask's how many spells a wizard knows. such things. Hes a very casual gamer, comes to hang out with friends have a few beers, etc. Is he a munchkin because his characters power could be great because he screwed up? Or mis-read the rules? I know some of my players rely on me to check them because they do screw up. It's not like the player was hiding the issue.


Next session, the party sits down and gets ready to play. As sodas and snacks are being handed out and small talk made, I review the character sheets to update my quick-reference chart and notice something interesting on Marvin.
He's taken Vow of Poverty and has gained a permanent greater magic fang cast by a 20th-level caster. I queried the player on this, and he claimed Marvin leveled up to Monk 5, took Vow of Poverty, then paid 1,200 gold to get himself enchanted with greater magic fang and permanency by a level 20 wizard passing through the city.
Handwaving the fact that Marvin apparently didn't surrender his material wealth when he took Vow of Poverty (which got a couple side glances from the rules lawyer), nor did he pay the full amount for both spells; I asked the player if he was fully aware that permanency cast by a wizard onto someone else was affected normally by dispel. Marvin's player claimed that he fully read about the permanency spell, so I started the session.


There was no attempt to hide it to me the player didn't make it sound like he was trying to bend the system it just sounds like he did what he thought was going to make his character better. But to say he did it for sheer gain, honestly sounds like he did understand. But we may never know because the GM allowed it, didn't ask him why he had only paid 1,200gp, why he thought a 20th level wizard would throw spells at him for a reduced cost.
If you GM is lax about RP things then you can't say that he was breaking the spirit or intent of a feat or ability simply because the gm didn't care. In this case the gm only asked if the player knew that permenecy could be dispelled. That's all the GM cared about.


So,
Even with all this player's screw ups, which honestly just sounds like him being a casual player/newbie. there is no intent to "win" as you guys have said it. weather it was malis or not is the question which we can't prove one way or the other.


@Tyndmyr: Ultimatly i could see all that happen with some one who doesn't care that much about the system or whos just a casual player/some one who is new.

Pentachoron
2011-01-25, 04:19 PM
People like this are what ruined Vow of Poverty. I've wanted to try it for some time; but I'm just too leery of looking like some kind of munchkin for doing it. The sad thing is, it's not actually overpowered, and it's a great concept that just turns so many fantasy stereotypes on their heads. Playing a guy who cares so much about his god and his morals that he can get along with nothing but a robe, some shoes, and a day's worth of food is just... well, it's an odd kind of badass, really! Here's your paladin buddy, charging at the dragon with his fancy horse and his +5 sword and his tricked-out armor, gleaming with magic; and you're running at that same dragon with a plain old stick that isn't even pointy! That image--that is cool. I want to do that. But... like I said, the whole concept's just kind of ruined with all the munchkins trying to twist it into some kind of UberPC.

Sure, but considering a bigger defining characteristic of munchkinery is being severely gimped in the realm of role play, I'd think once you established yourself as competent most judging would go away.

Anyway, I'm in the camp that both the dm and marvin were wrong, however marvin was more wrong and good riddance.

MeeposFire
2011-01-25, 04:28 PM
The only thing I use VoP anymore on is NPCs as a way to give them the bonuses of equipment without giving them a full load of equipment so when I use NPCs as opponents I do not give out too much treasure. Notice that they do not actually have VoP they just use the bonuses.

I think this situation is just messed up. While I think the whole situation should not have been allowed in the first place, I fail to see how dispelling the man with the glowing fist would not be a good target for dispelling especially at the level the characters are playing +5 fists are dangerous (this was fairly low level right?).

aboyd
2011-01-25, 04:45 PM
Well, I'm really torn. When I read the OP, my thought was, "That player was warned over & over! Then he flips out when the warned-about consequence came true? No way! Tough luck for him!"

But then I read the replies and I have to concede something -- I hate it when a DM tells me something is OK and then proceeds to undermine it. And it's true that it happened in this case. So, hmm. Maybe the DM was wrong a bit.

Still, the DM gave warning after warning.

A while back, I took a feat that a DM didn't like. But he didn't say anything. I posted my character online for his review. I asked him about it. He hand-waved it as fine. Then I used it -- it was an immediate action feat, so I was able to use it to disrupt an enemy's attack even when it wasn't my turn. And the disruption very much upset the DM. By the second time I used it, he was arguing with me about it: "No! You can't use it like that! Just because! It doesn't work like that!"

So I had a feat whose primary awesomeness was that it could be used as an immediate action, and yet the DM gutted that very benefit mid-game. To say that I was annoyed would be a bit of an understatement.

In another game, I had a divine metamagic cleric, who had used the permanent metamagic to give himself the Ice Axe spell 24/7. On the very first day of doing this, every monster we fought had cold immunity. The DM metagaming continued into the next session, at which point I abandoned the spell, and suddenly the next batch of monsters did not have cold immunity. To say I was again annoyed would again be an understatement.

I would have much preferred if the DM had simply said, "I have house-ruled Ice Axe out of the game." Preferably, he would have done that at the start of the campaign, but even if he couldn't foresee that, it would have been nice to have him do that when I showed him my character. Waiting until we were in play sucked and I admit, it made me feel resentful toward the DM.

But again, what happened to me was slightly different. In the cases I've experienced, the DM allowed these things without reservation. In the case of the OP, the DM said "kinda maybe" and gave a list of obstacles, and repeatedly warned about how it could backfire. Was it wrong to have it backfire in game, rather than confine the issue to an out of game conversation? Yeah. But the DM got half way. He did issue warnings during an out of game conversation. From my reading of it, the warnings were pretty unmistakable. I would have taken the hint, had it been me.

RagnaroksChosen
2011-01-25, 04:54 PM
The only thing I use VoP anymore on is NPCs as a way to give them the bonuses of equipment without giving them a full load of equipment so when I use NPCs as opponents I do not give out too much treasure. Notice that they do not actually have VoP they just use the bonuses.

I think this situation is just messed up. While I think the whole situation should not have been allowed in the first place, I fail to see how dispelling the man with the glowing fist would not be a good target for dispelling especially at the level the characters are playing +5 fists are dangerous (this was fairly low level right?).

Fists don't glow when they have magic fang cast on them, as far as i know there is no indication save some sort of detection magic that the buff is cast. Actually from what i understand most buffs are like that.

Though I would agree with you if the op hadn't admitted that the cleric and ranger where better targets(aka im sure they where buffing pre combat or mid combat that said wizard could see)..

Arbitrarity
2011-01-25, 05:20 PM
^^

As *****. Player is a munchkin of typical order. Not good at what he does; cheesy.
Frankly, if you haven't seen "zomg VoP monk op" and "permanent GMF on monk" before, you probably don't know the history/metagame/classic munchkin tricks very well. The use of a very old combination, blatantly cheating on pricing, twisting the DM's words, and violation of the spirit of the Vow all shriek "MUNCHKIN" like my overweight friend running a Venerable Grey Elf Ultimate Magus (who promptly died due to having about 6 CON and 2 strength), followed by a Neanderthal Frenzied Berserker with flaws.

Except that game worked out pretty well, because I had a hand in bringing everyone who cared up to par. Everyone contributed, through a mix of Shape Spell Glitterdust, social chicanery (bard with +5 inspire courage at level 8? Ok), buffing, and a bit of DM fiat for the Druid (who rarely cast spells, and used Wild Shape and the Animal Companion purely for roleplaying purposes).

However, dealing with this sort of problem ingame in such a fashion is a bad choice. Warning a player "here are some potential consequences", then bringing those up CONSTANTLY is dumb, immersion-breaking, obvious metagaming, and basically gives the player's efforts to do something powerful a big "lolno".
It means they've wasted resources on a trick with no purpose. Sure, when we used Sculpted Glitterdust on every fight, the DM started using more monsters, some with higher will saves, and started giving monsters blindsense or alternative means of detection (which are pretty common, actually). However, it still worked, just not as well as it did initially. As a trick, you mitigate, not destroy, if possible.
Another important difference is he told us, out of game, what he thought of it. Sure, every fight opens with Sculpted Glitterdust, half the monsters are blind, next round, they're all blind. He noted that he found it difficult to make encounters challenging, and asked if we felt it was fair to give more monsters Blindsense, or even Blindsight. We romped through pretty much every fight, so we were ok with this.

The player-DM contract is best upheld with open, clear communication, and honesty. If I have a trick I think might be imbalanced/questionable (whether available immediately, or in the build's future), I will ask permission and note the arguments for and against its power/legality, and all of the resultant consequences I can think of.
By doing this openly, I give the DM greater opportunity to control the power level in his game, greater ability to understand my character capabilities, and better ability to tailor encounters, or simply to houserule. Simultaneously, this protects me from acts of fiat, because the DM knows what I can do, and has okayed it.
Suddenly whipping out Aboleth Mucous or Dust Grenades (or Dust of Choking and Sneezing) without warning will cause DM's to make irrational, punitative rulings. Comparatively, if you note the capabilities of such ahead of time, you give the DM the opportunity to make such rulings in a more generous mood, given that you're asking him for the ruling, rather than forcing him to rapidly create and enforce one.

I believe this sort of character discussion should be the norm for games. By presenting a coup d'etat, the player violated the agreement. The appropriate resolution is out of game, explaining the reasons why this presents a balance issue, and possibly why it is technically or arguably illegal.
A potential issue with this solution is it presupposes significant system knowledge on the part of both player and DM. As a player, you cannot use a trick you are not aware of, so you're protected by your own ignorance, to some extent. Tricks you are aware of, and can so can use, you are obligated to note. If your DM is ignorant, do your best to explain the potentials of each such trick, and try to have reasonable standards of balance to compare to (e.g. other players). As a DM, with problematic players, try to explain the social contract, terms, and consequences. If they do not agree, or are not willing to deal with the consequences, use your own discretion.

huttj509
2011-01-25, 06:40 PM
People like this are what ruined Vow of Poverty. I've wanted to try it for some time; but I'm just too leery of looking like some kind of munchkin for doing it. The sad thing is, it's not actually overpowered, and it's a great concept that just turns so many fantasy stereotypes on their heads. Playing a guy who cares so much about his god and his morals that he can get along with nothing but a robe, some shoes, and a day's worth of food is just... well, it's an odd kind of badass, really! Here's your paladin buddy, charging at the dragon with his fancy horse and his +5 sword and his tricked-out armor, gleaming with magic; and you're running at that same dragon with a plain old stick that isn't even pointy! That image--that is cool. I want to do that. But... like I said, the whole concept's just kind of ruined with all the munchkins trying to twist it into some kind of UberPC.


There is one thing VoP is unarguably very good for.

If you already wanted to play a character who forswore all material posessions and wealth, VoP offers a method to do that without being completely borked. The alternative would be to houserule "well....you donate this amount of gold and you get this bonus as if you got the item, or something?" Main VoP downside is it's less flexible than wealth, but it's more flexible than no wealth.

It's when come at from the other direction that it runs into issues of "not as good as it looks", "did you actually read the requirements", etc.

some guy
2011-01-25, 07:32 PM
So,
Even with all this player's screw ups, which honestly just sounds like him being a casual player/newbie. there is no intent to "win" as you guys have said it. weather it was malis or not is the question which we can't prove one way or the other.


@Tyndmyr: Ultimatly i could see all that happen with some one who doesn't care that much about the system or whos just a casual player/some one who is new.

I can understand your reasoning, but I have never met a casual player/newbie or someone who doesn't care about the system browse through non-core books. That could be different per group of course, but I think if your interest goes further than just core/SRD you aren't a casual player or non-caring about the system.
Perhaps if an option was pointed by someone else to casual player, then I could understand casual browsing.
Also, this player has shown a certain playfulness with the rules. Most casual gamers (in my experience) don't multiclass. Most casual gamers don't look for options outside their class, e.g. I don't think a casual gamer would look at a wizard spell if he's playing a druid.

Personal method:
I will allow most things in my games, provided if the player can bring the sourcebook to the game, will notify me upfront and ask for permission. I will ask the player to explain it to me, so our interpretation of the rules is at the same level.

Pigkappa
2011-01-25, 08:26 PM
Lesson to be learned: there are a few feats which can modify the game in a radical way (VoP, maybe divine metamagic, leadership...) and shouldn't be treated as common feats.

A player shouldn't just be able to take VoP and go on playing; he should speak with the DM for a long time before doing that, because disasters may happen when he later understands what "being unable to have money or magical items" means.

Also, VoP should affect roleplaying a lot; a character shouldn't take it without some decent in-game reason. Spending all of his money to become more powerful just before taking VoP made no sense.

sonofzeal
2011-01-25, 08:28 PM
The player was definitely a serious problem. He was obviously abusing the rules, and his rather immature reaction merely confirms how bad he was for your game.


That said, you crossed the line twice in how you handled it. First, the dispel. That's not cool, even if you had reason for it. If you didn't like him having it, you should have handled it out of game. Any player would feel abused in that sort of situation, where his favorite toy is ripped out of your hands without regards to the social conventions of the game. Honestly, it would have been better for you simply to have killed the character, "the berserker swings his x4 crit scythe at you and... oh daaaamn two nat 20's in a row, what's your hp again?" That's accepted under the social conventions. But robbing/breaking/loosing/dispelling their favorite toys is usually only something you should do rarely, and if they can regain what was lost with relative ease, or if it's a dramatic necessity of the story. That doesn't apply here, and I'd wager the average player would have resented you for it, although they may have handled it more maturely.

The other time you crossed the line is in physically assaulting the guy. You should not have initiated physical contact. He was not threatening you, and you had no reason that you mention in the first post to believe he posed any physical danger to you or anyone else there (although he might have damaged some books/minis). Using your size to intimidate him into leaving would have been warranted; grabbing him was not. That's assault. As far as I'm concerned, you lost any pretense of moral high ground when you grabbed the guy.

Oh, and a dearly hope "Marvin" was not his real name, or that'd be a third time you crossed the line.



So.... no. You were not in the right. He was a problem player and your group is better without him, but your handling of the situation was also far from ideal. I know that I'm coming to this a bit late and the situation's been dealt with already... but I really needed to say that.

aboyd
2011-01-25, 08:50 PM
I think calling it "assault" when you bum-rush an unwelcome guest out of your own home is a bit hyperbolic. Also, saying "you had no reason that you mention in the first post to believe he posed any physical danger" seems unfair considering that the OP did in fact say that the player slammed his fists into the table and then threw over the gaming table.

I may be a terrible person, but if someone came into my home and began overturning tables in anger, I think pushing them out would be the nice way to handle it. I have innocents in my house to protect. The lack of restraint shown by the player would -- in my home -- probably end either with me calling the police, or beating him into submission. Again, I understand that might paint me as a terrible person, and I'm sorry for feeling that way, but I put my family first. Someone that out of control is getting subdued, forcibly if necessary. And at least where I live, that's legally not assault -- it's castle doctrine. I'm legally allowed to meet force with force in my own home.

Maybe that's not the case for the OP, though. But even if it's not, I feel for him in that regard. Someone pitching a fit that involves breaking property or hurling property around is not someone safe, IMHO.

sonofzeal
2011-01-25, 08:55 PM
I'd evict him, certainly, but there's better ways to handle it - like demanding they leave. If they refuse, then maybe. But from what the OP posted it sounds like he jumped straight to physical force, and that's not a jump I like to see. He's unlikely to get in trouble for it, certainly, but again it was a bad way of handling a bad situation.

aboyd
2011-01-25, 08:59 PM
Fair enough. I would like to believe that in a similar situation, I would give the offending person time to leave, too. I suspect it depends upon how safe I feel, though. I worry that we don't have all the information at hand, and that since this is a difficult situation all around, we may be unfairly tarnishing the OP with a heavy allegation such as assault. That doesn't feel right to me.

But I do agree that "LEAVE NOW" is the first course of action in ideal situations.

stainboy
2011-01-25, 10:23 PM
It's hard to imagine Sintanan getting up, walking over to Marvin, and moving to grab him without Marvin having the opportunity to leave under his own power. I've seen a few people get thrown out of houses for disrespecting the host, and I've never seen the host just lunge at the out-of-line guest before he could say a word.

Regardless, Sintanan said in the OP that he asked Marvin to leave before Marvin shoved over the table.

Tyndmyr
2011-01-26, 10:05 AM
Fists don't glow when they have magic fang cast on them, as far as i know there is no indication save some sort of detection magic that the buff is cast. Actually from what i understand most buffs are like that.

If you're a decently leveled caster, and you don't utilize some sort of detection magic, well...you're passing up some very easy options. Detect magic is easier to get permanencied than GMF. Sure, you'll probably just have time to make out the glows, with no additional info, but that's enough to target a dispel decently.

Even without detection, the odds that a party with multiple casters would utilize buffs is pretty high. As a caster facing such a group, I'd likely still lead with a dispel. Who got the dispel would be entirely situational.

I agree that it probably would have been more fair to randomize who got the dispel or something, but tbh...eventually during gameplay the monk would have taken a dispel anyway. Delaying the taking away of his stuff likely wouldn't have solved anything.

He was warned that dispels were an issue. As a player, you've got two options for this. A. Take a different tactic. B. Find some way to negate dispels. Ignoring it and hoping it never comes up is not really realistic.

And yeah, flipping over tables and stuff is never ok. Removing him from your house when this happens is completely acceptable.


As for the accidental possibility...new players make very different types of mistakes from munchkins. They make lots, sure, but they generally are a mix, with some being good for them, some being bad for them, and some just being different. It's stuff like calculating to-hit wrong or not understanding stacking bonuses and the like. It generally doesn't involve a questionable combination of stuff from several books to net as much mechanical advantage as possible. That's munchkin territory.

RagnaroksChosen
2011-01-26, 10:23 AM
If you're a decently leveled caster, and you don't utilize some sort of detection magic, well...you're passing up some very easy options. Detect magic is easier to get permanencied than GMF. Sure, you'll probably just have time to make out the glows, with no additional info, but that's enough to target a dispel decently.

Even without detection, the odds that a party with multiple casters would utilize buffs is pretty high. As a caster facing such a group, I'd likely still lead with a dispel. Who got the dispel would be entirely situational.

I agree that it probably would have been more fair to randomize who got the dispel or something, but tbh...eventually during gameplay the monk would have taken a dispel anyway. Delaying the taking away of his stuff likely wouldn't have solved anything.

I agree with you about that eventualy he would have but tbh even the OP said that the more logical targets was the cleric and ranger. But i agree it would have happened eventualy, I just think its ****ty that the gm metagamed the dispell because he wanted it gone. That's not cool. It would have been different if that was the logical target or all the other targets had been hit with a dispell. However thats not the case the GM specificaly targeted him. Plus getting 2-3 sessions with the bonus's to have them then taken away is better(assuming the gm was actualy ok with the buff)



He was warned that dispels were an issue. As a player, you've got two options for this. A. Take a different tactic. B. Find some way to negate dispels. Ignoring it and hoping it never comes up is not really realistic.

And yeah, flipping over tables and stuff is never ok. Removing him from your house when this happens is completely acceptable.

Ya flipping over tables is never ok. Forced removal for it also ok. I agree one hundred percent, Is the group better off without Marvin mabye... is this the GM's fault, absolutely.



As for the accidental possibility...new players make very different types of mistakes from munchkins. They make lots, sure, but they generally are a mix, with some being good for them, some being bad for them, and some just being different. It's stuff like calculating to-hit wrong or not understanding stacking bonuses and the like. It generally doesn't involve a questionable combination of stuff from several books to net as much mechanical advantage as possible. That's munchkin territory.

I guess, Again i've had it happen. We have stacks of books around are gaming table and some of the newer players will dig through them and find nifty little feats that synergise with other feats/powers they have seen and will try to get it to combo to gether correctly... Honestly I think its because they want to optimise they just don't have the experiance... I know i had a problem player that wanted to optimise realy bad and would definetly fall into the wants to optimise but fails because he falls into the obvious trap. It wasn't to try to win it was because he wanted to optimise a bit, Is he a munchkin?

Tyndmyr
2011-01-26, 10:33 AM
Sure, but when you tell them they're doing questionable stuff, and point out the problems, do they just carry on anyway, ignoring the problems?

Anybody can make a mistake. However, people who do so accidentally generally try to fix them.

RagnaroksChosen
2011-01-26, 11:00 AM
Sure, but when you tell them they're doing questionable stuff, and point out the problems, do they just carry on anyway, ignoring the problems?

Anybody can make a mistake. However, people who do so accidentally generally try to fix them.

Yes and that is the reason why in this situation the gm is at fault. The whole thing could have been prevented if he just explained why those where bad decisions, and double check with him to make sure he understood.


For example. A player wanted to play a hound archon had one built (game was ecl 15)[I don't remember hound archon stats off my head so these are aproximates]. 7 la and then 8 levels of fighter. Completly ignoring the Racial HD.
If I had said sure. Even telling him that it was ok or warning him that hes more prone to get harrased by normal huminods. then during the first session i had polymorphed other him into something else, i would have been doing exactly what the gm in the OP had done. I'm sure my player would have been pissed. May have left the group.
Now what actualy happened is me and him sat down and re built his character which after factoring in the racial HD he didn't want to play it any more and made a different type of fighter.

There was no attempt to stop the issue. He just warned the player that it could happen. Then specifically targeted him because of the bonus he just let him have.

If the player had argued with the gm and then the gm relented I'd be more inclined to agree with you. But it isn't aparent to me that the player was informed properly, (he may have been told about dispelling he may have said that he knew, or thought he knew) but it is very obvious he didn't understand the situation.

Tyndmyr
2011-01-26, 11:07 AM
Yes and that is the reason why in this situation the gm is at fault. The whole thing could have been prevented if he just explained why those where bad decisions, and double check with him to make sure he understood.

He did.

Note that he specifically said that while the player could find a caster for GMF, finding a higher level caster was not really a thing. Player opted to buy permanency anyway. It's fairly trivial to realize that permanency is a higher level spell than GMF. Any possible way of finding permanency would reveal this. Assuming he had the help of a 20th level caster goes against what the GM directed him.

The GM then explained the dispel problem. The player assured him he was aware. How can this possibly be construed as anything other than a warning of the problem?

Not to mention the player demanding his money back despite VoP. I can only assume that he didn't read anything in Vow Of POVERTY other than the bonuses listed.

There is a point at which innocent mistakes become obviously the fault of the person who put forth absolutely no effort to avoid them. A player who makes such extremely little effort to understand the rules, or what the GM directly tells him is still someone the party is much better off without.

Sucrose
2011-01-26, 11:13 AM
Yes and that is the reason why in this situation the gm is at fault. The whole thing could have been prevented if he just explained why those where bad decisions, and double check with him to make sure he understood.


For example. A player wanted to play a hound archon had one built (game was ecl 15)[I don't remember hound archon stats off my head so these are aproximates]. 7 la and then 8 levels of fighter. Completly ignoring the Racial HD.
If I had said sure. Even telling him that it was ok or warning him that hes more prone to get harrased by normal huminods. then during the first session i had polymorphed other him into something else, i would have been doing exactly what the gm in the OP had done. I'm sure my player would have been pissed. May have left the group.
Now what actualy happened is me and him sat down and re built his character which after factoring in the racial HD he didn't want to play it any more and made a different type of fighter.

There was no attempt to stop the issue. He just warned the player that it could happen. Then specifically targeted him because of the bonus he just let him have.

If the player had argued with the gm and then the gm relented I'd be more inclined to agree with you. But it isn't aparent to me that the player was informed properly, (he may have been told about dispelling he may have said that he knew, or thought he knew) but it is very obvious he didn't understand the situation.
Thing is, the OP didn't say 'sure.' He said 'it's not really feasible,' which the player took as 'can be done' or 'yes.' Also, it's not saying 'you will be harassed' and then polymorphing him. It's 'you will be harassed' and then harassing him. He specifically warned that dispels could be a problem. Dispels came up, perhaps a bit sooner than they could have otherwise. The player threw a fit.

RagnaroksChosen
2011-01-26, 11:20 AM
He did.

Note that he specifically said that while the player could find a caster for GMF, finding a higher level caster was not really a thing. Player opted to buy permanency anyway. It's fairly trivial to realize that permanency is a higher level spell than GMF. Any possible way of finding permanency would reveal this. Assuming he had the help of a 20th level caster goes against what the GM directed him.

Actualy the gm just said that high level wizards are rare. and then when he made the changes the gm didn't care that he had used a 20th level wizard as he let the character changes hit play. So no contridiction there. Saying that they are rare and what not is not saying no. Especially to younger/newer players.




The GM then explained the dispel problem. The player assured him he was aware. How can this possibly be construed as anything other than a warning of the problem?

Not to mention the player demanding his money back despite VoP. I can only assume that he didn't read anything in Vow Of POVERTY other than the bonuses listed.

The player assured the GM he had read over permenancy. Which does talk about dispells, but again judging by how this player has acted and built his character it is very clear he doesn't have a solid grasp on the game.

I honestly don't think the player did read VOP im not arguing that. I'm not faulting the player for that. I know i've grabbed feats because I liked the concept and didn't read the feat clearly, or thought it worked on way or the other. Or when i was initialy reading it i missed a line or two.



There is a point at which innocent mistakes become obviously the fault of the person who put forth absolutely no effort to avoid them. A player who makes such extremely little effort to understand the rules, or what the GM directly tells him is still someone the party is much better off without.
I'm not saying that the the group isn't better off.. I know my group may be better off without some of my players simply because they like rping and hate learning the crunch. **** sometimes we have to stop combat so they can recalculate there attack bonus's because buffs changed it and then two people check it. Are we better off from your stand point yes. But I wouldn't drop them from my group if my life depended on it, because i enjoy there company or they wouldn't be in my group in the first place.


I know people are more inclined to say the player was a DB in this case, simply because he flipped. I agree he was a DB for that. Could this all have been prevented if the GM had done his job and double checked the character and said no thats breaking the rules... nope. Honestly with a gm metagaming said dispell I would question weather or not that gm could be trusted.

RagnaroksChosen
2011-01-26, 11:29 AM
Thing is, the OP didn't say 'sure.' He said 'it's not really feasible,' which the player took as 'can be done' or 'yes.' Also, it's not saying 'you will be harassed' and then polymorphing him. It's 'you will be harassed' and then harassing him. He specifically warned that dispels could be a problem. Dispels came up, perhaps a bit sooner than they could have otherwise. The player threw a fit.

The gm said that it was rare, then allowed him to play with the character which in essence is giving his seal of aproval.

Tyndmyr
2011-01-26, 11:34 AM
Actualy the gm just said that high level wizards are rare. and then when he made the changes the gm didn't care that he had used a 20th level wizard as he let the character changes hit play. So no contridiction there. Saying that they are rare and what not is not saying no. Especially to younger/newer players.

He said "high-levels casters are rare and not known for helping strangers knocking on their door".

Note that last part. That's saying no and giving a reason why not. Reasons are good. He shouldn't have to say no repeatedly. Your players should not act like spoiled children.


The player assured the GM he had read over permenancy. Which does talk about dispells, but again judging by how this player has acted and built his character it is very clear he doesn't have a solid grasp on the game.

The GM explicitly mentioned dispel as removing permanency. You can't get more clear than that.

And if the player ensures the GM that he read the info and understands it, when he has not in fact done either, then the fault lies with the player.


I honestly don't think the player did read VOP im not arguing that. I'm not faulting the player for that. I know i've grabbed feats because I liked the concept and didn't read the feat clearly, or thought it worked on way or the other. Or when i was initialy reading it i missed a line or two.

It is the responsibility of the player to know what their character does. I understand mistakes, but if you don't realize that taking VOW OF POVERTY indicates that you'll be poor...you've not even bothered to read the title, or have a remarkably low level of reading comprehension.


I know people are more inclined to say the player was a DB in this case, simply because he flipped. I agree he was a DB for that. Could this all have been prevented if the GM had done his job and double checked the character and said no thats breaking the rules... nope. Honestly with a gm metagaming said dispell I would question weather or not that gm could be trusted.

Dispel is a legitimate tactic. GMs always metagame. Designing encounters with your players in mind? Yes...that is metagaming. But it's not bad. Taking an area dispel that hits all the melee folks? Not at all crazy. Believe me, I'll call out bad GMing when it occurs, but this is pretty standard fare. I wouldn't distrust a GM merely because of a single dispel.

The GM could indeed have said no over and over. He does not have to. Once should be enough. Warning of a specific danger, then later using that danger is also quite fair.

Callista
2011-01-26, 11:37 AM
He said "high-levels casters are rare and not known for helping strangers knocking on their door".

Note that last part. That's saying no and giving a reason why not. Reasons are good. He shouldn't have to say no repeatedly. Your players should not act like spoiled children.
I would have taken it to mean I would have to RP getting the spell and talking said wizard into it, not necessarily "no" categorically, but it does obviously mean "No, you can't take it without justification."

Sucrose
2011-01-26, 11:44 AM
The gm said that it was rare, then allowed him to play with the character which in essence is giving his seal of aproval.

He allowed it after expressing several reservations, and warning of dangers. That's not a seal of approval. That's barely a hastily written note to the effect. Anyone with basic understanding of the social contract would be careful after receiving such a hesitant response, and would not be upset if dangers that have been explicitly mentioned came up.

Tyndmyr
2011-01-26, 11:46 AM
Also fair.

Note that this was the player asking about GMF, and the player asked about that, not the permanency(ie, the part of the combo likely to be said no to).

It certainly wasn't reasonable for the player to assume that such a cautionary note is permission to have whatever he wanted cast by a level 20 wizard.

RagnaroksChosen
2011-01-26, 11:48 AM
He said "high-levels casters are rare and not known for helping strangers knocking on their door".

Note that last part. That's saying no and giving a reason why not. Reasons are good. He shouldn't have to say no repeatedly. Your players should not act like spoiled children.

True you shouldn't have to say no. But if a gm where to tell me that, if i could afford it(which i know the player didn't do the gold correctly), and i came to game with the enhancement cast from a 20th level caster and he didn't say no i'd assume he was ok with it. Some gm's don't mind not having a good detailed story for how they help was gained.




The GM explicitly mentioned dispel as removing permanency. You can't get more clear than that.

And if the player ensures the GM that he read the info and understands it, when he has not in fact done either, then the fault lies with the player.

I can't argue with your secound point there as you are correct. However i know i've been in a position where I belive i know and understand something and i say do because honestly i do.



It is the responsibility of the player to know what their character does. I understand mistakes, but if you don't realize that taking VOW OF POVERTY indicates that you'll be poor...you've not even bothered to read the title, or have a remarkably low level of reading comprehension.

I agree but the level of what is considered poor. Like i mentioned before i don't consider buffs a breach of VOP. There not material. I know thats a matter of opinion but i can imagine alot of PC's would easily belive that and or could think that even after reading the feat.



Dispel is a legitimate tactic. GMs always metagame. Designing encounters with your players in mind? Yes...that is metagaming. But it's not bad. Taking an area dispel that hits all the melee folks? Not at all crazy. Believe me, I'll call out bad GMing when it occurs, but this is pretty standard fare. I wouldn't distrust a GM merely because of a single dispel.

The GM could indeed have said no over and over. He does not have to. Once should be enough. Warning of a specific danger, then later using that danger is also quite fair.

Yes but the problem is when gm specificaly targets the monk even though he knows its better tossed at the cleric and ranger.
Designing encounters to your party I agree with. But specifcaly targeting a new thing a pc got is bad gming. Its like a pc picking up a flaming sword and then suddenly every npc they come accross has fire resistence or immunity. Did the gm metagame it yes. is it bad gming absolutly. I would agree with your statement about metagmaming if it made sense but clearly the gm belive that (and what seems to me on a both ingame and out of game level) that the cleric and ranger where better targets, but instead he targets the monk because he was worried about balance of the game. That my friend is bad GMing.
When i gm i try to look at it from the NPC. Would the npc know that he has permenencied GMF no. does the NPC know that the cleric probebly has buffs cast (cuz he saw it or just cuz he belives clerics buff alot) yes, gm even said it.

I wouldn't argue about it if the monk was within the area dispell of a good target like in the example the op gave, if he was standing next to the cleric. then yes i would agree. but he wasn't the gm targeted him specificaly because opf the buff.

aboyd
2011-01-26, 11:48 AM
The gm said that it was rare, then allowed him to play with the character which in essence is giving his seal of aproval.
He did give his seal of approval, true. However, what he approved was not a "this is free and clear" scenario. He gave his seal of approval to "you have something that can be dispelled." He stated that multiple times. The player should have known he had something very fragile.

I don't hit my players with dispels every battle, or even every game. However, I used one in the last game I ran, and they come up often enough that any permanent effect is at risk. If my players shrug off that possibility, I'm not going to change my play style to make it easier on them.

RagnaroksChosen
2011-01-26, 11:52 AM
He allowed it after expressing several reservations, and warning of dangers. That's not a seal of approval. That's barely a hastily written note to the effect. Anyone with basic understanding of the social contract would be careful after receiving such a hesitant response, and would not be upset if dangers that have been explicitly mentioned came up.

He had reservations about the permancy.

He then let it into his game any way. That's a seal of approval if you ask me. If i let something into a game im saying its ok to use. Therefore giving the seal of approval. Maybe im not gun hoe about the idea but i still approved it.

If a gm hesitates and says ok any way i assume that he wasn't sure and thought about it, but if a gm lets it hit game then hes ok with it.


If the gm let it hit play and hes not ok with it... then again that's a failure on the GM's part.

Tyndmyr
2011-01-26, 11:58 AM
True you shouldn't have to say no. But if a gm where to tell me that, if i could afford it(which i know the player didn't do the gold correctly), and i came to game with the enhancement cast from a 20th level caster and he didn't say no i'd assume he was ok with it. Some gm's don't mind not having a good detailed story for how they help was gained.

The GM approved GMF. This is what, requiring a level 5 druid? AND he added a caveat about high level casters.

That ain't "hey, lets go get permanency from a level 20 wizard". Those two things are not the same at all.


I agree but the level of what is considered poor. Like i mentioned before i don't consider buffs a breach of VOP. There not material. I know thats a matter of opinion but i can imagine alot of PC's would easily belive that and or could think that even after reading the feat.

I see that as arguable either way. I would as a GM even allow it if the character happened to have buffs from well before he changed his goals and took the vow.

Taking the vow and later buying the buff? Hah, no. Getting money BACK for the buff after taking the vow? No.


Yes but the problem is when gm specificaly targets the monk even though he knows its better tossed at the cleric and ranger.

He hit "the melee characters". Not just the monk. It's not an unreasonable targetting, and not every NPC always does the perfectly optimal thing.

You have to target PCs with attacks at some point. How you determine that is up to you, but this isn't that unfair. I certainly wouldn't call it bad GMing.

RagnaroksChosen
2011-01-26, 11:58 AM
I agree 100%. But targeting the PC because of the buff he just let through is bad. very bad.

Tyndmyr
2011-01-26, 12:01 PM
I agree 100%. But targeting the PC because of the buff he just let through is bad. very bad.

It's a single event. Sure, if he always targeted dispels at the player till he failed....then yes, I would agree with you. It'd be bad. But it's a single event. A single area dispel.

Area dispelling the melee team coming at you is reasonable. I might target a cleric, sure...but even as a player, a dispel on the melee team followed by breaking LOS with the ranged folks? Solid tactic. Casters buffing up melee buddies is a common thing.

RagnaroksChosen
2011-01-26, 12:06 PM
The GM approved GMF. This is what, requiring a level 5 druid? AND he added a caveat about high level casters.

That ain't "hey, lets go get permanency from a level 20 wizard". Those two things are not the same at all.

He aproved of it by letting him start the session with said buffs therefor it was aproved.




I see that as arguable either way. I would as a GM even allow it if the character happened to have buffs from well before he changed his goals and took the vow.

Taking the vow and later buying the buff? Hah, no. Getting money BACK for the buff after taking the vow? No.

I look at it as if a wizard with VOP had his spell componet pouch destroyed and asking for it to be replaced by the gaurds seeing as he can't have money.
I agree the player didn't handle this in game very well, though im sure at this point he was already frustrated and defensive. Not an acuse i agree. but its something to be aware of in the grand scheme of things.
During the leveling proccess of him getting the buff could happen of getting the buff before the vow, if it was after, the GM allowed it.



He hit "the melee characters". Not just the monk. It's not an unreasonable targetting, and not every NPC always does the perfectly optimal thing.

You have to target PCs with attacks at some point. How you determine that is up to you, but this isn't that unfair. I certainly wouldn't call it bad GMing.

No he didn't hit the melee attackers he points out that he should have hit the ranger and the cleric, but instead delibertly changes the area dispell to the monk who in game was never seen buffed by the cleric cuz he had run off.



On the wizard's turn, he drops a greater dispel magic as an area effect on the melee attackers (misses the cleric and ranged to hit Marvin) remove a few combat buffs. Since Marvin was basically off doing his lone wolf bit at the time, he wasn't buffed with anything, which results in one of two spells on him that can be targeted (permanency or greater magic fang).



Now, I know tactically the wizard should have aimed to hit the cleric and ranger instead of reducing potential targets by one to hit the prone monk, and Marvin probably saw this as a personal attack. But at the time, I didn't see any other way to bring the monk back into balance with the party as a whole (I mean, a 6th level with basically a freebie +5 weapon...), and I didn't want to waste any more time arguing with someone being unreasonable.

Tyndmyr
2011-01-26, 12:28 PM
He aproved of it by letting him start the session with said buffs therefor it was aproved.

After pointing out that it was horribly vulnerable to dispelling.

And then, later, used dispelling. That shouldn't have been a surprise.


I look at it as if a wizard with VOP had his spell componet pouch destroyed and asking for it to be replaced by the gaurds seeing as he can't have money.

No, no...VoP covers spell component pouches. Plus, you're talking a 5gp item compared to expensive buffs from level 20 casters. They ain't the same.


No he didn't hit the melee attackers he points out that he should have hit the ranger and the cleric, but instead delibertly changes the area dispell to the monk who in game was never seen buffed by the cleric cuz he had run off.

See that quote of yours there? Second from the bottom?

"On the wizard's turn, he drops a greater dispel magic as an area effect on the melee attackers (misses the cleric and ranged to hit Marvin) remove a few combat buffs. Since Marvin was basically off doing his lone wolf bit at the time, he wasn't buffed with anything, which results in one of two spells on him that can be targeted (permanency or greater magic fang)."

I'm not sure what the rest of the situation is, and what lead to Marvin not being buffed, but I see an indication of multiple melee people being targeted.

RagnaroksChosen
2011-01-26, 12:36 PM
See that quote of yours there? Second from the bottom?

"On the wizard's turn, he drops a greater dispel magic as an area effect on the melee attackers (misses the cleric and ranged to hit Marvin) remove a few combat buffs. Since Marvin was basically off doing his lone wolf bit at the time, he wasn't buffed with anything, which results in one of two spells on him that can be targeted (permanency or greater magic fang)."

I'm not sure what the rest of the situation is, and what lead to Marvin not being buffed, but I see an indication of multiple melee people being targeted.

Errr I should have phrased that differently I appologise. What I meant is that he admits that he specifically targets marvin do to balance issues. Even though he knows he should have targeted the cleric and ranger. Again he specificaly targeted marvin based on the ability he let him have. That is bad gming.

I'm not saying that targeting the melee isn't a good idea. I'm saying that the GM delibratly targeted the monk because of the buff. Which to me is bad gming.

Tyndmyr
2011-01-26, 12:37 PM
*could have targetted the cleric and ranger.

There was no particular in game reason given why he had to.

Sometimes the people who try to make their characters the most powerful in the party soak a few extra hits as a result. This isn't necessarily bad.

RagnaroksChosen
2011-01-26, 12:41 PM
*could have targetted the cleric and ranger.

There was no particular in game reason given why he had to.

Sometimes the people who try to make their characters the most powerful in the party soak a few extra hits as a result. This isn't necessarily bad.

The key was should have but he only targeted the monk because of what he allowed into his game.

And I agree with you about taking soaks. But i meen realy a druid/monk? Seriously?

This guy was far from powerfull even with the buff.

Tyndmyr
2011-01-26, 12:45 PM
There's nothing weak about druid/monk.

Monk in a two level dip is great. Druid is tier 1. So...he took two more levels of monk than he should have. Not optimal, but not horrific. I suspect the druid dip was to pick up the animal companion.

Toss on a +5 GMF, and he's almost certainly better off than the straight fighter and barb characters. Neither of those sound terribly optimized.

RagnaroksChosen
2011-01-26, 12:46 PM
There's nothing weak about druid/monk.

Monk in a two level dip is great. Druid is tier 1. So...he took two more levels of monk than he should have. Not optimal, but not horrific. I suspect the druid dip was to pick up the animal companion.

Toss on a +5 GMF, and he's almost certainly better off than the straight fighter and barb characters. Neither of those sound terribly optimized.

Would you agree that it is bad form for a gm to specifically target something he just allowed in his game?

Ignoring how the player reacted to it.

Escheton
2011-01-26, 12:51 PM
I like how this just sorta became a conversation between the two of you...

Greenish
2011-01-26, 12:53 PM
Would you agree that it is bad form for a gm to specifically target something he just allowed in his game?I wouldn't. Just because something is allowed doesn't mean it's invulnerable to all the effects that could affect it in-game. Especially when the DM specifically warns that it can happen.

Tyndmyr
2011-01-26, 12:53 PM
It depends on the level and appropriateness of the targeting. If one player plays a character who somehow has a ridiculous amount of wealth, it is reasonable for him to be a target of left.

If one character is the most powerful thanks to uberbuffs, it is reasonable for him to be a target of dispel.

In neither case should it ever be a constant event, but as a one time thing? Quite fair. In both cases there are in-character reasons for this, as well as the GM's out of character motivation. It would be unfair if it were something entirely unjustified in the game world(like the aforementioned everyone being immune to cold damage).

It is quite reasonable for a caster to opt to area dispel the three melee guys closing in on him.

Jayabalard
2011-01-26, 12:57 PM
Would you agree that it is bad form for a gm to specifically target something he just allowed in his game?No, especially since the player had already been warned about the fragility of it.

Greenish
2011-01-26, 12:59 PM
If one player plays a character who somehow has a ridiculous amount of wealth, it is reasonable for him to be a target of left.Political commentary or innocent spelling error? You decide!

RagnaroksChosen
2011-01-26, 01:05 PM
ok not gonna quote people just gonna go down the list.


@Escheton:
Feel free to throw in your opinion.

@Greenish:
I agree with you 100%. I think its poor form if I found a combo that a gm let me play with and then in the same session he took it away. And for the reasons he did i think are bad.
If I went to one of the gm's in any of the games i play in currently and asked for a specific combo, I would expect the gm to not take that away the first session i have it because he believed he messed up.

@Tyndmyr:
agreed on your first point.

also agreed on your secound point.

Third point i agree with to a degree.

I disagree with your last statement as the out of game situation should not have influenced the in game tactic. I hate when gm's do that.
On an in game level IF we look at the situation we know the wizard knew the cleric was buffing the party. We know the cleric didn't hit monk with buffs. We know that the wizard is aware that the cleric didn't buff the monk.
The GM admits that he didn't target the monk because he thought it was what the wizard should do, He targeted the monk because of what he allowed.


I would whole heartedly agree with you if the wizard detected the buffs on the monk or knew the monk was buffed. But he didn't. That is further prooven by the secound quote in my above post. That the GM wasn't looking at an in game reason he did it because of an out of game reason. If i knew a GM did that i wouldn't trust them to GM.


@Jayabalard I agree i was specifcaly meening that he was targeting the ability because he let it through.

Tyndmyr
2011-01-26, 01:06 PM
Political commentary or innocent spelling error? You decide!

Taken together with the title of this thread, you sir, win one(1) internet.

Starbuck_II
2011-01-26, 01:07 PM
Political commentary or innocent spelling error? You decide!

Can it be both?

Not sure how left and money correlate though. Than again as a left handed person I agree we deserve the money.

Greenish
2011-01-26, 01:12 PM
@Greenish:
I agree with you 100%.No, you don't. If I think something is not bad form, and you think it is bad form, that means you don't agree with me 100%, 50% or even 10%.

Jayabalard
2011-01-26, 01:12 PM
@Jayabalard I agree i was specifcaly meening that he was targeting the ability because he let it through.So? As I said, I see no problem with it.

Tyndmyr
2011-01-26, 01:21 PM
If a DM takes action for an OOC reason, he needs to justify it in game. That's it. So you designed a dungeon with five encounters because that's all you think they can handle? Great. Make the dungeon such that it makes sense in game. Done deal.

Metagaming considerations are always part of DMing. You cannot really dispense with them in a game like D&D. You can merely ensure that they fit the context of the game well, so they don't break immersion. A wizard dispelling a melee team is not immersion breaking. Everyone for days being immune to cold without explanation is. See the difference?

RagnaroksChosen
2011-01-26, 01:45 PM
Greenish
I agree that just because a gm lets you have something does not make it invulnerable. What i don't like is when a gm rips something from you because he decided that he shouldn't allow. To me thats a jerk GM. If he wasn't a jerk gm he would have talked to the player about it.

Jayabalard:
That's fine. I will have to agree to disagree. I think its terrible form to do that.


Tyndmyr:


If a DM takes action for an OOC reason, he needs to justify it in game. That's it. So you designed a dungeon with five encounters because that's all you think they can handle? Great. Make the dungeon such that it makes sense in game. Done deal.

Thats not an OOC action thats design. I'm talking about well this kid pissed me off today so instead of doing what i believe in game is correct im going to make sure he gets hit with x ability. that is the kind of OOC i was talking about. Not about designing an encounter.





Metagaming considerations are always part of DMing. You cannot really dispense with them in a game like D&D. You can merely ensure that they fit the context of the game well, so they don't break immersion. A wizard dispelling a melee team is not immersion breaking. Everyone for days being immune to cold without explanation is. See the difference?
I disagree you can gm with out taking OOC issues or things. I know every one makes mistakes but to be so blatent about it... breaking Immersion is why is he targeting the monk who clearly has no magic items on him and wasn't hit with the clerics buffs.(now what we don't know is did the cleric buff him self and the ranger as well?).
I know when i gm i try to not metagame the npcs. I look at it as what does this NPC know about the party. If theres nothing ok who has an item that looks magic(aka flaming swords, ioun stones, etc) if there are any buffs that the NPC knows about. Another example. We had a cleric in my group. Who wore full plate and carried around a greatsword. He had a feat that allowed him not to carry around a focus. so he choose to not adorn his armour with holy symbols. When the where in conflics if he hadn't cast any spells or made it known that he was a cleric. The npc's treated him like a fighter, they had no reason to belive he wasn't. He got the drop on alot of NPC's by suddently breaking out a cleric spell.

TheCountAlucard
2011-01-26, 02:51 PM
Would you agree that it is bad form for a gm to specifically target something he just allowed in his game?

Ignoring how the player reacted to it.Not at all. Heck, in my Exalted game that I'm planning for Saturday, I told the players that I was allowing them to take flaws. Two of the players immediately picked up some flaws with real potential to screw over their characters (basically making their characters wanted men and known targets of the big bad evil empire), so if anyone intends to tell me that it's "bad form" to use this against them, I can tell them to go straight to Malfeas. :smallamused:

RagnaroksChosen
2011-01-26, 02:57 PM
Not at all. Heck, in my Exalted game that I'm planning for Saturday, I told the players that I was allowing them to take flaws. Two of the players immediately picked up some flaws with real potential to screw over their characters (basically making their characters wanted men and known targets of the big bad evil empire), so if anyone intends to tell me that it's "bad form" to use this against them, I can tell them to go straight to Malfeas. :smallamused:


hahah fair enough.

To me that is different.

Elric VIII
2011-01-26, 03:24 PM
I've been following this thread for some time now and I would like to pose a question on an argument that has been used multiple times, throughout.

It has been said that the DM's choice of targetting Marvin was metagaming. The reason was that the DM knew that the Cleric and Ranger had better buffs. It has also been speculated that the Wizard had no way of knowing the exact nature of the buff on Marvin; this leads me to believe that the same is true of his knowledge of the other players.

So, if the DM knew that the Ranger and Cleric were potentially better targets, wouldn't it be metagaming as well by choosing targets for OOC, mechanical reasons?

Or, if the Wizard somehow knew what buffs were on the Ranger and Cleric, he should be able to tell that Marvin has a much stronger/higher level buff on him, Right?

Starbuck_II
2011-01-26, 03:27 PM
I've been following this thread for some time now and I would like to pose a question on an argument that has been used multiple times, throughout.

It has been said that the DM's choice of targetting Marvin was metagaming. The reason was that the DM knew that the Cleric and Ranger had better buffs. It has also been speculated that the Wizard had no way of knowing the exact nature of the buff on Marvin; this leads me to believe that the same is true of his knowledge of the other players.

So, if the DM knew that the Ranger and Cleric were potentially better targets, wouldn't it be metagaming as well by choosing targets for OOC, mechanical reasons?

Or, if the Wizard somehow knew what buffs were on the Ranger and Cleric, he should be able to tell that Marvin has a much stronger/higher level buff on him, Right?
But he could also tell Marvin was a monk without metagaming.

This would tell him the Cleric and Ranger are bigger threats.

RagnaroksChosen
2011-01-26, 03:27 PM
I've been following this thread for some time now and I would like to pose a question on an argument that has been used multiple times, throughout.

It has been said that the DM's choice of targetting Marvin was metagaming. The reason was that the DM knew that the Cleric and Ranger had better buffs. It has also been speculated that the Wizard had no way of knowing the exact nature of the buff on Marvin; this leads me to believe that the same is true of his knowledge of the other players.

So, if the DM knew that the Ranger and Cleric were potentially better targets, wouldn't it be metagaming as well by choosing targets for OOC, mechanical reasons?

Or, if the Wizard somehow knew what buffs were on the Ranger and Cleric, he should be able to tell that Marvin has a much stronger/higher level buff on him, Right?

I was under the impression that the wizard did know about the cleric buffing.

Amphetryon
2011-01-26, 03:34 PM
I'm curious how any choice of target - at all - could be devoid of metagame concerns.

Elric VIII
2011-01-26, 03:38 PM
But he could also tell Marvin was a monk without metagaming.

This would tell him the Cleric and Ranger are bigger threats.

But... Isn't it metagaming for characters to know the tiers of classes?

aboyd
2011-01-26, 03:42 PM
It's easy to be devoid of metagame. If I were the DM, I might say, "The NPC targets the person who attacked him most recently!" Or, "The NPC targets the person who has hurt him the most!" Or I could roll a dice and randomly select. There are lots of ways to decide who to target without relying on knowing mechanical things about how the game & PCs are run.

Note that my comment is not advocating either side. I'm just answering the question.

RagnaroksChosen
2011-01-26, 03:43 PM
I'm curious how any choice of target - at all - could be devoid of metagame concerns.

as much as possible?

I don't know I try to look at it from the perspective of the NPC. What does this npc know. What is his motivation to target. Who does he believe is the bigger threat. Does the npc know what class the PC's are. I don't think well this pc has x ability which will counter this mage's ability. Because the mage doesn't know that he has it.

ya know?

aboyd
2011-01-26, 03:46 PM
But... Isn't it metagaming for characters to know the tiers of classes?
In the real world, I know a person with a gun is usually more dangerous than a man whose only weapon is his fists. I know that a tank is more dangerous than a man with a sword. All these people/things can kill me, but I'm going to make decisions about who to stop first, and I have no metagame information about how the universe is being run.

RagnaroksChosen
2011-01-26, 03:50 PM
exactly...

Another great in game example is
a town gaurd for a backwater community was getting in the face of a PC wizard. The group kept warning the NPC that wizards are powerfull. The gaurd didn't believe him, and after the gaurd initiated violence the wizard promptly put him in his place. Later that game that same gaurd came around to see his buddies rush the wizard and before he could call out the wizard leveled the gaurd rushing him.

It's all about perspective and trying to figure out what the perspective of the npc's are... its one of my favorite parts of GMing.

Kylarra
2011-01-26, 03:52 PM
I don't really see dropping a debuff on the melee group, particularly the one trying to charge at me is a bad decision. The questionable part is the DM's motivation in doing so, not the NPC's action.

Elric VIII
2011-01-26, 03:53 PM
I was thinking under the assumption that WotC used: the base classes are somewhat balanced. [note: I did not say it's a correct assumption, just that it's closer to what I believe a character would think]

onthetown
2011-01-26, 03:53 PM
He didn't pay the full price for the two spells, and he shouldn't have been able to afford them anyway with his Vow of Poverty. So, yeah... you nicely dispelled the situation.

But maybe you should have explained to him about his VoP and put in an rp requirement for the spells first before grabbing his feet out from under him. You could have talked to him when the issue first came up instead of surprising him, and surprised players aren't always very nice.

Amphetryon
2011-01-26, 04:05 PM
Given the binary nature of D&D's injury system - by which I mean that a character reduced to 1 HP is able to function as well as a character at full health, but a character at 0 is helpless - any quantitative measure of comparisons of the degree of damage done by one character or another is a metagame construct. Characters do not actually have HP-o-meters on their foreheads.

Using a random roll of the dice does not strike me as removing metagame concerns. The dice are a metagame concern, unless you're portraying the bad guy as gambling to decide whom to attack - which would limit their actions and effectiveness by at least a small margin.

Just sayin'. :smallwink:

RagnaroksChosen
2011-01-26, 04:13 PM
Given the binary nature of D&D's injury system - by which I mean that a character reduced to 1 HP is able to function as well as a character at full health, but a character at 0 is helpless - any quantitative measure of comparisons of the degree of damage done by one character or another is a metagame construct. Characters do not actually have HP-o-meters on their foreheads.

Using a random roll of the dice does not strike me as removing metagame concerns. The dice are a metagame concern, unless you're portraying the bad guy as gambling to decide whom to attack - which would limit their actions and effectiveness by at least a small margin.

Just sayin'. :smallwink:

True true. We use heal checks to determine other pc's hp levels. (unless they are using spells to detect it.) It is an abstract concept, our best in game answer is that a pc with healing spells and the healcheck(or spell) can judge about how much positive energy can be pumped into a character.

aboyd
2011-01-26, 04:22 PM
Given the binary nature of D&D's injury system - by which I mean that a character reduced to 1 HP is able to function as well as a character at full health, but a character at 0 is helpless - any quantitative measure of comparisons of the degree of damage done by one character or another is a metagame construct. Characters do not actually have HP-o-meters on their foreheads.

Using a random roll of the dice does not strike me as removing metagame concerns. The dice are a metagame concern, unless you're portraying the bad guy as gambling to decide whom to attack - which would limit their actions and effectiveness by at least a small margin.

Just sayin'. :smallwink:
I think you're confusing game information with metagame information. Yes, it's true that an NPC under attack will not know that something called "hit points" is being used to track his damage, and neither will he know that someone called a "dungeon master" outside of the game world is controlling his actions. But he does know that one hit was nearly harmless and another one brought him near death. The fact that we express "near death" as "near -10 hit points" is certainly metagame. But the fact that the character knows he/she is near death is not metagame. The character got hit; the character will know this and it's not metagaming to know that one hit was nearly deadly, however it's expressed outside of the game world.

It's also not metagaming for people in the world to see a wizard warp reality and launch an explosion that kills a bunch of soldiers and think, "Wow, I'm kinda scared of wizards." That's as fair as me saying, "Wow, I'm kinda scared of grenades." I don't need to know that God has our world on a thumb drive, and that grenades are statted up as 4d6 shrapnel damage with a 20' radius requiring line of effect, to know that a grenade will kill me. It's not metagame for me to be afraid of that. It is likewise not metagame for an NPC to note that the bard is plinking him with a bunch of ineffective arrows while the barbarian is nearly hewing limbs. The numbers we crunch to make that happen? Metagame. The knowledge that one is far more hurty? In-game.

Elric VIII
2011-01-26, 04:44 PM
This explanation brought a smile to my face. I agree with your statements, I was just trying to present one of the arguments in Marvin's favor from the perspective of other players.

MeeposFire
2011-01-26, 04:46 PM
We are talking about 6th level characters power differential is not so massive at this point that a +5 fists of fury does not seem nasty.

Further if the mage dispelled the monk it would reason he knew about the buffs via detect magic, vatic gaze, or whatever. Don't those give you the relative power or caster level of the buff? If it does the monk would have the most powerful buff thus making it the prime target in my opinion.

RagnaroksChosen
2011-01-26, 04:56 PM
We are talking about 6th level characters power differential is not so massive at this point that a +5 fists of fury does not seem nasty.

Further if the mage dispelled the monk it would reason he knew about the buffs via detect magic, vatic gaze, or whatever. Don't those give you the relative power or caster level of the buff? If it does the monk would have the most powerful buff thus making it the prime target in my opinion.

Correct however none of those factored into the gm's decision to target said monk.

JamesonCourage
2011-01-26, 05:11 PM
Correct however none of those factored into the gm's decision to target said monk.

GM decision, no. NPC decision, it's a possibility. If the NPC was using Detect Magic (and we have no reason to believe he was or wasn't, particularly), then the strongest aura is on the monk, who should be his target. In this scenario, even though the ranger and the cleric might be better targets, it would be metagaming to target them.

We don't know the full story either side here, and people need to stop arguments on both sides that use the "if" scenarios, because we're just going to go around and around in circles.

I think the GM messed up by not addressing it out of game. I think he was right in stripping it away if it was unbalancing in his style of game. I think he should have told the player he was going to, first. I've been in a situation where my GM likes to play things realistically. I stole a Gem of Seeing from an NPC at like, level 2. I thought, "oh, that'd be useful" but a quick appraise and me taking it to a magic shop for appraisal showed me it was worth 75,000gp. Useful or not, it's getting sold, and I'm getting 75,000gp at level 2. I told the GM that didn't feel right, and he agreed and said he didn't like it. We talked about it, and we decided I shouldn't keep it in game, or profit from it (which was fine, I didn't lose resources acquiring it). An invisible rogue (via ring, I think) hanging around near the magic shop yanked the gem out of my hand, and ran away. We chased him, hurt him, but he got away. No hurt feelings on our part.

The thing is, the GM and I communicated openly, honestly, and reasonably with one another. That's how things should be done. If nothing else, that's how things should be attempted. The player in question was deemed "unreasonable" by the GM, and he may have felt that it wasn't an option. I imagine the player would have been angry if the GM said "I think your new buff is unbalancing, and I think I have to get rid of it. Dispel it or something. But hey, it shouldn't bother you, since you have Vow of Poverty."

As I said, with this player, the GM should have simply not allowed the Permanency into the game. That would have stopped the problem for now. But when you and your players aren't having fun because of one particular player who you feel is unreasonable, then you shouldn't feel too bad when he's gone. Learn from your mistakes and move on.

Starbuck_II
2011-01-26, 05:27 PM
GM decision, no. NPC decision, it's a possibility. If the NPC was using Detect Magic (and we have no reason to believe he was or wasn't, particularly), then the strongest aura is on the monk, who should be his target. In this scenario, even though the ranger and the cleric might be better targets, it would be metagaming to target them.


It would take 2 turns to know which person had strongest aura. All he would know first round is presence of magic.

Pisha
2011-01-26, 05:47 PM
Going back to Ragnarok's question... I don't think an ability should be sacrosanct just because the GM allowed it, BUT... it is kinda uncool to take away an ability you JUST let the player have.

For example... say I just spent a million and a half gp on a wand of I Am Awesome +5. Maybe my GM has some reservations about it, but after some hemming and hawing, he allows it - but warns me that, since my rogue makes so many tumble checks in combat, there's a chance the wand could get broken.

Ok, sure. I figure one of a few things will happen. Maybe he'll make secret rolls each time I do a tumble check, with the DC rising as more "stress" gets put on the breakable item. Maybe that'll be one of the possibilities if I botch a roll. Maybe he'll save it for a dramatically appropriate time, to make me hate the Big Bad even more. Maybe he'll save it for a failsafe, so if after a few games it turns out to be more overpowered than he bargained for, he can correct for it. Whatever. I'll use it as much as I can in the meantime, and accept that losing it is a possibility.

BUT... if the very first time I tumbled in combat after that, the GM told me that Oops, looks like my wand broke... well, I might take that amiss. I mean, I don't think I'd flip a table or anything, but I do think I'd take him aside afterwards and say "Y'know, if you just didn't want me to have it, you could have said so rather than letting me spend a million and a half gold on something I'd get to use never."

So yeah... that aspect, I'd kind of have a problem with.

Amphetryon
2011-01-26, 05:47 PM
I know of no line between game information and metagame information that is not both arbitrary and malleable. The unarmed guy standing over there in a peasant outfit? He could be a monk, or a mighty wizard, or a fighter in full plate who has been glamered to appear other than he is, or a figment of imagination caused by someone else's use of magic. The fact that he missed me while his friend with the greataxe hit me for some arbitrary amount of damage that, in effect, did no damage to me other than wearing me down, could be ascribed to luck on my part, bad luck on his part, a deliberate cat-and-mouse game he's playing, or (you guessed it) a bad roll of the dice.

Any description we place upon the effect that the dice have is something that we - the players - use, not the fictional, ephemeral constructs of "characters" that we ourselves create by ascribing meaning to the numbers we've scribbled on a few sheets of paper. Because these effects have been determined by the players of the game, they become metagame constructs at their heart. Otherwise, we head down the slope where the characters we created with dice and point buys and our imaginations are the ones calling the shots. That way lies madness.

JamesonCourage
2011-01-26, 05:53 PM
It would take 2 turns to know which person had strongest aura. All he would know first round is presence of magic.

And since we have no idea how fast they acted, any further discussion falls directly into "if" scenarios, which as I said, will lead us in circles. If the wizard can cast Greater Dispel (necessary to dispel anything from a 20th level caster), then the wizard could easily have an Arcane Sight going. Or he could have observed for one round with Detect Magic, and not engaged until the second round. There are many, many possible ways this could have gone down in game, and I think honestly we both know that.



Any description we place upon the effect that the dice have is something that we - the players - use, not the fictional, ephemeral constructs of "characters" that we ourselves create by ascribing meaning to the numbers we've scribbled on a few sheets of paper. Because these effects have been determined by the players of the game, they become metagame constructs at their heart. Otherwise, we head down the slope where the characters we created with dice and point buys and our imaginations are the ones calling the shots. That way lies madness.

You do know that, the heart of roleplaying is basically pretending that those people call the shots. It's saying "what would my character do?" and then acting on that, even if it's not to your advantage in the game. It is, in fact, trying to fill an imaginary role, from the perspective of an admittedly imaginary character. Since that's the point of roleplaying.

aboyd
2011-01-26, 06:56 PM
I know of no line between game information and metagame information that is not both arbitrary and malleable.
OK, we can't discuss this then, as we have no common ground. Thanks anyway.

Amphetryon
2011-01-26, 07:29 PM
<snip part not responding to me>

You do know that, the heart of roleplaying is basically pretending that those people call the shots. It's saying "what would my character do?" and then acting on that, even if it's not to your advantage in the game. It is, in fact, trying to fill an imaginary role, from the perspective of an admittedly imaginary character. Since that's the point of roleplaying.Yup. We take metagame information - rolls, information about skills, feats, weapons, verbal (or written, in PbP) information provided to us by the DM and other players, etc. - and apply a rationale to that information that creates a character's actions and reactions. Most of the time, a "good" player will include some variation of "this will advance the story we're all telling in some way" in his or her criteria, and will use good 'gamespeak' to justify those decisions in character. Oftentimes, a player may even be called upon to justify an action that he or she would not normally consider appropriate for the character being played, in the interest of keeping the game moving and fun for everyone. An old Dragon article titled "Yes, My Character Would Do That!" talks about this at some length.

The OP did not describe any such 'gamespeak' justifications, granted. That is not the same thing as "the OP was unable to come up with a good 'gamespeak' justification." For one thing, the OP is describing the events to us for a purpose besides advancing the story, so our need to know that justification is less than it would be if we were the players. I'm not willing to arbitrarily limit the OP's creativity by saying it was impossible for him to come up with that justification if he felt it necessary, though.

Foeofthelance
2011-01-26, 07:47 PM
It would take 2 turns to know which person had strongest aura. All he would know first round is presence of magic.

He wouldn't actually need to know; from what was said in the OP, it was an area wide dispel that was thrown at the melee troops who were attacking the wizard who cast the spell. That, in and of itself, is perfectly logical choice. "Let me deal with the numbskulls in my face first, then deal with the ones who aren't so close."

At which point, no matter what, the monk's buffs are always going to be the first spells targeted by dispel. Dispel automatically targets from highest spell level down to lowest. The monk had two spells cast at level 20, compared to the buffs from the level 6 party members. Any time he would get caught in a dispel area effect for the next oh, 10-15 levels, his Permanency and Greater Magic Fang would become the default targets. So the monk posted a big old target on his own buffs. The fact that someone hit that target is not so surprising.

JamesonCourage
2011-01-26, 08:00 PM
Yup. We take metagame information - rolls, information about skills, feats, weapons, verbal (or written, in PbP) information provided to us by the DM and other players, etc. - and apply a rationale to that information that creates a character's actions and reactions. Most of the time, a "good" player will include some variation of "this will advance the story we're all telling in some way" in his or her criteria, and will use good 'gamespeak' to justify those decisions in character. Oftentimes, a player may even be called upon to justify an action that he or she would not normally consider appropriate for the character being played, in the interest of keeping the game moving and fun for everyone. An old Dragon article titled "Yes, My Character Would Do That!" talks about this at some length.

The OP did not describe any such 'gamespeak' justifications, granted. That is not the same thing as "the OP was unable to come up with a good 'gamespeak' justification." For one thing, the OP is describing the events to us for a purpose besides advancing the story, so our need to know that justification is less than it would be if we were the players. I'm not willing to arbitrarily limit the OP's creativity by saying it was impossible for him to come up with that justification if he felt it necessary, though.

You're telling me that players metagame. I agree. You're telling me that players constantly metagame in every little decision they make, which I disagree with. Metagaming is using out of game knowledge, for which your character has no basis for knowing about, to affect your character's decision. I believe you're mistaken when you essentially claim that characters have no basis for making any assumptions.

Still have some negligible HP damage, and want to get it healed? Can be described as some pains and aches even after getting some healing magic. There are many things in-game that can shape how your character would act, the assumptions he'd make, etc., that the player needs to keep track of, such as HP.

But on a side note, I don't allow my players to act in a way that I don't think their characters wouldn't, so I rarely see decisions made with an aspect of "this will advance the story", so subjective views (from both of us) on what constitutes a "good" player are going to vary. I don't see that as a good basis for discussion.

Amphetryon
2011-01-26, 08:10 PM
Could you tell me the information that characters might have that players would not?

Can you explain what you mean by "I don't allow [tricky work choice, IMO] my players to act in ways that I think their characters wouldn't", please? Does that mean the characters have to follow a given plot, regardless? Does that mean a player's character cannot evolve more complex motivations over time? Do you mean to say you understand the motivations of characters that the players created better than they do? Or, what exactly does that mean, from a non-metagame perspective?

RagnaroksChosen
2011-01-26, 09:08 PM
Could you tell me the information that characters might have that players would not?

Can you explain what you mean by "I don't allow [tricky work choice, IMO] my players to act in ways that I think their characters wouldn't", please? Does that mean the characters have to follow a given plot, regardless? Does that mean a player's character cannot evolve more complex motivations over time? Do you mean to say you understand the motivations of characters that the players created better than they do? Or, what exactly does that mean, from a non-metagame perspective?

I think your getting it backwards metagame information is when a player uses out of game info in character or to justify in game actions.
For example. A group has a player playing a Rogue. That players character play's the character as a fighter, he has given no indication in game that he can pick locks, tumble, or is a rogue. The group comes to a door. And one of the other players is like o well the rogue will take care of it. That is metagaming.

Another:
Playing in a module that has a unique spell only found in said module. When confronted with the wizard who knows said spell. One of the players in character says put up you defense X because he has spell Y. Simply because that player has read this module before.

I usually say something to a player if he references a skill another character has that he has no knowledge of in game. This used to happen a lot with knowledge skills.

This also requires some one to understand the abstraction of what is in game and what is out of game.

as far as:
"I don't allow [tricky work choice, IMO] my players to act in ways that I think their characters wouldn't"

Its like a big dumb fighter talking about how metamagic works to a wizard when said fighter has no ranks in spell craft or knowledge arcana.


Or a city born, raised, adventurer who finds him self stuck in the woods and is talking about building survival shelters because the actually player has survival training.

Cerlis
2011-01-26, 09:15 PM
Could you clarify what you think the difference is between "jerky" behavior and "trying to win the game"? In a game centered around team activities and social interaction, where "winning" isn't possible as it is conventionally defined, I honestly don't see the difference.

Its like the difference between punching someone on the other team during a ball game cus you are a jerk. And punching someone during a game because its in the rules, but most people dont do that cus its bad sportsmanship.

One might argue that the game is centered around getting together and killing monsters using your wits, which is what he did.
While the whole "togetherness in fun and teamwork" thing is part of anything with "game" in its name.


I thought the concept of DMs thinking they need to beat PCs, and PCs thinking they need to beat whatever the DM pulls out and be the best player they can be and there is, was all pretty common. A large amount of this community has mentioned distaste of someone playing a Underpowered character(monk), and DMs hate full casting because of "game breaking" spells.

well that all has to do with "winning". If you play a monk, you suck up XP and without contributing enough to killage to get me where i need to go. If you break the DMs plan he loses, and if you pull some obscure plan or solve a problem with the right spell , you feel all powerful and clever and stuff.

Either way, i was vague for a reason, its a complicated issue, and as i said i dont know the guy(and most of us dont either).

I just oppose the idea of thinking someone is a jerk just cus you think how they acted is jerklike, and feel the attitude of "Winning=fun" is far more common in the gaming community.And the "Fun=fun" attitude necessary for a perfect group is a rare thing and anyone in such a pure group should consider themselves blessed by the Gygaxian Gods.



http://www.cad-comic.com/cad/20100531


I'm not saying hes not a jerk, just saying by the time i posted it was a logical but still unnecessary conclusion.

Amphetryon
2011-01-26, 09:16 PM
I think your getting it backwards metagame information is when a player uses out of game info in character or to justify in game actions.That's how I'm using it. External information garnered from the fact that you're playing a game, to justify in-game actions.

Its like a big dumb fighter talking about how metamagic works to a wizard when said fighter has no ranks in spell craft or knowledge arcana.So, no out of character conversation or strategizing allowed? No helping the newbie remember how the metamagic variables he's applied to his spell work?

RagnaroksChosen
2011-01-26, 09:19 PM
That's how I'm using it. External information garnered from the fact that you're playing a game, to justify in-game actions.

aaa then we have a misunderstanding. metagaming is taking out of game information and using it in game. or justifying in game actions because of out of game information. Such as what the gm in the OP said about targeting the monk because of the buffs.

Amphetryon
2011-01-26, 09:21 PM
aaa then we have a misunderstanding. metagaming is taking out of game information and using it in game. or justifying in game actions because of out of game information. Such as what the gm in the OP said about targeting the monk because of the buffs.

I do not - no, really, honestly do not - see the difference between your bolded definition and the one I gave.

FelixG
2011-01-26, 09:57 PM
aaa then we have a misunderstanding. metagaming is taking out of game information and using it in game. or justifying in game actions because of out of game information. Such as what the gm in the OP said about targeting the monk because of the buffs.

Even if the GM had metagame knowledge that doesn't make the action any less in character. The caster saw something charging him, he considered the thing closer to him a bigger threat than those others around, so he included the person threatening HIM in the field instead of more far off threats.

Threat priority was at play.

aboyd
2011-01-26, 10:19 PM
Even if the GM had metagame knowledge that doesn't make the action any less in character. The caster saw something charging him, he considered the thing closer to him a bigger threat than those others around, so he included the person threatening HIM in the field instead of more far off threats.

Threat priority was at play.
Yeah, but only kinda. He did write this in the original post:


On the wizard's turn, he drops a greater dispel magic as an area effect on the melee attackers (misses the cleric and ranged to hit Marvin) remove a few combat buffs.
That syncs up with what you're saying -- essentially, the DM played the NPC as if the NPC saw guys right up in his face and said, "Yikes, gotta weaken the guys right on top of me!" That's great, and if that's all he had written, I'd be inclined to tell the DM he gamed fairly and tough luck for the player. However, he also wrote this:


I know tactically the wizard should have aimed to hit the cleric and ranger instead of reducing potential targets by one to hit the prone monk, and Marvin probably saw this as a personal attack. But at the time, I didn't see any other way to bring the monk back into balance with the party as a whole
Here he admits he tried to solve his discomfort with the overpowered character build by undermining the choice in the game world. It also paints the "I cast area dispel based upon what the NPC would do if the game world were real" assertion as at least a little false. It's more like, "I cast area dispel and chose the targets not because of the NPC's desire to survive, but because as a DM I was having trouble with the player and made the NPC behave like my own little puppet to solve my problem." That's not so awesome. That why I wrote a page or two back that I was "torn" about how to feel about this. The DM admits to trying to solve an out-of-game personality conflict (and/or rules/munchkinism conflict) by manipulating an NPC to do something that he otherwise wouldn't. That bugs me, even though it was well-executed (it could be defended as a reasonable action, in game) and even though he warned the player over & over again about the risks.

And I find myself still in the same place, thought-wise. I really, really wish the DM had fixed the problem some other way, but I also really, really think the player was being obnoxious and deliberately being a munchkin, AND should have got the hint that things were about to go badly for him. I mean, you really have to be oblivious to not realize what's about to happen when the DM triple-confirms something with you and even asks you to re-read the book text. If someone did that to me, I'd say, "Wow, uh, maybe I should think about what's going to happen if I pursue this."

JamesonCourage
2011-01-26, 11:38 PM
Could you tell me the information that characters might have that players would not?

Can you explain what you mean by "I don't allow [tricky work choice, IMO] my players to act in ways that I think their characters wouldn't", please? Does that mean the characters have to follow a given plot, regardless? Does that mean a player's character cannot evolve more complex motivations over time? Do you mean to say you understand the motivations of characters that the players created better than they do? Or, what exactly does that mean, from a non-metagame perspective?

A plethora of knowledge. Knowledge skills, Craft skills Survival skills, fighting skills and techniques, etc. You can inquire about them, but your imaginary character is well aware of these things that you are not.

A quick example if I have a new player at my table:
New player is arguing with another player out of game. He decides his character is going to rob the other player in the middle of the night. I tell him his character wouldn't do that.

FIN

Amphetryon
2011-01-27, 05:54 AM
A plethora of knowledge. Knowledge skills, Craft skills Survival skills, fighting skills and techniques, etc. You can inquire about them, but your imaginary character is well aware of these things that you are not.

A quick example if I have a new player at my table:
New player is arguing with another player out of game. He decides his character is going to rob the other player in the middle of the night. I tell him his character wouldn't do that.

FIN
So, you use out of game information to metagame a restriction on the actions on one of your player's characters?

FelixG
2011-01-27, 06:17 AM
So, you use out of game information to metagame a restriction on the actions on one of your player's characters?

I would liken it to "We have been friends for years, we have saved each other many times over and have been open and honest friends the whole time." then suddenly after the out of game argument one of the friends saying "you know what, i suddenly hate this person, i am going to steal everything he owns and bolt!"

It breaks flow and reason.

Amphetryon
2011-01-27, 06:18 AM
I would liken it to "We have been friends for years, we have saved each other many times over and have been open and honest friends the whole time." then suddenly after the out of game argument one of the friends saying "you know what, i suddenly hate this person, i am going to steal everything he owns and bolt!"

It breaks flow and reason.
That assumes a whole bunch of facts not in evidence.

FelixG
2011-01-27, 06:22 AM
That assumes a whole bunch of facts not in evidence.

Sorry, I was meaning to give an alternate example, not say "this is what happened in his game." Just to point out player could make a character could do a complete flip of personality for no reason in game.

JamesonCourage
2011-01-27, 11:30 AM
So, you use out of game information to metagame a restriction on the actions on one of your player's characters?

Metagaming is using out of game information that your character would have no way of knowing about to affect in-game decisions. By not letting my player metagame, I am not metagaming myself, for no action in-game takes place based on it.

It is not metagaming at all. And keeping my players from metagaming is completely the right decision in my mind, and with my group.

Oh, and just to be clear, the example has never happened. I haven't ever run a game where my players have been that petty. They have stolen from one another, but not because of out of game information.

In my example, the character in-game wasn't stealing from this person. In my scenario, he decided to rob this one other PC after a disagreement. That's metagaming. And stopping it is not me metagaming in the slightest.

Amphetryon
2011-01-27, 02:54 PM
In my example, the character in-game wasn't stealing from this person. In my scenario, he decided to rob this one other PC after a disagreement. That's metagaming. And stopping it is not me metagaming in the slightest.I'm sorry, you said the reason for the theft was that the player was arguing OUT OF CHARACTER with another character.

How would any of your NPCs know that in the game world in order to prevent or otherwise react to it? If their actions are based on metagame information, your reactions are too, or you're setting up an arbitrary distinction between what out of game information is acceptable for you compared to the others at your table, above and beyond what you may need for running a module or other adventure.

NichG
2011-01-27, 06:09 PM
He's not saying he's using his NPCs to stop the action, he's saying he tells the player OOC that his character wouldn't do it so it doesn't happen.

Its a different issue than metagaming, basically a risk of removing a player's agency.

Amphetryon
2011-01-27, 06:31 PM
He's not saying he's using his NPCs to stop the action, he's saying he tells the player OOC that his character wouldn't do it so it doesn't happen.

Its a different issue than metagaming, basically a risk of removing a player's agency.

He used out-of-character information in game. See also: RagnarokChosen's definition, quoted here for convenience:

metagaming is taking out of game information and using it in game. or justifying in game actions because of out of game information.

Elric VIII
2011-01-27, 06:36 PM
He used out-of-character information in game. See also: RagnarokChosen's definition, quoted here for convenience:

I think the point being made is that the DM is saying that he knows the player's character would not do that based on its personality, rather than stopping it by in-game means. This is like the DM saying that your Exalted Paladin wouldn't kill another character in his sleep because the two of you had a disagreement (OOC).

Although, the DM assuming that he knows all of the character's motivations is definately metagaming.

RagnaroksChosen
2011-01-27, 08:24 PM
He used out-of-character information in game. See also: RagnarokChosen's definition, quoted here for convenience:

No... as this particular example was stopped before it ever went into game. So there was no in game element other then the GM saying no your character doesn't do that. so it never actually hits game play...

JamesonCourage
2011-01-27, 09:52 PM
He used out-of-character information in game. See also: RagnarokChosen's definition, quoted here for convenience:

See my definition: Metagaming is using out of game information that your character would have no way of knowing about to affect in-game decisions.


I think the point being made is that the DM is saying that he knows the player's character would not do that based on its personality, rather than stopping it by in-game means. This is like the DM saying that your Exalted Paladin wouldn't kill another character in his sleep because the two of you had a disagreement (OOC).

Although, the DM assuming that he knows all of the character's motivations is definately metagaming.

Knowing a character's motivations is not metagaming. It's roleplaying. Though, even if we disagree on whether or not I'm in the right to stop my players from metagaming, let me repeat myself once again:

And keeping my players from metagaming is completely the right decision in my mind, and with my group.


No... as this particular example was stopped before it ever went into game. So there was no in game element other then the GM saying no your character doesn't do that. so it never actually hits game play...

That is exactly correct. The event never takes place in-game, because one player says "I want to do this" while metagaming, and I say "no, that's metagaming, so your character does not even attempt to do that in game."

Tyndmyr
2011-01-28, 10:59 AM
I see where you're going with this, but I feel that in character, it's still a justifiable action, even if it isn't tactically "best", though Im uncertain how the tactically "best" decision was arrived at.

Dispell the ranger and the cleric at range, or the monk, fighter and barb trying to hit me. Dispelling the melee is a pretty reasonable option unless the wizard had substantial in-game knowledge of something lethal on the other two.

There's a difference between "best tactical option" and "what the character would do" in many cases.

ffone
2011-01-28, 08:44 PM
See, this is why you should 'buy' spellcasting services for Permanency at CL 30th, so you're immune to pre-epic dispelling (barring caster level increases from the ioun stone etc.) Cost is only linear in CL.

I mean, if a 20th level wizard happens to walk through your podunk town, why not 30th?

Amphetryon
2011-01-28, 08:50 PM
No... as this particular example was stopped before it ever went into game. So there was no in game element other then the GM saying no your character doesn't do that. so it never actually hits game play...If it influenced game play, it hit game play. Disallowing something IN GAME because of something that happens OUT OF GAME is taking out of game information and using it in game. Otherwise, you're quibbling semantics.

NichG
2011-01-28, 09:54 PM
If it influenced game play, it hit game play. Disallowing something IN GAME because of something that happens OUT OF GAME is taking out of game information and using it in game. Otherwise, you're quibbling semantics.

It was disallowed out of game, or more accurately out of character.

JamesonCourage
2011-01-28, 10:11 PM
If it influenced game play, it hit game play. Disallowing something IN GAME because of something that happens OUT OF GAME is taking out of game information and using it in game. Otherwise, you're quibbling semantics.

Let me clear this up, since you seem dead set against accepting the difference. Third line of wiki: "In simple terms, using out-of-game information, or resources, to affect one's in-game decisions."

Not allowing that to happen means that the character never affects in-game decisions with metagame knowledge. It is not metagaming unless an action is taken (or not taken) in-game based on out of game knowledge.

Amphetryon
2011-01-28, 11:09 PM
It was disallowed out of game, or more accurately out of character.An in-game action was disallowed, right? It was disallowed for out-of-game reasons, right? :smallsmile:

JamesonCourage
2011-01-28, 11:13 PM
An in-game action was disallowed, right? It was disallowed for out-of-game reasons, right? :smallsmile:

Metagaming can only happen when a character acts differently because of out of game information. That never happened. No metagaming occured. But again, you're willfully against accepting this, even though you have no supporters, and words are expressions of a concept. A concept everyone else here seems to grasp.

Elric VIII
2011-01-29, 01:52 AM
Metagaming can only happen when a character acts differently because of out of game information. That never happened. No metagaming occured. But again, you're willfully against accepting this, even though you have no supporters, and words are expressions of a concept. A concept everyone else here seems to grasp.

With no intended sarcasm, what would you define the DM disallowing something because didn't like it, but used OOC resons to justify what that character would not do something?

JamesonCourage
2011-01-29, 02:01 AM
With no intended sarcasm, what would you define the DM disallowing something because didn't like it, but used OOC resons to justify what that character would not do something?

Here's my scenario again:

"New player is arguing with another player out of game. He decides his character is going to rob the other player in the middle of the night. I tell him his character wouldn't do that."

In this scenario, I'd consider myself to be preventing metagaming from taking place.

Elric VIII
2011-01-29, 02:43 AM
Here's my scenario again:

"New player is arguing with another player out of game. He decides his character is going to rob the other player in the middle of the night. I tell him his character wouldn't do that."

In this scenario, I'd consider myself to be preventing metagaming from taking place.

I see that, under the assumption that the player's character would not reasonably do that(based on previous actions), that you wold be preventing metagaming in the instance.

It appears that Amphetryon is implying that simply saying the character cannot do something because the DM thinks it is the result of OOC events is metagaming.

Just to put forth an example from a game that I'm playing:
My party's Rogue was getting tired of saying "search for traps" at every door and every lever/device/etc said that he would like to simply automatically take 10 on a search check whenever a door or device was reached. He did this due to my OOC advice and the DM said that he could not because his character wouldn't think of that. So the DM based what he believed the Rogue's character would do based on a conversation we had. I believe that that was the point that Amphetryon was making.

Having said that, you obviously cannot fit every circumstance into a set mold. Wanting to get back at a player because of an argument would be metagaming, but following someone's advice on a mechanic that woudl be reasonable for you character is not. At least in my opinion this is how it would be classified.

TheCountAlucard
2011-01-29, 02:58 AM
My party's Rogue was getting tired of saying "search for traps" at every door and every lever/device/etc said that he would like to simply automatically take 10 on a search check whenever a door or device was reached.This should work. By all accounts. It's just a player opting to eliminate a dice roll - it's not the result of concious thought on the part of the Rogue PC... it's you guys making the game less tedious. And the DM is disallowing this, calling it metagaming? :smallconfused:

MeeposFire
2011-01-29, 03:00 AM
This should work. By all accounts. It's just a player opting to eliminate a dice roll - it's not the result of concious thought on the part of the Rogue PC... it's you guys making the game less tedious. And the DM is disallowing this, calling it metagaming? :smallconfused:

Hey this also eliminates the classic player vs DM trope! You can't do that:smallwink:!

JamesonCourage
2011-01-29, 03:06 AM
I see that, under the assumption that the player's character would not reasonably do that(based on previous actions), that you wold be preventing metagaming in the instance.

It appears that Amphetryon is implying that simply saying the character cannot do something because the DM thinks it is the result of OOC events is metagaming.

Just to put forth an example from a game that I'm playing:
My party's Rogue was getting tired of saying "search for traps" at every door and every lever/device/etc said that he would like to simply automatically take 10 on a search check whenever a door or device was reached. He did this due to my OOC advice and the DM said that he could not because his character wouldn't think of that. So the DM based what he believed the Rogue's character would do based on a conversation we had. I believe that that was the point that Amphetryon was making.

Having said that, you obviously cannot fit every circumstance into a set mold. Wanting to get back at a player because of an argument would be metagaming, but following someone's advice on a mechanic that woudl be reasonable for you character is not. At least in my opinion this is how it would be classified.

The character -the rogue- knows no difference between rolling and taking a 10. He is not acting different based on his player choosing what to do. People in real life do not choose between "standard search" or "reckless but potentially rewarding search". Taking a 10 is not a character choice, and thus the player choice is not metagaming, even if another person suggested it.

Taking a 20 is a different matter, but I'd be hard pressed to imagine someone not thinking of "searching something thoroughly".

Elric VIII
2011-01-29, 05:06 AM
After some debate taking 10 on searches was allowed, I was just using the initial reaction to it as an anecdotal aid.

Jayabalard
2011-01-31, 11:19 AM
Let me clear this up, since you seem dead set against accepting the difference. Third line of wiki: "In simple terms, using out-of-game information, or resources, to affect one's in-game decisions."That's the simplistic definition; claiming this is the full definition and that things not covered by it aren't metagaming is a bit disingenuous.