Nerfing players makes you a bad DM?

[Amnestic]

No, it's an analogy that doesn't work because there's scrolls, wands, rings, potions, Spell Mastery, and backup spellbooks available to the Wizard...just as the Barbarian, instead of complaining to Crom that their Greatsword has been sundered, can pull out their backup shortsword or axe or whatever.

Well like I said, you can still kick people (What, you haven't spent feats on Unarmed Strikes? Too bad. Should've protected yourself better.) or just splash out for a regeneration spell. Hell, it's cheaper than rescribing an entire spellbook. Why is targetting a Wizard's lifeline okay but a Barbarian's not?



Besides, the Barbarian would still have unarmed strikes by RAW. Crossclass into Tiger Claw Warblade and you're pretty much good to go. :smallbiggrin:

Sort of my point really. Which was my my arm analogy works.

[Rogue Shadows]

Well like I said, you can still kick people (What, you haven't spent feats on Unarmed Strikes? Too bad. Should've protected yourself better.) or just splash out for a regeneration spell. Hell, it's cheaper than rescribing an entire spellbook. Why is targetting a Wizard's lifeline okay but a Barbarian's not?

Because it's only the wizards lifeline if they've left themselves wide open? There are numerous, simple options available to Wizards, at 1st level, to mitigate losing their spellbooks, just as there are numerous, simple options available to Barbarians, at 1st level, to mitigate having their greatsword sundered.

A wizard without a spellbook is not a barbarian without arms, he's a barbarian without his favored weapon.

[Kojiro]

Well like I said, you can still kick people (What, you haven't spent feats on Unarmed Strikes? Too bad. Should've protected yourself better.) or just splash out for a regeneration spell. Hell, it's cheaper than rescribing an entire spellbook. Why is targetting a Wizard's lifeline okay but a Barbarian's not?

Actually, well, there have been numerous examples of people losing arms (and other extremities) in this thread, so it is okay by a good many people here. Myself included if there's a good reason for it (see the first post, under the assumption that the players knew that Bad Things are a possibility) rather than something like the usual reason a spellbook or other class feature is the target of every possible method of destruction.

[Ursus the Grim]

If the Wizard is optimized: yes, it is fair game.

But if you are playing with an unoptimized wizard: this is unfair.

And the DM (the OP) in question admitted the players aren't optimized. So he is unlikely to be Tier 1 (remember Tier system based on assuming players are competent).

I'm fairly certain a Wizard WITHOUT optimization still qualifies as Tier 1. Unoptomized wizard versus unoptomized anything once a Wizard hits, say, level 7, and the Wizard will often have the advantage in versatility and power.

Competent=/=powergamer

I can play a decent druid without picking up Natural Spell, VoP, and Exalted Wild Shape into a Cryohydra. That decent druid would still have an edge over my buddies the rogue, the sorceror, and the monk. I also think the Tier system is meant to reflect how hard it is to optimize a character. Tier 1 classes are easy to opt, tier 4s and 5s are not. Hence why an ubercharger build requires five different sourcebooks versus two for a wild shape druid.

[Zale]

Well like I said, you can still kick people (What, you haven't spent feats on Unarmed Strikes? Too bad. Should've protected yourself better.) or just splash out for a regeneration spell. Hell, it's cheaper than rescribing an entire spellbook. Why is targetting a Wizard's lifeline okay but a Barbarian's not?
.


Because wizards are powerful, and people use that to justify any means to whack them down to a mortal level? :smalleek:

[NNescio]

Until a disarm attempt against them removes their arms (and legs).

Although if someone could make an effective quadriplegic monk (headbutts are totally unarmed strikes, albeit ones that are hard to chain into a Flurry of Blows without looking like a woodpecker) somehow, then I will be most happy.

Edit: Before anyone says "That's not what disarm does", it's a joke based on the thread in general and the possible interpretation of "disarming" someone.

Naah you need to defeat them to remove their legs.

...

I do most sincerely apologize. Here's something different. (http://www.youtube.com/user/MontyPython#p/c/CDFEA6D52E5CC0EC/19/dhRUe-gz690)

[Ursus the Grim]

Well like I said, you can still kick people (What, you haven't spent feats on Unarmed Strikes? Too bad. Should've protected yourself better.) or just splash out for a regeneration spell. Hell, it's cheaper than rescribing an entire spellbook. Why is targetting a Wizard's lifeline okay but a Barbarian's not?



Sort of my point really. Which was my my arm analogy works.

So you're saying that its not fair to take a spellbook away from a wizard because a Barbarian can still function without arms?

I that think what baby for?

[Zale]

So you're saying that its not fair to take a spellbook away from a wizard because a Barbarian can still function without arms?

I that think what baby for?


Might I ask on the behalf of everyone, What the heck "I that think what baby for?" means?

[Ursus the Grim]

Might I ask on the behalf of everyone, What the heck "I that think what baby for?" means?

Exactly my point. Its not a logical statement.

[Rogue Shadows]

Might I ask on the behalf of everyone, What the heck "I that think what baby for?" means?

I think he's implying that it makes no sense, i.e., "Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?"

[Kojiro]

At first I thought it was a meme reference (like this one (http://ohinternet.com/Has_anyone_really_been_far_even_as_decided_to_use_ even_go_want_to_do_look_more_like)), but Google gives me nothing, so I'm clueless.

Edit: Well there we go.

[PollyOliver]

So you're saying that its not fair to take a spellbook away from a wizard because a Barbarian can still function without arms?

I that think what baby for?

I'm moderately certain you're being sarcastic, but I think the point was the absurdity of the point that the barbarian can still function without arms. As in, it's an analogous situation, and he does "function" but to say that you haven't utterly crippled him is absurd, and to say "well, the wizard left himself wide open by not taking x feat and making another copy and he can go buy a new one" is the same as saying "the barbarian left himself wide open by not taking improved unarmed strike and snap kick, and not having a spare pair of mecha arms in his backpack and he can go get regeneration cast". So if you really think that the barbarian example is totally in-bounds and par for the course, then sure, it that think what baby for. Otherwise, it is meant to demonstrate by analogy how absurd the wizard scenario was.

[Volthawk]

Until a disarm attempt against them removes their arms (and legs).

Although if someone could make an effective quadriplegic monk (headbutts are totally unarmed strikes, albeit ones that are hard to chain into a Flurry of Blows without looking like a woodpecker) somehow, then I will be most happy.

Edit: Before anyone says "That's not what disarm does", it's a joke based on the thread in general and the possible interpretation of "disarming" someone.

Just felt I needed to drop this here once I saw this post. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhRUe-gz690)

[Ursus the Grim]

Just felt I needed to drop this here once I saw this post. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhRUe-gz690)

Naah you need to defeat them to remove their legs.

...

I do most sincerely apologize. Here's something different. (http://www.youtube.com/user/MontyPython#p/c/CDFEA6D52E5CC0EC/19/dhRUe-gz690)

You were (Black) Swordsage'd.

Anyway, I understand now that the Barbarian anecdote was intended to say that the Barbarian COULDN'T function without arms. But I didn't take it that way. I guess some players are just more willing to put up with adversity.

I still staunchly disagree with the viewpoint that a wizard losing his spellbook is hogwash. Especially considering all the options out there for mitigating spellbook vulnerability.

[Rogue Shadows]

I still staunchly disagree with the viewpoint that a wizard losing his spellbook is hogwash. Especially considering all the options out there for mitigating spellbook vulnerability.

Like Spell Mastery. A 1st level feat. In the Player's Handbook.

[Midnight_v]

That's the power the DM has. But he only has that power as long as people are willing to play with him.
The issue is proprietary. Its not MY WORLD, its a story told by my players and I. The whole "my world" thing is the problem. Basically the who'll "willing to play with me" came down that once... because every other week a Dm and I would switch off. It turned into that once, in the end I ended up being the dm full time because the other 4 people didn't like that attitude, not a big deal. I learned that in 3.5 at least, people expect an arbitrator/lead storyteller. Not a ... I'm not sure what the word is for what your suggesting. Being an arbitrator implies though that certain rules are in place and agreed on in general before we sit down. You make specific calls about those rules. The rules exist at all so we don't up playing cops and robber/magic tea party. "you're dead"v"am not!"
This is why its a game at all.
Though really, its is the fundemental argument between us though as I outlined above. You seem like a decent guy, I could even see playing with you but frankly your idea's on the power structure fall out of fashion in my eyes. We kinda have to get what the rules are before hand, and changing them on the fly might be tolerated or might now but it's ultimately a group decision. Depends on what a dm tries to do. Ymmv.

Come to think of it when I get around to running some I'm gonna send you a pbp invite. Might not be for a while, but you're at the top of the list. Happy gaming till then.

[Zale]

Like Spell Mastery. A 1st level feat. In the Player's Handbook.

Now you can cast a handful of level one spells when you loose your spellbook at level seven.

While that would make it suck less, it would hardly be like the barbarian, who can just grab another weapon.

[kharmakazy]

Taking a wizards spellbook is fair game IMHO with one caveat, if you are DMing for players not familiar with your style you should let them know before party creation that things like that may happen.

I can see a player who played with another DM forever who never targeted spellbooks being terribly frustrated if a DM he has never played with before makes a habit of it. But then again the player should think to ask about it beforehand.

[Frozen_Feet]

What questions do you have to ask? It's your world. Nothing happens without your express desire.

I do not think this is wholly correct. Yes, without a GM, the game won't run. But it isn't necessarily your world. And it isn't just your desire that matters, unless you're a blatant cheat.

The setting might be creation of someone else. If you've agreed to hold a game in that setting, that puts limitations on what you can fairly do. Every setting has fundamental aspects you just can't break without being unfair to your players and their expectations.

Likewise, a GM is bound by rules. Different rules than the players, but still. When players ask to do something that's within the scope of the rules, the GM is supposed to oblige. There's also random chance - when you roll the dice, for or against the player, you are supposed to take the result as your guide and shape the game based on it.

A GM can disregard all that. Doesn't mean he has the right to. A GM who considers himself completely unbound by rules, and makes things happen just because, is not playing D&D with his group anymore. They're playing Calvinball, and as fun as that might be, it's not fair by any definition of the word.


You know what else is tedious? Writing up all the various ways you protect your spellbook because the DM wants to screw you out of it.

Meh, my players do that by themselves because they're afraid of each other. To some extent, their paranoid planning is amusing in its own right.

But it doesn't have to be tedious. The player can just say "Hey, I wanna safeguard my possessions", and when asked how, can answer "I don't have much ideas, but here's my character. What could he do?" The GM can cut the discussion short there and just presume the possession safeguarded from there on.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Or, to quote a certain website:

To add to this, I cite something similar:



No gaming is better than bad gaming.

EDIT:

Like Spell Mastery. A 1st level feat. In the Player's Handbook.

Reread that feat. It is not wort it at level one, because, at level 1, guess what, you can only master 1st level spells. It is not worth a feat, because it quickly grows old and worthless.

[Kojiro]

Hm. Based on a character idea I had, I just realized, one could go for a multiple spellbooks approach, and just don't write everything in one. Either sort them by school, by level, randomly, or so that any single book doesn't contain everything that you like (and you could add redundancies for your favorite spells in multiple books). Less effort than just making multiple copies since you're still, with some exceptions, scribing each spell once, and the only added effort is keeping track of which spells are in which book. Also allows for more evidence for when the DM tries to screw you. ("The enemy fighter stabs your spellbook." "Which one?" "...All of them." "With one attack?") Not like the wizard's going to be carrying much else anyway, unless they have enough magic items to replicate their spells if they lose their book (which means that they won't be useless without it, fortunately).

[Midnight_v]

Taking a wizards spellbook is fair game IMHO with one caveat, if you are DMing for players not familiar with your style you should let them know before party creation that things like that may happen.

I can see a player who played with another DM forever who never targeted spellbooks being terribly frustrated if a DM he has never played with before makes a habit of it. But then again the player should think to ask about it beforehand.

And really thats what I'm advocating, but that its a shared resposibility. One to say "Possibly this" and the others to say "Do you do this".
I keep it as a rule of host to let people know about the houserules I subsrcibe to, it only right. Though if they're accustomed to certain things they can run it by me and the group and we'll see if everyones cool with it.

[PollyOliver]

Hm. Based on a character idea I had, I just realized, one could go for a multiple spellbooks approach, and just don't write everything in one. Either sort them by school, by level, randomly, or so that any single book doesn't contain everything that you like (and you could add redundancies for your favorite spells in multiple books). Less effort than just making multiple copies since you're still, with some exceptions, scribing each spell once, and the only added effort is keeping track of which spells are in which book. Also allows for more evidence for when the DM tries to screw you. ("The enemy fighter stabs your spellbook." "Which one?" "...All of them." "With one attack?") Not like the wizard's going to be carrying much else anyway, unless they have enough magic items to replicate their spells if they lose their book (which means that they won't be useless without it, fortunately).

That works, except it doesn't jive with the example that "inspired" the thread, which was the DM plot-nuking every character back to level 1 and taking every item they owned except a high level weapon each--and leaving the wizard with a weapon instead of his spell book. The original argument pertaining to that thread was if it was unfair to give everyone a fancy weapon they could actually use their class features with but not give the wizard the one thing he needs to use his class features. Then it got turned into arguments about protecting your spell book and whatnot. Yes, a wizard can protect his spell book, but that doesn't matter if it's taken from him by DM fiat.

[Typewriter]

And really thats what I'm advocating, but that its a shared resposibility. One to say "Possibly this" and the others to say "Do you do this".
I keep it as a rule of host to let people know about the houserules I subsrcibe to, it only right. Though if they're accustomed to certain things they can run it by me and the group and we'll see if everyones cool with it.

Doesn't that just lead to meta gaming though?

DM: Hey, do you do any of that silly stuff to protect your spellbook?
Player: No, why bother. Am I right?
DM: No, it's probably going to be stolen.
Player: Well, no it's not because I'm going to protect it!

If you only protect things that the DM has told you are target-able aren't you making in game decisions based off of out of character knowledge?

A campaign is going to last somewhere between 20 - 30 sessions, and warning the wizard that he may be without his spellbook for a small amount of sessions just seems silly to me.

I do consistently remind my players not to put all their eggs in one basket as they never know when that's going to bite them. Of course 90% of the time that leads to nothing, so they generally ignore it.

[Kojiro]

That works, except it doesn't jive with the example that "inspired" the thread, which was the DM plot-nuking every character back to level 1 and taking every item they owned except a high level weapon each--and leaving the wizard with a weapon instead of his spell book. The original argument pertaining to that thread was if it was unfair to give everyone a fancy weapon they could actually use their class features with but not give the wizard the one thing he needs to use his class features. Then it got turned into arguments about protecting your spell book and whatnot. Yes, a wizard can protect his spell book, but that doesn't matter if it's taken from him by DM fiat.

Oh, yeah, there, it wouldn't work there, but I was thinking of more as a general protection thing than defense against the DM resetting the party. That is rather hard to defend either way.

[PollyOliver]

Oh, yeah, there, it wouldn't work there, but I was thinking of more as a general protection thing than defense against the DM resetting the party. That is rather hard to defend either way.

It would be kind of entertaining as a character point to have all those books, though. Ferociously organized wizard cannot mix schools of magic in one book. I bet universal spells would drive him absolutely nuts.

[NNescio]

It would be kind of entertaining as a character point to have all those books, though. Ferociously organized wizard cannot mix schools of magic in one book. I bet universal spells would drive him absolutely nuts.
Tattooed, perhaps?

[Kojiro]

It would be kind of entertaining as a character point to have all those books, though. Ferociously organized wizard cannot mix schools of magic in one book. I bet universal spells would drive him absolutely nuts.

Wouldn't be a spellbook so much as a spell pamphlet. Spell errata.

Also, for those curious, the character concept that lead me to this idea was an Archivist/Wizard/Mystic Theurge whose goal is to record all known magic; adding in the prayer books and even without the insane organization would have a veritable library with him at all times; as he's trying to catalog it all he'd probably rewrite copies of his earliest books (which would be all over the place since a level one Archivist doesn't have the money for a book for every school of magic) later too.

[Ursus the Grim]

If you only protect things that the DM has told you are target-able aren't you making in game decisions based off of out of character knowledge?


Not really. If the entire basis of your power dwells within one single object, it would be silly not to guard it. People lock up valuables, don't they? A wizard's spellbook is (in game terms) more valuable than anything I own. And I lock stuff up to keep it safe because its important.

Why would it NOT be target-table?

[Frozen_Feet]

Why would it NOT be target-table?

Yeah. If you get inside the head of a Wizard character for even a moment, or are in any way familiar with conventions pertaining to the archetype, keeping your spellbook secret and safe is natural. Just the existence of the archetype in the game alongside several archetypes of thieves should tip you off.

If you choose to do that based on the OOC certainty that your GM would never do that, you're missing the "roleplaying" aspect of RPGs quite badly...

[Midnight_v]

Doesn't that just lead to meta gaming though?
If you don't and that player is new to playing with you... its kinda pulling a fast one. If its a new group well..

You're going to pull that once on 1 person present and then it starts the paranoid mage bit. Or maybe people will only play sorcerers with eschew materials and psions from then on, I don't know.
Stealing a spell book might have some metagamey reactions just a easily, after the fact.
Course... I'm wondering... how are all these spellbooks just coming up missing?
I think I'd have a bigger problem with it if its arbitrary and not being mechanically done or done instead of murdering you.
"Sleep" in combat might and wake up with no gear is a bit better than "Sleep" coup'de grace. Though not much better, and sometimes feels worse if not quickly resolved.
Again the "Why are you taking the spell books at all?" is more important than how but it still kinda has resonance.
Oh and yeah. . . sunder should never be used by players, and its just crappy when monsters do it. I typically remove the option. . . along with quite a few other people I've met both Irl and online.



Yeah. If you get inside the head of a Wizard character for even a moment, or are in any way familiar with conventions pertaining to the archetype, keeping your spellbook secret and safe is natural. Just the existence of the archetype in the game alongside several archetypes of thieves should tip you off
Hmph well thats actually pretty awesom logic. These dudes are supra genious types so it likely is natural.

Paranoid wizards I guess are the ones that make it to 20, no other outcome could possibly bear fruit. Further these guys are taught most of the time so... it'd be like a marine losing he rifle.
Wow... thats what it reminds me of. Someone trying to take my rifle when in the marines
"This is my rifle there are many like it but this one is mine."



This is my Spellbook. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
My Spellbookis my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life.
My spellbook, without me, is useless. Without my spellbook, I am useless. I must cast my spells true. I must wield arcana better than my enemy who is trying to kill me. I must erase him before he erases me. I will...
My spellbook and myself know that what counts in this battle is not the divinations we cast, the noise of our evocations, nor the conjurations we summon. We know that it is the control over reality that counts.
We will control it...
My spellbook is mortal, even as I, because it is my life. Thus, I will learn it as a brother. I will learn its weaknesses, its strength, its parts, its accessories, its pages and its bindings. I will ever guard it against the ravages of weather and damage as I will ever guard my legs, my arms, my eyes and my heart against damage. I will keep my spellbook clean and ready. We will become part of each other. We will...
Before the Overdiety, I swear this creed. My spellbook and myself are the defenders of this and every plane of existence. We are the masters of our enemy. We are the saviors of my life.
So be it, until victory is ours and there is no enemy,save for peace!
I'm certain thats how wizards in the know would feel.Or worse.

[Ursus the Grim]

Yeah. If you get inside the head of a Wizard character for even a moment, or are in any way familiar with conventions pertaining to the archetype, keeping your spellbook secret and safe is natural. Just the existence of the archetype in the game alongside several archetypes of thieves should tip you off.

If you choose to do that based on the OOC certainty that your GM would never do that, you're missing the "roleplaying" aspect of RPGs quite badly...

Little did we know our favorite wizard wasn't talking about the one ring. . . .
http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2009/4/8/128836693294638433.jpg

[Yukitsu]

If you don't and that player is new to playing with you... its kinda pulling a fast one. If its a new group well..

You're going to pull that once on 1 person present and then it starts the paranoid mage bit.

This is the main problem I have with this style of play. A paranoid mage is one of the most annoying things in existence, and far more a problem to the DM, other players and even the wizard player himself than one that is just trying to enjoy the game.

[Gametime]

Well, this thread does confirm my hunch that 3.X wizard players are indeed a bunch of over-entitled munchkins. "Oh noos! Something has temporarily interfered with my Tier 1 ability to render all non-spellcasters useless! Whaaaah!"

Well, at least you've responded to this information maturely instead of immediately resorting to insults and hyperbole.




Do you never target party members with theft at all? No weapons or items or gold? What you're saying is that it's unfair to target a party member with theft unless you also steal from everyone else.

I've already said I don't think fairness is the only virtue necessary in DMing and that there are situations where you might need to be unfair. That said, as long as none of the characters are being especially foolish about avoiding theft - failing to set a watch, sleeping in a dodgy inn, something like that - I think it is unfair to steal from only one of them. But, again, that doesn't necessarily mean you should avoid it. It just means that if you do it, you should be willing to acknowledge that it was unfair. That's life.

(Also, I wouldn't considering stealing party resources, like gold or junk items, to be targeting a single player. Steal a spellbook or the fighter's sword? That's targeted. Steal the rogue's share of gold? That's not, because non-usable treasure is distributed evenly and I'd expect the other members to redistribute to help the rogue out. Other groups might not work that way, of course.)


For the record - Yes, realism is something my group does tend to favor. That being said I don't consider 'fair' and 'realism' to inherently be the same thing, which is why I was bothered by your usage.



I agree that fairness and realism aren't the same thing. My point is that when you say things like "It's only fair that the PCs are going to get robbed in this town of thieves," I think you should be saying "It's only realistic that the PCs get are going to get robbed in this town of thieves." NPCs making decisions that make sense for them, rather than decisions that move the story along, maintains verisimilitude. It doesn't have anything to do with fairness.



I can play a decent druid without picking up Natural Spell, VoP, and Exalted Wild Shape into a Cryohydra. That decent druid would still have an edge over my buddies the rogue, the sorceror, and the monk. I also think the Tier system is meant to reflect how hard it is to optimize a character. Tier 1 classes are easy to opt, tier 4s and 5s are not. Hence why an ubercharger build requires five different sourcebooks versus two for a wild shape druid.

Not really. Druids are notoriously easy to optimize, but the other tier 1's aren't, necessarily. Clerics aren't too hard, but Wizards require a decent amount of system mastery to really get going (and a lot of system mastery to actually hit their potential). Artificers require a decent amount of familiarity with the potential of magic items. Sorcerers are only tier 2, but they're arguably harder to optimize than wizards because they have the same options but less; optimizing a Sorcerer is an exercise in taking only the barest essentials and still maintaining full functionality.

Compare that to Tome of Battle classes, which are only tier 3 but are among the most straightforward classes to optimize in the game. Also from tier 3 is the Beguiler, which has such an obvious function that it's very difficult to use incorrectly.

[Frozen_Feet]

Little did we know our favorite wizard wasn't talking about the one ring. . . .
http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2009/4/8/128836693294638433.jpg

Actually, the Ring was kinda like Sauron's spellbook. Lord of the Rings details all thee various reasons why someone would want to take a Wizard's spellbook away, and keep it away, from them. :smallcool:

[Midnight_v]

This is the main problem I have with this style of play. A paranoid mage is one of the most annoying things in existence, and far more a problem to the DM, other players and even the wizard player himself than one that is just trying to enjoy the game.

Then stop making them paranoid!
Taking the spell book being one of the main things that triggers said paranoia. That, too many surprise attacks. Really just jerkface dm play in general. You know how many spells off hand work in an antimagic field? No? The paranoid wizard does. Have any idea when time the party is going to be attacked is? No? The paranoid wizard does. Know of 7 ways to creat back up spellbooks and the such? Yeah. . . guess who does.

So yeah playing for fun? Find out if everyone considers fun to be the fun before you start having fun at others expense. Its not "fair" its just the right thing to do, even outside of D&D.

[Yukitsu]

Then stop making them paranoid!
Taking the spell book being one of the main things that triggers said paranoia. That, too many surprise attacks. Really just jerkface dm play in general. You know how many spells off hand work in an antimagic field? No? The paranoid wizard does. Have any idea when time the party is going to be attacked is? No? The paranoid wizard does. Know of 7 ways to creat back up spellbooks and the such? Yeah. . . guess who does.

So yeah playing for fun? Find out if everyone considers fun to be the fun before you start having fun at others expense. Its not "fair" its just the right thing to do, even outside of D&D.

I've been saying I don't support stealing spell books. :smallconfused:

[Midnight_v]

I've been saying I don't support stealing spell books. :smallconfused:

Sorry. Uhm. The avatar I was looking at the same one as you and...

yeah sorry. :smallredface:

[Rogue Shadows]

So yeah playing for fun? Find out if everyone considers fun to be the fun before you start having fun at others expense. Its not "fair" its just the right thing to do, even outside of D&D.

See, I read this, and I just thought to myself, if you don't enjoy the way RTS's are played, then why are you playing StarCraft?

If it can happen to NPCs, then it can happen to PCs, that's my rule.

[JonestheSpy]

This is turning into a quite interesting conversation - the most of the interesting bits seem to be not admitted. Optimization vs roleplaying, player entitlement, all sorts of stuff.

First thing, I gotta say I was pretty surprised by the folks who said that it's better to die and start a new character than lose a spellbook. I mean, really, y'know, Roleplaying? Would your character really rather commit suicide than build up a new spellbook? Is your next character going to be indistinguishable from your last, just a level lower? Do you care nothing for playing a character with goals, motivations, and history that are unique?

Really, this is the kind of thing I associate with playing a not-very interesting video game for a second or third time - 'Eh, it's going to be too much hassle now, might as well restart'. I also can't help thinking of all the heroic fantasy/sword and sorcery books that inspired the game in the first place - you know, heroes occasionally have things go really really badly against them. That makes their efforts to overcome those circumstances all the more impressive. I don't believe I ever read a story wherein someone was thrown in the dungeon or whatever and decided "Ah, nevermind, someone almost identical to me is going to show up and achieve the quest instead."

Second, as for things like spell components and spellbooks - Wizards are the most powerful frickin class! Maybe there's some debate about druids or clerics being better, but really - whining about limitations and inconveniences to one's earth-shaking power is just ridiculous. Guess what, every time you cast Forcecage you're out 1500gp worth of ruby dust - your instant win has a price tag. They even provided some handy feats like Eschew Materials and Spell Mastery to make it easier for wizards, so I really can't see why anyone who doesn't want to deal with keeping track of bat guano can complain.

Lastly, the DM is not there to make sure everyone else has fun at their own expense. There seems to be a lot of "If a player isn't enjoying themselves, the DM is messing up" - completely forgetting that the DM is there to have fun too, and a bad player is just as much a detriment to group enjoyment as a jerk DM.

{Scrubbed}

[Rogue Shadows]

Actually, the Ring was kinda like Sauron's spellbook. Lord of the Rings details all thee various reasons why someone would want to take a Wizard's spellbook away, and keep it away, from them. :smallcool:

So basically the Other Side is saying that it's cool for Sauron to lose his Ring because he's an NPC, but the player losing his spellbook is out of the question because he's a PC.

Which must lead to a strange dichtomy in-game universe when a couple of thieves spot a wizard and go to steal his spellbook but then see the giant letters P.C. over his head and so think better of it.

[NNescio]

If you don't and that player is new to playing with you... its kinda pulling a fast one. If its a new group well..

You're going to pull that once on 1 person present and then it starts the paranoid mage bit. Or maybe people will only play sorcerers with eschew materials and psions from then on, I don't know.
Stealing a spell book might have some metagamey reactions just a easily, after the fact.
Course... I'm wondering... how are all these spellbooks just coming up missing?
I think I'd have a bigger problem with it if its arbitrary and not being mechanically done or done instead of murdering you.
"Sleep" in combat might and wake up with no gear is a bit better than "Sleep" coup'de grace. Though not much better, and sometimes feels worse if not quickly resolved.
Again the "Why are you taking the spell books at all?" is more important than how but it still kinda has resonance.
Oh and yeah. . . sunder should never be used by players, and its just crappy when monsters do it. I typically remove the option. . . along with quite a few other people I've met both Irl and online.



Hmph well thats actually pretty awesom logic. These dudes are supra genious types so it likely is natural.

Paranoid wizards I guess are the ones that make it to 20, no other outcome could possibly bear fruit. Further these guys are taught most of the time so... it'd be like a marine losing he rifle.
Wow... thats what it reminds me of. Someone trying to take my rifle when in the marines
"This is my rifle there are many like it but this one is mine."


I'm certain thats how wizards in the know would feel.Or worse.

"I am the Wizard...and this [grabs book] is my weapon. [lays both hands covetously on book] She weighs one point three six ought seven kilograms and is scribed with rare inks in a complex notation at one hundred GP per page. [looks intently at viewer] It takes two full days of continuous deciphering and scribing to record the page... for a single cantrip."

[Laughs]

[Checks book]

"Oh the Gods, who touched Verita? Alright... WHO TOUCHED MY BOOK?!

--

"Some people think they have more street smarts than me. Maybe, [sniffs] maybe. I've yet to meet one who can outsmart SPELLZ."

Edit: Minor errors.

[Midnight_v]

"I am the Wizard...and this [grabs book] is my weapon. [lays both hands covetously on book] She weighs one point three six ought seven kilograms and is scribed with rare inks in a complex notation at one hundred GP per page. [looks intently at viewer]It takes four days of continuous scribing to record the pages... for a single fourth-level spell."

[Laughs]

[Checks book]

"Oh the Gods, who touched Verita? Alright... WHO TOUCHED MY BOOK?!
I literally laughed out loud.
My girl is like "What so funny over there?" Wow. This made coming to this froum worthwhile.

[Deathslayer7]

I think this all depends on the player's/DM's choice of "fun" and "fairness"

Is it fair to leave the fighter and barbarian their weapons while the wizard also keeps his weapon? No, its not, because a wizard only has a weapon for show for the most part. Yes he could use it if his spellbook is stolen. But he couldn't use it as effectively as he could use his spells.

Is it fair to leave the barbarian and fighter their weapons and the wizard his spellbook. Absolutely, as each of them use that to complete what they were meant to do. Help the party the best way they can.

Were you wrong in stealing the spellbook? Maybe. Maybe not. Personally I don't DM where I gimp characters (loos of limbs or spellbooks or holy symbols). That's not what we are in it for and thats not fun to us. We are in it to make a story, and that story happens by actions and consequences. Actions happen by doing what they think is best, for better or worse.

Mayhaps rather than stealing a spellbook, perhaps find a counter to the problem that doesn't effectively shut down the character? Example, have a swarm of bats attack the wizard so he is stuck dealing with that rather than the wizard. Wizard is still useful, and not completely shut down.

But in the end it boils down to this: Are you and your players still having fun?

[Rogue Shadows]

Were you wrong in stealing the spellbook? Maybe. Maybe not. Personally I don't DM where I gimp characters (loos of limbs or spellbooks or holy symbols). That's not what we are in it for and thats not fun to us. We are in it to make a story, and that story happens by actions and consequences. Actions happen by doing what they think is best, for better or worse.

So in your stories it is impossible for things to be stolen? Damn, and I was going to play a Thief-Acrobat, too...

The "it's a story" argument doesn't follow through because in stories, things are stolen/destroyed/go missing/whatever.

[Amnestic]

So in your stories it is impossible for things to be stolen? Damn, and I was going to play a Thief-Acrobat, too...

The "it's a story" argument doesn't follow through because in stories, things are stolen/destroyed/go missing/whatever.

A lot worse things that stuff being stolen happens in stories. Frankly quite horrific things. Would you be comfortable and okay with such things occuring in your games? To your characters? Is there anything story-wise you would not be okay with? Which would detract from your fun?

My guess is 'yes'. If not you, then I can almost guarantee that your fellow players have some lines they'd rather not cross in game. After that, we're just quibbling about where we draw the line. For some, it's having their stuff stolen - that detracts from their fun. For you, maybe not. But I don't buy that "It's in a story, therefore it's a-okay" argument any more than you seem to buy the "It's a story, therefore I don't want it" one.

[Rogue Shadows]

My guess is 'yes'. If not you, then I can almost guarantee that your fellow players have some lines they'd rather not cross in game. After that, we're just quibbling about where we draw the line. For some, it's having their stuff stolen - that detracts from their fun. For you, maybe not. But I don't buy that "It's in a story, therefore it's a-okay" argument any more than you seem to buy the "It's a story, therefore I don't want it" one.

That's sort of my point. "It's a story" is a useless qualifier, since there are stories about everything.

[Gametime]

So then you agree that it's perfectly acceptable to draw lines based around the sort of game in which the players are interested in playing.

What are we arguing about?

[Kojiro]

I don't think anyone has any idea anymore. "My fun is more valid than your fun" is what some of it seemed to break down to.

Edit: That and that both sides used absolutes in their arguments for something, which of course made the other side that liked what they didn't argue back, and so on.

[Salbazier]

See, I read this, and I just thought to myself, if you don't enjoy the way RTS's are played, then why are you playing StarCraft?

If it can happen to NPCs, then it can happen to PCs, that's my rule.

People have different ways to play DnD, just saying. That rule is not necessarily true on all tables, and even then it may enforced differently.

[Eric Tolle]

Hm. Based on a character idea I had, I just realized, one could go for a multiple spellbooks approach, and just don't write everything in one.


That's indeed an excellent idea! In fact, that's pretty much what we used to do in AD&D. We would have one main set of spellbooks hidden in secure locations, and make traveling spellbooks for adventuring, containing only the spells we'd likely need.

In 3.X such a strategy is even easier; for a travel spellbook, how many cantrips are you really going to need? Six? And since you don't need a book to memorize Read Magic, that's one fewer. Likewise for 1st. and higher level spells, the spells used in the field are likely going to be 1/2 to 2/3s the number of total spells known.

And then there's the odd tricks mages can use; one of my mages engraved his spells of his mage's tower, for a start. As for those players who don't want to play a smart, careful, detail oriented and properly crafty wizard? Play a damn Sorcerer already! They were designed for the "Hurf durf I too stupid to make a backup spellbook" style of player character.

[Ursus the Grim]

I don't think anyone has any idea anymore. "My fun is more valid than your fun" is what some of it seemed to break down to.

Honestly, that's what half the arguments on these forums break down into.

[Alabenson]

Frankly, I'm of the opinion that it would be okay for a DM to target a PC wizard's spellbook, but only with the following conditions in mind:

1: Inform the player at character creation that you consider the wizard's spellbook to be fair game. I think its clear that not all player's consider this to be the norm, and giving them a warning means they have the option of either not playing a wizard, taking steps to protect their spellbook, or living with the consequences.

2: Be aware of the seriousness of a wizard losing their spellbook. If a martial character loses their weapon, they can freely pick up a random weapon and retain most of their usefullness. If a wizard loses their spellbook, they have no alternative to spending a large chunk to most of their WBL and months of in-game time rebuilding it. As it has been mentioned, a wizard without a spellbook is essentially a glorified commoner. Those scrolls the wizard has? Consumed to rebuild the spellbook. Those wands/staffs? Sold to finance the rebuilding of said spellbook. If the DM is not comfortable with the next several sessions becoming "Wizard PC rebuilds his spellbook theatre", then don't target it.

3: Be aware of the fact that most common defenses to spellbook targeting can quickly destroy the game. I can't stress this last part enough. The first two spells a competant wizard is going to look at to prevent spellbook theft are rope trick, the key to the 15 minute adventuring workday, and explosive runes, the source of the boombox tactic. Keep in mind, targeting a wizards spellbook encourages use of these spells, which means sooner or later you will likely see these tactics in action.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

So basically the Other Side is saying that it's cool for Sauron to lose his Ring because he's an NPC, but the player losing his spellbook is out of the question because he's a PC.

Except Sauron doesn't need the ring to function on a day to day basis and is, you know, the BBEG.


Which must lead to a strange dichtomy in-game universe when a couple of thieves spot a wizard and go to steal his spellbook but then see the giant letters P.C. over his head and so think better of it.

That or they know the dangers of such a threat a wizard is and just don't bother trying it.:smallsigh:


First thing, I gotta say I was pretty surprised by the folks who said that it's better to die and start a new character than lose a spellbook. I mean, really, y'know, Roleplaying? Would your character really rather commit suicide than build up a new spellbook? Is your next character going to be indistinguishable from your last, just a level lower? Do you care nothing for playing a character with goals, motivations, and history that are unique?

Suicide and retiring are entirely different things. If even a 3rd level wizard loses his spellbook, that sets him days behind if he wishes to scribe in his new spells himself. Time-sensitive quests can forceably remove him from combat, turning him into, at best, an Oracle-like character giving hints to the rest of the party as he sits back at base camp catching up.

A player could still roleplay it out with the recovery and all, but knowing your DM has done this once before and shows signs of doing it again, it may just be easier to roll up a new character.


Really, this is the kind of thing I associate with playing a not-very interesting video game for a second or third time - 'Eh, it's going to be too much hassle now, might as well restart'. I also can't help thinking of all the heroic fantasy/sword and sorcery books that inspired the game in the first place - you know, heroes occasionally have things go really really badly against them. That makes their efforts to overcome those circumstances all the more impressive. I don't believe I ever read a story wherein someone was thrown in the dungeon or whatever and decided "Ah, nevermind, someone almost identical to me is going to show up and achieve the quest instead."

Sometimes people lose motivation. I don't know how many times I've seen characters like Doc Oct who lose their life's work and then just snap, transforming into a homicidal maniac at the worst or simply quitting their research due just to how many years of it were lost. And guess what? Those are qualities you will rarely fine in your typical hero, so it still fits the paradigm.


Second, as for things like spell components and spellbooks - Wizards are the most powerful frickin class! Maybe there's some debate about druids or clerics being better, but really - whining about limitations and inconveniences to one's earth-shaking power is just ridiculous. Guess what, every time you cast Forcecage you're out 1500gp worth of ruby dust - your instant win has a price tag. They even provided some handy feats like Eschew Materials and Spell Mastery to make it easier for wizards, so I really can't see why anyone who doesn't want to deal with keeping track of bat guano can complain.

Just because I can roll Pun-Pun with a level one character doesn't mean I will or even should. As a wizard, even though I could have "UNLIMITED GOD LIKE POWERS (TM) doesn't mean I plan on it or will set up to do such.

The problem with those feats is, outside of grabbing them for a prestige class or the player's convenience of not hauling several bags worth of spell components around, they are utterly jank. Eschew Materials is a ~5 GP item, if anything. Spell Mastery would be great, except the clause on how you only learn to "maser" spells you know at the time you take it, so grabbing it at first means taking a crap ton of 1st level spells I probably won't need to use later on or do no good at getting me back a new spellbook.

And even if I am at a point where those first level spells are still damnedly useful - say, below level 7 - I still have to go around blowing my higher level slots with them, because not all wizards run the metamagic route. Personally, the only metamagic I can insure a wizard of mine will have is Extend Spell, simply due to hour/level and 10 minutes/level buffs being so nice to have up most, if not all of, the day.


Lastly, the DM is not there to make sure everyone else has fun at their own expense. There seems to be a lot of "If a player isn't enjoying themselves, the DM is messing up" - completely forgetting that the DM is there to have fun too, and a bad player is just as much a detriment to group enjoyment as a jerk DM.

It is one thing to do something that temporarily means another PC is not maximizing fun. Say, heading into a known temple of undead and the party rogue not getting sneak attack in combat. It is another thing entirely to go "So, you know the only thing you can do? Yeah, no more of that."

It is very much like destroying a fighter's sword and armor, because, really, due to skill point limitations, at the end of the day, all a fighter could hope to do is fight. Given a moderate amount of optimization all around, he can't even do that without either ACFs or multiclassing into something better.


{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Cool story there, but, really, those things are rather annoying. Just because I can roleplay a crazy ass wizard who just lost his spellbook and is ready to go on a murder-spry the likes of witch would put V to shame doesn't mean I want to do that. Nor would I even necessarily enjoy it in a non=cathartic manor.

[PollyOliver]

Frankly, I'm of the opinion that it would be okay for a DM to target a PC wizard's spellbook, but only with the following conditions in mind:

1: Inform the player at character creation that you consider the wizard's spellbook to be fair game. I think its clear that not all player's consider this to be the norm, and giving them a warning means they have the option of either not playing a wizard, taking steps to protect their spellbook, or living with the consequences.

2: Be aware of the seriousness of a wizard losing their spellbook. If a martial character loses their weapon, they can freely pick up a random weapon and retain most of their usefullness. If a wizard loses their spellbook, they have no alternative to spending a large chunk to most of their WBL and months of in-game time rebuilding it. As it has been mentioned, a wizard without a spellbook is essentially a glorified commoner. Those scrolls the wizard has? Consumed to rebuild the spellbook. Those wands/staffs? Sold to finance the rebuilding of said spellbook. If the DM is not comfortable with the next several sessions becoming "Wizard PC rebuilds his spellbook theatre", then don't target it.

3: Be aware of the fact that most common defenses to spellbook targeting can quickly destroy the game. I can't stress this last part enough. The first two spells a competant wizard is going to look at to prevent spellbook theft are rope trick, the key to the 15 minute adventuring workday, and explosive runes, the source of the boombox tactic. Keep in mind, targeting a wizards spellbook encourages use of these spells, which means sooner or later you will likely see these tactics in action.

Very much yes.

[Typewriter]

Not really. If the entire basis of your power dwells within one single object, it would be silly not to guard it. People lock up valuables, don't they? A wizard's spellbook is (in game terms) more valuable than anything I own. And I lock stuff up to keep it safe because its important.

Why would it NOT be target-table?

What I was saying is why should I have to tell my players that the objects are targetable in game? If they're going to protect their spellbook, they should decide to do that before I tell them "By the way I'm willing to target spellbooks".



I've already said I don't think fairness is the only virtue necessary in DMing and that there are situations where you might need to be unfair. That said, as long as none of the characters are being especially foolish about avoiding theft - failing to set a watch, sleeping in a dodgy inn, something like that - I think it is unfair to steal from only one of them. But, again, that doesn't necessarily mean you should avoid it. It just means that if you do it, you should be willing to acknowledge that it was unfair. That's life.

Actually I've always found life to be fair. People aren't always fair, but whenever someone says "Why did this happen to me? Life is so unfair" I (keep my mouth shut but) think "No, life is fair. What happened to you happened because of a chain of events that made perfect sense, regardless of how much it sucks for you."



(Also, I wouldn't considering stealing party resources, like gold or junk items, to be targeting a single player. Steal a spellbook or the fighter's sword? That's targeted. Steal the rogue's share of gold? That's not, because non-usable treasure is distributed evenly and I'd expect the other members to redistribute to help the rogue out. Other groups might not work that way, of course.)

But that's up to the party to decide. If the rogue gets his gold stolen and nobody wants to re-compensate that's their choice. My group would generally help him out (they keep most of their wealth piled into one lump sum and don't bother to divvy it 'evenly'). I'd probably be bitter if my group decided not to help me after I'd been robbed, but that would cause my character to behave differently towards the party. One way or another.



I agree that fairness and realism aren't the same thing. My point is that when you say things like "It's only fair that the PCs are going to get robbed in this town of thieves," I think you should be saying "It's only realistic that the PCs get are going to get robbed in this town of thieves." NPCs making decisions that make sense for them, rather than decisions that move the story along, maintains verisimilitude. It doesn't have anything to do with fairness.


I would argue that in the specific instance we're discussing it is both fair and realistic, so it shouldn't really matter which word I use.

[PollyOliver]

What I was saying is why should I have to tell my players that the objects are targetable in game? If they're going to protect their spellbook, they should decide to do that before I tell them "By the way I'm willing to target spellbooks".

Because there is a clear split here between people who consider this a normal tactic and people who consider it to be abnormal, unfair, or have just never even heard of a DM doing it. Groups have very different play styles, and a new player should be informed what kind of play style he's in for. "I consider it fair game to challenge characters in such a way that if they fail, they could lose their primary class features for multiple sessions, so be prepared or face the consequences" seems like a simple way to avoid a lot of headaches later on. If there's a big split here between people who thinks it's a source of possible fun and those who think it's the antithesis of fun, that implies a split in the real world too--why not make it clear from the outset that this is the type of game that you're running?

[Typewriter]

Because there is a clear split here between people who consider this a normal tactic and people who consider it to be abnormal, unfair, or have just never even heard of a DM doing it. Groups have very different play styles, and a new player should be informed what kind of play style he's in for. "I consider it fair game to challenge characters in such a way that if they fail, they could lose their primary class features for multiple sessions, so be prepared or face the consequences" seems like a simple way to avoid a lot of headaches later on. If there's a big split here between people who thinks it's a source of possible fun and those who think it's the antithesis of fun, that implies a split in the real world too--why not make it clear from the outset that this is the type of game that you're running?

So they should be allowed to metagame then? This conversation just went in a loop.

1. You should tell your players
2. If I tell my players "X" is targetable in specific campaigns, they are only going to protect "X" when they know it's targetable? How is that not meta-gaming?
3. Ursus the grim said that they should protect it anyway, since it's so important to the character.
4. I responded to him saying "Then why should I tell them"
5. You said "Go to 1"

EDIT:

Imagine this scenario:

DM: OK, you failed your perception checks, do you have any magical protection for your spellbook?
Wizard: No... why would I need it?
DM: Your spellbook is gone when you wake up
Wizard: What? Why would you target my spellbook?
DM: Because the villain just reduced the parties efficiency considerably, and all it took was a couple stealth check by a hired thief.
Wizard: But you've never targeted it in past campaigns.
DM: It never came up in past campaigns.
Wizard: Well if I knew you would target them I would have protected it better
DM: So you would have used OoC knowledge to determine your characters actions?
Wizard: You never stole spellbooks in past campaigns though!
DM: So your character knows what happened to wizards in other campaigns in other settings, and would have based his actions off of that knowledge?

[Rogue Shadows]

Because there is a clear split here between people who consider this a normal tactic and people who consider it to be abnormal, unfair, or have just never even heard of a DM doing it. Groups have very different play styles, and a new player should be informed what kind of play style he's in for. "I consider it fair game to challenge characters in such a way that if they fail, they could lose their primary class features for multiple sessions, so be prepared or face the consequences" seems like a simple way to avoid a lot of headaches later on. If there's a big split here between people who thinks it's a source of possible fun and those who think it's the antithesis of fun, that implies a split in the real world too--why not make it clear from the outset that this is the type of game that you're running?

"By the way, you guys might die, and none of us have Ghostwalk, so that might result in you losing some primary class features for multiple sessions. Just an FYI."

Certain things should be implicit and I find it stupifying that a wizard's spellbook isn't one of them.

[olentu]

So they should be allowed to metagame then? This conversation just went in a loop.

1. You should tell your players
2. If I tell my players "X" is targetable in specific campaigns, they are only going to protect "X" when they know it's targetable? How is that not meta-gaming?
3. Ursus the grim said that they should protect it anyway, since it's so important to the character.
4. I responded to him saying "Then why should I tell them"
5. You said "Go to 1"

Metagame concerns are quite important in a game. They are what keep people from playing characters distasteful to other players, hogging the spotlight, making characters too powerful for the group, kicking out characters even a bit weaker then the group, playing characters that mess up adventures, wasting hours and hours of time detailing the minutia of spellbook defense, and so forth. Without metagame concerns being accounted for games and groups can easily fall apart.

[Yukitsu]

What I was saying is why should I have to tell my players that the objects are targetable in game? If they're going to protect their spellbook, they should decide to do that before I tell them "By the way I'm willing to target spellbooks".

Because if you're doing it such that the DM can't have some twit steal your book, you'll be wasting about half an hour of IRL time every day in game, or more if you're traveling. Or, you'll put a spare out in the open and when it gets stolen, you kill the thief, his family, his village, his kingdom. When they're asking why you're doing that, just tell them it's because he stole your spell book.

DMs have had a history of disliking the latter solution, but honestly if there are wizards in the world then woe be unto the idiot that thinks demonstrating a willingness to steal from one comes with no punishments.

[Alabenson]

So they should be allowed to metagame then? This conversation just went in a loop.

1. You should tell your players
2. If I tell my players "X" is targetable in specific campaigns, they are only going to protect "X" when they know it's targetable? How is that not meta-gaming?
3. Ursus the grim said that they should protect it anyway, since it's so important to the character.
4. I responded to him saying "Then why should I tell them"
5. You said "Go to 1"

The problem with point number 3 is that it can also be used to justify having the BBEG employ scry and die tactics against the PCs. From the BBEG's point of view, waiting for the PCs to fall asleep and the teleporting in and slaughtering them is a perfectly valid tactic. Most PCs would not have defenses against this sort of tactic, because most DM's would not employ it. My point is that if the DM felt the need to have the BBEG do something like this which runs counter to the expected norms, the sporting thing to do would be to warn the players that this might happen. If they persist in taking no precautions againsts enemy divinations and such, then the fault lies with them. If the DM does not warn them of the possiblity of such tactics, then the fault lies with the DM for not alerting them to divergences from the expected norm.

[Ursus the Grim]

What I was saying is why should I have to tell my players that the objects are targetable in game? If they're going to protect their spellbook, they should decide to do that before I tell them "By the way I'm willing to target spellbooks".


This may break the discussion of infinite loops, but I am going to state that I misinterpreted that point. I agree. You shouldn't have to tell players what can be targeted and what can't be. Anything should be assumed to be fair game.

Much like a group shouldn't assume a deus ex machina will save them from the Colossal Red Wyrm, the characters shouldn't assume their achilles' heel is safely covered by 'fairness armor'.

[Alabenson]

"By the way, you guys might die, and none of us have Ghostwalk, so that might result in you losing some primary class features for multiple sessions. Just an FYI."

Certain things should be implicit and I find it stupifying that a wizard's spellbook isn't one of them.

Just because you feel certain things should be implicit does not make them so.

[olentu]

"By the way, you guys might die, and none of us have Ghostwalk, so that might result in you losing some primary class features for multiple sessions. Just an FYI."

Certain things should be implicit and I find it stupifying that a wizard's spellbook isn't one of them.

Death is normally much much easier to recover from then the loss of equipment.

[Rogue Shadows]

DMs have had a history of disliking the latter solution, but honestly if there are wizards in the world then woe be unto the idiot that thinks demonstrating a willingness to steal from one comes with no punishments.

And then killing that kingdom pisses off an NPC wizard who happened to like it, which culminates in Pun-Pun.

There's a reason why the USA or the USSR didn't launch nukes at each other just because a spy or someone defected here and there.

[Kojiro]

I have to agree that, while metagaming out and out isn't quite the best thing, reminding players that certain things, be it items of the character's very limbs, are vulnerable to being destroyed and in fact outright targeted isn't necessarily bad. You don't even have to list everything; as an example, I didn't even consider much spellbook protection before reading a different thread on this forum, although thinking about it now it would in fact be important to a character. After that, though, I began considering other various important things too, that would be both OoC and in-character concerns that should be addressed. You don't need to tell your players outright that you're going to do this or that, but a reminder that this is a game where things along those lines may happen, preferably at the beginning rather than right before the session you actually pull it in, wouldn't be a mistake, I believe.

[Rogue Shadows]

Death is normall much much easier to recover from then the loss of equipment.

Which is really weird and the fundamental source of the problem.

[PollyOliver]

So they should be allowed to metagame then? This conversation just went in a loop.

1. You should tell your players
2. If I tell my players "X" is targetable in specific campaigns, they are only going to protect "X" when they know it's targetable? How is that not meta-gaming?
3. Ursus the grim said that they should protect it anyway, since it's so important to the character.
4. I responded to him saying "Then why should I tell them"
5. You said "Go to 1"

Um, I'm not Ursus. Maybe he said that, but I didn't. I think you should tell them to be sure, regardless of 3, because this is obviously (from this thread and many others on the topic) a point of large contention. When there is a point of such large contention, the mature thing to do as a DM is to make it clear where you fall.

In any case, a certain amount of metagaming and setting/describing of boundaries is required to run a smooth game. You tell your players what kind of game you're running beforehand, so they don't go into a hide-under-the-beds-horror campaign with Sunshine McHappyFace unless they want to or so the guy who likes to play rogues and the girl who plays beguilers don't get blindsided by your really cool scenario in which every enemy in the campaign is undead or a construct. You--or I--also discuss with your group what kind of conduct you consider acceptable from them--what level of optimization you allow, whether you take "burns down everything" evil characters, how you interpret the paladin code, etc. What precisely is wrong with, in discussing what kind of player choices you consider acceptable, also mentioning what kind of conduct you consider to be fair game on your own part?


"By the way, you guys might die, and none of us have Ghostwalk, so that might result in you losing some primary class features for multiple sessions. Just an FYI."

Certain things should be implicit and I find it stupifying that a wizards spellbook isn't one of them.

Well, considering the split in this thread and past threads like it, obviously there are a lot of people who don't find that stupefying. Why not inform them in advance and head off a lot of heartache later? Communication is important, and this is obviously a point of debate, so why not put it out there?

[Ursus the Grim]

The problem with point number 3 is that it can also be used to justify having the BBEG employ scry and die tactics against the PCs. From the BBEG's point of view, waiting for the PCs to fall asleep and the teleporting in and slaughtering them is a perfectly valid tactic. Most PCs would not have defenses against this sort of tactic, because most DM's would not employ it. My point is that if the DM felt the need to have the BBEG do something like this which runs counter to the expected norms, the sporting thing to do would be to warn the players that this might happen. If they persist in taking no precautions againsts enemy divinations and such, then the fault lies with them. If the DM does not warn them of the possiblity of such tactics, then the fault lies with the DM for not alerting them to divergences from the expected norm.

Wait wait wait wait wait.
The party has NO defenses they set up when they go to sleep? Every group I have EVER played with takes shifts when they sleep. That's not even getting into safeguards they set up (Alarm spells, immovable rods on the door, etc).

What characters, having crossed a BBEG would think its fine to completely let down their guard for eight hours at the same time? How does one expect to survive?

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Imagine this scenario:

DM: OK, you failed your perception checks, do you have any magical protection for your spellbook?
Wizard: No... why would I need it?
DM: Your spellbook is gone when you wake up
Wizard: What? Why would you target my spellbook?
DM: Because the villain just reduced the parties efficiency considerably, and all it took was a couple stealth check by a hired thief.
Wizard: But you've never targeted it in past campaigns.
DM: It never came up in past campaigns.
Wizard: Well if I knew you would target them I would have protected it better
DM: So you would have used OoC knowledge to determine your characters actions?
Wizard: You never stole spellbooks in past campaigns though!
DM: So your character knows what happened to wizards in other campaigns in other settings, and would have based his actions off of that knowledge?

You keep throwing this scenario around: it makes little sense. Can someone have a reason just to steal rather than kill the wizard? Yeah, but, seriously, no, if the wizard has even the chance to be a threat, just kill the bastard in his sleep rather than do that! It'd feel the same to the player one way or another.:smallannoyed:

[Rogue Shadows]

What characters, having crossed a BBEG would think its fine to completely let down their guard for eight hours at the same time? How does one expect to survive?

Um...

...fifteen minute adventuring day, go!

[olentu]

Wait wait wait wait wait.
The party has NO defenses they set up when they go to sleep? Every group I have EVER played with takes shifts when they sleep. That's not even getting into safeguards they set up (Alarm spells, immovable rods on the door, etc).

What characters, having crossed a BBEG would think its fine to completely let down their guard for eight hours at the same time? How does one expect to survive?

I find that most parties having perhaps never even having gained clear knowledge of the BBEG do not generally prepare each night for an end of campaign level boss fight to occur while trying to sleep.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Um...

...fifteen minute adventuring day, go!

Can we please kill this idea already?:smallsigh: Yes, some players are derp and blow their entire load in one fight, but a half-way intelligent player can drop maybe one of his highest level spells per combat, drop down to two or three of his second or third highest level slots and still be credit to team. And guess what? Said casters should easily have enough slots to work the entire day, too.:smallwink:

[Ursus the Grim]

I find that most parties having perhaps never even gained clear knowledge of the BBEG do not generally prepare each night for an end of campaign level boss fight to occur while trying to sleep.

Not saying preparation for the BBEG to swing by is necessary. I just mean some precautions should naturally be taken when in a high-risk profession. As opposed to a completely unprepared, sleeping party, which is, apparently, the norm here. *shrug*

Moral of the story? Everyone has different groups. Everyone plays differently. I guess we can't make assumptions based on things that "our DM wouldn't do because that's just not right."


Um...

...fifteen minute adventuring day, go!

Really, the rest takes about two hours longer when done in a 4 person party. This isn't accounting for guards that do not sleep, such as constructs, undead, elves, etc. If your DM is going to penalize you terribly for being two hours behind schedule, well, I think you've got bigger problems than guarding your spellbook.

[Volthawk]

Huh, looking at this thread, it's been little slices of silly/funny posts in a sandwich made of people going back and forth on the same stuff.

[Kojiro]

Wait wait wait wait wait.
The party has NO defenses they set up when they go to sleep? Every group I have EVER played with takes shifts when they sleep. That's not even getting into safeguards they set up (Alarm spells, immovable rods on the door, etc).

What characters, having crossed a BBEG would think its fine to completely let down their guard for eight hours at the same time? How does one expect to survive?

I also have to agree with this, because, well, you just said it, it's outright stupid in-character and out to not have some preparations. Spellcasters who need eight hours of rest set up wards and protection while the ones who can do with less sleep keep watch.

However, as someone else later pointed out, people like to go in the opposite direction and just use things like Rope Trick to take this in the absolute opposite direction. Bad DMs and overly-paranoid players seem to be the cause of this whole issue, actually; one group tries to screw the players, and the other is so afraid of the former, whether or not one is present, that they make the game unfun in their attempts to avoid their wrath.

And, of course, both sides here seem to be assuming that either or both of these are the norm, even though they mostly seem generally reasonable, if varied, in their opinions on this, and thus the arguments continue when as far as I can tell there's no real quarrel here; people on one side are simply fighting their bogeyman instead of the other side's actual arguments and vice versa. If it were simply assumed that both the players and the DMs were reasonable (despite the horror stories they actually seem to be the exception rather than the norm), and certain things were laid out before the campaign got started, this whole argument would be irrelevant.

Edit: Ursus beat me to this and was more succinct in doing it, basically. Read what he said instead.

[PollyOliver]

Huh, looking at this thread, it's been little slices of silly/funny posts in a sandwich made of people going back and forth on the same stuff.

Honestly, at this point we've pretty much turned into "my fun is better"/"no my fun is better"/"why don't you just say what kind of fun ahead of time"/"because my fun is so much funner that it's the only right fun and doesn't need to be said because if you say it it's less fun"/monty python video/"my fun is better".

Edit: to be clear, also knocking myself, as I think I have one or two of those "my fun is better" posts somewhere upthread before cooling it slightly

[Ursus the Grim]

Huh, looking at this thread, it's been little slices of silly/funny posts in a sandwich made of people going back and forth on the same stuff.

Well, smashing your head into a wall repeatedly and comic relief go hand in hand. Like Kojiro said, the basic argument has been defined, and there's really no solution. Its also gotten a bit off topic. Now would be a decent time for me to step back out of it, actually.

[olentu]

Not saying preparation for the BBEG to swing by is necessary. I just mean some precautions should naturally be taken when in a high-risk profession. As opposed to a completely unprepared, sleeping party, which is, apparently, the norm here. *shrug*

Moral of the story? Everyone has different groups. Everyone plays differently. I guess we can't make assumptions based on things that "our DM wouldn't do because that's just not right."



Really, the rest takes about two hours longer when done in a 4 person party. This isn't accounting for guards that do not sleep, such as constructs, undead, elves, etc. If your DM is going to penalize you terribly for being two hours behind schedule, well, I think you've got bigger problems than guarding your spellbook.

"From the BBEG's point of view, waiting for the PCs to fall asleep and the teleporting in and slaughtering them is a perfectly valid tactic. Most PCs would not have defenses against this sort of tactic, because most DM's would not employ it."

Defenses against this sort of tactic presumably meaning a BBEG scry and die, meaning one or more end of campaign level boss fights while you are trying to sleep.

[Salbazier]

So they should be allowed to metagame then? This conversation just went in a loop.

1. You should tell your players
2. If I tell my players "X" is targetable in specific campaigns, they are only going to protect "X" when they know it's targetable? How is that not meta-gaming?
3. Ursus the grim said that they should protect it anyway, since it's so important to the character.
4. I responded to him saying "Then why should I tell them"
5. You said "Go to 1"

EDIT:

Imagine this scenario:

DM: OK, you failed your perception checks, do you have any magical protection for your spellbook?
Wizard: No... why would I need it?
DM: Your spellbook is gone when you wake up
Wizard: What? Why would you target my spellbook?
DM: Because the villain just reduced the parties efficiency considerably, and all it took was a couple stealth check by a hired thief.
Wizard: But you've never targeted it in past campaigns.
DM: It never came up in past campaigns.
Wizard: Well if I knew you would target them I would have protected it better
DM: So you would have used OoC knowledge to determine your characters actions?
Wizard: You never stole spellbooks in past campaigns though!
DM: So your character knows what happened to wizards in other campaigns in other settings, and would have based his actions off of that knowledge?

I think the point is this: Protecting one's spellbook is easy, but as Tyndmyr pointed out, it is cumbersome, not fun for everyone involved and that it can lead to to paranoia and 'arms race' between players and DM. Thus many people just won't bother when they don't see the need- they prefer just going on with the game because they see it will just slow down the game.


As for mentioning things beforehand, I think this thread serve well to demonstrate how people expectation are wildly different. On one side there are people who asserted that anything should be assumed as fair target and certain method precaution is an obvious thing to do. Meanwhile there are people who have never even considered such things or they have but are normally playing under some sort of social contract that make those things unnecessary. If anything, this is a good reason for DM and players to talk beforehand. To make sure that everyone has more or less same expectation about the game.

[DiBastet]

A player of a duskblade once had a fit after the session because he had his str drained by something, don't know what. I had five years of experience back in the day, and my party played with me for the better part of two years, except him (he was in the game for some two months). He proceeded to lecture me on how he was useless with his str drained, and how he considered horrible dming "using" things that removed player's abilities, like attribute draining, strong enemies with sunder and spellcaster stealing each other's spellbooks or destroying a rival's or something like that, that it screamed "bad dm" and a lot of things, in the most serious and professional tone he could make.

Next thing I know my players swooped down on him like vultures, apparently lectured him on how he was a sissy... and he never showed up again. I made myself a vow of never asking what they did to him...


Btw: One of my players, a an elf twf fighter monk recently got slashed across the face by a medusa and two sessions ago had one of his hands ripped by a ragewalker. I believe that in a game that players managed to make some decapitations and body-ripping with lucky crits, players expect some nasty scars. other players are considering what to give him, that stump katar or some graft. one of them really wants to give him a tentacle arm.

Other player just gained what would be equivalent of a +2 flaming greatsword (they're level 6 now, a big treasure!). She is a new player, like, fourth session, and it already amazed us how much thought she gave on how to protect her sword. She said "it's an expensive item, and we're not that powerful! I don't want a stronger adventurer coming and taking it!". Ge-ni-us.

[PollyOliver]

Next thing I know my players swooped down on him like vultures, apparently lectured him on how he was a sissy... and he never showed up again. I made myself a vow of never asking what they did to him...

Good DMs are hard to find, especially in real life. We can be...protective of them. *evil laughter*

[Salbazier]

A player of a duskblade once had a fit after the session because he had his str drained by something, don't know what. I had five years of experience back in the day, and my party played with me for the better part of two years, except him (he was in the game for some two months). He proceeded to lecture me on how he was useless with his str drained, and how he considered horrible dming "using" things that removed player's abilities, like attribute draining, strong enemies with sunder and spellcaster stealing each other's spellbooks or destroying a rival's or something like that, that it screamed "bad dm" and a lot of things, in the most serious and professional tone he could make.

Next thing I know my players swooped down on him like vultures, apparently lectured him on how he was a sissy... and he never showed up again. I made myself a vow of never asking what they did to him...

While I agree that player is overt in this case, I don't think I like what you're implying was being done to him by your other players... :smalleek:

[Alabenson]

I think the point is this: Protecting one's spellbook is easy, but as Tyndmyr pointed out, it is cumbersome, not fun for everyone involved and that it can lead to to paranoia and 'arms race' between players and
DM. Thus many people just won't bother when they don't see the need- they prefer just going on with the game because they see it just slow down the game.


As for mentioning things beforehand, I think this thread serve well to demonstrate how people expectation are wildly different. On one side there are people who asserted that anything should be assumed as fair target and certain method precaution is an obvious thing to do. Meanwhile there are people who have never even considered such things or they have but are normally playing under some sort of social contract that make those things necessary. If anything, this is a good reason for DM players to talk beforehand. To make sure that everyone has more or less same expectation about the game.

This is exactly what I'm saying, that it is important for the DM to talk to new players and give them an idea as to what their DMing style is, so everyone starts on the same page.

Addendum: The primary reasons a wizard's spellbook should be treated differently than any other piece of equipment are the fact that it represents a disproportionate part of a character's ability (i.e. more or less all of it), and it cannot by RAW be readily replaced.

Addendum to the Addendum: Spell Mastery ranks alongside Toughness as one of the worst feats every printed. It should not be looked at as a solution to anything.

[Merk]

"By the way, you guys might die, and none of us have Ghostwalk, so that might result in you losing some primary class features for multiple sessions. Just an FYI."

Certain things should be implicit and I find it stupifying that a wizard's spellbook isn't one of them.

I realize this is pretty unusual, but I actually run a lot of strictly no PC-death adventures. So it might not be a total given.

[Lonely Tylenol]

I can think of a number of reasons a Wizard enemy would want to steal a Wizard PC's spellbook, not the least of which is "the PC Wizard might have knowledge of arcane abilities that I don't, which I could gain access to through his spellbook".

Why you wouldn't then kill the Wizard and steal the spellbook from there is another story, but given what the OP said, scribing all the Wizard's spells into your own books so that the Wizard has no tricks up his sleeve that you don't also know, and then giving him back the spellbook so he can complete your missions while under the guise of the helpful, quest-giving NPC has the dual purpose of making sure you're always better than your strongest adversary, and also using that adversary's powers to your personal gain. Congratulations! You're a scheming Neutral Evil guy!

Regarding the thread that this was made in response to: Giving them nothing but their magic weapon certainly isn't the most balanced approach to things, but it is certainly the most consistent. Nothing short of DM fiat would allow the Wizard his spellbook, and that reeks of bad DMing just as much (if not more) than just giving them all their weapons, which leads me to the question:

Why did all the PCs inexplicably get to keep their weapons? If I was in the DM's situation, their weapons, too, would have been scattered to the four corners of the earth (or handed out to my lieutenants, who could use them to advance my own nefarious ends). That way, the Wizard is a level 1 Commoner-equivalent who must embark on a quest to become more than marginally useful, and the Fighter is also a level 1 Commoner-equivalent who must embark on a quest to become more than marginally useful. (On that note: a plain longsword is to a Fighter as a plain crossbow is to a Wizard, assuming the Wizard was "high-op" enough to at least make Dexterity one of his top 3 stats.)

This is, of course, assuming that the original scenario was done to advance plot, and things were recoverable (a "triumph over adversity" scenario), and not an in-character response to an out-of-character problem (a "rocks fall you die" scenario).

On that note, though, I'm starting a campaign with two new players in it (one who is absolutely new, and the other who has been playing for a few months in a railroad campaign and HATES it because of the lack of freedom), and I'm going to begin that campaign and every other I start (if not session) with the following mantra:

"First, you are free to do whatever you wish, as long as you have the imagination to think it up and the ability to follow through with it.
"Second, everything you do has consequences. If you choose to use clause 1 to do something grossly irresponsible and evil, and it affects the world negatively, the world will fight back appropriately.
"Third, nothing is sacred. Your equipment, your limbs, your senses, and your very life are all for the taking if you use them wastefully. If you stick your neck in a vice grip, you just might lose your head. Be careful."

Or something to the equivalent.

I have no intention of deliberately targeting characters who are causing problems or hand-waving entire lives away, but plot armor does not and should not exist, and anyone who operates under the assumption that it does does so at their own folly.

[Alabenson]

I'm going to begin that campaign and every other I start (if not session) with the following mantra:

"First, you are free to do whatever you wish, as long as you have the imagination to think it up and the ability to follow through with it.
"Second, everything you do has consequences. If you choose to use clause 1 to do something grossly irresponsible and evil, and it affects the world negatively, the world will fight back appropriately.
"Third, nothing is sacred. Your equipment, your limbs, your senses, and your very life are all for the taking if you use them wastefully. If you stick your neck in a vice grip, you just might lose your head. Be careful."


As long as the player's are aware of this mantra, I'm all for it. I only object if a DM argues that he has no need to communicate with the players.

[DiBastet]

but plot armor does not and should not exist, and anyone who operates under the assumption that it does does so at their own folly.

Go all in peace, and god bless thee.

Amen.

*Goes to sleep, happy to read some sense*

[Stompy]

A player of a duskblade once had a fit after the session because he had his str drained by something, don't know what. I had five years of experience back in the day, and my party played with me for the better part of two years, except him (he was in the game for some two months). He proceeded to lecture me on how he was useless with his str drained, and how he considered horrible dming "using" things that removed player's abilities, like attribute draining, strong enemies with sunder and spellcaster stealing each other's spellbooks or destroying a rival's or something like that, that it screamed "bad dm" and a lot of things, in the most serious and professional tone he could make.

Next thing I know my players swooped down on him like vultures, apparently lectured him on how he was a sissy... and he never showed up again. I made myself a vow of never asking what they did to him...

I could be off on this, but from what I have experienced, there are generally two styles of DMing I have seen and experienced:

Hardcore- Your case, and the OP's case, is that DnD should require very little (if at all) hand-holding, and that loss of equipment, sanity, and lives is a part of the game. This style views adventuring as extremely risky, with death around every corner. This (imo) seemed to be a part of the 1st (and maybe 2nd?) editon gameplay, where the wildness was not scaled, diseases could wreck people, the massive damage rules often killed low-level adventurers, and that people would have to pay money to level their characters. These games can see streaks were players often have to make a new character. (I have been in a 1e game like this, and I've had 5 characters die in 4 sessions.)

Static- ("sissy") The case most of the people (imo) had when calling "bad DM" at this thread and last thread. This case views DnD as a story-telling game, where hand-holding is done to prevent "unfair" (i.e. scry or die) situations that would make one or more characters practically useless. These situations have been bought up, like (permanent) str drain, spellbook loss, mass removal of equipment, death, etc. (That isn't to say it doesn't happen, but usually when a PC dies or becomes disabled, it is "their own fault".) I have usually seen this case in 3.5 and 4th edition, mainly because the hardcore case can require people to go through multiple characters, which could turn (esp. newer) people off to the game.

That being said, I have to echo the sentiment that the players should know what type of game, whether it is hardcore or static in this case, to avoid situations like the one quoted. To be perfectly honest, if the players knew about the tone of the OPs (and this quoted) game, then I can't find anything wrong with it.

Also, one minor clarification if it hasn't been bought up. Stealing a wizards only spellbook is not just a "nerf". Nerfs are power reductions done to things to get them to balance with other things power-wise. This spellbook theft is nothing short of putting said wizard into a coma combat and utility-wise.

[Frozen_Feet]

1: Inform the player at character creation that you consider the wizard's spellbook to be fair game. I think its clear that not all player's consider this to be the norm, and giving them a warning means they have the option of either not playing a wizard, taking steps to protect their spellbook, or living with the consequences.

The problem is, some of these situations should be self-evident to anyone who knows the rules. The game has rules for breaking weapons, so a Fighter should not be surprised at the possibility. The game has rules for stealing and the archetype for Thief sit right there, in the same crowd of playable characters as the Wizard. It's stressed in the description of the Wizard just how important the spellbook is, and the ramifications of losing it are easily seen.

A Wizard player who doesn't spend a minute thinking about it can hardly be said to know his own character. Now, it might be he just doesn't remember the rules, in which case, it'd be proper to remind him - but in the case of experienced players, they don't really have an excuse. Even if the OOC threat of losing a spellbook is nill, or near to it, there are several in-character reasons to protect it anyhow. Failure to do say is failure to roleplay the character.


If a martial character loses their weapon, they can freely pick up a random weapon and retain most of their usefullness.

This isn't as true as you make it sound. After certain point, random weapons picked up from the ground are near-useless without at least a friendly caster enhancing them so they can hit incorporeal enemies or the like. Losing that +x weapon of foo really hurts, and it hurts increasingly more as the game advances.


3: Be aware of the fact that most common defenses to spellbook targeting can quickly destroy the game. ... Keep in mind, targeting a wizards spellbook encourages use of these spells, which means sooner or later you will likely see these tactics in action.

Heh... hehehe... "destroy the game". They only destroy the game if you're unwilling to accept it as part of it. There are perfectly logical counter-tactics which can be used when appropriate; overall, the problems caused by the 15-min workday are often blown out of proportion. It isn't nearly as good a tactic as it's made to sound.

Some of the easiest ways to safeguard a spellbook slow down the game once, when the defenses are put in place, and they won't come up again until someone tries to steal the darn thing. At which point, some time spend on the issue is perfectly appropriate, since it's a plot point.


You keep throwing this scenario around: it makes little sense. Can someone have a reason just to steal rather than kill the wizard?

Money, knowledge, extortion material, they don't really like killing people but "borrowing" stuff is a-okay, they're convinced trying to attack the Wizard will be detrimental to their health... really, any number of reasons. Most of which would be applicable to stealing any valuable object.

[IncoherentEssay]

This thread got me thinking of ways to guard a spellbook cheap and easy, and i came up with this:
Take one spellbook, one Alchemical tooth (CAdv.) and one casting of shrink item.
Prep spells, shink book into a tiny cloth stamp, roll it up inside the tooth and stick the tooth in your mouth.

Book is only in the open whilst preppin, it takes a DC 30 Search check and more importantly rooting through your mouth to retrieve it. It's an enclosed container inside your mouth so theres no line of effect for Dispels, Disjunctions or Anti-Magic Fields*.
[Retrieve item] is not a stated property of Wish (unless there is a spell with the function that it could emulate), so no threat of stealthy retrieval by Wish**.
Since it does involve pulling out a tooth, NPC wizards are highly unlikely to consider it, since their books are not at risk anywhere near as often as those of adventuring wizards, so the trick is unlikely to be widely known and prepared for.
Final pre-emptive counter: if a PC had a cursed arrowhead/similar object-in-wound impairment, would you remove it if they wandered into one of those item/owner separation teleport traps? Or would you more likely say that the item in question remains since it is inside their body?

With that done, can anyone point out a reasonable scenario where a wizard who has done these preparations would lose their book?
And if no such scenario exists, can we just agree to deduct the 1 tooth, 300 gp and 1 3rd lvl spell known/slot-per-day as "Spellbook Protection Money" and call it a day :smalltongue:?

*A Dead Magic zone would most likely pop it open, so have someone else take the lead with a sealed Eternal Flame lantern (lantern goes dark-> DM zone -> go somewhere else. And a "roaming" DM zone is pretty much the DM out to get you.
**Technically possible if DM okays it, but at that point every single non-magical item in the campaing world just became instantly retrievable by Wish. Unlikely to happen and again toes the line of DM-fiat gimping the wizard.

Edit: as additional precautions, only keep the tooth in mouth whilst sleeping in case of pit traps into Dead Magic Zones, keep an Oil of Make Whole on hand (in case of sunder), keep a fake spellbook (Read Magic + scribbles with Illusionary Page) in haversack and prep spells inside ropetrick/similar (everyone else outside).

[Rogue Shadows]

The problem is, some of these situations should be self-evident to anyone who knows the rules. The game has rules for breaking weapons, so a Fighter should not be surprised at the possibility. The game has rules for stealing and the archetype for Thief sit right there, in the same crowd of playable characters as the Wizard. It's stressed in the description of the Wizard just how important the spellbook is, and the ramifications of losing it are easily seen.

I'm with you on this one...

"There is a strong possibility, mind, that when you cast a spell, it will be consumed from your spells-per-day allotment. Perhaps. I mean, it's right there in the Player's Handbook, but if you guys aren't okay with that, I don't want to risk being called a bad DM..."

[Frozen_Feet]

With that done, can anyone point out a reasonable scenario where a wizard who has done these preparations would lose their book?
And if no such scenario exists, can we just agree to deduct the 1 tooth, 300 gp and 1 3rd lvl spell known/slot-per-day as "Spellbook Protection Money" and call it a day :smalltongue:?

That's a nice tactic. I'd say the likeliest threat would now be backstabby party members. :smallbiggrin:


**Technically possible if DM okays it, but at that point every single non-magical item in the campaing world just became instantly retrievable by Wish. Unlikely to happen and again toes the line of DM-fiat gimping the wizard.

Retrievel by Wish means there's at least 17th level arcane caster out for your guts, or the opposition has readily available magical artefacts. Those are pretty hefty boundary conditions.

[Stompy]

This thread got me thinking of ways to guard a spellbook cheap and easy, and i came up with this:
Take one spellbook, one Alchemical tooth (CAdv.) and one casting of shrink item.
Prep spells, shink book into a tiny cloth stamp, roll it up inside the tooth and stick the tooth in your mouth.

You are able to shrink one nonmagical item (if it is within the size limit) to 1/16 of its normal size in each dimension (to about 1/4,000 the original volume and mass).

The spellbook is not magical?

EDIT: My cheap ways of protecting a spellbook involve either having someone else in the party carry it (and I carry a decoy one which acts as a diary), or by making the book durable as hell, shackling it to the left wrist (with a length of chain between both of course), and carrying it around with me everywhere. I would even sleep with it. :smallsmile:

[Alabenson]

The problem is, some of these situations should be self-evident to anyone who knows the rules. The game has rules for breaking weapons, so a Fighter should not be surprised at the possibility. The game has rules for stealing and the archetype for Thief sit right there, in the same crowd of playable characters as the Wizard. It's stressed in the description of the Wizard just how important the spellbook is, and the ramifications of losing it are easily seen.

My point was, based on the reactions of a large number of posters, that these situations aren't self-evident, whether or not they should be being irrelevant. With that in mind, it should be worth ten seconds of the DM's time to point out to the player thinking of playing a wizard that the spellbook is fair game.



This isn't as true as you make it sound. After certain point, random weapons picked up from the ground are near-useless without at least a friendly caster enhancing them so they can hit incorporeal enemies or the like. Losing that +x weapon of foo really hurts, and it hurts increasingly more as the game advances.

Please note that I said most of their usefullness, not all. Yes, if the fighter is using a non-magical piece of garbage against incorporeal enemies he's shafted, but he'll still be able to contribute against enemies without DR, and be marginally usefull against many with DR. The wizard, on the other hand, is useless no matter what the party faces. Furthermore, the fighter can go to any large settlement and buy a replacement weapon. The wizard, on the other hand, by RAW cannot replace a spellbook without months of in-game effort.



Heh... hehehe... "destroy the game". They only destroy the game if you're unwilling to accept it as part of it. There are perfectly logical counter-tactics which can be used when appropriate; overall, the problems caused by the 15-min workday are often blown out of proportion. It isn't nearly as good a tactic as it's made to sound.

Some of the easiest ways to safeguard a spellbook slow down the game once, when the defenses are put in place, and they won't come up again until someone tries to steal the darn thing. At which point, some time spend on the issue is perfectly appropriate, since it's a plot point.

Infinite gold loops to fund the rebuilding of the spellbook, exploiting explosive runes to deal 6*nd6 damage, wish farming for easy access to scrolls...
My point is that wizards have any number of ways to shred a game to ribbons if they want to, and many of these ways are modified from tactics a player will likely employ to protect/rebuild their spellbook.

[Yukitsu]

I'm with you on this one...

"There is a strong possibility, mind, that when you cast a spell, it will be consumed from your spells-per-day allotment. Perhaps. I mean, it's right there in the Player's Handbook, but if you guys aren't okay with that, I don't want to risk being called a bad DM..."

Eh. Then honestly I'd call you a bad DM. Player expectation (is it going to be hack and slash, life is cheap, cheap tactics) is pretty much crucial coming into a game. Saying "follow the rules" is pretty much always necessary, but the difference between different types of games isn't. Saying "yeah, it's a hack and slash" means your socialite bard build is your own fault if you don't have any fun, but if he just makes the game and it's a hack and slash without mentioning this you're a bad DM. Even though the game very much supports the possibility of hack and slash.

[NNescio]

The spellbook is not magical?

Technically, no. Unless it's a Bocob's Blessed Book or something similar.

[olentu]

Infinite gold loops to fund the rebuilding of the spellbook, exploiting explosive runes to deal 6*nd6 damage, wish farming for easy access to scrolls...
My point is that wizards have any number of ways to shred a game to ribbons if they want to, and many of these ways are modified from tactics a player will likely employ to protect/rebuild their spellbook.

Oh come now all these obvious methods are so self evident they should be par for the course, a common happening in every game because they are so self evident to anyone who reads the rules.

[TOZ]

I realize this is pretty unusual, but I actually run a lot of strictly no PC-death adventures. So it might not be a total given.

Indeed. I tell my players from the start, "Yes I will protect your characters from 'rocks fall, you die' instances, until you take that for granted".

[Rogue Shadows]

Eh. Then honestly I'd call you a bad DM. Player expectation (is it going to be hack and slash, life is cheap, cheap tactics) is pretty much crucial coming into a game. Saying "follow the rules" is pretty much always necessary, but the difference between different types of games isn't. Saying "yeah, it's a hack and slash" means your socialite bard build is your own fault if you don't have any fun, but if he just makes the game and it's a hack and slash without mentioning this you're a bad DM. Even though the game very much supports the possibility of hack and slash.

Oddly I never do any of this, never plan out a campaign as being hack n' slash or social. I just run the game in whatever direction it organically goes.

Having just used that method to epically conclude a year-long campaign that took my players across worlds and from level 1 to 20...you might find me a bad DM, but my players don't.

Having said that: "assuming the players have an understanding of the rules" does not strike me as bad DMing.

Also a socialite bard isn't necessarily useless in hack n' slash: "I am the Moon."

[Frozen_Feet]

Oh come now all these obvious methods are so self evident they should be par for the course, a common happening in every game because they are so self evident to anyone who reads the rules.

While I appreciate the sarcasm, there's a notable difference in degree. Having your spellbook stolen is something that's possible from level 1, and most likely at low levels. Many of the most abusive Wizard combos haven't even come online before you can effectively safeguard your spellbook. The leap from, say, hiding your spellbook in your tooth to spamming wish is quite large, both logically and in terms of in-game resource expenditure.

[Erloas]

To go back to the first page, knowing that I haven't read everything in-between...

With the stealing of a spellbook, I think it all comes down to context. If a BBEG has been watching them and sends in a thief to steal the book to give himself an advantage, well then that makes sense. And it should be that once they deal with the BBEG they can recover the book.
But some random thief that finds the party at night, steals the book then disappears never to be seen again? Well that is just bad DMing. Stealing the book then, believing the wizard is helpless, trying to extort something from him, well then that works so long as the player(s) have some chance of getting it back that doesn't just rely on a couple random dice rolls.

[Typewriter]

Um, I'm not Ursus. Maybe he said that, but I didn't. I think you should tell them to be sure, regardless of 3, because this is obviously (from this thread and many others on the topic) a point of large contention. When there is a point of such large contention, the mature thing to do as a DM is to make it clear where you fall.


No, you are not and I was not trying to imply you were.

You made a point and I replied, to which Ursus replied. I was replying to Ursus point, then you replied to that as if it was directed at you. The fact that you were replying to a post that wasn't aimed at you made me think you were referencing that conversation, and that's why I explained what happened.

The post you responded to was a response to someone else.

[Yukitsu]

Oddly I never do any of this, never plan out a campaign as being hack n' slash or social. I just run the game in whatever direction it organically goes.

There's rather a difference here from what I'm talking about. You're letting the players basically dictate what of those things the game includes. You aren't stating "and now I'm just going to punish you for wanting to relax and not be paranoid" suddenly away from their norm, you're letting them dictate what those norms are.

[NNescio]

Also a socialite bard isn't necessarily useless in hack n' slash: "I am the Moon."
Wait... are you suggesting allowing Diplomancy/Bluff abuses?

[olentu]

While I appreciate the sarcasm, there's a notable difference in degree. Having your spellbook stolen is something that's possible from level 1, and most likely at low levels. Many of the most abusive Wizard combos haven't even come online before you can effectively safeguard your spellbook. The leap from, say, hiding your spellbook in your tooth to spamming wish is quite large, both logically and in terms of in-game resource expenditure.

Oh I find that most of the viewpoints can be just as easily dismissed as a difference in degree but since difference in degree is the heart of the matter that does not seem like a good idea to me.

[Rogue Shadows]

Wait... are you suggesting allowing Diplomancy/Bluff abuses?

Not entirely. I'm just saying that a supposedly "gimped" bard socialist in a hack n' slash still has options.

Even if we don't go into "I am the Moon" territory, as long as they're clever with spell and skill use, you should never really find yourself useless.

I once built a changeling rogue 2/enchanter 4 that was deliberately designed to be useless in combat - no weapon or combat enhancing feats, no true combat spells, etc. She still found herself in combat quite a bit and because I was clever with the equipment, skills, and spells I did have, I was able to survive and be useful.

[PollyOliver]

No, you are not and I was not trying to imply you were.

You made a point and I replied, to which Ursus replied. I was replying to Ursus point, then you replied to that as if it was directed at you. The fact that you were replying to a post that wasn't aimed at you made me think you were referencing that conversation, and that's why I explained what happened.

The post you responded to was a response to someone else.

Ah, sorry, my mistake then.

[Salbazier]

Not entirely. I'm just saying that a supposedly "gimped" bard socialist in a hack n' slash still has options.

Even if we don't go into "I am the Moon" territory, as long as they're clever with spell and skill use, you should never really find yourself useless.

I once built a changeling rogue 2/enchanter 4 that was deliberately designed to be useless in combat - no weapon or combat enhancing feats, no true combat spells, etc. She still found herself in combat quite a bit and because I was clever with the equipment, skills, and spells I did have, I was able to survive and be useful.

That's not the point I think. Its not problem of how much the player being gimped. Its a problem of the player found the game is totally not what he expect.

[Rogue Shadows]

That's not the point I think. Its not problem of how much the player being gimped. Its a problem of the player found the game is totally not what he expect.

And I was totally not expecting a level 3 barbarian to charge at my level 10 Necromancer NPC the first session I ever DM'd - and I certainly wasn't expecting him to kill the guy from massive damage.

Sometimes...in D&D...the unexpected happens, and we just have to deal with it. The DM shouldn't be the only one who might have his careful plans ruined, but like the DM, the players should just learn to deal with it and fix the issue, or take steps to prevent it.

As I've said, I would never stop a wizard from getting a new spellbook. And I would never stop them from trying to get their old one back. Indeed I would even thereafter work with the player to make sure that they weren't deadweight.

But their spellbook doesn't have plot armor.

[Yukitsu]

Yeah, like being told what the game is about.

[Frozen_Feet]

Oh I find that most of the viewpoints can be just as easily dismissed as a difference in degree but since difference in degree is the heart of the matter that does not seem like a good idea to me.

Hmmm? I'm not dismissing the argument, I'm pointing it's weak because it seemingly ignores the difference in degree. Importance of a spellbook and guarding it are easier to spot and understand than infinite gold loops or such, and I'm not sure how the latter is supposed to follow from the former.

Though it's hard to even see what you're after, since you seem to be focused on being snarky rather than making sense.

[Kojiro]

To go back to the first page, knowing that I haven't read everything in-between...

With the stealing of a spellbook, I think it all comes down to context. If a BBEG has been watching them and sends in a thief to steal the book to give himself an advantage, well then that makes sense. And it should be that once they deal with the BBEG they can recover the book.
But some random thief that finds the party at night, steals the book then disappears never to be seen again? Well that is just bad DMing. Stealing the book then, believing the wizard is helpless, trying to extort something from him, well then that works so long as the player(s) have some chance of getting it back that doesn't just rely on a couple random dice rolls.

I pretty much agree here, apart from one or two things that mostly come down to taste rather than right or wrong; the random thief example shouldn't happen arbitrarily, but if the players just don't defend themselves at all (as in, not even keeping watch and thus basically allowing a level one Rogue to gank their stuff), then they have "earned" their losing things in my book. Which is hidden... Somewhere. And warded against water, fire, acid, and electricity; if someone finds a way to ruin it with sonic though, well, I'll be both upset and impressed.

Getting back on topic, I agree that a wizard losing their spellbook (or an archivist their prayerbook) is a somewhat bigger thing than another player losing a non-legacy/legendary/whatever weapon, like one of the ones you take prestige classes for, or one they built their character around (see Roy without his greatsword, except worse). It shouldn't be done frivolously, and as I've said many times, if you're likely to lose it because the DM's out to get you, then that's more a problem with the DM being a jerk than the losing of the spellbook itself. However, sometimes, it may be lost due to circumstance and/or stupidity.

Say the player has a mostly-unwarded spellbook, and winds up in a fight with a Greater Fire Elemental, which at some point winds up burning him and causing his combustibles to be immolated. Losing his spellbook in that fire is entirely possible, and considering that by that point fire wards are readily available (as far as I know), mostly his fault. It sucks, but that's what happens. Unless you're in a really easy-going game, that wizard just lost his spells.

However, I'd like to go on a tangent for a bit. There's a general consensus that rewriting the spellbook, or copying a new one, is costly and takes a long time, with some disagreement on how bad of a cost this is. Out of curiosity, why doesn't anyone simply that, between that the spellbook is explicitly non-magic itself and that writing or drawing anything else doesn't take so much time or money, the process is, well, simpler? Buying a filled spellbook would still be expensive, but more for the value of the knowledge within rather than the effort involved in making it, and a wizard who is willing to sacrifice a week or two could produce a spare without breaking the bank on it or holding everyone else up. It'd still require Spellcraft checks for copying, plus a charge from the owner of the copied book probably, and if the wizard went and lost theirs due to foolishness or bad luck, then the number of spells they can put into it is limited by what's in their head and what scrolls they possess, but it'd make the process a whole lot less unpleasant while still having losing the spellbook an immediate problem that's more or less as bad as the Fighter's armor and weapons all spontaneously vanishing.

[Typewriter]

Ah, sorry, my mistake then.

Trust me it's cool. This thread has about a half dozen conversation going all at once, and sometimes people respond to topics between topics, sometimes people reply to a post 5+ pages old.

I'm having a horrible time keeping track, which is why I haven't been responding to every post.

For the most part I've already gotten what I wanted from this topic - do whatever your group prefers, don't be a douche. Those are the two basic rules that always come up. I don't really care how others play, but I hate it when I see other posters saying "DMing style XYZ is horrible, and means the DM is horrible" when talking about things that I do, and my group usually enjoys. I just don't get why someone sees a post that someone says "Does X" and the immediate response is "I do Y, everyone who does X is wrong".

Funnily enough I talked to one of my players about this today to get his thoughts, and he actually told me pretty much the exact opposite of what everyone else said: He said he would be fine with his spellbook getting taken away, but only if it was because of something plot related. In other words, he doesn't want his spellbook lost because of a random encounter, but if he walked through the "door of plot" and his spellbook exploded he'd be fine with it.

Different strokes for different folks I guess...

[Salbazier]

And I was totally not expecting a level 3 barbarian to charge at my level 10 Necromancer NPC the first session I ever DM'd - and I certainly wasn't expecting him to kill the guy from massive damage.

Sometimes...in D&D...the unexpected happens, and we just have to deal with it. The DM shouldn't be the only one who might have his careful plans ruined, but like the DM, the players should just learn to deal with it and fix the issue, or take steps to prevent it.

As I've said, I would never stop a wizard from getting a new spellbook. And I would never stop them from trying to get their old one back. Indeed I would even thereafter work with the player to make sure that they weren't deadweight.

But their spellbook doesn't have plot armor.

Ah, but you got to see their sheet aren't you. You've got yourself a fair warning there (and you likely know your player's mentalities as well)

Look, I'm with you there on player should not just expect their problem magically solved and the plot armor. Its just, no matter how much you or me think something is good/obvious/whatever it is not something absolute. What's the cost of saying something like 'remember, everything is a fair game. I don't hold back' or similiar warning to your players beforehand? Especially for something like this that we can see a lot people likely to make a fuss about it, I think its worth to spend few minutes talking to prevent it.

[PollyOliver]

If I start a new game with a new group, I expect to be told what is fair game for me as a player. What optimization level is acceptable, whether certain character concepts are considered disruptive, how the DM expects me to behave as a paladin, whether there are house rules that completely destroy my concept, etc. The DM is aware of my capabilities and to and certain extent what I can pull when he looks at my sheet. He and the other players to an extent proscribe what is fair game for me as a player. Why should I not also be told what is fair game for him/her as a DM?

Given how split an issue this obviously is on the forum, why can't you just say to players who don't know you or haven't played with you before "and I might present you with challenges that could result in you losing the use of major class features if you aren't adequately prepared, and I won't pull punches" or even just "anything goes in the name of realism, be prepared"? That's just as relevant information, and I find it really strange that a conversation that was "I think x is fun and y is not" and "I think y is fun and x is not" now essentially devolved into "I think x is so much better/more common/more default that I think it's silly that I should make sure players know about x" when x and y are supported by roughly equal numbers in this particular slice of gamedom. Why is there such resistance to just telling your group what your play style is in advance, whether if contains specific examples of spell book hoodwinkery or just the warning that you're a killer DM and anything goes? In my experience, people being blindsided with playing a game or a type of game they didn't think they were playing leads to a lot of trouble. So why not just make things clear beforehand? It'll save a lot of heartbreak later.

[Yukitsu]

Ah, but you got to see their sheet aren't you. You've got yourself a fair warning there (and you likely know your player's mentalities as well)

Look, I'm with you there on player should not just expect their problem magically solved and the plot armor. Its just, no matter how much you or me think something is good/obvious/whatever it is not something absolute. What's the cost of saying something like 'remember, everything is a fair game. I don't hold back' to your players beforehand? Especially for something like this that we can see a lot people likely to make a fuss about it, I think its worth to spend few minutes talking to prevent it.

DM's I've historically had that were of that mentality, did so because they OOC didn't want the players to see their "clever whatever" coming.

[Kojiro]

For the most part I've already gotten what I wanted from this topic - do whatever your group prefers, don't be a douche. Those are the two basic rules that always come up. I don't really care how others play, but I hate it when I see other posters saying "DMing style XYZ is horrible, and means the DM is horrible" when talking about things that I do, and my group usually enjoys. I just don't get why someone sees a post that someone says "Does X" and the immediate response is "I do Y, everyone who does X is wrong".

Yeah, I think that basically this could be the end of thread right here; some things work better for some people than others, but most of them aren't objectively horrible so as long as both the players and the DM understand and can live with them, it's good. And you should probably ignore the people who try to say their way is objectively correct even if they're arguing the side you prefer, just in case.

[Rogue Shadows]

but, you got to see their sheet aren't you. You've got yourself a fair warning there (and you likely know your mentalities as well)

Nope, first session, so I didn't have a grip on player mentality at the time. And the massive damage only happened because of a critical, a bonus to damage from charging, and a bad luck Fortitude save.

I saw the character sheet, but the only thing I took from it was knowledge that I was never going to allow a mercurial fullblade ever again. And I only came up with that after the Necromancer died. Because he died.

I rolled with the punch and moved on with my life. Completely re-wrote the plot of the campaign from the ground up. Which worked out nicely as it let me introduce the Faceless, who've been popping up in most campaigns I've run ever since.

[olentu]

Hmmm? I'm not dismissing the argument, I'm pointing it's weak because it seemingly ignores the difference in degree. Importance of a spellbook and guarding it are easier to spot and understand than infinite gold loops or such, and I'm not sure how the latter is supposed to follow from the former.

Though it's hard to even see what you're after, since you seem to be focused on being snarky rather than making sense.

Oh I don't see how proper spellbook protection is more obvious then that of a trick that takes only one or two rules elements and a few moments to implement, perhaps from the same book even. I mean spellbook protection can easily combine dozens of rules from numerous source books and hours and hours of game time. But then again I suppose it depends on how much one thinks is reasonable. I mean it is not like I see wizards dragging out their spellbooks in the middle of battle.

[Shadowknight12]

Nerfing players is only bad when it is done without the player's consent. Same as a lot of things, really.

[Rogue Shadows]

Nerfing players is only bad when it is done without the player's consent. Same as a lot of things, really.

I have to seek permission to have an ethereal filcher act in-character when he steals the barbarian's greatsword?

*pop* Can I take this?
...the Monster Manual says you can't speak...
Whatever. Can I have this?
...no...
DAMN. *pop*

[Shadowknight12]

I have to seek permission to have an ethereal filcher act in-character when he steals the barbarian's greatsword?

*pop* Can I take this?
...the DMG says you can't speak...
Whatever. Can I have this?
...no...
DAMN. *pop*

That's asking the character permission. That's not what I said. :smallwink:

[Rogue Shadows]

That's asking the character permission. That's not what I said. :smallwink:

No, but it boils down to fundamentally the same thing. Why should I ask player permission to include a given monster? Do I have to double-check any mosnter that stands a chance of nerfing him?

No Succubi in a party with low Will saves? No ethereal filchers to a party with magical items? No wights? I happen to like wights - from both sides of the DM screen.

Obviously some, like the Tarrasque, are wildly inappropriate. But..really?

[Kojiro]

Before this goes on further, could I possibly re-submit the possibility of just agreeing on this beforehand, if that's not what Shadowknight means by asking permission, rather than the payers being unaware (if they're not familiar with you, that is) or you basically requesting to do something bad to a PC whenever it comes up (which I still think isn't what he's trying to say, although it may be).

[Shadowknight12]

No, but it boils down to fundamentally the same thing. Why should I ask player permission to include a given monster? Do I have to double-check any mosnter that stands a chance of nerfing him?

No Succubi in a party with low Will saves? No ethereal filchers to a party with magical items? No druids? No wights? I happen to like wights - from both sides of the DM screen.

Obviously some, like the Tarrasque, are wildly inappropriate. But..really?

No, actually, they are two utterly different things. A player is not their character. Just like the DM is in charge of making decisions and he ought to prioritise maximising everyone's fun, so should the players have the same considerations when the DM asks them permission before doing something that might have dire consequences.

I ask permission before doing anything that can't be easily reversed or healed, and my players say "Okay, I don't mind my wizard's spellbook being destroyed in a fire. It's going to be so much fun trying to figure out a way to get by with 34 castings of Read Magic! Man, I can't wait, I'm so stoked!" or "No, sorry, fiends/giant spiders/corporeal undead/white, creamy oozes/giant snakes/monsters taken straight out of Silent Hill/etc make me uncomfortable. I'd rather they didn't appear in the game. Thanks for your understanding."

The way I see it, I am not a psychic or a mind reader. I can't know what the player will find fun if he or she doesn't tell me. Some people have more fun with a strict DM that kills characters DEAD. Others have more fun knowing that the character they've invested so much time and effort in will not die to a merciless die roll. If I make the decisions for the players, I might well end up ruining their fun. Rather than risking that, why not ask them? After all, isn't that why we're playing? To have fun?

[Tvtyrant]

Talking to the other people in your party is probably the best advice possible for any situation that comes up on these boards. DM thinks your charger is OP? Talk to him/her. Warlock making your monk look like junk? Talk to the player. At the worst your exactly where you started.

[Snails]

See, and that's kind of what I was thinking, but even the example I linked didn't seem so bad to me. The party lost everything except the weapons. It was a blanket nerf that happened to hit the party wizard more than anyone else, by virtue of the fact that he was playing a class that required an item.

If it made sense from a plot reason, and everyone was hit equally what's wrong with that scenario?

Skipping forward, and addressing the OP, from the player's POV, the scenario with the Wizard's stolen spellbook may look more like an arbitrary nerf for the fun of the DM than a logical consequence of poor choices on the part of the PC.

Every single PC depends on a particular item: their throat. If someone can sneak right in and take a spellbook, why can't they sneak right in and kill everyone, and take everything?

Under the rules as written, it is not even clear that a Rogue would get much money for a spellbook. If I can go to a big town and pay 100 gp to write a new spell from my spellbook, why would I ever pay for a page out of a stolen spellbook when I then need to spend 100 gp for the inks and materials to write that spell into my spellbook? It has value as a second copy, maybe. Or if the spell is rare. But the Rogue would have an easier time selling the Wizard's dagger for cash.

Yeah, I know the DM has a side of the tale, with specific orders to the Thief so that someone can achieve some convoluted plan that depends on the Wizard have not too many spells, too soon.

In an ideal world, the players would trust the DM. But I suspect the player was looking for a sign of sincerity on the part of the DM. Like a chance to kill a lower level wizard with a healthy subset of his spells in the captured spellbook. What the player was not looking for (I would guess) is a few pages here and there to taunt him.


I just can't imagine complaining about having your weak spot targeted. It's a giant glowing weak spot.

You did not target the giant glowing weak spot. No, you did the opposite.

You purposefully failed to target the giant glowing weak spot that was in easy reach of the Rogue (everyone's throat), and instead tried to figure out a reason why hitting the one single PC's small glowing weak spot made more sense.

While you might deserve some points for cleverness, it is not really a surprise if your trustworthiness went instantly into the tank in the eyes of one player. Yeah, it would have been better for the player to keep a stiff upper lip. Yet, at that point, it should be no surprise if that player is not at his best for a while afterwards.

[LordBlades]

I have to seek permission to have an ethereal filcher act in-character when he steals the barbarian's greatsword?

*pop* Can I take this?
...the Monster Manual says you can't speak...
Whatever. Can I have this?
...no...
DAMN. *pop*

It's not about seeking permission, but rather realizing whether that thing would be fun for your players or not.

Let's say you do send an ethereal flicher to steal the barbarian's greatsword, and the player doesn't enjoy it the slightest. He hates being without a weapon and the party hates needing to break off the main plot to go on a side quest to get his weapon back. In such a circumstance, how has your action made the game better?

[Jude_H]

Every single PC depends on a particular item: their throat. If someone can sneak right in and take a spellbook, why can't they sneak right in and kill everyone, and take everything?
This isn't my argument, but I think most people would agree there's a bit of an ethical difference between robbery and murder.

Not to mention that in D&D, most NPCs aren't actually capable of cutting adventurers' throats.

[Starbuck_II]

Nope, first session, so I didn't have a grip on player mentality at the time. And the massive damage only happened because of a critical, a bonus to damage from charging, and a bad luck Fortitude save.

I saw the character sheet, but the only thing I took from it was knowledge that I was never going to allow a mercurial fullblade ever again. And I only came up with that after the Necromancer died. Because he died.

I rolled with the punch and moved on with my life. Completely re-wrote the plot of the campaign from the ground up. Which worked out nicely as it let me introduce the Faceless, who've been popping up in most campaigns I've run ever since.

Wait, bonus damage from Charging? What Barbarian class feature at 1st level gets a bonus to charging damage?
Do you mean hit bonus (power attacking penalty made up for penalty to hit)?

[Mystic Muse]

As others have said, you need to make it clear what kind of game you're running to new players. There are so many different types of games that you shouldn't make your players make assumptions about the type of game you're running. I for example would not target a player's spellbook, magic items, or anything but their life. Heck, I outright ban sundering in my games and refuse to use rust monsters or other such creatures.

[McSmack]

The issue is proprietary. Its not MY WORLD, its a story told by my players and I. The whole "my world" thing is the problem. Basically the who'll "willing to play with me" came down that once... because every other week a Dm and I would switch off. It turned into that once, in the end I ended up being the dm full time because the other 4 people didn't like that attitude, not a big deal. I learned that in 3.5 at least, people expect an arbitrator/lead storyteller. Not a ... I'm not sure what the word is for what your suggesting. Being an arbitrator implies though that certain rules are in place and agreed on in general before we sit down. You make specific calls about those rules. The rules exist at all so we don't up playing cops and robber/magic tea party. "you're dead"v"am not!"
This is why its a game at all.
Though really, its is the fundemental argument between us though as I outlined above. You seem like a decent guy, I could even see playing with you but frankly your idea's on the power structure fall out of fashion in my eyes. We kinda have to get what the rules are before hand, and changing them on the fly might be tolerated or might now but it's ultimately a group decision. Depends on what a dm tries to do. Ymmv.

Come to think of it when I get around to running some I'm gonna send you a pbp invite. Might not be for a while, but you're at the top of the list. Happy gaming till then.

Woohoo! Thanks :smallbiggrin:

[Tyndmyr]

As a monk it's tedious to fight anything with an AC above 12 because of my flurry of misses. We should just say I always hit to avoid that tedium.

Or, yknow...we could fix monk.

The tedium of playing a character that never does anything successfully IS a problem. You've identified that correctly, despite your sarcasm. This is why so damned many monk fixes have been made.

[Typewriter]

Or, yknow...we could fix monk.

The tedium of playing a character that never does anything successfully IS a problem. You've identified that correctly, despite your sarcasm. This is why so damned many monk fixes have been made.

Too bad monk doesn't have one easy fix like wizard has - "Spellbooks are off limits". Seriously, if you're going to arbitrarily ignore rules to make things easier for the wizard why not arbitrarily ignore another rule so that melee can be better?

[SITB]

Too bad monk doesn't have one easy fix like wizard has - "Spellbooks are off limits". Seriously, if you're going to arbitrarily ignore rules to make things easier for the wizard why not arbitrarily ignore another rule so that melee can be better?

Because messing with the spell books doesn't fix wizards? If you got them once, they next time they will simply make a triplicate form filed with all the defenses they put on the spell books so it's unlikely to work more then once. And in the actual time the wizard doesn't have the spell book the player gets to sit in the corner and play the Gameboy because spell casting is the whole purpose of the wizard shtick and you denied him that.

It's like having a fighter in the game and then say that all physical damage is automatically negated to balance Charger builds.

If you want to balance wizards ban spells, don't make the wizard class a fancy commoner with UMD.

[Acanous]

People I know IRL still think Monks are way better than barbarians.
I can't understand it, but Ok.

Anyhow, I think the best spellbook protection ideas involve giving/selling/donating spellbooks to other people. In-world solution is harder to fiat away.

Sure, the king might not have time for you now that you're a lv 1 again, and the wizard's guild revoked your membership, and the copy you hid at your house got stolen, and the copy you left with that aspiring young apprentice just can't be found... but what about that copy you donated to the public library?

At some point the DM either has to look at you and say "No, you can't have your spells because I say so and it's plot relevant" or you get your spells back.

If he goes with option 1, he's effectively used rule zero to break his own campaign world, and suspension of disbelief with it. That's a good time to pitch a comprimise, like "How about after this session of me being stuck with a crossbow, I get my spellbook back?"

[Typewriter]

Because messing with the spell books doesn't fix wizards? If you got them once, they next time they will simply make a triplicate form filed with all the defenses they put on the spell books so it's unlikely to work more then once. And in the actual time the wizard doesn't have the spell book the player gets to sit in the corner and play the Gameboy because spell casting is the whole purpose of the wizard shtick and you denied him that.

It's like having a fighter in the game and then say that all physical damage is automatically negated to balance Charger builds.

If you want to balance wizards ban spells, don't make the wizard class a fancy commoner with UMD.

I'm not trying to 'balance' wizards, I'm pointing out that if you're going to use "Tedium is annoying" as a reason to house rule away things that hurt them you may as well house rule away everything that makes any classes tedious. "I don't want to deal with it" is basically saying "I don't really want to play a wizard, I just want to have all their abilities with none of the downsides".

EDIT:


People I know IRL still think Monks are way better than barbarians.
I can't understand it, but Ok.

This conversation has actually finally taught me why my group enjoys monks as much as we do - they can't be disarmed, and in my campaigns getting disarmed happens.

Monks are consistently mediocre, but some people would rather be consistently mediocre than all poweful 3/4 sessions.



Anyhow, I think the best spellbook protection ideas involve giving/selling/donating spellbooks to other people. In-world solution is harder to fiat away.

Sure, the king might not have time for you now that you're a lv 1 again, and the wizard's guild revoked your membership, and the copy you hid at your house got stolen, and the copy you left with that aspiring young apprentice just can't be found... but what about that copy you donated to the public library?

At some point the DM either has to look at you and say "No, you can't have your spells because I say so and it's plot relevant" or you get your spells back.

If he goes with option 1, he's effectively used rule zero to break his own campaign world, and suspension of disbelief with it. That's a good time to pitch a comprimise, like "How about after this session of me being stuck with a crossbow, I get my spellbook back?"

I agree, if your DM is consistently blocking you from getting a new spellbook, or his 'nerf' randomly destroys 3 copies over a wide area then it probably makes no sense and isn't fair.

[Merk]

I'm not trying to 'balance' wizards, I'm pointing out that if you're going to use "Tedium is annoying" as a reason to house rule away things that hurt them you may as well house rule away everything that makes any classes tedious. "I don't want to deal with it" is basically saying "I don't really want to play a wizard, I just want to have all their abilities with none of the downsides".

In all honesty, I'm ok with this.

I believe that the fact that Wizards are either 100% or 0% is a game design flaw, as anything that "balances" by "But sometimes you're useless". I'd rather have Wizards be at 100% much more easily or most of the time, but in turn nerf the capability of that 100% to be more in line with Beguilers, Warblades, etc.

[Rogue Shadows]

Too bad monk doesn't have one easy fix like wizard has - "Spellbooks are off limits". Seriously, if you're going to arbitrarily ignore rules to make things easier for the wizard why not arbitrarily ignore another rule so that melee can be better?

Monk has an easy fix: give it a full BAB progression. BAM! Instant jump from Tier 5 to Tier 3-4.


If you want to balance wizards ban spells, don't make the wizard class a fancy commoner with UMD.

Spells in general or spells in specific? Because what I did was drop 8th and 9th level spells for all classes and change the spell progression for mainline casters so that they get a new spell level every 3rd level instead of every 2nd level.

Coupled with a powerup for non-mainline casters, this has worked wonders for my game.


Wait, bonus damage from Charging? What Barbarian class feature at 1st level gets a bonus to charging damage?
Do you mean hit bonus (power attacking penalty made up for penalty to hit)?

I don't know, this is five or six years ago now. All I remember is seeing my carefully crafted story drop to -10 hit points in front of my very eyes, but getting over it and moving on with my life.

I don't see why players can throw curveballs and DMs are expected to roll with it, and that's just "part of being a DM," but DMs can't throw curveballs and expect the players to roll with them, since that makes you a "bad DM."

Or rather, why the curveballs that DMs can throw are pretty much limited to story encounters rather than mechanical ones.

What's needed isn't player permission; what's needed is player faith in the mantra - "this game is not Player VS DM." Faith that if the DM is taking away something vital, it won't be permanent.


Let's say you do send an ethereal flicher to steal the barbarian's greatsword, and the player doesn't enjoy it the slightest. He hates being without a weapon

Let me stop you right there. Why doesn't he have a backup weapon? I've never seen a PC that didn't carry at least two backup weapons. Hell, even my party's wizards have usually carried a crossbow, quarterstaff, and several knives...

I've never even thought to check if my players have multiple weapons. I've never had to. Not even in my first session.

I mean the rules for sundering are right there. Not to mention what do they do if the weapon isn't ghost touch... or the things are attacking outside of their range...

Or do I have to ask permission for that too? Enemies with bows across a chasm, that is, not sundering, since you already seem to be implying that.


and the party hates needing to break off the main plot to go on a side quest to get his weapon back. In such a circumstance, how has your action made the game better?

I've revealed a player that thinks that he's a special snowflake, immune to the dangers of the world, and the game is now better for removing this belief from him?

I've also revealed a party that really needs to read the PHB again? Sunder, theft, death, they're right there.


After all, isn't that why we're playing? To have fun?

Yes, but I have certain baseline assumptions based on what is in the Player's Handbook, one of them being that if I want to put a chasm with some goblin archers on the other side of it, I shouldn't have to double-check to see if the party is a) equipped and b) okay with this.

And the fact that this baseline assumption is apparently considerably less universal than I thought? Stupefying to me.

I can't even recommend that such snowflake players to play D&D Online instead! Everything in that trips, sunders, and tries to kill you! Without permission! I liked my +2 ghost touch rapier of backstabbing, but certain Cultist of Vol did not, and now it's gone. And I just deal with that.


I believe that the fact that Wizards are either 100% or 0% is a game design flaw, as anything that "balances" by "But sometimes you're useless". I'd rather have Wizards be at 100% much more easily or most of the time, but in turn nerf the capability of that 100% to be more in line with Beguilers, Warblades, etc.

But they're not 0%! Wands! Scrolls! Rods! Staves! Other magic items! Knowledge checks!

They're only 0% if these things run out, but frankly if the DM lets that happen, then they're a bad DM.

[Ursus the Grim]

But they're not 0%! Wands! Scrolls! Rods! Staves! Other magic items! Knowledge checks!

Weapons! Familiars! Tactics! Backup!

[Merk]

But they're not 0%! Wands! Scrolls! Rods! Staves! Other magic items! Knowledge checks!

They're only 0% if these things run out, but frankly if the DM lets that happen, then they're a bad DM.

You have just described an Expert with UMD and Knowledge. Actually the Expert would be better off, because it could also take Handle Animal, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Iaijutsu Focus, etc.

If an Expert is outperforming a "Not 0% Wizard"... yeah still poor game design.

[IncoherentEssay]

I'm not trying to 'balance' wizards, I'm pointing out that if you're going to use "Tedium is annoying" as a reason to house rule away things that hurt them you may as well house rule away everything that makes any classes tedious. "I don't want to deal with it" is basically saying "I don't really want to play a wizard, I just want to have all their abilities with none of the downsides".

I might remember wrong, but you said you'd help a player design defenses for their spellbook if they asked you for the help, right?
So the player writes up their list of defenses and pays the ingame gp/xp/time fees, would their book be safe now, or could it still be stolen (by an encounter? by plot? something else altogether?) ?
The key question is:
a.) Is there a degree of defenses at which the book is quaranteed to be safe or b.) will it get stolen anyways at some point?

And (returning to the opening question) c.) would you tell the player what defenses are needed for them to reach A, or would they fall short if only following that advice?

B pretty much amounts to DM deciding that it'd be neat if the wizard did not have his class features for a while, just because.
A is just a resource tax you pay to play a wizard, you might as well pull a defenses list from a forum, show it to the DM, pay the fees and be done with the spellbook-b-gone 'wacky hijinks'.
C is extra tricky: if 'yes' then the whole case is reduced to "ask Dm, pay fee, done" and if 'no' then it's "ask DM, pay fee, feel safe, get blindsided' (unless told in advance that the default defenses would be inadequate, but what was the purpose of the advice in the first place then ?).

This isn't specifically targeted at you mind, but the idea that messing with the wizards book adds something to the game :smallsmile:.

This would be why i don't bother going after spellbooks myself. Adds very little to the game unless you enjoy the security armsrace, and that only happens once before you know the necessary measures to make it just a resource tax. All other equipment is fair game IMO though, being much easier to replace and nowhere near as vital to a character.

[Rogue Shadows]

You have just described an Expert with UMD and Knowledge. Actually the Expert would be better off, because it could also take Handle Animal, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Iaijutsu Focus, etc.

If an Expert is outperforming a "Not 0% Wizard"... yeah still poor game design.

Except that an expert is not what the players will be running, an expert will probably never reach the same level the PCs do, and an expert is unlikely to have the same wealth of magical items that a wizard does.

Special snowflakes...

The wizard is still a contributing member of the party. Is he contributing as much as he otherwise could? No! Of course not! But he is by far not deadweight!

[SITB]

I'm not trying to 'balance' wizards, I'm pointing out that if you're going to use "Tedium is annoying" as a reason to house rule away things that hurt them you may as well house rule away everything that makes any classes tedious. "I don't want to deal with it" is basically saying "I don't really want to play a wizard, I just want to have all their abilities with none of the downsides".

What does this even mean? He pointed out that there are a lot of fixes that let Monks be viable characters, you tried to compare it with having the wizard be unable to do anything. How does this even work? having a player being superfluous in combat isn't generally fun for the player. That's why there are all those Monk fixes, and people pointing out that taking the Wizard's spell book reduces him to a glorified expert henchman.

@Rogue Shadows: Are you seriously advocating that rendering the character as an NPC class is fun for the whole group/player itself?

EDIT: What are you talking about? An NPC class played by a PC has the same WBL as a PC class played by a PC. And yeah he isn't a dead weight, just worse than a NPC class of the same level so he may just as well retire the character and roll a new one.

And what the hell does special snowflake means anyway?

[Amnestic]

Except that an expert is not what the players will be running, an expert will probably never reach the same level the PCs do, and an expert is unlikely to have the same wealth of magical items that a wizard does.

Special snowflakes...

The wizard is still a contributing member of the party. Is he contributing as much as he otherwise could? No! Of course not! But he is by far not deadweight!

He's contributing less than a Tier 5 class does. A PC Expert contributes more than a PC Wizard without a spellbook. Balanced!

And yes, they're special snowflakes. That's why they're PCs and not NPCs. It's hardcoded into the rules that they're different.

[Tyndmyr]

This is turning into a quite interesting conversation - the most of the interesting bits seem to be not admitted. Optimization vs roleplaying, player entitlement, all sorts of stuff.

Yup. Plenty of interesting aspects. I agree.


First thing, I gotta say I was pretty surprised by the folks who said that it's better to die and start a new character than lose a spellbook. I mean, really, y'know, Roleplaying? Would your character really rather commit suicide than build up a new spellbook? Is your next character going to be indistinguishable from your last, just a level lower? Do you care nothing for playing a character with goals, motivations, and history that are unique?

I've never made a wizard character concept that didn't involve spells significantly. After all...why else would I have selected wizard for that concept? If he didn't care about spells, he would have been some other class. So...from my POV, you just trashed my character concept.

So, no...I'll make a new character that isn't broken. I have lots of concepts floating around my head at any point in time. If it's another wizard, he'll not likely be the same. For starters, he's certain to be much, much more paranoid. I can play a wizard in a tippyverse if need be. Paranoia is something I'm quite good at. It's not my default mode, because most gaming groups dislike omnipotent future-seeing deities in the party, but if a group fetishizes "realism", I will happily play the realism card all the way to ruling the world or burning it to ashes. It should take about a session.


Really, this is the kind of thing I associate with playing a not-very interesting video game for a second or third time - 'Eh, it's going to be too much hassle now, might as well restart'. I also can't help thinking of all the heroic fantasy/sword and sorcery books that inspired the game in the first place - you know, heroes occasionally have things go really really badly against them. That makes their efforts to overcome those circumstances all the more impressive. I don't believe I ever read a story wherein someone was thrown in the dungeon or whatever and decided "Ah, nevermind, someone almost identical to me is going to show up and achieve the quest instead."

That's because a story is not the same thing as a game. I've written stories, as well as various other things what have been published. The craft of writing a story is not terribly similar to that of running a game. This comparison has done more to hurt the hobby of roleplaying than has any other.


Second, as for things like spell components and spellbooks - Wizards are the most powerful frickin class! Maybe there's some debate about druids or clerics being better, but really - whining about limitations and inconveniences to one's earth-shaking power is just ridiculous. Guess what, every time you cast Forcecage you're out 1500gp worth of ruby dust - your instant win has a price tag. They even provided some handy feats like Eschew Materials and Spell Mastery to make it easier for wizards, so I really can't see why anyone who doesn't want to deal with keeping track of bat guano can complain.

It is not about power levels. The earlier example of telling a barbarian he had just lost both arms is another wondeful example. His character concept has now been dramatically changed. It's probably not terribly fun to play now. It might work as a joke character for about a session, but if the player gets tired of being Gimpy McGimperson, I would not blame him for wanting to play something else.

Also, the forcecage thing is entirely not what we were talking about. Spell component pouches don't do that. Please read more carefully before replying.


Lastly, the DM is not there to make sure everyone else has fun at their own expense. There seems to be a lot of "If a player isn't enjoying themselves, the DM is messing up" - completely forgetting that the DM is there to have fun too, and a bad player is just as much a detriment to group enjoyment as a jerk DM.

It's true. And a good DM doesn't try to punish his players for not being jerks.

[Typewriter]

You have just described an Expert with UMD and Knowledge. Actually the Expert would be better off, because it could also take Handle Animal, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Iaijutsu Focus, etc.

If an Expert is outperforming a "Not 0% Wizard"... yeah still poor game design.

Expect the expert wasn't just an all powerful user of arcane magics. And he's not going to get unlimited arcane power as soon as he gets up and gets a new spellbook.


I might remember wrong, but you said you'd help a player design defenses for their spellbook if they asked you for the help, right?
So the player writes up their list of defenses and pays the ingame gp/xp/time fees, would their book be safe now, or could it still be stolen (by an encounter? by plot? something else altogether?) ?
The key question is:
a.) Is there a degree of defenses at which the book is quaranteed to be safe or b.) will it get stolen anyways at some point?
And (returning to the opening question) c.) would you tell the player what defenses are needed for them to reach A, or would they fall short if only following that advice?

I would help a player find options for protecting his spellbook, but I would not tell him "In this campaign one of the bad guys is going to use anti-magic field, combined with a high stealth check, to wander into camp and steal from the party undetected at some point".

If the player decides one of the things he wants is a backup kept elsewhere, then the backup is safe. It's not going to suddenly burst into flames. If he relies solely on magical protection it's going to get gotten more than likely.

Does that answer your question?



B pretty much amounts to DM deciding that it'd be neat if the wizard did not have his class features for a while, just because.
A is just a resource tax you pay to play a wizard, you might as well pull a defenses list from a forum, show it to the DM, pay the fees and be done with the spellbook-b-gone 'wacky hijinks'.
C is extra tricky: if 'yes' then the whole case is reduced to "ask Dm, pay fee, done" and if 'no' then it's "ask DM, pay fee, feel safe, get blindsided' (unless told in advance that the default defenses would be inadequate, but what was the purpose of the advice in the first place then ?).

B - Depends on what's going on - if there is going to be a point in the campaign where the party is stripped of their items and the items destroyed, then unless the wizard has a backup somewhere or he can recall it before it gets destroyed then it's going to happen.
A - Which you can do, but when? One of those resources you want may be a feat? You going to take it at level 3? 6? Hopefully you don't lose the spellbook before then. Or maybe it's level 8, and nobody has targeted your spellbook. Maybe it's OK to not worry about it and spend your money on something other than a backup. Oh, your book got stolen and you hadn't created a backup yet? Guess you should have done it sooner. Or maybe you spend that 'tax' and it just never comes up. It's not just a 'tax' it's character decisions. What extents are you going to go to - when are you going to go to them?
C - If my player comes to me and says "What can I do to make myself more survivable?" and I point out feats that grant the player elemental resistance, but he only takes Fire, Acid, and Sonic did the DM give bad advice when creatures that do electric show up later? I'm not saying the DM should change his baddies to electric to screw over that player - I'm saying he knew that electric enemies were going to show up, and he pointed out options for his player. The player just didn't take the 'correct' one.



This isn't specifically targeted at you mind, but the idea that messing with the wizards book adds something to the game :smallsmile:.

I don't think spellbooks specifically add to the game, I think that building adaptable characters who aren't going to get hosed by a single item loss adds to the game. Whether the barbarian loses his axe, the wizard his spellbook, or any other class/item combination.

The game isn't DM vs. party, but a villain isn't the DM, he's an NPC the DM controls, and that NPC is going to do everything in his power and knowledge to defeat (or use) his opponents. I'm not going to give him magic knowledge that he shouldn't have, I'm not going to change his plans when I hear the party talking, but if the party is wandering around making targets of themselves and their items then they are going to be targeted.



This would be why i don't bother going after spellbooks myself. Adds very little to the game unless you enjoy the security armsrace, and that only happens once before you know the necessary measures to make it just a resource tax. All other equipment is fair game IMO though, being much easier to replace and nowhere near as vital to a character.

I disagree about how much it adds to the game, and I also disagree that it makes more sense to target less important items.

Tell me, if before a fight with a BBEG you could steal his spellbook and destroy it OR take his honor guards sword - which would you do? Why should the BBEG behave differently?

[Merk]

I think that building adaptable characters who aren't going to get hosed by a single item loss adds to the game.

This. The fact that this can happen is what I object to. And my complaint isn't aimed at any particular DMing style, it's aimed at WotC.

[LordBlades]

Let me stop you right there. Why doesn't he have a backup weapon? I've never seen a PC that didn't carry at least two backup weapons. Hell, even my party's wizards have usually carried a crossbow, quarterstaff, and several knives...

I've never even thought to check if my players have multiple weapons. I've never had to. Not even in my first session.

It was just an example. Maybe he invested most of his combat feats into fighting with a Greatsword or whatever. Thing is you have created a situation that hypothetical player doesn't enjoy at all, and for what reason? Because you felt like it?





I've revealed a player that thinks that he's a special snowflake, immune to the dangers of the world, and the game is now better for removing this belief from him?

What if the player plays in order to feel like a special snowflake, immune to the dangers of the world(I know several people that do that and it's a perfectly valid gaming style)? You just made the game worse for him


I've also revealed a party that really needs to read the PHB again? Sunder, theft, death, they're right there.

So are most of the things that can kill your campaign: Candle of Invocation, Planar Binding Wish loops, Contact Other Plane abuse, Scry&Die tactics, Wish, Miracle etc. Do your players use such things to full effect? I assume you expect them to bring stuff that you're comfortable with (power-wise). Is it unreasonable for them to expect the same in return?

[Midnight_v]

Except that an expert is not what the players will be running, an expert will probably never reach the same level the PCs do, and an expert is unlikely to have the same wealth of magical items that a wizard does.

Special snowflakes...

The wizard is still a contributing member of the party. Is he contributing as much as he otherwise could? No! Of course not! But he is by far not deadweight!

Sounds to me like too many of your posts read:
Communicate with my players!? BAH! I'll commnucate with their charred forms after the lightning bolt.
Thats what makes you a bad dm in my book.
It's not what you do but th consistent post after post refuting of :"Talking to your players about the upcoming game is the right thing to do"
Yeah thats pretty bad bro. . .

[SITB]

Tell me, if before a fight with a BBEG you could steal his spellbook and destroy it OR take his honor guards sword - which would you do? Why should the BBEG behave differently?

Why not just slit his throat and be done with it?

[ImperatorK]

Why not just slit his throat and be done with it?
It's not honorable.

[Dragonsoul]

The difference between a spellbook and any other item is the the spellbook, is all of his class features, all his feats will b going to improves his spells take that away and he's left with 2+int skill points/Level and a slightly brighter than average cat. The defences are pointless because the GM decides if he's taking it or not and if the GM decides he's taking it it's gone.
This is my Defence-
A Colossal++++ Adamantium Greatclub -5,560
A spellbook page with Animate Weapon Stored in a Familier Pocket.
5 gp Comfy Chair
1gp Safety Harness

Upon loss of my Spellbook, I strap myself to the Greatclub and proceed to destroy the world until it is returned- If the GM is going to play "Realism" so should I -therefore- Screw his plot, I'm solving the problem of his "Corrupt King" by smashing him, his castle and the city he lives in to a fine paste.
:smallmad: You can call it childish, but you wanted realism-and You've just destroyed this guys life work.

[SITB]

It's not honorable.

If you seriously have the option of taking the BBEG spell book or sword that you probably don't overly care about honor anyway.

[Typewriter]

What does this even mean? He pointed out that there are a lot of fixes that let Monks be viable characters, you tried to compare it with having the wizard be unable to do anything. How does this even work? having a player being superfluous in combat isn't generally fun for the player. That's why there are all those Monk fixes, and people pointing out that taking the Wizard's spell book reduces him to a glorified expert henchman.


A D&D campaign is generally more than a single combat or a single session. If you never want to be weaker in combat than your baseline you shouldn't be playing a class that can be easily weakened.

If you choose to play a wizard then you are choosing to play a character who can suck sometimes. It's right there in the rules. If you choose to play a monk you are playing a character who is always mediocre but is never going to 'just suck' because he lost an item.

Ignoring rules for the wizards mean you may as well ignore rules for the monk. The biggest difference is that most people say, "It's OK to make wizards spellbooks off limits, but in exchange the monk gets a slight bump". Why not just make it so the monk always hits? Ignoring AC is about as big of a houserule as ignoring the fact that there are mechanics in place for spellbooks being stolen/destroyed.



I've never made a wizard character concept that didn't involve spells significantly. After all...why else would I have selected wizard for that concept? If he didn't care about spells, he would have been some other class. So...from my POV, you just trashed my character concept.

"Always having spells" is not a character concept. Even a Sorceror can have his CHA hit.



It is not about power levels. The earlier example of telling a barbarian he had just lost both arms is another wondeful example. His character concept has now been dramatically changed. It's probably not terribly fun to play now. It might work as a joke character for about a session, but if the player gets tired of being Gimpy McGimperson, I would not blame him for wanting to play something else.

Character concept: "Has two arms"?

How does your character concept respond when he loses one arm? He gives up on life?

Your not talking about a character concept, you're talking about your characters longterm story, and if you're not willing to respond to interactions from the world then why are you playing D&D? That's not even collaborative story-telling, that's just you dictating a characters story.

Character concept: Never gets hit in combat
DM: Natural 20, you're hit
Charcter: I retire and build a new character



It's true. And a good DM doesn't try to punish his players for not being jerks.

So just out of curiosity is everything a DM does that a player doesn't like him 'punishing' them or is the spellbook thing a special case? I've personally never felt like I was punishing any of my players (or characters) as the DM.

[IncoherentEssay]

I would help a player find options for protecting his spellbook, but I would not tell him "In this campaign one of the bad guys is going to use anti-magic field, combined with a high stealth check, to wander into camp and steal from the party undetected at some point".

If the player decides one of the things he wants is a backup kept elsewhere, then the backup is safe. It's not going to suddenly burst into flames. If he relies solely on magical protection it's going to get gotten more than likely.

Does that answer your question?
Most likely, yes. So the Villain takes a by-the-book shot at it using any resources they have reasonably available then? I'd consider it fair.




B - Depends on what's going on - if there is going to be a point in the campaign where the party is stripped of their items and the items destroyed, then unless the wizard has a backup somewhere or he can recall it before it gets destroyed then it's going to happen.
A - Which you can do, but when? One of those resources you want may be a feat? You going to take it at level 3? 6? Hopefully you don't lose the spellbook before then. Or maybe it's level 8, and nobody has targeted your spellbook. Maybe it's OK to not worry about it and spend your money on something other than a backup. Oh, your book got stolen and you hadn't created a backup yet? Guess you should have done it sooner. Or maybe you spend that 'tax' and it just never comes up. It's not just a 'tax' it's character decisions. What extents are you going to go to - when are you going to go to them?
C - If my player comes to me and says "What can I do to make myself more survivable?" and I point out feats that grant the player elemental resistance, but he only takes Fire, Acid, and Sonic did the DM give bad advice when creatures that do electric show up later? I'm not saying the DM should change his baddies to electric to screw over that player - I'm saying he knew that electric enemies were going to show up, and he pointed out options for his player. The player just didn't take the 'correct' one.

C wasn't supposed to adress character survivability, only spellbook defenses (losing your book is more of a setback than dying and being resurrected to the wizard). It's possible to have near-perfect spellbook defense, so the Dm has to decide whether to tell the player the 'A-grade' or the 'B-grade' defensive measures. No such degree of protection is possible for the PC itself without trivializing the game. The book can be perfectly off-limits with in-world justification for it though.

Would these spellbook defenses (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11371345&postcount=342) amount to a tax or is there an opening that could be taken advantage of?
Only one i see is the Wish-tug-of-war (and the original owner can use Instant Summons instead of Wish for it, so comes out on top more often than not). Any other cases where the book might be taken would also have the opportunity to just kill the wizard, and what kind of an enemy merely steals the book then?

This is what i mean by resource tax, it's harder to steal the book than kill the wizard and the resources required for the defense are pretty much trivial, so the wizard having to make do without the book never happens. Therefore, might as well just deduct the expenses and gloss over it, no?
(admittedly, it only becomes available lvl 5 onwards, but losing the 4-or-so lvl2 spells isn't that painful in comparison to losing the book at lvls 10+)



I don't think spellbooks specifically add to the game, I think that building adaptable characters who aren't going to get hosed by a single item loss adds to the game. Whether the barbarian loses his axe, the wizard his spellbook, or any other class/item combination.

The game isn't DM vs. party, but a villain isn't the DM, he's an NPC the DM controls, and that NPC is going to do everything in his power and knowledge to defeat (or use) his opponents. I'm not going to give him magic knowledge that he shouldn't have, I'm not going to change his plans when I hear the party talking, but if the party is wandering around making targets of themselves and their items then they are going to be targeted.

I agree with this in principle, it is merely the actual in-game execution that i think would go differently.
The wizards book is his lifeline. He can keep it safe, so obviously he will. I don't think taking the extra 5 min each IG day to spell it out adds anything to the game. It's comparable to making camp: going over setting up tents and making a fire and whatnot is something you generally do once and then assume it's done the same way from then on onwards.



I disagree about how much it adds to the game, and I also disagree that it makes more sense to target less important items.

Tell me, if before a fight with a BBEG you could steal his spellbook and destroy it OR take his honor guards sword - which would you do? Why should the BBEG behave differently?

I didn't mean it makes more sense to go after other items, but that you might actually get a shot at those items without having the option to just kill the wizard instead. No one is going to go to the same lengths to guard a Hat of Int +4 as they would their spellbook, especially since the Hat is out in the open during encounters, unlike the book.

So i doubt i'd actually have the chance to steal the book before killing the wizard, and doing so wouldn't actually impair his combat abilities much, if at all. He might hold back a rare spell to scribe it later if he thinks he can't reclaim his book later.

[DiBastet]

As I understand it, most sensate people agree that this kind of bad thing happens to players, specially if they don't care to take care of their gadget, and it's okay if it's in the context of the game.

I gotta say that I hate however that every paladin must fall in the view of some DMs, that's pretty much the same thing. It's funny that the cahotic neutral cleric never falls, but the paladin must fall.. Really funny.

Now, I indeed hate that dms intentionaly target the tings you can lose so you can't even use them. Like all enemies turn to your improved familiar if you use it, or every single robber (that mind you, WANT your items) has adamantine swords and sunder if you just got improved critical -falchion-.

For me this scenario of "don't use, or else..." is as bad as "Nothing bad ever happens to pcs! You can decapitate but never be decapitated!!! Woot!!1!".

I believe there are those around here that believe the nothing bad ever is a good point, and those are people I would surely never, ever play with (and I'm afraid of what my players would do to them if they played in my game, lol) as much as there are lots of people here who say would never play with a dm who uses critical fumbles (I myself use critical hit cards and critical fumble cards. Player always choose the card, if he crits, if he's crited, if he fumbles, if opponent fumbles over him, whatever).

It's a point of personal taste, isn't it?

[Tyndmyr]

While I appreciate the sarcasm, there's a notable difference in degree. Having your spellbook stolen is something that's possible from level 1, and most likely at low levels. Many of the most abusive Wizard combos haven't even come online before you can effectively safeguard your spellbook. The leap from, say, hiding your spellbook in your tooth to spamming wish is quite large, both logically and in terms of in-game resource expenditure.

Er, a wish loop is available at level 1. Incidentally, since this is part of the pun-pun build, Olentu is entirely correct that resorting to such levels of spellbook defense leads you into the realm of other undesirable TO tricks.

I can get essentially any abuse wizard combo online at level 1, if I'm willing to engage in sufficiently large amounts of TO. I don't see how this is at all desirable for the game, though.

[Ursus the Grim]

Upon loss of my Spellbook, I strap myself to the Greatclub and proceed to destroy the world until it is returned- If the GM is going to play "Realism" so should I -therefore- Screw his plot, I'm solving the problem of his "Corrupt King" by smashing him, his castle and the city he lives in to a fine paste.
:smallmad: You can call it childish, but you wanted realism-and You've just destroyed this guys life work.

Wow. I stopped posting because people were missing the point. But justifying a temper tantrum? Really?

If this is the mindset of the opposing viewpoint, well, I'm saving myself the headache and unsubscribing.

Good luck to the DMs who don't handhold the special snowflakes. You're going to need it against posts like this.

[Snails]

It's not honorable.

Applies to stealing spellbooks, as well.

The bottom line is that is it not necessarily easier to steal a book than slit throats and take everything. In some situations it might be. In most situations it would not. Rogues are devastating when performing Coup De Gras.

Why should a DM ignore that giant glowing weakness of the whole party, and go after the weakness of one particular PC? Because he feels like gimping one PC to prove he can.

I know that is not actually a fair assessment of this DM. But it is logical conclusion from the player's seat.

If it is a fine thing for a DM to go after a giant glowing weakness, whey did this DM fail to go after the giant glowing weakness just below their chins, and teach the PCs a lesson? According to some definitions of "fairness" put forth in this thread, that exactly what he should do.

[Zale]

The difference between a spellbook and any other item is the the spellbook, is all of his class features, all his feats will b going to improves his spells take that away and he's left with 2+int skill points/Level and a slightly brighter than average cat. The defences are pointless because the GM decides if he's taking it or not and if the GM decides he's taking it it's gone.
This is my Defence-
A Colossal++++ Adamantium Greatclub -5,560
A spellbook page with Animate Weapon Stored in a Familier Pocket.
5 gp Comfy Chair
1gp Safety Harness

Upon loss of my Spellbook, I strap myself to the Greatclub and proceed to destroy the world until it is returned- If the GM is going to play "Realism" so should I -therefore- Screw his plot, I'm solving the problem of his "Corrupt King" by smashing him, his castle and the city he lives in to a fine paste.
:smallmad: You can call it childish, but you wanted realism-and You've just destroyed this guys life work.

You made me fall out of my chair from laughter.

:biggrin:

[Howler Dagger]

I think the best way to avoid losing the spell book is to include in your description that the wizard LOVES tatoos. And when the GM tries to take your spellbook, reveal to his horror that you tatoos are really your spellbook.

[SITB]

A D&D campaign is generally more than a single combat or a single session. If you never want to be weaker in combat than your baseline you shouldn't be playing a class that can be easily weakened.

If you choose to play a wizard then you are choosing to play a character who can suck sometimes. It's right there in the rules. If you choose to play a monk you are playing a character who is always mediocre but is never going to 'just suck' because he lost an item.

Ignoring rules for the wizards mean you may as well ignore rules for the monk. The biggest difference is that most people say, "It's OK to make wizards spellbooks off limits, but in exchange the monk gets a slight bump". Why not just make it so the monk always hits? Ignoring AC is about as big of a houserule as ignoring the fact that there are mechanics in place for spellbooks being stolen/destroyed.

Hint: That's why people say Monks are terrible. Not being able to meaningfully contribute to the party is normally not fun. By that same token then when you choose to play a Fighter in a game that reaches above level 15 then it's okay to be useless because you knew the risks when taking the class. More so, because it's easily avoided if the PC knew that the spell book can be targeted; being suddenly reduced to Expert level competence because the DM suddenly decided to have the BBEG act pseudo-intelligently in order to hit the Wizard seems like a straight nerf rather than an consequence of their actions.

@ Ursus the Grim: Because the DM didn't threw a tantrum by specifically targeting the Wizard and nobody else?

[Dragonsoul]

Wow. I stopped posting because people were missing the point. But justifying a temper tantrum? Really?

If this is the mindset of the opposing viewpoint, well, I'm saving myself the headache and unsubscribing.

Good luck to the DMs who don't handhold the special snowflakes. You're going to need it against posts like this.

Relax, I was making a point- A wizard can utterly wreck your setting with the slightest application of effort, but you don't because you want a good game too. Why are you not forwarding the same respect? If spellbooks are a target, tell me ahead of time so I can play a sorcerer, the fluff is similar enough and you can't take my spells short of decapitation- and that's a much smaller problem than Spellbook theft.

[Zale]

Wow. I stopped posting because people were missing the point. But justifying a temper tantrum? Really?

If this is the mindset of the opposing viewpoint, well, I'm saving myself the headache and unsubscribing.

Good luck to the DMs who don't handhold the special snowflakes. You're going to need it against posts like this.

It's not justifying it if the wizard has a bad temper.

I mean, I've had a few wizards who would have came after the thief like a flying flame throwing avatar of death.

Who would be stupid enough to provoke a wizard by stealing their spellbook? I thought rogues were supposed to be intelligent, not suicidal.

[Typewriter]

Would these spellbook defenses (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11371345&postcount=342) amount to a tax or is there an opening that could be taken advantage of?

Three thoughts:

1. While the wizard is preparing, it's vulnerable. This is likely to never come up, as I can't imagine a villain being that desparate.
2. Anytime a player tries to abuse the rules via infinite wishes or the like inevitables come for them and take all their belongings. This has only ever happened once, but you never know when it could happen again. If said player didn't willingly hand over the spellbook the Marut (or whatever inevitable is there) would probably just crush his jaw, destroying the spellbook in the process.
3. As I understand it anti-magic field does not work if line of effect is blocked, and in this case it is - that being said, my group has always treated anti magic field as a blatant "No magic" area. If a player said this was what he was going to do the group would have to decide how we were going to treat anti magic field. If they chose to have anti-magic field blocked, then it would work just fine. If the group decided they were going to continue using anti magic field as they have been (which is what I would expect) then a player with a reduced book in his head would probably have his head explode if he came within the field of anti-magic.

[Tyndmyr]

Too bad monk doesn't have one easy fix like wizard has - "Spellbooks are off limits". Seriously, if you're going to arbitrarily ignore rules to make things easier for the wizard why not arbitrarily ignore another rule so that melee can be better?

Because Monks need more to make them better than Wizards do? Why is this even a question?

Monks need more sophisticated changes to address their weak points BECAUSE they are worse. "You always hit" would be a terrible cop-out that still fails to address problems like flurry not synergizing with movement.

[Typewriter]

Because Monks need more to make them better than Wizards do? Why is this even a question?

Monks need more sophisticated changes to address their weak points BECAUSE they are worse. "You always hit" would be a terrible cop-out that still fails to address problems like flurry not synergizing with movement.

Again, I'm not talking about balance - I'm saying "Why is it OK to hand-waive mechanics for one class, but not for another?"

You are talking about ignoring rules because you don't like them. If I want to play a monk but I don't like the AC mechanic why can't we just say I always hit? You get to play a wizard who, for some undefined reason, just gets to keep his gear, because 'having gear' is part of your character concept.

"Never missing" can be a character concept, so why not abandon AC? If you miss, that character concept is ruined - may as well start over right?

[IncoherentEssay]

snip

1. & 2. i agree with, though i'd deal with rules abuse out-of-game :smallsmile:.
3. is what the party member with the magic lantern is for, essentially playing minesweeper for the wizard, would deal with the most of it. A capsule stored in the nostril could also serve as a substitute solution, it'd hurt like hell and you'd need a regenerate for it, but at least you don't need to pick your jaw off the ground :smalltongue:.
Alternatively, only keep the tooth in the mouth whilst sleeping*. Keep it tied in your hair under the hat (or in the beard to be properly wizardly) whilst traveling or something. No more head'splosions then. But yeah, as long as "AntiMagic = DeadMagic" is established beforehand, it's fair enough.

Any other weak points to cover before it's essentially foolproof?
(My aim is to show the debate of whether it's ok to target the book to be pointless on the basis that it can be easily & reliably guarded (to the point of being ~4-5 times more difficult than killing the wizard) by ingame resources, thereby making the question moot.)

Edit:*... or maybe not now that i think of the AMField-Rogue example, if AM=DM is in effect. Bury it in the ground under you instead (burrowing familiars are your friend), so if someone sneaks up on you with a AMField, the now full-sized book is either safe underground or at least pokes you awake if it's not buried deep enough.

[Typewriter]

1. & 2. i agree with, though i'd deal with rules abuse out-of-game :smallsmile:.
3. is what the party member with the magic lantern is for, essentially playing minesweeper for the wizard, would deal with the most of it. A capsule stored in the nostril could also serve as a substitute solution, it'd hurt like hell and you'd need a regenerate for it, but at least you don't need to pick your jaw off the ground :smalltongue:.
Alternatively, only keep the tooth in the mouth whilst sleeping. Keep it tied in your hair under the hat (or in the beard to be properly wizardly) whilst traveling or something. No more head'splosions then. But yeah, as long as "AntiMagic = DeadMagic" is established beforehand, it's fair enough.

Any other weak points to cover before it's essentially foolproof?
(My aim is to show the debate of whether it's ok to target the book to be pointless on the basis that it can be easily & reliably guarded (to the point of being ~4-5 times more difficult than killing the wizard) by ingame resources, thereby making the question moot.)

Well, the reason I specifically mentioned 3 was because in one campaign the party was being visited every night by a guy with anti-magic field on. He wound up not being a villain, more of a curious wanderer, but if the wizard had his head blown off it probably wouldn't have gone well for him.

I will say though that at this point no one would ever go for it while it was 'hidden'. If I ever had a villain targeting the spellbook he would probably do so while the wizard was preparing spells, probably by having the party fighter charmed and sundering the spellbook when the guy was reading.

That would require the villain to want to disarm the wizard without just flat out trying to kill him, and he would also have to be paying a *lot* of attention to the party to figure out their routine. It's not something I would really see coming up, but if an attempt was going to be made *at this point* that is the only way I could imagine it being done intelligently/reasonably.

[IncoherentEssay]

I don't think a mere Charm would do it, you'd essentially be asking a friend to burn someone's house down and wreck their car. Unless they are already heavily against them, i don't think they'd agree to it. Suggestion could work if accompanied by a major bluff though (such as "the book is cursed/possessed, you must destroy it or he will die").
On the other hand, there are quite a lot of better things to do on a failed Will save from the party beatstick :smallwink:.

I suppose the final question would be: would you require your player to come up with this on their own or would you tell them about it if they asked for spellbook defenses in general?

[Tyndmyr]

Again, I'm not talking about balance - I'm saying "Why is it OK to hand-waive mechanics for one class, but not for another?"

It's not class specific at all.

Forcing the paladin to fall with no way around it? Also a bad idea. This was never just about the wizard, the wizard and his spellbook simply makes a great example. Hell, you could take all class features away from anyone by fiat, if you wanted to...but doing so would be a poor move, and would make the game less fun.


You are talking about ignoring rules because you don't like them. If I want to play a monk but I don't like the AC mechanic why can't we just say I always hit? You get to play a wizard who, for some undefined reason, just gets to keep his gear, because 'having gear' is part of your character concept.

It's a game. It can be modified. Of COURSE we should not use rules that we dislike. I like to have a nice little chat with new players to let them know house rules and expectations.

We hate the multiclass penalty mechanic, for instance. So we don't use it. This is reasonable, and people have been doing this since RPGs were invented. Good luck making them stop.


"Never missing" can be a character concept, so why not abandon AC? If you miss, that character concept is ruined - may as well start over right?

Never missing can indeed be part of a character concept. If that's your character concept, starting with vanilla monk is a poor decision. You should probably build something that actually mechanically supports your fluff. If you don't know how, you should work with your GM to do so.

[PollyOliver]

Again, I'm not talking about balance - I'm saying "Why is it OK to hand-waive mechanics for one class, but not for another?"

You are talking about ignoring rules because you don't like them. If I want to play a monk but I don't like the AC mechanic why can't we just say I always hit? You get to play a wizard who, for some undefined reason, just gets to keep his gear, because 'having gear' is part of your character concept.

"Never missing" can be a character concept, so why not abandon AC? If you miss, that character concept is ruined - may as well start over right?

Because it's not a remotely analogous comparison. Saying you hand-wave attack rolls for the monk is like saying you hand wave saves or caster checks vs. spell resistance or ranged touch rolls for the wizard. Those are hard and fast codified rules--you want to make an attack, you roll vs. armor class. You want to cast grease, the enemy gets a reflex save.

"The DM should try to take the wizard's spell book" is not a hard and fast codified rule that you are hand waving by not taking the wizard's spell book; in the DMG there isn't a panel next to "roll a d20 and add your base attack bonus and strength and compare to your opponent's armor class" that says "and when a player wants to play a wizard, the DM sends an enemy against his spell book, an attack that is opposed by a wizard's magical defenses". Whether enemies take the wizard's spell book is a plot and strategy choice you make as a DM and a game tone choice your group should make for itself. It's akin to a choice whether the enemies instead CDG each PC in order when they break into camp and then take all their stuff, or whether the BBEG will scry-and-die the PCs when they very first come to his attention at level 3, or whether the evil army will use x tactic and whether you consider appropriate to break out rust monsters and disjunction. You are not hand waving any rule when you don't take the wizard's spell book any more than you are not hand waving a rule if you don't occasionally have an enemy try to steal or sunder or rust or disjunction the fighter's +5 sword of awesome awesomeness. You are simply choosing to employ certain tactics and certain enemies instead of others, for reasons of practicality or tone or group preference.

[Typewriter]

I don't think a mere Charm would do it, you'd essentially be asking a friend to burn someone's house down and wreck their car. Unless they are already heavily against them, i don't think they'd agree to it. Suggestion could work if accompanied by a major bluff though (such as "the book is cursed/possessed, you must destroy it or he will die").
On the other hand, there are quite a lot of better things to do on a failed Will save from the party beatstick :smallwink:.

I suppose the final question would be: would you require your player to come up with this on their own or would you tell them about it if they asked for spellbook defenses in general?

Definately, I'm just saying that that's the line of thinking I would go down as a villain. "I need that book destroyed, but it has to be indirect. Maybe that fighter, he seems weak willed".


It's not class specific at all.

Forcing the paladin to fall with no way around it? Also a bad idea. This was never just about the wizard, the wizard and his spellbook simply makes a great example. Hell, you could take all class features away from anyone by fiat, if you wanted to...but doing so would be a poor move, and would make the game less fun.

As much of a strawman as your paladin statement is I will still respond to it with; If the paladins class features came from a bauble around his neck it would be a target. This particular class feature is an item that can be stolen. I'm not talking about pushing players down and taking things from them because I'm god, I'm talking about valid targets.



It's a game. It can be modified. Of COURSE we should not use rules that we dislike. I like to have a nice little chat with new players to let them know house rules and expectations.

My group uses a very small amount of houserules. Wizards spell books being off limits is not one of them.



We hate the multiclass penalty mechanic, for instance. So we don't use it. This is reasonable, and people have been doing this since RPGs were invented. Good luck making them stop.

I'm not trying to stop people from playing however they want to play, I'm pointing out that people who disagree with the way I play shouldn't walk around spouting things like:

"You're punishing your players"
"You're a bad DM"
"That's not fun"



Never missing can indeed be part of a character concept. If that's your character concept, starting with vanilla monk is a poor decision. You should probably build something that actually mechanically supports your fluff. If you don't know how, you should work with your GM to do so.

So, what about natural 1s being an auto miss? Are we going to turn off that rule for everyone or just this player? If it's so easy to get to the point where the monk always hits, why bother going through all that tedium when you could just say "He always hits"? Isn't that why you're ignoring rules for protecting the spellbook? Not because it can't be done, but just because it's tedious?

@PollyOliver

Handwaiving any rule is pretty much the same as handwaiving any other rule in my opinion. Hopefully any such handwaiving is made into a legitimate house rule but, as I mentioned earlier in this post, my group doesn't use a lot of houserules. I think we have 2 or 3.

And I never said that a DM *should* be trying to take a wizards spellbook. I said a DM should do whatever makes sense, whether that's targeting the wizards spellbook or sending an assassin after the party in their sleep.

[PollyOliver]

@Typewriter

"Doing whatever makes sense" is a perfectly valid way to play/DM the game. It's not the way I generally like it, but whatever--obviously you and your group do, so great. My point of contention is when you say that hand waving one rule is like hand waving another rule--my point is that one of them is actually a rule, and one of them is not.

You are not hand waving any rule when you don't take the wizard's spell book; you are simply choosing not to employ that strategy as a DM, whether it be because it isn't that kind of game, it doesn't make sense at the time, you consider it too harsh, you consider it not harsh enough, or what have you. But you are not hand waving any rule by making that decision any more than you are hand waving a rule when you do choose to have the wizard's spell book stolen by rogues and they choose to just take the book instead of CDGing everyone and taking everything or at least also pick up a couple more choice items like the rogue's +5 keen kukris. There is no rule about to what extent realism should factor into your games and there is no rule about what kinds of strategies your NPCs must employ. Therefore, you are not hand waving a rule; there is no comparison there.

[Rogue Shadows]

It was just an example. Maybe he invested most of his combat feats into fighting with a Greatsword or whatever. Thing is you have created a situation that hypothetical player doesn't enjoy at all, and for what reason? Because you felt like it?

The hypothetical player in this situation probably shouldnt be playing D&D. Or games, for that matter. What does he do when he guesses wrong in Clue? Rage quit?


What if the player plays in order to feel like a special snowflake, immune to the dangers of the world(I know several people that do that and it's a perfectly valid gaming style)? You just made the game worse for him

He shouldn't be playing D&D, then. It is not a perfectly valid gaming style to having the player dictate to the DM what is and is not allowed. The DM should take reasonable steps to ensure that everyone is having fun; but one of those steps is not double-checking to see if it's okay if we play by the basic premise of the game, that is to say: death and theft happen.

A game where a character doesn't risk losing everything is not D&D, it's glorified cops and robbers, only now with codified rules for when you get to fly into a temper tantrum.

Or rather, a game where no one seriously risks dying is okay, as long as no one seriously risks dying - NPCs and monsters as well as PCs. A game where no one risks theft is okay as long as no one risks theft - players or NPCs.


So are most of the things that can kill your campaign: Candle of Invocation, Planar Binding Wish loops, Contact Other Plane abuse, Scry&Die tactics, Wish, Miracle etc. Do your players use such things to full effect? I assume you expect them to bring stuff that you're comfortable with (power-wise). Is it unreasonable for them to expect the same in return?

Candle of Invocation isn't actually in the PHB, but whatever.

If I allow players to build characters using source X - like the PHB - then everything I allowed is fair game, including any exploits. Case and point, when the Necromancer BBEG was killed by a barbarian with a mercurial fullblade seven levels lower than him, did I rant and rave about how unfair that was, how he was ruining my fun, how he'd just taken away a major plot point from the story I was developing?

No!

I made a mental note to now allow fullblades in a campaign ever again from that point forward (though I did not take the fullblade away from the character at any point), and I found a different way to make the setting and dying remains of a plot that I had work.

DM's aren't supposed to cry when an NPC they've lovingly crafted unexpectedly bites the dust. All I'm asking for - rather, all I expect, since the former is an expectation from the players to the DM - is a little quid pro quo.

To answer your question directly: actions have consequences in my game. If my players start using scry & die tactics than they're going to attract the attention of enemies who are also capable of scry & die tactics, or else start running into enemies that can prevent such tactics from being useful against them. If they start absuing Gate to get wishes then someone, somewhere, is going to notice and respond. All is fair in love and war...


EDIT: What are you talking about? An NPC class played by a PC has the same WBL as a PC class played by a PC. And yeah he isn't a dead weight, just worse than a NPC class of the same level so he may just as well retire the character and roll a new one.

The NPC classes don't generally make it past level 5 (indeed even level 3 is something special), so they'll never have the same wealth as a PC of level 6 or greater.

I still remember the N in NPC, basically.


And what the hell does special snowflake means anyway?

"You can't do bad things to my character! My character is a wizard! That makes him a special snowflake! You cannot target his most obvious weakpoint! No one can! You're a bad DM if you do! I don't care if I take no steps to prevent it! Special! Snowflake! Waaah!"


Sounds to me like too many of your posts read:
Communicate with my players!? BAH! I'll commnucate with their charred forms after the lightning bolt.
Thats what makes you a bad dm in my book.
It's not what you do but th consistent post after post refuting of :"Talking to your players about the upcoming game is the right thing to do"
Yeah thats pretty bad bro. . .

The only time I have ever instant-killed a character...I actually instant-killed the entire party, at the start of my most recent campaign. As a plot point. They went into the battle realizing that it was a no-win situation, and they had faith in the fact that, as DM, I would never permanently screw them over.

...

...wait, that's not true, I once cast Wrath of the DM on a character who's player was doing nothing but derailing the game, by which I mean killing everything in sight for no good reason and was annoying everyone else at the table. He wizened up after that.

Wrath of the DM
Evocation
Level: Sor/Wiz 10
Components: S
Casting Time: Free action
Range: limitless
Target: One character
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Fortitude half
Spell Resistance: no

The DM sets down his Coke and looks determindly at the character. Suddenly, a pillar of destruction strikes down the character with righteous fury. That's what happens when you piss off the guy who is in charge of the Universe.

Wrath of the DM causes a pillar of devastating power to strike a single character anywhere in the game (but usually one who the DM can see on the battle map). The spell deals 1d20+1 damage per DM's caster level, with a Fortitude save for half. A DM is considered to be level 20,000 and have a 20,000 in all ability scores for the purposes of Wrath of the DM

[Zale]

God forbid you talk to someone about how the derail the plot.

No, just go ahead and nuke him. :smallsmile:

[Rogue Shadows]

God forbid you talk to someone about how the derail the plot.

No, just go ahead and nuke him. :smallsmile:

In fairness, I did ask him to stop several times and he didn't. As did the fellow players.

Also, the spell does allow for a save...

[Silus]

*Scampers in* My 2 copper and a story on nerfing players.

Personally, I feel that one should not nerf players unless they are incredi-bad broken. What warrants that is, of course, up to the DM. Light nerfs are fine (Like changing a Warlock's Eldritch Blast and make it hit regular AC as opposed to touch AC) but ones that gimp a whole character (Like limiting the number of Eldritch Blasts a warlock can do per day) just make it no fun to play.

Story:
This is a "I should have nerfed that player" story.

So I was DMing my first game and I pretty much let the players come up with whatever they wanted as long as it was legal. So of course, we got some weird stuff. Of particular note was a (problem) player that made an Owlbear (Wilderness) Rogue. This should have tipped me off first, as rogues are, like, his thing.

So anyway, the campaign is your typical "escape the haunted house" thing with the main enemies being shadows. Lots of shadows. We're talking Fable 3 Shadelight kinda stuff here where they're oozing from the walls. So anyway, they eventually get to the "midboss", which is a Wight version of the original house's owner (stats in the following Spoiler).

Shadows:
Shadow (Advanced Hit Dice) CR 5
Always Chaotic Evil Medium Undead ([Incorporeal])
Init +2

AC 14 FF 12 Touch 14
(+2 Dex, +2 deflection)
HD: 9
HP: 58 (9d12+0)
Fort +3 Ref +5 Will +7

Speed Fly 40 ft. (good) (8 squares)
Base Atk +4 Grp +4
Attack: Incorporeal touch +4 1d6+0
Full Attack: Incorporeal touch +4 1d6+0
Space 5 ft. (1 squares) Reach 5 ft. (1 squares)

Abilities Str -- Dex 14(+2) Con -- Int 6(-2) Wis 12(+1) Cha 15(+2)
Stat Points Gained From Advancement: 2

Total Feats: 4
Feats: Alertness, Dodge

Skill Points: 24
Skills: Hide +8, Listen +7, Search +4, Spot +7

Create spawn(Su): Any humanoid reduced to Strength 0 by a shadow becomes a shadow under the control of its killer within 1d4 rounds.
strength damage(Su): The touch of a greater shadow deals 1d8 points of Strength damage to a living foe.
Darkvision(Ex): 60 ft.
incorporeal traits(Ex):
+(Ex): 2 turn resistance
undead traits(Ex):

Fast Healing 3

Spell-Like Ability: Creeping Doom as Caster Level (9 HD), saves are Charisma Based

Advancement [4-9(Medium)]

Midboss:
Evolved Shadow Nether Hound Wight, Rogue 4 (Advanced Hit Dice) CR 12
Always Chaotic Evil Medium Undead (Magical Beast)
Init +7

AC 21 FF 16 Touch 12
(+2 Dex, +6 natural)
DR: 5/+1
Resistances: Acid, Electric 10, Fire 5, Sonic 10
HD: 12
HP: 70
Fort +3 Ref +2 Will +8

Speed 55 ft. (9 squares), Climb 20
Base Atk +7 Grp +8
Attack: Slam +12 1d4+5, +4 Profane Necrotic Focus Sickle +16 1d6+9
Full Attack: Slam +12 1d4+5
Space 5 ft. (1 squares) Reach 5 ft. (1 squares)
Abilities Str 20(+5) Dex 15(+2) Con -- Int 10(0) Wis 12(+1) Cha 18(+4)
Stat Points Gained From Advancement: 2

Total Feats: 5
Feats: Alertness, Blind-Fight, Improved Initiative, Run Track

Skill Points: 91
Skills: Appraise +3, Balance +5, Bluff +4, Climb +11, Craft (Trapmaking) +3, Decipher Script +3, Diplomacy +4, Disable Device +3, Disguise +4, Escape Artist +5, Forgery +3, Gather Information +4, Hide +5, Intimidate +4, Jump +3, Knowledge (Local) +3, Listen +8, Move Silently +11, Open Lock +5, Perform (Percussion instruments) +4, Search +9, Sense Motive +2, Sleight of Hand +5, Spot +8, Survival +6, Swim +3, Tumble +5, Use Magic Device +4, Use Rope +5

Create spawn(Su): Any humanoid slain by a wight becomes a wight in 1d4 rounds. Spawn are under the command of the wight that created them and remain enslaved until its death. They do not possess any of the abilities they had in life.
Energy drain(Su): Fortitude save DC 22(+4 HD, +0 Racial, +4 Cha, +0 Feat)
Living creatures hit by a wight's slam attack gain one negative level. The DC is 14 for the Fortitude save to remove a negative level. The save DC is Charisma-based. For each such negative level bestowed, the wight gains 5 temporary hit points.
Attacks = Magic
Scent
Disease: Demon Fever
Darkvision(Ex): 60 ft.
Low-Light Vision
Cold Immunity
Shadow Blend: In any conditions other than full Daylight, a shadow creature can disappear into the shadows, giving it 9/10 concealment. Artificial illumination, even a Light or Continual Flame spell, does not negate this ability. A Daylight spell, however, will.
Undead traits(Ex):
Sneak Attack(Ex): +((HD+1)/2)d6 damage while sneak attacking. If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage. The rogue's attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and it increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied. Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet. With a sap (blackjack) or an unarmed strike, a rogue can make a sneak attack that deals nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage. She cannot use a weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage in a sneak attack, not even with the usual -4 penalty. A rogue can sneak attack only living creatures with discernible anatomies-undead, constructs, oozes, plants, and incorporeal creatures lack vital areas to attack. Any creature that is immune to critical hits is not vulnerable to sneak attacks. The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach.
Evasion(Ex): At 2nd level and higher, a rogue can avoid even magical and unusual attacks with great agility. If she makes a successful Reflex saving throw against an attack that normally deals half damage on a successful save, she instead takes no damage. Evasion can be used only if the rogue is wearing light armor or no armor. A helpless rogue does not gain the benefit of evasion.
Uncanny Dodge(Ex): Starting at 4th level, a rogue can react to danger before her senses would normally allow her to do so. She retains her Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) even if she is caught flat-footed or struck by an invisible attacker. However, she still loses her Dexterity bonus to AC if immobilized.
Cause Fear 1/Day
Spell Like Ability: Haste 1/Day, Greater Invisibility 1/Day
Fast healing 3
Regeneration 2
Yowling: Each round as a Free Action, the Nether Hound may
Yowl. All creatures (except for Undead & Evil Outsiders) within 100’ are Shaken (WillNeg, DC is Charisma-based) for as long as they are within 100’ for the Nether Hound. On a successful save, the creature is immune to that Nether Hound’s Yowling for 24 hours. This is a Sonic, Mind-Affecting, Fear effect.


Advancement [5-8(Medium)]

So yeah, the boss was designed to stalk them about and whatnot, picking them off one by one and just weakening them like mad. Well that didn't happen. The Owlbear pulled the 'ol HiPS thing (which was against the rules now that I look at it) and grappled the Wight. Couldn't do anything with him. So he's keeping the midboss in place and just ripping him apart. I can't do anything except sick like 4 (out of like 9) of those Evolved Shadows on him and drain him of like 22 Strength.

'Course, that's about the point the Aasimar Paladin snapped out of his little delusion and blasted out with a Daylight spell....

So yeah, the guy ended up retiring the character midway through the next session and making a Dread Necromancer (a little meta on his part, but guess what? The shadows were working with a hivemind! Good luck controlling them jerkface).

*Sigh*

[Tyndmyr]

As much of a strawman as your paladin statement is I will still respond to it with; If the paladins class features came from a bauble around his neck it would be a target. This particular class feature is an item that can be stolen. I'm not talking about pushing players down and taking things from them because I'm god, I'm talking about valid targets.

Why is targeting someone's morals any less valid that targeting an item? It actually makes MORE sense to cripple the pally, as you can do so even in situations where you lack the opportunity to just kill him.


My group uses a very small amount of houserules. Wizards spell books being off limits is not one of them.

There is no rule saying you must target spellbooks. You don't even HAVE to add a house rule to avoid causing problems.


I'm not trying to stop people from playing however they want to play, I'm pointing out that people who disagree with the way I play shouldn't walk around spouting things like:

"You're punishing your players"
"You're a bad DM"
"That's not fun"

Uh, its a discussion forum. People are discussing the original topic. Which was if doing X, Y and Z makes you a bad DM. I'm not sure why coming into such a topic and finding EXACTLY WHAT WAS ADVERTISED offends you.


So, what about natural 1s being an auto miss? Are we going to turn off that rule for everyone or just this player? If it's so easy to get to the point where the monk always hits, why bother going through all that tedium when you could just say "He always hits"? Isn't that why you're ignoring rules for protecting the spellbook? Not because it can't be done, but just because it's tedious?

There are mechanical ways to do that. Yes. If he wants to build a character that does not miss, he can do so. Good for him. Play it up.

However, if he spends all his time building and playing a character that doesn't miss, I'm not going to suddenly make his character stop hitting. That would subvert his character intention. I might make a situation in which hitting things is not the obvious solution, instead.


Handwaiving any rule is pretty much the same as handwaiving any other rule in my opinion. Hopefully any such handwaiving is made into a legitimate house rule but, as I mentioned earlier in this post, my group doesn't use a lot of houserules. I think we have 2 or 3.

There is no rule saying a DM should target a spellbook. Therefore, no handwavium or houseruling(not that house rules are verboten) is required.

There is no rule saying that a DM must not beat his player about the head and neck with the DMG while riding them around the gaming table screaming "FASTER PONY FASTER", either. We just don't do it.



The NPC classes don't generally make it past level 5 (indeed even level 3 is something special), so they'll never have the same wealth as a PC of level 6 or greater.

I still remember the N in NPC, basically.

That's not a rule. In fact, there ARE rules for NPC generation for random shmucks around town in the DMG. They result in fairly decently leveled NPCs quite commonly. Whatever you're saying has no basis in the rules.

[kardar233]

Here's an anecdote that I think relates to the discussion here.

Right now I'm running a two-player campaign that will eventually go into Red Hand of Doom. One of the players is a Necromancy-specialized Wizard. (Sammy, if you're reading this, close the browser and go play LotRO. Good boy.)

As of now, his spellbook is just something he carries around in his pack. Granted, that pack is currently being held by a Dragonborn Goliath PsyWar//Swordsage, but still.

If I wanted to, I could have a thief go in and take the spellbook while they were sleeping. Neither of them have put ranks in Listen, so there wouldn't be many rules against it.

The problem here is that the fact that I could do that would never occur to him unless I did it or told him. It's not something that would come to mind.

His character is Int18, which means he's smarter than the two of us combined. Of course an Int18 Wizard would have thought of his spellbook being stolen. He'd probably have something like that "keep it in your tooth" trick or something.

Actually, even if the player hasn't mentioned or thought about it, I tend to assume that they have some kind of ingenious method of protecting their spellbook. Because it's not very nice or fair to say: "Oh, a thief went and stole your spellbook during the night. Yeah, by the way, in this campaign I will be targeting spellbooks."

It's part of the social contract, you know? If I went out and warned him: "Hey, we're going to be dealing with some very nasty and very intelligent enemies; nothing is safe and everything is on the line." He'd come up with a particularly amusingly violent way of protecting his spellbook. (My favourite spellbook protection method involves an antimagic field and several Shrink Item'd, spring-loaded halberds.)

But there's kind of an unspoken agreement with these things. If we're playing a fantasy game, then the Geth aren't suddenly going to pop out of nowhere and kill you. Sure, if I mentioned that there are going to be dimensional breaches to the Mass Effect universe, then they might take some precautions (like building some iron golems, or getting some Wands of Lightning Bolt). But it would never occur to them that Geth would walk through a dimensional breach and start killing you, so I wouldn't do that without some kind of foreshadowing or fair warning.

I think this could be solved by a simple statement to prospective players. "Hey there. I play a more gritty and realistic style of game. In the past, characters have lost valuable items and artifacts; lost limbs and died, often messily. Everything is on the line, and your opponents aren't going to pull any punches. I expect you to overcome adversity no matter what it may be. If your prized +2 Holy Demonbane Longsword gets sundered right before the boss fight, you don't cry. You get out there, and you rip that +1 Flaming Vorpal Longsword out of the Balor's hand and slice its head off with it."

I crib from Iron Heroes a lot. Shhhh.

[Rogue Shadows]

That's not a rule. In fact, there ARE rules for NPC generation for random shmucks around town in the DMG. They result in fairly decently leveled NPCs quite commonly. Whatever you're saying has no basis in the rules.

Yes, but none of them are in the party out adventuring, are they? More to the point, none of them have the party to help them get back on their feet, or help them track down their spellbook. Or the DM helping them out.


There is no rule saying a DM should target a spellbook. Therefore, no handwavium or houseruling(not that house rules are verboten) is required.

There is also no handwave saying it's protected. And no social contract, either! It has honestly never occured to half the people responding to this thread that a spellbook is somehow magically protected! So the social contract idea falls through if half the society disagrees with it!

[SITB]

The NPC classes don't generally make it past level 5 (indeed even level 3 is something special), so they'll never have the same wealth as a PC of level 6 or greater.

I still remember the N in NPC, basically.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Player Characters get Player Character WBL. Non Player Character get Non Player Character WBL. Player Characters playing any class (Including Expert which are Non Player Character classes) are still Player Character.




"You can't do bad things to my character! My character is a wizard! That makes him a special snowflake! You cannot target his most obvious weakpoint! No one can! You're a bad DM if you do! I don't care if I take no steps to prevent it! Special! Snowflake! Waaah!"

"Man, it sure is awesome randomly targeting a PC and making him useless for several sessions. I sure showed that player who's the boss; Now for an encore I will permanently drain the strength of the Fighter to 1".

Do you see the problem here with setting up a Strawman?



The only time I have ever instant-killed a character...I actually instant-killed the entire party, at the start of my most recent campaign. As a plot point. They went into the battle realizing that it was a no-win situation, and they had faith in the fact that, as DM, I would never permanently screw them over.

Well yes, if the party made a conscious decision to do something and refused to retreat when defeat was inevitable than yeah they shouldn't cry foul when killed,



...

...wait, that's not true, I once cast Wrath of the DM on a character who's player was doing nothing but derailing the game, by which I mean killing everything in sight for no good reason and was annoying everyone else at the table. He wizened up after that.

Wrath of the DM
Evocation
Level: Sor/Wiz 10
Components: S
Casting Time: Free action
Range: limitless
Target: One character
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Fortitude half
Spell Resistance: no

The DM sets down his Coke and looks determindly at the character. Suddenly, a pillar of destruction strikes down the character with righteous fury. That's what happens when you piss off the guy who is in charge of the Universe.

Wrath of the DM causes a pillar of devastating power to strike a single character anywhere in the game (but usually one who the DM can see on the battle map). The spell deals 1d20+1 damage per DM's caster level, with a Fortitude save for half. A DM is considered to be level 20,000 and have a 20,000 in all ability scores for the purposes of Wrath of the DM

This though...

It screams of DM power fantasy. Unless it's all tongue in cheek.

[TheRinni]

So the social contract idea falls through if half the society disagrees with it!
That is, quite bluntly, a logical fallacy. A social contract can be held within a small social structure, such as a particular D&D group.

[PollyOliver]

There is also no handwave saying it's protected. And no social contract, either! It has honestly never occured to half the people responding to this thread that a spellbook is somehow magically protected! So the social contract idea falls through if half the society disagrees with it!

To the first point--yes. There is no "hand waving" required to take the wizard's spell book (as long as the enemy has to make the proper checks to do it, and the wizard gets to make the proper opposed checks) either. Both taking the wizard's spell book and choosing not to take the wizard's spell book can be done within the rules framework with no hand waving required.

You're correct that about half the people in the thread think the spell book is fair game. But the other half either think it isn't, or it's so trivial but annoying to protect that they think it's silly, or it never even occurred to them that the DM would do something like that, that the most all-around fair practice seems to be to do what you want, but make sure it is understood beforehand, whether that understanding is that there are certain things the DM won't bother about or will not target for the sake of fun, or that anything, including crippling characters down to being less effective than NPC classes if they are not prepared or on their guard, is on the table.

[Tyndmyr]

Yes, but none of them are in the party out adventuring, are they? More to the point, none of them have the party to help them get back on their feet, or help them track down their spellbook. Or the DM helping them out.

For the love of...NPC classes can be in the party too. There's no rule against that.

It was a pretty simple comparison. NPC class vs PC class, all other things assumed to be equal. If the Expert NPC class is clearly better, then you have a problem with the PC class.


There is also no handwave saying it's protected. And no social contract, either! It has honestly never occured to half the people responding to this thread that a spellbook is somehow magically protected! So the social contract idea falls through if half the society disagrees with it!

No social contract?

The social contract varies between societies. I would suggest that any topic that half of the general community disagrees with you about is something you SHOULD check on before play, to ensure you're on the same page with the group.

[Rogue Shadows]

Now for an encore I will permanently drain the strength of the Fighter to 1".

Haven't I said over and over again that a DM who takes a spellbook from a wizard is trying to challenge a wizard, but a DM who keeps the wizard from getting a new one is a bad DM?

I would never inflict any kind of permanent effect like that on a party. And I would never randomly spring it on them, either: they'd get checks to prevent it. And, they would always have ways of gaining anything back.

But in the short-term? Anything goes, and anything should go.


That is, quite bluntly, a logical fallacy. A social 1contract can be held within a small social structure, such as a particular D&D11 group.

But that is specific only to that D&D group, and cannot be applied to D&D as a whole - and nor can an argument be made that it should be if society as a whole is divided on the issue. You might as well argue in favor of critical fumbles or the 20-20-20 instant death rule! Personally my group has always played with the latter, but I would never presume to apply it to D&D as a whole.

So in short, there is no social contract, not to D&D as a whole.


It screams of DM power fantasy. Unless it's all tongue in cheek.

It's, "the guy was actively trying to ruin everyone else's fun"-in-cheek. So I cast the spell. I've only ever had to do it *once.*

To me, it seemed like a better alternative than telling the player to just leave.

[Tyndmyr]

But that is specific only to that D&D group, and cannot be applied to D&D as a whole - and nor can an argument be made that it should be if society as a whole is divided on the issue. You might as well argue in favor of critical fumbles or the 20-20-20 instant death rule! Personally my group has always played with the latter, but I would never presume to apply it to D&D as a whole.

So in short, there is no social contract, not to D&D as a whole.

If it's a quite common social contract, you should probably check before presuming it doesn't exist.


It's, "the guy was actively trying to ruin everyone else's fun"-in-cheek. So I cast the spell. I've only ever had to do it *once.*

To me, it seemed like a better alternative than telling the player to just leave.

I'd rather just have a quick OOC chat about not ruining everyone elses fun. And if that didn't fix it...yes. He would be told to leave.

There's no need for GM-verisimilitude shattering nonsense.

[LordBlades]

The hypothetical player in this situation probably shouldnt be playing D&D. Or games, for that matter. What does he do when he guesses wrong in Clue? Rage quit?

He shouldn't be playing D&D, then. It is not a perfectly valid gaming style to having the player dictate to the DM what is and is not allowed. The DM should take reasonable steps to ensure that everyone is having fun; but one of those steps is not double-checking to see if it's okay if we play by the basic premise of the game, that is to say: death and theft happen.

Nobody's dictating anything; it's merely a two-way gentleman's agreement based around 'I don't think this thing is enjoyable, please leave it out of the game'. It's not as if you can't have a good game if the fighter's sowrd doesn't get stolen. And if you're stealing it anyway, despite knowing the player won't be ok with it, then you're just being a bad DM.



A game where a character doesn't risk losing everything is not D&D, it's glorified cops and robbers, only now with codified rules for when you get to fly into a temper tantrum.

Actually the odds in D&D are heavily stacked in the PCs favor (action economy(usually there are less monster than PCs in most premade encounters), WBL compared to equivalent level NPCs, the hundred and one ways casters have to insure sutff goes their way. Full potential D&D results in nigh-invulnerable tier 1 characters astral projecting around from their own personal demiplane backed up by save game tricks. But that kind of defeats the purpose of the game. So in most real games, people deliberately not optimize to that level, they leave holes in their armor so they can still have a playable game. Asking the DM not to exploit those holes one intentionally left beyond what one considers fun seems rather fair to me.







To answer your question directly: actions have consequences in my game. If my players start using scry & die tactics than they're going to attract the attention of enemies who are also capable of scry & die tactics, or else start running into enemies that can prevent such tactics from being useful against them. If they start absuing Gate to get wishes then someone, somewhere, is going to notice and respond. All is fair in love and war...

My group plays pretty much the same. In our high pwoered games, not having scry and divination immunity as soon as they become available=you're going to die really soon. Unlike you however, I realize this is not everyone's cup of tea, and those that don;t like it shouldn't have it forced upon them.

[Rogue Shadows]

If it's a quite common social contract, you should probably check before presuming it doesn't exist.

And I'd rather be told ahead of time if I have to hold a character's hand and make sure that they have dancing lights cast over every tent to keep the monsters away at night.

But we don't always get what we want, now do we? We rolls the dice, we takes our chances.


I'd rather just have a quick OOC chat about not ruining everyone elses fun. And if that didn't fix it...yes. He would be told to leave.

There's no need for GM-verisimilitude shattering nonsense.

Well, it worked, so whether or not there was a need becomes irrelevant. Frankly at that point none of us would have cared if he left.

I was considering having an abnormally high-leveled NPC come in and smack him around a bit, telling him to stop, but the problem is sooner or later the NPC leaves the area. The DM doesn't.

[DiBastet]

Amid the walls of good discussion and calm opinions, I saw a jewel more or less like "if the villain took my spellbook I'll use an adamantine giant animate club to smash him and his castle".

Question: Why were you adventuring instead of doing this already? Seems a incredible way to level a city actually. I'll consider telling this to the next spellcaster of the group, to always have greater mighty wallop in tatoo form and a shrunk giant mattock...

[Tyndmyr]

And I'd rather be told ahead of time if I have to hold a character's hand and make sure that they have dancing lights cast over every tend to keep the monsters away.

But we don't always get what we want, now do we? We rolls the dice, we takes our chances.

What? Yeah, I'd rather not have the kind of DM that treats me like this. I'd rather have the kind of DM where we can have a quick, mature chat about what kind of games everyone likes, then go and enjoy a campaign of that.

It's really not at all hard to work out what style of game people like before the campaign, and it heads off all manner of later problems.


Well, it worked, so whether or not there was a need becomes irrelevant. Frankly at that point none of us would have cared if he left.

So...just kick him out and have done with it instead of resorting to silliness. Invented "rocks fall, you die" is not generally a good solution to OOC problems like someone intentionally trying to ruin other people's fun.



I was considering having an abnormally high-leveled NPC come in and smack him around a bit, telling him to stop, but the problem is sooner or later the NPC leaves the area. The DM doesn't.

I'm afraid this sounds terribly like a GM power fantasy at this point. I think we disagree deeply over what the problem is in this scenario.

[Rogue Shadows]

Here is another way of looking at things from my angle. I work at a pizza shop - Papa Gino's. Under my home state's laws, I am not, and nor is any member of my establishment, required to at any point ask a guest if they have a food allergy. If the guest is allergic to, say, cheese, but neglects to tell us ahead of time, they have no legal recourse if they eat a pizza with cheese on it and have a reaction.

If they tell us first, however, and we screw up, then they have legal recourse.

In this particular analogy, the DM is Papa Gino's, and the players are the guests with potential allergies.

[Rogue Shadows]

So...just kick him out and have done with it instead of resorting to silliness. Invented "rocks fall, you die" is not generally a good solution to OOC problems like someone intentionally trying to ruin other people's fun.

But in this case, it was. Because it worked. The particular character continued to come to every session for four years before leaving to join the Army.

So, to put it as succinctly as possible: :smalltongue:


I'm afraid this sounds terribly like a GM power fantasy at this point. I think we disagree deeply over what the problem is in this scenario.

I'd rather lose a character than a player?
I'd rather leave no doubt as to the consequences of actively trying to ruin every other player's fun?

Yes, we have a definite difference of opinion here.

[Tyndmyr]

Here is another way of looking at things from my angle. I work at a pizza shop - Papa Gino's. Under my home state's laws, I am not, and nor is any member of my establishment, required to at any point ask a guest if they have a food allergy. If the guest is allergic to, say, cheese, but neglects to tell us ahead of time, they have no legal recourse if they eat a pizza with cheese on it and have a reaction.

If they tell us first, however, and we screw up, then they have legal recourse.

In this particular analogy, the DM is Papa Gino's, and the players are the guests with potential allergies.

This analogy starts to make sense when you open a business for DMing, and your players are throwing money at you. When that happens, let me know.

And, legal recourse or not, most decent people are going to make a reasonable effort not to feed things to people they know are allergic to something. I'm personally immune to poison ivy. I'm still not gonna toss it in a pizza for the lulz.

[SITB]

Haven't I said over and over again that a DM who takes a spellbook from a wizard is trying to challenge a wizard, but a DM who keeps the wizard from getting a new one is a bad DM?

I would never inflict any kind of permanent effect like that on a party. And I would never randomly spring it on them, either: they'd get checks to prevent it. And, they would always have ways of gaining anything back.

But in the short-term? Anything goes, and anything should go.

So how long 'till the Wizard player gets his spell book back? You do know that scribing all those spells takes a lot of money and time, right? How is it a short term?



It's, "the guy was actively trying to ruin everyone else's fun"-in-cheek. So I cast the spell. I've only ever had to do it *once.*

To me, it seemed like a better alternative than telling the player to just leave.

What Tyndmyr said, lording over the PCs in game seems infinitely worse than solving the problem out of the game.

Also, theres a difference between challenging players and nerfing one of them (the Wizard) arbitrarily, I mean, the Rogue could have just as easily Coup de graced the PCs, or stole ALL of their belongings rather than only the spell book.

Lastly, theres a difference between having nothing bad happening to the PCs (as you so patronizingly described), challenging the players (Which as far as I see most people here advocate) and randomly choosing to nerf a PC for extended time to put the fear of the DM into them.

[Rogue Shadows]

And, legal recourse or not, most decent people are going to make a reasonable effort not to feed things to people they know are allergic to something. I'm personally immune to poison ivy. I'm still not gonna toss it in a pizza for the lulz.

The poison ivy analogy is weak because that involves tossing something into something that wasn't there before. But the rules for dying and theft? Right there in the PHB.

[Tyndmyr]

The poison ivy analogy is weak because that involves tossing something into something that wasn't there before. But the rules for dying and theft? Right there in the PHB.

Look, the entire original analogy was weak, because a pizza store and it's legal obligations is very different from a game of D&D. Hell, there is no "in the rulebook" for pizza toppings.

Hell, comparatively few people in real life are allergic to cheese. But a solid half of the people in this thread dislike having their class features removed.

If you started serving pizza with components that half of people reacted to, and didn't bother to tell anyone in advance, you WOULD be sued, because that's not a reasonable thing to do.

The polite thing to do when including elements into your game that a large portion of the gaming community strongly dislike is to make sure that your players are ok with it. Sexual themes, heavy nerfing, unusual house rules...doesn't matter what it is. If it's likely to be problematic, check first. It takes like, ten seconds.

[Rogue Shadows]

So how long 'till the Wizard player gets his spell book back? You do know that scribing all those spells takes a lot of money and time, right? How is it a short term?

In game. Out of game it takes as long as it takes to do up the math. Like...ten minutes, max.

That's assuming that the DM doesn't take some steps to make getting back the spells easier or at least point them in the right direction. DM fiat, yes, but what kind of DM would permanently gimp a player? Not me.


What Tyndmyr said, lording over the PCs in game seems infinitely worse than solving the problem out of the game.

Well, it might seem that way, but it wasn't, so...yeah. Besides, I didn't lord over the PCs. I killed a single PC, who was ruining the lives of the other PCs, and the player was making the lives of the other players annoying.


Also, theres a difference between challenging players and nerfing one of them (the Wizard) arbitrarily, I mean, the Rogue could have just as easily Coup de graced the PCs, or stole ALL of their belongings rather than only the spell book.

Okay, bluntly: we're only assuming a single spellbook because that's the basis of the OP's point. Frankly, I'd most likely strip each PC of everything they have, or at least everything they weren't sleeping in - if they fail the Listen checks. But why weren't they standing watch?

Or that teleport trap I mentioned earlier.


Lastly, theres a difference between having nothing bad happening to the PCs (as you so patronizingly described), challenging the players (Which as far as I see most people here advocate) and randomly choosing to nerf a PC for extended time to put the fear of the DM into them.

Fear of the DM? My entire argument is based on the idea that the PCs should not fear the DM - that they should have faith that the DM would never permanently gimp them! That's not fun for anyone!

[Typewriter]

@Typewriter

"Doing whatever makes sense" is a perfectly valid way to play/DM the game. It's not the way I generally like it, but whatever--obviously you and your group do, so great. My point of contention is when you say that hand waving one rule is like hand waving another rule--my point is that one of them is actually a rule, and one of them is not.

You are not hand waving any rule when you don't take the wizard's spell book; you are simply choosing not to employ that strategy as a DM, whether it be because it isn't that kind of game, it doesn't make sense at the time, you consider it too harsh, you consider it not harsh enough, or what have you. But you are not hand waving any rule by making that decision any more than you are hand waving a rule when you do choose to have the wizard's spell book stolen by rogues and they choose to just take the book instead of CDGing everyone and taking everything or at least also pick up a couple more choice items like the rogue's +5 keen kukris. There is no rule about to what extent realism should factor into your games and there is no rule about what kinds of strategies your NPCs must employ. Therefore, you are not hand waving a rule; there is no comparison there.

There's also no rule that says villains in the game wear armor and try to protect themselves. What about when lord Mc'Baddy has an AC so high the monk can only hit him on a 20? I didn't have to put the bad guy in armor, I could have just made him have pants.


Why is targeting someone's morals any less valid that targeting an item? It actually makes MORE sense to cripple the pally, as you can do so even in situations where you lack the opportunity to just kill him.

OK, so now we are officially dropping one conversation in favor of another?

Fine - there is nothing wrong with trying to make a Paladin fall, but there should be no such thing as "You fall, haha". Remember when Belkar tried to make Miko fall? What if Miko had been the PC, and Belkar the NPC? Would it have still been fair for him to taunt her morals? To try and make her break?

This conversation is completely different from any conversation about targeting an item.



There is no rule saying you must target spellbooks. You don't even HAVE to add a house rule to avoid causing problems.

There is no rule saying the bad guy has armor. Or a weapon. I guess that since the monk wants to never miss I can just remove all NPC armor from the game. That's about equal to saying that for some weird, completely undefined, reason villains never think to target spellbooks.

"I've amassed the perfect army, and I'm completely unstoppable. If only I could put on pants!"



Uh, its a discussion forum. People are discussing the original topic. Which was if doing X, Y and Z makes you a bad DM. I'm not sure why coming into such a topic and finding EXACTLY WHAT WAS ADVERTISED offends you.


So... you never read the rest of the thread then? Like when he explained that wasn't the point he was trying to make at all? That his point was, as he had actually said, that it was dumb that wizards lost everything if they lost their spellbook?

And beyond that - what are you even saying? That it's okay to badmouth a style of DMing as long as the TC agrees with you? I'm not complaining about people who said "I wouldn't play with a DM like that" or "I don't think I would enjoy that either" - I'm complaining about people who are sayin "People who do X are bad DMs".



There are mechanical ways to do that. Yes. If he wants to build a character that does not miss, he can do so. Good for him. Play it up.

However, if he spends all his time building and playing a character that doesn't miss, I'm not going to suddenly make his character stop hitting. That would subvert his character intention. I might make a situation in which hitting things is not the obvious solution, instead.

You said that it is tedious to protect a spellbook so you didn't want to - that it's better for people to just say it's off limits. Now you're saying that for another class it's fine to be tedious? Your posts seem pretty inconsistent to me.



There is no rule saying a DM should target a spellbook. Therefore, no handwavium or houseruling(not that house rules are verboten) is required.


OK, so instead of a house rule we have a list of things the DM cannot do for no reason? Is that wording better? Does it make more sense to you now, because it still makes no sense to me.

List of things the DM can do, but can't, and aren't house rules:
1. Spell books cannot be stolen or destroyed
2. Bad guys don't wear armor
3. ???



There is no rule saying that a DM must not beat his player about the head and neck with the DMG while riding them around the gaming table screaming "FASTER PONY FASTER", either. We just don't do it.

What? They're the same? Another strawman?

[Rogue Shadows]

List of things the DM can do, but can't, and aren't house rules:
1. Spell books cannot be stolen or destroyed
2. Bad guys don't wear armor
3. ???

2a. Or pants
3. Do things without player permission. ("Hey, is it okay if this orc hits you? I mean, he beat your AC, but I don't want to stifle your creativity.")

What's weird is if you take the last line, and change a few words, you get...

"Hey, is it okay if this orc pick-pockets you? I mean, he beat your Spot, but I don't want to stifle your creativity."

[TheRinni]

But that is specific only to that D&D group, and cannot be applied to D&D as a whole - and nor can an argument be made that it should be if society as a whole is divided on the issue. You might as well argue in favor of critical fumbles or the 20-20-20 instant death rule! Personally my group has always played with the latter, but I would never presume to apply it to D&D as a whole.

So in short, there is no social contract, not to D&D as a whole.

Then, surely, you must agree that the DM must inform the players of his expectations, and his style of play beforehand? This is precisely why communication between the DM and potential players is vital.

In a new group, everyone goes into gameplay with different expectations. A DM should either: 1. Tell the players what kind of games he intends to run, and what is/isn't sacred. Or 2. Explain to the players that he'd rather not go into the details of his campaign because he believes that to promote metagaming, spoil the fun, or whatnot. He should ask the players if they are comfortable with this.

In my experience, a DM who talks to the players, and takes the time to understand what kind of game they want to play, is a good DM.

Personally? I don't think Typewriter could pay me enough to play in one of his games. Having my limbs chopped off left and right just doesn't strike me as an enjoyable experience. Of course, I'm sure there are plenty masochistic players out there who enjoy such a game. To each their own.

[Rogue Shadows]

In my experience, a DM who talks to the players, and takes the time to understand what kind of game they want to play, is a good DM.

I prefer to learn what kind of game they like to play by coming up with a vauge plot and shaping the game around their actions. It's only hack n' slash if they start hackin' and slashin', in other words.

[Rogue Shadows]

You know...

...out of curiosity, could everyone please sound-off their favorite core class to play as? Just as part of their next few responces.

Rogue, by the way.

[TheRinni]

I prefer to learn what kind of game they like to play by coming up with a vauge plot and shaping the game around their actions. It's only hack n' slash if they start hackin' and slashin', in other words.
That is completely contradictory to your belief that every D&D player/group has different expectations. You can't honestly expect those players to have an enjoyable experience, when you don't even know what they define "enjoyable" as.

...out of curiosity, could everyone please sound-off their favorite core class to play as? Just as part of their next few responces.

Rogue.

[SITB]

In game. Out of game it takes as long as it takes to do up the math. Like...ten minutes, max.

That's assuming that the DM doesn't take some steps to make getting back the spells easier or at least point them in the right direction. DM fiat, yes, but what kind of DM would permanently gimp a player? Not me.

So basically, it's okay to steal the Wizard's spell book as long as he has to for over the money to replace it while being gimped at one session at most and then everybody forgets about it cause next time the Wizard will simply booby trap his spell book to hell and back?

What did stealing the spell book accomplished rather then making one character sit out of combat for a while?




Well, it might seem that way, but it wasn't, so...yeah. Besides, I didn't lord over the PCs. I killed a single PC, who was ruining the lives of the other PCs, and the player was making the lives of the other players annoying.

You killed a PC inside the game, because you didn't want to handle it out of the game. How is it not lording over your power as a DM? The player makes trouble- talk to him. He continues to make trouble show him the door, if he actually walks out, good riddance.


Okay, bluntly: we're only assuming a single spellbook because that's the basis of the OP's point. Frankly, I'd most likely strip each PC of everything they have, or at least everything they weren't sleeping in - if they fail the Listen checks. But why weren't they standing watch?

Why not just kill all the PCs then? It's the logical course of action.


Fear of the DM? My entire argument is based on the idea that the PCs should not fear the DM - that they should have faith that the DM would never permanently gimp them! That's not fun for anyone!

But your posts belies that. The PC need to act paranoid because otherwise they would encounter a threat that can't be defeated (Because the enemies covered their weakness) and can't retreat (Because the enemies trapped them) and get slaughtered because they enemy acted "realistically".

[TheRinni]

I killed a single PC, who was ruining the lives of the other PCs, and the player was making the lives of the other players annoying.

Oh God... Kender must not last very long in your games, eh?

[ImperatorK]

List of things the DM can do, but can't, and aren't house rules:
1. Spell books cannot be stolen or destroyed
2. Bad guys don't wear armor
3. ???
4. PROFIT!!!
:smallbiggrin:

[Tyndmyr]

There's also no rule that says villains in the game wear armor and try to protect themselves. What about when lord Mc'Baddy has an AC so high the monk can only hit him on a 20? I didn't have to put the bad guy in armor, I could have just made him have pants.

And here you were complaining about strawmen....


OK, so now we are officially dropping one conversation in favor of another?

You specifically accused us of being wizard-biased. The same thing applies to multiple classes. This is an example.


Fine - there is nothing wrong with trying to make a Paladin fall, but there should be no such thing as "You fall, haha". Remember when Belkar tried to make Miko fall? What if Miko had been the PC, and Belkar the NPC? Would it have still been fair for him to taunt her morals? To try and make her break?

Taunts? Absolutely. NPCs can of course taunt PCs. You can tempt them to choose to fall, but forcing them to fall is bad form.


This conversation is completely different from any conversation about targeting an item.

Why? Why is the line that says "LG" more sasoscrant than the line that says "spellbook"?


There is no rule saying the bad guy has armor. Or a weapon. I guess that since the monk wants to never miss I can just remove all NPC armor from the game. That's about equal to saying that for some weird, completely undefined, reason villains never think to target spellbooks.

Not every bad guy has armor or weapons all the time. But armor and weapons are staples of the game. They appear on the cover of many books. There is no picture on the cover of a D&D book of a dude stabbing a spellbook.

Either you're deliberately being obtuse, and intentionally avoiding actual debate, or you honestly think that stealing a spellbook is something that comes up as often as a guy holding a weapon.

Interesting.


"I've amassed the perfect army, and I'm completely unstoppable. If only I could put on pants!"

Oh hell, I may actually use that line.


So... you never read the rest of the thread then? Like when he explained that wasn't the point he was trying to make at all? That his point was, as he had actually said, that it was dumb that wizards lost everything if they lost their spellbook?

I read the entire thread, yes. The thread IS about styles of DMing, and what kinds of nerfing are acceptable.


And beyond that - what are you even saying? That it's okay to badmouth a style of DMing as long as the TC agrees with you? I'm not complaining about people who said "I wouldn't play with a DM like that" or "I don't think I would enjoy that either" - I'm complaining about people who are sayin "People who do X are bad DMs".

Yes. Some DMs are worse at DMing than other DMs. Some styles of DMing are inferior to other styles. Some systems are inferior to other systems. Anyone who says differently has not yet seen FATAL(lucky people).

Certainly, it is not ideal to use a style of DMing that your players fervently dislike. If you have any doubts about if this is the case, clear it up in advance. Saves trouble down the road.


You said that it is tedious to protect a spellbook so you didn't want to - that it's better for people to just say it's off limits. Now you're saying that for another class it's fine to be tedious? Your posts seem pretty inconsistent to me.

No. I say it's tedious because OTHER people don't generally want to play that kind of game. I'm entirely ok with playing games entirely by the book, with all dirty tricks in play, and pedantically listing defenses. It's fun for me, the wizard player with every single 3.x book on my shelves and a better knowledge of TO shenanigans than anyone at the table. It is not fun for Fighty McStabsalot, who becomes a spectator in this game.

It is equally unfun for other classes to be tedious, which you should have noticed from my repeated, explicit statements to that effect with regards to your monk example. If you have forgotten what we discussed mere minutes ago, feel free to review.


OK, so instead of a house rule we have a list of things the DM cannot do for no reason? Is that wording better? Does it make more sense to you now, because it still makes no sense to me.

It's not an explicit list, but yes...there are many things the DM shouldn't do that he could. Say, the PCs being scry and die'd instantly after creation. Not generally a good thing to do, because it basically consists of jerking the players around.

In 3.5, the DM is given great latitude...but he is also given much advice. Just because you can do almost anything does not mean you SHOULD do anything.


List of things the DM can do, but can't, and aren't house rules:
1. Spell books cannot be stolen or destroyed
2. Bad guys don't wear armor
3. ???

What? They're the same? Another strawman?

Pot, meet Kettle.

[Rogue Shadows]

So basically, it's okay to steal the Wizard's spell book as long as he has to for over the money to replace it while being gimped at one session at most and then everybody forgets about it cause next time the Wizard will simply booby trap his spell book to hell and back?

What did stealing the spell book accomplished rather then making one character sit out of combat for a while?

I dunno. It depends on how the story played out. Perhaps the Wizard in the course not having his spellbook decides to class into something else to cover the weakness. Perhaps he decides he really likes wands and this sets him on the path towards that nifty wand-based Prestige Class. Or any number of things.


You killed a PC inside the game, because you didn't want to handle it out of the game. How is it not lording over your power as a DM? The player makes trouble- talk to him. He continues to make trouble show him the door, if he actually walks out, good riddance.

...no...I think I'm going to do what I did. It worked once. It just might work again.

There was no "lording." I did not go, hahaha, you died, serves you right.

Indeed, we had already as a group made it clear that we weren't having fun. It's not like I did this to one PC and then looked threateningly at the other PCs and said "tremble before me and despair!"


Why not just kill all the PCs then? It's the logical course of action.

Not if the thief is Robin Hood! Rob from the rich, give to the poor. Note Robin Hood doesn't check alignment first. And a spellbook can catch quite the pretty penny...

If I might quote the Borg queen, "You humans. You think in such three-dimensional terms."


But your posts belies that. The PC need to act paranoid because otherwise they would encounter a threat that can't be defeated (Because the enemies covered their weakness) and can't retreat (Because the enemies trapped them) and get slaughtered because they enemy acted "realistically".

Realism? In a universe that contains elves and dragons? No.

So far my players have never needed to act paranoid. In fact if anything I think they're a little too complacent because they know I would never permanently gimp them.

Ultimately, remember that I, as the DM, am only a single person, whereas my players are five people. I can't possibly create anything that can stop them for long without resorting to outright power abuse, like throwing an elder red wyrm at them at level 5.

(which I actually once did do, but the elder red wyrm was True Neutral, leaning Chaotic Good, and actually wanted to hire them, so he didn't attack them, just waited for the Frightful Presence to wear off. Still...look on their faces. Priceless).

[Alabenson]

I think that the most imporant opposing points that have been brought up can be summarized thusly:

1: It is important for the DM to communicate with the players before the campaign begins as to how he runs the game. If the DM can't be bothered to take a few seconds to say "In this game I play the enemy NPC's intelligently, don't pull any punches, and consider equipment destruction/limb removal/etc. to be fair game." then the DM probably shouldn't be DMing in the first place. In short COMMUNICATION IS PART OF BEING A DM.

2: Losing a spellbook means the next several months of in-game time, and possibly the next several sessions, will become "Wizard rebuilds his spellbook theatre", which could mean the story is at best put on the back burner, and at worst completely derailed.

3: If the DM truly plays high-level NPCs intelligently and to their full potential, particularly spellcasters, then the game rapidly becomes unplayable. There is nothing from stopping a high-level evil wizard from casting contact other plane, learning that the PCs will be a threat in the future, and teleporting in with a party level +10 encounter and slaughtering them. They don't do this because it doesn't make for a fun game. In short, at some point the DM must draw a line between what makes sense and is realistic, and what makes the game enjoyable for everyone.

[Rogue Shadows]

Oh God... Kender must not last very long in your games, eh?

Never run Dragonlance, never had to find out. I have run groups with thieves, though, who would steal from the party on occasion. I let the players work it out between themselves, and because ultimately all that was being stolen were a few gold pieces here and there. And because no one actually complained to me, and because it had no effect on the game itself.

[NNescio]

I dunno. It depends on how the story played out. Perhaps the Wizard in the course not having his spellbook decides to class into something else to cover the weakness. Perhaps he decides he really likes wands and this sets him on the path towards that nifty wand-based Prestige Class. Or any number of things.



...no...I think I'm going to do what I did. It worked once. It just might work again.

There was no "lording." I did not go, hahaha, you died, serves you right.

Indeed, we had already as a group made it clear that we weren't having fun. It's not like I did this to one PC and then looked threateningly at the other PCs and said "tremble before me and despair!"



Not if the thief is Robin Hood! Rob from the rich, give to the poor. Note Robin Hood doesn't check alignment first. And a spellbook can catch quite the pretty penny...

If I might quote the Borg queen, "You humans. You think in such three-dimensional terms."



Realism? In a universe that contains elves and dragons? No.

So far my players have never needed to act paranoid. In fact if anything I think they're a little too complacent because they know I would never permanently gimp them.

Ultimately, remember that I, as the DM, am only a single person, whereas my players are five people. I can't possibly create anything that can stop them for long without resorting to outright power abuse, like throwing an elder red wyrm at them at level 5.

(which I actually once did do, but the elder red wyrm was True Neutral, leaning Chaotic Good, and actually wanted to hire them, so he didn't attack them, just waited for the Frightful Presence to wear off. Still...look on their faces. Priceless).

I have these impressions from your posts:
1) You enjoy being in a position of power over your players.
2) You admitted to power abuse twice (Wrath of DM + Dragon).
3) You like to remind your players of the power you hold over them.
4) You don't like to discuss things OOC with your players despite having an OOC issue.
5) You like lording over your players. Their looks of terror and confusion are sheer ambrosia for you.

Technically (5) and (1) are the same, but it's significant enough to bear mention twice.

Yes, in my book, you are a bad DM. Unless I missed a memo or so.

[Rogue Shadows]

There is nothing from stopping a high-level evil wizard from casting contact other plane, learning that the PCs will be a threat in the future, and teleporting in with a party level +10 encounter and slaughtering them.

What? Yes there is. Leaving aside that the high-level evil wizard might not actually know the spell,

1) the wizard might not want to risk mental stat drain;
2) the answer can be very wrong, especially as you head out to higher-level planes;
3) the spell specifically states that the beings that answer are subject to DM changes, the personalities of individual deities, and so on;
4) the spell can be blocked by certain deities and forces.

All these lead up to the spell being potentially very unreliable. Also, the wizard has to ask his question in a way that can be responded to in a single word: "yes," "no," "maybe," "never," "irrelevant," or somesuch. So what is the wizard going to do - go to the country's census, start with Aaron A. Aaronson, and start casting the spell until he has a full list of people who *might* be able to stop him?

[TheRinni]

List of things the DM can do, but can't, and aren't house rules:
1. Spell books cannot be stolen or destroyed
2. Bad guys don't wear armor
3. ???

Hrm... I'm going to give this a quick edit, by rules that I typically expect DM's to follow:

List of things the DM can do, but shouldn't:
1. Major equipment should not be arbitrarily destroyed/stolen
2. Lightning/asteroids should not randomly fall from this sky. Is this realistic? Well, lightning has been known to randomly kill people.

Eh... bad guys wear armor in my games all the time....

Regardless, unnecessary bull**** that wouldn't make for fun encounters/quests is typically avoided in my games. In my experience, telling a player that their spellbook has been stolen, with no hope of recovery, is not fun to DM. Instead, I'd rather tell the player that his spellbook has been stolen by a rival wizard, and the party now has to go on a grand quest to retrieve it.

Similarly, I'd hate to tell a player that during a thunderstorm, he was randomly killed by a lightning bolt.

[Tyndmyr]

What? Yes there is. Leaving aside that the high-level evil wizard might not actually know the spell,

It's core. It's divination, so it literally cannot be from a banned school. Why would a high level wizard not know this?


1) the wizard might not want to risk mental stat drain;

It's based on an int check. Wizard's are int-based. What risk?


2) the answer can be very wrong, especially as you head out to higher-level planes;

So you kill a few extra babies. Feh. You're an evil overlord. You ask the same question every day, and kill whoever happens to be a threat. There is no statistical likelihood of heroes surviving to face you on anything like an even scale.


3) the spell specifically states that the beings that answer are subject to DM changes, the personalities of individual deities, and so on;

It certainly doesn't say that in the SRD. That's why it has a table.


4) the spell can be blocked by certain deities and forces.

I like how you removed "On rare occasions, " from that quote.


All these lead up to the spell being potentially very unreliable. Also, the wizard has to ask his question in a way that can be responded to in a single word: "yes," "no," "maybe," "never," "irrelevant," or somesuch. So what is the wizard going to do - go to the country's census, start with Aaron A. Aaronson, and start casting the spell until he has a full list of people who *might* be able to stop him?

No, it's remarkably reliable. There are also algorithmic tricks to make it statistically vastly more reliable if the lie chance is a problem for you. These can be summarized as "ask the question a bunch in different ways."

[Alabenson]

Similarly, I'd hate to tell a player that during a thunderstorm, he was randomly hit by a lightning bolt.

Actually, if a PC in full plate carrying a 3-6 ft. piece of metal ran around in a lightning storm, I probably would roll to see if he was struck by lightning.

I do draw a line between being arbitrary and making PCs accept the consequences for acting like Darwin Awards canidates.

[Rogue Shadows]

I have these impressions from your posts:
1) You enjoy being in a position of power over your players.

Incorrect. I enjoy being in a position of quid-pro-quo with my players.


2) You admitted to power abuse twice (Wrath of DM + Dragon).

The red dragon doesn't count, unless having the PC's ever meet an NPC more powerful than them counts. If a group of 5th-level PCs recieved a job offer from Drizzt (18th level), would that count as a power trip?

This NPC just happened to be a dragon, and the Monster Manual's rules for Frightful Presence state that it happens whenever the dragon attacks, charges, or flies overhead, regardless of what the dragon was actually intending to do. In this particular case, make them an offer that they were absolutely allowed to refuse, with no negative consequences.


3) You like to remind our players of the power you hold over them.

Uh...what? When have I ever implied that? Because I let a campaign grow organically based on what my PCs do? Because I try to make NPCs act in character?


4) You don't like to discuss things OOC with your players despite having an OOC issue.

No, the issue was in-character as well. If the character had been doing nothing but normal adventuring but the player had been making continuous fart jokes, or something, then yes, I'd deal with it OOC. But because the character was also part of the problem - trying to kill everything in sight for ****s n' giggles - then the problem was not merely OOC.


5) You like lording over your players. Their looks of terror and confusion are sheer ambrosia for you.

Oh, you're just no fun. The player is allowed to pull fast ones on the DM, but the DM isn't allowed to do likewise?

[PersonMan]

Also, the wizard has to ask his question in a way that can be responded to in a single word: "yes," "no," "maybe," "never," "irrelevant," or somesuch. So what is the wizard going to do - go to the country's census, start with Aaron A. Aaronson, and start casting the spell until he has a full list of people who *might* be able to stop him?

"Will there be a significant threat to my life/my plan(s) in [timeframe]?"
If the answer is yes:
"Will the threat arise from the local population of [area of planned operation]?"
If yes:
"Will [course of action] keep this threat from arising?"(avoiding attacking villages unnecessarily, etc.)
If no:
"Would [placing an adventurer-gathering job offer] keep this threat from arising?"

etc.

Basically, you ask about a timeframe, then look at the actions you plan to take in that timeframe(such as, say, razing a village) and see if you can adjust your plans to avoid the threat from arising. If not, find out how you can find/draw in the potential threat(s) and do so, followed by a curbstomp via overwhelming force.

[TheRinni]

Actually, if a PC in full plate carrying a 3-6 ft. piece of metal ran around in a lightning storm, I probably would roll to see if he was struck by lightning.

I do draw a line between being arbitrary and making PCs accept the consequences for acting like Darwin Awards canidates.

xD That's a very good point. I was merely looking for one of the random, unfortunate, realistic reasons people die on a normal basis. Eh, let's toss realism aside for a wee bit, and go with the asteroid example then. I would never randomly send an asteroid down on a character, crushing his leg completely, just because "Eh, it can happen."

Consequences are perfectly fine, but random crippling/death is best left for the real world.


The red dragon doesn't count, unless having the PC's ever meet an NPC more powerful than them counts. If a group of 5th-level PCs recieved a job offer from Drizzt (18th level), would that count as a power trip?
I try to limit overpowered NPCs for a two reasons: 1. Players are the Heroes of this world. They should feel like heroes. If the majority of NPCs are more powerful than them, you won't have this effect. 2. It simply doesn't make sense. If the NPCs are so much more powerful than the PCs, chances are they could find someone better than the players to complete this quest - or just do it on their own.


The player is allowed to pull fast ones on the DM, but the DM isn't allowed to do likewise?
The DM's job is to make sure the players have fun. That's it. DMing isn't always fun for the DM; it sucks, but that's all there is to it.

[Tyndmyr]

Is the person that poses the most threat to me in the northern half of my city?
Is the person that poses the most threat to me in the northeastern half of my city?

At one question/level, at level 20, with no CL boosts, I can identify individuals with ease without even burning up a full casting. So, cast about five times, to get some ridiculous levels of redundancy, and figure out who you'll kill today. Bam, dead.

Kill the most dangerous person to you every day, and let it be known that you do so...and you've got a world in which a baby adventurer is remarkably screwed.

And if he DOES get incredibly unlucky one day, and kills the wrong baby...feh. No matter. One more body on the piles.

[Hiro Protagonest]

This NPC just happened to be a dragon, and the Monster Manual's rules for Frightful Presence state that it happens whenever the dragon attacks, charges, or flies overhead, regardless of what the dragon was actually intending to do. In this particular case, make them an offer that they were absolutely allowed to refuse, with no negative consequences.Doesn't frightful presence work only the first time the dragon does that?
No, the issue was in-character as well. If the character had been doing nothing but normal adventuring but the player had been making continuous fart jokes, or something, then yes, I'd deal with it OOC. But because the character was also part of the problem - trying to kill everything in sight for ****s n' giggles - then the problem was not merely OOC.

Unless the character was CE, that's an OOC problem.

[Rogue Shadows]

So you kill a few extra babies. Feh. You're an evil overlord.

Why do you have to be an evil overlord to oppose the players or kill things? One of my favorite comics, Marvel 1602, has a principle antagonist who is Lawful Good.

Specifically, it's Captain America.



You ask the same question every day, and kill whoever happens to be a threat. There is no statistical likelihood of heroes surviving to face you on anything like an even scale.

I'll get back to this.


It certainly doesn't say that in the SRD. That's why it has a table.

Well, it says it in my nifty softcover 3.5 PHB, so...yeah. That's great, conflict between sources. I love it when that happens.


I like how you removed "On rare occasions, " from that quote.

Mostly because how rare the occasions are is purely up to DM fiat, and the game is not DM verses player, so why wouldn't the DM take steps to ensure player survival?


No, it's remarkably reliable. There are also algorithmic tricks to make it statistically vastly more reliable if the lie chance is a problem for you. These can be summarized as "ask the question a bunch in different ways."

This is me getting back to that. The casting time is 10 minutes and I'm going to assume that there are a remarkably large number of possible questions nevertheless. So between sorting out these algorithms and casting the spell and then elminating the Threats To My Evil Plan, when is this bad guy actually going to have time to be an archvillain and not simply a wandering murderer?

Hextor: No.
Erythnul: Wait, what are you talking about? Those guys could totally stop his evil plans!
Hextor: No, because he's spending all his time worrying about stopping people who can stop his evil plans. He's going to die of old age before he'll ever get around to them!
Pelor, the Burning Hate: Ha! Nice.

[Rogue Shadows]

Isn't it only the first time the dragon does that?

Let me check...no, not according to my copy of the Monster Manual: Frightful Presence happens whenever the dragon performs those actions; however, succeeding on a Will save means that the character is immune to that dragon's Frightful Presence for 24 hours.

Since these were level 5 characters, and Gilgamesh was an elder red wyrm, none of them succeeded.

I had him shapeshift into a human form after landing in order to avoid having to re-make the checks later. And then invited them into his lair, which was a permanent Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion. And they got to see the crown jewel of his horde: Mordenkainen's Magnificent Pants.

(Comedy = (Spell name - one word) + Pants. Bigby's forceful pants, enlarge pants, shrink pants, Tasha's hideous pants, magic pants, Otto's irresistable pants, speak to pants, summon pants IX, diminish pants, dimensional pants, transmute pants to mud, flaming pants, pants to stone...)


Unless the character was CE, that's an OOC problem.

I disagree.

[Tyndmyr]

Why do you have to be an evil overlord to oppose the players or kill things? One of my favorite comics, Marvel 1602, has a principle antagonist who is Lawful Good.

Specifically, it's Captain America.

I own both of the 1602 comics. They're aright.

And there's no particular reason why a LG character couldn't also use the same method. Presumably he'll use a "nicer" method like Good Mindrape instead of killing. Same end result.


Mostly because how rare the occasions are is purely up to DM fiat, and the game is not DM verses player, so why wouldn't the DM take steps to ensure player survival?

So, it's a dramatic offense to realism for players NOT to have spellbooks ganked.....but you're ok with DM fiating away divinations in order for your plan to work.

Do you see a bias here?


This is me getting back to that. The casting time is 10 minutes and I'm going to assume that there are a remarkably large number of possible questions nevertheless. So between sorting out these algorithms and casting the spell and then elminating the Threats To My Evil Plan, when is this bad guy actually going to have time to be an archvillain and not simply a wandering murderer?

Ten minutes for a casting. Plus a standard action per question. Feh. So, you spend around twelve minutes before breakfast divining, then about thirty seconds killing.

I'm pretty sure he can afford to even cast it a couple times without seriously impinging on a busy schedule of villainy, but if he's got a calendar that packed with hedonism and evil, he can mindrape another wizard to do it for him.


Hextor: No.
Erythnul: Wait, what are you talking about? Those guys could totally stop his evil plans!
Hextor: No, because he's spending all his time worrying about stopping people who can stop his evil plans. He's going to die of old age before he'll ever get around to them!
Pelor, the Burning Hate: Ha! Nice.

Asmodeus: And this is why you fail. He's a high level wizard who wasted a few minutes and a fifth level slot to not die. That's what in the evil business call "sane". Presumably he'll somehow manage to squeeze in being evil to his dozens of other spell slots and the other 95% of the day.

[NNescio]

Incorrect. I enjoy being in a position of quid-pro-quo with my players.
Ah yes, if the 'quid' is "Don't play what you like" and the 'quo' is "Nuke him with Wrath of DM".



The red dragon doesn't count, unless having the PC's ever meet an NPC more powerful than them counts. If a group of 5th-level PCs recieved a job offer from Drizzt (18th level), would that count as a power trip?

This NPC just happened to be a dragon, and the Monster Manual's rules for Frightful Presence state that it happens whenever the dragon attacks, charges, or flies overhead, regardless of what the dragon was actually intending to do. In this particular case, make them an offer that they were absolutely allowed to refuse, with no negative consequences.
So you admit the Wrath of DM counts. Good. As for the dragon:


Ultimately, remember that I, as the DM, am only a single person, whereas my players are five people. I can't possibly create anything that can stop them for long without resorting to outright power abuse, like throwing an elder red wyrm at them at level 5.

(which I actually once did do, but the elder red wyrm was True Neutral, leaning Chaotic Good, and actually wanted to hire them, so he didn't attack them, just waited for the Frightful Presence to wear off. Still...look on their faces. Priceless).
First you give an example of "power abuse", then you mention that "Oh wait, I actually did that." Which was just a bad example, 'though your later explanation clarified it somewhat.



Uh...what? When have I ever implied that? Because I let a campaign grow organically based on what my PCs do? Because I try to make NPCs act in character?
Wrath of DM is naturally organic. I suppose yes, if the overdeity is you. Oh and "True Neural leaning Chaotic Good" Red Dragon is also highly unusual. You put him in there to scare your players. You got what you wanted. Congratulations.

(Granted, it didn't have any actual bad effects, but this doesn't exactly help when I already have a bad impression of your DMing style.)



No, the issue was in-character as well. If the character had been doing nothing but normal adventuring but the player had been making continuous fart jokes, or something, then yes, I'd deal with it OOC. But because the character was also part of the problem - trying to kill everything in sight for ****s n' giggles - then the problem was not merely OOC.
You could have talked to him first. Really, most problems are not only and just only OOC, since the player's character has to be involve somehow unless he's not playing.

And really, the organic growth you mentioned earlier? The realistic response is to send local law enforcement after him. Not "Insta-dead Nuke from I, the DM"



Oh, you're just no fun. The player is allowed to pull fast ones on the DM, but the DM isn't allowed to do likewise?
I find "gotcha" DMs to be unsuitable for my playstyle, especially the Gygaxian kind, since I appear to lack extrasensory powers. Mind you, if it's a logical and realistic response I am quite perfectly willing to accept it, but your rulings often seem arbitrary and less realistic to me (e.g. SCP with 10/20 uses regardless of size or weight of components drawn). They are not conducive to my willing suspension of disbelief.

I am sorry, but you are a bad DM for me. Which is not to say that you are bad at DMing at all -- I'm just afraid that our playstyles and our respective assumptions of the game don't match up. Your players like your DMing, and well, more power to them and you. But I implore you, that, as noted by the various other posters here, it might be a good idea to state out your DMing style when playing with new players, to avoid unnecessary conflicts later on.

[PersonMan]

Mostly because how rare the occasions are is purely up to DM fiat, and the game is not DM verses player, so why wouldn't the DM take steps to ensure player survival?

How is not specifically targeting a spellbook so different from not having very high-intelligence enemies using scry-and-die tactics against the PCs? I mean, they both make sense in the world, right?

[Typewriter]

You know...

...out of curiosity, could everyone please sound-off their favorite core class to play as? Just as part of their next few responces.

Rogue, by the way.

...Monk

If it's going to be a longterm game I go for Arcane Trickster though :P


And here you were complaining about strawmen....

You created a new scenario that was a completely different situation. I pointed out that your argument that not being able to enact a rule makes no sense, because every rule is something that must be enacted. Why not just turn off random ones.



You specifically accused us of being wizard-biased. The same thing applies to multiple classes. This is an example.

A paladin does not have a baublee you can just take away. I have nothing against trying to make a Paladin fall, but - to my knowledge - there's no "You lose your status" button.



Taunts? Absolutely. NPCs can of course taunt PCs. You can tempt them to choose to fall, but forcing them to fall is bad form.

Who are we talking about forcing to fall? Who brought this up? I don't think it was me. I literally have no idea what you're talking about.

Haha, you walked into the evil room. Now you're no longer a paladin.
!=All of your items are destroyed because 'X' happens

They're different situations, and you're trying to use the varying outcomes to prove a point.



Why? Why is the line that says "LG" more sasoscrant than the line that says "spellbook"?

Because a villain can push you down and take your spellbook, but a villain can't really push you down and take your alignment? Different situations behave differently, which is why I have no idea how this conversation has any bearing on the other.



Not every bad guy has armor or weapons all the time. But armor and weapons are staples of the game. They appear on the cover of many books. There is no picture on the cover of a D&D book of a dude stabbing a spellbook.

Wow. Title art determines what happens in a campaign. Got it.



Either you're deliberately being obtuse, and intentionally avoiding actual debate, or you honestly think that stealing a spellbook is something that comes up as often as a guy holding a weapon.

Interesting.

Yes, you are so perfect in every way that the only time someone disagrees with you is because they are purposefully obtuse. You found me out.

And yes, I don't want to debate you about spellbooks, that's why I started talking about Paladins falling.



I read the entire thread, yes. The thread IS about styles of DMing, and what kinds of nerfing are acceptable.

That's what it turned into, but that's not what the TC was going to. Here is the post in which he clarified his original point:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11317912&postcount=103

My thread is about whether or not actions like this should automatically mean everyone calls them a horrible DM. Every group is different, but I saw posts in which someone was saying "People who do X are horrible". I was originally going to reply in that topic but when I saw the pots (linked above) I decided to make my own since my particular line of inquiry were off topic because that style of DMing was not the original purpose of that thread.



Yes. Some DMs are worse at DMing than other DMs. Some styles of DMing are inferior to other styles. Some systems are inferior to other systems. Anyone who says differently has not yet seen FATAL(lucky people).

Certainly, it is not ideal to use a style of DMing that your players fervently dislike. If you have any doubts about if this is the case, clear it up in advance. Saves trouble down the road.

Different things work for different groups, I just wish that the response was "I don't like that style of DMing" instead of "That move makes your DM bad".



No. I say it's tedious because OTHER people don't generally want to play that kind of game. I'm entirely ok with playing games entirely by the book, with all dirty tricks in play, and pedantically listing defenses. It's fun for me, the wizard player with every single 3.x book on my shelves and a better knowledge of TO shenanigans than anyone at the table. It is not fun for Fighty McStabsalot, who becomes a spectator in this game.

It is equally unfun for other classes to be tedious, which you should have noticed from my repeated, explicit statements to that effect with regards to your monk example. If you have forgotten what we discussed mere minutes ago, feel free to review.

And my group would disagree in most instances. The wizard has to protect his spellbook if he doesn't want it taken, the monk has to invest in the right stats/feats/items to hit properly. Both of those actions are somewhat tedious but pretending they don't exist makes no sense.



It's not an explicit list, but yes...there are many things the DM shouldn't do that he could. Say, the PCs being scry and die'd instantly after creation. Not generally a good thing to do, because it basically consists of jerking the players around.

In 3.5, the DM is given great latitude...but he is also given much advice. Just because you can do almost anything does not mean you SHOULD do anything.


I agree - the DM should not abuse his power. What I'm saying is that your list of "what a DM should or shouldn't do" should not give you leeway to say "People who do X are bad DMs". You have your own personal list of things a DM shouldn't do. Fine, I'm not trying to change anyone. I don't even care if you post "I wouldn't play with Typewriter because his DMing style doesn't match my play style". I have a problem with people who say "So and so is a bad DM because he doesn't match my play style", which is what was happening in the other thread.

Since the things people were talking about were things I would (and have) done, I wanted to respond - to defend myself - but that seemed off topic to what the TC had intended, so I created this topic.

The basic consensus is basically "Do what works for your group, and don't abuse your power", which is about what I expected.[/quote]



Pot, meet Kettle.

I would disagree and here is why:

'Taking' a paladins power is not something that can just be 'done' so using it as a comparison to 'taking' a wizards power doesn't apply. The situations are not the same. The DM saying "You are no longer a Paladin" would be similar to a DM saying "You are no longer a wizard", but "You are no longer a wizard" is not the situation we've been talking about is it? The wizard could have protected his spellbook better. He could have had a backup. The Paladin can not have a backup of his power, he simply is a Paladin or he isn't. He can't protect his status shy of living alone, underground. The situations are not the same. Since they are not the same me agreeing with you that you shouldn't 'just take a paladins powers' does not mean that I agree with you that you shouldn't 'target a wizards spellbook', therefore the paladin argument was stood up as a strawman.

My examples were, if as intended anyway, directly parallel to your statements.

It is tedious to protect a spellbook.
It's also tedious to make a monk who can hit his opponents. Since when does tedium change the flow or mechanics of the game?

It's not a house rule to not target spellbooks.
It's also not a house rule to say "Villains don't wear armor". Since when do you just do things for no reason?

If it was interpreted as a strawman then I apologize. I was attempting to reply to broad statments with examples that showed that the statement didn't make any sense to me.

[Rogue Shadows]

So, it's a dramatic offense to realism for players NOT to have spellbooks ganked.....but you're ok with DM fiating away divinations in order for your plan to work.

Do you see a bias here?

Only if I was arguing towards realism, when I'm not. I'm arguing towards parity of play: if players can do X than I, as the DM, can do X as well.

So if the PCs never lie, cheat, or steal, then it's perfectly reasonable for them to expect to never be lied to, cheated, or stolen from. But if they go around lying, cheating, and stealing, then sooner or later someone is going to lie to them, cheat them, or steal from them.


Ten minutes for a casting. Plus a standard action per question. Feh. So, you spend around twelve minutes before breakfast divining, then about thirty seconds killing.

And for every potential threat you kill you create another as word gets around that someone is using scry & die tactics until eventually you run into the upper limit of your ability to scry & die because someone is going to scry & die you.

Perhaps the PCs. After all, there's no reason to assume that the PCs are the first people the evil overlord scries and kills, or that they're even very high on his list.


Asmodeus: And this is why you fail. He's a high level wizard who wasted a few minutes and a fifth level slot to not die. That's what in the evil business call "sane". Presumably he'll somehow manage to squeeze in being evil to his dozens of other spell slots and the other 95% of the day.

Hextor: Yeah, but the problem is each time he begins the day by doing this he creates more enemies, meaning that if he keeps it up he'll eventually have someone stepping on him anyway because he didn't kill the right people - or else he spends every minute of every day hunting down the people who could stop him, which means his Evil Plan will never take off.
Asmodeus: But...it's the perfect plan!
Pelor, the Burning Hate: It's a stupid plan. It's like launching a nuke. All it does is make everyone else launch their nukes. No one wins a nuclear war.
Asmodeus: I could win a nuclear war.
Erythnul: No, you couldn't.
Asmodeus: Yeah, I know...

[PersonMan]

It's not a house rule to not target spellbooks.
It's also not a house rule to say "Villains don't wear armor". Since when do you just do things for no reason?

I think the conflict here is where you each draw the lines for "this makes sense in the world, but it's no fun so it won't happen". For some, targeting spellbooks=not fun, so it doesn't happen. For others, not targeting spellbooks makes no sense if they're unprotected and messes up the game and therefore =not fun.

I haven't been following the discussion all that well, but wasn't there a point where the whole "just say 'hey, guys, be careful with your stuff 'cause it can get stolen, broken, etc. if you don't' and head off tons of problems, since a lot of people don't play like that" thing was brought up?

[navar100]

Wrath of the DM
Evocation
Level: Sor/Wiz 10
Components: S
Casting Time: Free action
Range: limitless
Target: One character
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Fortitude half
Spell Resistance: no

The DM sets down his Coke and looks determindly at the character. Suddenly, a pillar of destruction strikes down the character with righteous fury. That's what happens when you piss off the guy who is in charge of the Universe.

Wrath of the DM causes a pillar of devastating power to strike a single character anywhere in the game (but usually one who the DM can see on the battle map). The spell deals 1d20+1 damage per DM's caster level, with a Fortitude save for half. A DM is considered to be level 20,000 and have a 20,000 in all ability scores for the purposes of Wrath of the DM

It's rare, but there does exist in a few prestige classes the ability to ignore secondary effects of spells that require a fortitude or will save even when you had made the save. Such a character would then suffer no damage from Wrath Of DM. Even if the DC is 100+, the player could roll a 20.

If I recall correctly the Knight base class has this as well.

:smallbiggrin:

[Typewriter]

I think the conflict here is where you each draw the lines for "this makes sense in the world, but it's no fun so it won't happen". For some, targeting spellbooks=not fun, so it doesn't happen. For others, not targeting spellbooks makes no sense if they're unprotected and messes up the game and therefore =not fun.

I haven't been following the discussion all that well, but wasn't there a point where the whole "just say 'hey, guys, be careful with your stuff 'cause it can get stolen, broken, etc. if you don't' and head off tons of problems, since a lot of people don't play like that" thing was brought up?

My warning to my group is "Just remember not to put all your eggs in one basket, because you never know when that will come back to get you".

In probably around 4/5 campaigns it never comes up, so some people will build varied characters constantly, and others will play the odds. I'm not going to say "In this campaign specifically you will be fighting someone who targets spellbooks, so protect yours unless you're cool with sucking for a while".

[PersonMan]

Only if I was arguing towards realism, when I'm not. I'm arguing towards parity of play: if players can do X than I, as the DM, can do X as well.

So if the PCs never lie, cheat, or steal, then it's perfectly reasonable for them to expect to never be lied to, cheated, or stolen from. But if they go around lying, cheating, and stealing, then sooner or later someone is going to lie to them, cheat them, or steal from them.

So if the players never target spellbooks, sunder equipment and the like you don't?

It probably would've been helpful to mention this earlier, although how this connects with the whole "not targeting spellbooks=breaks my immersion/suspension of disbelief" that you said at some point(pages ago, I'm not digging it up).



And for every potential threat you kill you create another as word gets around that someone is using scry & die tactics until eventually you run into the upper limit of your ability to scry & die because someone is going to scry & die you.

Perhaps the PCs. After all, there's no reason to assume that the PCs are the first people the evil overlord scries and kills, or that they're even very high on his list.

If you use short-term questions ("Will anyone mess with [the next step of my plan]?") and only eliminate the people who you find with those, each step of the way, you'll make a minimum number of extra enemies-besides, you can be indirect if you're long-term enough by hiring layers of go-betweens and thugs/assassins.



Hextor: Yeah, but the problem is each time he begins the day by doing this he creates more enemies, meaning that if he keeps it up he'll eventually have someone stepping on him anyway because he didn't kill the right people - or else he spends every minute of every day hunting down the people who could stop him, which means his Evil Plan will never take off.
Asmodeus: But...it's the perfect plan!
Pelor, the Burning Hate: It's a stupid plan. It's like launching a nuke. All it does is make everyone else launch their nukes. No one wins a nuclear war.
Asmodeus: I could win a nuclear war.
Erythnul: No, you couldn't.
Asmodeus: Yeah, I know...


Asmodeus: Yes, I could. Want to see my "intelligent cockroach cult" plan?


My warning to my group is "Just remember not to put all your eggs in one basket, because you never know when that will come back to get you".

Makes sense.

...I don't think I really have a disagreement with you anymore, if you don't suddenly spring stuff like that on your players.

So, ah, good day(/evening/morning, depending on your timezone) then.

[Lurkmoar]

What I learned from this thread:

Nothing good happens when two groups with radically different approaches confront in each, so I should stay the hell out of the way.

(But) Since (I'm a sucker and) lost limbs came up earlier, I'll toss in my own (super condensed)anecdote and then run like the wind.

A fighter was created based around dual wielding. Second session, he lost his hand from an unlucky crit while we were in a pitched battle. He didn't complain about it, because everyone agreed to the the crit table that the DM brought out. He took it well; grunted about bad luck and kept kicking ass with just one hand.

It helped that he made all the combat rolls in front of us.

Two sessions later, he got his hand restored by the MacGuffin we retrived. And a session later died because he followed some mysterious people offering a high paying job to him into a dark alley by himself. His words: "Damn, should've seen that coming." And it was DM fiat that he died, just greed winning over better judgement and some poor rolls.

What does this prove? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! But we had fun.

[Alabenson]

I haven't been following the discussion all that well, but wasn't there a point where the whole "just say 'hey, guys, be careful with your stuff 'cause it can get stolen, broken, etc. if you don't' and head off tons of problems, since a lot of people don't play like that" thing was brought up?

This has been more or less the primary point I've been trying to get across from the beginning.


It's rare, but there does exist in a few prestige classes the ability to ignore secondary effects of spells that require a fortitude or will save even when you had made the save. Such a character would then suffer no damage from Wrath Of DM. Even if the DC is 100+, the player could roll a 20.

I think you might be thinking of Mettle, which is essentially Evasion for Fort and Will saves.

[PersonMan]

This has been more or less the primary point I've been trying to get across from the beginning.

Yeah, it's a good one, and I made a post about it on page 3 or so, too.


I think you might be thinking of Mettle, which is essentially Evasion for Fort and Will saves.

Do you auto-succeed saves on a 20, though? I'm not sure...

[Rogue Shadows]

First you give an example of "power abuse", then you mention that "Oh wait, I actually did that." Which was just a bad example, 'though your later explanation clarified it somewhat.

You'll note I didn't actually make them or expect them to fight the red, I hope. I was simply providing full disclosure: yes, I have had level 5 characters run into CR 24 dragons, but it doesn't count because I did not expect them to fight, and the Frightful Presence only happened because it's not described as something that the dragon can just *switch off.*


Wrath of DM is naturally organic. I suppose yes, if the overdeity is you. Oh and "True Neural leaning Chaotic Good" Red Dragon is also highly unusual. You put him in there to scare your players. You got what you wanted. Congratulations.

(Granted, it didn't have any actual bad effects, but this doesn't exactly help when I already have a bad impression of your DMing style.)

So from now on I should make sure that all my NPCs are simple 1st level human Commoners so as to avoid scaring my PCs, as doing so is bad and wrong and I am a horrible DM for doing so, who takes perverse joy in constantly doing so. Right. Got it.

Also, yes, I kind of view the position of Overdeity as akin to being the DM of a given universe; but I don't lord it over the players. Think of it more as the Dungeon Master from the D&D cartoon, rather than some kind of wrathful god who moves chess pieces across a board according to a dark design.

Certainly I don't expect the PCs to fear me. Fear a red dragon? Yes, because at the very least the mechanics say they should. But they should never worry that I'm out to kill their characters, because I'm not.


You could have talked to him first. Really, most problems are not only and just only OOC, since the player's character has to be involve somehow unless he's not playing.

And really, the organic growth you mentioned earlier? The realistic response is to send local law enforcement after him. Not "Insta-dead Nuke from I, the DM"

Tried that. He won. Was also the last time I ever tried running an epic campaign.

Besides, and I cannot stress this enough, it worked. So, to repeat a previous statement: :smalltongue:


I find "gotcha" DMs to be unsuitable for my playstyle, especially the Gygaxian kind, since I appear to lack extrasensory powers. Mind you, if it's a logical and realistic response I am quite perfectly willing to accept it, but your rulings often seem arbitrary and less realistic to me (e.g. SCP with 10/20 uses regardless of size or weight of components drawn). They are not conducive to my willing suspension of disbelief.

To be fair, the spell component pouch thing is something I'm informing the players about ahead of time, since this represents a mechanical change.

Not to mention that some of the stuff in a spell component pouch breaks my suspension of disbelief. Spider climb requires you to eat a live spider. Presumably this is in your spell component pouch, but how is it still alive? What has it been eating? What are you keeping it in and how the heck are you storing and keeping alive as many as you need for the rest of the campaign in there? (the spell actually specifies: live spider).

I'm willing to accept that break from reality, though, with just the minor change of having spell components run out. So my verisimilitude clashed with your verisimilitude and I am trying to find a reasonable compromise between the two, and this is what I've got so far.

Also another fix I made was making a 10-foot ladder cost just over double what two ten-foot polls cost.

[Tyndmyr]

...Monk

If it's going to be a longterm game I go for Arcane Trickster though :P



You created a new scenario that was a completely different situation. I pointed out that your argument that not being able to enact a rule makes no sense, because every rule is something that must be enacted. Why not just turn off random ones.

A paladin does not have a baublee you can just take away. I have nothing against trying to make a Paladin fall, but - to my knowledge - there's no "You lose your status" button.

Who are we talking about forcing to fall? Who brought this up? I don't think it was me. I literally have no idea what you're talking about.

Haha, you walked into the evil room. Now you're no longer a paladin.
!=All of your items are destroyed because 'X' happens

They're different situations, and you're trying to use the varying outcomes to prove a point.

You wanted an example that wasn't a wizard's spellbook. I gave you one. Now you're complaining about it. What do you want?

Simple statement: Removing all the class abilities from a player is not generally fun, regardless of the reason for doing it.

That said, examples have ALREADY been given in this thread of ways to force a fall from a paladin, because it's a recurring example.


Because a villain can push you down and take your spellbook, but a villain can't really push you down and take your alignment? Different situations behave differently, which is why I have no idea how this conversation has any bearing on the other.


Wow. Title art determines what happens in a campaign. Got it.

Or, yknow...it could just be patently obvious that stealing spellbooks are not equivalent to using a weapon. Perhaps you could compare the rules specifically devoted to each one?

Or...you could stop changing the subject repeatedly and admit that they are not at all the same.


Yes, you are so perfect in every way that the only time someone disagrees with you is because they are purposefully obtuse. You found me out.

And yes, I don't want to debate you about spellbooks, that's why I started talking about Paladins falling.

Oh look, you're not being obtuse, and yet you asked in THIS VERY SAME POST about why I was talking about paladin's falling. So, in the wizard bit, you don't answer, and refer to the paladin. In the paladin bit, you don't answer, and complain about me changing the scenario.

I literally don't know how to ask for clarification any more clearly without being insulting, but what you posted makes no sense whatsoever.


My thread is about whether or not actions like this should automatically mean everyone calls them a horrible DM. Every group is different, but I saw posts in which someone was saying "People who do X are horrible". I was originally going to reply in that topic but when I saw the pots (linked above) I decided to make my own since my particular line of inquiry were off topic because that style of DMing was not the original purpose of that thread.

And has anyone said you are horrible? Has anyone insulting your personal DMing?

The one thing I dislike about this forum is that everyone likes to play the persecution card when there is a difference of opinion. If I or someone else called you offensive names, click the mod button. That's why it exists. If not, why bring it up?


Different things work for different groups, I just wish that the response was "I don't like that style of DMing" instead of "That move makes your DM bad".

Talking to your players and making sure you discuss differences is just basic communication. If a style of DMing results in unhappy players who are complaining to the internet about it...there's a problem.

The repeated insistence of some that communication is unnecessary to resolve issues is...odd. I feel there is a point at which refusal to discuss or change does in fact become persecution or abuse of the players, and is describable as bad. It's fairly extreme, but if your style is ruining everybody's fun, it's very telling if you value your fun more highly than all of the players. People with such a style do need to be corrected, and the word "bad" is not terribly offensive as such statements go.


And my group would disagree in most instances. The wizard has to protect his spellbook if he doesn't want it taken, the monk has to invest in the right stats/feats/items to hit properly. Both of those actions are somewhat tedious but pretending they don't exist makes no sense.

The wizard is a wizard. He doesn't need to make any investment to protect his spellbook. He merely lists precautions taken. Boring lists of statements are boring.


I agree - the DM should not abuse his power. What I'm saying is that your list of "what a DM should or shouldn't do" should not give you leeway to say "People who do X are bad DMs". You have your own personal list of things a DM shouldn't do. Fine, I'm not trying to change anyone. I don't even care if you post "I wouldn't play with Typewriter because his DMing style doesn't match my play style". I have a problem with people who say "So and so is a bad DM because he doesn't match my play style", which is what was happening in the other thread.

And....that's not this thread. Nor was I the person posting that. So I'm rather confused about why you're bringing it up to me.


'Taking' a paladins power is not something that can just be 'done' so using it as a comparison to 'taking' a wizards power doesn't apply. The situations are not the same. The DM saying "You are no longer a Paladin" would be similar to a DM saying "You are no longer a wizard", but "You are no longer a wizard" is not the situation we've been talking about is it?

A DM telling a player that he has fallen IS basically telling him he's not a paladin. Paladin fall threads are fairly common. It happens. So, if it has actually happened, it can be done.


The wizard could have protected his spellbook better. He could have had a backup. The Paladin can not have a backup of his power, he simply is a Paladin or he isn't. He can't protect his status shy of living alone, underground. The situations are not the same. Since they are not the same me agreeing with you that you shouldn't 'just take a paladins powers' does not mean that I agree with you that you shouldn't 'target a wizards spellbook', therefore the paladin argument was stood up as a strawman.

And if you want to play the type of game wherein you expect player to prepare extensive lists of all precautions taken, or to describe them in detail each game day, you should probably let your players know that.

Because otherwise, you're doing the equivalent of saying "haha, you forgot to specify what clothes you wore this morning. The guards arrest you for being naked!" And yes...I've had this too happen once. It was tiring.


It is tedious to protect a spellbook.
It's also tedious to make a monk who can hit his opponents. Since when does tedium change the flow or mechanics of the game?

If the game is tedious, you should probably change things to avoid the tedium. The game is supposed to be fun, not tedious.

[Rogue Shadows]

It's rare, but there does exist in a few prestige classes the ability to ignore secondary effects of spells that require a fortitude or will save even when you had made the save. Such a character would then suffer no damage from Wrath Of DM. Even if the DC is 100+, the player could roll a 20.

If I recall correctly the Knight base class has this as well.

:smallbiggrin:

I did not intend the spell to be totally unstoppable, so I'm fine with this.

[Alabenson]

My warning to my group is "Just remember not to put all your eggs in one basket, because you never know when that will come back to get you".

In probably around 4/5 campaigns it never comes up, so some people will build varied characters constantly, and others will play the odds. I'm not going to say "In this campaign specifically you will be fighting someone who targets spellbooks, so protect yours unless you're cool with sucking for a while".

As long as you give the players some form of warning, which you apparantly do, then I have no problems with targeting whatever. I only object to the people who are claiming that they have no need to communicate with the players because the way they run the game is the "correct" way to play.

[ImperatorK]

Because a villain can push you down and take your spellbook, but a villain can't really push you down and take your alignment? Different situations behave differently, which is why I have no idea how this conversation has any bearing on the other.
Morality Undone, Fiendish Codex.

[Rogue Shadows]

So if the players never target spellbooks, sunder equipment and the like you don't?

Correct.


It probably would've been helpful to mention this earlier, although how this connects with the whole "not targeting spellbooks=breaks my immersion/suspension of disbelief" that you said at some point(pages ago, I'm not digging it up).

I'm pretty sure I did mention it earlier. The suspension of disbelief issue, is that if players go around stealing things, but expect to themselves never be stolen from, this creates a break in verisimilitude.


If you use short-term questions ("Will anyone mess with [the next step of my plan]?") and only eliminate the people who you find with those, each step of the way, you'll make a minimum number of extra enemies-besides, you can be indirect if you're long-term enough by hiring layers of go-betweens and thugs/assassins.

This sounds like a fun villain, personally.

[Worira]

So, hey, did anyone ever get around to responding to that whole "extensive preparations to prevent theft of spellbooks, while possible, are tedious and best avoided by a gentlefolks' agreement not to steal spellbooks" thing? Because I've only read about half this thread, and during the whole thing that argument was made repeatedly, with both Rogue Shadow and Typewriter conveniently skipping over it each time.

[Rogue Shadows]

Morality Undone, Fiendish Codex.

Only works if you're running Fiendish Codex. I've personally been trying to stick to Core for the purposes of this discussion because once you get to non-Core, bad things happen to 3.5.

Like, even worse than what happens when you stick to just Core.

[Tyndmyr]

I did not intend the spell to be totally unstoppable, so I'm fine with this.

I believe there are abilities that let you auto-succeed on a single save.

Certainly, I can stack rerolls and grab a luck feat to treat 1s as natural 20s.

Additionally, there is celerity. So, in game, I could kill the DM. Which only brings up more questions.

[Rogue Shadows]

So, hey, did anyone ever get around to responding to that whole "extensive preparations to prevent theft of spellbooks, while possible, are tedious and best avoided by a gentlefolks' agreement not to steal spellbooks" thing? Because I've only read about half this thread, and during the whole thing that argument was made repeatedly, with both Rogue Shadow and Typewriter conveniently skipping over it each time.

I did respond to one person's specific master plan, pointing out that each step seemed good but that frankly a wizard who gets that paranoid, I might take it as a challange to find a purely by-the-book way of getting his spellbook from him.

Probably out-of-character.

As for the tedium, I also said that I'd never expect someone to make all these booby traps and take these precautions in session. Just write them down on a piece of paper at some point and hand it to me. Done.

[Mystic Muse]

If half the people in here are arguing for one side, and half are arguing for the other, then this means they have different expectations of how a game is supposed to go. This being the case, make it blatantly obvious what type of game you're running to players who are new to your games, or if you're changing the agreed upon rules of previous games. This will take a couple of minutes at most and will save you the trouble of a player reacting badly to something he didn't know was going to be in the game.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Only works if you're running Fiendish Codex. I've personally been trying to stick to Core for the purposes of this discussion because once you get to non-Core, bad things happen to 3.5.

Like, even worse than what happens when you stick to just Core.

So now ToB and Dungeonscape are bad things?