Nerfing players makes you a bad DM?

[Typewriter]

So, in this thread:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=205229

A player mentioned that he lost his spellbook and was useless to the party for a while, and there were many responses about how this was the mark of a bad DM, some people said they would just leave the group, etc. etc.

Apparently that was all a bit off topic from what the OP was going for (he later clarified that he was bothered by the fact that wizards only memorize spells for a limited amount of time then are uselss without their books), but a lot of the responses really shocked me. According to what people were saying in that thread I'm apparently a horrible DM.

In my campaigns I've had all of the following happen:

1. One player lost a hand. Prior to this he was a dual wielding Rogue. He had got caught stealing and was subdued by the guards. Punishment was removal of a hand. The player got a regeneration spell cast on him around 5 sessions later.
2. One player lost an arm. They were going into a dungeon that they knew was going to be full of traps, and the second or third room had a statue with an open mouth that the party thought contained a switch. The rogue rolled poorly and didn't notice the trap, so the barbarian reached in. Turns out the switch just caused the mouth to close on the arm, removing it. The way forward was elsewhere. This barbarian had been focused on two-handed weapons. Two sessions later he had a golems arm crafted to himself.
3. Party cleric lost a leg. We were using a critical fumble deck, and he lost a leg. The party had to carry him around on a stretcher for 2 sessions before he finally died. During those two sessions he was unable to do as much as he had been previously due to drastically decreased mobility.
4. Party wizard had his spellbook stolen. Two perception checks were allowed while he was sleeping, both of which he failed horribly. Book was taken by someone and parts of pages were delivered to him periodically over the next couple sessions.
5. Party druid (shapeshifter variant) put on a cursed bracer that emanated anti-magic field. The only way to get it off was by removing the arm since magic wouldn't affect it, or by fulfilling a side quest. After three sessions the druid decided that pursuing the side quest wasn't worth it and had the party fighter remove her arm. Then she began questing for the ability to retrain her variant for standard shapeshifting, which took another few sessions.
6-100. Aside from the spellbook I've destroyed tons of party equipment, and I don't really go out of my way to recompensate them for it. Dependency on equipment means that if you lose that equipment you're at a disadvantage, not that new equipment will just appear soon.


If any of these players had said, "I'm not going to play until my character gets better" I would have shown them the door. As DM it's my job to make sure my group has fun, but if the challenge laid before them is overcoming a problem then I expect them to do it, not just complain and wait for me to 'correct' it.


Both players 1 and 2 figured out how to resolve the scenario on their own, and they dealt with being unable to use their feats during that time frame. It sucked, but isn't that the point sometimes?

Player 3 told me after the session where he lost his leg that it sucked and he was unhappy. I told him I wasn't going to just undo it for him, but I was sure that if he looked into it he could find a way to fix the situation. Then I helped him pick spells that would work with a decreased mobility. He had decided that he was going to pursue an item that would allow him to fly, but he died before he was ever able to get it.

Player 4 refused to buy a new spellbook, and instead just spent all of his money on tanglefoot bags, alchemists stones, scrolls, and wands. He eventually asked me what I was going to give him a new spellbook, and I told him I wasn't that he had to replace it himself if he wanted to. Didn't care if he killed another wizard and took it, or stole it, or bought it. Instead he chose to retire the character, and create a new character one level lower than the rest of the party.

Player 5 essentially had to choose between two nerfs and chose. Then she dealt with the outcome, and asked me if she could go on a quest to retrain, which I allowed. It wasn't easy, and it wasn't my idea, but she dealt with it.


Basically what I'm saying is that I have nothing against nerfing a player, and while I consider it to be the DMs job to 'make things fun' that doesn't mean fixing the players problems for them. Losing a spellbook should mean you're without spells for a while. If you don't want to spend the time/money to remake your spellbook you shouldn't play a caster. I'm willing to work with you on things, but I'm not just going to fix the problem. You want to steal someone elses spellbook? Fine, research some casters and hunt one down. Maybe this is why my group tends to favor monks even though they're not all powerful - they can't be 'disarmed' (so to speak) so easily.

Is the general consensus that anything that nerfs a player should be avoided? Or that the DM should just make it up to the player ASAP? It just seems so alien to the way I've been DMing for the last couple years (I used to be very 'kind' about not touching player equipment/body parts).

PS: I also had a wizards tongue cut out once because he spoke out of turn to royalty. His fix action for that was silent spell :P

[Tyndmyr]

Look, taking a wizard's spellbook is like making a paladin fall. It leads to a character without actual abilities, and thus, boring gameplay.

Imagine, if you will, a party of all commoners. Would this group be more fun than a group of classed PCs? Probably not. Less options, less variety. It could be made to work, but it's not ideal. People LIKE archtypes...that's why they choose to play them.

In general, I do not bother describing spellbook defenses. Once a DM has shown that he enjoys targetting familiars, spellbooks, and in short, likes screwing me out of my class abilities, I will detail at length the reasonable precautions I take to avoid them. It's a very long, tedious, and comprehensive list. It's also extremely practical. However, doing this is roughly as fun as keeping inventory of spell components.

[Diarmuid]

Your examples are vastly different than what happened to the OP in that other thread. In-game decisions and actions led to the consequences you described.

In the OP's scenarios, DM Fiat/Plot saw them all level drained and stripped of everything except a magic weapon.

Those two things while having similar results in that someone was left not able to do what they normally can, but the way there is the difference in my opinion.

In a game I ran, a low level party ran afoul of a cleric who cast Blindness on one of the players. He failed his save, and they werent of a sufficient level to dispel/remove it. The player did an amazing job both role-playing and roll-playing (making combat decisions) the impediment.

They were pretty deep into a castle they were invading and the party decided they were better off keeping with their forward momentum rather than going out to get him fixed and then coming back after giving the bad guys time to regroup.

They eventually got him fixed, and I gave him bonus XP for how well he handled it.

Edit - I guess long story short: In game consequences are fine, dm fiat nerfs are not.

[Typewriter]

Look, taking a wizard's spellbook is like making a paladin fall. It leads to a character without actual abilities, and thus, boring gameplay.

Imagine, if you will, a party of all commoners. Would this group be more fun than a group of classed PCs? Probably not. Less options, less variety. It could be made to work, but it's not ideal. People LIKE archtypes...that's why they choose to play them.

In general, I do not bother describing spellbook defenses. Once a DM has shown that he enjoys targetting familiars, spellbooks, and in short, likes screwing me out of my class abilities, I will detail at length the reasonable precautions I take to avoid them. It's a very long, tedious, and comprehensive list. It's also extremely practical. However, doing this is roughly as fun as keeping inventory of spell components.

There's nothing wrong with 'wanting to have options' but if you are playing a class in which your ability to 'have options' can easily be taken away then you shouldn't expect it to never come up. And if it does come up it shouldn't be immediately rectified by the voice of god, because then it's not actually coming up, it's simply being glazed over.

If I want to have options and never lose them I don't want to play a wizard. I want to play a sorceror or a cleric.

EDIT:

Your examples are vastly different than what happened to the OP in that other thread. In-game decisions and actions led to the consequences you described.

In the OP's scenarios, DM Fiat/Plot saw them all level drained and stripped of everything except a magic weapon.

Those two things while having similar results in that someone was left not able to do what they normally can, but the way there is the difference in my opinion.

In a game I ran, a low level party ran afoul of a cleric who cast Blindness on one of the players. He failed his save, and they werent of a sufficient level to dispel/remove it. The player did an amazing job both role-playing and roll-playing (making combat decisions) the impediment.

They were pretty deep into a castle they were invading and the party decided they were better off keeping with their forward momentum rather than going out to get him fixed and then coming back after giving the bad guys time to regroup.

They eventually got him fixed, and I gave him bonus XP for how well he handled it.

Edit - I guess long story short: In game consequences are fine, dm fiat nerfs are not.

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?

[Starbuck_II]

So, in this thread:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=205229

A player mentioned that he lost his spellbook and was useless to the party for a while, and there were many responses about how this was the mark of a bad DM, some people said they would just leave the group, etc. etc.

Apparently that was all a bit off topic from what the OP was going for (he later clarified that he was bothered by the fact that wizards only memorize spells for a limited amount of time then are uselss without their books), but a lot of the responses really shocked me. According to what people were saying in that thread I'm apparently a horrible DM.

Sometimes the truth hurts, just kidding. :smallwink:


In my campaigns I've had all of the following happen:

1. One player lost a hand. Prior to this he was a dual wielding Rogue. He had got caught stealing and was subdued by the guards. Punishment was removal of a hand. The player got a regeneration spell cast on him around 5 sessions later.

Are you playing an Arabian world? Only the middle East did the arm cutting penalty.
Seems reasonable if this is Arabian world though. Otherwise seems silly and messes with any sense to me. Just seems like an arbitary punishment.


2. One player lost an arm. They were going into a dungeon that they knew was going to be full of traps, and the second or third room had a statue with an open mouth that the party thought contained a switch. The rogue rolled poorly and didn't notice the trap, so the barbarian reached in. Turns out the switch just caused the mouth to close on the arm, removing it. The way forward was elsewhere. This barbarian had been focused on two-handed weapons. Two sessions later he had a golems arm crafted to himself.

Seems reasonable as he chose to do it. You did'nt have someone cut off his arm in the night while sleeping...


3. Party cleric lost a leg. We were using a critical fumble deck, and he lost a leg. The party had to carry him around on a stretcher for 2 sessions before he finally died. During those two sessions he was unable to do as much as he had been previously due to drastically decreased mobility.

Well, this is because of Critical Fumbles. I don't play with people who use that for good reason. They are silly rules.


4. Party wizard had his spellbook stolen. Two perception checks were allowed while he was sleeping, both of which he failed horribly. Book was taken by someone and parts of pages were delivered to him periodically over the next couple sessions.

K, we reached bad DMing.
Since you get a penalty to perception while sleeping...yeah, this was a bad move.


5. Party druid (shapeshifter variant) put on a cursed bracer that emanated anti-magic field. The only way to get it off was by removing the arm since magic wouldn't affect it, or by fulfilling a side quest. After three sessions the druid decided that pursuing the side quest wasn't worth it and had the party fighter remove her arm. Then she began questing for the ability to retrain her variant for standard shapeshifting, which took another few sessions.
6-100. Aside from the spellbook I've destroyed tons of party equipment, and I don't really go out of my way to recompensate them for it. Dependency on equipment means that if you lose that equipment you're at a disadvantage, not that new equipment will just appear soon.

K, so you aren't perfect.


If any of these players had said, "I'm not going to play until my character gets better" I would have shown them the door. As DM it's my job to make sure my group has fun, but if the challenge laid before them is overcoming a problem then I expect them to do it, not just complain and wait for me to 'correct' it.

So your fun is more important than their fun?



Player 4 refused to buy a new spellbook, and instead just spent all of his money on tanglefoot bags, alchemists stones, scrolls, and wands. He eventually asked me what I was going to give him a new spellbook, and I told him I wasn't that he had to replace it himself if he wanted to. Didn't care if he killed another wizard and took it, or stole it, or bought it. Instead he chose to retire the character, and create a new character one level lower than the rest of the party.

Smart Wizard. You do realize that he can't afford a replacement as spells cost 100 gp/level?



Basically what I'm saying is that I have nothing against nerfing a player, and while I consider it to be the DMs job to 'make things fun' that doesn't mean fixing the players problems for them. Losing a spellbook should mean you're without spells for a while. If you don't want to spend the time/money to remake your spellbook you shouldn't play a caster. I'm willing to work with you on things, but I'm not just going to fix the problem. You want to steal someone elses spellbook? Fine, research some casters and hunt one down. Maybe this is why my group tends to favor monks even though they're not all powerful - they can't be 'disarmed' (so to speak) so easily.

Is the general consensus that anything that nerfs a player should be avoided? Or that the DM should just make it up to the player ASAP? It just seems so alien to the way I've been DMing for the last couple years (I used to be very 'kind' about not touching player equipment/body parts).

PS: I also had a wizards tongue cut out once because he spoke out of turn to royalty. His fix action for that was silent spell :P

This is why Wizards sleep in Rope tricks where only people you designate can enter. No theifs stealing their books.
Sadly, your player isn't that optimized and you punished him for it.

[NNescio]

There's nothing wrong with 'wanting to have options' but if you are playing a class in which your ability to 'have options' can easily be taken away then you shouldn't expect it to never come up. And if it does come up it shouldn't be immediately rectified by the voice of god, because then it's not actually coming up, it's simply being glazed over.

If I want to have options and never lose them I don't want to play a wizard. I want to play a sorceror or a cleric.

Clerics can fall as well, and a Sorc with his tongue cut-out is nerfed even more (since he can't repick non-verbal spells and Silent Spell increases his casting time)

[hamishspence]

Are you playing an Arabian world? Only the middle East did the arm cutting penalty.
Seems reasonable if this is Arabian world though. Otherwise seems silly and messes with any sense to me. Just seems like an arbitary punishment.

I think mutilation's a characteristic of medieval justice as well- it's not that regionally defined.

[Kenneth]

So, in this thread:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=205229

A player mentioned that he lost his spellbook and was useless to the party for a while, and there were many responses about how this was the mark of a bad DM, some people said they would just leave the group, etc. etc.

Apparently that was all a bit off topic from what the OP was going for (he later clarified that he was bothered by the fact that wizards only memorize spells for a limited amount of time then are uselss without their books), but a lot of the responses really shocked me. According to what people were saying in that thread I'm apparently a horrible DM.

I think you missed the point entirely on that threat and teh original post as well.

Everybody got energy drained back to levle 1 ( how that happene dwith everybody also dieing is a HUGE mystery in and of itself really) and everybody got to keep their magical items, so in effect the DM forced them to begin at leel 1 with high level items ( like twinking an alt out in an MMORPG such as WoW or EQ if that amkes any sense) only thing is.. he also took the wizard spell book.

the big gripe is that even though teh wizard actually KNOWS X spells, the DM is not letting him write those spells in his new spell book. instead forcing him to pay money to buy scrolls to re learn all the spells he should already know.

That is what everybdy is saying he is a bad DM about. not so much the fact that he shafted teh wizard by taking his spell book. but that he is forcing the wizard to relearn all his pells all over again. (which is akin to your wizard who lost a tongue .. only you are not letting him take the silent spell feat)

[Starbuck_II]

Clerics can fall as well, and a Sorc with his tongue cut-out is nerfed even more (since he can't repick non-verbal spells and Silent Spell increases his casting time)

Clerics can't fall really. If they fell because God no like, just switch gods. Even than, it is hard to fall unless DM specifically tells you what god doesn't like.

[hamishspence]

Switching gods may take time though- even Faerun requires that you get an atonement spell first from the new deity's representatives.

[Jude_H]

Look, taking a wizard's spellbook is like making a paladin fall. It leads to a character without actual abilities, and thus, boring gameplay.
Explicit abilities, anyway. I usually prefer the improvisation of open-ended problem solving to lists of explicit solutions.

There are a couple questions here, involving player expectations (a Wizard player probably expects to have a character with magic powers; some people get upset if that's not how it plays out), playstyle preferences (some folks prefer M:tG; some folks prefer 1kBWC) and unknown intentions (whether the neutered character will ever get explicit abilities back or not), but the kind of game reflected in the OP is pretty standard, IME.

And based on this post, should I infer that Paladins aren't supposed to fall? I've generally seen that as one of the draws of the class - they're the ones bribed to introduce explicit moral choices into the game.

[Starbuck_II]

Switching gods may take time though- even Faerun requires that you get an atonement spell first from the new deity's representatives.

You mean only Faerun. No where else is this a listed requirement...
Otherwise we are back to the DM being stingy or not.

[hamishspence]

In the PHB- there's no text in the Ex-Clerics section allowing them to regain powers by switching deities at all.

The PHB2 mentions this on page 193- and explains that you can, if you can convince the new deity to accept you- which requires a quest.

[Iferus]

1. This is not a nerf, this is part of a story which ends with minor costs.
2. Part of a story.
3. People die when they make bad rolls. Stuff like this should happen, because otherwise you're giving your characters plot armor, which is not exiting.
4. This is again an example of bad luck, and part of a greater story (finding back pieces of the spellbook)
5. This is a bit dodgy. The player may not have liked this (but then again, cursed items are always somewhat dodgy if the players get little chance to find out they are cursed)
6-100. This might be your DM style, but then the players know they live in a low wealth campaign. Taking away wealth is never much fun, especially when (as in the case of the poster you mentioned) it brings your total resources below that of a new first level character.


The reason the post mentioned might be a case of bad DMing is because that character is left useless, without it being integral to the plot. Especially since the other characters are not hit nearly as hard, that is neither fun nor good storytelling. So if that post is accurate, it is most definitely bad DMing.

[NNescio]

You mean only Faerun. No where else is this a listed requirement...
Otherwise we are back to the DM being stingy or not.

And no where are the rules for switching gods detailed in the core rules for clerics.

Nada.

RAW, cleric falls, cleric atones, cleric gets his class features back. It rarely happens though, since the cleric has far more leeway than a paladin.

[Amnestic]

Once a DM has shown that he enjoys targetting familiars,

I wouldn't target familiars constantly, but if the Wizard is using the them to deliver spells on a regular basis I think they should be considered fair game while doing so. If they're just hanging out and not doing much, I likely wouldn't bother.

It all depends on how the caster chooses to use her familiar, to me anyway.

[Typewriter]

Are you playing an Arabian world? Only the middle East did the arm cutting penalty.
Seems reasonable if this is Arabian world though. Otherwise seems silly and messes with any sense to me. Just seems like an arbitary punishment.


It wasn't an arabian world, but this particular city was one that behaved similarly to an Arabian city. The party knew going in that crime was treated more harshly here than elsewhere, but the rogue still decided to steal.



Well, this is because of Critical Fumbles. I don't play with people who use that for good reason. They are silly rules.

We no longer use that fumble system, instead we now use the fumble deck from paizo, and you must confirm a fumble before drawing (natural 1, followed by a confirmed miss).



K, we reached bad DMing.
Since you get a penalty to perception while sleeping...yeah, this was a bad move.

See, but that's what I don't get. Why should an NPC *not* target his opponent when he's weakened?



So your fun is more important than their fun?


The assumption that it's fun for me is actually incorrect. I don't find it fun to nerf my players, I find it fun to create a scenario and make them interact with it. If the players response is "I quit" then that's their response. The world isn't going to reshape itself because they're unhappy. As I said, I'll work with, and help them attain their goals, but I'm not going to suddenly pop a spellbook into their hands for no reason.



Smart Wizard. You do realize that he can't afford a replacement as spells cost 100 gp/level?

This particular party was around level 5 or 6, and actually had around 20,000 gold that they had not yet spent. The player didn't even bother to ask the party if he could spend some, let alone take his own share (4000) to try and do it with. He just said "Meh, reroll".



This is why Wizards sleep in Rope tricks where only people you designate can enter. No theifs stealing their books.
Sadly, your player isn't that optimized and you punished him for it.

My group doesn't really play optimized, it's true, but I don't see it as punishment. Bad guy A knows that a group of heroes is coming. Bad guy A researches the party and finds out there is a wizard in the party. Bad guy A is a wizard, and considers other arcane casters to be the only legitimate threat against him. Bad guy A has the spellbook stolen at the optimum time.

How is that me punishing him? That's just a villain with 16 INT making a couple intelligent decisions.

What you consider punishment I consider logical in-game decisions.


Clerics can fall as well, and a Sorc with his tongue cut-out is nerfed even more (since he can't repick non-verbal spells and Silent Spell increases his casting time)

Fair enough. Any warrior can have his weapon taken or his arm removed, and caster can be 'disarmed' though I would consider having a paladin/cleric 'fall' to be something that I *as the dm* can't really be responsible for. If a paladin kills a baby, it's not my fault he fell.

If a sorceror had been the one who had had his tongue removed I would expect him to have instead sought out a regeneration or had a tongue crafted for him. Magical replacment limbs generally can be found in my worlds, for (presumably) obvious reasons.


I think you missed the point entirely on that threat and teh original post as well.

Everybody got energy drained back to levle 1 ( how that happene dwith everybody also dieing is a HUGE mystery in and of itself really) and everybody got to keep their magical items, so in effect the DM forced them to begin at leel 1 with high level items ( like twinking an alt out in an MMORPG such as WoW or EQ if that amkes any sense) only thing is.. he also took the wizard spell book.

the big gripe is that even though teh wizard actually KNOWS X spells, the DM is not letting him write those spells in his new spell book. instead forcing him to pay money to buy scrolls to re learn all the spells he should already know.

That is what everybdy is saying he is a bad DM about. not so much the fact that he shafted teh wizard by taking his spell book. but that he is forcing the wizard to relearn all his pells all over again. (which is akin to your wizard who lost a tongue .. only you are not letting him take the silent spell feat)

I think you read a different thread than me then, because several people were specifically calling the DM out for 'targeting' the wizard, and allowing the wizard to be more nerfed than the rest of the party. I had a bit of trouble reading your post though, so maybe I just misunderstood.

[Kantolin]

See, but that's what I don't get. Why should an NPC *not* target his opponent when he's weakened?

Why didn't the thief slit his throat?

I'm in no way saying that's a good idea to do, mind you, but 'so I slit his throat so he can't follow me' seems like a reasonable option also, so why didn't that happen?

[Larpus]

Basically what I'm saying is that I have nothing against nerfing a player, and while I consider it to be the DMs job to 'make things fun' that doesn't mean fixing the players problems for them. Losing a spellbook should mean you're without spells for a while. If you don't want to spend the time/money to remake your spellbook you shouldn't play a caster. I'm willing to work with you on things, but I'm not just going to fix the problem. You want to steal someone elses spellbook? Fine, research some casters and hunt one down. Maybe this is why my group tends to favor monks even though they're not all powerful - they can't be 'disarmed' (so to speak) so easily.

Is the general consensus that anything that nerfs a player should be avoided? Or that the DM should just make it up to the player ASAP? It just seems so alien to the way I've been DMing for the last couple years (I used to be very 'kind' about not touching player equipment/body parts).

PS: I also had a wizards tongue cut out once because he spoke out of turn to royalty. His fix action for that was silent spell :P
I have nothing against nerfing players either, as long as it either leads to a cool story or is to teach the player or character a lesson.

For example, as a Wizard I've been cursed and had a huge disability to cast due to being too cocky with the my power to control the arcane, every time I casted it counted as defensive casting with a -4 penalty and if I went to cast defensively it would be -8; it was a living hell 'till I managed to patch things up and get uncursed (and my reward was a living spellbook), so in the end it was very well worth it.

However, it is important to keep in mind by how much you nerf the players, in the other thread's case, the Wizard was pretty much useless since he had less spells than a level 1 Wizard would have; while in my case it only made my spells fizzle most of the time, but I could still cast and be useful, I just wasn't very reliable anymore.

The point people were complaining about was how everyone kept their magical stuff, but the Wizard lost all of his spellbook, it would be about the same as stripping the fighter types of their hard earned magical weapon and the proficiency to use them, requiring a long in-game time and money to get the feat back, it's just not balanced.

The Wizard is already quite nerfed due to level, he won't be using the high-level stuff any time soon, so why nerf him harder? And even if the DM really wanted to strip him of some spells, he could have some of his spellbook pages taken or some of the spell formulas erased, now he is weaker (considerably even, depending on the lost spells) but not borderline useless.

[Darth Stabber]

Taking a wizards spell book is nearly always a "very bad thing". You can create situations where a paladin falls no matter what, but that makes you a @#$%, but there is slightly more reason to do it to a wizard (mostly for dealing with wizards who do nothing but cheesy disruptive things). Unless the wizard is breaking the game for fun and profit (and does so unrepentently), that tome should be treated like a sorcerer's brain. Wizards are completely dependant on that, and when taken a way, you have a commoner with bonus feats. Takin their spell book is worse than taking their arm. Arms can be grown back rather cheaply by comparison.

Also taking spell books leads to an arms race of spell book protections, especially if contingency is on the table. Forcing your wizards to be paranoid rarely works out well, as a paranoid wizard is one that breaks the game.

[Typewriter]

Why didn't the thief slit his throat?

I'm in no way saying that's a good idea to do, mind you, but 'so I slit his throat so he can't follow me' seems like a reasonable option also, so why didn't that happen?

Well, the honest answer is because that's not what his boss ordered him to do.

That being said, the reason the boss didn't order a kill instead of a theft is because he hoped to use them. He was planning to fake his own death during the fight with them, but feared the faking part becoming real would be possible if the wizard was involved. Not only that, but as the wizard was the only caster in this group they would have no way to detect the spells he was using to assist in the faking of his own death. Once he was 'dead' he was going to assume a different identity and hire the party to finish the task his previous minions had been working on (the minions the party had already killed).

Of course, none of this happened, because in the second round of combat a lucky blow dealt enough damage to kill him, and he was going to start his plan on the next round.

[Typewriter]

EDIT: Accidentally posted twice in a row.


I have nothing against nerfing players either, as long as it either leads to a cool story or is to teach the player or character a lesson.

I (DM) won't do anything to teach either a player or a character a lesson. Not my job. I (as some NPCs) have targeted characters (not players) with the intent to teach them lessons. An important distinction :P



However, it is important to keep in mind by how much you nerf the players, in the other thread's case, the Wizard was pretty much useless since he had less spells than a level 1 Wizard would have; while in my case it only made my spells fizzle most of the time, but I could still cast and be useful, I just wasn't very reliable anymore.

True, but as someone pointed out it would have taken 100 gold and one day to get one spell back. It wouldn't have been particularly hard for the player to regain versatility over time, making it a temporary nerf that made sense in context of the story. Or wait, did someone say the DM was also ruling that he wasn't allowed to do that? Yeah, that would be more of a nerf than I would do, solely because that's not how the rules work...



The point people were complaining about was how everyone kept their magical stuff, but the Wizard lost all of his spellbook, it would be about the same as stripping the fighter types of their hard earned magical weapon and the proficiency to use them, requiring a long in-game time and money to get the feat back, it's just not balanced.

The Wizard is already quite nerfed due to level, he won't be using the high-level stuff any time soon, so why nerf him harder? And even if the DM really wanted to strip him of some spells, he could have some of his spellbook pages taken or some of the spell formulas erased, now he is weaker (considerably even, depending on the lost spells) but not borderline useless.

It sucks but it makes sense. If everyone lost everything besides their weapon and the wizard kept his weapon and spellbook that is showing favoritism for the wizard. If an action makes sense in game it shouldn't matter who it affects and how.


Taking a wizards spell book is nearly always a "very bad thing". You can create situations where a paladin falls no matter what, but that makes you a @#$%, but there is slightly more reason to do it to a wizard (mostly for dealing with wizards who do nothing but cheesy disruptive things). Unless the wizard is breaking the game for fun and profit (and does so unrepentently), that tome should be treated like a sorcerer's brain. Wizards are completely dependant on that, and when taken a way, you have a commoner with bonus feats. Takin their spell book is worse than taking their arm. Arms can be grown back rather cheaply by comparison.

Also taking spell books leads to an arms race of spell book protections, especially if contingency is on the table. Forcing your wizards to be paranoid rarely works out well, as a paranoid wizard is one that breaks the game.

Again, the fact that it sucks should not be a reason to not do it. That just means it makes sense to do it. If a sorcerors power came from a source that could be easily removed it would be removed from time to time.

If the player decides to go paranoid about protecting his spellbook, then he's free to do so. That's not going to make it any more or less likely that someone else will target it in the future.

Wizards basically have a giant glowing weakspot that people tend to ignore and I don't understand why.

[Yukitsu]

1: Did you follow the rules to do it?
1a: If you didn't, was it an out of character solution with the option to redo character details?
2: Did you give fair warning that you were running that sort of game.
3: After it happened, was the player in question capable of acting in a manner that made the game more interesting than solitaire on their cell phone?

If the answer to all of these questions is "no" then you're a bad DM.

2 is the often overlooked one. Anyone with 2 brain cells can make their spell book untouchable with very little effort, can make it redundant, can have decoys spread about etc. Most player's don't, because it's annoying OOC to constantly have to tell the DM what you're doing to protect it, and ultimately unecessary. It's a big glowy weak spot in the same way their infinite money loops are a big glowy strength. You really only should go for either if you have an agreement that the game allows for that sort of thing before hand, so they're aware that it's coming up and can plan accordingly, bogging down the game and irritating everyone that is not a wizard.

[Curmudgeon]

Look, taking a wizard's spellbook is like making a paladin fall. It leads to a character without actual abilities, and thus, boring gameplay.
That's a gross overstatement. Get the Wizard a blank spellbook and they're ready to write down all the spells they've got prepared in their minds. That means they'll have every one of those spells available again after a little down time. Plus the Wizard can use scrolls and wands, as usual, and they've got their familiar (to do aerial reconnaissance or whatever). The party can go on a quest to recover the stolen spellbook, just as they would if the Barbarian's expensive 2-handed sword got stolen.

That seems pretty exciting, not boring, to me.

[Kantolin]

That being said, the reason the boss didn't order a kill instead of a theft is because he hoped to use them. He was planning to fake his own death during the fight with them, but feared the faking part becoming real would be possible if the wizard was involved. Not only that, but as the wizard was the only caster in this group they would have no way to detect the spells he was using to assist in the faking of his own death. Once he was 'dead' he was going to assume a different identity and hire the party to finish the task his previous minions had been working on (the minions the party had already killed).

That's moderately neat, but also isn't terribly smart. If the wizard is the only one who could've detected his 'pretend to be dead' spells (Which itself is kinda suspect - what's to stop the party's barbarian from checking corpses? What if a stray AOE happens? What if they prefer coup de graces?), then why leave him alive?

If your goal is to prevent him from casting spells, then not only can he still cast whatever he has in his head (which may be detect-fake-death), but he can go get another spellbook (Which apparantly wasn't too difficult with the 20k they had).

If the goal is 'because he's useful', then that implies that he can cast spells as he's not useful otherwise, which negates the point of stealing the spellbook at all.

Although it may have made more sense if, during the 'fake death' event, the main bad guy had the thief with the book go get himself killed, so the wizard now has his spellbook back and now can actually cast spells - so the wizard is useful when the TotallyNotBadGuy in his new identity wants to hire the party - now he wants the wizard to be plenty powerful again. Otherwise, he's just hired a wizard who can't cast spells, which cannot be helpful for anything he wants to do unless he wants a moderately intelligent cat. :P

Now, I do think it'd have been kinda lame if the thief had just slit his throat at night, but that certainly seems smarter. Plus, if the thief could get that far, why not kill everyone else who's asleep? Go hire someone else to do things, since you've caught this group who actively hates you in a position where you can swipe whatever you want from them. :P

Now, this doesn't sound terribly fun, but hey.

(When your average sleeping listen check is a 3 if you've max cross-class ranks in listen, and your roll-a-20 max is 13, and the book-listed first level rogue's sneak is 15, there's pretty much nothing else the wizard could've done to stop it from happening besides being one of these shenanigans builds I see on the board frequently).

[Keld Denar]

Experiencing this in another active thread. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=206196)

The player is using a charger combination that allows him to deal more damage than the DM and the rest of the party is comfortable with. When I suggested that simply working with the player to remove the main offending feat, Shocktrooper, I was met with several replies of "that is BAD DMINGTM. I know that Shocktrooper isn't on the same level of offense as something like Incantatrix or Planar Shepherd, but that doesn't mean its still not too high optimization for the given game. Control of the game from a balance PoV is something that is more-or-less the DMs responsibility.

Passive aggressively dealing with the situation by only pitting your rogue or enchanter against constructs and undead, or by fiating the wizards spellbook away, or by giving every foe a counter-charge mechanic is only going to make the player resent you, and possibly drive them to higher levels of antagonistic game exploitation. I can't count how many times I've heard on this forum "my DM won't let me play a fighter with Monkey Grip because he thinks its OP" with a response like "thats not OP. Bring a druid to the table and show him the true definition of OP". Antagonizing the DM isn't gonna solve your problems. Antagonizing the players isn't gonna solve your problems. A clearly defined list of what players can and can not use with well thought out and possibly publicly discussed reasoning IS. And, since nobody is perfect the first time, regular reevaluation of the list helps as well to add or remove things in certain circumstances.

[TheRinni]

#3 is the only one I would consider a result of particularly poor DMing. In my opinion and preference, a character should never be mortally maimed/killed* from a single unlucky role, regardless of confirmation.

The key word there is mortally. Inconveniences and maiming are fine, but killing the character is a bit extreme.

[Douglas]

It sucks but it makes sense. If everyone lost everything besides their weapon and the wizard kept his weapon and spellbook that is showing favoritism for the wizard. If an action makes sense in game it shouldn't matter who it affects and how.
A wizard's spellbook effectively IS his weapon. And it's the kind of weapon where falling back on a cheap mundane version that doesn't give all the fancy bonuses but is still serviceable isn't really a viable option.

[Tvtyrant]

None of these seem particularly bad to me, but I might suggest getting rid of the crit chart/limb maiming thing. It tends to lead to bad scenarios in most games I have seen, and doesn't offer anything exciting. Your enemies are usually less dependent on limbs then you are, since they only have 1 encounter a day (yours) and often have more limbs/sources of attacks.

[Kantolin]

Control of the game from a balance PoV is something that is more-or-less the DMs responsibility.

Actually, I think that's a different scenario (And I generally agree with you on it! ^_^)

The comment there is 'This is overpowered for my game'. In which yeah, fixing it makes a lot more sense than passive-aggressive fixing. In this scenario, if the problem is 'Wizards are overpowered', then carefully removing their spellbooks every level or two is only going to cause resentment and exploitation. Or just having your presumably-friends be pissed off at you and not having much fun. You are better off banning wizards... or possibly notifying people 'wizards will be losing their spellbooks a lot', but then you'll end up with people using various shenanigans to ensure they have tons of spells avaliable without spellbook access.

I believe this argument is more about wrecking the player's day and fun. Not everything can (nor should) go the way the PCs want, but neither should people spend half the game in commoner mode. If I wanted to be an archer, and went to game and wasn't allowed to do so well over half the time, I'd be annoyed.

Now, the occasional, "That guy used wind wall!" is understandable, but not if our game suddenly takes place in wind wall land or something, because the DM doens't like archers or something. The correct statement there is, 'I'd prefer there weren't any archers in my game'.


I can't count how many times I've heard on this forum "my DM won't let me play a fighter with Monkey Grip because he thinks its OP" with a response like "thats not OP. Bring a druid to the table and show him the true definition of OP".

That is also slightly different, though.

For example, if someone said 'Alertness is unfair - it can give you a +2 to spot!', it wouldn't be unreasonable to point out, 'Skill focus is better, and neither is that potent of a boost', since they're likely to have access to skill focus.

If someone said, 'Weapon focus and specialization are unfair', it would be reasonable to compare them to the barbarian, who is right there.

As maybe these are just misunderstandings. Monkey grip vs power attack is a good example of this - most people allow power attack, so monkey grip becomes simply a poor feat.

Now, if someone says, "Hulking Hurler builds that do 900k damage are unfair", and the only response was, "Nah Planar Shepards are more unfair", that's something else entirely. :P

[Gamer Girl]

Look, taking a wizard's spellbook is like making a paladin fall. It leads to a character without actual abilities, and thus, boring gameplay.

This does lead to player immunity and thus, boring gameplay. Once you say ''no player will loose any of their important equipment'' you can get just get silly.

The fighter with a dire flail falls in both his hands is thrown off a cliff and into a stream, but manages to make it to shore. And low and behold his dire flail has floated to shore right next to him as taking away his weapon that he has built his character around would make for boring game play.

And if the characters ever do get captured, the bad guys must leave all their stuff in an unlocked box in the next room. As again it would not be fair to take away holy symbols, spellbooks, weapons, and such.

[JonestheSpy]

Lots of reasonable responses, but I'll just chime in with the point that familiars and spellbooks are outside power sources and therefore reasonable targets. No, not every encounter, but if it never comes up then it's unnaturally favoring the character who uses them.

Edti: ninja'd by Gamer Girl, but the point bears repeating.

[Larpus]

This does lead to player immunity and thus, boring gameplay. Once you say ''no player will loose any of their important equipment'' you can get just get silly.

The fighter with a dire flail falls in both his hands is thrown off a cliff and into a stream, but manages to make it to shore. And low and behold his dire flail has floated to shore right next to him as taking away his weapon that he has built his character around would make for boring game play.

And if the characters ever do get captured, the bad guys must leave all their stuff in an unlocked box in the next room. As again it would not be fair to take away holy symbols, spellbooks, weapons, and such.
Yes, but in the case at hand, the other players kept their magical stuff, even the Wizard did, actually, however the mechanics of a learned spellcaster are quite different from those of the rest, to the point that there are quite a few times where losing your magical stuff is much preferable to losing your spellbook, which sounded to be the case.

EDIT: And again, it really depends on the style of the campaign, if up to now everything was fun and games, suddenly giving such a blow to the Wizard is quite dire.

However if they were constantly fighting for their lives with little chances to survive and being constantly mugged (or having constant attempts of) at night, then yeah, the Wizard should've seen it coming.

As I said, nerfing isn't necessarily bad, it just depends on the whole situation and how bad was that nerf (and especially how much of it was the player's fault and how much felt like the DM just disliked him).

[Magesmiley]

In some respects, dealing with horrible (or irritating) things that happen to your character can be the more memorable events you deal with, particularly if you take it as a challenge, rather than a penalty.

As an example, one of my players got hit with a polymorph that turned her into a monkey. She made the secondary save, so retained her intelligence. The party was in an isolated area where they couldn't go for help and they didn't have the spells to restore her. She decided to play it though rather than tossing the character for a new one. She spent two full levels as a monkey before finally being able to restore the character. During that time she found a number of interesting ways to contribute to the party's success. She still talks about that character to this day. I suspect that if she'd given up on the character, it wouldn't have been as memorable.

[Andorax]

There seem to me to be three different situations, and each reflects differently on the DM.


1) Genuine consequences

A lot of what the OP referred to in his game fits into this category...sticking your arm inside a trapped wall can lead to it being severed. If the information was there to suggest that such a course of action might come about, then it's not going to be bad DMing...you just have to be sure that you're being fair to the players...which leads to...

2) Arbitrary DM Nerfing

One of the reasons crit 'tables' are frequently frowned upon, and much of the original complaint in the other thread that lead to the OP's post, is due to arbitrary DMs inflicting pain because they can. The typical "I'm annoyed at you, a bolt of lightning/giant rock descends from the sky" is the classic example of this behavior. Few would argue that this isn't blatant bad DMing, the question really only comes as to where the line is drawn between this and #1 above. A lot of it has to do with trust and experience, both of and with, the DM.

DMs who lord it over their players and deride them for playing character that *could* be made vulnerable (to 'falling', having spellbooks destroyed, etc.) remind me of a quote from The Emperor's New Groove:

"HA! You should have thought of that before becomming peasants. Take him away."

3) Part of the Story

This one is tricky, since it can look like #2 above. I think this was what the DM in the first thread was trying for. It's also the reason why the Slave Lords modules from times past were among the most hated...but it's all for a purpose.

That's the key difference...you're not destroying their stuff and not leaving them an out, you're destroying their stuff to advance a storyline where, in the end, they'll have a chance to make it right again. They may not get their exact same stuff back, they may suffer along the way...but they're also not being put in a permanent 2-levels-behind WBL hole due to a situation they couldn't have avoided in the first place.


A class vulnerability shouldn't be ignored or hand-waived away by the player, but at the same time the DM shouldn't use it as a free invitation to toy with the player just for amusement sake.

[elonin]

If the only example you cited was the loss of the spell book I would have thought that you were targeting the spell book. In general I'd place taking the spell book on the same level as targeting the party with disjunctions (unless the party used them first). But with the other examples it shows that bad things can happen to anyone in the group. When the barbarian lost his arm were there clues that could have been found as to the nature of the trap (other than just the search check)? When the spell book was taken were those who were on watch allowed to make checks to discover the thief? Didn't the wizard get his own book back when the group killed the wizard who presumably had it?

[Typewriter]

1: Did you follow the rules to do it?
1a: If you didn't, was it an out of character solution with the option to redo character details?
2: Did you give fair warning that you were running that sort of game.
3: After it happened, was the player in question capable of acting in a manner that made the game more interesting than solitaire on their cell phone?

What exactly are you asking about? A specific scenario, or in general?



2 is the often overlooked one. Anyone with 2 brain cells can make their spell book untouchable with very little effort, can make it redundant, can have decoys spread about etc. Most player's don't, because it's annoying OOC to constantly have to tell the DM what you're doing to protect it, and ultimately unecessary. It's a big glowy weak spot in the same way their infinite money loops are a big glowy strength. You really only should go for either if you have an agreement that the game allows for that sort of thing before hand, so they're aware that it's coming up and can plan accordingly, bogging down the game and irritating everyone that is not a wizard.

It's never really occurred to me to tell my players that villains are going to target their weak spots.


That's moderately neat, but also isn't terribly smart. If the wizard is the only one who could've detected his 'pretend to be dead' spells (Which itself is kinda suspect - what's to stop the party's barbarian from checking corpses? What if a stray AOE happens? What if they prefer coup de graces?), then why leave him alive?

The idea was that by 'clean up' time the baddie would be invisible and watching the party scour corpses, including one that looked like him. His plan was not perfect, I expected it to go at least slightly better than it did, but I still saw several ways it could fall through. Keep in mind this character thought anyone other than a wizard would be no threat to him.



If your goal is to prevent him from casting spells, then not only can he still cast whatever he has in his head (which may be detect-fake-death), but he can go get another spellbook (Which apparantly wasn't too difficult with the 20k they had).

They could have easily gotten another spellbook, but the player was under the impression that one was simply going to fall into his lap so he didn't.



If the goal is 'because he's useful', then that implies that he can cast spells as he's not useful otherwise, which negates the point of stealing the spellbook at all.

Detect magic and/or detect invisibility would have been the big bad ones the guy was specifically worried about. Dispel also could have been problematic.



Although it may have made more sense if, during the 'fake death' event, the main bad guy had the thief with the book go get himself killed, so the wizard now has his spellbook back and now can actually cast spells - so the wizard is useful when the TotallyNotBadGuy in his new identity wants to hire the party - now he wants the wizard to be plenty powerful again. Otherwise, he's just hired a wizard who can't cast spells, which cannot be helpful for anything he wants to do unless he wants a moderately intelligent cat. :P


The funny thing is if the plan had worked he would have given the party wizard a new spellbook (conspicuously missing key spells). He would have had a new spellbook dropped in his lap if the baddies plan had gone right. Funny thing is when he was talking about re-rolling I pointed out that the guy they had killed had been a wizard, and probably had a spellbook somewhere if he wanted to try and find it. The player did not.



Now, I do think it'd have been kinda lame if the thief had just slit his throat at night, but that certainly seems smarter. Plus, if the thief could get that far, why not kill everyone else who's asleep? Go hire someone else to do things, since you've caught this group who actively hates you in a position where you can swipe whatever you want from them. :P

I kind of considered that, but this particular villain had a bit of "If it's a resource that can be used it shouldn't be thrown away" kind of things going on. Didn't really work out that well for him, but then again not all evil plans should pan out. I did have one campaign where the 'baddie' was the kind to send assassins and the like, and it was a bit of fun. The party was averaging two deaths a session, and they really enjoyed it. I hated it and ended the campaign because after four sessions the party 'sticking together' didn't make any sense to me.



(When your average sleeping listen check is a 3 if you've max cross-class ranks in listen, and your roll-a-20 max is 13, and the book-listed first level rogue's sneak is 15, there's pretty much nothing else the wizard could've done to stop it from happening besides being one of these shenanigans builds I see on the board frequently).

I thought sleep was only -10? No?


Experiencing this in another active thread. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=206196)

Weird, my browser is warning me that page 2 of that thread contains malware...



The player is using a charger combination that allows him to deal more damage than the DM and the rest of the party is comfortable with. When I suggested that simply working with the player to remove the main offending feat, Shocktrooper, I was met with several replies of "that is BAD DMINGTM. I know that Shocktrooper isn't on the same level of offense as something like Incantatrix or Planar Shepherd, but that doesn't mean its still not too high optimization for the given game. Control of the game from a balance PoV is something that is more-or-less the DMs responsibility.

Passive aggressively dealing with the situation by only pitting your rogue or enchanter against constructs and undead, or by fiating the wizards spellbook away, or by giving every foe a counter-charge mechanic is only going to make the player resent you, and possibly drive them to higher levels of antagonistic game exploitation. I can't count how many times I've heard on this forum "my DM won't let me play a fighter with Monkey Grip because he thinks its OP" with a response like "thats not OP. Bring a druid to the table and show him the true definition of OP". Antagonizing the DM isn't gonna solve your problems. Antagonizing the players isn't gonna solve your problems. A clearly defined list of what players can and can not use with well thought out and possibly publicly discussed reasoning IS. And, since nobody is perfect the first time, regular reevaluation of the list helps as well to add or remove things in certain circumstances.

I agree that nerfs should not be used specifically to 'deal with' a player, but I also don't think that nerfs should be avoided just because they would make one character nerfed for a while.


#3 is the only one I would consider a result of particularly poor DMing. In my opinion and preference, a character should never be mortally maimed/killed* from a single unlucky role, regardless of confirmation.

The key word there is mortally. Inconveniences and maiming are fine, but killing the character is a bit extreme.

We actually stopped using that fumble list not long after this happened, and refrained from any type of critical fumble until we got the decks from Paizo. They seem a lot more, um, balanced.


A wizard's spellbook effectively IS his weapon. And it's the kind of weapon where falling back on a cheap mundane version that doesn't give all the fancy bonuses but is still serviceable isn't really a viable option.

And if the wizard hadn't had a weapon then I would agree with you. Since he did have one it made more sense for that to remain than his spellbook.

1. Wizard keeps both
2. Wizard gets to keep his book where as everyone else only gets the weapon
3. Wizard gets to keep his weapon

Of those 3 scenarios the only one that seems fair to me is number 3. The result may not be fairly balanced, but it is the only truly 'fair' action.

[Gamer Girl]

The old OP was just silly...they got zapped back to first level but kept all there stuff except spellbooks...ok, whatever.


I agree that the DM does not target the players 'cool' stuff every encounter, that's silly too. But things happen. You will encounter bad guys that sunder items. Some disarm you. Some do target your weapons(like with heat metal, for example). And so forth.

[PollyOliver]

And if the wizard hadn't had a weapon then I would agree with you. Since he did have one it made more sense for that to remain than his spellbook.

1. Wizard keeps both
2. Wizard gets to keep his book where as everyone else only gets the weapon
3. Wizard gets to keep his weapon

Of those 3 scenarios the only one that seems fair to me is number 3. The result may not be fairly balanced, but it is the only truly 'fair' action.

Er...not really. The other characters rely heavily on their weapons in order to use their class features. The wizard does not--he relies heavily upon his spell book to use his class features. The wizard's equivalent of a weapon is his spell book. In terms of how it impacts a character's effectiveness, letting the wizard keep his spell book is equivalent of letting the barbarian keep his weapon.

Saying it's fairest that everyone loses/keeps the same items without thought to how those items affect them is like saying it would be fair to take away everyone's weapons and nothing else--that is, take away the wizard's light crossbow and the barbarian's +2 valorous greatsword as if they are of equal value to those characters--but do nothing about the wizard's spell book. It doesn't make sense. You are disproportionately disadvantaging certain members of the party over others for no reason and in a way that the characters cannot influence or affect in game. That is not fair. That is the opposite of fair.

[Salanmander]

See, but that's what I don't get. Why should an NPC *not* target his opponent when he's weakened?

One reasonable answer is "because in this instance it wouldn't be fun for the players."

What I'm seeing here can basically be described as a divide between simulationist (or narativist) and gamist groups. Typewriter, you seem more simulationist. Each of the players has a character. That character is in a world where things happen as they make sense. If the character happens to become effectively useless for the party in combat, then the interesting part of the game is playing out your character's response to this situation, and trying to reverse it.

Many people who play D&D, myself included, are more gamist. From a gamist perspective, facing a unique situation like a temporarily gimped character can be interesting...for a time. Depriving the players of their usual resources (spells that you don't already have memorized, thieves tools, whatever) can create a different element to the game that is infrequently used (the wizard is /very/ careful about his use of spells, craft skills become useful, etc.). However, most people have built their characters around having those resources.

I know that if I felt like my character had suddenly become useless, but in an interesting way, the game would remain fun for me for about one session, possibly two or three if it quickly revolved around a quest to get my usefulness back, and there were at least a few things that I was uniquely useful for. (Good thing you had profession: sailor!) Regardless of whether it makes sense in game world, I'm willing to say that letting one of your players become uninterested in the game is bad DMing.

Regarding the situation of the characters who kept only a magic weapon, everyone is right as to whether it unfairly targeted the wizard. From a simulationist perspective, it did not unfairly target the wizard, because the same actual thing happened to everyone. From a gamist perspective, it /did/ unfairly target the wizard, because the wizard was left with many fewer options for play than the other players.

Edit:


And if the wizard hadn't had a weapon then I would agree with you. Since he did have one it made more sense for that to remain than his spellbook.

1. Wizard keeps both
2. Wizard gets to keep his book where as everyone else only gets the weapon
3. Wizard gets to keep his weapon

Of those 3 scenarios the only one that seems fair to me is number 3. The result may not be fairly balanced, but it is the only truly 'fair' action.

Exactly what I was thinking about above. From a my gamist perspective, option 2 seems to be the only fair result. It is the only result that leaves all players on a similar footing. Everyone would get to keep the tool they need to fulfill their role in the party, whatever that tool is.

[Aeglewaygate]

Personally, I think if you cannot roleplay your character in a weakened state, through conflict and just raw roleplaying itself- you don't deserve to roleplay them at their fullest potential. ;D

[Daverin]

You know, this has made me think: there is really no easy way to screw with a caster in the same way as a warrior (term used loosely).

Warrior: Take weapon, nerf some stats. They perform worse now, but can still hit with a normal weapon, and might have a chance to try something odd around their penalty.

Caster: Take book or something like that. They can do nothing except attack, which I'm sorry, is not a legitimate alternative because they cannot hit anything, and I can only hope their weapon is ranged. Nerf stats, doesn't,really do anything, spells are still spells. Also, with no spells, the caster cannot be creative because he lacks any other utility to make up for it in battle. They literally are what they can cast.

Basically, the game gives no relatively "balanced" penalty to the standard caster chassis. Its either all, and I mean ALL, or nothing. The wizard losing his spellbook should be an interesting plot; instead, the player cannot do anything except hope he does not die.

Here's a couple of thoughts I had on how to avoid this if I DM'ed.

1. Wands, scrolls, staffs, etc. If you are going to take the spellbook, give them, through some reasonable scenario, a very limited, unbreakable, but still potentially useful arsenal of items with spells charged. Make them be extra careful in using their spells, and try to encourage them to take some pride in clever management of this new conflict.

2. Make some penalty that actually hits the caster, but does not turn them into a glorified commoner. Now, I do not know exactly how to do this. An idea may be to make it so that they are constantly dealing with a spell failure chance, but that could be annoying if the caster is unlucky there. Another idea is that, for every spell cast, something predictable but undesirable happens, like the caster or party takes damage or the enemies somehow get stronger every spell.

Basically, the idea is cool, which is an adventurer's moment of adversity. But without some extra effort, a caster's moment of diversity is more likely to be a moment of impossibility or worthlessness, which would make just about any player lose interest.

[Vangor]

If what you are doing is ruining the fun of the player, unless doing otherwise would ruin the fun of other players, then what you are doing is bad DMing. Notice this has to be what you are doing, not a basic mechanic of the game or the nature of playing a game, and has a large unless involved.

[Aeglewaygate]

If you never interact with powerful adversary and challenge, then the game itself is pointless to me. :smallbiggrin:

[Acanous]

When I play a Wizard, my first personal quest is to make backup spellbooks.
25gp per page is much, much cheaper than 100. I usually donate a copy with my "Utility" spells to the local mage guild, another copy with more obscure spells to a library, and a copy with my offensive spells to the king, and keep a spare invisibly hidden in my carriage/boat/airship.
This means that my spells can all be known by my enemies if they're resourceful, charismatic, and do their homework... but that's a better disadvantage with more roleplay opportunity than lose spellbook and suck.

of course, there are all the usual spellbook defenses I use. Had a DM once try yoinking a spellbook from my bag of holding, about 3 sessions after I explained to him that I was trapping the thing, that I'd spent 3/4ths of my gold on trapping it, and that it was propably a higher CR than the party.

Sufficive to say, the invisible bugger that tried to take it from me ended up trapped in a globe of force with a cloudkill the instant the book recognised it was more than 30 feet away from one of my mage-marks.

I would feel bad, but he tried it again with a lich. Even though we'd been using the "Heal" trap that went off on the holder of the book whenever page three was turned to recover after brutal encounters ever since it got put in...

[Rogue Shadows]

If we're wizards, then sometimes, in life, we lose our spellbooks, and we just have to learn to deal with the consequences.

A wizard somehow magically not being able to lose thier spellbook for one reason or another, or not needing to take precautions against it for one reason or another, frankly breaks my willing suspension of disbelief.

[El Dorado]

Theft, dismemberment, STDs. . . all par for the course in games I've played in. :smallwink: I think it's important for a DM to give players a general idea of the types of events they'll encounter in his or her games. For example, if an NPC lets the players know that "the next town is notorious for theft", then the DM has done his due diligence in telling the players to protect their stuff. However, even when the players and DMs are on the same page, unexpected and undesirable stuff is going to happen. In my experience, bad things add to the memorability of a campaign as much as heroic triumphs.

[Typewriter]

This does lead to player immunity and thus, boring gameplay. Once you say ''no player will loose any of their important equipment'' you can get just get silly.

The fighter with a dire flail falls in both his hands is thrown off a cliff and into a stream, but manages to make it to shore. And low and behold his dire flail has floated to shore right next to him as taking away his weapon that he has built his character around would make for boring game play.

And if the characters ever do get captured, the bad guys must leave all their stuff in an unlocked box in the next room. As again it would not be fair to take away holy symbols, spellbooks, weapons, and such.

I think that's pretty much what I'm saying. If any single piece of equipment can be lost, then it's only fair that any piece of equipment can be lost, whether it be spellbook, or spell component pouch. That's fair. The end results may not be 'balanced' but that doesn't change the fact that the action itself is fair.


Lots of reasonable responses, but I'll just chime in with the point that familiars and spellbooks are outside power sources and therefore reasonable targets. No, not every encounter, but if it never comes up then it's unnaturally favoring the character who uses them.

Edti: ninja'd by Gamer Girl, but the point bears repeating.

Agreed, I would never consistently target the same person/ability/item. Not every encounter, not every campaign.


Yes, but in the case at hand, the other players kept their magical stuff, even the Wizard did, actually, however the mechanics of a learned spellcaster are quite different from those of the rest, to the point that there are quite a few times where losing your magical stuff is much preferable to losing your spellbook, which sounded to be the case.

EDIT: And again, it really depends on the style of the campaign, if up to now everything was fun and games, suddenly giving such a blow to the Wizard is quite dire.

However if they were constantly fighting for their lives with little chances to survive and being constantly mugged (or having constant attempts of) at night, then yeah, the Wizard should've seen it coming.

As I said, nerfing isn't necessarily bad, it just depends on the whole situation and how bad was that nerf (and especially how much of it was the player's fault and how much felt like the DM just disliked him).

That's what was getting to me in the other thread. People seemed to be saying that it was a wizard nerf, when it was a party nerf that happened to hit the party wizard hardest. It doesn't mean the DM is targeting wizards, or even that player, it doesn't mean he's trying to punish anyone or anything. It just made sense.


In some respects, dealing with horrible (or irritating) things that happen to your character can be the more memorable events you deal with, particularly if you take it as a challenge, rather than a penalty.

As an example, one of my players got hit with a polymorph that turned her into a monkey. She made the secondary save, so retained her intelligence. The party was in an isolated area where they couldn't go for help and they didn't have the spells to restore her. She decided to play it though rather than tossing the character for a new one. She spent two full levels as a monkey before finally being able to restore the character. During that time she found a number of interesting ways to contribute to the party's success. She still talks about that character to this day. I suspect that if she'd given up on the character, it wouldn't have been as memorable.

Any time I've ever found myself unable to contribute I ask myself one question, "Do I have rope?". If the answer is 'yes' combat is never boring for me. Class abilities should never be the only way you can contribute.


There seem to me to be three different situations, and each reflects differently on the DM.


1) Genuine consequences

A lot of what the OP referred to in his game fits into this category...sticking your arm inside a trapped wall can lead to it being severed. If the information was there to suggest that such a course of action might come about, then it's not going to be bad DMing...you just have to be sure that you're being fair to the players...which leads to...

2) Arbitrary DM Nerfing

One of the reasons crit 'tables' are frequently frowned upon, and much of the original complaint in the other thread that lead to the OP's post, is due to arbitrary DMs inflicting pain because they can. The typical "I'm annoyed at you, a bolt of lightning/giant rock descends from the sky" is the classic example of this behavior. Few would argue that this isn't blatant bad DMing, the question really only comes as to where the line is drawn between this and #1 above. A lot of it has to do with trust and experience, both of and with, the DM.

DMs who lord it over their players and deride them for playing character that *could* be made vulnerable (to 'falling', having spellbooks destroyed, etc.) remind me of a quote from The Emperor's New Groove:

"HA! You should have thought of that before becomming peasants. Take him away."

3) Part of the Story

This one is tricky, since it can look like #2 above. I think this was what the DM in the first thread was trying for. It's also the reason why the Slave Lords modules from times past were among the most hated...but it's all for a purpose.

That's the key difference...you're not destroying their stuff and not leaving them an out, you're destroying their stuff to advance a storyline where, in the end, they'll have a chance to make it right again. They may not get their exact same stuff back, they may suffer along the way...but they're also not being put in a permanent 2-levels-behind WBL hole due to a situation they couldn't have avoided in the first place.


A class vulnerability shouldn't be ignored or hand-waived away by the player, but at the same time the DM shouldn't use it as a free invitation to toy with the player just for amusement sake.

B2 reminds me of what many DMs seem to do with wishes.

Wish: I wish I had a +5 sword
Genie: Here's a +5 cursed sword

= BORING

Better: Here is a +5 sword.
Another party member: Hey, where's my +5 sword?

Basically it's a 'nerf' that doesn't make sense other than "Is a nerf".


If the only example you cited was the loss of the spell book I would have thought that you were targeting the spell book. In general I'd place taking the spell book on the same level as targeting the party with disjunctions (unless the party used them first). But with the other examples it shows that bad things can happen to anyone in the group. When the barbarian lost his arm were there clues that could have been found as to the nature of the trap (other than just the search check)? When the spell book was taken were those who were on watch allowed to make checks to discover the thief? Didn't the wizard get his own book back when the group killed the wizard who presumably had it?

Barbarian: They had noticed a hinge on the mouth, but since the rogue couldn't tell that it was trapped he stuck his arm in assuming the hinge was meaningless.
Perception: Everyone got a perception check, including the guy on watch. Guy on watch just didn't have high perception.
Book back: I mentioned earlier, chunks of the book where being delivered to the party as kind of a taunt. There was no pages left by the time they arrived. I mentioned in an earlier post that if the party had tried finding the guys home (as opposed to his hideout) they would probably find his spellbook, but this guy wasn't interested in that.


Er...not really. The other characters rely heavily on their weapons in order to use their class features. The wizard does not--he relies heavily upon his spell book to use his class features. The wizard's equivalent of a weapon is his spell book. In terms of how it impacts a character's effectiveness, letting the wizard keep his spell book is equivalent of letting the barbarian keep his weapon.

Saying it's fairest that everyone loses/keeps the same items without thought to how those items affect them is like saying it would be fair to take away everyone's weapons and nothing else--that is, take away the wizard's light crossbow and the barbarian's +2 valorous greatsword as if they are of equal value to those characters--but do nothing about the wizard's spell book. It doesn't make sense. You are disproportionately disadvantaging certain members of the party over others for no reason and in a way that the characters cannot influence or affect in game. That is not fair. That is the opposite of fair.

Your measuring fairness differently than me then.

I don't consider fair to be the outcome, I consider fair to be 'an even action'. The even action is everyone lost the same stuff. The outcome was that one player was nerfed more heavily.

If you had destroyed the wizards weapon but let him keep his spellbook you would be keeping things 'balanced' but you would have taken an action that was inconsistent. At this point you're favoring the wizard because you want things to maintain balance.

Fair != balanced


One reasonable answer is "because in this instance it wouldn't be fun for the players."

That is a fairly honest answer, and while I respect it I have to point out that fun without challenge is barely a game. If party members never suffered penalties, never died, and succeeded everywhere they wanted to succeed we wouldn't really be playing a game? We'd just be telling stories to each other, which some groups do and I have no problem with.

As for the rest of your post... I can't really rationalize it, but most discussions of 'gaming theory' send me into an idiot rage (I act like an angry moron), so when I saw your post going there I bailed out.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Generally, as a player, losing your shtick is the epitome of NOT FUN. It is one thing if done to bring the players down to earth because of them either being too strong relative to the rest of the party, being too cocky in character, or something else. However, even in the worst of scenarios, a DM should first talk with said players and maybe even the entire group just so everyone is both happy and having fun.


As to what you've done, though...


1. One player lost a hand. Prior to this he was a dual wielding Rogue. He had got caught stealing and was subdued by the guards. Punishment was removal of a hand. The player got a regeneration spell cast on him around 5 sessions later.

Just as is, this is hard to judge. It sucks for the rogue, but he is still an easily playable character even if down a hand, but losing said hand without chances to evade the guard is just not cool. Did he get caught because of failed checks against the merchants? Probably. Does that mean he shouldn't get more before getting the hand removed? No, not really.


2. One player lost an arm. They were going into a dungeon that they knew was going to be full of traps, and the second or third room had a statue with an open mouth that the party thought contained a switch. The rogue rolled poorly and didn't notice the trap, so the barbarian reached in. Turns out the switch just caused the mouth to close on the arm, removing it. The way forward was elsewhere. This barbarian had been focused on two-handed weapons. Two sessions later he had a golems arm crafted to himself.

This could hurt a lot, too. It's not really the player's fault, but nor is it necessarily yours, either. That said, just having him lose the arm right out is not fair. A fort save or some such is reasonable, even if the statue is crafted from adamantine itself.


3. Party cleric lost a leg. We were using a critical fumble deck, and he lost a leg. The party had to carry him around on a stretcher for 2 sessions before he finally died. During those two sessions he was unable to do as much as he had been previously due to drastically decreased mobility.

For numerous reasons, special crit rules can be rather obnoxious. The major one being that a 16th level fighter has a greater chance of fumbling and ruining his career than a 1st level anything, just by virtue of the number of attacks per round.:smallsigh:

As a player, I avoid DM's with special (and harsh) fumble rules just to avoid such. That or play someone who doesn't roll attacks.:smallbiggrin:


4. Party wizard had his spellbook stolen. Two perception checks were allowed while he was sleeping, both of which he failed horribly. Book was taken by someone and parts of pages were delivered to him periodically over the next couple sessions.

See, even with your justifications for "why, this is still very much "rocks fall, you're now a commoner with a good will save." For a player, without any knowledge of the events, it can easily feel like "Nope, now you don't get your sweet firetruck toys. Deal with it!"

This is easily avoidable via Rope Trick, but not getting it back soon is bothersome and can really just ruin the mood for the player.


5. Party druid (shapeshifter variant) put on a cursed bracer that emanated anti-magic field. The only way to get it off was by removing the arm since magic wouldn't affect it, or by fulfilling a side quest. After three sessions the druid decided that pursuing the side quest wasn't worth it and had the party fighter remove her arm. Then she began questing for the ability to retrain her variant for standard shapeshifting, which took another few sessions.

For a druid, losing the arm doesn't mean much, what with spells and the animal companion. At love levels, it could hurt, but it is still incredibly annoying to just have to deal with it. Could it be in line? Yeah, but it still sucks having that happen.


6-100. Aside from the spellbook I've destroyed tons of party equipment, and I don't really go out of my way to recompensate them for it. Dependency on equipment means that if you lose that equipment you're at a disadvantage, not that new equipment will just appear soon.


The problem with this line of thought is that 3.5 as a system goes "Okay, so you're level X. To combat level X-2 to X+2 threats, you should have roughly this much gold in items and gear. Out and out removing all of said gear can hurt a lot. Generally speaking, removing fun toys is rather obnoxious. Doesn't mean it shouldn't happen, just that it should be rare.


This doesn't mean you shouldn't do mean things to your PCs, just that you should not focus on out and out removing their options, but rather pose a problem and see what solutions they have to it.

At one point, we (as a group of DMs) threw a curse on the party dread necromancer such that each morning he would revive in his living body, despite having been undead for ages. The player initially brute forced his way back into being undead, but to no avail. As the party was in down-time, he set about trying to find someone to remove said curse, generating more and more plot.

Other players in the same campaign had "bad things" happen to them, but not by stealing their toys or shticks, but through some political maneuverings and just certain NPCs acting as themselves. They loved it, and, in the event that they didn't, we made sure as DMs to make amends for such.

[Daverin]

If we're wizards, then sometimes, in life, we lose our spellbooks, and we just have to learn to deal with the consequences.

A wizard somehow magically not being able to lose thier spellbook for one reason or another, or not needing to take precautions against it for one reason or another, frankly breaks my willing suspension of disbelief.


For you. The usual "different strokes for different folks" applies here as in so many areas of entertainment, and life in general. The biggest thing, to me, is that everybody is having fun, from the DM to the players. This involves both communication about what to expect (and, imo, never assume raw vanilla. I'd imagine just about every player has played enough games with some assumed houserule that the idea of playing otherwise would never occur to them. If you've heard of a "common houserule," and you do not play it, I'd suggest making the point to your players.) It also involves being willing to play in such a way as to fit how you all want it to be played.

Some people are quite ready and willing to play the challenge of no spell books. That is cool, and I imagine that could result in some amazing roleplaying. Some (like me, or so I imagine,) however, do at least see this as a game, with certain assumptions that break complete versimilitude in the game world. One such is that, in this scenario, even though their should be nothing preventing my spellbook from being lost, I'd prefer not to have to lose it and become a complete loss. Instead, an idea is to find more creative ways to challenge the wizard, like I suggested above.

My thoughts on how you did it? Can't say, and probably won't, because I was not one of your players, and how you play is your own thing. I can say that I may not necessarily want to play your way, but that is because my own ideas of fun are different, not any better or worse.

[Lapak]

It's never really occurred to me to tell my players that villains are going to target their weak spots.Then you have a blind spot that might make you a bad DM in specific situations.

The environment provided by the 3.5 ruleset in inherently breakable; certain types of supernatural power allow for absurd levels of pre-emptive action. Every DM has to find the correct balance point of reasonable actions for the NPCs of the world, because if you took the most 'reasonable' action on the part of major villains, the PCs would almost certainly have no chance whatsoever. They could (probably would) be murdered at level 1 by a villain 15 levels above them teleporting in with his entire kill-squad because a divination picked them out as the greatest long-term threat to his plans.

You haven't done that because you recognize that it's not a game worth playing. But it sounds as if you didn't make clear to your players where the balance point was in your game between 'unpredictable, unavoidable slaughter' and 'you can wander through a volcano naked and we'll figure out how you don't die.' That's a big spectrum, but many players can be happy on a large chunk of it as long as they know about where they are. As mentioned above, many players of wizards CAN come up with a list of ways to protect or backup their spellbook, but few bother unless they have a reason to believe that they're closer to the 'your enemies will screw you if you leave an opening' end of the scale, because it takes time and energy they could be putting into other areas of the game.

What you did is perfectly fair - but only if the players had (out of character) warning that you might do something like it at some point during the game, and passed up the opportunity to protect themselves.

[Yukitsu]

What exactly are you asking about? A specific scenario, or in general?

In general.


It's never really occurred to me to tell my players that villains are going to target their weak spots.

Then don't complain if I don't hold back either.

[satorian]

Well, if a DM wants real reactions to occur within a real world, which isn't necessarily a bad thing for this old AD&D player, he should expect PCs to act reasonably within those parameters.

Example: we are on a quest to prevent the big evil guy from, I dunno, opening the Gate of DOOM. 1 player gets gimped in a way that he believes cannot be rectified quickly (and DM doesn't dissuade said player of this view). Player then makes the reasonable decision that his character no longer believes that he can sufficiently aid the party in stopping BBEG, but that he will rather slow them down as he tries to fix his gimping.

Thus, the noble paladin/kindly wizard/whatever says to his friends: "The fates have sadly decreed that I will not be among the select who will save the world from BBEG's foolishness. Pray that you find another companion more worthy than I. Indeed, should I see anyone on my atonement quest/5 year slog to refill my spellbook/whatever, I'll send him/her your way."

Cue retiring character and rolling up a psi-forged psion who stores everything in his body.

[Douglas]

Your measuring fairness differently than me then.

I don't consider fair to be the outcome, I consider fair to be 'an even action'. The even action is everyone lost the same stuff. The outcome was that one player was nerfed more heavily.

If you had destroyed the wizards weapon but let him keep his spellbook you would be keeping things 'balanced' but you would have taken an action that was inconsistent. At this point you're favoring the wizard because you want things to maintain balance.

Fair != balanced
On the contrary, letting the wizard keep his spellbook instead of his weapon is not inconsistent at all. "You keep your weapon" and "you keep the single item most important to you" are both fully consistent rulings, and the latter would have the wizard keep his spellbook while almost everyone else keeps a weapon.

As for fairness, I would argue that equal outcome is the definition of fairness. It is not possible to judge the fairness of an action without considering the knowledge about that action's outcome that the actor had when he took the action. Outcome can only be ignored in that judgment when the outcome is completely unknown and unpredictable. Surgically removing one kidney from every person in a large group would be enormously unfair to those people that only have one kidney for whatever reason - such an action would be roughly equivalent to declaring a death sentence for a small subgroup and giving everyone else a headache for one day.

[PollyOliver]

Your measuring fairness differently than me then.

I don't consider fair to be the outcome, I consider fair to be 'an even action'. The even action is everyone lost the same stuff. The outcome was that one player was nerfed more heavily.

If you had destroyed the wizards weapon but let him keep his spellbook you would be keeping things 'balanced' but you would have taken an action that was inconsistent. At this point you're favoring the wizard because you want things to maintain balance.

Fair != balanced

No, fairness is related to to outcome. If you do something that disproportionately disadvantages one player in a game and not another, especially if you do this without giving the players a recourse to prevent this from happening in-game (mystical level drain and BTW almost all your items are gone), that is not fair. You have made the game specifically harder for one person. An across-the-board ban in not necessarily fair just because it is across the board. The fact that an across the board policy disproportionately affects certain people and that disproportionately affecting those people is unfair is in fact the subject of enough case law to fill a rather large boat, but I can't really go into it here because it's too real world politicky.

But if one PC is an artist and the other is a smith and I evenly took away everyone's paintbrushes, that would not be fair. Taking away everyone's primary artisan tool would be fair. If, to use a gruesome example, one person is left handed and one person is right handed and I chopped off both their right hands, that would not be fair. It might well be consistent, and in a simulationist mindset might completely make sense, but it is not fair; chopping off their primary hand would be fair.

So if one person relies almost entirely on a book to be useful and one person relies almost entirely on a sword, and I took away books, that would not be fair. Fair would be "I take away the thing you need to be useful".

[Typewriter]

If what you are doing is ruining the fun of the player, unless doing otherwise would ruin the fun of other players, then what you are doing is bad DMing. Notice this has to be what you are doing, not a basic mechanic of the game or the nature of playing a game, and has a large unless involved.

I guess. I don't know, if someone is walking around with a glowing weak spot on their back I don't think they should really claim to have their fun ruined when someone hits it.

Funnily enough if a player said to me, "I want to play a wizard, but instead of a spellbook I want tattoos" I would probably say "Yeah, sure", but if the same player had instead said "I want to be a wizard, but I want my spellbook to be off limits", I would probably respond with "Guess you should find a way to do that then".

That being said, none of my players have ever claimed to have had their fun ruined by this stuff, the closest to that is the wizard who just refused to try and get a new one. I have no sympathy for people who don't try to solve their own problems.


Generally, as a player, losing your shtick is the epitome of NOT FUN. It is one thing if done to bring the players down to earth because of them either being too strong relative to the rest of the party, being too cocky in character, or something else. However, even in the worst of scenarios, a DM should first talk with said players and maybe even the entire group just so everyone is both happy and having fun.

I think it's actually less fair to nerf someone because of disparate power levels than because of random chance and/or in game decisions (even those by NPCs). Nerfing someone because they're OP is nerfing the player, not the character.



Just as is, this is hard to judge. It sucks for the rogue, but he is still an easily playable character even if down a hand, but losing said hand without chances to evade the guard is just not cool. Did he get caught because of failed checks against the merchants? Probably. Does that mean he shouldn't get more before getting the hand removed? No, not really.


I actually mentioned more about this in an earlier post. He was caught, and taken to jail (didn't resist, was unable to break out). When they came to take his hand off I asked if he planned on resisting, and the party refused to help him so he just took it without trying to fight.



This could hurt a lot, too. It's not really the player's fault, but nor is it necessarily yours, either. That said, just having him lose the arm right out is not fair. A fort save or some such is reasonable, even if the statue is crafted from adamantine itself.

I believe I allowed him a reflex save to pull his arm out when he noticed stuff moving. I wouldn't swear to that, but I'm fairly certain that's what I called it as.



For numerous reasons, special crit rules can be rather obnoxious. The major one being that a 16th level fighter has a greater chance of fumbling and ruining his career than a 1st level anything, just by virtue of the number of attacks per round.:smallsigh:

As a player, I avoid DM's with special (and harsh) fumble rules just to avoid such. That or play someone who doesn't roll attacks.:smallbiggrin:

My players pointed out that particular list of fumbles and wanted to use it, thinking that if they focused on critical based characters it would work well for them. It wound up not, and as I mentioned earlier, that particular rule list was removed not long after that.

The paizo deck is actually a lot better balanced (fumble wise), and our house rule of having to confirm a critical fumble makes things a lot more even (fighter has +40 to hit against AC 35 would have to roll two 1s in a row to fumble).



See, even with your justifications for "why, this is still very much "rocks fall, you're now a commoner with a good will save." For a player, without any knowledge of the events, it can easily feel like "Nope, now you don't get your sweet firetruck toys. Deal with it!"

This is easily avoidable via Rope Trick, but not getting it back soon is bothersome and can really just ruin the mood for the player.

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

As for getting it back sooner, he could have. He could have bought a new one. Or stolen one. He chose not to because he thought a new one would appear in his lap.

Of course making an entirely new one would have taken more time, and allowed the baddie more time to plan, but that's the kind of trade off a character needs to decide upon sometimes.



For a druid, losing the arm doesn't mean much, what with spells and the animal companion. At love levels, it could hurt, but it is still incredibly annoying to just have to deal with it. Could it be in line? Yeah, but it still sucks having that happen.


Yeah, it wasn't too bad, and he wound up taking care of it before too long anyway. I had no idea who was going to take the bracer, I think the druid was probably the best choice.



The problem with this line of thought is that 3.5 as a system goes "Okay, so you're level X. To combat level X-2 to X+2 threats, you should have roughly this much gold in items and gear. Out and out removing all of said gear can hurt a lot. Generally speaking, removing fun toys is rather obnoxious. Doesn't mean it shouldn't happen, just that it should be rare.

We don't really use WBL so it's not usually that bad. The party tends to be over geared so they're generally not 'totally nerfed' if I destroy the warriors main weapon or anything else.



This doesn't mean you shouldn't do mean things to your PCs, just that you should not focus on out and out removing their options, but rather pose a problem and see what solutions they have to it.

I agree completely, nerfing characters should not be a standard occurrence, but I also don't think that it coming up should result in players quitting or getting angry. Everything I've listed occurred over the last 7 years, and we play once a week. I listed about 5 out of 10 very specific occurrences, and the rest were sunders/weapon thefts/etc. which generally aren't that major.



At one point, we (as a group of DMs) threw a curse on the party dread necromancer such that each morning he would revive in his living body, despite having been undead for ages. The player initially brute forced his way back into being undead, but to no avail. As the party was in down-time, he set about trying to find someone to remove said curse, generating more and more plot.

Other players in the same campaign had "bad things" happen to them, but not by stealing their toys or shticks, but through some political maneuverings and just certain NPCs acting as themselves. They loved it, and, in the event that they didn't, we made sure as DMs to make amends for such.

In one campaign I had a villain who kept screwing over the party. One of the players found out who it was (a previous ally) and confronted him about it. I responded with "It was for your own good", and the player accepted it. The rest of the party knew about it and was baffled as to why the other player hadn't so much as rolled a sense motive check.

Four other times he betrayed the party and every time the only person who had figured it out (in character) accepted his clearly BS responses. It was hilarious.

That may seem like a bit of a random response, but your story kind of reminded me of it, just because players actions twisting the plot in unexpected ways.

If a player is upset about something that happens I will generally try to make things right in game, but I won't simply 'undo' penalties.

[Typewriter]

On the contrary, letting the wizard keep his spellbook instead of his weapon is not inconsistent at all. "You keep your weapon" and "you keep the single item most important to you" are both fully consistent rulings, and the latter would have the wizard keep his spellbook while almost everyone else keeps a weapon.

But now you're making a change in the ruling (everyone keeps their weapon) based off of balance. The fact that the wizard is more harmed by losing his spellbook is giving you a bias.

How about for fairness sake the wizards spellbook makes him far more powerful than the fighters sword makes him? Why doesn't the fighter get to choose an item to keep instead of his weapon? After all, he can use any sword, but if he has an item that lets him fly?

Everyone gets to choose one item is fair.
Everyone get to keep their weapon is fair.
Everyone gets to keep their weapon, except the wizard who gets his spellbook instead is making a judgement based on the outcome.



As for fairness, I would argue that equal outcome is the definition of fairness. It is not possible to judge the fairness of an action without considering the knowledge about that action's outcome that the actor had when he took the action. Outcome can only be ignored in that judgment when the outcome is completely unknown and unpredictable. Surgically removing one kidney from every person in a large group would be enormously unfair to those people that only have one kidney for whatever reason - such an action would be roughly equivalent to declaring a death sentence for a small subgroup and giving everyone else a headache for one day.

And I would argue that the definition of fairness is the definition of fairness :P

Seriously, making a decision without bias means not letting personal opinions or balance issues cloud a just decision. Changing the decision based off of the expected outcome is not fair.

What you're referring to is balance. If you're making a decision based off of your perceptions and desire for balance, then you are making a biased decision, which is not fair.

It's nice when fair/balanced go together, but that's not always the case.


No, fairness is related to to outcome. If you do something that disproportionately disadvantages one player in a game and not another, especially if you do this without giving the players a recourse to prevent this from happening in-game (mystical level drain and BTW almost all your items are gone), that is not fair. You have made the game specifically harder for one person. An across-the-board ban in not necessarily fair just because it is across the board. The fact that an across the board policy disproportionately affects certain people and that disproportionately affecting those people is unfair is in fact the subject of enough case law to fill a rather large boat, but I can't really go into it here because it's too real world politicky.

As above, the proportion of the nerf is a reference to balance, not fairness.



But if one PC is an artist and the other is a smith and I evenly took away everyone's paintbrushes, that would not be fair. Taking away everyone's primary artisan tool would be fair. If, to use a gruesome example, one person is left handed and one person is right handed and I chopped off both their right hands, that would not be fair. It might well be consistent, and in a simulationist mindset might completely make sense, but it is not fair; chopping off their primary hand would be fair.


Depends on the situation. If someone is going around taking paintbrushes then it isn't fair to also take the smiths tools. That's balanced. Fair would be taking the paint brushes because that's what is happening.

As for the hands thing, why are you removing hands? Is the law that you take off the right hand of thieves? In that case it's fair to take the right hand off regardless of what the primary hand is. Taking the other hand is not fair, even if it is balanced.



So if one person relies almost entirely on a book to be useful and one person relies almost entirely on a sword, and I took away books, that would not be fair. Fair would be "I take away the thing you need to be useful".

Again, balance != fair

[Acanous]

Some DMs have In-Game "Tells" that let you know when you can expect your stuff to be targetted.
Like when you're noticably above WBL because you raided a den of kobolds who were guarding a big pile of gold for a dragon.
Now you're lv 4 and 5000 GP above WBL. You're going to either lose some stuff, lose a bunch of gold as the dragon takes it back, or have to fight that dragon. If you win, you already took his horde and thus he drops no treasure, just a giant chunk of meaty XP that will bring your level in line with your new wealth. If you don't die horribly.
I consider this to be a test of player inginuity, with freedom of choice involved. If you, as a DM, are keeping the payers in line with WBL, and then having them lose their most expensive item, that player is significantly disadvantaged- wizard or otherwise.

It would be like if someone stole your car IRL. Your car is useful to you, something you propably use every day, and worth a considerable portion of your wealth.
Someone steals it, you are disadvantaged and distressed. You propably take every avenue available to retrieve your car, find the thief, and punish them.
You may continue going to work as normal, but if your job requires use of your vehicle (Like if you have to commute) then you may in fact put your job on hold while you try to recover your car.

Taking this back into the game, if you remove someone's most valuable item, you had better plan for that character doing everything in his power to get it back as quickly as possible. Up to and including neglecting the plot and derailing your game. This is how it works in real life.

It can, however, be used as a valuable adventure hook. If you choose to do this more than once, expect your party to take more and more extreme measures against it. Giving them a BBEG who is responcible for taking their stuff in order to force them to go on recovery sidequests will make that BBEG VERY memorable, and VERY hated. Even the Paladin will murder him in cold blood.
Giving them nameless, disorganized mooks that steal things at random is bad DMing, unless there's a darn good warning (With time to adequately prepare) beforehand.

[Merk]

Stuff

I agree with this. On a tangential note, I'm starting to dislike mechanics that
shut down players (losing spell books, antimagic fields, status effects that keep you from taking actions, etc.)

[Starbuck_II]

That's a gross overstatement. Get the Wizard a blank spellbook and they're ready to write down all the spells they've got prepared in their minds. That means they'll have every one of those spells available again after a little down time. Plus the Wizard can use scrolls and wands, as usual, and they've got their familiar (to do aerial reconnaissance or whatever). The party can go on a quest to recover the stolen spellbook, just as they would if the Barbarian's expensive 2-handed sword got stolen.

That seems pretty exciting, not boring, to me.

But it would be very expensive unless he had a lot of cash on him: he'd likely have to start selling his gear to afford it.

[PollyOliver]

Again, balance != fair

I wrote two paragraphs, one explaining that fairness is dependent on outcome and one providing what I thought were relevant examples. You writing "balance != fair" after them is not addressing those things. Fairness and balance are not always the same thing, but fairness is dependent on outcome. The first relevant definition for fair is : "free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice: a fair decision; a fair judge." Disproportionately harming one person while hiding behind the fact that technically you performed the same act on both people is biased, dishonest, and unjust.

If I were to hold a contest that included a talent portion and then wait until after the contest had started and take away all musical instruments the morning of the talent portion, but not take away ballet shoes, boards to be broken for martial arts displays, batons, or other tools, that would biased, dishonest, and unjust to the people who were intending to display their musical talents. It would be unfair. If I have a business and I ban all non-human animals, that is not just unbalanced. That is unfair to people who are dependent on service animals. It is not just "equal but unbalanced"; there is a boatload of case law that says it is unfair.

[Typewriter]

I agree with this. On a tangential note, I'm starting to dislike mechanics that
shut down players (losing spell books, antimagic fields, status effects that keep you from taking actions, etc.)

Believe it or not I actually agree. I think I mentioned earlier that I would be more willing to help a player avoid situations like this than I would be to forgive a weakness.

If you're a wizard who has no spellbook, but instead some other way of doing things then awesome - I don't have to worry about it, you don't have to worry about it.

If you're a wizard walking around with the giant weak spot and expecting the entire world to ignore it... if someone should notice it they're going to notice it.

[Typewriter]

I wrote two paragraphs, one explaining that fairness is dependent on outcome and one providing what I thought were relevant examples. You writing "balance != fair" after them is not addressing those things. Fairness and balance are not always the same thing, but fairness is dependent on outcome. The first relevant definition for fair is : "free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice: a fair decision; a fair judge." Disproportionately harming one person while hiding behind the fact that technically you performed the same act on both people is biased, dishonest, and unjust.

If I were to hold a contest that included a talent portion and then wait until after the contest had started and take away all musical instruments the morning of the talent portion, but not take away ballet shoes, boards to be broken for martial arts displays, batons, or other tools, that would biased, dishonest, and unjust to the people who were intending to display their musical talents. It would be unfair. If I have a business and I ban all non-human animals, that is not just unbalanced. That is unfair to people who are dependent on service animals. It is not just "equal but unbalanced"; there is a boatload of case law that says it is unfair.

I actually did respond to both of your examples.

Not only that, but the other post I was replying to in that post was similar to yours, and I even mentioned that in the first part of my response to you.

As for your example above (about the talent show) I don't really get it?

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Going back to what Yukitsu was saying; if the only reason it's a glowy vulnerable spot is because the player doesn't think it's that type of game OOC, then pointing out the vulnerability by exploiting it breaks suspension of disbelief, not ignoring it. The reason it's different than any other character's weak point is that it's just so debilitating, and protecting it is so tedious for everyone involved. Sure, you might be a tad more realistic, but in the end you're encouraging boring gameplay; the next wizard in your game must list out all the defenses he has to take to make sure he has a reason to play his character the entire time. Same goes for the arm trap, same goes for the crit fumbles, to a lesser extent, since they could at least do something.

Also, everyone's fun matters. A large part of DMing is playing to the crowd. If you're in a group that likes that sense of realism, go for it, but it seems like at least some of your players are chafing under all the maiming. The properties of a good game aren't some pre-determined set of characteristics given from high on down (nor here, lol); you have to take the specific players into account.

[NNescio]

DM: Everyone now takes a -20 penalty to melee attack rolls from now on.
Fighter: This isn't fair!
DM: It's fair. Everyone -- the wizard, the cleric, the rogue, and all the NPCs and monsters -- they all take a -20 penalty to melee attack rolls. Everyone is treated equally here.
Fighter: But it's not fair! Not all of them rely on melee like I do.
DM: It's fair. You are all treated equally.
Fighter: But I can't do much if melee is gimped! They can.
DM: Tough luck. This isn't a game balance issue. Why don't you find some other way you can be useful? I'm sure you can still have fun.
Fighter: But I sunk all my feats in melee attack chains! I don't have archery or throwing feats!
DM: Tough luck. Try intimidate, ride, roleplaying, yannow, stuff like that.
Fighter: Why do you have to do this?
DM: Why can't I?

--
Just saying. Equal treatment ≠ Fair. Especially if it creates unequal opportunity.

[PollyOliver]

The example was just that you're holding a contest, and one part is a talent portion. You allow all sorts of talents as admissible, and the contest starts. Then, the morning of the talent part, you take all musical instruments away. This is an equal and across the board action. But it disproportionately affects those people who were planing to use music in their talent portion in a way that is biased against their talents and unjust to them. According to the primary definition of fair, this would be unfair. It's just an example I was trying to use, evidently not very clearly.

Basically, I'm claiming that, based upon a mountain of case law regarding civil rights and disability access and the primary definition of the word fair, the fairness of an act is dependent upon how it affects people in practice. I cited four examples in which you could enact an "equal" or "across the board" policy which would result in bias and unjustness against a certain group or class of people. A lack of these things being integral to the definition of fair, fairness is thus not just dependent upon implementation but also upon outcome. Fairness may not exactly equal balance, but fairness does include the actual effects of an act.

[Typewriter]

Going back to what Yukitsu was saying; if the only reason it's a glowy vulnerable spot is because the player doesn't think it's that type of game OOC, then pointing out the vulnerability by exploiting it breaks suspension of disbelief, not ignoring it. The reason it's different than any other character's weak point is that it's just so debilitating, and protecting it is so tedious for everyone involved. Sure, you might be a tad more realistic, but in the end you're encouraging boring gameplay; the next wizard in your game must list out all the defenses he has to take to make sure he has a reason to play his character the entire time. Same goes for the arm trap, same goes for the crit fumbles, to a lesser extent, since they could at least do something.

Also, everyone's fun matters. A large part of DMing is playing to the crowd. If you're in a group that likes that sense of realism, go for it, but it seems like at least some of your players are chafing under all the maiming. The properties of a good game aren't some pre-determined set of characteristics given from high on down (nor here, lol); you have to take the specific players into account.

A couple of my players didn't like that particular critical system so it went away, and the only other time someone complained was the wizard (who didn't even really complain. He just kind of did nothing).

My players fun matters to me. More than my own. Believe it or not nearly every situation I've described was either enjoyed or led to enjoyment.

That's why I didn't get all the DM hate. Very few people said, "Maybe the DM has his reasons and it'll make sense", or, "Well you could just do XYZ to fix the situation". Everyone was saying what you could do to avoid it in the future, and telling the player that there was nothing they could do in combat without a spellbook, and finally that the DM was wrong.

The DM even spoke up later in the thread, and said that the player had other options in combat, and I believe even said he'd be able to rebuild his spellbook with minimal difficulty.


DM: Everyone now takes a -20 penalty to melee attack rolls from now on.
Fighter: This isn't fair!
DM: It's fair. Everyone -- the wizard, the cleric, the rogue, and all the NPCs and monsters -- they all take a -20 penalty to melee attack rolls. Everyone is treated equally here.
Fighter: But it's not fair! Not all of them rely on melee like I do.
DM: It's fair. You are all treated equally.
Fighter: But I can't do much if melee is gimped! They can.
DM: Tough luck. This isn't a game balance issue. Why don't you find some other way you can be useful? I'm sure you can still have fun.
Fighter: But I sunk all my feats in melee attack chains! I don't have archery or throwing feats!
DM: Tough luck. Try intimidate, ride, roleplaying, yannow, stuff like that.
Fighter: Why do you have to do this?
DM: Why can't I?

--
Just saying. Equal treatment ≠ Fair. Especially if it creates unequal opportunity.

Depends on the purpose. What if you're in a cursed land that nerfs melee, basically the opposite of an anti-magic field. Then it makes sense. Are you doing it because you don't want anyone to be able to hit people in melee from now on? Then it makes sense, though is kind of weird. If you want the fighter to not be able to hit things anymore then you are making a ruling based off of bias.

Is anti-magic field fair because it treats everyone the same, or should there be a caveat on there that says "If you have no spellcasting abilities your to-hit and damage decrease by 5" - that would be slightly more balanced as far as how it nerfs people, but it wouldn't make sense.

Equal treatment does not inherently equal fair, but that's because intent is very important. Are you treating people evenly knowing that it's going to get you what you want? That's a bias.

If your decision, regardless of party composition, is that "When the party does X everything besides weapons will be destroyed/removed" then that is a fair decision. Once that becomes "When the party does X everything besides weapons will be destroyed except for the wizards spellbook because it's too important", then it's not a fair decision. You're making that decision because a wizard is in the party. That's a bias.


The example was just that you're holding a contest, and one part is a talent portion. You allow all sorts of talents as admissible, and the contest starts. Then, the morning of the talent part, you take all musical instruments away. This is an equal and across the board action. But it disproportionately affects those people who were planing to use music in their talent portion in a way that is biased against their talents and unjust to them. According to the primary definition of fair, this would be unfair. It's just an example I was trying to use, evidently not very clearly.

That's kind of an odd scenario, but I think I get what you're saying. As for responding to the scenario I don't really know how, because it's kind of weird. As to how it ties into D&D I would say the biggest difference is that in a talent show you expect to have access to your tools at all times, where as no such assumption exists in D&D. You would like to have your tools at all times, but seeing as how there are rules for not having them it stands to reason that you can lose them. Most talent shows don't have rules for "Can lose tools at any time".



Basically, I'm claiming that, based upon a mountain of case law regarding civil rights and disability access and the primary definition of the word fair, the fairness of an act is dependent upon how it affects people in practice. I cited four examples in which you could enact an "equal" or "across the board" policy which would result in bias and unjustness against a certain group or class of people. A lack of these things being integral to the definition of fair, fairness is thus not just dependent upon implementation but also upon outcome. Fairness may not exactly equal balance, but fairness does include the actual effects of an act.

Again, I responded to your first two examples, and pointed out that the intent and design of the 'rule' matters. The third was the (incredibly odd) talent show example, and the fourth I haven't responded to, but honestly I have to ask: What are the point of these examples? If you make a ridiculous example and say "See that's not fair is it?" I'm probably going to say "No, in that ridiculous example of a talent show that changes the rules at the last minute; that is not fair". In other words: If you make a statement that is unfair that has no bearing on whether or not the situation we're talking about is fair.

Equal treatment does not inherently equal fair, just like balance does not inherently equal fair. If that's what you're saying then I agree, but just like balance does not equal fair, proving that equal treatment does not always equal fair has no bearing on whether or not it does in this conversation. It doesn't prove the point that "Outcome determines fairness".

It sounds to me like the DM had a scenario in which "All items except for magic weapons are destroyed/lost", and that he made this scenario not caring about party composition. That is an unbiased decision. He doesn't care what the balance is, that's simply the scenario. Going back to change things so that the party wound up balanced in the end would be allowing the composition of the party to bias his decision.

As far as real world case law, we can't really talk about that without violating forum rules, but suffice it to say that I disagree in a big way.

EDIT:
Back to the talent show example, how about this for a more 'realistic' example:

A talent show is being held not to depict a single talent, but instead how talented a person is in a variety of situations. As part of this it is known that at any time a participant can have all of their 'accessories' taken away. If you were going to play the guitar you can now sing, or do a hand stand. You may not be able to sing or do a handstand very well, but you still can if you're one of the people who has their 'accessories' taken away. This sucks for you because you only know how to play the guitar. Another contestant is really good at singing though, so if they take away his accessories, he's still awesome.

Since the talent show is about who can do better in any situation it makes sense for the other person to win, even though the contest doesn't really make any sense.

I think the thing that makes me so bothered by your initial example is because with the spellbook example the rules for "No spellbook wizard" have always existed, where as in the talent show example you're suddenly changing the rules.

[Hunter Killer]

I have to say that I'm not sure why using the shutdown tactics on players automatically makes one a bad DM. This argument confuses me, to be honest. :smallconfused:

I guess I've been lucky, though. When I use an Anti-Magic Field, take the Wizard's spellbook, or maim the melee fighter, my players trust me enough to make it interesting (or fix it later) and will up the ante roleplay wise.

Because of this, I often focus on those players during the sessions they are nerfed. This means that even though they are stupidly ineffective in combat, they still get the majority of those sessions' lime-light to play up the drama.

I think it comes do to this:

If your group is a kick-in-the-door group that's in and out of combat with little focus on roleplay, then your players will hate being completely nerfed. In that case, don't do it. Ever. :smallmad:

If your people are hardcore roleplayers, they won't mind as much (and may even enjoy the chance to ham it up). If that's the case, feel free! :smallbiggrin:

That said.... As a DM, I believe you must warp your campaign to the temperament of your group. You exist for their fun; That's your role. The group's fun should always trump the DM's personal amusement.

[Pigkappa]

(answer to the OP)

Most D&D players want to fight epic battles or solve epic quests and nothing more. Realism is not really important.

They want to face really ugly monsters, kill them, and a few days (or minutes) later they want to kill more ugly monsters. Or maybe even solve some intricate political plot once in a while, but without anything bad happening to them.

If a character dies once in a while it's ok, but losing class features is not. This is how all D&D 3.5 works.

Hit points are designed this way: even if you have 1 HP left, you have no penalties. When a fight is over, someone heals you to full HP and you can start again.

Spells are designed this way too. If someone casts you a Dominate person, your party will likely kill him in a few rounds. If someone casts you a Dominate person and then he runs away, all your party's members have an easy Sense Motive check to find out you are Dominated, and they can probably remove the Dominate effect.


Realism suggests that characters should lose hands, arms, spellbooks, suffer curses that hamper them for a long time, and whatever. But players don't like it and RAI are clearly against these happenings. A wand of Resurgence (level 1 cleric spell from Spell Compendium) makes your party immune to all the lasting spells which allow a save, as Dominate, Blindness, Bestow Curse. If a character attacks a group of thieves and they capture him, and then they steal all he has before setting him free, he's now a lot below WBL and you should give him new stuff.

If your players like such things (I do for example), I suggest you try the Ravenloft setting. Or you can even turn to a different game and play the new World of Darkness, in particular Vampire: the Requiem.

[Kantolin]

I guess I've been lucky, though. When I use an Anti-Magic Field, take the Wizard's spellbook, or maim the melee fighter, my players trust me enough to make it interesting (or fix it later) and will up the ante roleplay wise.

This!

This fixes it. ^_^ This will usually fix everything.

I've played in groups where limbs went flying off every which way and nobody really enjoyed it. It (and various similar things) tended to result in hour long OOC yells, which granted gave me plenty of time to play my DS as I usually wouldn't get involved.

I've then played in groups where the goal is to ensure everyone has a fun table experience. A fun table experience for my group usually isn't 'You are a commoner now, go sit in the corner' on a routine basis, but once in awhile it's okay to get a curve ball thrown at you. When the wizard gets the fireball spell and we end up in fire elemental land, he'll get a bit irritated - but having the occasional enemy cast protection from fire is okay.

If the DM's goal is to help keep that player having fun, then awesome. If the DM's goal is 'Eh, so you're not having fun now - suck it up, maggot!', then that's dramatically less awesome. The narrative is not as important as my friends. Otherwise there'd be a lot more slightly epic level BBEGs teleporting in and maximized delayed blast fireballing the level 2 PCs for no reason.

[PollyOliver]

Typewriter--I think we're just talking past each other and saying almost but not quite the same thing at this point. I agree that fair does not always mean exactly the same thing as balanced. And I think (?) you agree that you can enact a scenario which is in theory "equal" or "across the board" and still have it be unfair.

I think all we're arguing about now is whether said specific scenario was unfair, what I think about that is this:

I think that in general, if you're playing the kind of game where a barbarian's axe might get disjunctioned or the rogue's wand stash or kukris are fair game for thieves, then the wizard's spell book is also fair game. It is somewhat complicated by the fact that the wizard is more dependent on his spell book than the other characters are on their weapons or tools or wands, but a wizard also has better options for defending and recovering and copying his spell book. So if everyone's stuff is fair game, the wizard's is too. If in one session the wizard loses his spell book and has to either fall back on his old one which is not quite as up-to-date or go on a quest to recover it, that is fine, as long as similar things might have (or have actually) happened to other characters. In general, I don't think those types of quests work out to be as fun as DMs tend to think they are (they can still be very fun if done very well) but if it's fair, it's fair game.

My problem stems from the fact that what happened in the example seems to have been a major plot happening--you are all now level 1, except you keep one awesome item. It was an across the board development, or at least looks like it was intended to be, and a long term one, which is I think an important distinction; this wasn't a case of go on a side quest for a session or two to recover. It also seemed to be basically done by DM fiat--that is, all the tricks a wizard would usually use to safeguard his spell book were rendered moot because the DM says so; that is also in my mind an important distinction. Then, the DM gave everyone back one item, but in doing so gave back something that was relatively useless to the wizard, when everyone else got back something that was very useful to them. My objection is to the combination of all of these factors together--that it was a long term development, that it was partially done by plot and DM fiat, and that in the end it was only the one character who got shafted. Given any one or even two of those things, I probably wouldn't object.

[Midnight_v]

Nerfing players makes you a bad DM?

Not automatically no. What makes you a bad dm boils down to:
1. Why you nerf something.
and
2. How you nerf something.

The way in which you answer those questions is what seriously contributes to how people view you as a dm. How people view you isn't so important online (barring pbp) but how you answer those questions when you deal with people in real life often determines if they want to continue in you games and sometimes ttrpg's at all. Especially, today when there are so many ERpg's to chose from.

[JackRackham]

1: Did you follow the rules to do it?
1a: If you didn't, was it an out of character solution with the option to redo character details?
2: Did you give fair warning that you were running that sort of game.
3: After it happened, was the player in question capable of acting in a manner that made the game more interesting than solitaire on their cell phone?

If the answer to all of these questions is "no" then you're a bad DM.

2 is the often overlooked one. Anyone with 2 brain cells can make their spell book untouchable with very little effort, can make it redundant, can have decoys spread about etc. Most player's don't, because it's annoying OOC to constantly have to tell the DM what you're doing to protect it, and ultimately unecessary. It's a big glowy weak spot in the same way their infinite money loops are a big glowy strength. You really only should go for either if you have an agreement that the game allows for that sort of thing before hand, so they're aware that it's coming up and can plan accordingly, bogging down the game and irritating everyone that is not a wizard.

Yup. This and what (somebody else) said. I'll give two examples. In one, I was a PC (Jack Rackham) who had a crazy amount of mundane item ("Why do you have a magnet?") and I told my DM I would transport it via cart and mule. He felt the cart and mule was cheesy and told me I'd better understand that someone might rob me (if I left my mule outside a dungeon) or kill my mule (if I took it with). So, I took precautions (guard dogs, a cage for the mule, expensive locks, etc.). Overall, good DM-ing. Now, it also wouldn't have been terribly awful if he'd taken my stuff, because I'd still have my class abilities (unlike a wizard losing his spellbook).

Second example: I was DM-ing and had a pirate (Jack Rackham) hijack my PCs' ship, taking every single possession of any value (No wizards) and marooning them on an island. Did this suck? Yes, but it generated early-story interest in the game (They all wanna f**k that guy, bad) and they've since (over three sessions) replaced their stuff. Probably not bad DM-ing.

Bottom line: If you nerf a character/the party just because, you're a bad DM. If you do it for story reasons or in-character, provided you don't permanently screw a player (the example with the wizard was a permanent nerf the player could not avoid), there's no problem.

Frankly, the fact that he took the wizard's book and left the others with their weapons makes me wonder if the wizard might have just had a spell the DM didn't like (and that he conveniently wouldn't be able to find). THAT would be bad DM-ing

[druid91]

So, in this thread:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=205229

A player mentioned that he lost his spellbook and was useless to the party for a while, and there were many responses about how this was the mark of a bad DM, some people said they would just leave the group, etc. etc.

Apparently that was all a bit off topic from what the OP was going for (he later clarified that he was bothered by the fact that wizards only memorize spells for a limited amount of time then are uselss without their books), but a lot of the responses really shocked me. According to what people were saying in that thread I'm apparently a horrible DM.

In my campaigns I've had all of the following happen:

1. One player lost a hand. Prior to this he was a dual wielding Rogue. He had got caught stealing and was subdued by the guards. Punishment was removal of a hand. The player got a regeneration spell cast on him around 5 sessions later.
2. One player lost an arm. They were going into a dungeon that they knew was going to be full of traps, and the second or third room had a statue with an open mouth that the party thought contained a switch. The rogue rolled poorly and didn't notice the trap, so the barbarian reached in. Turns out the switch just caused the mouth to close on the arm, removing it. The way forward was elsewhere. This barbarian had been focused on two-handed weapons. Two sessions later he had a golems arm crafted to himself.
3. Party cleric lost a leg. We were using a critical fumble deck, and he lost a leg. The party had to carry him around on a stretcher for 2 sessions before he finally died. During those two sessions he was unable to do as much as he had been previously due to drastically decreased mobility.
4. Party wizard had his spellbook stolen. Two perception checks were allowed while he was sleeping, both of which he failed horribly. Book was taken by someone and parts of pages were delivered to him periodically over the next couple sessions.
5. Party druid (shapeshifter variant) put on a cursed bracer that emanated anti-magic field. The only way to get it off was by removing the arm since magic wouldn't affect it, or by fulfilling a side quest. After three sessions the druid decided that pursuing the side quest wasn't worth it and had the party fighter remove her arm. Then she began questing for the ability to retrain her variant for standard shapeshifting, which took another few sessions.
6-100. Aside from the spellbook I've destroyed tons of party equipment, and I don't really go out of my way to recompensate them for it. Dependency on equipment means that if you lose that equipment you're at a disadvantage, not that new equipment will just appear soon.


If any of these players had said, "I'm not going to play until my character gets better" I would have shown them the door. As DM it's my job to make sure my group has fun, but if the challenge laid before them is overcoming a problem then I expect them to do it, not just complain and wait for me to 'correct' it.


Both players 1 and 2 figured out how to resolve the scenario on their own, and they dealt with being unable to use their feats during that time frame. It sucked, but isn't that the point sometimes?

Player 3 told me after the session where he lost his leg that it sucked and he was unhappy. I told him I wasn't going to just undo it for him, but I was sure that if he looked into it he could find a way to fix the situation. Then I helped him pick spells that would work with a decreased mobility. He had decided that he was going to pursue an item that would allow him to fly, but he died before he was ever able to get it.

Player 4 refused to buy a new spellbook, and instead just spent all of his money on tanglefoot bags, alchemists stones, scrolls, and wands. He eventually asked me what I was going to give him a new spellbook, and I told him I wasn't that he had to replace it himself if he wanted to. Didn't care if he killed another wizard and took it, or stole it, or bought it. Instead he chose to retire the character, and create a new character one level lower than the rest of the party.

Player 5 essentially had to choose between two nerfs and chose. Then she dealt with the outcome, and asked me if she could go on a quest to retrain, which I allowed. It wasn't easy, and it wasn't my idea, but she dealt with it.


Basically what I'm saying is that I have nothing against nerfing a player, and while I consider it to be the DMs job to 'make things fun' that doesn't mean fixing the players problems for them. Losing a spellbook should mean you're without spells for a while. If you don't want to spend the time/money to remake your spellbook you shouldn't play a caster. I'm willing to work with you on things, but I'm not just going to fix the problem. You want to steal someone elses spellbook? Fine, research some casters and hunt one down. Maybe this is why my group tends to favor monks even though they're not all powerful - they can't be 'disarmed' (so to speak) so easily.

Is the general consensus that anything that nerfs a player should be avoided? Or that the DM should just make it up to the player ASAP? It just seems so alien to the way I've been DMing for the last couple years (I used to be very 'kind' about not touching player equipment/body parts).

PS: I also had a wizards tongue cut out once because he spoke out of turn to royalty. His fix action for that was silent spell :P

My fix action would be to incinerate the pitiful mortal who thought he could pass judgement on a wizard.

[Salanmander]

(Re: me talking about 'gaming theory')


As for the rest of your post... I can't really rationalize it, but most discussions of 'gaming theory' send me into an idiot rage (I act like an angry moron), so when I saw your post going there I bailed out.

Sorry, I was just trying to get a common reference by using the terms I picked up here. I'll get my point across without going there this time.

It seems to me like you (and I assume your group) primarily value having a realistic role playing setting/experience. Because of that, things that strike at a vulnerability of the character, leaving them temporarily useless, are more reasonable.

On the other hand, I primarily value playing a fun game. Because of that, something that drastically changed the game I was playing without my consent would annoy me after a little while. New and interesting challenges are good, but I usually get really excited about playing my nifty new character, and when I can't play them as intended, I get annoyed.

Did I successfully avoid sounding like I was over-analyzing things?

[Yukitsu]

My fix action would be to incinerate the pitiful mortal who thought he could pass judgement on a wizard.

I on the other hand, prefer killing everyone in the kingdom except the king, demolishing the entire countryside save for the castle itself.

[olthar]

Frankly, the fact that he took the wizard's book and left the others with their weapons makes me wonder if the wizard might have just had a spell the DM didn't like (and that he conveniently wouldn't be able to find). THAT would be bad DM-ing

First, fumble and crit tables (as have been covered) can get kinda ridic. In one game I play in we had a 2nd level halfling slinger fumble when slinging into melee. Fumble table roll came up that it is an attack against a party member. She rolled a to hit against the party member and got a confirmed crit. A roll on the crit table got a "struck in chest, instantly dead." The dm (correctly since the player wasn't even there that day) ruled against that and instead just did something like 3x damage. But crit and fumble tables add a lot of crazy into a game that doesn't make sense.

Second, maybe the stealing the spell book story was missing something because it seemed odd. Did the group have nobody on watch for a thief to walk into the camp take a prized possession which is likely hidden and then walk out? Also, if the thief is that good, why didn't he/she/it take other important items like the fighter's sword etc? Or, even better, since the thief clearly could do whatever why didn't he/she/it just kill the wizard and be done with it (as has been said). There's nothing wrong with targeting a wizard's spell book, but a lot of that particular anecdote seems odd and contrived.

[Leon]

This is why Wizards sleep in Rope tricks where only people you designate can enter. No thief's stealing their books.
Sadly, your player isn't that optimized and you punished him for it.

So its a Uniform feature that Wizards sleep in extra dimensional places across all of the player base?

Optimization is not related to how your PC does things and its a valid tactic for a foe to take items disable a enemy - in this case once more the PC didn't have a back up option available.



On Topic - No Nerfing Players doesn't not make you a Bad DM - it can be annoying to have somethings happen to your PC but you'll overcome it and move on, sometimes it random unluck, sometimes it part of the story and sometimes you just pissed the DM off (if it was that then you most likely deserved it)

Being constantly targeted by the DM is another matter and if you feel that its a problem then talk to them to find out why they do that. I know i have done it to players and have seen it done.




Ruin - The character immediately loses all of his wealth and non-magical possessions.


How do all the nay sayers to taking away a PCs items react to that little gem. That is a Legitimate magic item random chance. True you don't have to take the chance but there are also some very nice things that can occur if you do.

[Sir Homeslice]

How do all the nay sayers to taking away a PCs items react to that little gem. That is a Legitimate magic item random chance. True you don't have to take the chance but there are also some very nice things that can occur if you do.

Easy. It never happens because the Deck is a godawful item that should never see the light of any game whatsoever. Every single DM I've seen use it regretted using it, because the item destroys campaigns. Every player I've seen use the Deck has invariably been thrown into misery because of it.

The Deck of Many Things is positively awful in every single way imaginable.

[Amnestic]

The Deck of Many Things is positively awful in every single way imaginable.

Awful for campaigns. I still love the thing though, even if I would never seriously use it. :smalltongue:

[Starbuck_II]

So its a Uniform feature that Wizards sleep in extra dimensional places across all of the player base?

Optimization is not related to how your PC does things and its a valid tactic for a foe to take items disable a enemy - in this case once more the PC didn't have a back up option available.


Yes, optimization is very much related to how a PC does things. By what definition are you using?
Why did said enemy only focus on the wizard, seeing as no one is noticing... taking other stuff makes sense.

[Heatwizard]

I can't help but think that 'I won't make any secessions for a player displeased with a turn of events' is the DM version of "Well, that's how my character would react", and I think that the Decide to React Differently (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html) bit applies just as well. If, with the infinite final authority over a campaign world being a DM affords, you can tell me with a straight face that you couldn't possibly think of a challenge for a player to overcome that isn't 'wizard's spellbook is stolen' or some other class' equivalent, then my response is that you aren't trying hard enough.

[LordBlades]

To the OP: D&D is supposed to be a fun game, and anything you do that makes it unfun makes you a bad DM.

Different groups have different expectations in regards to what's fun and what's not. Some of them(like your group it seems) might enjoy being nerfed once in a while, others might not.

It's up to you to know your group, and realize what they consider fun.

A D&D game where at least one side of the table (DM or players) isn't having fun is not a good game IMO.

[Garwain]

I would absolutlely not hesitate to incapacitate a player, but also include a way to regain his powers, possibly with a little benefit for the trouble. In case of the barbarian without arm, letting him craft a golem arm +1 STR or something is a nice feature for the trouble he went through.

Stealing a spellbook? Sure! Every respectable adventuring group has some sort of protection during the night. If they all go to sleep, leave their gear unattended, are allowed 2 checks and then fail..... yeh, I would have stolen it as well.

After all, throwing the players a bit off balance makes it all the more fun if they can overcome the problem (and be rewarded for it).

[PersonMan]

Playing a game in which spellbooks, weapons and armor are valid targets for theft, destruction and the like is fine-as long as everyone knows they are. If you're planning on running a campaign like that, you should tell your players "By the way, in this game your weapons, spellbooks, armor and stuff might be stolen, broken or whatever-but after a while you'll probably be able to get them back and might even get some extra stuff for your effort, so trust me". If someone has a problem with that type of game, find a middle ground(maybe only non-key items are up for theft, for example). There, you've just eliminated almost every problem that could come up in a situation like this-if everyone knows that Uber-Item XVIII could be stolen, they might buy Uber-Item XIV for those situations, rather than being useless because their stats just dropped below useful levels.

[Kurald Galain]

Is the general consensus that anything that nerfs a player should be avoided? Or that the DM should just make it up to the player ASAP?
Absolutely not. Actions have consequences, and sometimes bad things happen to good people. I find that the story gets really boring if every negative effect is undone almost immediately (and yes, I've had a DM who did that).

I've done some similar things when DM'ing. For example, the party archer broke his arm. While the rest of the party was moving really carefully along a steep rocky mountain ledge, the archer was running and jumping around. So I asked for some dexterity checks, and while his dex was pretty good, it was hardly godlike either. So he fell. He took it quite well, spending a few sessions with his arm in a sling, and bought himself a crossbow in the next town that he could fire with one arm.

For another example, I've done a winter campaign where the party was starving about half of the time, and finding sufficient food was a big challenge. The starvation didn't kill anyone, but it does cause significant discomfort and penalties. It turns out roasted kobold doesn't taste half bad if you're hungry enough.

(edit) other example - after a long quest, the party found the Orb of Elemental Fire they were looking for. It's literally a ball of searing flame. Then the party rogue had the bright idea of touching it, barehanded. After the traditional eyebrow-raising question "are you sure you want to do that?" this ended up dealing quite a lot of fire damage to him, in addition to incinerating literally all of his non-magical equipment.

I do realize it's all a matter of taste. Some people may call a DM "bad" for blinding a PC, whereas others may call a DM "bad" for blinding and immediately unblinding that PC. YMMV.

[Typewriter]

My fix action would be to incinerate the pitiful mortal who thought he could pass judgement on a wizard.


I on the other hand, prefer killing everyone in the kingdom except the king, demolishing the entire countryside save for the castle itself.

Killing the king would have been easy at this point, getting away unscathed or attacking indirectly would have led to slightly more opposition that the wizard probably wouldn't have been able to deal with. Especially when he's also turned the party against him.

A few more levels and he would have been fine, but then again - that's what long term goals are for, and that player did swear vengeance on that kingdom.


@Everyone else:

I think my question is essentially answered at this point. It basically comes down to "Do what works for your group" and "Don't abuse your power" as normal. That's kind of the way I had felt from the beginning, but the other threads response didn't seem to convey that to me so I was a bit shocked. It seemed like people were saying that some things should just be 'off limits' and that deviating from that was 'bad'.

[Eldan]

I'd say it like this:

There is, for me, a difference of nerfing the character, and nerfing the player.

Nerfing the character is fine. This includes giving them penalties, making them lose part of their equipment, giving them afflictions. Diseases, poisons, blindness, blowing up their weapon (they should have a backup?) Fine.

Nerfing the player is, basically, taking the character away from them for an extended time. This includes both totally taking out the character, e.g. by petrifying them for days, and making them unable to contribute to any situation (All your scores are now 1, you lose all equipment and class abilities! Now comes the boss fight!). This means that you now have a bored player sitting at the table doing nothing at all. Which is boring for the player, and bad for the atmosphere.

Note that there's also player stupidity, which is an entirely different thing.
"And here we have the Orb of Certain Death. Whoever touches it dies."
"Dude! Cool! I try touching it!"
"You sure?"
"Yeah!"
"Okay, you die."
"Man, you suck."

This? Entirely valid.

[Douglas]

Note that there's also player stupidity, which is an entirely different thing.
"And here we have the Orb of Certain Death. Whoever touches it dies."
"Dude! Cool! I try touching it!"
"You sure?"
"Yeah!"
"Okay, you die."
"Man, you suck."

This? Entirely valid.
Hehe, yeah, if someone actually falls for schmuck bait (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SchmuckBait) then they deserve what they get.

[Tyndmyr]

Explicit abilities, anyway. I usually prefer the improvisation of open-ended problem solving to lists of explicit solutions.

There are a couple questions here, involving player expectations (a Wizard player probably expects to have a character with magic powers; some people get upset if that's not how it plays out), playstyle preferences (some folks prefer M:tG; some folks prefer 1kBWC) and unknown intentions (whether the neutered character will ever get explicit abilities back or not), but the kind of game reflected in the OP is pretty standard, IME.

And based on this post, should I infer that Paladins aren't supposed to fall? I've generally seen that as one of the draws of the class - they're the ones bribed to introduce explicit moral choices into the game.

It's not that paladins *shouldn't* fall, but that you shouldn't *make* them fall.

If they blissfully decide to delve into evil, they fall. Their choice. But giving them a no-win scenario to force them into it is poor form, and less appropriate.

In the same manner, if you, as a wizard player, decide to hand your spellbook to someone else for whatever reason(spell copying, etc), then leave...sad times, but it's a legit result of your actions. However, the GM entirely removing their spellbook, especially by fiat...not fun.

And even for non-fiat things, targeting player restrictions to ruin a character leads to poor gameplay. Yes, they CAN be defended...but down this path leads the wizard spending lots of game time on defending his powers, and the GM spending lots of game time on targeting them. This leads to a generally uninteresting game for everyone else. Nobody REALLY wants to hear me enumerate the thousand and one ways in which my spellbook is trapped.

[Dralnu]

1. One player lost a hand. Prior to this he was a dual wielding Rogue. He had got caught stealing and was subdued by the guards. Punishment was removal of a hand. The player got a regeneration spell cast on him around 5 sessions later.

Holy crap that's harsh!


2. One player lost an arm. They were going into a dungeon that they knew was going to be full of traps, and the second or third room had a statue with an open mouth that the party thought contained a switch. The rogue rolled poorly and didn't notice the trap, so the barbarian reached in. Turns out the switch just caused the mouth to close on the arm, removing it. The way forward was elsewhere. This barbarian had been focused on two-handed weapons. Two sessions later he had a golems arm crafted to himself.

I don't much agree with this trap either.


3. Party cleric lost a leg. We were using a critical fumble deck, and he lost a leg. The party had to carry him around on a stretcher for 2 sessions before he finally died. During those two sessions he was unable to do as much as he had been previously due to drastically decreased mobility.

Wow. Uh, that doesn't sound fun at all. Uhm.. :smalleek:


4. Party wizard had his spellbook stolen. Two perception checks were allowed while he was sleeping, both of which he failed horribly. Book was taken by someone and parts of pages were delivered to him periodically over the next couple sessions.

And I thought my DM was cruel. Zounds!


5. Party druid (shapeshifter variant) put on a cursed bracer that emanated anti-magic field. The only way to get it off was by removing the arm since magic wouldn't affect it, or by fulfilling a side quest. After three sessions the druid decided that pursuing the side quest wasn't worth it and had the party fighter remove her arm. Then she began questing for the ability to retrain her variant for standard shapeshifting, which took another few sessions.

Well, at least she's a druid.. Not as bad as cutting off the dual-wielder's arm, but close.


6-100. Aside from the spellbook I've destroyed tons of party equipment, and I don't really go out of my way to recompensate them for it. Dependency on equipment means that if you lose that equipment you're at a disadvantage, not that new equipment will just appear soon.


So you basically punish your players for not being optimized/paranoid enough to have tedious and absurd protections for things that most people don't pay attention to (aka the not fun elements of the game).


If any of these players had said, "I'm not going to play until my character gets better" I would have shown them the door. As DM it's my job to make sure my group has fun, but if the challenge laid before them is overcoming a problem then I expect them to do it, not just complain and wait for me to 'correct' it.

Yeah, it's your job as the DM to make sure that the players have fun. If they're having fun with this level of harshness, good job. If not, then you're doing it wrong.

Personally, I wouldn't want to play in your campaign. Ever. But your players (hopefully) like it!



Both players 1 and 2 figured out how to resolve the scenario on their own, and they dealt with being unable to use their feats during that time frame. It sucked, but isn't that the point sometimes?

The point is to have fun.


Player 3 told me after the session where he lost his leg that it sucked and he was unhappy. I told him I wasn't going to just undo it for him, but I was sure that if he looked into it he could find a way to fix the situation. Then I helped him pick spells that would work with a decreased mobility. He had decided that he was going to pursue an item that would allow him to fly, but he died before he was ever able to get it.

Player 4 refused to buy a new spellbook, and instead just spent all of his money on tanglefoot bags, alchemists stones, scrolls, and wands. He eventually asked me what I was going to give him a new spellbook, and I told him I wasn't that he had to replace it himself if he wanted to. Didn't care if he killed another wizard and took it, or stole it, or bought it. Instead he chose to retire the character, and create a new character one level lower than the rest of the party.

Okay, guess your players aren't having fun. So yeah...


PS: I also had a wizards tongue cut out once because he spoke out of turn to royalty. His fix action for that was silent spell :P

:smalleek:


Okay. If you don't know me, I'm a DM, and I'm of the opinion that in general, these forums are very pro-optimize, pro-PCs, and somewhat anti-DM. I'm pro-DM. I agree with your general statements but daaaaaaamn, your examples look horrible and you even say that your players aren't happy with your actions! I don't agree with those actions at all. Yes, the purpose of the DM is to make sure your players are having fun, but then you give examples where they aren't having fun at all! I guess your players are overall happy with the campaign though or they'd leave, so you're doing something right. That, or they can't find a different campaign to join. But personally, I wouldn't want to play with a DM that did that stuff to me. Campaigns should be hard, but making characters feel useless isn't fun.

[Typewriter]

So you basically punish your players for not being optimized/paranoid enough to have tedious and absurd protections for things that most people don't pay attention to (aka the not fun elements of the game).

I don't really see how it's punishing the players though. It's not a punishment. It's not aimed at the players, it's aimed at the characters. If the party decides to target a baddies spellbook or weapon they're going to be able to.



Yeah, it's your job as the DM to make sure that the players have fun. If they're having fun with this level of harshness, good job. If not, then you're doing it wrong.

How is this any different from any of the following scenarios:

DM: Make a fortitude save or die
Player: Natural 1
DM: That sucks, guess you build a new character, or are you going to hope for a res
Player: No, I don't die.
DM: Yeah you did?
Player: Fine *leaves*

DM: Pick the lock, DC 25
Rogue: Natural 1, but that gives me a 24
DM: DC was 25, you failed to pick the lock
Rogue: But my character build is all about picking locks. I have +23 at level 2.
DM: And if you had +24 you would have passed
Rogue: Fine *leaves*

I expect players to have fun, but there are also challenges in game. Sometimes you die, sometimes you fail a check you really wanted to make. Sometimes your spell book is stolen, or a limb is (usually temporarily) lost.

If my group wanted me to DM, but they didn't want me to challenge them I probably wouldn't DM, mainly because I wouldn't feel like I was doing anything.

So why is it OK to allow PCs to fail DCs, and PCs to die, but touching their possessions is bad when their are rules specifically for it?



The point is to have fun.

"Hey DM, we want to play D&D, but we don't want anyone to die, all DCs should be easily attainable, and our items are off limits".

The point is to have fun, but if my players expect me to play a game with them without the game I expect them to find a different DM. I'm more than happy to play.



Okay, guess your players aren't having fun. So yeah...

Player 3 was unhappy because he thought he was useless. When I pointed out some options for him he started having fun again because he was using different spells than he normally did. I pointed out to him that he could get a regeneration, a replacement limb (magical or otherwise), or possibly something else (like an item that granted flight). After that he had fun, but the character died before he was able to attain his goals.

Player 4 didn't earn any sympathy from me. If you want to roleplay a wizard with a spellbook, but you want your spellbook to be off limits then you don't want to play a wizard with a spellbook. Find a variant. Ask me before the campaign if you can use some alternative class feature or homebrew a feat. I'll probably work with you.



Okay. If you don't know me, I'm a DM, and I'm of the opinion that in general, these forums are very pro-optimize, pro-PCs, and somewhat anti-DM. I'm pro-DM. I agree with your general statements but daaaaaaamn, your examples look horrible and you even say that your players aren't happy with your actions! I don't agree with those actions at all. Yes, the purpose of the DM is to make sure your players are having fun, but then you give examples where they aren't having fun at all! I guess your players are overall happy with the campaign though or they'd leave, so you're doing something right. That, or they can't find a different campaign to join. But personally, I wouldn't want to play with a DM that did that stuff to me. Campaigns should be hard, but making characters feel useless isn't fun.

My players aren't generally happy when their characters die* or they fail DCs either. Should I throw those out the window? Of the examples I gave only two people were unhappy, and one was happy when I pointed out to him that he could just use different spells (he had been completely focused on touch spells prior to this, specifically healing). He felt useless all for a half of a session. And don't forget that the crit system we put in play was something my players brought to me and said "We want to use this".

And, again, for the wizard I had no sympathy. He could have fixed the situation at just about any time with minimal difficulty. He found ways to contribute and have fun, but instead of just getting a new spell book he waited around hoping for a new one to be delivered to him from the gods. This particular player never felt useless, he just refused to put forth any effort in getting back his spellbook.

If you sundered the party fighters greataxe he might pick up another weapon for a while, but eventually he'll buy a new greataxe, or pick one up from a foe. Well, this player lost his spellbook instead of his greataxe, and instead of picking a new one up or buying a new one he whined to the DM that he should just get a new one that was identical to his old one.


It really seems like a double standard to me.

If someone builds a character to be survivable and they die, they're expected to build a new character and do just fine. Do you just supply the party with a free ressurection scroll, or simply undo the players death? Is it fun to die?

If someone builds a skill monkey but continually rolls poorly, they're expected to stick with it and continue until their rolls improve or their bonuses get high enough that poor rolls don't matter. Or does every lock in the world go down a level of quality so that this player can do better? Is it fun to fail skill checks?

But if someone builds a character who is completely dependent upon an item then that item gets taken away or destroyed via in game mechanics then it's being too mean?

As for limb removal - it's not really a big deal. The player is running around sans limb for a few sessions then they can get a regeneration spell cast on them (yes they must pay for it) or they get a magical limb (yes they must pay for it).

*Death
My group and I talked about death in campaigns and how it generally causes a disruption without having any long term affects - you just build a new character.

To fix this I've implemented a death mechanic in my current campaign that penalizes characters that die, but allows them to come back. The exact system is a bit more complex than I want to explain here, but it solved the groups problem of "Death isn't fun, it's just a pain" without simply removing death, and getting rid of any penalty for failure.

[Pigkappa]

If someone builds a character to be survivable and they die, they're expected to build a new character and do just fine. Do you just supply the party with a free ressurection scroll, or simply undo the players death? Is it fun to die?


D&D is built in such a way that dying is less of a problem than losing a limb or your spellbook. You die = you build another character. You lose a level, and that sucks, but nothing more. The new character is perfectly healthy and works fine.

A level 5 wizard is much better than a level 6 wizard with no spellbook. A level 7 paladin is much better than a level 8 paladin missing a leg. This is how D&D 3.5 works for most people, and they sure have a point since the game is combat-focused and a wizard who can't cast spells for several sessions is quite useless in combat.

[Typewriter]

D&D is built in such a way that dying is less of a problem than losing a limb or your spellbook. You die = you build another character. You lose a level, and that sucks, but nothing more. The new character is perfectly healthy and works fine.

A level 5 wizard is much better than a level 6 wizard with no spellbook. A level 7 paladin is much better than a level 8 paladin missing a leg. This is how D&D 3.5 works for most people, and they sure have a point since the game is combat-focused and a wizard who can't cast spells for several sessions is quite useless in combat.

So if your character faces a temporary setback it's better to just wipe him and get a new one? Why not do that when I run out of potions? Or if I used all my spells and wasn't able to rest that night to recover them. May as well just suicide so that I can get a new, fresh, wizard?

[Pigkappa]

So if your character faces a temporary setback it's better to just wipe him and get a new one? Why not do that when I run out of potions? Or if I used all my spells and wasn't able to rest that night to recover them. May as well just suicide so that I can get a new, fresh, wizard?


That depends on the setback. Getting some new potions isn't worth losing a level.

I already said that I don't really like this system, but it's obvious that those who wrote the manuals didn't want the characters to be hampered [does this word really exist? I don't know why I wrote it o_o] for a long time. There are very few permanent effects and they can be easily solved. The ones which you can't solve are usually class-related (wizard losing his book, paladin losing his powers) and players feel betrayed when those things happen to them, because most classes (e.g. the sorcerer) who can't lose their class features this way.

I know all of this sounds crazy, but this is how it works. A few months ago I was DMing in a very hard campaign and I told my players that dying wouldn't cost them a level. A player started dying repeatedly so that his new character could have the old character's equipment, and most of the party thought that was a good idea. This was an extremely deranged player, but preferring death to uselessness for several sessions is common.

[ImperatorK]

Nah, I would just load a save. Never forget to save before combat.

[Rogue Shadows]

So if your character faces a temporary setback it's better to just wipe him and get a new one? Why not do that when I run out of potions? Or if I used all my spells and wasn't able to rest that night to recover them. May as well just suicide so that I can get a new, fresh, wizard?

Exactly this. Spellbooks are just as fair a target as hitpoints or ability scores.

Heck, I'm getting Zatch Bell vibes now. Or Pokemon Special. In that manga - why attack the pokemon when you can attack the trainer and his pokeballs before he even has his pokemon out?

(the manga is...different...from the TV series and games).

Also, there's a big possibility for some fun gaming and roleplaying still, especially if the players are clever. Vaarsuvius has never lost access to her spellbook, but something similar has happened (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0177.html). It was fun, and V learned to cope.

[Typewriter]

That depends on the setback. Getting some new potions isn't worth losing a level.

I already said that I don't really like this system, but it's obvious that those who wrote the manuals didn't want the characters to be hampered [does this word really exist? I don't know why I wrote it o_o] for a long time. There are very few permanent effects and they can be easily solved. The ones which you can't solve are usually class-related (wizard losing his book, paladin losing his powers) and players feel betrayed when those things happen to them, because most classes (e.g. the sorcerer) who can't lose their class features this way.

I know all of this sounds crazy, but this is how it works. A few months ago I was DMing in a very hard campaign and I told my players that dying wouldn't cost them a level. A player started dying repeatedly so that his new character could have the old character's equipment, and most of the party thought that was a good idea. This was an extremely deranged player, but preferring death to uselessness for several sessions is common.

Yeah... and just to clarify - each of the situations I listed is something the players could have rectifed within 1 session if they had chosen to do so. They could have left the dungeon and gone back to town for a regen spell, or given up their chase agains the baddy they were hunting. The wizard could have bought a new spellbook (and I would have been generous rules wise had he done so), but since that wasn't what the players wanted to do *right then* it got put off for longer.

I didn't nerf them then block their attempts at rectifying it. I didn't laugh at their pain. I told them what they could do to fix it, but in the form of choices and ideas.


Nah, I would just load a save. Never forget to save before combat.

My group only saves before the deck of many things :P

[Rogue Shadows]

I didn't nerf them then block their attempts at rectifying it. I didn't laugh at their pain. I told them what they could do to fix it, but in the form of choices and ideas.

Then you did better than me...I set up situations but do not usually suggest solutions. Heck I usually don't even think up solutions. I just give my players a problem and expect them to fix it.

Because they will.

Its what PCs do.

[Temet Nosce]

Then you did better than me...I set up situations but do not usually suggest solutions. Heck I usually don't even think up solutions. I just give my players a problem and expect them to fix it.

Because they will.

Its what PCs do.

That actually made me laugh, something I rarely do even when I indicate otherwise with the typical acronym. I do the same when I DM, thinking up solutions is up to the players, I just provide interesting reactions (aka problems).

As I'm commenting anyways, I'll note that I mostly seem to share a general style with the OP in that I don't treat players softly, but I do think he was incorrect to conflate the other thread with the results of actions players took IC like his examples.

That said, I seem to recall (if I'm wrong, apologies) that at some point he also noted that he had not provided players with warnings of this in advance. I'd encourage him to talk to his players beforehand and give them a sense of what to expect from the game (as well as finding out what they expect), so that this kind of thing isn't a surprise. I've found in general that communication at the table helps smooth difficult issues out - or prevent them being difficult in the first place.

[Dragonsoul]

It really depends on the players- the thing to do is ask them ahead of time if they're cool with Random Mutilations, Lycanthropy and the Belt of Change Gender.

For Example in one of my games I'm on my third Character, the first too went evil and are now BBEG's (DC 30 Will or become Chaotic Evil)

Targeting Spellbooks and Limbs is traditionally considered punching below the belt as they are harder to deal than death (Reincarnate is only 3rd level) Regenerate is 7th, a Wizard minus his spellbook has lost most of his WBL( Depends, it'll still hurt) and is useless until he get's another Spellbook.

If you're in that kind of mood, better to slap them with a save or die, it's easier to manage.

[Tyndmyr]

So if your character faces a temporary setback it's better to just wipe him and get a new one? Why not do that when I run out of potions? Or if I used all my spells and wasn't able to rest that night to recover them. May as well just suicide so that I can get a new, fresh, wizard?

I would reset rather than rely on getting a new spellbook. Hell yeah. See, you get to auto-pick spells on level up. Starting over again at level six with no spells means Im about 18 spells behind, plus all cantrips. Probably more, since I probably copied a bunch while leveling up. In addition to the gold cost, there's the availability issue. Is the exact spell list I want available? Probably not.

Since a wizard is a class that can basically be summarized as "you get arcane spells", it's pretty frigging useless without the spellbook. Note that even if replacement spells are available, if they're not the same types of spells I was using, you've pretty much just ruined my character concept.

Of COURSE I'm going to reroll.

Honestly, one session without a spellbook is a challenge. It's a challenge on par with the rest of the party not having their gear(say, a capture scenario). That's all fun and games, you get creative, get your stuff back, and go about your merry way. But if it becomes clear that this is a long term thing, I will do one of two things. I will either quit playing with you entirely, or I will, completely within RAW, using in character knowledge and simulationist tactics, destroy your entire world. Because if you really enjoy playing that game, using the "it makes sense" logic to justify blatant player vs DM adversity, I'm very, very good at it. It's just that it's not generally the best game to play.

[Rogue Shadows]

Since a wizard is a class that can basically be summarized as "you get arcane spells", it's pretty frigging useless without the spellbook. Note that even if replacement spells are available, if they're not the same types of spells I was using, you've pretty much just ruined my character concept.

Spell Mastery. Seriously a Wizard without Spell Mastery is like a Fighter without Weapon Focus: possible, but why? You can take it at 1st level and can even use your Wizard bonus feats to grab it.

In fact the mere presence of the feat, in the core rulebooks nonetheless, argues that Wizards of the Coast expected DMs to target a wizard's spellbook.


Of COURSE I'm going to reroll.

A campaign with you must be interesting.

Oh no! I have taken a hit point of damage and my party's cleric cannot reach me in one round! I could use this potion of cure light wounds that I have, but that would cost money! *harakiri*


Honestly, one session without a spellbook is a challenge. It's a challenge on par with the rest of the party not having their gear(say, a capture scenario). That's all fun and games, you get creative, get your stuff back, and go about your merry way. But if it becomes clear that this is a long term thing,

It's only as long-term as it takes for you to get to a new town and start getting spells anew...


or I will, completely within RAW, using in character knowledge and simulationist tactics, destroy your entire world. Because if you really enjoy playing that game, using the "it makes sense" logic to justify blatant player vs DM adversity, I'm very, very good at it. It's just that it's not generally the best game to play.

Not so much "it makes sense" as "it's a valid target."

[Midnight_v]

Character integrity. . .

You cut the dual wielder dudes arm off. :confused:

I was in another thread in a more adult forum, (think it was the den) and there was a poster who told a story about his hands violation at the hands of Shuma-gorath sex cultists. They were inhumanly fast, so he couldn't kill himself etc etc... the power of hearsay was the thread.

Someone said,
Its certainly more a comon occurance in gaming circles than on would think.

Me: Why do people allow this type of thing? Pretty much as soon as someone says "Sex Cultists"... full stop, because there might need to be a discussion about respect of character integrity.

Cue Rant: Read at your own risk

You're gonna chop off someones arm?
Steal a spell book? No save/No checks?
Deux ex Machina, something outside the rules of the game, to make players unable to do contribute?

Seems like power abuse in most cases. What you "Do" in those instances doesn't really matter... Crippling, or disfigurment out side the rules, or sex cultist, or whatever.

What you've actually done is violated the integrity of the character, the one thing in the univese the pc's have control over, and the players have a story in mind for the character that likely doesn't involve those things. Things like should result in a break down of group without proper discussion before hand.

Yeah you're a bad dm. I'll say it. If your argument secretly sounds like:

"I'm fighting for the right of a DM to do whatever he want to do in HIS WORLD, cause I'll be @#@ before you tell me what I can and cannot do I'm a Old School GREAT DMMMM!!!"

Then yeah you're kinda bad, you're the same guy with the sex cultists, or you're part and parcel to the problem. Some of you never read the "Running the game" section of the Dmg, or "been dm'ing since..." or just are power tripping and don't have a good knowledge of the game. Whatever, your issue, you are in many ways a part of all those dm power abuse stories that we've heard so much over the years.

This isn't about "I'm banning planar sheperd" that's not a nerf this is about "I'm aribtraily dropping anti-magic fields" "Robbing Pc's blind during sleep", and the worst "rocks fall everyone dies" ...

Aside from server crashes. Wow really is a better option, 360/Ps3 and all the other things you could do with your friends other than letting one power trip over you become better options.
...and its really sad that some of you want to continue the poor traditions of our hobby. It maybe different in free form games, or in "Horror" games even but only if people sign up for horrible fates in our stories, other than that the players are "Supposed to win"
"Cooperative Storytelling." meaning its not just about you and what you want to inflict on others.

[Tyndmyr]

Spell Mastery. Seriously a Wizard without Spell Mastery is like a Fighter without Weapon Focus:

I think the descriptive word you're looking for is "competent".


possible, but why? You can take it at 1st level and can even use your Wizard bonus feats to grab it.

In fact the mere presence of the feat, in the core rulebooks nonetheless, argues that Wizards of the Coast expected DMs to target a wizard's spellbook.

It exists for the same reason as the phylactery of faithfulness. As an easy means for players to avoid DMs screwing them over. Still, it's better if the DM just doesn't do that to begin with.


A campaign with you must be interesting.

Oh no! I have taken a hit point of damage and my party's cleric cannot reach me in one round! I could use this potion of cure light wounds that I have, but that would cost money! *harakiri*

A potion of CLW is trivial compared to the spellbook. This is not a valid comparison.


It's only as long-term as it takes for you to get to a new town and start getting spells anew...

No. Spells are a resource. You are ALWAYS adding new spells as a wizard. It's the reason you picked wizard instead of sorc. You get variety. There is a sufficiently large quantity of spells that knowing them all is not realistic. So, if you lost your spellbook with fifty spells...you're now fifty spells behind the curve.


Not so much "it makes sense" as "it's a valid target."

In the same sense that any physical object is a valid target. Including the rations in your backpack. A spellbook is only a practical target if the wizard has not taken precautions to defend it. People neglect this for the same reason they don't all write every mundane item without weight in every book on their character sheet. Because it's boring, and not fun. You should not penalize them for wishing to have fun.

Brief summary of traditional spellbook defense in the rare instances when it has been necessary.
1. Main spellbook lives in the handy haversack. Handy Haversack is itself extensively trapped to the point where even if I'm dead, my team won't touch it to remove it from my body. Highlights include a deck of cards that explodes apart when drawn. On every card, there is an explosive rune.
2. Backup spellbooks of certain essential spells exist. One of them resides in a familiar pocket at all times.
3. Amulet of Second Chances allows me to stop time and undo whatever you did to attack my spellbook.
4. At my side, I carry my fake spellbook. It contains a wild variety of magic traps. It contains no spells whatsoever. Sometimes, this is carried by another member of the party, who is disguised as a wizard, while I use luminous armor to act like melee. Assume that I never actually dress up in robes and a pointy hat.
5. Secret Page is abused heavily.
6. There is no limit to the amount of magical hardening that can be applied to items save for my spell slots and the DMs boredom. Assume that I can take cover behind my spellbook in case of nuclear armegeddon.
7. I will always wear a ring of counterspelling. Assume that if disjunction is a reasonable threat, it'll be loaded with it.
8. Sleeping outside of extra-dimensional spaces is for chumps.
9. I might not have even told my party that I'm a wizard. Let alone that I have a spellbook. Seriously, what PC tells others of his glaring weakness? And if they don't have a plausible way to know about it, is it a glaring weakness?
10. Assume a contingent teleport keyed to a command word is available from midlevels onward.

I can describe each bit in detail, and go into other, secondary defenses at length. In short, I can, as a player, make it utterly impossible for me to be deprived of a spellbook. But doing all this is not fun for everyone listening to me drone on. And making the game cease to be fun is bad.

[Midnight_v]

Brief summary of traditional spellbook defense in the rare instances when it has been necessary.
1. Main spellbook lives in the handy haversack. Handy Haversack is itself extensively trapped to the point where even if I'm dead, my team won't touch it to remove it from my body. Highlights include a deck of cards that explodes apart when drawn. On every card, there is an explosive rune.
2. Backup spellbooks of certain essential spells exist. One of them resides in a familiar pocket at all times.
3. Amulet of Second Chances allows me to stop time and undo whatever you did to attack my spellbook.
4. At my side, I carry my fake spellbook. It contains a wild variety of magic traps. It contains no spells whatsoever. Sometimes, this is carried by another member of the party, who is disguised as a wizard, while I use luminous armor to act like melee. Assume that I never actually dress up in robes and a pointy hat.
5. Secret Page is abused heavily.
6. There is no limit to the amount of magical hardening that can be applied to items save for my spell slots and the DMs boredom. Assume that I can take cover behind my spellbook in case of nuclear armegeddon.
7. I will always wear a ring of counterspelling. Assume that if disjunction is a reasonable threat, it'll be loaded with it.
8. Sleeping outside of extra-dimensional spaces is for chumps.
9. I might not have even told my party that I'm a wizard. Let alone that I have a spellbook. Seriously, what PC tells others of his glaring weakness? And if they don't have a plausible way to know about it, is it a glaring weakness?
10. Assume a contingent teleport keyed to a command word is available from midlevels onward.

I can describe each bit in detail, and go into other, secondary defenses at length. In short, I can, as a player, make it utterly impossible for me to be deprived of a spellbook. But doing all this is not fun for everyone listening to me drone on. And making the game cease to be fun is bad.
LOL this remids me of writing:
"The paranoid wizards handbook"
Sad thing is it shouldn't even come to that, as you said, its not fun.

[McSmack]

I pretty much agree with Typewriter on everything here. I've been on the recieving end of these kinds of situations before as a player and I enjoyed them. Part of playing a game is the possibility of losing. Removing the chance of defeat or suckage dampens the thrill of victory. Honestly, I'd rather have my players work through the difficult times than just roll up something new.

A wizard's spellbook is fair game, and if he's not protecting it then he's not roleplaying his INT score. I had a wizard once who was captured, her spellbook burned, and she was tortured by Drow. I was given the option to make a new character, instead I chose to stick with the wizard. I took ranks in craft (tattoo) and scribed my important spells on my skin from then on. I still had a real spellbook, and several copies/decoys.

I had a TWF rogue who lost a hand. I didn't demand to play something else or be able to retrain. I got myself a stump-dagger and continued to stabbity stabbity. Later on I got a sweet blessed golem hand that had a catch. I couldn't use it to harm living creatures. So I took Improved Disarm and only used it when I was fighting non-living foes.

Does it suck sometimes, yeah. But that's not a reason to quit. We often say it's the DM's job to make the experience enjoyable for the players.

But we forget to mention that's it's the player's job as well.


Character integrity. . .

You cut the dual wielder dudes arm off. :confused:



I'm not seeing an issue with this. These characters live in a world where getting your hand chopped off isn't a permanent crippling, for mid-high level adventurers, it's a large inconvenience. In this particular example the player knew ahead of time that there were really really harsh sentences for committing crimes. The DM shouldn't have to pull punches just because a player is the one who happens to commit the crime.

A wizard losing his spellbook is the same way. It's an inconvenience that might get him killed if he's not prepared. Scribing a new spellbook is expensive, yeah, but so is repairing a sundered weapon, buying healing potions, and getting a character rezzed after a botched save. No one is crying about that being unfair.

Is the DM being unfair? No. Is the world the DM created unfair. You betcha! That's how both games and real life go. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose.

[PollyOliver]

Here's the thing about "role playing your INT score" or whatever, though: your wizard is significantly smarter than you are. The average human is of 10 INT, right? Your tenth level wizard with 20 to 26 after items is astronomically intelligent. He is smarter-than-genius level. He is smarter than Einstein or Hawking or anyone you care to point at. You, however, are maybe an INT 10 to 14. Maybe 16 if you're crazy smart. You should not be expected to explicitly come up with the sort of smart plans your wizard can come up with any more than the barbarian's player should be expected to get out an axe and swing it with with the ability befitting his character's 22 STR in order to get his attacks or the rogue's player should be expected to actually be able to pick locks.

This is also why punishing shy or socially inept players for poor role playing when they are trying and their character has a +20 diplomacy modifier is silly.

[Rogue Shadows]

Ooh! Tattoos! That's cool, too.

And you're right. A game is only fun if there's a realistic chance of losing or a realistic penalty for failure.


I think the descriptive word you're looking for is "competent".

"Unprepared for a realistic possibility" does not strike me as being particularly worthy of being called competent


It exists for the same reason as the phylactery of faithfulness. As an easy means for players to avoid DMs screwing them over. Still, it's better if the DM just doesn't do that to begin with.

Let me just remind myself what that does...ah. That seems more like a way to pull one over on the DM rather than a way to prevent the DM from pulling one over on you.

*I kill the blacksmith for looking at me funny.*
Um...you're evil now, then.
Bull****! I have a Phylactery of Faithfulness! You should have warned me.


No. Spells are a resource. You are ALWAYS adding new spells as a wizard. It's the reason you picked wizard instead of sorc. You get variety. There is a sufficiently large quantity of spells that knowing them all is not realistic. So, if you lost your spellbook with fifty spells...you're now fifty spells behind the curve.

Behind a curve that you can never actually beat anyway since it's impossible to know all spells? Your logic does not resmble my Earth-logic.

Anyway, money is a constant resource as well, and bluntly how many spells sit in a wizard's spellbook, unused, for sessions on end?


In the same sense that any physical object is a valid target. Including the rations in your backpack. A spellbook is only a practical target if the wizard has not taken precautions to defend it. People neglect this for the same reason they don't all write every mundane item without weight in every book on their character sheet. Because it's boring, and not fun. You should not penalize them for wishing to have fun.

Actually I do make them keep track of equipment weight. And I'm introducing a system wherein any skill kit with consumable parts (thieves' tools, disguise kit, spell component pouch) runs out of those parts after 10 uses.

Because the DM is a player, too, and the DM should get to have fun. And if the DM has a monster takes a swing at player, and the monster misses but only because the player wasn't keepking track of their encumberance, that's just not fun for this particular DM.

(no, the game isn't Player VS DM. But players get to go "heck yeah!" when they hit something, why shouldn't the DM?)

Now as for your defenses:


2. Backup spellbooks of certain essential spells exist. One of them resides in a familiar pocket at all times.

Ha! There, see? A missing/destroyed spellbook is as easy as Spell Mastery and doing this!


3. Amulet of Second Chances allows me to stop time and undo whatever you did to attack my spellbook.

That's not core. Which is not to say that this is an invalid defense: I'm just pointing out that this defense is dependent on a non-core sourcebook and so might not always work.


4. At my side, I carry my fake spellbook. It contains a wild variety of magic traps. It contains no spells whatsoever. Sometimes, this is carried by another member of the party, who is disguised as a wizard, while I use luminous armor to act like melee. Assume that I never actually dress up in robes and a pointy hat.

This is also a good defense, though given that it's just sound tactics to target the mages and archers first, a given player might not like this act of legerdemaine.

Still, at this point I'm wondering two things, what with all the money you've spent on magical traps:

1) what happens when the traps are dispelled/suppressed;
2) if you can afford all these traps, why can't you afford a new spellbook?


5. Secret Page is abused heavily.

I imagine.


6. There is no limit to the amount of magical hardening that can be applied to items save for my spell slots and the DMs boredom. Assume that I can take cover behind my spellbook in case of nuclear armegeddon.

There should be a limit on that, or at least item weight should increase. Though by default there's not.

Though unless you're exceptionally small or your spellbook is exceptionally large I don't think it can be used for effective cover.


7. I will always wear a ring of counterspelling. Assume that if disjunction is a reasonable threat, it'll be loaded with it.

See, we're getting even more expensive now...


8. Sleeping outside of extra-dimensional spaces is for chumps.

Indeed. What else is the point of a portable hole, a bottle of air, and some creative uses of the Craft skill to make an effective pump to pump the air out of the bottle?


9. I might not have even told my party that I'm a wizard. Let alone that I have a spellbook. Seriously, what PC tells others of his glaring weakness? And if they don't have a plausible way to know about it, is it a glaring weakness?

Why are you defending against your own party? Anyway this is covered by a Knowledge check from the party members. Or running into one of your childhood friends. Though at this level of paranoia the character might not have had any of those.

Hello, citizen!
WHAT ARE YOU PLOTTING?!


10. Assume a contingent teleport keyed to a command word is available from midlevels onward.

I can describe each bit in detail, and go into other, secondary defenses at length. In short, I can, as a player, make it utterly impossible for me to be deprived of a spellbook. But doing all this is not fun for everyone listening to me drone on. And making the game cease to be fun is bad.

DM's still a player. At this level of paranoia I would take your defense of your spellbook as a challenge.

Mmn...wish.

[Tyndmyr]

I pretty much agree with Typewriter on everything here. I've been on the recieving end of these kinds of situations before as a player and I enjoyed them. Part of playing a game is the possibility of losing. Removing the chance of defeat or suckage dampens the thrill of victory. Honestly, I'd rather have my players work through the difficult times than just roll up something new.

You should still have a chance of defeat without such nerfs, though. I mean, you've got the traditional death option. It hurts. You can also fail to achieve objectives, resulting in other things being more difficult, or certain goals not being achieved. You don't need to nerf as a punishment for failure. There are options.


A wizard's spellbook is fair game, and if he's not protecting it then he's not roleplaying his INT score. I had a wizard once who was captured, her spellbook burned, and she was tortured by Drow. I was given the option to make a new character, instead I chose to stick with the wizard. I took ranks in craft (tattoo) and scribed my important spells on my skin from then on. I still had a real spellbook, and several copies/decoys.

Roleplaying an int score sounds terrible, if I've got to do it in detail. Going over every trap or safeguard is like describing every spell I learn in detail when I level up. Sometimes, I just want to get on with the game.

[Rogue Shadows]

Roleplaying an int score sounds terrible, if I've got to do it in detail. Going over every trap or safeguard is like describing every spell I learn in detail when I level up. Sometimes, I just want to get on with the game.

Do it out-of-session, then. As a DM I'd more than allow you to spend your ten billion gp on your defenses during downtime/between sessions. I wouldn't expect you to actually do this during a session.

Just make sure to have it all written out on a sheet for me to read.


You should still have a chance of defeat without such nerfs, though. I mean, you've got the traditional death option. It hurts. You can also fail to achieve objectives, resulting in other things being more difficult, or certain goals not being achieved. You don't need to nerf as a punishment for failure. There are options.

But it isn't really nerfing if there are valid options to prevent the nerfing that the wizard character has chosen to ignore.

[Starbuck_II]

A wizard's spellbook is fair game, and if he's not protecting it then he's not roleplaying his INT score. I had a wizard once who was captured, her spellbook burned, and she was tortured by Drow. I was given the option to make a new character, instead I chose to stick with the wizard. I took ranks in craft (tattoo) and scribed my important spells on my skin from then on. I still had a real spellbook, and several copies/decoys.


Yeah, did you forget this a unoptimized wizard... must be destroy the new guy's innocence?
Plus, that craft (tattoo) isn't even in the rules. Wouldn't it cost more to tattoo spells. Plus, you only knew the spells you didn't cast while tortured + read magic to scribe. Meaning you know very few cantrips, and less of the others.

[Rogue Shadows]

Yeah, did you forget this a unoptimized wizard... must be destroy the new guy's innocence?
Plus, that craft (tattoo) isn't even in the rules. Wouldn't it cost more to tattoo spells. Plus, you only knew the spells you didn't cast while tortured + read magic to scribe. Meaning you know very few cantrips, and less of the others.

The Tattoo idea is in... I think it's our old friend Unearthed Arcana again, but I could be wrong.

And of course it costs more. Do you know why it costs more? Because it's a better defensive option. +2 armor costs more than +1, and all that.

[TheRinni]

The Tattoo idea is in... I think it's our old friend Unearthed Arcana again, but I could be wrong.

And of course it costs more. Do you know why it costs more? Because it's a better defensive option. +2 armor costs more than +1, and all that.

I couldn't find anything in UA. I can't ever recall reading that particular rule in any sourcebook, and it's most definitely not Core, which, in your words:

That's not core. Which is not to say that this is an invalid defense: I'm just pointing out that this defense is dependent on a non-core sourcebook and so might not always work.

Personally, as a DM, I'd lean towards not allowing it. Tattooing legible words onto skin is far more difficult than writing them down; I would rule that tattoo lettering would have to be larger in font size to keep necessary legibility in tact. In addition, there is only so much visible skin for you to read them off of.

Yeah... I definitely wouldn't allow that to be a complete substitute for a spellbook. Maybe two spells - three at most.

[tyckspoon]

The Tattoo idea is in... I think it's our old friend Unearthed Arcana again, but I could be wrong.

And of course it costs more. Do you know why it costs more? Because it's a better defensive option. +2 armor costs more than +1, and all that.

One of the spellcaster Completes, actually.. I think it's Arcane has the specific rules for tattoo'd spellbooks. Doesn't actually cost anything more than writing them in a book normally; the main drawback is an actual limited amount of space on your body to record spells. By the time you run out your starter spellbook, another book's worth of pages is a trivial expense. When you run out your body-space for tattoo'd spells, well, that's usually it- you have to start copying your spells to a book anyway, get your party members to let you scribe on them, or see if you can slide some Disguise/Alter Self shenanigans past the DM (this would be the equivalent of Secret Page ab/use to double up a normal spellbook- 'I Disguise into myself, but with a different set of spell tattoos!')

[Rogue Shadows]

I couldn't find anything in UA.

Damn, I know it's in something. It had a picture of i think it was Mialee studying her spells. I remember because she was mostly naked.

...what? It stood out in my memory.

PHBII? DMGII? Something...


I can't ever recall reading that particular rule in any sourcebook, and it's most definitely not Core, which, in your words:

So the trick is convincing your DM. Ain't so bad.

Hang on, let me peruse the Archive and get back to you.

[Tyndmyr]

"Unprepared for a realistic possibility" does not strike me as being particularly worthy of being called competent

I think that, in light of the following list, "unprepared" is inaccurate. It was a jibe against the fact that you managed to pick some of the least optimal feats in existence to compare, and acted as if they were staples. Quite amusing.


Let me just remind myself what that does...ah. That seems more like a way to pull one over on the DM rather than a way to prevent the DM from pulling one over on you.

*I kill the blacksmith for looking at me funny.*
Um...you're evil now, then.
Bull****! I have a Phylactery of Faithfulness! You should have warned me.

Reread the "if he takes a moment to contemplate the act". It's basically an item justification for asking the DM "will this make me fall?". It's an in-game bandaid to an OOC knowledge problem.


Behind a curve that you can never actually beat anyway since it's impossible to know all spells? Your logic does not resmble my Earth-logic.

I don't need to beat the curve. I just need to stay on it. If I restart at zero, I am behind, and my character suddenly sucks.


Anyway, money is a constant resource as well, and bluntly how many spells sit in a wizard's spellbook, unused, for sessions on end?

Depends. I can safely say that at level 6, with no spells in spellbook, this is not a concern. I typically prepare very few duplicate spells. Even spells I seldom prepare find use in scroll preparation.


Actually I do make them keep track of equipment weight. And I'm introducing a system wherein any skill kit with consumable parts (thieves' tools, disguise kit, spell component pouch) runs out of those parts after 10 uses.

This sounds needlessly complicated. I want to play dungeons and dragons, not lawyers and accountants.

[spoiler]That's not core. Which is not to say that this is an invalid defense: I'm just pointing out that this defense is dependent on a non-core sourcebook and so might not always work.[/quote]

Granted, but it's MiC. So, if any non-core items are in, it's a great bet. Not too obscure. It's also fairly reasonably priced, and a useful general defensive item.


This is also a good defense, though given that it's just sound tactics to target the mages and archers first, a given player might not like this act of legerdemaine.

My teammates generally LOVE acts of subterfuge that result in our enemies using less effective tactics. I also tend to drop the occasional buff on teammates playing decoy and the like. Those magical auras add to the illusion and just make the whole thing better.


Still, at this point I'm wondering two things, what with all the money you've spent on magical traps:

1) what happens when the traps are dispelled/suppressed;
2) if you can afford all these traps, why can't you afford a new spellbook?

Money? A wild variety of traps can just be cast, with no/minimal cost to me. You only need cash for the really exotic things, such as the SBG rules to convert any spell into a trap. And those things are generally dual-purpose(a disintegrate trap, for instance, means you'll never need keys again).

1. Dispels are the enemy. Some things go boom when dispelled. I have layered defenses against them as well. The aforementioned ring of counterspelling typically has dispel loaded into it until I need it to have disjunction(ie, most of the game). Sometimes, I wear two. They're tremendously useful, and inexpensive. Abrupt Jaunt can break LOS(or select other methods for doing the same thing). My personal favorite is selecting ye olde church of magic from complete champion. It's trivial to attain the highest level and receive 1(one) free counterspell per day with no need to match the spell, have an action, know the spell, or so-on. It would take a *very* dedicated, powerful dispel team to hamper me.

2. The cost of a spellbook becomes quite significant over the life of a character. Not merely in gold, see, but in replacement cost. You need to find these spells, spend time copying them, and so on. Or, much more expensively, you can use scrolls/research. Both options have been used before due to lack of availability. Sometimes there are opportunity costs, as you lack the time, etc to learn all available spells. The costs are many.


See, we're getting even more expensive now...

Ring of counter-spelling is only 4k. It's perhaps one of the best bargains in core. I highly recommend them in general for defense against the one or two things that will ruin your day. Note that even if spellbooks are not targeted, this particular item still gets bought. It's that good.


Why are you defending against your own party? Anyway this is covered by a Knowledge check from the party members. Or running into one of your childhood friends. Though at this level of paranoia the character might not have had any of those.

Friends? This is one of those made up terms like family, right?

I'm not defending against my party per se...but their minds are weaker than my own. Subject to intrusion. My last party thought I was a paladin, see? Best damned paladin ever.


Edit: I'm pretty sure the aforementioned pic and tattooing rules are in phb 2. It's definitely a real rule, though, and there's a number of alternate spellbook options in the same area.

[Dragonsoul]

.

A wizard losing his spellbook is the same way. It's an inconvenience that might get him killed if he's not prepared. Scribing a new spellbook is expensive, yeah, but so is repairing a sundered weapon, buying healing potions, and getting a character rezzed after a botched save. No one is crying about that being unfair.

Is the DM being unfair? No. Is the world the DM created unfair. You betcha! That's how both games and real life go. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose.

It's Not.
It is Nothing Alike
Getting Rezzed is a 4th level spell, costs a diamond, sets you back a level.
Losing a weapon means -1 up to -4 to attacks, you can still pick up a mundane sword and be effectual.
A wizard is nothing without his spellbook.
Nothing, his STR and BAB are useless and he doesn't have weapon proficiencies.
And Spellbooks are far more expensive than weapons, a wizard will have most of his WBL in his spellbook, it's his sword,shield and breastplate all rolled into one.If he's lucky, he might have some scrolls and a wand or two, but that's a stopgap nothing more
I'll make an anology, how would you feel if your rogue, instead of losing a hand(Which afterwards you still can make attacks) you lost all your class features- That includes your skill ranks too,they're a class feature. However you could stop that happening if you recited a 1000 word essay at the start of each (In game ) day, because a wizard can easily protect his spellbook-it's just a pain to do, akin to saying "I search for traps" moving forward five feet and rolling another search check.

That being said, if you tell your players ahead of time that your playing dirty ahead of time and they're cool with it- Go ahead, just don't surprise them a disjunction trap during the third dungeon.

[Leon]

Yes, optimization is very much related to how a PC does things. By what definition are you using?
Why did said enemy only focus on the wizard, seeing as no one is noticing... taking other stuff makes sense.


Yeah, did you forget this a unoptimized wizard... must be destroy the new guy's innocence?
Plus, that craft (tattoo) isn't even in the rules. Wouldn't it cost more to tattoo spells. Plus, you only knew the spells you didn't cast while tortured + read magic to scribe. Meaning you know very few cantrips, and less of the others.


Once more you are getting your optimal junk mixed up with everything else - Optimization is what you the player does and its not all consuming as you like to think most groups are going to be fairly average in what they do and how they do things, it may not be what you like to think of as standard but its what works for them.

What maybe a (to you the meta gaming knowledge wise player is a simple forgone conclusion) is not simply the same for your Actual Character and what they do in the world they exist in

Why focus on the wizard and make him suffer - from what i understood it was a Rival wizard who sent a minion to inconvenience what he deemed to be the threat to him and to taunt him, that should make your PC have more of a drive to rise to the challenge and get some vengeance (and to remember to have fail safes for your precious yet easily damaged book on which you rely)


Wizards are quite over-hyped - they have uses, as do all the options D&D provides but they are far from the be all and End all that many like to make them out to be, PCs tend to get quite uppity over time and thus Item destruction/Other restrictions serves a vital purpose to remind people that they are not the Omnipotent Lords of the Universe that they think they are (unless you are playing Epic and then things get funny after lvl 20 anyway).

[Starbuck_II]

Yeah, I checked by google about Tattoo + wizards. Some people thought it was CA but that only talks about how to trap spellbook not Tattoos. Pretty sure it is a houserule or 3rd party.
But than google isn't 100% accurate.

[Jude_H]

Just because every post here is pointing at a different source for the tattoos, they're in Complete Arcane in the 'Alternate Spellbook' section.

[TheRinni]

Found the tattooing rules in CA:


Tattooing offers a means of creating a spellbook that’s virtually impossible to lose. It does have the disadvantage of the limited amount of usable spell-recording space on the average humanoid-shaped body, as well as the possibility of having to partially or completely undress to reference every spell in one’s repertoire. Tattooing also usually provides unmistakable evidence of a character’s arcane nature, denying the opportunity for anonymity that many arcanists crave. For creatures with humanoid forms, different areas of the body can hold varying page-equivalents of spellbook information, depending on their size.

Hand 1 page each
Forearm 3 pages each
Upper arm 3 pages each
Chest 6 pages
Abdomen 6 pages
Upper leg 5 pages each
Lower leg 5 pages each
Foot 1 page each
Face* 2 pages
Scalp* 4 pages
Back, upper* 10 pages
Back, lower* 4 pages
Leg, posterior* 4 pages each
Arm, posterior* 2 pages each
* A wizard cannot read spells in these locations without the
use of a mirror, scrying magic, or a familiar’s assistance.

Because tattoos must save on space to fi t in a comparatively small area, they must be scribed with great care and the fi nest reagents and inks, requiring 200 gp per page-equivalent, a time of 24 hours plus an additional 8 hours per spell level, and a Craft (tattooing) check (DC 20 + spell level if the caster scribes the tattoo himself; DC 10 + spell level if someone else does the work). To have the work done by another tattoo artist, the wizard must make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + spell level) to prepare a carefully executed sketch or diagram of the tattoo to be scribed. Tattoos that can’t be read by a wizard without assistance (those placed on areas of his body he can’t always see) must be scribed by someone else.
Wizards who employ other forms of tattoo magic (such as those found in the FORGOTTEN REALMS campaign setting) can employ spellbook tattoos as well, but they must keep careful track of how much body space is allocated to each tattoo type.

Regardless, my opinion from my previous post still stands. My players would be hard-pressed to find such a skilled tattoo artist in my world. In addition, I'd probably lengthen the necessary time spent studying, since they'd have to fiddle with a mirror or somesuch.

[Rogue Shadows]

A wizard is nothing without his spellbook.

Only if he has chosen to be nothing without his spellbook.

Leaving aside things like scrolls and wands, there is a feat available at 1st level to all wizards in Core which can make them more than nothing: Spell Mastery.

This is even a bonus feat, so the Wizard could use their 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th level bonus feats to grab it, while reserving their other slots for other feats.

[Rogue Shadows]

Regardless, my opinion from my previous post still stands. My players would be hard-pressed to find such a skilled tattoo artist in my world. In addition, I'd probably lengthen the necessary time spent studying, since they'd have to fiddle with a mirror or somesuch.

Well now you're nerfing a player who wants to play with a tattooed spellbook! There is nothing in the Rules As Written that says any of that takes place.

[Curmudgeon]

A wizard is nothing without his spellbook.
Nothing, his STR and BAB are useless and he doesn't have weapon proficiencies.

Nothing? The Wizard still has spellcasting class abilities, and can use any number of wands and scrolls to continue to be an effective magic user while re-scribing spells from memory into a new spellbook. The Wizard can always prepare Read Magic, without any need for a spellbook. They've still got their familiar, and that still provides the same reconnaissance and master's bonus benefits. The Wizard's proficient with a crossbow, and that's still as effective as it was when it was only carried as a backup weapon. The Wizard can still help the whole party by making Knowledge and Spellcraft checks to identify creature and magical threats.

The Wizard without a spellbook is impaired about as much as a Rogue who faces undead, constructs, and oozes. They're both without their best class abilities, but neither one is useless.

[NNescio]

Actually I do make them keep track of equipment weight. And I'm introducing a system wherein any skill kit with consumable parts (thieves' tools, disguise kit, spell component pouch) runs out of those parts after 10 uses.

How the freaking hell are thieves' tools supposed to be consumable? It's a locksmith/mechanic kit! Do the picks break after 10 uses or something?!

I mean, 'realistically', they don't last forever, but you might as well implement a durability system for weapons and armour while you are at it, and ten uses is just unrealistically low.

[Rogue Shadows]

The Wizard without a spellbook is impaired about as much as a Rogue who faces undead, constructs, and oozes. They're both without their best class abilities, but neither one is useless.

To the tune of "Ode to Joy:"

this THIS this THIS this THIS this THIS, this THIS this THIS THIS, THIS-THIS!

[Tyndmyr]

Found the tattooing rules in CA:



Regardless, my opinion from my previous post still stands. My players would be hard-pressed to find such a skilled tattoo artist in my world. In addition, I'd probably lengthen the necessary time spent studying, since they'd have to fiddle with a mirror or somesuch.

Oh, already rules for that. Certain areas require a mirror, and are a pain in the bum to utilize.


The Wizard's proficient with a crossbow, and that's still as effective as it was when it was only carried as a backup weapon.

No, it's not. It's a useful backup weapon for the first couple levels, when the alternative is "cast a cantrip for 1d3 damage". At the aforementioned level six, a crossbow is not a very good backup weapon any more, as the amount of damage it does in a wizard's hands has not scaled well at all.

[Starbuck_II]

Found the tattooing rules in CA:



Regardless, my opinion from my previous post still stands. My players would be hard-pressed to find such a skilled tattoo artist in my world.
What page? I see 186.
So double cost and less space to scribe (and craft check that isn't easy to make unless you tell others and hire them).
Face 2
Scalp (if bald) 4
Back (upper/lower) =14
Leg (upper/lower)=10 each
Posterieor Leg= 4 each
Foot =1 each
Abdomen =6
chest =6
Arm (upper) =3 each
Forearm = 3 each
Arm (posterior) =2 each
hand =1 each
Total = 2+4+6+6 + 6 + 6 + 2+ 8 +20 + 14 +4 +2 =80 pages. So you lose some pages and have difficulty in scribing higher level on self.

[TheRinni]

Well now you're nerfing a player who wants to play with a tattooed spellbook! There is nothing in the Rules As Written that says any of that takes place.

Actually, I'm saying "no," to an alternative class feature.

Nerfs, as long as they play into the story, are fine in my opinion. It's alright if a spellbook gets stolen, and the party has to go on a cool quest in order to find it. However, if I wanted to deal with random sh1tty happenstances completely and utterly out of my control, I'd go out into the real world for a span. D&D isn't Russian Roulette. It's a collaborative storytelling experience.


What page? I see 186.
Yup. 186-187

[Rogue Shadows]

How the freaking hell are thieves' tools supposed to be consumable? It's a locksmith/mechanic kit! Do the picks break after 10 uses or something?!

Some do, like the wires and thin pieces of metal. You also eventually run out of other...stuff. Wear and tear and all that...

...look, mostly I only include the thieves' tools because I had already decided to make the spell component pouch "run out," which just made sense to me. I didn't want my players to feel that sorcerers and wizards were being specifically singled out (even though they were), so I decided that most tools and skill kits just run out over time as things break or bend wrong or stuff in them runs out or gets lost or whatver. The only ones that don't are just the ones that just struck me immediately as reusable: holy symbols, holy and mistletoe, merchant's scales, hour glass, magnifying glass, musical instruments, merchant scales, and water clocks.

I also went through the PHB and made note of all spell components that cost actual money, since I want to keep closer track of those than I normally do as well.

Did you know that identify requires not just a 100-gp pearl, but also wine? I'm not too worried about the cost of the wine, mind ("and the dragon also happened to have a nice flagon of wine" when awarding treasure), but the description explicitly says that the pearl is mixed with the wine and than drank.

Which means two things - one, I now know why adventurers make a beeline for the nearest tavern after every adventure; and two, the intoxication rules from the Arms & Equipment Guide are going to do work.

[Rogue Shadows]

Total = 2+4+6+6 + 6 + 6 + 2+ 8 +20 + 14 +4 +2 =80 pages. So you lose some pages and have difficulty in scribing higher level on self.

But! You now never have to worry about losing your spellbook. Unless you die particularly horribly. But frankly that strikes me as a problem anyway.

A 20-page tradeoff seems worthwhile. Especially since you can still keep a spellbook...the tattoos are just for the spells you do not want to lose access to.

[Dragonsoul]

Only if he has chosen to be nothing without his spellbook.

Leaving aside things like scrolls and wands, there is a feat available at 1st level to all wizards in Core which can make them more than nothing: Spell Mastery.

This is even a bonus feat, so the Wizard could use their 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th level bonus feats to grab it, while reserving their other slots for other feats.

a) It only lets me learn spells I know at that point, so I have the choice of spending it a first level and having nothing useful to do if lose the spellbook at level 10, or plan to take it later, congrats you've now turned the situation into a glorified form of chicken, that's a massive improvement[/sarcasm]

b)Even if I do take, it boils down to a "DM hates wizards" tax, even more so if you suggest I take it more than once, at that point why amn't I playing a sorceror -who doesn't have to deal with this or a cleric even-Unless you want to sunder my divine focus?

If you want a playable game involving the wizard, you need a sort of social contract, spell-books are off limits and in return the wizard won't destroy the world with an animated Colossal+++ Adimantium Warhammer.

[TheRinni]

But! You now never have to worry about losing your spellbook. Unless you die particularly horribly. But frankly that strikes me as a problem anyway.

A 20-page tradeoff seems worthwhile. Especially since you can still keep a spellbook...the tattoos are just for the spells you do not want to lose access to.


I also went through the PHB and made note of all spell components that cost actual money, since I want to keep closer track of those than I normally do as well.

Did you know that identify requires not just a 100-gp pearl, but also wine? I'm not too worried about the cost of the wine, mind, but the description explicitly says that the pearl is mixed with the wine and than drank.

Question: How exactly do you expect your spellcasters to be able to pay for all this? Many spell components are very expensive, and they simply aren't going to have enough for replacement spellbooks/tattoos, while trying to keep up with their party members in ways of magical items.

[Tyndmyr]

Spell components are jokes, and should be treated as such.

No...I don't mean that I merely have a low opinion of the system. I mean they actually, literally, are intended as jokes. This is why the components for fireball are ingredients for gunpowder and so on. They're references to things non-magical people would create them. Magic as technology, all that jazz. It's a theme that comes up occasionally in D&D.

They don't exist because counting #s of spell components is fun, they exist as flavor and mild amusement.

[McSmack]

It's Not.
It is Nothing Alike
Getting Rezzed is a 4th level spell, costs a diamond, sets you back a level.
Losing a weapon means -1 up to -4 to attacks, you can still pick up a mundane sword and be effectual.
A wizard is nothing without his spellbook.
Nothing, his STR and BAB are useless and he doesn't have weapon proficiencies.
And Spellbooks are far more expensive than weapons, a wizard will have most of his WBL in his spellbook, it's his sword,shield and breastplate all rolled into one.If he's lucky, he might have some scrolls and a wand or two, but that's a stopgap nothing more
I'll make an anology, how would you feel if your rogue, instead of losing a hand(Which afterwards you still can make attacks) you lost all your class features- That includes your skill ranks too,they're a class feature. However you could stop that happening if you recited a 1000 word essay at the start of each (In game ) day, because a wizard can easily protect his spellbook-it's just a pain to do, akin to saying "I search for traps" moving forward five feet and rolling another search check.

That being said, if you tell your players ahead of time that your playing dirty ahead of time and they're cool with it- Go ahead, just don't surprise them a disjunction trap during the third dungeon.

Really? Most wizards I play don't spend their entire WBL on extra spells. I pick up a few now and again, scribe any scrolls I find and call it a day. I pick up some pearls of power, Headband of Int, Ring of Wizardry, Handy Haversack, perhaps craft a few wands.

Raise Dead is a 5th level spell that costs 5,000g. A wizard can scribe quite a few low/mid level spells into a spellbook for that amount of money.


You're not losing all your class features, you're just unable to access all of them at this particular time. Go cry to the rogues when they have to fight constructs or undead. Or the fighter during 60% of the fights above level 15.

Or better yet, buy a new spellbook, or scrolls or a wand or a staff. A wizard without a spellbook is seriously hampered, but not completely useless. It's one of the downsides to being able to rewrite reality when you get bigger.

A wizard losing his spellbook is not a nerf. Nerfing is permanently changing the game rules to limit a characters abilities. If the DM had suddenly removed every spell above 4th level (not a bad idea) it would be a nerf.

No one's saying it doesn't suck, or that its something you should do for kicks. But wizards should be painfully aware that a lot of their power comes from those books and might have to be reminded of this from time to time.

It's also a valid tactic for enemies to use against the players. Just like a villan might get fortification on his armor if he knows there's a particularly powerful rogue in the party, set up terrain difficulties if there's a charger in the party, etc.


Oh and for the record, Craft (tattooing) is a valid craft skill. The PBH doesn't limit what craft skills are, it just gives examples.

And tattooing spellbooks is covered in Chaper 7 of Complete Arcane, and it does cost extra. My wizard in that particular game only scribed a few get-out-of-screwed spells on her personage in case of emergencies and/or drow.

She got around most of the cost by by taking two levels of Geometer (is there a reason not to take this PrC?!) before going Elemental Savant (3.0 version).


EDIT: I love it when it takes me a while to write a post and by the time I finish a dozen people have swordsaged me on something lol. :smallsmile:

[Rogue Shadows]

If you want a playable game involving the wizard, you need a sort of social contract, spell-books are off limits and in return the wizard won't destroy the world with an animated Colossal+++ Adimantium Warhammer.

No, the social contract is, "the more you try to do, the more powerful entities try to stop you."

You want to start locate city-nuking places? You are powerful enough to take on the gods themselves so they can't stop you? Fine, cool.

Oops, you just nuked Pun-Pun's favorite city. Now you fight him.

I never limit what my players can do per se. I just create consequences for their actions.


Question: How exactly do you expect your spellcasters to be able to pay for all this? Many spell components are very expensive, and they simply aren't going to have enough for replacement spellbooks/tattoos, while trying to keep up with their party members in ways of magical items.

Honestly? SEE my post about how I don't create solutions to problems. I just create problems, because the PCs will always find a solution.

Mind, I will never throw something completely unreasonable at them. Unless I think it'd be funny and/or plan to move the plot around it.

For example, my most recent campaign began with a group of 1st-level PCs being utterly obliterated by a 20th-level wizard. But their dying actually formed part of the plot. They got better almost immediately thereafter.

But I learned long ago that I'm just one person and my particular playgroup is five other people. So I just create problems. The players then tell me how they intend to solve the problems. And I set the DCs based on that.

[NNescio]

Some do, like the wires and thin pieces of metal. You also eventually run out of other...stuff. Wear and tear and all that...

...look, mostly I only include the thieves' tools because I had already decided to make the spell component pouch "run out," which just made sense to me. I didn't want my players to feel that sorcerers and wizards were being specifically singled out (even though they were), so I decided that most tools and skill kits just run out over time as things break or bend wrong or stuff in them runs out or gets lost or whatver. The only ones that don't are just the ones that just struck me immediately as reusable: holy symbols, holy and mistletoe, merchant's scales, hour glass, magnifying glass, musical instruments, merchant scales, and water clocks.

I also went through the PHB and made note of all spell components that cost actual money, since I want to keep closer track of those than I normally do as well.

Did you know that identify requires not just a 100-gp pearl, but also wine? I'm not too worried about the cost of the wine, mind ("and the dragon also happened to have a nice flagon of wine" when awarding treasure), but the description explicitly says that the pearl is mixed with the wine and than drank.

Which means two things - one, I now know why adventurers make a beeline for the nearest tavern after every adventure; and two, the intoxication rules from the Arms & Equipment Guide are going to do work.

You do know that NPC artisans (experts) use the same tools as well, and they can't afford to shell out the 20gp/100gp costs after every ten uses right? Sure, the economy system is already borked in the first place, but this strains willing suspension of belief even more.

And let's not start talking about mountain climbers who are found mysteriously dead at the bottom of mountains with broken picks in their hands.

This also shuts down "Take 20"'s for skills, unless the skill-users have loads of spare tools for some reason. I've seen a locksmith "Take 20" at a lock in real life before -- it involved multiple tries in the space of several hours. He didn't break several tool kits while he was doing so.

I mean, this is Dungeons & Dragons, not Accountants & Economists, but your ruling doesn't make sense to me. Which was the original reason for said ad-hoc ruling, right?

As for the spell component pouch, having it be empty after pulling 10 pieces of wire from it (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/message.htm) is also unrealistic. Especially at 5sp per. It does not make sense.

[Flickerdart]

The comparison to Rogues is laughable. Rogues without Sneak Attack have a wide array of class features and 8 skill points per level with which to do something useful. A Sneak Attack-less Rogue can still perform a function of some sort, even if it's just out of combat (detecting traps and stealing stuff and such). A Wizard without spells has a pet and four bonus feats which were most likely used to make his spells more powerful. Except when the pet dies, he loses XP, so he's essentially a commoner with an Achilles heel. The suggestion that he can use items to compensate is utterly absurd for a reason we are all familiar with - that WBL does not actually make a class good. Not to mention that the Wizard doesn't suddenly have all his wealth ever freed up from his previous pursuits to throw away on wands and the like.

[Rogue Shadows]

As for the spell component pouch, (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/message.htm) having it be empty after pulling 10 pieces of wire from it is also unrealistic. Especially at 5sp per. It does not make sense.

Well, it shouldn't have infinite space, either, so what do you suggest? There's only so much bat guano and live spiders (and their containers!) that are going to fit into a single pouch belt.

I get that the spell components are meant to be a joke, but it's all about willing suspension of disbelief being challenged once I actually took a look at some of those spell components (a live spider for spider climb!). Not to mention cost of spell components is one of the balancing factors for wizards and sorcerers.

The way I see it, spell components should be like ammunition, and ammunition runs out.

As for everything else - again, it was based on the idea that I shouldn't just pile this onto the arcane casters.

[TheRinni]

Honestly? SEE my post about how I don't create solutions to problems. I just create problems, because the PCs will always find a solution.

Eh... in my honest opinion, that's lazy DMing. But, to each their own, I suppose. If you're players are having fun, that's perfectly dandy.

I prefer DMs who craft beautifully woven stories, with: plots, foreshadowing, conflict, resolutions, etc. Not just DMs who create conflicts.

[SITB]

Wizards are quite over-hyped - they have uses, as do all the options D&D provides but they are far from the be all and End all that many like to make them out to be, PCs tend to get quite uppity over time and thus Item destruction/Other restrictions serves a vital purpose to remind people that they are not the Omnipotent Lords of the Universe that they think they are (unless you are playing Epic and then things get funny after lvl 20 anyway).

Yeah man, those damn PCs thinking they are the core of the story, ruining my perfect setting.

I mean, challenging PCs is good, but deliberately killing/badly gimping one of them to serve as a warning to the rest? Do DMs have to actively reinforce the notion that they are omnipotent so that the PCs wouldn't stage a coup or something?

[tyckspoon]

Well, it shouldn't have infinite space, either, so what do you suggest? There's only so much bat guano and live spiders (and their containers!) that are going to fit into a single pouch belt.

I get that the spell components are meant to be a joke, but it's all about willing suspension of disbelief being challenged once I actually took a look at some of those spell components. Not to mention cost of spell components is one of the balancing factors for wizards and sorcerers.

The way I see it, spell components should be like ammunition, and ammunition runs out.

As for everything else - again, it was based on the idea that I shouldn't just pile this onto the arcane casters.

Honestly? Learn to live with the idea that casters aren't actually supposed to give a dang about their spell components. Your rule just results in them buying five of them at a go; the cost is negligible anywhere past character creation and the weight is only a concern for Venerable Grey Elves. So you just get Wizards who have multiple pouches distributed around their waists instead of 1.

Also.. those pouches weigh 2 lbs apiece. Considering most spell components can't weigh more than a couple of ounces, each one of those pouches holds a *lot* of spell components.

[NNescio]

Well, it shouldn't have infinite space, either, so what do you suggest? There's only so much bat guano and live spiders (and their containers!) that are going to fit into a single pouch belt.

I was going to say "100 uses", but that doesn't entirely make sense either, considering that the SCP weighs two pounds.

Make the SCP cost CPs/SPs, be empty, and have the players buy the components manually from Ye Olde Magical Shoppe. Come up with a price list for those various components. Have the player play Inventory Tetris (track weight and volume) due to the limited capacity of the SCP, and track down the livespan of the "live components" as well.

That is if you want to really go for simulationist realism. Mind you, your players are likely to just take Eschew Materials and ruin your hard work.

Personally? I just don't bother tracking components in the first place. Too much work to have it make sense, and minor ad-hoc across-the-board rulings are likely to shatter willing suspension of disbelief even more. Plus my players find Inventory Tetris to be excessively boring. But if it works for your players, by all means go for it. Just don't cause things to make even less sense, especially as your goal is realism. In a world of magic, I might add, so you have your work cut out for you.

[Rogue Shadows]

Eh... in my honest opinion, that's lazy DMing. But, to each their own, I suppose. If you're players are having fun, that's perfectly dandy.

I prefer DMs who craft beautifully woven stories, with: plots, foreshadowing, conflict, resolutions, etc. Not just DMs who create conflicts.

"Problems" and "conflicts" aren't necessarily the same thing. A tale told to me by another DM relates how he once had a trap in a room that would teleport the characters to a dungeon cell - naked - and teleport their gear elsewhere, if they failed to locate the trap.

They did, they found themselves naked in a dungeon cell, and their gear and equipment and clothing and dignity was elsewhere. There were a pair of guards with spears. This was the Problem.

They had to think up the Solution. Their solution was: the wizard didn't have his spell component pouch now, but had prepared web and the dungeon cell had spider webs in it [the DM rolled a d% but assigned a 95% chance]. So the wizard cast web on the guards while the party fighter broke open the door. Then they beat the guards, took their stuff, and started looking for their gear and equipment and continuing through the dungeon.

The DM did not actively think up that they would do any of these things, or set up the situation ahead of time knowing that the wizard had web prepared and so could do that. He simply put the players in a situation, seemingly hopeless, and knew that the players would think of an escape route within minutes.

Of course that's still something of a combat example, but the same basic principles can be applied to nearly any situation.

[Dragonsoul]

You again miss the scale of the thing,

Lets at price, take a 10th Level Wizard, Spellbook is lost, has Only spells by level in his spellbook.
Replacement Cost
From Players Handbook


Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook
Once a wizard understands a new spell, she can record it into her
spellbook.
Time: The process takes 24 hours, regardless of the spell’s level.
Space in the Spellbook: A spell takes up one page of the spell-
book per spell level, so a 2nd-level spell takes two pages, a 5th-level
spell takes five pages, and so forth. Even a 0-level spell (cantrip)
takes one page. A spellbook has one hundred pages.
Materials and Costs: Materials for writing the spell (special
quills, inks, and other supplies) cost 100 gp per page.
But first she has to decipher the spell in the spell book.

Spells Copied from Another’s Spellbook or a Scroll: A wizard
can also add a spell to her book whenever she encounters one on a
magic scroll or in another wizard’s spellbook. No matter what the
spell’s source, the wizard must first decipher the magical writing
see Arcane Magical Writings, above). Next, she must spend a day
studying the spell. At the end of the day, she must make a Spellcraft
check (DC 15 + spell’s level). A wizard who has specialized in a
school of spells gains a +2 bonus on the Spellcraft check if the new
spell is from her specialty school. She cannot, however, learn any
spells from her prohibited schools.
If the check succeeds, the wizard understands the spell and can
copy it into her spellbook (see Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook,
below). The process leaves a spellbook that was copied from
unharmed, but a spell successfully copied from a magic scroll dis-
appears from the parchment.

So to retrive one spell it takes 2 days, one very failable spellcraft check and 100gp per spell level.
Lets do the Math!
4x5th level 2,000gp 8days
4x4th level 1,600gp 8 days
4x3rd level 1,200gp 8 days
4x2nd Level 800gp 8 days
6x1st Level 600gp 12 days -Assuming starting with 18 int
5 x 0th level 500gp 10days -But its probably more
Total - 6700gp 54days
Wow that's alot, you've taken the wizard out of it for two months(Cause he's gonna fail some of those spellcraft checks) and cost him 6700gp
That's the barest minimum, he's probably have to buy scrolls, bumping it higher, or he had a lot more spells
His WBL- is 45,000 that's 15% of it.At least

[Tyndmyr]

Honestly? Learn to live with the idea that casters aren't actually supposed to give a dang about their spell components. Your rule just results in them buying five of them at a go; the cost is negligible anywhere past character creation and the weight is only a concern for Venerable Grey Elves. So you just get Wizards who have multiple pouches distributed around their waists instead of 1.

Also.. those pouches weigh 2 lbs apiece. Considering most spell components can't weigh more than a couple of ounces, each one of those pouches holds a *lot* of spell components.

This.

And willing suspension of disbelief is not enhanced by the idea that this bag holds exactly ten items of whatever you happen to need, regardless of size, weight, or shape. That doesn't sound like a non-magical pouch at all.

You're better off not drawing attention to the thing.

[Rogue Shadows]

Make the SCP cost CPs/SPs, be empty, and have the players buy the components manually from Ye Olde Magical Shoppe. Come up with a price list for those various components. Have the player play Inventory Tetris (track weight and volume) due to the limited capacity of the SCP, and track down the livespan of the "live components" as well.

That seems unnecessarily hard. I'll just up it to 20 uses (same as a quiver of arrows) and drop the consumable nature from everything but the SCP. Sound better?

I'm not tracking every single bit of information, just the components that cost actual money (identify, raise dead...) (which is perfectly reasonable), and I want the component pouch to run out because...why shouldn't it? The ranger runs out of arrows.


So you just get Wizards who have multiple pouches distributed around their waists instead of 1.

I am cool with this. I immediately supposed on thinking up the houserule that this would be the situation and it's one I'm fine with.

[Tyndmyr]

So you just get Wizards who have multiple pouches distributed around their waists instead of 1.

After one notable time where, as an epic wizard, my single spell component pouch was destroyed by DM fiat, and so I spent my time throwing rocks throughout the least entertaining dungeon crawl ever, I do this now out of habit.

I don't think it really adds anything to the game, though.


and I want the component pouch to run out because...why shouldn't it?

Your logic is backward. The rationale for adding complexity and annoyance to the game is not "why not?". You already have a reason why not. Complexity and annoyance are bad.

You need a reason for it. Not a reason against it. "why shouldn't it" is not a reason.

[Midnight_v]

You cut the dual wielder dudes arm off.



I'm not seeing an issue with this. These characters live in a world where getting your hand chopped off isn't a permanent crippling, for mid-high level adventurers, it's a large inconvenience.

For me the problem with this is that there are no rules for called shots in D&D, so for me to cut your hand off is some hand wave nonsense. Now if you let people know that it was a houserule or that such things exist at all then maybe, but it doesn't. So we're talking about a situation where something happens to violate the concept of a character and the player doesn't even know theres mechanics to do such a thing.

The problem is that for instance, If your character concept is something like "Ryu from street fighter/Meets drizzt do'urden" cutting off his hand is likely that something should never happen in that characters story unless, you and the pc are in agreement that things like that are going to happen.

Basically, just like "Violation by Shuma-gorath sex-cultist" it can still fall into violation territory without commnucation. If you do somethign like that and a player gets made don't be like "Oh well tough! I'm the dm!" its just a bad attitude, cause some of the issue there is a lack of communication with players, leading to a feeling of a violation of social contract.

[Rogue Shadows]

After one notable time where, as an epic wizard, my single spell component pouch was destroyed by DM fiat, and so I spent my time throwing rocks throughout the least entertaining dungeon crawl ever, I do this now out of habit.

You know, a lot of spells don't actually have components, and a lot of spell components can actually be found in a typical dungeon anyway (bat guano, webs, live spiders)...the DM nerfed you, yes, but you chose to remain nerfed.

I mean, the most basic, iconic 1st level spell - magic missile - has no components.

[McSmack]

The comparison to Rogues is laughable. Rogues without Sneak Attack have a wide array of class features and 8 skill points per level with which to do something useful. A Sneak Attack-less Rogue can still perform a function of some sort, even if it's just out of combat (detecting traps and stealing stuff and such). A Wizard without spells has a pet and four bonus feats which were most likely used to make his spells more powerful. Except when the pet dies, he loses XP, so he's essentially a commoner with an Achilles heel. The suggestion that he can use items to compensate is utterly absurd for a reason we are all familiar with - that WBL does not actually make a class good. Not to mention that the Wizard doesn't suddenly have all his wealth ever freed up from his previous pursuits to throw away on wands and the like.

Wizards have 2+ a considerable INT score skill points per level, a massive knowledge base and the ability to use a significant portion of the magic items in the game. Now if a wizard somehow loses his spellbook in the middle of a dungeon or in combat, then he's only left with whatever spells he had on him at the time.

If not then he can probably wing something until he can replace/find a new spellbook, just don't go off to a dungeon in the meantime. Sure he won't be as powerful as he could be, but that's the breaks, kid.

No a wizard probably doesn't have a heap of wealth just sitting around. But he's a bright egg I'm sure he can figure out something to do to make a few hundred gold. Sell his services as a Read Magic vending machine (he can prepare it from memory). Or he can Scribe Scrolls of all the spells he does have prepared and sell them. Then use the money to buy a spellbook. Or about a dozen other things. Or the party could help out a bit.

The point isn't that it sucks, everyone agrees on that. The issue seems to be A) is it a jerk move by the DM? and B) Is it worth even playing the character after something like that?

Those questions are really contingent upon the particular circumstances of the game.

And with most cases it's probably best to work with the DM about it before ragequitting. In the situation from the OP in the original thread, as a DM I would be fine with allowing the player to scribe all the spells a normal lvl 1 wizard would have into a new spellbook for free, since those spells normally have no cost to scribe.

[Tyndmyr]

You know, a lot of spells don't actually have components, and a lot of spell components can actually be found in a typical dungeon anyway (bat guano, webs, live spiders)...the DM nerfed you, yes, but you chose to remain nerfed.

The question "is there any bat poop in THIS room" became something of a running joke.

No, no, I was effectively useless because my spells were already prepared with components not being a consideration, like in every game I had ever played until then. So now I spend a trivial amount of money to ensure that it doesn't come up again. And, tbh, I don't see the point in doing that to a player.

Edit: I also find it amusing that you are telling me what I did. I know what I did, because I was there when I did it.

[Yukitsu]

After one notable time where, as an epic wizard, my single spell component pouch was destroyed by DM fiat, and so I spent my time throwing rocks throughout the least entertaining dungeon crawl ever, I do this now out of habit.

I don't think it really adds anything to the game, though.

I'm very specific about what my character's clothes are made of for this reason. I make all of my clothes out of silk (cocoons for polymorph), my hat incorporates a jade circlet worth at least 1500 GP, my keys are made of magnets (for disintegrate) and so on and so forth.

Other times, where my DM is a **** about this in particular, I take the feat eschew materials and make simulacrums of Vecna.

[Rogue Shadows]

And with most cases it's probably best to work with the DM about it before ragequitting. In the situation from the OP in the original thread, as a DM I would be fine with allowing the player to scribe all the spells a normal lvl 1 wizard would have into a new spellbook for free, since those spells normally have no cost to scribe.

Some thoughts on this.
- Join a guild! A wizard's guild is sure to have some service for wizards who lost thier spellbooks. Maybe a free 1st-level book.
- Contact your mentor! Try not to write up a backstory that has your mentor killed, I guess. They'll probably send you some things.
- Invest in Craft/Profession/Perform! Money money money.
- Spell Mastery!
- Backup spellbooks!

[Rogue Shadows]

No, no, I was effectively useless because my spells were already prepared with components not being a consideration, like in every game I had ever played until then. So now I spend a trivial amount of money to ensure that it doesn't come up again. And, tbh, I don't see the point in doing that to a player.

Not gonna lie. As a player I'd have a lot of fun during that particular session.


I'm very specific about what my character's clothes are made of for this reason. I make all of my clothes out of silk (cocoons for polymorph), my hat incorporates a jade circlet worth at least 1500 GP, my keys are made of magnets (for disintegrate) and so on and so forth.

Still not gonna lie, that actually sounds fun.

[Flickerdart]

Some thoughts on this.
- Join a guild! A wizard's guild is sure to have some service for wizards who lost thier spellbooks. Maybe a free 1st-level book.
- Contact your mentor! Try not to write up a backstory that has your mentor killed, I guess. They'll probably send you some things.
- Invest in Craft/Profession/Perform! Money money money.
- Spell Mastery!
- Backup spellbooks!
- DM fiat!
- DM fiat!
- Earn 30 GP a week!
- Waste feats!
- Travel back in time to warn yourself your DM was going to pull this nonsense!

[NNescio]

The question "is there any bat poop in THIS room" became something of a running joke.
You, sir, are my hero.

On a related note.. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0220.html)

[Yukitsu]

Not gonna lie. As a player I'd have a lot of fun during that particular session.

Not sure you quite understand what the standards of being in an epic campaign are. If you think "you can still cause piles of damage" (which he wouldn't be able to) is sufficient to be even tentatively useful, you'd be wrong. By epic levels, you end the world in a round, hide at home and are immune to everything, or lose initiative/fail to be in one of the first 2 categories and die. That's it. If you can't end the world in one round (or ideally, before your first round) then you really are going to have trouble at epic levels. At any rate, even if you do manage to scrounge up enough stuff for a fireball, you're about as useful as a commoner.

[Rogue Shadows]

- DM fiat!
- DM fiat!

A DM who takes away your spellbook is challenging you. A DM who keeps you from getting a new one shouldn't be DMing.


- Earn 30 GP a week!

That's what downtime is for.


- Waste feats!

It's only a wasted feat if its never used.


- Travel back in time to warn yourself your DM was going to pull this nonsense!

...

...given that I am a big fan of timetravel stories and movies and so on...travelling back in time...is fun if it happens in my campaigns.

[Rogue Shadows]

Not sure you quite understand what the standards of being in an epic campaign are. If you think "you can still cause piles of damage" (which he wouldn't be able to) is sufficient to be even tentatively useful, you'd be wrong. By epic levels, you end the world in a round, hide at home and are immune to everything, or lose initiative/fail to be in one of the first 2 categories and die. That's it. If you can't end the world in one round (or ideally, before your first round) then you really are going to have trouble at epic levels. At any rate, even if you do manage to scrounge up enough stuff for a fireball, you're about as useful as a commoner.

I know. Sounds fun.
dotdotdot

[McSmack]

For me the problem with this is that there are no rules for called shots in D&D, so for me to cut your hand off is some hand wave nonsense. Now if you let people know that it was a houserule or that such things exist at all then maybe, but it doesn't. So we're talking about a situation where something happens to violate the concept of a character and the player doesn't even know theres mechanics to do such a thing.

The problem is that for instance, If your character concept is something like "Ryu from street fighter/Meets drizzt do'urden" cutting off his hand is likely that something should never happen in that characters story unless, you and the pc are in agreement that things like that are going to happen.



...this isn't preschool. These adventurers are literally throwing themselves into harms way. I think the idea that someone might lose a limb is a given.

Should I have a sit down with all my players beforehand and let them know that there is a possibility that they might fail and/or die? They should be big enough to understand the concept that hands will occasionally be severed.

I'm not 'agreeing on a player's story'. I'm not building a novel, or a movie. Sometimes sh*t just happens. I let the chips fall where they may (for the most part). Maybe I should just not let the PC rob the merchant because it's not in the merchants' story.

Character concepts are concepts, and concepts, pretty much by definition, are mutable. If said character loses a hand he can keep his concept, but it just won't work as well until he gets that whole hand thing fixed up.

[Flickerdart]

A DM who takes away your spellbook is challenging you. A DM who keeps you from getting a new one shouldn't be DMing.



That's what downtime is for.



It's only a wasted feat if its never used.



...

...given that I am a big fan of timetravel stories and movies and so on...travelling back in time...is fun if it happens in my campaigns.
30gp per week for 6700gp of recovered costs, plus two months of scribing? In this "downtime", your party could have gotten to level 20. And back. And that doesn't even make sense.

[Rogue Shadows]

30gp per week for 6700gp of recovered costs, plus two months of scribing? In this "downtime", your party could have gotten to level 20. And back. And that doesn't even make sense.

Yeah, well, neither does a spellbook being off limits due to some kind of universally-agreed-upon-even-by-Chaotic-Evil-Villains-rule of gentlemanly warfare.

[Zale]

Yeah, well, neither does a spellbook being off limits due to some kind of universally-agreed-upon-even-by-Chaotic-Evil-Villains-rule of gentlemanly warfare.

Then doesn't that means you are just as wrong as he is?

[Yukitsu]

Still not gonna lie, that actually sounds fun.

Yes, because I had planned it. It would have been considerably less fun if it weren't done on my volition, as my party isn't going to just sit back and not use their abilities while I try to limp my way back into efficacy.

[Kojiro]

I'm very specific about what my character's clothes are made of for this reason. I make all of my clothes out of silk (cocoons for polymorph), my hat incorporates a jade circlet worth at least 1500 GP, my keys are made of magnets (for disintegrate) and so on and so forth.

This is brilliant. And possibly hilarious, if you have different materials for different parts of your clothing (as different spells need different things and go on).

Also, a lot of the people seem to be missing the possibility of, well... Buying a new spellbook. I mean, if the DM is out to get you then this won't work, but then again nothing will so that's a terrible counterargument. And, considering things like arcane universities and such, there are going to be plenty of non-adventuring wizards out there with plenty of free time who could stand to sell a book or two, even if they don't have extras because they probably spend all day writing spells; selling a full spellbook gets 5k, because players get half price for selling stuff and such. Even doubling that, so that a new full spellbook is 20,000 gp, seems reasonable when you're playing one of the most powerful classes around and are going to use said 20k item to unmake reality as you see fit.

On that topic, considering that many wizards do have other arcane allies, having your character keep in touch with them (via the magic they have, of course) and requesting that they keep multiple tomes of magic, which, again, makes perfect sense for academics and the like, is not at all unreasonable. Unless, again, your DM is trying to screw you or is incredibly strict about everything even when it does make sense, this shouldn't be a problem.

Edit:


Then doesn't that means you are just as wrong as he is?

If you're the DM playing said Chaotic Evil person? Yes, yes it does. Although, unless you're dealing with characters as a long-term problem in-character, targeting a spellbook in battle is a silly thing to do, since they don't need it to fry your eyeballs when you try. So as long as the DM isn't just being spiteful (which, as mentioned multiple times, is mostly uncounterable and should be dealt with by avoiding said DM), it's not a likely thing anyway; if it does happen, well, there are ways to deal with it, and not just writing a new one over the course of a few months.

[Rogue Shadows]

Then doesn't that means you are just as wrong as he is?

Technically it could mean that one of us is silly and one of us was sarcastically pretending that they were also silly.

There are numerous other solutions besides simply sitting down and manually scribing everything. For example, there are actual rules in the book for buying a spellbook wholesale, pre-loaded with spells.

Is it expensive? Hell yes. It also doesn't take 67 days. As with everything - you want it done faster, you have to pay more.

Except...well, that one thing...which is illegal to buy in most Western countries.

*snicker.*

[Yukitsu]

You have to make a check for every spell you use from another individual's spell book, or rescribe the whole thing at normal costs. There are rules for adapting it, but that costs money too. You still end up paying rather a lot.

[Flickerdart]

It's not an in-game thing. It's a metagame concern, the same reason that players don't start crafting Create Food and Water traps instead of adventuring to make loads of money and industrialize the nation. Because if you wanted to do play at economics you could go play EVE Online instead of a system designed to let you chop heads off bad guys. By stripping a player of his class's primary feature, you've both made him useless and given a sign that you're not above playing dirty, and now he has to spend time drafting up a list of all the things he'll do to stop this from happening again, as well as slaving away for months of in game time while his friends twiddle their thumbs or something.

Would you say that a wild pack of Rust Monsters found the Fighter's pack as he slept and ate all his gear, too? That the Cleric's god was killed and now he can't cast spells? That your PCs should probably just play Commoners with Chicken Infested, because that way there won't be anything you can take away that they can't make back?

[Rogue Shadows]

You have to make a check for every spell you use from another individual's spell book, or rescribe the whole thing at normal costs. There are rules for adapting it, but that costs money too. You still end up paying rather a lot.

And if I crash and total my car I have to spend rather a lot of money to replace it and my options are extremely limited in the meantime.

But I struggle on through and get a second car and don't harakiri the charater. By which I mean me.

And I don't even live an adventurers life! I don't even regularly put myself into a situation where I could lose my car!

Mostly because I don't, in fact, actually have a car. But the point still stands.

[Rogue Shadows]

Would you say that a wild pack of Rust Monsters found the Fighter's pack as he slept and ate all his gear, too?

I'd have my players make listen checks while sleeping each round the rust monsters ate if they ate on the spot.

If they fail, they fail.

So, in short - yes.

Oddly enough, using the encounter tables in the DMG, this can happen running a purely RAW game.


That the Cleric's god was killed and now he can't cast spells?

Never played much Forgotten Realms, did you?


That your PCs should probably just play Commoners with Chicken Infested, because that way there won't be anything you can take away that they can't make back?

I don't even know what this means.

[Kojiro]

You have to make a check for every spell you use from another individual's spell book, or rescribe the whole thing at normal costs. There are rules for adapting it, but that costs money too. You still end up paying rather a lot.

Well, this isn't speaking from experience, but a reasonable thing, to me, seems like using the borrowed book while re-writing your own; yes, you're inconvenienced, but you're far from useless still, unless you didn't put any ranks into Spellcraft I guess, and you will eventually end up where you were. It's a bit bigger than the penalties other characters may face, but Wizard is a bigger class, too.

[Zale]

And if I crash and total my car I have to spend rather a lot of money to replace it and my options are extremely limited in the meantime.

But I struggle on through and get a second car and don't harakiri the charater. By which I mean me.

And I don't even live an adventurers life! I don't even regularly put myself into a situation where I could lose my car!

Mostly because I don't, in fact, actually have a car. But the point still stands.

What point?

You responded to someone referencing the rules about rescribing spellbooks by talking about a crashed car.

DnD =/= Reality

If it was, then most of the PCs would have died of a plague or been stabbed in the back before they made it to level three.

[Flickerdart]

Chicken Infested is a flaw that makes them have a 50% chance of drawing a chicken when taking out any other item. If you decided one day to slaughter their chickens, they could recover their loss immediately, and so apparently everyone has fun somehow.

[satorian]

It really is quite reasonable for a character with a severe enough wound/gimp/whatever to just retire the very second he gets the wound, assuming he believes the time spent in recovery would a) be grueling or b) endanger the mission.

Now, this is not usually a good or necessary option to take for a mere capture scenario. That's the point, though. If the rebound seems like mere challenge, fine. If rebound seems like it would take session after session of uselessness, not fine. In those situations, the DM is making the player waste all his hard work turning the character into someone he wants to play. Turnabout is fair play. Any DM worth his salt has probably put hard work into incorporating the character into his plot. Screw too much with a character, and retiring that character has wasted all the DM's hard work.

Mind you, I dislike playing in DM vs. Players games. I'd rather we all work together to forge a great tale. But if the DM attacks the player's fun, the player has the right to screw with the DM's fun. Wizards, of course, are better placed to do this than most other classes.

[Zale]

Chicken Infested is a flaw that makes them have a 50% chance of drawing a chicken when taking out any other item. If you decided one day to slaughter their chickens, they could recover their loss immediately, and so apparently everyone has fun somehow.

Give him time. I'm sure he will figure something out.:smallannoyed:

[Kojiro]

I don't think that situation compares directly to... Anything mentioned in this thread, really, even ignoring that Chicken Infested was part of the April Fools issue of Dragon.

Also, on the rust monsters example, while rust monsters in general are pretty cheap and shouldn't be used, bad things happening to people sleeping in the wild because no one kept watch? Yes, that is entirely reasonable, as far as I can tell. Unless the party is entirely spellcasters and yet none of them prepared a spell for safeguarding their resting area or making their own, keeping watch is one of the most basic things that can be done, with no active penalties.

[Rogue Shadows]

What point?

You responded to someone referencing the rules about rescribing spellbooks by talking about a crashed car.

DnD =/= Reality

If it was, then most of the PCs would have died of a plague or been stabbed in the back before they made it to level three.

I don't think most people die of plagues or get stabbed in the back in reality.

D&D =/= reality only holds up when we're talking about how there's magic in D&D or the unusual speed that people can level up. But going by most campaign settings, then D&D is actually pretty much like reality, or as close an approximation to reality as can be achieved. Put a match to paper and it burns. Jump of a cliff and you fall. Try breathing underwater and you drown.

And in D&D, things can be stolen or destroyed. There are explicit, detailed rules for destroying or stealing items. And there is no rule, anywhere, that states that spellbooks are somehow immune to this.

[Typewriter]

It's not an in-game thing. It's a metagame concern, the same reason that players don't start crafting Create Food and Water traps instead of adventuring to make loads of money and industrialize the nation. Because if you wanted to do play at economics you could go play EVE Online instead of a system designed to let you chop heads off bad guys. By stripping a player of his class's primary feature, you've both made him useless and given a sign that you're not above playing dirty, and now he has to spend time drafting up a list of all the things he'll do to stop this from happening again, as well as slaving away for months of in game time while his friends twiddle their thumbs or something.

Again, I don't understand how doing something makes sense and is easily a way to weaken your opponent is playing dirty. If you don't want to have a giant weakspot why are you playing a class with a giant weak spot?



Would you say that a wild pack of Rust Monsters found the Fighter's pack as he slept and ate all his gear, too? That the Cleric's god was killed and now he can't cast spells? That your PCs should probably just play Commoners with Chicken Infested, because that way there won't be anything you can take away that they can't make back?

Rust Monsters: Randomly? No, that wouldn't make a whole lot of sense, as I believe rust monsters aren't generally capable of that level of intelligent planning. As part of a villains plan? If he had some kind of ability to direct rust monsters? Yeah, that makes sense, but they probably wouldn't be able to sneak as well as a rogue.
Cleric: No
Chicken Infested: Since I'm playing a class with a giant weak spot that might be exploited, and limit my abilities for a short amount of time I should just play a guy with chickens. Yes. That is what I'm saying.

[Zale]

I don't think most people die of plagues or get stabbed in the back in reality.



Not in modern times.

In a medieval fantasy world.


The whole purpose of DnD is to entertain people. So long as everyone is having fun, It does not matter what you do as the DM.

Once people start feeling useless over long periods of time (Not just one session, or two) you are beginning to go overboard.

Tl;Dr Once people stop having fun, you are beginning to do something wrong.

[Terazul]

You know, a lot of spells don't actually have components, and a lot of spell components can actually be found in a typical dungeon anyway (bat guano, webs, live spiders)...the DM nerfed you, yes, but you chose to remain nerfed.

...Yeah, and alot of spells also have really wacky components with such favorites as:

- The bone of a small child that still lives.
- Severed hand from a good-aligned cleric.
- The heart of an elven child.
- A single humanoid eye.
- A drop of babau slime.
- Three small silver hoops, interlocked.
- A pinch of dust from a vampire destroyed by sunlight.
- Five glass marbles.

Yeah, I'll get right on scouring the dungeon for those things my component pouch is assumed to have at all times. You can't really claim they can just go finding the components for what spells they want to cast unless you know their exact prepared spell list to begin with; and if you're going to let them find these in the next dungeon room, why bother taking their component pouch to begin with?

Nobody is saying the moment your character is inconvenienced that you should quit, but some things just run contrary to the fun of the game. If I'm playing a Wildshape Ranger/MoMF specialized in natural attacks with no weapons, and the DM goes "you get shot with an arrow that negates your ability to transform into other creatures", with no compensation, or notice in advance, or any indication of when I'm going to get it back, you're darn right I'm going to be annoyed. In before, "you should have had a backup weapon! Yeah I should have, but that's not the point of this illustration, don't read too much into it.
But I digress. The spellbook is an essential part of the Wizard, and as others have pointed out, expensive and time-consuming to replace. Just saying "well they can buy another one", doesn't necessarily justify why you took it in the first place; and why would they, if the player in question feels you might just do it again? For some players, this just might be their favorite type of gameplay. But for others? Probably not, which is what a bunch of people are trying to point out.

[Kojiro]

Tl;Dr Once people stop having fun, you are beginning to do something wrong.

That seems like a good way to put this, really, and a lot of this thread seems to be people telling other people that something they think is alright is not, in fact, fun, and that they are wrong for thinking it, and the other people responding with similarly hyperbolic arguments.

Really, I think, as long as the players understand that Bad Things may happen, and that they happen as a result of in-game things like a villain's plans (or the player doing something stupid) rather than the DM screwing people, that's fine. Great, even; some people like roleplaying hardships and will actually do better for their setbacks. This isn't for everybody, and that's understandable; it doesn't need this big argument over whether or not these things are Objectively Unfun For Everyone (OUFE for short), ******* DM excluded.

[Dragonsoul]

I think the main problem people have is conflicting ideas on why a person plays DnD, I, as a player and a DM play it for the stories, be it sending my players against a Jester with Weapon focus (Deck of many things) or me helping the monk surf a Mature Oak Tree into a Kraken.

Others play for the challenge, to beat the odds, I'm not going to say this is wrong, but it isn't for me. And if I knew the game was going to be Ultimate DM vs Players with the DM using every Dirty trick in the book, then I'd probably decide not to play.

Also the wizard cast Invisiblity on the Rust Monsters before sending them to the fighter. The DM will always win if he wants to - It why the Open lock, Disable device and Track skills are all pointless -The DM has decided ahead of time your chance of success.

[Rogue Shadows]

Yeah, I'll get right on scouring the dungeon for those things my component pouch is assumed to have at all times. You can't really claim they can just go finding the components for what spells they want to cast unless you know their exact prepared spell list to begin with; and if you're going to let them find these in the next dungeon room, why bother taking their component pouch to begin with?

I'm not just going to let them...that's what the d% is for.

Also, what spells are those? I just finished reading the PHB's spell section in its entirety and don't remember...most of those.

[Dragonsoul]

I think the main problem people have is conflicting ideas on why a person plays DnD, I, as a player and a DM play it for the stories, be it sending my players against a Jester with Weapon focus (Deck of many things) or me helping the monk surf a Mature Oak Tree into a Kraken.

Others play for the challenge, to beat the odds, I'm not going to say this is wrong, but it isn't for me. And if I knew the game was going to be Ultimate DM vs Players with the DM using every Dirty trick in the book, then I'd probably decide not to play.

Also the wizard cast Invisiblity on the Rust Monsters before sending them to the fighter. The DM will always win if he wants to - It why the Open lock, Disable device and Track skills are all pointless -The DM has decided ahead of time your chance of success.

[Midnight_v]

...this isn't preschool. These adventurers are literally throwing themselves into harms way. I think the idea that someone might lose a limb is a given
I find this to be baiting. Please don't bait me, good sir.


Should I have a sit down with all my players beforehand and let them know that there is a possibility that they might fail and/or die? They should be big enough to understand the concept that hands will occasionally be severed.
No, because there are actual falling rules and dying rules. So unless you went over "Maiming" rules then you really should discuss it.


I'm not 'agreeing on a player's story'. I'm not building a novel, or a movie. Sometimes sh*t just happens. I let the chips fall where they may (for the most part). Maybe I should just not let the PC rob the merchant because it's not in the merchants' story.

1.What are you doing then?
2. If you're in no way "agreeing on a players story" then on some level you're bullying what you want to happen over what they want to happen.
2. Nothing ever just happens (cursing needlessly for emphasis, doesn't make it any more true) we have to make it happen, someone linked and to an article by Mr.B a written not long ago.
YOU make it happen, and to shrug and go "Somtimes ---- Happens" is an excuse and a poor excuse for bad behavior.


Character concepts are concepts, and concepts, pretty much by definition, are mutable. If said character loses a hand he can keep his concept, but it just won't work as well until he gets that whole hand thing fixed up.

Screw that. How do you cut someone's hand off in 3.5 D&D? There are no rules really so it's really kind of a screw you to the player, no matter how you chop it. You're basically just playing magical tea party at that point and no one should put up with that if they find it unfun.
If they find it funny or amusing, hey thats thier bag, but really though its a violation, and doing things like that without warning...is bad dm'ing.
Cut the wizards tongue out. Right up there with party fouls like, killing the king in his court.



I think the main problem people have is conflicting ideas on why a person plays DnD, I, as a player and a DM play it for the stories, be it sending my players against a Jester with Weapon focus (Deck of many things) or me helping the monk surf a Mature Oak Tree into a Kraken.
I agree, but then there are people saying things like they're not "agreeing on your story" well on some level you as a player are supposed to be telling a story too.
As a Dm I expect to see players adding to the world I've created not just walking along seeing what I do to them next. . . sigh. Again, I find its more a "You're not gonna tell me whats, what!" thing by people who've only scanned the dmg's for the parts they like mostly. So to each his own. I wonder what they think makes a bad dm.

[Terazul]

Also, what spells are those? I just finished reading the PHB's spell section in its entirety and don't remember...most of those.

Probably because none of those are from the PHB. But even then:
- A pinch of dried, powdered peas combined with powdered animal hoof.
- A bit of pork rind or butter.
- A small wooden replica of an archery target.
- A pinch each of powder or sand that is colored red, yellow, and blue.
- Tiny tarts that are thrown at the target and a feather that is waved in the air.

Like, seriously?

[Rogue Shadows]

Screw that. How do you cut someone's hand off in 3.5 D&D? There are no rules really so it's really kind of a screw you to the player, no matter how you chop it. You're basically just playing magical tea party at that point and no one should put up with that if they find it unfun.

I could have sworn there were actual rules for called shots somewhere in Core...

[Kojiro]

I think the main problem people have is conflicting ideas on why a person plays DnD, I, as a player and a DM play it for the stories, be it sending my players against a Jester with Weapon focus (Deck of many things) or me helping the monk surf a Mature Oak Tree into a Kraken.

Others play for the challenge, to beat the odds, I'm not going to say this is wrong, but it isn't for me. And if I knew the game was going to be Ultimate DM vs Players with the DM using every Dirty trick in the book, then I'd probably decide not to play.

Also the wizard cast Invisiblity on the Rust Monsters before sending them to the fighter. The DM will always win if he wants to - It why the Open lock, Disable device and Track skills are all pointless -The DM has decided ahead of time your chance of success.

Not to be rude, but I think you have a slight bit of a false dichotomy here; just because the game is story-based doesn't mean that sometimes major drawbacks won't happen. Heck, as I mentioned above, some people even like, or even expect, some major obstacles for their character to dramatically overcome; it allows for creative writing and character development, and if you're clever about it, it can be fun to play, too.

Related, just because sometimes the players have bad, or even terrible things happen to them, it doesn't make it "Ultimate DM vs Players" or whatever. Bad things happen. It's an RPG, and that G means that there are consequences sometimes. (Actually, so does the RP, since the roles people are playing act and react, sometimes against each other.)

Last paragraph, meanwhile, yes, if the DM wants to screw you, he can, but that doesn't mean that you should take every possible precaution against DM dickery or that the DM ever saying something bad happened means he's out to get you. It means that you should play with DMs who aren't immature.

[Flickerdart]

Again, I don't understand how doing something makes sense and is easily a way to weaken your opponent is playing dirty. If you don't want to have a giant weakspot why are you playing a class with a giant weak spot?
Fighters and rogues require their weapons and armour. Clerics require their holy symbol and their prayer time. Paladins require their code in addition to the above. The system itself is based around the players having access to specific amounts of resources. Almost classes have exploitable weak spots without which they cannot function. It is impossible to build a character with no weaknesses at all, and the presence of a weakness does not obligate the GM to take advantage of it.

[Midnight_v]

It means that you should play with DMs who aren't immature.+1


I could have sworn there were actual rules for called shots somewhere in Core...
Aside from the hydra heads? I'm pretty sure there's not. Maybe variant rules, but I have a hat here... I'm tempted to eat it if you can show me where those rules are. :smallconfused:

Edit: please someone link me to a pro-avatar maker for these boards. I'm liking the axe-guy but that expression is killing me.

[Glimbur]

Personally, if I was playing a wizard and my spellbook disappeared, and I didn't have a back up, I wouldn't waste time with craft checks. I'd just ask the rest of the party for a loan so I could, you know, play the game.

[Kojiro]

+1


Aside from the hydra heads? I'm pretty sure there's not. Maybe variant rules, but I have a hat here... I'm tempted to eat it if you can show me where those rules are. :smallconfused:

Edit: please someone link me to a pro-avatar maker for these boards. I'm liking the axe-guy but that expression is killing me.

I think the hydra head thing is just sundering, actually. Which, thinking about it, the sunder rules could be houseruled to target specific limbs, probably at a penalty if you're going for something small and defended like their wrist; hit but failed sunder is just damage, and a miss is a miss, plus you may have provoked an AoO for your attempt, unlike a normal attack.

Also, likewise requesting avatar whatever. Or at least a guide on the various properties the actual OotS art has (line thickness and such) so I could attempt to make my own.

Edit: Back to the limb thing, though, two of the specific examples given by the OP had the person losing a limb unable to stop it (arrested in one and arm deep in the arm-severer in the other), so those rules wouldn't be necessary there anyway.

[Gametime]

That is a fairly honest answer, and while I respect it I have to point out that fun without challenge is barely a game. If party members never suffered penalties, never died, and succeeded everywhere they wanted to succeed we wouldn't really be playing a game? We'd just be telling stories to each other, which some groups do and I have no problem with.


It's trivially true that players should face obstacles and not just succeed all the time, but that doesn't make it true that any obstacle is automatically okay. The question isn't whether the players should face adversity; it's what sort of adversity and what frequency with which they face it that's up for discussion.

The right amount of adversity is going to vary from group to group. It's absurd to say that players should never face any adversity (and I don't think anyone's made that claim), but it's also absurd to say that any challenge the DM chooses to inflict upon the players is okay (and a few people seem to be making exactly this claim).




Depends on the situation. If someone is going around taking paintbrushes then it isn't fair to also take the smiths tools. That's balanced. Fair would be taking the paint brushes because that's what is happening.

As for the hands thing, why are you removing hands? Is the law that you take off the right hand of thieves? In that case it's fair to take the right hand off regardless of what the primary hand is. Taking the other hand is not fair, even if it is balanced.



You seem to be confusing "fair" with "realistic." If there's a notorious paint brush thief in town, obviously it makes sense for only paint brushes to be stolen. That's realistic. It's not necessarily fair. What is realistic and what is fair have little overlap.

If your group prefers realism to fairness, fine. But you don't need to draw questionable distinctions between "fairness" and "balance" to justify that behavior; you could just admit to valuing realism over fairness.

What you can't do is ever use realism as proof of fairness, since you as the DM create the conditions of the world. If your world contains a one-eyed one-horned flying purple spellbook eater, then it's pretty realistic (within the confines of this fantasy world) for your PCs' spellbooks to get eaten. But it's not fair.

[Rogue Shadows]

It is impossible to build a character with no weaknesses at all, and the presence of a weakness does not obligate the GM to take advantage of it.

No, but it's unusual if his INT 22 Lord Badguy doesn't use every exploitable weakness he can.

I've promised myself that my next villain is going to literally be using the Evil Overlord List (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvilOverlordList). As in, he'll have the actual list on his person and he will frequently look to it for advice. Some gems:

2. My ventilation ducts will be too small to crawl through.
8. After I kidnap the beautiful princess, we will be married immediately in a quiet civil ceremony, not a lavish spectacle in three weeks' time during which the final phase of my plan will be carried out.
27. I will never build only one of anything important. All important systems will have redundant control panels and power supplies. For the same reason I will always carry at least two fully loaded weapons at all times.
46. If an advisor says to me "My liege, he is but one man. What can one man possibly do?", I will reply "This," and kill the advisor.
91. I will not ignore the messenger that stumbles in exhausted and obviously agitated until my personal grooming or current entertainment is finished. It might actually be important.
95. My dungeon will have its own qualified medical staff complete with bodyguards. That way if a prisoner becomes sick and his cellmate tells the guard it's an emergency, the guard will fetch a trauma team instead of opening up the cell for a look.

Frankly, #27 should be followed by wizards.

[Tyndmyr]

It's not an in-game thing. It's a metagame concern, the same reason that players don't start crafting Create Food and Water traps instead of adventuring to make loads of money and industrialize the nation.

Yup. It's the same reason players don't actually abuse infinite wealth loops. Accounting is not fun*. Adventuring is. Neither the players nor the DM should engage in actions that dramatically derail the game from the reason everyone showed up to play. This applies to everything from turning the game into accounting to not busting out your shiny, loud electronic gizmo mid-combat.


And if I crash and total my car I have to spend rather a lot of money to replace it and my options are extremely limited in the meantime... But the point still stands.

Yes, that is called "real life". It is commonly considered to be a game in need of significant improvement. For instance, large portions of it are not fun at all. Very poor design.

*I actually really do like economic games in certain contexts. D&D is not the best system for economics, though. It gets ludicrous in pretty short order.

[Rogue Shadows]

Yes, that is called "real life". It is commonly considered to be a game in need of significant improvement. For instance, large portions of it are not fun at all. Very poor design.

Do you know what else is not fun? Being a DM with a player who is playing a character with a glaring weakness and then who expects that weakness to never be exploited because all the antagonits play by strict Marquis of Queensbury rules. Even the chaotic evil ones.

[PollyOliver]

Okay, but if your 22 INT badguy is using his INT to its fullest extent, why should the 8 INT player of the 22 INT wizard be punished in character for an out of character oversight that his character, who is just as smart as the villain, would clearly not have made? If 22 INT is enough to concoct an elaborate plan involving your enemy's spell book, should it not also be enough to protect your largest weak spot in a way that would at least give that plan a run for its money? If your villains "play their INT", your players' characters are entitled to as well, even if the players are not that smart. Or do you punish the barbarian because the guy playing him isn't strong enough to swing the character's weapon?

[Kojiro]

Yup. It's the same reason players don't actually abuse infinite wealth loops. Accounting is not fun*. Adventuring is. Neither the players nor the DM should engage in actions that dramatically derail the game from the reason everyone showed up to play. This applies to everything from turning the game into accounting to not busting out your shiny, loud electronic gizmo mid-combat.



Yes, that is called "real life". It is commonly considered to be a game in need of significant improvement. For instance, large portions of it are not fun at all. Very poor design.

*I actually really do like economic games in certain contexts. D&D is not the best system for economics, though. It gets ludicrous in pretty short order.

Not to be rude, but you seem to be holding your standards for fun as the standard, rather than a personal thing that would be different for someone else. As evidenced by the very existence of this thread, some people do not mind minor, or even major setbacks (provided they have reason beyond a vicious DM), and I personally know RPers who took something bad that happened to their character, made it a part of the character rather than (or after, admittedly) getting mad, and eventually ending up with something even better while having fun in the process.

Of course, I also know RPers who had too much bad stuff happen to their characters and who eventually took a break from using said characters; there is a point where it gets to be too much, and it does vary from person to person. I simply don't think that it's immediately objectionable in DnD.

[Tyndmyr]

Do you know what else is not fun? Being a DM with a player who is playing a character with a glaring weakness and then who expects that weakness to never be exploited because all the antagonits play by strict Marquis of Queensbury rules. Even the chaotic evil ones.

Why is it not fun?

There is essentially no point in time at which targeting a wizard's spellbook is logical behavior for an adversary. It's not really a glaring weakness...it's only out when he's actually preparing spells. There's no reason for it to be exposed the rest of the time, and you should consider it no more glaring than the rations in his backpack.

And, if an enemy has a drop on the wizard preparing spells, shooting the wizard is ridiculously more practical than shooting the spellbook. Disrupt his memorization, get your best possible shot to actually kill the wizard ever....targeting the spellbook is an exercise in screwing the player over.

After all, note how players essentially never bother to target their adversaries spellbooks, right? If it was a practical tactic, would they not be all over it?

[Rogue Shadows]

If 22 INT is enough to concoct an elaborate plan involving your enemy's spell book

Who needs an elaborate plan?

I wish for my most-often used spellbook to appear in front of me.


If your villains "play their INT", your players' characters are entitled to as well, even if the players are not that smart. Or do you punish the barbarian because the guy playing him isn't strong enough to swing the character's weapon?

I don't "punish" anything; that implies that I'm being malicious. I just make problems and expect the PCs to make solutions.

[satorian]

Do you know what else is not fun? Being a DM with a player who is playing a character with a glaring weakness and then who expects that weakness to never be exploited because all the antagonits play by strict Marquis of Queensbury rules. Even the chaotic evil ones.

Ugh. The point with the spellbook is that a wizard CAN protect it, but that doing so is boring and tedious both for the player and the DM. It's more fun to have a gentleman's agreement that the DM knows the player could protect it, and would in a slightly more realistic world. As such, the DM won't attack it, and is willing to handwave this bit of accountancy away in the interest of a good time.

[Kojiro]

Why is it not fun?

There is essentially no point in time at which targeting a wizard's spellbook is logical behavior for an adversary. It's not really a glaring weakness...it's only out when he's actually preparing spells. There's no reason for it to be exposed the rest of the time, and you should consider it no more glaring than the rations in his backpack.

And, if an enemy has a drop on the wizard preparing spells, shooting the wizard is ridiculously more practical than shooting the spellbook. Disrupt his memorization, get your best possible shot to actually kill the wizard ever....targeting the spellbook is an exercise in screwing the player over.

After all, note how players essentially never bother to target their adversaries spellbooks, right? If it was a practical tactic, would they not be all over it?

That's something I actually, at least somewhat, agree with, and mentioned earlier in the thread. Outside of the metagame it isn't exactly a major target.

Not that it should be perfectly safe if proper precautions aren't taken. If, say, the players all sleep with their items unattended the night the DM is having a thief steal things (again, all of my examples assume a DM who's being fair), a spellbook would not be an unreasonable thing to take, given the 5,000 gp selling price for a full one. Likewise, the player tries to use it during a flood or lets himself get set on fire, and it can be damaged. It varies based on situation and, to an extent, results; while I've made it clear that I'm not against the idea of a spellbook being lost, a random encounter of no importance right outside the BBEG's tower destroying the book isn't as satisfying or easy to accept as it happening in a place where it mattered, and would be far harder to deal with. Realism shouldn't be completely eschewed for the sake of "fun", but there are times when it can be tweaked.

[Rogue Shadows]

Why is it not fun?

There is essentially no point in time at which targeting a wizard's spellbook is logical behavior for an adversary. It's not really a glaring weakness...it's only out when he's actually preparing spells. There's no reason for it to be exposed the rest of the time, and you should consider it no more glaring than the rations in his backpack.

You're assuming that the only time the spellbook would be targeted is during combat. What about that teleportation trap I mentioned earlier?

[Typewriter]

Screw that. How do you cut someone's hand off in 3.5 D&D? There are no rules really so it's really kind of a screw you to the player, no matter how you chop it. You're basically just playing magical tea party at that point and no one should put up with that if they find it unfun.
If they find it funny or amusing, hey thats thier bag, but really though its a violation, and doing things like that without warning...is bad dm'ing.
Cut the wizards tongue out. Right up there with party fouls like, killing the king in his court.


It's already been mentioned but, in more detail:
The player was in a town where he knew crime was punished harshly.
The player got caught stealing.
The player was subdued by guards when he tried to resist
The 'judge' said "I'm going to cut off your hand"
The DM(me) said "Are you going to resist or try to escape?
The player said "Will any of the party members help me if I try?"
The party said "".
The Player said "No"
The DM then said "Your right hand is now cut off"


It's trivially true that players should face obstacles and not just succeed all the time, but that doesn't make it true that any obstacle is automatically okay. The question isn't whether the players should face adversity; it's what sort of adversity and what frequency with which they face it that's up for discussion.

The right amount of adversity is going to vary from group to group. It's absurd to say that players should never face any adversity (and I don't think anyone's made that claim), but it's also absurd to say that any challenge the DM chooses to inflict upon the players is okay (and a few people seem to be making exactly this claim).

I agree, each group should be handled differently. I said that a few pages ago. What I'm bothered by is that someone made a post saying "This happened" and the response was (for the most part) "your DM is horrible", not "Maybe it's going to go somewhere", or "Talk to your DM about it".

The responses were generally along the lines of "Do this and that to avoid your DMs horrible actions in the future" and "Don't play with horrible DMs".

The player didn't wasn't even as upset about that as many people thought he was, since his entire point had nothing to do with his spellbook, but instead with the fact that wizards are totally nerfed without their spellbook and he thought that was a dumb mechanic. His DM even cropped up later in the thread and explained that the player had a magic item that allowed him to do stuff every turn.

Instead of waiting for the full story everyone just said "Bad DM, boo".



You seem to be confusing "fair" with "realistic." If there's a notorious paint brush thief in town, obviously it makes sense for only paint brushes to be stolen. That's realistic. It's not necessarily fair. What is realistic and what is fair have little overlap.

So, the plot calls for a paintbrush thief to be in town (for whatever reason) and since one of the party members loses his paintbrush it's only fair that I arbitrarily take every other party members crafting tools?



If your group prefers realism to fairness, fine. But you don't need to draw questionable distinctions between "fairness" and "balance" to justify that behavior; you could just admit to valuing realism over fairness.


You're putting words in my mouth, and making an argument that has nothing to do with my argument. I said my actions were fair, someone disagreed. If you disagree then say so, but you can do so without deciding I favor realism. Stealing everyones artisan tools becasue one player lost theirs is unfair, and kind of nonsensical, and that has nothing to do with realism.



What you can't do is ever use realism as proof of fairness, since you as the DM create the conditions of the world. If your world contains a one-eyed one-horned flying purple spellbook eater, then it's pretty realistic (within the confines of this fantasy world) for your PCs' spellbooks to get eaten. But it's not fair.

Realism has nothing to do with the conversation though. If I build a campaign and in it is a paintbrush thief that is a fair decision. If one of the players later decides that he's going to be a painter changing the campaign isn't realistic or fair, it's just an attempt at balance.

[Rogue Shadows]

Why is it not fun?

There is essentially no point in time at which targeting a wizard's spellbook is logical behavior for an adversary. It's not really a glaring weakness...it's only out when he's actually preparing spells. There's no reason for it to be exposed the rest of the time, and you should consider it no more glaring than the rations in his backpack.

You're assuming that the only time the spellbook would be targeted is during combat or as a prelude to combat, or that it would be singled out. What about that teleportation trap I mentioned earlier? Or indeed, in the original post?

[Typewriter]

Forum glitch caused me to post the same twice. Doh.

[PollyOliver]

Who needs an elaborate plan?

I wish for my most-often used spellbook to appear in front of me.



I don't "punish" anything; that implies that I'm being malicious. I just make problems and expect the PCs to make solutions.

That's all well and good, but malice or not, a double standard has been created. (Also, punishment is in no way related to malice, and I have no idea where you got that from). If you claim the villain is very intelligent and thus it is realistic for him to target his enemy's spell book, and the wizard is also very intelligent, it is realistic that he should have defenses. That he has not explicitly used them is an out of character oversight by a player who is probably around 10 or even more points less intelligent than the character. If the player is not as smart as the character, bad things happen. But you do not (I am assuming) expect the barbarian's player to be as strong or tough as his character. If we want to play the "realism" game, a 22 INT wizard should have a whole army of spell book defenses and backup spell books, whether his his player is smart enough to think of it or not.

[NNescio]

No, but it's unusual if his INT 22 Lord Badguy doesn't use every exploitable weakness he can.

I've promised myself that my next villain is going to literally be using the Evil Overlord List (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvilOverlordList). As in, he'll have the actual list on his person and he will frequently look to it for advice. Some gems:

2. My ventilation ducts will be too small to crawl through.
8. After I kidnap the beautiful princess, we will be married immediately in a quiet civil ceremony, not a lavish spectacle in three weeks' time during which the final phase of my plan will be carried out.
27. I will never build only one of anything important. All important systems will have redundant control panels and power supplies. For the same reason I will always carry at least two fully loaded weapons at all times.
46. If an advisor says to me "My liege, he is but one man. What can one man possibly do?", I will reply "This," and kill the advisor.
91. I will not ignore the messenger that stumbles in exhausted and obviously agitated until my personal grooming or current entertainment is finished. It might actually be important.
95. My dungeon will have its own qualified medical staff complete with bodyguards. That way if a prisoner becomes sick and his cellmate tells the guard it's an emergency, the guard will fetch a trauma team instead of opening up the cell for a look.

Frankly, #27 should be followed by wizards.

40. I will be neither chivalrous nor sporting. If I have an unstoppable superweapon, I will use it as early and as often as possible instead of keeping it in reserve.

69. All midwives will be banned from the realm. All babies will be delivered at state-approved hospitals. Orphans will be placed in foster-homes, not abandoned in the woods to be raised by creatures of the wild.

78. I will not tell my Legions of Terror "And he must be taken alive!" The command will be "And try to take him alive if it is reasonably practical."

80. If my weakest troops fail to eliminate a hero, I will send out my best troops instead of wasting time with progressively stronger ones as he gets closer and closer to my fortress.

108. Any and all magic and/or technology that can miraculously resurrect a secondary character who has given up his/her life through self sacrifice will be outlawed and destroyed.

111. I will offer oracles the choice of working exclusively for me or being executed.

143. If one of my daughters actually manages to win the hero and openly defies me, I will congratulate her on her choice, declare a national holiday to celebrate the wedding, and proclaim the hero my heir. This will probably be enough to break up the relationship. If not, at least I am assured that no hero will attack my Legions of Terror when they are holding a parade in his honor.

144. If I am recruiting to find someone to run my computer magic systems, and my choice is between the brilliant programmer wizard who's head of the world's largest international technology conglomerate mages' guild and an obnoxious 15-year-old dork who's trying to impress his dream girl, I'll take the brat and let the hero get stuck with the genius.

203. All crones with the ability to prophesy will be given free facelifts, permanents, manicures, and Donna Karan wardrobes. That should pretty well destroy their credibility.

Some of the above just make no sense in 'real life' and are based solely on exploiting genre conventions. The bolded ones are the ones which make sense but change the game drastically.

Also, an intelligent BBEG who is unsporting will just do this:
1) Divination spells to find potential heroes who will rise up against him.
2) Scry.
3) Teleport an overwhelming force to wipe out the heroes when they are low-levelled.
4) Game, set, and match with all heroes at level 1.

Scry and die is the logical conclusion for a BBEG who uses every single exploitable weakness (Remember Rule 40?). It also renders the game nigh-unplayable.

[Dragonsoul]

Do you know what else is not fun? Being a DM with a player who is playing a character with a glaring weakness and then who expects that weakness to never be exploited because all the antagonits play by strict Marquis of Queensbury rules. Even the chaotic evil ones.

So lets play a game where the BBEG doesn't play by the rules,Lets start a level 5
Game 1 you meet up with him, he escapes using a potion of gaseous Form. Fair Enough.
Twenty Minutes into game two Your dead because he was able to get a high enough caster level check on that Sacrifice to Wish you Dead (From The Book of Vile Darkness)

Every BBEG has always played by "rules", otherwise he wins every time.Saying "Its not me its the character" is a Lame excuse, yes its an effective way to establish a Villian, but its not going to go down well with a lot of players, also see post above.

[Tyndmyr]

You're assuming that the only time the spellbook would be targeted is during combat. What about that teleportation trap I mentioned earlier?

The very poorly worded wish that would, at best, summon your OWN spellbook? Not only is it not at all a guaranteed wish, so mechanically on shaky grounds, it's a freaking wish. You can do more useful things with that.

Also, metagame, it's terrible. The spellbook just vanishes. There's no encounter, no story, just "a wish did it".

It also makes the entire world fall apart, because it means that any wizard anywhere can just summon any interesting item to himself, and thus, there is absolutely no reason why he WOULDNT do this. The world ends up ruled by one powerful wizard cackling on a giant pile of spellbooks.

[Typewriter]

That's all well and good, but malice or not, a double standard has been created. (Also, punishment is in no way related to malice, and I have no idea where you got that from). If you claim the villain is very intelligent and thus it is realistic for him to target his enemy's spell book, and the wizard is also very intelligent, it is realistic that he should have defenses. That he has not explicitly used them is an out of character oversight by a player who is probably around 10 or even more points less intelligent than the character. If the player is not as smart as the character, bad things happen. But you do not (I am assuming) expect the barbarian's player to be as strong or tough as his character. If we want to play the "realism" game, a 22 INT wizard should have a whole army of spell book defenses and backup spell books, whether his his player is smart enough to think of it or not.

Is the thought "I should protect my spellbook" something that only a 22 INT person could think of? Personally I'd think that anyone who looks at the wizards dependency on it would realize he needs to protect it.

If a player asked me for help coming up with defences I'd help him. If he told me that he should have had defences prior to having it stolen I'd say "Yeah you probably should have". A high intelligence does not grant the player the ability to retcon the game.

Plust there's arrogance. How many wizards are played, at least somewhat, arrogantly?

[Gametime]

So, the plot calls for a paintbrush thief to be in town (for whatever reason) and since one of the party members loses his paintbrush it's only fair that I arbitrarily take every other party members crafting tools?

Yes, that would, indeed, be fair*. It would be a bit silly, too, and completely unrealistic, but realistic events are very rarely fair. Life is rarely fair.

I'm not suggesting you should be fair all the time. Sometimes fairness isn't what's going to best serve your group. One of the hallmarks of a good DM is balancing concerns of fairness, verisimilitude, and fun.

*Assuming the paintbrush thief wasn't stealing from the painter as a result of the painter's actions. Arbitrary external events are fair only when applied to everyone; reactions to something a player does are fair only when applied to that player.



You're putting words in my mouth, and making an argument that has nothing to do with my argument. I said my actions were fair, someone disagreed. If you disagree then say so, but you can do so without deciding I favor realism. Stealing everyones artisan tools becasue one player lost theirs is unfair, and kind of nonsensical, and that has nothing to do with realism.

If the player lost their tools through recklessness, or a mistake, or some fault of their own, then yes, it is unfair to take everyone else's. If the player lost their tools through some arbitrary sequence of events that had no input from them, it would be unfair not to do the same thing to everyone else.


Realism has nothing to do with the conversation though. If I build a campaign and in it is a paintbrush thief that is a fair decision. If one of the players later decides that he's going to be a painter changing the campaign isn't realistic or fair, it's just an attempt at balance.

You make the game world, though. You choose what's in it. You can't say "Well, sorry, I know you wanted to play a painter, but this world is lousy with paintbrush thieves. Nothing I can do."

Which isn't to say that you should avoid paintbrush thieves if you have painters in the party; it's just that making an extra obstacle solely for a specific type of character is unfair. Maybe that unfairness is worthwhile because of how it enhances the game. Maybe the player doesn't mind. But it's still unfair; you're placing an extra, external obstacle in the way of a single player.

Again, this is assuming you design your campaign with at least some idea of the players in mind. If you make your world and then they design their characters, knowing the sorts of obstacles specific character types might face in that world, they've taken responsibility for the consequences of making a painter.

Anyway, the reason I kept talking about realism is because it's the only value I could see your point of view salvaging. Some of the things you said, about it making sense for enemies to target weak points, seemed to point to that. If you aren't at all concerned with realism, then you're just operating under a very strange model of "fairness" and I can't really empathize with that point of view.

[Rogue Shadows]

That's all well and good, but malice or not, a double standard has been created. (Also, punishment is in no way related to malice, and I have no idea where you got that from). If you claim the villain is very intelligent and thus it is realistic for him to target his enemy's spell book, and the wizard is also very intelligent, it is realistic that he should have defenses. That he has not explicitly used them is an out of character oversight by a player who is probably around 10 or even more points less intelligent than the character. If the player is not as smart as the character, bad things happen. But you do not (I am assuming) expect the barbarian's player to be as strong or tough as his character. If we want to play the "realism" game, a 22 INT wizard should have a whole army of spell book defenses and backup spell books, whether his his player is smart enough to think of it or not.

Okay, here's my counterpoint: I'm not as smart as Lord Badguy by 10 points.

Intelligence is one of the easiest scores to translate into D&D terms: Intelligece = MENSA IQ / 10. So I've got a 12 for an Intelligence. This is better than average but nothing special, and still 10 points lower than Lord Badguy.

Still, me, with my 10-points-lower-than-Lord-Badguy-Intelligence, was able to come up with this plan. So why shouldn't the player, who is also less intelligent than his character, have come up with a defense against a very obvious tactic?

And how far do we take it? The game could very quickly devolve into a scene reminiscent of Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey, with player and DM each responding with "but my character is smart enough that he would have done this!"

What's odd is that we don't get that with a situation that should be very similar - spell preperation. "But Dude Goodguy has an INT-22! He would have known to prepare daylight to counter Lord Badguy's darkness!"

I don't like the "you're penalizing your players for not having the same stats as their characters" argument because the DM rarely has the same stats as the NPCs, too. It falls through with any objective examination.

[Kantolin]

I actually have played with a group who had similar logic to a lot of the things mentioned here - perhaps the logical extention? I played for several sessions as one of their players was on a trip elsewhere, they really wanted another person to fill that slot for a time (or apparantly they'd die), and one of my good friends is in the group and asked me to.

Game, in fact, began with people reading laundry lists of things they were doing to defend their things, followed shortly by the group taking five foot steps and searching for traps. Everyone went out of their way to play builds that had absolutely no resource dependancy (Their DM also didn't believe in wealth per level, so half the party had vows of poverty or simply no relevant gear), and they even complained 'Aw, I kinda wanna play a fighter, but every time I do my arms break and I lose my sword. Guess it's druid again'.

When mildly threatened, the group would use as many as four prepared escape routes to run away. If given anything with a time limit, they'd sadly and honestly say they cannot do it - one of the players did an impressive job of roleplaying out the surprisingly sad scene where they explained to a farmer that they're very, very unlikely to actually rescue his wife before she is sacrificed, but they'll try.

The four weeks I played then were very little other than the DM figuring out what holes in players' defenses didn't exist. One of the four PCs was worse at accounting/thinking of minutae than the rest, and thus his character (a psion) was hit by some sort of permament mental parasite which made his character completely useless for all four weeks. He spend literally all four sessions (after immediately) just kinda playing FFTA2 - we tried to find a solution for the mental parasite, discovered it was time-sensitive, and this group has taken 'time-sensitive' to mean 'you can't really do it, trying is a fool's errand'.

One of the PCs was tired of 'DM's crap' as he put it, and thus after his character died at the end of the first run I was in due to a dimensional anchor, stone you can't meld through, and also the bad guys carefully avoiding putting duplicate trees anywhere nearby for tree stride, came in with three ridiculously overpowered no-resource-required theoretical optimization builds, and his logic became, 'Eh, if I die then whatever'. In the fourth run, he intended to blow up the mayor of a town for no reason other than, "We haven't done anything in the past two runs, I don't care anymore'.

One of the players (The psion from before) apparently tended to be victim to most things, as he just kinda wanted to be heroic and do fun things, and had neither the time nor the desire OOC to do 'more paperwork' to ensure he could keep his things.

The 'plots' that occured were to rescue the farmer's wife, and to try and retrieve an artifact. We never got anywhere near the farmer's wife, and were hazily close to the artifact when a moderately threatening encounter occured so we tried to run. (And turned out to have been right to attempt, as what looked like a moderate fight turned out to be a fairly fierce near-TPK, but we got away).

There was an event where a group was looking for people to guard their caravan, but the players had decided a long time ago that anything they'd be asked to guard was almost unerringly safer just being on the wings of chance than them guarding it, so the group as a whole decided not to do it.

My character then had a kinda neat sounding plot involving his familiar - I, unaware of most of these things, played a wizard who indeed lost his spellbook on the first run and ended up naked a lot, although my theoretically support-focused-wizard did get a wand of magic missiles. Anyway, I then got killed attempting to rescue my familiar, which was itself also killed, and that was the fourth week so I figured I'd just stay dead. I casted exactly one spell during that month - haste, which I used to counter slow. We were then slowed again and had to retreat or we'd be TPKd.

A couple weeks later, the guy who'd gone on his trip apparantly played D&D while he was there and wanted to DM. Nobody was having fun under the previous DM, so everyone swapped over. The new DM's logic included gems like, "I don't have time nor desire to want to go over two pages of how you're defending your large amounts of holly and mistletoe, whatever!" and the group apparantly went through an interestingly half-social run where the drow were attempting to control elven society through legal means, interspersed with fights and backstabbing and fun.

Now, in honesty! The only real problem with the first person's style of DMing is that nobody was enjoying it. The Psion's player was enjoying it absolutely least - everyone has jobs and work and college and otherwise limited time during the week, nobody wanted to spend their time during the week doing D&D homework and trying to think of things and spending all of their effort on being allowed to play. If the people in your group do, then that's fine and dandy. It sounds like at least half of your group doesn't.

And of course, there are times when bad things happen. The drow, in fact, snuck into the group to plant some incriminating evidence. Things just weren't done in a 'so you sit out now for a month', with the feeling that the DM's trying to ensure everyone has an enjoyable game experience. ^_^

One of the unmentioned players tried to play a character with a bonded weapon to try to minimize losses to it - it got stolen, he replaced it and increased the defenses, it got stolen again (A different way), he replaced it one more time, and it finally got stolen again (A third way) so he gave up and played a psychic warrior with the ACF of 'you always have a weapon' rather than spending all of his OOC time, IC money, and OOC tabletime on trying to keep the stupid thing.

We only have ~five hours a week to play... we'd rather not spend those five hours playing DS standing next to our friends.

...and there's always something silly that can explain things, as DMs have infinite resources. They can just decree 'it is stolen', and it is, regardless of how many defenses you have up (Many DMs do this with Kender). You have hte skill focus(Spot) rogue and the skill focus(Spot) and alertness Ranger on watch along with the ranger's spot-heavy companion? Sorry, the BBEG sent someone high enough level to find it anyway. No, it didn't activate scent. No, the assassin or thief or whatever didn't kill all party members because if I said, 'Okay, you all TPK for no discernable reason', the game is over, but if he steals all your stuff you guys can still limp along...

[Rogue Shadows]

Scry and die is the logical conclusion for a BBEG who uses every single exploitable weakness (Remember Rule 40?). It also renders the game nigh-unplayable.

I disagree, but we'll have to wait to see how the campaign runs. Frankly I enjoy movies or TV shows with intelligent, clever antagonists that seem to constantly have all the answers, because it means the heros have to be *smart.*

My favorite example here being Diaboramon from Digimon: Our War Game.

[PollyOliver]

Okay, here's my counterpoint: I'm not as smart as Lord Badguy by 10 points.

Intelligence is one of the easiest scores to translate into D&D terms: Intelligece = MENSA IQ / 10. So I've got a 12 for an Intelligence. This is better than average but nothing special, and still 10 points lower than Lord Badguy.

Still, me, with my 10-points-lower-than-Lord-Badguy-Intelligence, was able to come up with this plan. So why shouldn't the player, who is also less intelligent than his character, have come up with a defense against a very obvious tactic?

And how far do we take it? The game could very quickly devolve into a scene reminiscent of Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey, with player and DM each responding with "but my character is smart enough that he would have done this!"

What's odd is that we don't get that with a situation that should be very similar - spell preperation. "But Dude Goodguy has an INT-22! He would have known to prepare daylight to counter Lord Badguy's darkness!"

I don't like the "you're penalizing your players for not having the same stats as their characters" argument because the DM rarely has the same stats as the NPCs, too. It falls through with any objective examination.

It doesn't fall through with objective examination. If I'm not very smart, but my character is really smart, my character knows things I don't. This is partially covered with knowledge checks, but the fact of the matter is that a huge part of being smart is asking the right question. If I didn't think to ask the right question, even if it's an obvious question, that is not my character's fault. And you being not as smart as the villain doesn't work as an argument, because you're the one who brought up playing the INT-22 villain to his capabilities as being realistic in the first place. In that case, the player is entitled to the same thing, and if he's not as smart as his character, that's not his fault. (Also you might be smarter than your player.)

[Flickerdart]

Additionally, you know things the player's done, through virtue of being DM. The Overlord, regardless of his INT, starts off with knowledge of the entire campaign world, and most likely immense resources (otherwise, what kind of a lord would he be?). Played to his fullest capability, he would exterminate the PCs.

[McSmack]

I find this to be baiting. Please don't bait me, good sir.

.
No, because there are actual falling rules and dying rules. So unless you went over "Maiming" rules then you really should discuss it.


1.What are you doing then?
2. If you're in no way "agreeing on a players story" then on some level you're bullying what you want to happen over what they want to happen.
2. Nothing ever just happens (cursing needlessly for emphasis, doesn't make it any more true) we have to make it happen, someone linked and to an article by Mr.B a written not long ago.
YOU make it happen, and to shrug and go "Somtimes ---- Happens" is an excuse and a poor excuse for bad behavior.



Screw that. How do you cut someone's hand off in 3.5 D&D? There are no rules really so it's really kind of a screw you to the player, no matter how you chop it. You're basically just playing magical tea party at that point and no one should put up with that if they find it unfun.
If they find it funny or amusing, hey thats thier bag, but really though its a violation, and doing things like that without warning...is bad dm'ing.
Cut the wizards tongue out. Right up there with party fouls like, killing the king in his court.



I agree, but then there are people saying things like they're not "agreeing on your story" well on some level you as a player are supposed to be telling a story too.
As a Dm I expect to see players adding to the world I've created not just walking along seeing what I do to them next. . . sigh. Again, I find its more a "You're not gonna tell me whats, what!" thing by people who've only scanned the dmg's for the parts they like mostly. So to each his own. I wonder what they think makes a bad dm.

I apologize. Re-reading it I realized it did come off as a bit rude.

There are a lot of things that are not covered in the PHB, just because there aren't specific rules for it doesn't mean it doesn't or can't happen. When playing in a fantasy adventure game where combat and killing things are standard issue I don't think that the idea that someone could get maimed is so far out there as to require a specific explanation to the party ahead of time. In my opinion it's expected that the players be cognizant of the fact that they could lose a limb or an eye during the course of their adventures.

Or that they might get their hand cut off for stealing. Do you think anyone would be having this issue if the city's punishment for stealing had been death? Probably not. The player simply rolls up a new character.

Or they might get their tongue cut out for sassing the King.

If it can happen in real life then it can happen in a fantasy game, regardless of whether or not there's a specific rule for it.
That's what DM's are for.

Whether that makes one a good DM or a bad DM really depends entirely on the situation.

Players should be able to trust their DM's, because when it comes down to it, we WANT the PC's to win. We just want them to work for it. And the DM should do what is neccessary to earn that trust and to keep it. He should be fair and impartial, and should have his players enjoyment as his top concern.

But, make no mistake, the DM holds the cards. He makes the rules, and all those fancy sourcebooks are just suggestions he can (and probably should) follow. But it's his world, and it's his game and it's his rules. And if the players don't like it, then the door is to the left.

[Eric Tolle]

{Scrubbed}

[Midnight_v]

Cut the wizards tongue out. Right up there with party fouls like, killing the king in his court.


It's already been mentioned but, in more detail:
The player was in a town where he knew crime was punished harshly.
The player got caught stealing.
The player was subdued by guards when he tried to resist
The 'judge' said "I'm going to cut off your hand"
The DM(me) said "Are you going to resist or try to escape?
The player said "Will any of the party members help me if I try?"
The party said "".
The Player said "No"
The DM then said "Your right hand is now cut off"
Sorry Tp we weren't talking about your example exactly. I actyally find that story hella funny... but I hope its clear at least to you that, said situation... is not what I'm talking about really, and at the same time it kinda is.
The way that occured, seems apprpos, but only because honestly to me at least he kinda knew what the deal was. He didn't fight it, it was all fun and games really.
I'm talking about mid-duel, some jerk says
"Make a reflex save" "fail?"
"fail"
"The opponent cuts your hand off"
"... uhm...wait wut?"
Kinda out the blue shennigans is what I'm talking about.
You got to sleep and awaken to a warrior missing and hand... etc...
the thief in your story also already slippped into bad realms when he "stabbed the king" so to speak, so he had no right to be mad. There really is a diffrence. . .

On a personal note:

Somewhere in all of this is the the vague rememberance of why I've never gotten to play the Captain of a Pirate ship in D&D.
Now a days all I do is Dm, and thats cool I don't mind at all. I do remeber wanting to play one occasionally, even going so far as to looking up prices for galleons etc... I can't rember the particular even but the Dm did something with the paladin's mount or druids animal companion and the player was like "fine it dies" and we were kinda shocked like "Damn? Really? You're not gonna roll a save" (at this point I realize it was a druid and we didn't think druids were good at this time) to which he was like "No, I'm tired of him harrassing me about the various well beings of my animal companion, its kidnapped/sick/starving/lost. Whatever. . I can summon another one when this portion of the adventure ends or whatever, 'sides its not like I paid extra for the dm to get another plot hook' or something to that effect.
I kind realized that in no way was I gonna be allowed to have a ship somewhere just sitting as a part of my charater and it not be a source of constant dm drivel. It'd always be something, and it wasn't even something I could really use for my char. It was really just swag. $10,000 dollar + swag, and by the time I could afford that we'd teleport everywhere.
As a dm, I let people have inherited manors, lands, etc for free, and anything they wanna throw in their backstory really besides flat out cash mind you. Once they get comfortable with the free swag, then I start using it for plot hooks but at least it was free.

Dm'ing I've found to be a varied and multifaceted feild, but you gotta do it for the love, not the power.


But, make no mistake, the DM holds the cards. He makes the rules, and all those fancy sourcebooks are just suggestions he can (and probably should) follow. But it's his world, and it's his game and it's his rules. And if the players don't like it, then the door is to the left.
Wow. Well theres the split right there. I can hardly express how wrong I think you are. Not personaly mind you but I find that mindset intolerable.
He really doesn't make the rules It's really supposed to be a shared experience, and it supposed to be our story...
I've had that experience a couple time before I realized thats a major problem in the community.
Thats what I meant when I said a pirate democracy though, yeah people have voted you arbitrator etc, but the when start thinking you're "God" we'll just vote up a new arbitrator, or play something else.
I've done it a couple times. Left peoples games, and likely to the betterment of all really. Though leaving and everyone coming with me, that was kinda the one that mattered.

That attitude alone is reason not to play with someone, and the prevalence of that attitude is reason to not play D&D.

[Typewriter]

Yes, that would, indeed, be fair*. It would be a bit silly, too, and completely unrealistic, but realistic events are very rarely fair. Life is rarely fair.

I'm not suggesting you should be fair all the time. Sometimes fairness isn't what's going to best serve your group. One of the hallmarks of a good DM is balancing concerns of fairness, verisimilitude, and fun.

*Assuming the paintbrush thief wasn't stealing from the painter as a result of the painter's actions. Arbitrary external events are fair only when applied to everyone; reactions to something a player does are fair only when applied to that player.

I agree that it would be silly, but the paintbrush thief wasn't my idea :P

I make campaigns independant of knowledge about the party. It's the only thing I consider to be fair. Sometimes this means that a party member will have a rough time, but unless it's going to be a permanent nerf I'm not going to change it. Sometimes that means the BBEG is going to be a spellthief against a party that has zero spellcasters in it.



If the player lost their tools through recklessness, or a mistake, or some fault of their own, then yes, it is unfair to take everyone else's. If the player lost their tools through some arbitrary sequence of events that had no input from them, it would be unfair not to do the same thing to everyone else.


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.



You make the game world, though. You choose what's in it. You can't say "Well, sorry, I know you wanted to play a painter, but this world is lousy with paintbrush thieves. Nothing I can do."

Actually, as I interpret fair, that's the only thing I can do. Anything else would be attempting to balance the party, or favoring a single character.



Which isn't to say that you should avoid paintbrush thieves if you have painters in the party; it's just that making an extra obstacle solely for a specific type of character is unfair. Maybe that unfairness is worthwhile because of how it enhances the game. Maybe the player doesn't mind. But it's still unfair; you're placing an extra, external obstacle in the way of a single player.

Everything challenges different characters differently. A golem is a different challenge to wizards than it is to warriors. A flying enemy is a different challenge to melee than it is to ranged characters. If you make every challenge 'balanced' then you're not building a campaign for your players to partake in, your building a campaign designed for your party to demolish. That's what it seems like to me anyways...



Again, this is assuming you design your campaign with at least some idea of the players in mind. If you make your world and then they design their characters, knowing the sorts of obstacles specific character types might face in that world, they've taken responsibility for the consequences of making a painter.

I generally have about half the campaign 'planned' before anyone finds out about it, and the only reason I tell them before it's completely done is so that I can get input on things they want to exist in the campaign.



Anyway, the reason I kept talking about realism is because it's the only value I could see your point of view salvaging. Some of the things you said, about it making sense for enemies to target weak points, seemed to point to that. If you aren't at all concerned with realism, then you're just operating under a very strange model of "fairness" and I can't really empathize with that point of view.

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.

Fairness to me means making decisions independant of the party. As DM I know the party has changed their plans and are heading south instead of north, but the BBEG doesn't know. Sure, maybe it makes sense for him to be scrying on them - maybe it would be realistic, but since I didn't think of it ahead of time it wouldn't be fair. I didn't think "He should be scrying on them" until after their actions made me think of it. Since I make decisions independant of party action the BBEG doesn't scry on them.

Now, when the party doesn't arrive at their destination after a couple weeks, then I could imagine the BBEG saying "Where are they, I need to scry?" and that's not influenced by the parties 'actions' but the result of their 'actions' (not arriving in the town they were expected to arrive in).

Does that make any sense, or is my point too erratic?

[Rogue Shadows]

It doesn't fall through with objective examination. If I'm not very smart, but my character is really smart, my character knows things I don't. This is partially covered with knowledge checks, but the fact of the matter is that a huge part of being smart is asking the right question. If I didn't think to ask the right question, even if it's an obvious question, that is not my character's fault. And you being not as smart as the villain doesn't work as an argument, because you're the one who brought up playing the INT-22 villain to his capabilities as being realistic in the first place. In that case, the player is entitled to the same thing, and if he's not as smart as his character, that's not his fault. (Also you might be smarter than your player.)

So if he wants to play him smart then he has to do the same thing that I did to make Lord Badguy play smart: think up strategies and tactics.

I don't do this with barbarian orcs. They're all WAAAGH! and "tactics" to them means basic flanking rules, at best, usually by accident.

But if I'm going to run someone who's significantly smarter than me, I'm going to take the time to actually think about what he's done, what he's going to do, and how he's going to go about doing them.

I have to ask the right questions too, don't I? The double standard is that DMs are expected to roll with the punches but whenever they try to get clever themselves, some people come along and say, shame!

This happened in my very first D&D session as a DM - coincidentally, my first D&D session, period. I had a nice level 10 Necromancer who was supposed to be the Big Bad for the entire game show up near by 3rd-level players. He was supposed to say a few lines about ultimate power, create a few skeletons, and leave.

Instead, the party's Barbarian declares he's going to charge. Wins initiative. Charges. Swings. Criticals. Massive damage. Instant death. No more Necromancer.

This actually turned out great, and is to date one of my favorite campaigns that I've run, but at the time it had never occurred to me that the party's Barbarian, after being explicitly told that the Necromancer was level 10, would still try to attack.

[Flickerdart]

I have to ask the right questions too, don't I? The double standard is that DMs are expected to roll with the punches but whenever they try to get clever themselves, some people come along and say, shame!
What questions do you have to ask? It's your world. Nothing happens without your express desire.

[Kojiro]

Topic of a scry-and-die BBEG, I don't think that they would actually do that just because it'd be so tedious to go and exterminate every single person who may eventually be a threat. Wow, that would be boring. And dangerous, considering that sometimes things don't go as planned, and if you teleport into the middle of a city or a magic academy to exterminate your target, or just happen to go at the wrong time, you may get the attention of other high-level NPCs, and you won't be on your home turf.

Although, somehow writing the above the idea of a BBEG setting up a "fake" dungeon, guarded, moderately treasure-filled, and so forth. And then, when the PCs get to the deepest point, it self-destructs or seals every door or something. Of course, the PCs should have a way out of this, either a way to figure out it's fake beforehand or a deathtrap that isn't just going to instantly murder their characters, everyone reroll. That would just be unfun, and again, while the bad guy should behave rationally, and unpleasant things may occur, it shouldn't happen in such a way that just completely precludes the possibility of fun.

[Flickerdart]

Topic of a scry-and-die BBEG, I don't think that they would actually do that just because it'd be so tedious to go and exterminate every single person who may eventually be a threat.
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.

[NNescio]

I disagree, but we'll have to wait to see how the campaign runs. Frankly I enjoy movies or TV shows with intelligent, clever antagonists that seem to constantly have all the answers, because it means the heros have to be *smart.*

My favorite example here being Diaboramon from Digimon: Our War Game.

Diaboramon uses "Scry and Die" tactics. Or "Scry and Nuke", to be literal. His armed and aimed nukes just mysteriously fail to work after he's killed due to DM fiat. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LoadBearingBoss) Real life nukes don't work that way. Heck, the Internet don't even work that way. Twas part of the reason why I consider Digimon plots to be a steaming pile of crud, 'though I had fun watching some of them if I don't ask too many questions. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MST3KMantra)

D&D's Scry and Dies are far more reliable and instantaneous. Unless the DM decides to use 'warp failure' as fiat or something.

[Rogue Shadows]

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

You're wrong. There are a number of things expressly outside of my control: the player characters.

[Kojiro]

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.

Are you just responding to everything angrily without reading the posts by that person? I was one of the two people who said that it makes no sense to target spellbooks as a villain, and who said that if you DM's trying to screw you then you should just find a new DM. And that's after that your post actually has nothing to do with what I said because I was talking about how, in-universe, it would be boring and stupid for the ultimate arcane wizard to teleport to every level one fighter who may gather a ragtag band of adventurers and disintegrate him, especially for the attention he'd draw to himself, while you're talking about a boring metagame response to a poor DM.

[Midnight_v]

But, make no mistake, the DM holds the cards. He makes the rules, and all those fancy sourcebooks are just suggestions he can (and probably should) follow. But it's his world, and it's his game and it's his rules. And if the players don't like it, then the door is to the left.

Wow. Well theres the split right there. I can hardly express how wrong I think you are. Not personaly mind you but I find that mindset intolerable.
He really doesn't make the rules It's really supposed to be a shared experience, and it supposed to be our story...
I've had that experience a couple time before I realized thats a major problem in the community.
Thats what I meant when I said a pirate democracy though, yeah people have voted you arbitrator etc, but the when start thinking you're "God" we'll just vote up a new arbitrator, or play something else.
I've done it a couple times. Left peoples games, and likely to the betterment of all really. Though leaving and everyone coming with me, that was kinda the one that mattered.

That attitude alone is reason not to play with someone, and the prevalence of that attitude is reason to not play D&D.

[Typewriter]

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.

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.

[PollyOliver]

Rogue Shadow---

First, as flickerdart said, it's your world. The vast majority of questions come up because they are your questions.

Anyway--That's all well and good, for your orc v. necromancer example. That's probably how I would normally play it. But you specifically justified nerfing the everloving heck out of a character by saying it was "realistic" for a villain with 22 INT to do. My counter for that is "well, wonderful, but it's just as realistic for my wizard with 22 INT to have thought of that, even if I'm as dumb as a rock at INT 7 over here". The realistic playing of INT was brought up as an excuse by you, not me. When you said you're playing the villain to his INT, I simply took your words at their face value. The fact that you're not fully capable of doing so either is not a reason why my argument doesn't work; it's a reason why your argument didn't work in the first place.

At the end of the day, a 22 INT wizard is capable of making his spellbook totally inaccessable to anyone who does not have wish. It's simply, as others have noted, tedious to go into (and annoying for people who aren't as smart as their characters). If the player knows he's playing in that sort of game, it's a completely trivial threat. If he doesn't know he's in that sort of game and it comes out of left field, he gets blindsided with a different game than what he thought he was playing. Either nothing happens, or the class is nerfed with no warning down to being a walking light crossbow with some skill points. Neither is a fun outcome in my opinion, though apparently some people disagree.

[Flickerdart]

You're wrong. There are a number of things expressly outside of my control: the player characters.
Oh yes, because a couple of guys really compares to the rest of the population.


Are you just responding to everything angrily without reading the posts by that person? I was one of the two people who said that it makes no sense to target spellbooks as a villain, and who said that if you DM's trying to screw you then you should just find a new DM. And that's after that your post actually has nothing to do with what I said because I was talking about how, in-universe, it would be boring and stupid for the ultimate arcane wizard to teleport to every level one fighter who may gather a ragtag band of adventurers and disintegrate him, especially for the attention he'd draw to himself, while you're talking about a boring metagame response to a poor DM.
Angrily? I resent that, good sir, and sincerely hope you jest. Likewise, I resent the idea that trying to have fun despite a poor DM is somehow boring and metagame.

[Rogue Shadows]

Heck, the Internet don't even work that way.

In our world. In a universe were data can collect and form an entirely seperate but connected universe...I'm willing to believe that the Internet is a little more varied a place.

[NNescio]

But, make no mistake, the DM holds the cards. He makes the rules, and all those fancy sourcebooks are just suggestions he can (and probably should) follow. But it's his world, and it's his game and it's his rules. And if the players don't like it, then the door is to the left.
Wow. Well theres the split right there. I can hardly express how wrong I think you are. Not personaly mind you but I find that mindset intolerable.
He really doesn't make the rules It's really supposed to be a shared experience, and it supposed to be our story...
I've had that experience a couple time before I realized thats a major problem in the community.
Thats what I meant when I said a pirate democracy though, yeah people have voted you arbitrator etc, but the when start thinking you're "God" we'll just vote up a new arbitrator, or play something else.
I've done it a couple times. Left peoples games, and likely to the betterment of all really. Though leaving and everyone coming with me, that was kinda the one that mattered.

That attitude alone is reason not to play with someone, and the prevalence of that attitude is reason to not play D&D.

Or, to quote a certain website:

Rule 0 - The GM is Always Right: No matter how eloquently the Rules Lawyer states his case for the loophole he's trying to abuse, the GM always has the last word.

Rule 00 - ...But No Players Means No Game: Having the last word doesn't mean the GM can lord it over the players like a tin-pot dictator. Like any other governing body, abuse of power will eventually lead to a coup d'état.

[Rogue Shadows]

Oh yes, because a couple of guys really compares to the rest of the population.

What? Why would the whole of a given world unite against the PCs? How could the players even exist in that kind of world? They wouldn't, and I would never run a game like that.


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.

You know what else is tedious? Players who play a class with a glaring weakness and expect that weakness to never be exploited.

Wait a second.

http://dudelol.com/DO-NOT-HOTLINK-IMAGES/This-will-be-the-sixth-time-we-have-created-a-thread-about-it.jpg

[Midnight_v]

the player knows he's playing in that sort of game, it's a completely trivial threat. If he doesn't know he's in that sort of game and it comes out of left field, he gets blindsided with a different game than what he thought he was playing. Either nothing happens, or the class is nerfed with no warning down to being a walking light crossbow with some skill points. Neither is a fun outcome in my opinion, though apparently some people disagree.
I think the bulk of those people are being disingenuous about enjoying that type of thing, I've no way of proving that but thats my thought. In fact I mentioned in earlier some of the issue is dm's arguing "I'll do what I FRIKKEN WAHNT! I's the DM!! Herp DERP" Just to protect the idea of "doing what they want, no matter how wrong that may happen to be.
Which my idea is backed up when this poster says:


But, make no mistake, the DM holds the cards. He makes the rules, and all those fancy sourcebooks are just suggestions he can (and probably should) follow. But it's his world, and it's his game and it's his rules. And if the players don't like it, then the door is to the left

Heeyyy....

Rule 0 - The GM is Always Right: No matter how eloquently the Rules Lawyer states his case for the loophole he's trying to abuse, the GM always has the last word.

Rule 00 - ...But No Players Means No Game: Having the last word doesn't mean the GM can lord it over the players like a tin-pot dictator. Like any other governing body, abuse of power will eventually lead to a coup d'état....not that they won't try till someone points that out to them.
Thats really good where's that from? LOL

[Kojiro]

Angrily? I resent that, good sir, and sincerely hope you jest. Likewise, I resent the idea that trying to have fun despite a poor DM is somehow boring and metagame.

But, you yourself said it's tedious and in response to a DM who has misguidedly made it his goal to screw you, probably because he has issues. That means that it's boring, a synonym to tedious, and metagame, as it's done primarily out of out-of-character concerns. It is not unreasonable if you're somehow stuck with said terrible DM, but it is both, as everyone who has brought it up said, not fun, and by definition metagame if you're going beyond the standard protections a reasonable wizard would put on it.

[Zale]

What? Why would the whole of a given world unite against the PCs? How could the players even exist in that kind of world? They wouldn't, and I would never run a game like that.



You know what else is tedious? Players who play a class with a glaring weakness and expect that weakness to never be exploited.



You know what else else is tedious?

Watching you use that excuse for the sixth time. :biggrin:

[Rogue Shadows]

Okay, friend of mine just came over. He avoids DMing like the plague, so we're getting a player perspective.

I asked him, "Wizards. Require spell books to prepare spells. Is it fair for the DM to put the wizard into a situation where they don't have access to their spellbook?"

Verbatim responce:

"That's hillarious."

Like me, he feels that wizards who don't take precautions against losing their spellbooks are simply asking for trouble.

[Ursus the Grim]

All this talk of "its not fair to target a top-tier classes' primary weakness" makes me think I should play a lich and whine when someone goes after my phylactery. Except a lich dies when he loses his phylactery. A wizard still has weapons, magic items, and special abilities from other classes. A wizard also has the ability to take Spell Mastery or have a backup spellbook. That spellbook is one of the only reasons I would take Sorceror over Wizard. Its a weakness, and one that a player should never assume is immune from harm.

Or should we not sunder the Barbarian's Greatsword?

There's nothing wrong with hurting the characters. That's part of the problem with adventuring. Besides, it adds character. I've seen other players lose a hand before by touching things he shouldn't. He played a paladin so he trained in Ambidexterity (this was 3.0) and continued life with his off hand.

That same character later died and I was able to reincarnate him. With 3.0 rules. Into a wolf. The DM allowed him to retrain certain feats that wouldn't help any more or convert them into similar abilities. That character (Wolf Paladin Falstaff) wasn't just the player's favorite character. For a while, he was the party's favorite character.

'Nerfing' a character isn't necessarily a bad thing, given a few chances to prevent it, and assuming the DM is willing to give you a way to still be effective. I prefer my high-level character to bear the memories of old adventures.

Players that can't deal with something negatively effecting their characters are really just in it for the power trip, not the story. And that's a shame.

[McSmack]

Wow. Well theres the split right there. I can hardly express how wrong I think you are. Not personaly mind you but I find that mindset intolerable.
He really doesn't make the rules It's really supposed to be a shared experience, and it supposed to be our story...
I've had that experience a couple time before I realized thats a major problem in the community.
Thats what I meant when I said a pirate democracy though, yeah people have voted you arbitrator etc, but the when start thinking you're "God" we'll just vote up a new arbitrator, or play something else.
I've done it a couple times. Left peoples games, and likely to the betterment of all really. Though leaving and everyone coming with me, that was kinda the one that mattered.

That attitude alone is reason not to play with someone, and the prevalence of that attitude is reason to not play D&D.

I disagree. That 'attitude' is a fact of the game. The DM controls everything that happens, and the players have the option of playing by those rules or taking their business elsewhere.
That's the power the DM has. But he only has that power as long as people are willing to play with him.

The power itself isn't the problem. It's the abuse of said power that causes issues.

Personally I think you'd like gaming with me. I'm generous to my players. I rarely kill them unless they do something stupid or have really really bad luck, and I tend to make fun, crazy, epic adventures even at low levels.

Because I care about my players, not just as players but also as my friends, and I wish to see them have a good time.

But just because I choose to use my power for good doesn't mean I don't have the power to begin with. And realizing that I have that power doesn't make me a bad person or a bad DM, nor does it represent some sort of problem with the game itself.

[Amnestic]

Or should we not sunder the Barbarian's Greatsword?

It's closer to sundering both the Barbarian's arms off. I mean, you can still kick people, right? That's good enough.

[PollyOliver]

Okay, friend of mine just came over. He avoids DMing like the plague, so we're getting a player perspective.

I asked him, "Wizards. Require spell books to prepare spells. Is it fair for the DM to put the wizard into a situation where they don't have access to their spellbook?"

Verbatim responce:

"That's hillarious."

Like me, he feels that wizards who don't take precautions against losing their spellbooks are simply asking for trouble.

Because anecdotal evidence from a single player (taken from a sample which is used to your DMing style and predisposed toward liking it) clearly = /thread.

[Rogue Shadows]

It's closer to sundering both the Barbarian's arms off. I mean, you can still kick people, right? That's good enough.

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.

[Rogue Shadows]

Because anecdotal evidence from a single player (taken from a sample which is used to your DMing style and predisposed toward liking it) clearly = /thread.

No, I'm just adding another perspective. I didn't say "this now ends the thread."

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

[Starbuck_II]

All this talk of "its not fair to target a top-tier classes' primary weakness" makes me think I should play a lich and whine when someone goes after my phylactery. Except a lich dies when he loses his phylactery. A wizard still has weapons, magic items, and special abilities from other classes. A wizard also has the ability to take Spell Mastery or have a backup spellbook. That spellbook is one of the only reasons I would take Sorceror over Wizard. Its a weakness, and one that a player should never assume is immune from harm.

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).

[Kojiro]

And that's why Monk is the best class.

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.

[Ursus the Grim]

It's closer to sundering both the Barbarian's arms off. I mean, you can still kick people, right? That's good enough.

Not really. The Wizard still has the ability to cast spells. Give a wizard a scroll and he can use it. Give the wizard another spellbook and he can use it. Give the amputee barbarian an axe and he can't use it. Throw a pair of someone else's arms at him and he can't magically reattach them himself.

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