DM Taboos

[Deth Muncher]

Hey guys. This is not exactly an extension of my previous griping-thread, but it certainly does take some inspiration from it and other ideas I've had around here.

As a D&D player, you know there are just certain things you don't do as a DM. But why? Rules exist for a reason, and if a rule exists for something then realistically speaking, anyone, DM included, is allowed to do it. Examples of things I'm thinking of:

-Sundering weapons
-Disjunction
-Targeting familiars
-Targeting spellbooks

My question to you all is - how do you feel about these things, and additionally, in what circumstances do you think certain things are okay?

Personally, I think these are all viable options for a DM as well as a player - as long as the NPCs don't use meta-knowledge. I mean, for example: Sundering a weapon, pretty straight forward. Guy coming at you has a weapon you think looks flimsy? Why not break it? (This includes using [Sonic] attacks vs crystalline weapons/creatures.) But when it comes to spellbooks, unless the book in question is obviously a spellbook, it might veer into bad waters, though fair game if the spellcaster hasn't prevented it from being scryed on. Likewise, familiars are normally forgotten anyway, and even I don't start to target them - until the player starts using them for things. Think of OotS - Blackwing wasn't important until recently, and thus didn't really get hurt or targeted by enemies until recently.

Disjunction, though, is one thing that I think a lot of people have a problem with for no reason - I often hear cries of "But you'll fry the loot!" Yeah, and? Adventurers do nothing BUT find loot. Not to mention, if an enemy has loot strong enough that you needed to Disjoin it as opposed to Dispel (and thus, suppress it), it probably means that it's something battle deciding, and the players are likely going to get a level from the encounter. Likewise, if an NPC uses it on the party - yes, you're right, you may well lose some of your favorite loot. It may well suck - you could have sunk thousands of gold pieces into making your sword awesome. But often, an NPC of a level enough to cast Disjunction quite often has enough mundane loot laying about that would at least let you buy back a weapon near if not exactly as good as the last one.

Those are my thoughts. What are yours?

[dsmiles]

Neither I, nor anyone in my group, have any compunctions against any of those "taboos."

Rules are there to be used, in favor of the PCs and against them. Rules aren't a one-way street. Crap happens, get over it. :smallamused:

[kardar233]

I generally only Disjoin spellcasters, and only target spellbooks when people are aware that they might be targeted.

[Namfuak]

I generally only Disjoin spellcasters, and only target spellbooks when people are aware that they might be targeted.


I would probably try to avoid a situation where a spellcaster is going to be without their spellbook for a really long time (like, having to go through a whole dungeon to get it back), but otherwise it can be fun to make the wizard helpless for a little while. One town we encountered was causing random effects on people within its limit (it turned out to be some crystal, but anyway), and the wizard got the fear effect, so he woke up one morning and ran screaming to the woods outside of town, alongside the party fighter (who didn't bring his weapon of course). So, the wizard couldn't cast any spells, and the fighter had to use his bare hands, and we ended up having to schlep all of their stuff to them once we figured out what happened. The duskblade got haste, which was awesome, but me, the archer ranger, got enlarge person, which was a bit detrimental (less to-hit but more damage, eh). Point being, it was a fun challenge for the wizard to survive for that long with no spellbook, but it would be very boring for him if we had had to do the whole dungeon to find it.

[JadePhoenix]

As a D&D player, you know there are just certain things you don't do as a DM. But why? Rules exist for a reason, and if a rule exists for something then realistically speaking, anyone, DM included, is allowed to do it. Examples of things I'm thinking of:

-Sundering weapons
-Disjunction
-Targeting familiars
-Targeting spellbooks

My question to you all is - how do you feel about these things, and additionally, in what circumstances do you think certain things are okay?

I don't think of those as taboos. Not at all.

[Lonely Tylenol]

If someone might die from what's about to happen, roll your attack rolls, percentile chances, whatever you need to roll in the open, and let your PCs roll their saves. That way, nobody feels cheated over the death.
I guess the taboo is "the inverse of that".

[CTrees]

I do think PF's changes to Disjunction are pretty great. I have no compunctions about using that form, even with the ridiculous number of dice to be rolled.

Targeting familiars? There's a gentlemen's agreement-if the familiar becomes a factor in combat, it becomes a target. Otherwise, theyre generally safe from me. Now, my players seem to ALWAYS primary enemy familiars, but thats its own issue.

Basically, my general rule is, if players use a mean tactic, I use it, too.

[bloodtide]

-Sundering weapons
-Disjunction
-Targeting familiars
-Targeting spellbooks

My question to you all is - how do you feel about these things, and additionally, in what circumstances do you think certain things are okay?


None of them are taboos in my games. I do any and all of them during a game.

Though a typical game where a DM complains about 'Teir 1' too powerful characters will often do all of them and even more....

[Wyntonian]

I'd point out the distinction between taboos and Gentlemen's (and Gentleladies) Agreements. One is a no-because-no, the other is an acceptance of the potential for greater fun if certain tools are used sparingly.

I dunno, it's like garlic. A little won't hurt, usually. A little more is noticeable, but it's still kinda ok. Too much is bad. Context also plays a role. A lot of garlic on pizza can be a good thing. A bulb in your ice cream is something only a small and select group would ever want to try.

[dsmiles]

I just don't get why they're considered poor form.

If the PCs can do it to the NPCs/Bad Guys, why is the reverse unacceptable?

The NPCs/Bad Guys are just as capable of learning those feats/spells or taking those actions, why shouldn't they, if it seems it will help their cause?

[Beelzebub1111]

Sundering is fine, Almost never works anyways.

Targeting spellbooks works, but I've never known a player to keep his spell-book out in the open. (And my players tend to carry spellshards from Eberron, anyways.)

Targeting Familiars, I've known no players to take familiars for this precise reason unless it's a combat familiar.

Disjunction. If the players are high enough level, I don't see why not. Kind of a ****-move at low- to mid-levels, though.

[Amphetryon]

The only reason I'd avoid any of those things is if I were introducing new players, or if they'd asked to play a particular style of game where one or more of them was inappropriate for some reason.

[navar100]

After playing a particular story arc for 2 real world months, one game a week, the party finally slays the evil dragon, the BBEG. They liberate its hoard. The paladin finds the legendary Holy Avenger, taken from Hero Paladin of the Past by the evil dragon upon slaying its owner. The Holy Avenger joins the hero who vanquished the enemy of its former master, knowing it has found a Worthy One to continue the Cause.

Next week, new story arc. A lich, ally of the dragon, seeks vengeance upon the party. For now, he shows up in town, blasts people and the party, and departs, wanting the party to find him to lure them into a trap. For good measure he casts Disjunction at the party. Paladin rolls a 1. The Holy Avenger is lost forever.

That will p*** the paladin player off and rightly so. It doesn't matter how RAW it is. It doesn't matter how logical it was for the lich to destroy some of the party's power. It doesn't matter it's just a game. Players spend real world time and effort with their characters. Bad stuff will happen. However, some things just cross the line. It's meta-game, but it's a legitimate meta-game. Fun trumps DM controlling NPCs.

[DoughGuy]

I think you have to look at it this way - Monsters exist for one encounter (most times) and are expected to die. PCs exist for the entire adventure and have limited gold (even if WBL is still a lot it is limited). 3/4 of these destroy part of the PCs wealth and the other hurts their xp. I'm not saying they're taboos but it hurts PC a lot more because they have to live with the consequences of these while the enemy generally is dead so stops caring about their lack of weapon/book/animal/magic.

[dsmiles]

Players spend real world time and effort with their characters.DMs spend real world time and effort with their campaigns. Where's the difference?

Bad stuff will happen.Yes, yes it does, and players shouldn't get so attached to their characters. Characters die, items get destroyed, crap happens.

[legomaster00156]

DMs spend real world time and effort with their campaigns. Where's the difference?
Yes, yes it does, and players shouldn't get so attached to their characters. Characters die, items get destroyed, crap happens.
Well, as a player on both sides of the screen, here's my view of it.

1. I play as DM. I have this awesome NPC who I've worked up a backstory for and everything. He is, however, a villain. If someone were to destroy his ancestral blade, I might be a little frustrated to have to move to his stupid shortsword. However, I intended for him to die anyway, so I'm not upset. Plus, they they just destroyed their own loot.
2. I play as a PC. I have just obtained my specially-ordered sword from the finest weaponsmith in the land, for a hefty sum. I am very attached to my +2 Flaming Vorpal Greatsword. I then fight an enemy with Improved Sunder, who decides to wipe out my blade in the first round of combat. I am frustrated because I have to resort to my stupid shortsword, but also outright enraged that such a precious treasure could be so brutally taken away, since I don't plan to have my character die any time soon.

[kardar233]

I'm opposed to Disjunction because a) it screws over the people least in need of screwing over, b) it destroys a huge chunk of their WBL which doesn't come back easily without some conspicuous metagaming and c) it's nearly impossible to protect against. The only real ways to protect against Disjunction are counterspelling and Antimagic Fields, and the only way for most martials to get AMFs is Runescarred Berserker.

[dsmiles]

1. I play as DM. I have this awesome NPC who I've worked up a backstory for and everything. He is, however, a villain. If someone were to destroy his ancestral blade, I might be a little frustrated to have to move to his stupid shortsword. However, I intended for him to die anyway, so I'm not upset. Plus, they they just destroyed their own loot.I get that. I have no problem with that. Crap happens.

2. I play as a PC. I have just obtained my specially-ordered sword from the finest weaponsmith in the land, for a hefty sum. I am very attached to my +2 Flaming Vorpal Greatsword. I then fight an enemy with Improved Sunder, who decides to wipe out my blade in the first round of combat. I am frustrated because I have to resort to my stupid shortsword, but also outright enraged that such a precious treasure could be so brutally taken away, since I don't plan to have my character die any time soon.This I don't get. Loot is always out there. You'll get more. Would you rather have the enemy kill your character? That can happen, too. Personally, I'd rather lose a character's item than the character, but as a player, I know that the character and all his/her loot is just a piece of paper, and that bad things do happen.

[Mystify]

I never sunder because I generally find it a waste of time. I would have no problem targeting familiars or spellbooks. But I loathe disjunction. Lets just nuke the entire parties wealth! The party using it just hurts their own loot, but an enemy using it, even once, can devastate your WBL. Esp since the martial types are likely to have the weak will saves. A dispell knocks out an item for a little bit. A disjunction destroys all of the parties items.
It pretty much always hurts the party. Its an awful spell that should never have been part of the system.

[GRM13]

After playing a particular story arc for 2 real world months, one game a week, the party finally slays the evil dragon, the BBEG. They liberate its hoard. The paladin finds the legendary Holy Avenger, taken from Hero Paladin of the Past by the evil dragon upon slaying its owner. The Holy Avenger joins the hero who vanquished the enemy of its former master, knowing it has found a Worthy One to continue the Cause.

Next week, new story arc. A lich, ally of the dragon, seeks vengeance upon the party. For now, he shows up in town, blasts people and the party, and departs, wanting the party to find him to lure them into a trap. For good measure he casts Disjunction at the party. Paladin rolls a 1. The Holy Avenger is lost forever.

That will p*** the paladin player off and rightly so. It doesn't matter how RAW it is. It doesn't matter how logical it was for the lich to destroy some of the party's power. It doesn't matter it's just a game. Players spend real world time and effort with their characters. Bad stuff will happen. However, some things just cross the line. It's meta-game, but it's a legitimate meta-game. Fun trumps DM controlling NPCs.

This above is the main reason why I hate those action (though would not blame a DM for using them). It's the same reason why I dislike the grapple rules as it eventually a clear advantage to the DM with his tentacled large creature vs. a PC who made a grapple focused character without much of a chance to compete without magical assistance from outside sources.

Edit: also like to add that stuff like Sunder and Disjunction harm the martial classes the most, and really do we need to screw them anymore than they already are.

[Tvtyrant]

I like Disjunction, actually. It allows you to counter AMFs, Artificers, and a lot of tier 1 tricks (I am looking at you, persistomancers!). The largest problem with it is that it also hurts mundanes who are item reliant, but such is life. I don't mind the WBL problem, since I give a lot of extra wealth from caster types (afterall, they are casters who can abuse the economy).

[GRM13]

This I don't get. Loot is always out there. You'll get more. Would you rather have the enemy kill your character? That can happen, too. Personally, I'd rather lose a character's item than the character, but as a player, I know that the character and all his/her loot is just a piece of paper, and that bad things do happen.

I think it has to do with the fact that his character spend a good amount of his wealth and gained something he was proud and happy to have, only to loose it immediately. Also wealth is dependent on the campaign. I've been on campaign where I've gone 8 lvls without a single magical items as a barbarian, this led to a lot of sundering of weapons. The only reason that I didn't get completely screwed was cause I tended to carry around javelins around. Basically that wealth that you spent to get that item won't be recovered for for a very long time.

[eggs]

There's a bit of a distinction between the DM playing NPCs as if it's NPCs v. PCs and playing NPCs as if it's DM v. PCs that can crop up with this sort of thing.

For example, in a fight against a goblin warband, from a NPCs v. PCs mentality, there is no reason for a goblin to go out of the way to target the Wizard's familiar - it wastes actions that could be used trying to change the outcome of the battle and to ensure the goblin's own survival and has no immediate benefit. But from a DM v. PCs perspective, the goblins probably can't win, and are probably only going to be able to take a small chunk out of the PCs renewable resources, but specifically hitting the players' gear and familiars will hurt them in the long run.

The only time I have a problem with any of these things is when they cross that line, which is frankly too often. Otherwise, I'm all for Living Disjunction sunder-specialists galloping all across the landscape atop their trusty Rust Beast steeds.

[Acanous]

-On Sundering: This is usually OK. It pisses some folks off more than others. If you're going to invest in a magical item, make it adamantine, or that stuff from the planar handbook that keeps the magic if sundered, and can be repaired as a full-round action.

If I'm DMing and intending to use sunder (Which I've done in the past), I have the party hear rumors about the enemy they're about to face- from travelling merchants, wounded mercenary bands, thugs in the bar. Whatever works to get the point across; "These people target your weapons, bring extras".

I've done this before in a campaign, the party was warned THREE times "The enemies will target your weapons", and STILL the party fighter brought only a single weapon. He was extremely upset at me, I couldn't figure out why. "You were warned" I said. "Grab one of the weapons from a fallen enemy and carry on" I suggested. But no, he built his fighter solidly around spear fighting, and was very upset I had sundered his spear. (Took more than one try, he got his AO's off, killed a few of the orcs trying to do it)

When I play a martial character, I *Always* bring at *Least* three weapons. (One Bludgeoning, one peircing, one slashing) and carry them on my person. I don't have a problem if the DM decides to sunder my whacking stick.

-On Disjunction: It's a spell like any other. Don't cast it on the party until they're adequate level to cope with it (Unless it's completely central to your plot, and even then don't do this more than once), but after lv 17? Go nuts. The mundanes have the WBL to have a Ring of Counterspelling (Disjunction) and if they don't want to spend the GP or ring slot, that's a risk they're taking.


-On targetting Familiars: This one is generally a no-no, unless the PC does something to call attentino to his familiar, like say casting a spell through it.
Most familiars are size Tiny. A frog, a viper, a raven. Really, are you going to stop trying to hit the wizard blasting all your friends to take a few whacks at some little animal that's not actually doing anything? No.

Melee characters don't even know about Familiars unless they've been pumping Know: Arcana. a Ranger would likely think of it as an animal companion, and being so small and unintimidating, they'd ignore it unless particularly spiteful.

Enemy spellcasters may know enough to target familiars, but I like the idea that only Chaotic Evil casters would do such a thing. Everyone else avoids it because even if you win the fight, other casters might find out you've broken the Familiar convention, and hunt you down to be punished.

If PLAYERS start targetting familiars, they'll get away with it once. Maybe twice. Three times if they're being sneaky about it and covering their tracks. But spellcasters (And wizards in particular) do not exist in a vacuum. If Marvin the Mage goes to Bob the Wizard's castle for Tuesday Night Bingo and finds Bob dead, (Assuming they're both evil casters) he's going to avoid the magical traps he knows about, loot Bob's book collection, and leave. If he finds Bob's FAMILIAR dead, he's going to be shocked, appauled, and take it to his local circle of magi. "Someone is targetting wizards with Hate Crimes and killing familiars!"
Now there's divination-spam going out, and at the very least the party can expect to be scry-and-die'd, hit with save-or-sucks, and after being thoroughly bound, mark of justice'd and interrogated, if their reasoning is sound, they'll be let off with a warning.

If they continue to attack Familiars, the campaign changes to "On the run from every wizard on the planet", Survival-horror.

As a player, if my familiar is attacked, I respond by *Making an example* of the person to do so. Regardless of alignment, if someone attacks your familiar, you HURT them. You kill them, trap the soul, reanimate the body, and send it to kill their loved ones, and paint "This is what happens when you attack a Wizar's pet Raven" in their entrails on the walls.

Other wizards in the kingdom will cover for you. The giant XP loss and physical pain that comes from a familiar's death is traumatic at the very least, and the description on Familiars makes it sound like the wizard cares for the familiar at least as much as for a wife or child.

-On targetting spellbooks: Most NPCs don't know the difference between a Wizard, a Sorceror, and a Warlock. There's little reason anything but a recurring villain with ranks in Know: Arcana would ever target a spellbook.
Even enemy casters won't *Target* a spellbook so much as try to steal it.
If the Wizard player is making it Common Knowledge that he's a wizard (Like saying "I'm the Wizard!" loudly and in public, on a few occasions) then he's going to find rogues and such in the area targetting his spellbook.
Otherwise, it's unlikely to happen in any instance but the BBEG doing it, and any BBEG worth his salt isn't going to try the same trick twice if it failed the first time.

As a player, I don't go around scrying enemy spellbooks and trying to filch them. I DO search for them after an enemy caster is vanquished, and may demand access to a spellbook if we capture an enemy wizard (That way it's easier to avoid the Symbol of Death etched on the second page) in exchange for letting him go. (DM's love this, lets them make a recurring villain, while giving something to the players for it)

I recall during a Kingmaker campaign, I had a Wizard who spent most of her WBL *Trapping* her spellbook. There was a Symbol of Sleep on the index, the book itself was trapped ("Any time a page is turned, Cure Light Wounds on the holder. Once per round") and the book itself was Alarm'd. I carried it in a bag of holding.

The DM gave me flack about trapping it with CLW, I responded with "I have a Symbol of Sleep on it. Undead are immune. If an undead wizard takes this book, he'll be taking damage. Anyone else and I'll port in and take my book BACK.".

So anyhow, we swapped DM's about halfway through, and believe it or not, a *Lich* sent an *Etherial Filcher* to snag my spellbook.

The DM didn't roll, just told me next time I checked my bag, the book was gone. I told him it was Alarm'd and trapped. He didn't care, the book was gone, no roll, no alarm went off.
So I pulled out my spare, scried on my book, and informed him of the magical trap on the book.

A while later, the lich sent the book back. Lol.

[navar100]

DMs spend real world time and effort with their campaigns. Where's the difference?

Yes, yes it does, and players shouldn't get so attached to their characters. Characters die, items get destroyed, crap happens.

It's called empathy. People get attached to fictional characters in books, movies, and tv shows. We know it's not real, but we feel for them anyway. A player's character is no different. If a character is nothing more than ink on paper to you, that's your preference.

[Dragon Star]

I just don't get why they're considered poor form.

If the PCs can do it to the NPCs/Bad Guys, why is the reverse unacceptable?

The NPCs/Bad Guys are just as capable of learning those feats/spells or taking those actions, why shouldn't they, if it seems it will help their cause?

Because PCs are permanent, and NPCs are not. If a player's weapon breaks, then they have lost something of value forever. They also might be defenseless without it. But if an NPCs weapon breaks, it doesn't matter. They'll either be dead in a few rounds, will never be seen again, or even if they are a recurring character then it doesn't make it less fun for the players if an NPC is inconvenienced. And at least for me, the most important thing when playing is that everyone is having fun, not that I'm in a perfect simulation.

[Mystify]

Because PCs are permanent, and NPCs are not. If a player's weapon breaks, then they have lost something of value forever. They also might be defenseless without it. But if an NPCs weapon breaks, it doesn't matter. They'll either be dead in a few rounds, will never be seen again, or even if they are a recurring character then it doesn't make it less fun for the players if an NPC is inconvenienced. And at least for me, the most important thing when playing is that everyone is having fun, not that I'm in a perfect simulation.
This is an important distinction to keep in mind. Its why a disease based PC is useless, but a disease based NPC can work. Its why permament energy drain is much scarier to a PC than a NPC. Its why LA and CR are distinct elements.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

A lot of it goes into paranoia and silly arms races between players and DMs. While I could enjoy Gygaxian "Player Vs DM" grudge match style gaming, I honestly prefer being amicable with my tablemates. If only because the DM has the possibility of tweaking the numbers, if only by "accidentally" throwing enemies that are too rough.

As a player, knowing that such destruction can come to my precious toys - be they spell book, sword, or otherwise - I have bothered marking down my defenses, even if they are as simple as "Spells X, Y, Z are in books 1, 2, 3. Repeat for cantrips to Xth level spells, as I get them. Bought new spell book in Cantalot, it has duplicates of X spells in bag of holding Type III D."

After a few games, it gets annoying. For casters, the annoyance is more in the bookkeeping of the possible layers of defense that come online with higher level spells and items. As soon as I get a bag of holding, half my spell books go into it, the rest are on my person or possibly in a backpack on another person. Time and weight permitting, the books are either tattoos (in triplicate for key spells) or stone/mettle tablets.

For mundanes, I prefer having at least one back up weapon, even if it is my fist by virtue of being a Warforged or something silly like that. Even so, having to shuffle to my "off-weapon" is annoying, as my attacks are going to hit much less often, even with the use of ToB maneuvers.


A special case goes to Disjunction, though. Even though Dispel Magic has been around since ~5th level and can temporarily remove the magic from weapons and other gear (1d4 rounds, in 3.5), it is at least bound to one thing or person at a time, barring metamagic effects. Disjunction, though - that turns nearly any sort of gear into scrap. Your +X Enchanted Property Weapons, Armors, and random trinkets go from being worth hundreds of thousands of gold to, at most ~3k. And this lose hurts until either the group can pony up replacements, toss him a spare weapon, or construct additional goodies.

In such a view, Disjunction is very much like a nuclear strike: it will eradicate everything within its burst range (40 ft.) and is equally indiscriminate. It doesn't kill directly, but going from having even even just half your gear fail (say, magical flight from a cloak and ~+5 Sword/Armor) to no active spell-based buffs andnow-nonmagical gear permanently after numerous quests to acquire them (or, at the very least, cash spent for higher level starting games) will certainly rustle someone's jimmies and possibly take them out of the at least one "fight"

[legomaster00156]

Because PCs are permanent, and NPCs are not. If a player's weapon breaks, then they have lost something of value forever. They also might be defenseless without it. But if an NPCs weapon breaks, it doesn't matter. They'll either be dead in a few rounds, will never be seen again, or even if they are a recurring character then it doesn't make it less fun for the players if an NPC is inconvenienced. And at least for me, the most important thing when playing is that everyone is having fun, not that I'm in a perfect simulation.
This. This is pretty much what I was saying in my DM viewpoint vs. player viewpoint post, but said so much better.

[Amphetryon]

This. This is pretty much what I was saying in my DM viewpoint vs. player viewpoint post, but said so much better.

To add to the points made:

The DM gets to control what happens in the entire campaign world. The players get to control what happens to their individual characters, sort of, provided they don't have a killer DM or a railroad DM. Taking away an NPC's sword inconveniences a small portion of the DM's total play space. Taking away a PC's sword inconveniences a vastly larger portion of the player's total play space.

I'm still not entirely opposed to it, but I do try to make it the exception rather than the norm.

[Heatwizard]

I think Disjunction is shady not just because it destroys equipment, but that it destroys equipment randomly. It's the same reason critical failure punishment sucks.

It also removes most of the reasons you'd deploy it as an NPC, as well. If you're leaving it up to a will save, it can't be important to the plot. And if you're a wizard in a tower, and you have access to ninth level spells, why would you learn a spell that still has a 5% minimum chance of not doing what you want, when instead you could lead with Time Stop and sling five rounds' worth of 8th level spells instead? If you're willing to take the 5% chance, why not use a lower level spell like Dominate Person? Why are you playing around with their gear instead of resolving the threat?

[Archpaladin Zousha]

I honestly am on the fence. I don't think these things are outright taboos, but I feel that they can be abused by a DM, or players.

Having a weapon sundered in a battle sucks, sure, but generally you should have some sort of backup anyway. Even King Arthur had a spear he could use in case something happened to Excalibur (Fun Fact: It was this spear, named Ron or Rhongomyniad in the legends, that Arthur used to kill Mordred, not Excalibur). However, if the DM is having their monsters ALWAYS target the fighter's weapons and the wizard's spellbooks, then there's likely a problem, and that problem is that the DM is deliberately trying to kill the party by striking their greatest weaknesses in each fight.

Likewise, if the PCs try to sunder an enemy's weapon or deprive him of spells, it's a sound tactical move and makes for great drama. If the PCs are trying to sunder the weapons of ANY enemy they encounter, knowing that that's often a key weakness, then there's likely a problem and that problem is that the players are using metagame knowledge so they can complete the battles as quickly as possible and move on to something else.

[Crasical]

Targeting Familiars I can totally see. A caster loses power if their familiar is slain, draining them of EXP. It's certainly something I can see someone trying if conventional tactics seem to be failing, and something I would try as a player if I found myself unable to harm an evil wizard. Targeting spellbooks, slightly less so. In a straight up fight, the wizard probably already has all the spells he wanted for the day memorized, so destroying the spellbook won't help you in the short term. If it's in the long term, there's probably more percentage in stealing and selling the spellbook instead of just destroying it, and it disables the wizard all the same.

I'm not so sure I'm all for Sundering or Disjoining, though. Some classes really enjoy large benefits for otherwise very strange magic items, like the Simon warblade needing an Amulet of Undersong, and a Feral Pathfinder Alchemist really benefiting from some CL 20 Greater Magic Fang mouthwash to use Alchemical Allocation on. More magic items will come, but what are the odds of those specific items being in the loot? Especially if it's a backstory relevant item! Ancestral Sword, lover's gifted magic ring, kickass clockwork armor you made yourself to avenge your mentor's death?

[bloodtide]

2.A PC. I have just obtained my specially-ordered sword from the finest weaponsmith in the land, for a hefty sum. I am very attached to my +2 Flaming Vorpal Greatsword. I then fight an enemy with Improved Sunder, who decides to wipe out my blade in the first round of combat. I am frustrated because I have to resort to my stupid shortsword, but also outright enraged that such a precious treasure could be so brutally taken away, since I don't plan to have my character die any time soon.

The problem here is you get a boring game in no time. If once a character gets 'anything special' and they know for an absolute fact that they will never loose it: the game looses a ton of fun and excitement and gets boring. In short the game is equal to a typical comic book or TV show. Where for example you know that Thor can never loose his hammer or the Enterprise can never blow up.

Yes it does suck to loose 'special things', but then that is sort of the point. It's fun to get things and it's fun to loose things and then it's fun to get things again. That's all part of the game. But to have all your stuff have special immunity, that's just silly.

DM The Beholder targets it's disintegration ray...his eye moves past Orklor's Orb Of All Mystic Might, past Lena's Sword of Ultimate Sharpness, past Reneel's Sword of Beholder slaying....and targets Slock's Plain Wooden Staff. Zap! your plain wooded staff is reduced to nothing and the beholder laughs ''feel my awesome power''. Next round the group kills the beholder and Slock saves a couple copper to buy a new plain wooden staff in town.

[Crasical]

DM The Beholder targets it's disintegration ray...his eye moves past Orklor's Orb Of All Mystic Might, past Lena's Sword of Ultimate Sharpness, past Reneel's Sword of Beholder slaying....and targets Slock's Plain Wooden Staff. Zap! your plain wooded staff is reduced to nothing and the beholder laughs ''feel my awesome power''. Next round the group kills the beholder and Slock saves a couple copper to buy a new plain wooden staff in town.

You can go too far in the opposite direction, too.

DM The beholder targets it's disintigration ray... His eye focuses on Dr. Liedner Ingenious Clockwork Battle Armor. Zap! The armor crumbles off your body, nothing but dust. Looks like all that time and effort you put into crafting that wasn't the best idea, Eh, Liedner? Twenty thousand gold down the drain. Oh, and Thezar, you had an oath to protect Liedner, didn't you? Well, without that armor, we know he doesn't have a prayer of avenging his fallen master, so that oath is impossible to keep. So, you fall, and lose access to all your Paladin abilities. Now, Grimjawr, the Beholder turns on you....

[bloodtide]

You can go too far in the opposite direction, too.

DM The beholder targets it's disintigration ray... His eye focuses on Dr. Liedner Ingenious Clockwork Battle Armor. Zap! The armor crumbles off your body, nothing but dust. Looks like all that time and effort you put into crafting that wasn't the best idea, Eh, Liedner? Twenty thousand gold down the drain. Oh, and Thezar, you had an oath to protect Liedner, didn't you? Well, without that armor, we know he doesn't have a prayer of avenging his fallen master, so that oath is impossible to keep. So, you fall, and lose access to all your Paladin abilities. Now, Grimjawr, the Beholder turns on you....

Except that this is not 'too far', this is normal game play.

It's not like you get a free pass just as you created an item, ''Well as you put a lot of time, gold and game play into making that item I make sure that you will never, ever loose it''.

It's as bad as:

DM: Your griffin is hit by the fire blast!
Player: I jump off with my ring of feather fall!
DM: your griffon burns to a crisp and falls into the dark canyon
Player: oh no my spellbook was in my saddle bag!
Dm: Oh, um, just before the griffon burns up the fire burns through the strap of your saddle bag and it falls to the ground completely undamaged and right at your feet. Um, then the griffon burns to a crisp and falls in the canyon.

[Acanous]

I'm actually pretty sure that RAW wise, putting the spellbook in a saddlebag gives it full cover/consealment from a Fireball, and so it wouldn't burn up, even if the bag did. RAW is funny like that.

Wouldn't protect it from the fall damage, but if a spellbook gains the Broken condition, it can be repaired.

The Gryphon, though, is toast.

[Mystify]

Except that this is not 'too far', this is normal game play.

It's not like you get a free pass just as you created an item, ''Well as you put a lot of time, gold and game play into making that item I make sure that you will never, ever loose it''.

It's as bad as:

DM: Your griffin is hit by the fire blast!
Player: I jump off with my ring of feather fall!
DM: your griffon burns to a crisp and falls into the dark canyon
Player: oh no my spellbook was in my saddle bag!
Dm: Oh, um, just before the griffon burns up the fire burns through the strap of your saddle bag and it falls to the ground completely undamaged and right at your feet. Um, then the griffon burns to a crisp and falls in the canyon.
You are creating a false dichotomy. Its not a choice between their awesome and highly personal item and some worthless trinker. You can zap their +3 resistance cloak or their belt of giant's strength. And an enemy has good reason not to go for the most obvious, flashy thing; that is the thing that is likely to have the best defenses, so your attempt is more likely to fail.

Also, the enterprise does blow up. Quite a bit. They just give them a shiney new one.

And there is a difference between "My spellbook was on the griffon when it went down" and "You blew up my favorite toy that I just got". I wouldn't expect all of the parties loot that the mount happened to be carrying to be destroyed when it gets killed; it would just mean that the wizard now has a vested interest in exploreing the dark canyon to retreive it. Hey look, plot hook!

[Coidzor]

The only real taboos I can think of are the ones against rape occurring "on screen," and against explicit RPing out of sex scenes because no one in the room wants to hear what Barry and Dave think are appropriate pillow talk.


The problem here is you get a boring game in no time.

If everyone conveniently rubbed out Disjunction's destruction effect and sunder, there would still be a whole hell of a lot of game text left.

I do not think that this is vital to the game's existence or ability to be interesting.

I think that you are perhaps overusing your hyperbole, sir. :smalltongue:

[Forum Explorer]

Killing a character is actually less expensive to fix then a lot of magic items are. And my players have a tendency to load up on a few powerful items rather then spread them out. And finally the martial classes already struggle to keep up with the magic users. Getting magic items and using them is the most fun those classes have, though hopefully that will change soon.


(For Context my players have a strange morbid fear of Tome of Battle. As such they have a tendency to make Fighters, Barbarians and multiclassed Rouges. )

[Coidzor]

(For Context my players have a strange morbid fear of Tome of Battle. As such they have a tendency to make Fighters, Barbarians and multiclassed Rouges. )

ToB Campaign (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=205213) is a valid concept that can work, and should help them get over their fear if you can get them to dip their toes in. Doesn't even need to be wuxia flavored.

Deth Muncher: As far as targeting familiars goes... I feel that they went too far with the penalties and failed to find a good way to represent them, as, between the Paladin's Mount, the Druid's Animal Companion, and the Wizard's Familiar, none of them present a reasonable penalty for losing the creature.

Druids have no consequences other than having to get a new one, Paladins become horribly gimped if they were mounted combatants for a month of in-game time though generally they'll level up soon enough that the month part isn't that much of a problem, and familiars can cause a player to lose enough XP to no longer qualify for they level that they are, so depending upon their level it could be worse than just dying and having raise dead cast upon them. And then they can't get a new one for over a year in-game and had better hope that the DM rules that shelling out thousands of gold to revive the dead familiar causes the bond to be intact, because that isn't actually specified.

None of those really seem to have been terribly well thought out, since from the designers who did the playtesting, the idea of the AC as an entirely expendable ablative meatshield seems not to have occurred to the developers.

So, just because there are rules, that doesn't mean they're good rules. Like, Multiclass XP penalties, for instance.

IIRC, Spellbooks are generally not targeted because it quickly becomes a bookkeeping headache and a zero-sum game of asking what protections he's placed on it. If he answers wrong then he no longer has a spell book and is useless. Either it takes too much table time or it evolves to the point where it's either perfectly protected or destroyed and not worth table time, but either way, those aren't particularly fun or entertaining to see or to watch the build-up to the finale in real time. The wizard being made useless for not being all that he could be is also probably not a good idea viz. the gentleman's agreement either... And if you actually make the character useless then it gets boring because it can't or won't do anything and becomes window dressing. :smallyuk:


I just don't get why they're considered poor form.

There should be plenty of threads in the archives to dig through if you don't find the answers in this thread satisfactory.


If the PCs can do it to the NPCs/Bad Guys, why is the reverse unacceptable?

Well, is it really acceptable, common, or desirable for the PCs to do so such that it is "unfair" for NPCs to be generally disallowed such tactics?

I would say no, and discussions on this forum on the subject that I have observed have generally borne this out.

PCs generally don't want to sunder, disjoin, or otherwise permanently destroy enemies' equipment, they want to keep it as a reward for beating the bad guys. One of the few things I like about Pathfinder is that they allowed for a way to undo some forms of loot destruction.

Spellbooks being stolen without first killing the master of the book is generally something that only occurs to the more kleptomaniacal of players, and if the PCs have bested a challenge in game that has a spellbook and such a spellbook would by necessity need to be nearby, then they should be able to get it if they are reasonably able and apply themselves, as it is a just reward for overcoming the challenge of an NPC wizard, he'll only have whatever he DM wanted to use against the party or what was necessary for him to do his thing plausibly behind the scenes. As for why PCs don't want to destroy spellbooks in combat, that's covered by not wanting to destroy general loot as well as the fact that it is not a useful tactic midfight, and PCs typically have to take a lot of steps in order to be proactive enough to have an opportunity to get to a spellbook days before being able to fight the master of the book.

NPCs don't even have to work off of XP in the first place, so killing their familiars just eliminates that tactical option to the enemy, whereas losing a familiar on a PC hurts, even if XP is a river, as NPCs generally don't have to worry about spending the price of a minor magic item to get a class feature back.


DMs spend real world time and effort with their campaigns. Where's the difference?

The DM is expected to be the kind of person who is OK with the things he creates being destroyed. If the DM cannot make a narrative that is fun for the players, then he's the kind of person who shouldn't be DMing. :smalltongue:

Also, like an ant queen, he creates enough things that he shouldn't get invested in any individual thing, as the likelihood that they'll go away in a few moments of in-game time is quite high.


Yes, yes it does, and players shouldn't get so attached to their characters. Characters die, items get destroyed, crap happens.

Generally the narrative expects a low amount of character turnover on the part of the protagonists for cohesion's sake. Not so for the antagonists, especially when the stakes are death.

I'm frankly confused as to where you're coming from here and why you're so married to the necessity of taking things away from the players.


This I don't get. Loot is always out there. You'll get more.

Only if the DM allows you to actually get more loot. Generally people who are sunder happy fall into two camps, the ones who realize that they need to replenish the party's loot after they do this and the ones that don't.

Guess which ones generate more memorable forum posts. :smallwink:

Well, that, and if you're giving things right back to the players there's no point in taking it away in the first place, so even if you get some kind of loot back so that one isn't under WBL, it's not going to be what one wants or even necessarily useful, and if one liquidates all the useless crap then that sets them at half of wherever they just were.

And, on top of all of that, it's still disappointing to have something that one just got get instantly wiped off the table like that. Since the DM deliberately chose to do whatever it was that destroyed the new item on its first time out, it makes the DM come off as a bit of a tease.



Except that this is not 'too far', this is normal game play.

...Playing "let's find a new asinine way to make the Paladin fall!" is normal game play for you?

Really?

[Novawurmson]

I ran my campaigns very rules-light for many years; after learning that some of the rules make the game more balanced, fun, and/or tactical, I've been slowly re-adjusting my current campaign closer to RAW/RAI (instead of whatever I feel like at the time).

What I try to do is whenever I'm making a change from the past, I sit down with my players and explain how things are supposed to work. For example, I used to almost never use any kind of combat maneuver; I introduced my players to them by having opponents trip, bull-rush, etc. a little, and now they use those kinds of tactics as well.

As another example, they started readying actions to hit spellcasters in the act of casting, so I've begun returning the favor :D

In general, I don't use tactics I don't want my players using, and if a player uses a tactic, it's fair game.

[Bastian Weaver]

I'd say all that should be "plot points", not "taboo". For example - fighting against a lich who threatens the civilians is okay, I guess. After all, it's what heroes do.
Fighting against the lich who had just destroyed your awesome magic weapon? Now that's PERSONAL.
See also: the Strange Story of Roy Greenhilt, Xykon the Lich, and Dorukan's Gate.
Of course, things like that shouldn't be used to often, or it gets boring.
"So, Mike, would you like to buy that +2 sword?"
"Yeah right, like it's going to survive the next battle. I'll just waste those GPs on ale and drow dancers".

[Jeff the Green]

Because PCs are permanent, and NPCs are not. If a player's weapon breaks, then they have lost something of value forever. They also might be defenseless without it. But if an NPCs weapon breaks, it doesn't matter. They'll either be dead in a few rounds, will never be seen again, or even if they are a recurring character then it doesn't make it less fun for the players if an NPC is inconvenienced. And at least for me, the most important thing when playing is that everyone is having fun, not that I'm in a perfect simulation.

Seconded. Thirded?

Also, to expand on this analogy:



[URL="http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=205213"]Also, like an ant queen, he creates enough things that he shouldn't get invested in any individual thing, as the likelihood that they'll go away in a few moments of in-game time is quite high.

The DM is the ant queen, the various NPCs her minions workers. The players are anteaters. If the anteater sucks up a few hundred workers, the queen can pop out as many more as she needs. If the ants sunder the anteater's tongue, he dies of starvation.

Don't make your players die of starvation. :smallbiggrin:

[Averis Vol]

honestly, wizards aren't even that screwed if they lose their spellbook. i make it a point to ALWAY pick up spell mastery at about 9th level, this way i have a wide range of good spells to choose from so regardless of book or not, ill generally have about 9 spells i can prepare that are, well, good. period.

as for familiars, in most games magic is generally something rare (there shouldnt be 15 different spellcasters in every town who have every spell ready to be cast at any time) so how would some thug know what a familiar is anyways? it should just be another little animal to them.

and lastly with sunder. i see no problem with it as long as it isn't constant (so yeah, shadowing most other comments here, don't need to say much more on this point). i think the last time i used sunder was with a clan of savage bard-barbarians who, like locusts would enter a city and completely level it with their adamantine warhammers as they search for whatever the hell they wanted at the time. only 1 PC decided to go toe to toe with one to assert some level of respect (he lost his shield and his bastard sword that fight.)

[BerronBrightaxe]

I usually ignore spellbooks, unless it makes sense storywise to have the stolen/destroyed. And familiars I ignore too, unless they are part of the combat (delivering touch attacks) or are being used as scout.

I don't mind using disjunction, but it has to make sense storywise.
Having a reoccuring enemy wizard, could use it as part of an attack, when it is made personal. The wizard knows he's destroying a lot valuable magic items, but he doesn't care (because the party has stopped too many of his plans, made a fool of him, etc.).

[pwykersotz]

Roy's sword is actually a perfect analogy here. You notice how many times it has gotten broken? Once. It's not off limits, but the DM should be wary of allowing powerful toys and then breaking them too quickly. Such a thing can start a campaign in its own right, or turn the existing one on its head. Disjoining is mean, and should probably be done sparingly, but it's not off limits.

Now, if one of your players is an Artificer and abusing the heck out of item creation rules, introduce him to Lord Sunder and his Sword of Sundering or Railroad them to Disjunction Junction. :smallamused: (Hyperbole, I do not support focused vendettas because someone plays a class the DM doesn't like)

[Averis Vol]

it sounds more to me like you don't like the fact that they're abusing something rather then just not liking the class. if not, the word abuse is just ill placed here.

[NichG]

My take on Disjunction and the like is a little bit different. As a player, I get annoyed at things that force me to recompute large sections of my character sheet, especially during a fight. It just causes everything to slow down, and worse yet, if its temporary (or partially temporary) it means a lot of recomputation after as well, with opportunities for errors to creep in, etc. It basically turns into an exercise in accounting.

For example, in a fight where the party was hit by a Disjunction we spent over 30 minutes on that action figuring out for every potion, etc, etc what survived and what didn't. Then, e.g. if we had lost a +Con item we had to go and fix up Fort saves, HP, skills, etc. Even the effect of stripping off all buff spells leads to tedious recalculation (though this is more a consequence of buff-heavy play).

Now, as to the fairness/unfairness of permanent object destruction... I think blanket wide-area object destruction is particularly annoying since there's very little you can do short of rules-lawyering cheese to protect yourself from it (i.e. shrink-item'd hat). As long as its individually targeted, then in some sense there's intent and reason behind the destruction of the object, which makes it part of the story. If its just 'and randomly, 5% of your stuff blows up', that is kind of meaningless.

One solution I've seen was a homebrew feat 'Soulbound', which allows the person with the feat to effectively resurrect a specific item if it is ever destroyed or disjoined. Then again, some might consider that to be within the power of Wish/Miracle already.

[JadePhoenix]

Because PCs are permanent, and NPCs are not. If a player's weapon breaks, then they have lost something of value forever.
Wrong. Just give them more money. Problem solved.

[Crasical]

Wrong. Just give them more money. Problem solved.

"I murdered your children, but it's okay! You'll have new children! Better Children!"

Players can form attachments to items outside of 'It's neat and does neat things', so a statistically identical replacement ... isn't a replacement.

[Coidzor]

Wrong. Just give them more money. Problem solved.

Aside from the fact that this doesn't actually deal with emotional investment and narrative timing whatsoever, without backporting/reverse engineering (and in some cases fixing) some of the new rules pathfinder came up with regards to sundered or otherwise "destroyed" loot and gear, it's still going to have the potential to be a major time investment in game, and potentially an annoyingly high and immersion breaking time investment for the players of the game. And if the DM likes his sense of urgency, then money becomes more of an insult on top of injury thing where, sure, they could 'port out and get replacement gear, but then they'd get punished by the DM for doing so.

If the DM hasn't already banned or put red tape all over teleportation magics.


My take on Disjunction and the like is a little bit different. As a player, I get annoyed at things that force me to recompute large sections of my character sheet, especially during a fight. It just causes everything to slow down, and worse yet, if its temporary (or partially temporary) it means a lot of recomputation after as well, with opportunities for errors to creep in, etc. It basically turns into an exercise in accounting.

Indeed, I've had people get annoyed at me for "overbuffing" them for precisely this reason, partially because they didn't keep scratch paper for the modifications that were being made from a combination of Enlarge Person, Inspire Courage, and a third buff that I cannot recall the name of offhand.

[Mystify]

Wrong. Just give them more money. Problem solved.

And at high levels, they are crafting items that take several months to make. More money doesn't give them 6 months back.

[Suddo]

I'd say the only DM taboo is to control your players. That is to say you can only be lawful good. Now that isn't to say you, as the DM, can't say this is a Lawful Good campaign and you will probably be rewarded with things for being LG.

[Master Thrower]

-On Sundering: This is usually OK. It pisses some folks off more than others. If you're going to invest in a magical item, make it adamantine, or that stuff from the planar handbook that keeps the magic if sundered, and can be repaired as a full-round action.

If I'm DMing and intending to use sunder (Which I've done in the past), I have the party hear rumors about the enemy they're about to face- from travelling merchants, wounded mercenary bands, thugs in the bar. Whatever works to get the point across; "These people target your weapons, bring extras".

I've done this before in a campaign, the party was warned THREE times "The enemies will target your weapons", and STILL the party fighter brought only a single weapon. He was extremely upset at me, I couldn't figure out why. "You were warned" I said. "Grab one of the weapons from a fallen enemy and carry on" I suggested. But no, he built his fighter solidly around spear fighting, and was very upset I had sundered his spear. (Took more than one try, he got his AO's off, killed a few of the orcs trying to do it)

When I play a martial character, I *Always* bring at *Least* three weapons. (One Bludgeoning, one peircing, one slashing) and carry them on my person. I don't have a problem if the DM decides to sunder my whacking stick.

-On Disjunction: It's a spell like any other. Don't cast it on the party until they're adequate level to cope with it (Unless it's completely central to your plot, and even then don't do this more than once), but after lv 17? Go nuts. The mundanes have the WBL to have a Ring of Counterspelling (Disjunction) and if they don't want to spend the GP or ring slot, that's a risk they're taking.


-On targetting Familiars: This one is generally a no-no, unless the PC does something to call attentino to his familiar, like say casting a spell through it.
Most familiars are size Tiny. A frog, a viper, a raven. Really, are you going to stop trying to hit the wizard blasting all your friends to take a few whacks at some little animal that's not actually doing anything? No.

Now there's divination-spam going out, and at the very least the party can expect to be scry-and-die'd, hit with save-or-sucks, and after being thoroughly bound, mark of justice'd and interrogated, if their reasoning is sound, they'll be let off with a warning.

If they continue to attack Familiars, the campaign changes to "On the run from every wizard on the planet", Survival-horror.

As a player, if my familiar is attacked, I respond by *Making an example* of the person to do so. Regardless of alignment, if someone attacks your familiar, you HURT them. You kill them, trap the soul, reanimate the body, and send it to kill their loved ones, and paint "This is what happens when you attack a Wizar's pet Raven" in their entrails on the walls.

Other wizards in the kingdom will cover for you. The giant XP loss and physical pain that comes from a familiar's death is traumatic at the very least, and the description on Familiars makes it sound like the wizard cares for the familiar at least as much as for a wife or child.



I don't think a ring of counterspelling works on disjunction as it's not targeted, and why is it ok to sunder melee's things, but once familiars are brought up its a huge taboo. Seems a little off:smallconfused:

If anything melee need the kick in the teeth the least, considering alot of wizards don't rely on a single spell book (multiples, copies, trapped ones, that alternate class feature in drag mag.)

But in my opinion, sundering and disjunction is not a two way street, the only players who use those options tend to be players in a party of all VoP Druids, Clerics, Wizards who have no need for gear. All sundering and disjunction do is either

A. Ruin the party's loot, so most players wont use it.
or
B. Ruin the party's gear destroying wealth, attachment, time spent, etc, and while is not a permeant loss is just debilitating, and in some ways can be worse then failing your save, say on a Save-or-Die, because with most of those you can atleast be brought back, even if it is pretty expensive.

[Elric VIII]

Sundering and general destruction is okay as an ex post facto regulation on wealth. I feel that there is not good use for Disjunction unless you are trying to force the players' hand (such as with Divine Defiance's or Battlemagic Perception's immediate action counterspelling) or as a quest hook for a back-to-basics style quest (only if your players are okay with this).

Just to give some examples,

In the campaign I am running:
My Artificer player wishes to set up a workshop/factory that uses dedicated wights to manufacture mundane objects for extra cash. Now, left unchecked, that will inflate the PCs to such high wealth that treasure will seem almost insignificant. I plan to talk to the player and tell him that part of such an endeavor is the possible destruction of wealth as a regulatory measure.

In a campaign that I ended up leaving:
We had some very unpleasant events. The first one was the DM used sundering as a threat to get us to not go about a quest in a certain way. I also realized (sadly, long after the fact) that he was not actually using hardness, half damage to objects, or item hp. He just made an opposing attack roll and declared them sundered.

A second event concerned a stealth-dead-magic-disjunction-scrying-proof-causality-ignoring field. I later found out it was supposed to just be a dead magic zone (it was a premade adventure), but the DM turned it into a 100% guarantee that my character would be useless for the rest of the campaign (not just the battle in which it was located).

Spellbooks, however, are just a waste of time to target. Either you forewarn the player (before the campaign) and they just pay a gold tax to keep in almost 100% safe, or you take the player by surprise and he resents you for not being foreward with your gaming style.

[Coidzor]

My understanding is that it's generally better to just not give quite as much for a while if one made a mistake than to acively take away from someone their new toy.

It'd have to be a pretty catastrophic error on the DM's part to really justify taking that tact. Like, so catastrophic the DM's better off admitting he goofed and doing a bit of reality revision.


In the campaign I am running:
My Artificer player wishes to set up a workshop/factory that uses dedicated wights to manufacture mundane objects for extra cash. Now, left unchecked, that will inflate the PCs to such high wealth that treasure will seem almost insignificant. I plan to talk to the player and tell him that part of such an endeavor is the possible destruction of wealth as a regulatory measure.

Why not just use the DMG II business rules with the tweaks to make them sensible and relegate it into a background bit of window dressing that provides some quest hooks and would convert some of that business earning cash into direct quest rewards?

Something positive could be done there rather than just the negative.

Dedicated wrights would have a significant period of time before they would start turning a profit on the investment in gold to create them, as it is, so you'd need to give him a very large portion of downtime so that he could do that in addition to fulfilling his role as party crafter. Actually my understanding was that, by the math, you're generally better off using employees if you're at the point where crafting mundane items and selling them using the actual craft skill rules is going to be worthwhile compared to more blatant attempts at breaking WBL, such as charging party members 60% market value for crafting them items and using the proceeds to do something fun, like invest in walls of salt or walls of iron and fabricate. :smallconfused:


I don't think a ring of counterspelling works on disjunction as it's not targeted, and why is it ok to sunder melee's things, but once familiars are brought up its a huge taboo. Seems a little off:smallconfused:

XP is generally thought of as different, and generally unless there's some other railroadium going on, a sunderer is not going to last very long because they're not concentrating on putting down their opposition, so unless it's a significantly invested in item that gets sundered it isn't quite the same as the wizard being de-leveled by the DM deliberately putting on a killer DM mask, at least temporarily.


If anything melee need the kick in the teeth the least, considering alot of wizards don't rely on a single spell book (multiples, copies, trapped ones, that alternate class feature in drag mag.)

Think about why that is the case though. It's because going after spellbooks has proven to be something that not only can eat campaigns but is also very unfun once that arms race really gets going, so it has to be made clear that it is either frivolous to try or explicitly going to telegraph to even a neophyte DM how unpleasant going through that benny hill sequence would be for everyone in the audience as well as those involved actively.

[Elric VIII]

My understanding is that it's generally better to just not give quite as much for a while if one made a mistake than to acively take away from someone their new toy.

It'd have to be a pretty catastrophic error on the DM's part to really justify taking that tact. Like, so catastrophic the DM's better off admitting he goofed and doing a bit of reality revision.



Why not just use the DMG II business rules with the tweaks to make them sensible and relegate it into a background bit of window dressing that provides some quest hooks and would convert some of that business earning cash into direct quest rewards?

Something positive could be done there rather than just the negative.

Dedicated wrights would have a significant period of time before they would start turning a profit on the investment in gold to create them, as it is, so you'd need to give him a very large portion of downtime so that he could do that in addition to fulfilling his role as party crafter. Actually my understanding was that, by the math, you're generally better off using employees if you're at the point where crafting mundane items and selling them using the actual craft skill rules is going to be worthwhile compared to more blatant attempts at breaking WBL, such as charging party members 60% market value for crafting them items and using the proceeds to do something fun, like invest in walls of salt or walls of iron and fabricate. :smallconfused:

TBH, I didn't know that those existed in DMGII. In general, I find that book to be unhelpful, beyond some key things like the Apprentice feat and Weapon/Armor templates. Those could be helpful, so thank you.

As to why using the sundering, attack on resources, etc: the campaign world is post-apocalyptic and there is a survival theme to it (with long periods between towns and other supply points), so I figure that as long as I am careful not to target their Achilles Heel in such a way that they are rendered useless, it might add to the desolate lack of civilization and survival-of-the-fittest effect. But the big thing here is that I talk with my players and get feedback on it, rather than just issuing a DM decree.

[nedz]

-Sundering weapons
-Disjunction
-Targeting familiars
-Targeting spellbooks


I've tried sundering a few times - it seems ineffectual.

In a previous 1E game I ran I used to like giving out monty haul treasures. I also trashed the PCs equipment a lot. Disjunction does fit this game style. Used sparingly it can be an interersting trick in high level play. It gets old very fast however.

Targeting familiars
I try not to do this, but they do get caught in AoEs occasionally. Players do get attached to their fluffies.
I do remember one amusing incident from a very long time ago in which a PC grappled an NPC's familier and then held it as a hostage. This approach has merit.

I've had several players take great care with their spell books, though I've never targetted them. Am I wasting their effort or rewarding it ? I'm not sure.

[NoobForHire]

As a DM, I've used all of these except Disjunction. And that's only because I always play lower level campaigns.

If it's aiding the party, it has the potential to become a target. Don't like it? Do it right back to your enemies.

[Mystify]

As a DM, I've used all of these except Disjunction. And that's only because I always play lower level campaigns.

If it's aiding the party, it has the potential to become a target. Don't like it? Do it right back to your enemies.

But as mentioned, doing it to your enemies hurts you more than it hurts them. Just because both sides can do something doesn't mean its equally beneficial to both of them.

[NoobForHire]

But as mentioned, doing it to your enemies hurts you more than it hurts them. Just because both sides can do something doesn't mean its equally beneficial to both of them.

Of course, which is why I don't do it very often, and only if it's being flaunted (such as a familiar running around delivering touches). And I said potential to be a target; that doesn't mean it automatically does.

Besides, couldn't it be just as effective to steal the boss wizard's spellbook out of his robes while he's distracted?

[Coidzor]

Of course, which is why I don't do it very often, and only if it's being flaunted (such as a familiar running around delivering touches). And I said potential to be a target; that doesn't mean it automatically does.

Besides, couldn't it be just as effective to steal the boss wizard's spellbook out of his robes while he's distracted?

No. A BBEG wizard has as many back up spellbooks and wealth with which to replace them as he needs.

A PC wizard does not.

An enemy wizard that is intended to die in this combat is not inconvenienced by losing his spellbook at all. He's got his wad ready to blow and he's not expected to survive anyway.

A PC wizard that loses their spellbook is now severely hampered until they can get their spellbook back or get access to a replacement/backup.

[NoobForHire]

No. A BBEG wizard has as many back up spellbooks and wealth with which to replace them as he needs.

Yea, but what if said BBEG can't escape because he no longer has a spellbook and can't cast any escapey spells? I mean, sure there's the possibility (and probability) of magic items or contingencies, but it raises the odds, at least.

[Gnoman]

Sundering and general destruction is okay as an ex post facto regulation on wealth. I feel that there is not good use for Disjunction unless you are trying to force the players' hand (such as with Divine Defiance's or Battlemagic Perception's immediate action counterspelling) or as a quest hook for a back-to-basics style quest (only if your players are okay with this).

Just to give some examples,

In the campaign I am running:
My Artificer player wishes to set up a workshop/factory that uses dedicated wights to manufacture mundane objects for extra cash. Now, left unchecked, that will inflate the PCs to such high wealth that treasure will seem almost insignificant. I plan to talk to the player and tell him that part of such an endeavor is the possible destruction of wealth as a regulatory measure.




I deal with such things by providing the PCs with more ways to spend their money. If they want to build up a merchant empire, I let them, simply requiring large outlays of cash to set things up, them spending the time to set up the necessary connections (no "I sell the goods on the caravan and leave") and having to deal with bandits, competiton, and taxes. Of course, I do my best to run a grounded economy, so the problems of price dumping and limited supply of the better gear are always in effect.

[TuggyNE]

Yea, but what if said BBEG can't escape because he no longer has a spellbook and can't cast any escapey spells? I mean, sure there's the possibility (and probability) of magic items or contingencies, but it raises the odds, at least.

Huh? You don't need a spellbook to cast, only to prepare. ... what kind of lame BBEG doesn't have seventeen different backup plans, anyway?

[Elric VIII]

I deal with such things by providing the PCs with more ways to spend their money. If they want to build up a merchant empire, I let them, simply requiring large outlays of cash to set things up, them spending the time to set up the necessary connections (no "I sell the goods on the caravan and leave") and having to deal with bandits, competiton, and taxes. Of course, I do my best to run a grounded economy, so the problems of price dumping and limited supply of the better gear are always in effect.

This is my second time DMing and my first time with PCs of consequence. I may have to atart a thread on the subject.

Although I still say that it is okay to engage in a bit of property destruction as long as you discuss it with your players as a possibility and do not do it with the intention of handycapping them completely or long-term.

[Coidzor]

Yea, but what if said BBEG can't escape because he no longer has a spellbook and can't cast any escapey spells? I mean, sure there's the possibility (and probability) of magic items or contingencies, but it raises the odds, at least.

This scenario you present here doesn't really jive with the rules. :smallconfused:

[crazyhedgewizrd]

the biggest taboo i can think of is altering the world after the group had spent a few weeks making the homebrew world with races, nations and backstory.

the group lost two worlds because of one person not being able to run a game with the limitations of the world. This person has had 20 years of DMing experance.

[NoobForHire]

Huh? You don't need a spellbook to cast, only to prepare. ... what kind of lame BBEG doesn't have seventeen different backup plans, anyway?

Derp. I am, in fact, an idiot.

Please disregard everything I've said in this thread.

Please don't hate me.

[Kuma Kode]

The problem here is you get a boring game in no time. If once a character gets 'anything special' and they know for an absolute fact that they will never loose it: the game looses a ton of fun and excitement and gets boring. In short the game is equal to a typical comic book or TV show. Where for example you know that Thor can never loose his hammer or the Enterprise can never blow up.

Yes it does suck to loose 'special things', but then that is sort of the point. It's fun to get things and it's fun to loose things and then it's fun to get things again. That's all part of the game. But to have all your stuff have special immunity, that's just silly. Not loosing my items doesn't hinder my enjoyment of the game because my enjoyment of the game does not hinge on the threat of losing my items. My enjoyment of the game comes from plot and character development as well as tactical puzzles presented by combat.

As has been said, all of these tactics are useful and interesting as plot devices, but when randomly thrown in, they force a lot of unnecessary bookkeeping for what amounts, in my opinion, at least, to be very little gain. With the exception of attacking the familiar, none of these tactics really do anything for the game as a whole. No one I have played with would, years later, say "Hey, remember that time the bandit sundered your +3 sword and you pulled out your back up weapon that was only a +1 and then you killed him and went back to the city and got a different +3 sword? That was awesome."

Because D&D is balanced precariously around WBL, capriciously destroying important equipment threatens the mechanical foundation of what little party balance there could possibly be. What's gained? You end up with additional bookkeeping, an escalating arms race, and possibly making your players feel cheated... for what?

If it does something for you, if you like the uncertainty or the little bit of DM vs. PCs, that's great, keep doing it. But it doesn't work for every group.


The only real taboos I can think of are the ones against rape occurring "on screen," and against explicit RPing out of sex scenes because no one in the room wants to hear what Barry and Dave think are appropriate pillow talk. My group.... has done a little bit of both of these, actually. It worked out really well. Two completely different campaigns, but still.

[nightwyrm]

Something that might be of interest to this thread is Loss Aversion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion). It is a real psychological hang-up and can lead to poor decisions in real life. It's completely irrational and deeply ingrained in us. Losing your in-game stuff is no different. Giving something to someone and then taking it away makes the person feel way worse than if you never gave it to him in the first place.

DMs don't have this problem with PCs doing the same things to their NPCs because the DM never thinks of the NPC's things as "the DM's stuff" while players do think of their gear as "their stuff".

You could still do it of course, but don't be surprised if the paladin throws a fit after his shiny holy avenger gets sundered.

[Hecuba]

Not loosing my items doesn't hinder my enjoyment of the game because my enjoyment of the game does not hinge on the threat of losing my items. My enjoyment of the game comes from plot and character development as well as tactical puzzles presented by combat.

The plot element is a huge part of why I feel it's important to give PCs a pass on getting put at a disadvantage. Plot requires, at some abstraction, conflict. And for the conflict to be interesting, there must be the possibility of failure. Otherwise, the conflict disappears from the meta-plot perspective.

Thus, if it makes sundering the weapon increases suspense and conflict, why would it be bad?

[Kuma Kode]

Something that might be of interest to this thread is Loss Aversion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion). It is a real psychological hang-up and can lead to poor decisions in real life. It's completely irrational and deeply ingrained in us. Losing your in-game stuff is no different.

DMs don't have this problem with PCs doing the same things to their NPCs because the DM never thinks of the NPC's things as "the DM's stuff" while players do think of their gear as "their stuff". That's actually quite insightful, thank you. I didn't know such a thing had a formal name.


The plot element is a huge part of why I feel it's important to give PCs a pass on getting put at a disadvantage. Plot requires, at some abstraction, conflict. And for the conflict to be interesting, there must be the possibility of failure. Otherwise, the conflict disappears from the meta-plot perspective.

Thus, if it makes sundering the weapon increases suspense and conflict, why would it be bad? It has to do with timing. Sting doesn't get sundered by some random orc because that wouldn't be fulfilling. Like with characters, its frequently more enjoyable for a weapon to have a meaningful "death." Like Roy's sword. It gets sundered during a climactic battle, and it makes the entire thing more fulfilling. Would it be as interesting if some goblin did it randomly? No. Not nearly as much.

It also depends on the feel of the game. For instance, in horror, random losses and even traumatic, permanent damage to the character can be par for the course, but in a kick-in-the-door high fantasy having the characters be robbed by the random dice gods of stuff they worked hard for may not fit so much. It makes the world around them seem overtly hostile, which may not work for all games.

It boils down to how the players want the game to feel and what they expect. If a group feels that random losses makes them cherish their items even more, that's great, but if it makes them feel cheated, that's bad. Like all things, it can be very good for you in moderation.

I guess I'm in between a bit. Should it never be done? No. Should it become a tactic because they players can do it? No. It should be used when it's appropriate, and not any other time. There are more effective ways of creating conflict and the threat of failure and loss than losing items. Place NPCs the characters want to protect in danger. Show the villain's progress on their plan and have it working independently of the PCs so they need to catch up and work fast. Give them something they can act on to make a good story, not things they need to prepare for in the eventuality that it randomly occurs. If the enemy doesn't have a name, he shouldn't be sundering or disjoining things.

[Coidzor]

Thus, if it makes sundering the weapon increases suspense and conflict, why would it be bad?

Mostly because if it's common then it is just tedious and if it was previously off the table and comes onto it, it feels like the gentleman's agreement has been declared null by the DM and can break immersion.

To sum up a couple of positions that have been previously stated.

As has also been said, timing! It's more important than is generally given credit in this scenario.

Kuma Kode: Yes, people do occasionally break taboos. However, one thing that makes it a taboo rather than something frowned upon or viewed as a bad idea is that it makes the person who holds it to be a taboo to view breaking it in the same light as a 3 headed giraffe.

[Mystify]

the same light as a 3 headed giraffe.
I have no clue what that means.

[panaikhan]

I don't think our group has used Disjunction, from any side of the table.
Not really by mutual consent either, just no-one has bothered with it.
Sunder is the same. It's just not something we've even thought about.

I've disarmed a few people (both as a player and as GM) and thrown anti-magic shells around.

Having stuff destroyed, really depends on the 'world' the PC's are in. If they can walk into town and replace it from the magic shop, it's an inconvenience. If magical items cannot be 'commissioned', then it becomes a serious setback.

Roleplaying potentially uncomfortable situations, would be high on our list though. We don't do a great deal of roleplay (and the 4th wall takes quite a pummelling when we do).

[DigoDragon]

As a DM, I've rarely sundered weapons, but I have been known to occasionally do so at low levels where the weapons are cheap and easily replaced. I would target familiars and spellbooks, but the players have usually been good to keep them out of harms way.

Disjunction is a funny subject. My players find it taboo on the grounds that if they use it, then their enemies will start countering/using it too. They loathe to ever use it unless absolutely necessary (thus far in seven years of gaming, they've used it once). So to be fair, I don't use it myself out of courtesy.

[Leon]

Because PCs are permanent, and NPCs are not.

PCs are not Permanent fixtures on a world, they just tend to stick around a bit longer than other creatures (PCs being PCs this may not apply)


No. A BBEG wizard has as many back up spellbooks and wealth with which to replace them as he needs.

A PC wizard does not.


At low level maybe but a higher level PC wizard should have the resources to make a number of back ups and keep them in safe locations. If they do not then its their choice to walk the fine line of having and not having.





-Sundering weapons
-Disjunction
-Targeting familiars
-Targeting spellbooks

My question to you all is - how do you feel about these things, and additionally, in what circumstances do you think certain things are okay?


Not Taboos, all are valid options for both players and DMs to use - excessive use is not good but everything has a time and place to be used.

If yon wizzy goes into combat with a soft critter roaming about well don't be surprised if something decides to snack on that frog. Similarly if he has left his book exposed then well its open to damage/theft/etc

Weapons break, it happens repeatedly targeting particular weapons by the DM is going to be seen in a bad light.

Mostly it comes down to managing things sensibly - a good DMs job is to balance and run a world. Things can go bad in those worlds for good creatures sometimes and conversely those creatures can do well but nothing should be sacrosanct.


Incidentally i find that scenario listed earlier hilarious: Bob the wizard is dead = rock and and take his stuff vs Bobs frog is dead = warpath by combined wizards factions...

[Coidzor]

At low level maybe but a higher level PC wizard should have the resources to make a number of back ups and keep them in safe locations. If they do not then its their choice to walk the fine line of having and not having.

And at that point there's no point in doing so, especially if the wizard has been allowed to gain limitless gp by breaking WBL.

Otherwise, it's a choice between the wizard going to the point of playing at high enough Op the DM would have to cheat to get the spellbook or punishing a wizard player for not thinking about the rules and playing with them abusively enough.

[Seharvepernfan]

I'm okay with all the things you listed, and I always expect DMs to use every tactic that their npcs would use.

[Coidzor]

I'm okay with all the things you listed, and I always expect DMs to use every tactic that their npcs would use.

The DM designs and decides exactly what the NPCs are and what tactics they would favor, this makes such a statement at least slightly problematic.

Much like how it's not an issue with the character when someone is saying they're being acting in such a way as to be problem player because "it's what my character would do," as they're the person who decided that such was what their character would do, both when making the character, and deciding to react that way rather than reacting differently immediately prior to acting in whatever way was deemed objectionable. There's an article by the Giant about that. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=172910)

[nedz]

No. A BBEG wizard has as many back up spellbooks and wealth with which to replace them as he needs.

A PC wizard does not.
Most PC wizards I've seen are very careful about their spell books - to the point of paranoia.

An enemy wizard that is intended to die in this combat is not inconvenienced by losing his spellbook at all. He's got his wad ready to blow and he's not expected to survive anyway.

A PC wizard that loses their spellbook is now severely hampered until they can get their spellbook back or get access to a replacement/backup.

The NPC knows that their going to die in one combat ? If they are that genre-savvy then they should not hang about. This arguement is very metagamey to the point that it breaks verisimilitude - now that is a taboo.

[Red_Dog]

True rules I try to apply in my games and like to see in games I join are =>

=>NO metagaming!!! (Absolutely no excuse, as a DM I never do it and smack players if they try to, as a player I WILL leave the game at the sight of meta-gaming)
=>Apply the same set of rules to everything (tricky with XP system, crafting sytem and tec. which is why I heavly house rule that as DM but do not expect much from other's games as I know its a pain in ze arse).
=>Give as much screen time as I can to player/try not to hog screen time as a player. This is a personal flaw I have to talk to much, so I try to work n it as much as I can, whether I am a DM or player. Not always work, but I always try.

Those are really the only onces I have ^^

[Sir_Chivalry]

As a DM for most of the time, I must say that though all these tactics can come up, the issue of permanency is foremost. Doing it a few times a campaign is fine. The players need to know that the enemy is a threat, and that they can't simply run through everything. However, making the characters frustrated and making the players frustrated are two entirely different things, and I leave it to you to figure out which one should be avoided.

[Coidzor]

Most PC wizards I've seen are very careful about their spell books - to the point of paranoia.

Yes, one imagines that losing it is a rather inconvenient thing and if they're online at all they've likely encountered the horror stories that encourage going to the point of ridiculousness so as to discourage the DM from starting anything.

So your response is to think that if they're relatively new that they should become yet another horror story? :smallconfused:


The NPC knows that their going to die in one combat ? If they are that genre-savvy then they should not hang about. This arguement is very metagamey to the point that it breaks verisimilitude - now that is a taboo.

Why, yes, the DM, when he is designing encounters, is always concerned only with how the NPCs would act....conveniently forgetting that he determines entirely how the NPCs will act.

If we're going into verisimilitude, then sundering is something that enemies wouldn't do because they want to kill their enemy and keep the valuable loot or they're going to be mindless killing machines, with a few outliers outside of those main groups.

What for you "breaks versimilitude" is my "not being an ass," sure, whatever, I think you're wrong, you think I'm wrong. Just like how I was told I was wrong for finding rape in games to be taboo, I believe you're just plain wrong about whether or not it absolutely breaks versimilitude in all situations to acknowledge at the level of the person who is playing, planning, and running the game that consequences can be inherently different for NPCs and PCs due to the nature of the bloody game.

To be honest, I am confused and find it a spurious, possibly even disingenuous, argument to bring up verisimilitude in a discussion about how people view the game, which is inherently a metagame conversation, but to the point that it's not even about a specific game being played but the entire game system and practice of gaming. :smallconfused:

[big teej]

the only thing on that particular list that any of my players would cry foul over is disjunciton....

mostly for the amount of paperwork and crap we'd have to do instead of, oh I dunno, playing the game.



that said, each and every single one of my players is aware of a simple rule that proceeds any and all courses of action.


if they can do it, so can the bad guys.


it is implicitly and explicitly understood at my table that if you perform action X.... it is okay for the bad guys to perform action X as well.

[Kuma Kode]

Just like how I was told I was wrong for finding rape in games to be taboo No no no no no no no! That's not what I meant at all! I just found it amusing that my group has done things that I agree are rather taboo. Sorry that I must have come off the wrong way.

[Hecuba]

If we're going into verisimilitude, then sundering is something that enemies wouldn't do because they want to kill their enemy and keep the valuable loot or they're going to be mindless killing machines, with a few outliers outside of those main groups.
:smallconfused:


All you opponents are either mercenaries or mindless monsters?

[Coidzor]

No no no no no no no! That's not what I meant at all! I just found it amusing that my group has done things that I agree are rather taboo. Sorry that I must have come off the wrong way.

Ah, well, there's certainly some kind of story there then. :smallconfused:


:smallconfused:


All you opponents are either mercenaries or mindless monsters?

Magic very frequently equals power in most D&D settings. Destroying your opponents' magic items when you could just kill them is wasteful, even without having to be a mercenary.

Except for the most ignorant and backward of opponents, that would break my immersion a whole lot more than setting up the world so that the game functions smoothly. But that would necessitate a setting very, very far from standard where savage humanoids are able to survive without aid from even divine magic users.

[JonRG]

I suppose that an enemy that wanted money would always go for the disarm over the sunder, since they both neutralize the PC in some fashion.

@Coizdor: From a verisimilitude perspective, would a scenario like this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0607.html) sit well with you if it occurred in a game?

[fryplink]

I think everything here comes down to two or three guidelines, that with consideration, make or break tabletop groups:

1) Don't be that guy:this is more on the player's side, but the DM can do it too. It involves disrupting everyone's experience. This means metagaming, losing the theme/mood of the setting etc. Also, this covers the don't be a jerk clause. It's broad and kind of a cop out, but I mean certain types of things. Trying to Roleplay with Rollplayers is just as bad as vise-versa (and hearkens to rule 3). Ignoring things established by rule 3 falls in here. I hope i've gotten my point across, it's more than "don't be a jerk" it's the Belkar thing. Play the same game as everyone else at the table, or don't play at all. Backstabbing is good in Paranoia, but don't do it in DnD. Teamwork is expected in DnD, but no one wants to hear you complain about the lack of teamwork in Paranoia. If you want to play something that the people at the table aren't playing, ask and use rule 3. I'm using "game" loosely here, I don't just mean systems, I mean the themes, humor level etc of the system you are playing in. Trying to change it without consulting people hurts the group

2) Don't turn off players:Or, don't turn them off for a long time. This includes things like breaking spellbooks, and swords. Game balance aside, DnD is about fun. If a wizard has to change his entire character's theme because you sundered the book he spent 3/4 of his in-game wealth building up, killing it means forcing him to rebuild his character, or play without his character's point. Even if you compensate him in the long run, he, in the short run had to spend the rest of the session playing worse-than-commoner. Same for weapons, even if the fighter can replace it, doesn't mean it's fun or a good idea. In both situations you turned a character off until the next downtime, probably the next session or longer, and until then they have to be nearly useless beyond skill points.

3)Establish things before hand:The meta-rule. Houserules in my games are almost always written on a page everyone receives at the start of game. It also has campaign details and the desired mood, the ESRB rating if you will, and a slew of things that help players understand the point. If it's paranoia, I give out a basic mission handout giving the mission's seriousness level (zap, classic or dark). Also, this means consistency. While having papers might be a little extreme, everyone needs to know common houserules at your table to avoid people having hard feelings. Munchin allowance fits in here, not rule 1, because viewing a rollplayer as bad just ruins his fun, letting him have fun within restrictions means everyone is happy. As suggested before, Rollplay vs Roleplay is a thing that fits in here.

I've found that 95% of inter-player (not character) conflicts arise from a violation of one or more of these three rules.

[Coidzor]

Nyarai:Well, the Death Pickle Attack I think would derail the game for a good 15 to 20 minutes. :smalltongue:

Laying that aside, if the pacing issues could be dealt with, sure, but that's partially because the character is not only concerned with a ridiculous amount of hatred for her nemesis, she's also portrayed as being one of those amusing to watch, but annoying to have in one's game, characters who ostensibly has an 8 to 10 in Int, but acts like a 4.

So, on the whole, I can see it as another exception... the general execution would be problematic and I'd be annoyed at the DM for having such a dumb character that I felt dumber for having sat through it being RP'd.

[JonRG]

Coidzor: Fair enough. I was thinking almost exclusively in the vein of 'a vindictive long-time rival who thirsts for the PC's blood.' The rampant stupidity didn't even cross my mind. :smallbiggrin:

[Hecuba]

Magic very frequently equals power in most D&D settings. Destroying your opponents' magic items when you could just kill them is wasteful, even without having to be a mercenary.

Wasteful is only a concern once victory does not trump it AND if plunder is a character goal rather than an artifact of the system. I realize that the act of taking stuff from the people you kill is significantly ingrained into the system, but to have plunder as a major and explicit character goal is in anything other a kick in the door scenario is... disturbing to me. In general, it casts the characters, if you will, as warlords rather than generals.

I realize that this is more of a function of modern sensibilities than historical truth (since plunder was a common element of war through the late middle ages), but it's still bothersome to me for anything other than kick-in-the-door.

There are obviously exceptions: it could go well toward selling an insurgency-like campaign, etc.

[Yahzi]

I would use any of those if it were the best thing for the NPC to do at that moment.

Someone else already said it: if your NPC is doing things that cripple the party long-term, but aren't the best tactics for winning short term, then you're meta-gaming.

The NPC wants to win this encounter. The NPC does not usually care about winning the next encounter, if it means not surviving this one. However, sometimes they do; attack a group of paladins and you can bet they will be more interested in your ultimate demise than their own survival.

[Coidzor]

^: It's so rarely the best thing for the NPC either though, is the thing.
Wasteful is only a concern once victory does not trump it AND if plunder is a character goal rather than an artifact of the system.

You're forgetting that it also is generally wasteful in terms of grabbing victory as well, because sundering spends actions trying to get rid of one weapon being wielded by someone when dropping them would serve better. :smalltongue: The only people this really works against are the classes who are so limited that they're depended upon blowing their wad into one nice weapon, and even then they can still power attack just fine with a stick, or TWFers who still have one a weapon left and are even less of a threat when it comes to just killing.

To be blunt, you're overinflating and underthinking the motivations possible to NPCs for taking the collection of insanely valuable magical gear that's been hand-delivered to them. Considering that the only characters that are really going to have a chance of getting the characters' loot are going to be boss-type characters, or the PCs would get TPK'd so routinely the game would become boring.

Pre-emptive spellbook shenanigans well in advance and Disjunction are about the only thing that has much room to argue on these grounds. And once you get into something as railroady as the former, you're in trouble, even if all of the myriad concerns about spellbooks manage to not yield a snafu, and as for the latter, only high level casters or artificers can really make use of Disjunction and the only people who would be enough of a threat to warrant it will have high level casters of their own, making use of that either risky without enough contingencies to again be railroady or unwarranted. And, if anyone should understand the potential value and use of magical artifacts, items, and gear, it should be high level casters and artificers. Especially artificers.

[nedz]

Yes, one imagines that losing it is a rather inconvenient thing and if they're online at all they've likely encountered the horror stories that encourage going to the point of ridiculousness so as to discourage the DM from starting anything.

So your response is to think that if they're relatively new that they should become yet another horror story? :smallconfused:

Nope - read my earlier post.


Why, yes, the DM, when he is designing encounters, is always concerned only with how the NPCs would act....conveniently forgetting that he determines entirely how the NPCs will act.

If we're going into verisimilitude, then sundering is something that enemies wouldn't do because they want to kill their enemy and keep the valuable loot or they're going to be mindless killing machines, with a few outliers outside of those main groups.

What for you "breaks versimilitude" is my "not being an ass," sure, whatever, I think you're wrong, you think I'm wrong. Just like how I was told I was wrong for finding rape in games to be taboo, I believe you're just plain wrong about whether or not it absolutely breaks versimilitude in all situations to acknowledge at the level of the person who is playing, planning, and running the game that consequences can be inherently different for NPCs and PCs due to the nature of the bloody game.

To be honest, I am confused and find it a spurious, possibly even disingenuous, argument to bring up verisimilitude in a discussion about how people view the game, which is inherently a metagame conversation, but to the point that it's not even about a specific game being played but the entire game system and practice of gaming. :smallconfused:

My complaint basically is in viewing NPCs as having 15 seconds of life remaining. They should have somewhat more depth than that. You seem to view them as just a game pawn ?
But I do tend to run simulationist leaning games, so character believability is important to me; hence my comments about verisimilitude.

[Hecuba]

To be blunt, you're overinflating and underthinking the motivations possible to NPCs for taking the collection of insanely valuable magical gear that's een hand-delivered to them. Considering that the only characters that are really going to have a chance of getting the characters' loot are going to be boss-type characters, or the PCs would get TPK'd so routinely the game would become boring.

You don't have to do boss-level characterization for loot and pillage as a goal to be out of character. That can easily be a function of broad characterization, for things like military units from civilized nations or orders of knights. I don't write out motivations for random Lawful Neutral Knighthood member 3, but I'd generally assume that their order would consider "taking the collection of insanely valuable magical gear that's een hand-delivered to them" an appropriate and knightly motivation.

[Heatwizard]

My complaint basically is in viewing NPCs as having 15 seconds of life remaining. They should have somewhat more depth than that. You seem to view them as just a game pawn ?
But I do tend to run simulationist leaning games, so character believability is important to me; hence my comments about verisimilitude.

So what about the fact that it'd be really weird for a character, player or not, to decide the best way to win a fight is to break the other guy's weapon? If you're involved in a fight, your plan is probably, ultimately, to shove three-plus feet of steel down his throat and call it a day. Unless you're magic, in which case instead of steel there's Will saves. Breaking his sword isn't going to help as much as just stabbing him and getting it over with would. Generally, NPCs want to have more then 6 rounds left of life, right? So why are they fumbling around with goofy things like sundering, when all that gets them is the grim satisfaction that they've inconvenienced their murderers as they bleed out on the ground?

[Coidzor]

My complaint basically is in viewing NPCs as having 15 seconds of life remaining. They should have somewhat more depth than that. You seem to view them as just a game pawn ?

No I'm saying that if an NPC is going to die, which most of them are if they're fighting the PCs and the game doesn't include a whole lot of TPKs, then it's not really going to inconvenience the NPC significantly for their spellbook to be stolen from them.

Whereas the PCs, if they survive a fight but lose their spellbook somehow, they are much more inconvenienced by this.

Apparently it is some kind of huge sin to you for me to observe this simple fact. Whatever, it just means that we are too opposed to have meaningful discussions on the background behind games, I guess.

Really though, as has been said, it's going to be a relatively lower number of creatures, if you're going to be bringing versimilitude all up in this, that would have "destroy magical gear and wizard's spellbook in combat" at the top of their priority list when if they have the wherewithal to really do that, then they could just kill the PCs directly without all the trouble and if they really had some kind of fetish for destroying valuables, they could do so without molestation.


You don't have to do boss-level characterization for loot and pillage as a goal to be out of character. That can easily be a function of broad characterization, for things like military units from civilized nations or orders of knights. I don't write out motivations for random Lawful Neutral Knighthood member 3, but I'd generally assume that their order would consider "taking the collection of insanely valuable magical gear that's een hand-delivered to them" an appropriate and knightly motivation.

Knights? You're bringing up Knights as an example of people who would be opposed to seizing incredibly valuable magical gear for themselves, their order, or their masters? :smalltongue:

Hell, in low fantasy, the knight who is dirt poor aside from winning suits of armor and other spoils by besting other knights at jousting or some other martial contest is practically a trope.

So, no, it would be entirely in keeping with a knightly order to want to take and use magic items in whatever their goals are, especially if the previous owners were violent nogoodnik murder-hobos. You'd have some leeway for magic items that were intrinsically evil, but those are supposed to be destroyed in some kind of ritual anyway.

[Hecuba]

Hell, in low fantasy, the knight who is dirt poor aside from winning suits of armor and other spoils by besting other knights at jousting or some other martial contest is practically a trope.

This is prize from contest. Which is absurdly different from looting and pillaging.

You find it hard, for example, to imagine a warrior caste with some code of honor that includes burring warriors with their weapons (Norse) or sending the the arms and armor of the dead to the family (some iterations of Arthurian legend) or where not returning the possessions of honored (read: important) prisoners of war if they are released is the gravest form of theft (Romans)?

[Twilightwyrm]

I find that if you keep the general principle of Mutually Assured Destruction in mind, setting up certain things as taboos, etc., doesn't tend to be an issue. I've managed to DM for a long time without any of that (except for familiar targeting, which has come up as the wizard player likes to use his familiar for spying and delivering the Belker Claws spell) coming up, and have still been able to effectively challenge my players.
One thing that I tend to label as a taboo, however, is putting my players in any situation where they (permanently) lose something/someone they have earned/developed a relationship with, without them ever having a reasonable chance to prevent that from happening. I admit I've tread very closely to this line at times, but if a character loses something, it should be through their own in/action.
"Terramorphing", as we have come to call it, also tends to be looked down upon in my group. "Terramorphing", as it were, is a process by which a DM suddenly and significantly changes the terrain or location of the adventure in order to accommodate a change in their plans for the direction of the campaign. This could be a fiated change (like where my one friend apparently suddenly changed a campaign with two European styled Paladins my friends made, into an Egyptian styled desert campaign), or a story-explained change (such as where my other friend fiated that our group left the continent we were on for a new world...because).

[Coidzor]

This is prize from contest. Which is absurdly different from looting and pillaging.

Perhaps you should not be implying that I am unimaginative when you are unable to imagine a scenario where PCs fight NPCs that does not fall under the heading of "looting and pillaging." :smallwink:

As for your examples, I struggle to see how they serve as a defense of sunder-focused enemies either.

[Hecuba]

Perhaps you should not be implying that I am unimaginative when you are unable to imagine a scenario where PCs fight NPCs that does not fall under the heading of "looting and pillaging." :smallwink:

I just specifically gave several examples, and noted that you already provided one.


As for your examples, I struggle to see how they serve as a defense of sunder-focused enemies either.

I'm not particularly inclined to push sundering as a primary goal of any enemy. Largely because it's simply not that effective (putting aside certain edge cases, like spell component pouches).

The point I'm contesting is your idea that characters, NPC or PC, should be presumed to driven by a goal of
kill[ing] their enemy and keep the valuable loot.

As to the specifics of those examples, the weapons and armor need not be intact to be returned or interred in any of those scenarios. Nor, at least in the tournament version of the prize by contest example you provided, is the goal necessarily to get the particular weapon the enemy is using.