So, my party broke the BBEG

[Dead]

So, since it was the last session of the year, I decided to throw a great wyrm at
my level 10 party. I planned to kill off the more OP characters, and have an epic fight. Instead I got Dust of Sneezing and choking, and dispel magic on a book of 250 explosive runes in one round. Result: 5293 Damage to the dragon. With 13 rounds of stunning on the dragon left. Now they have a headless dragon corpse and its horde. FML

[Yawgmoth]

Moral of the story: OP characters with clever players aren't going to be killed by anything legit. Looks like you'll just have to talk to them directly and ask them to tone it down and/or make different characters.

[Flickerdart]

And this is why a 13+ level spellcaster always sends in clones, minions or illusions first.

[Dead]

And this is why a 13+ level spellcaster always sends in clones, minions or illusions first.
Yeah. I had to give my Naga's scent to counter some of the illusions, and I've given nearly every enemy dispel magic. It is nuts!

[EndlessWrath]

I tweak my monsters to handle the party better. Nothing outrageous or unreasonable but I also warn my players with this.
"Everything you try to pull may or may not be thrown back at you later on." Basically.. I'll let them decide how far they want to go breaking they're characters and shenanigans before throwing it back at them. I still make it tough for them, just got to find that right balance.

-Wrath

[Fable Wright]

Yeah. I had to give my Naga's scent to counter some of the illusions, and I've given nearly every enemy dispel magic. It is nuts!

Note: Flickerdart was talking about the 13+ Sorcerer levels of the dragon, not the tactics of the party. Also, throwing abilities on monsters to make the party's tactics less effective for an already difficult encounter is not exactly the best way to handle said tactics. :smallannoyed:

Nor, BTW, is throwing a CR 21 encounter at a level 10 party a good idea at any time, ever. It's either a rocks fall, everyone dies scenario, or stuff like this happens.

EDIT: Also, upon later reflection, Explosive Runes allows Spell Resistance. Assuming 10% of the runes succeeded (19 or 20 was needed to penetrate SR), though, it would still be bleeding out at -7 HP.

[Triaxx]

Wait, what precisely was the dragon doing landing where Explosive Runes could even reach it? Being wise is a prerequisite to having survived that long, so it should have known better. Plus it should have been preceded by a swarm of Kobolds to distract the party and force it start spending resources. Then, once they're engaged the dragon makes it's entrance by summoning creatures into the midst of the party. A Golem summoned just behind the wizard is going to make for a serious headache, particularly if he's not prepared for that sort of thing.

Plus the dragon should have started with dispel magic on the party, causing the book to blow up in their faces. Literally.

[Hiro Protagonest]

...Why is this in Gaming (Other)?

[hobbitkniver]

...Why is this in Gaming (Other)?

Yeah, why is that?

But anyways, using tough monsters to kill off OP players is generally a bad idea and reeks of dysfunction. Why can't you control your players in a civilized and open way instead of trying to get back at them through the game?

I'd just tell them that it's too powerful and they need to tone it down. If they can't accept that, then they probably aren't too pleasent to play with anyway.

[Acanous]

You should really let whoever threw the Dust of Sneezing DM. He's got the system mastery for it.

[Flickerdart]

Dust of Sneezing and rune-stacking isn't system mastery.

[Acanous]

Rune stacking, no.
Dust of Sneezing and Choking? Show's he's at least gone through the DMG and made note of useful minutae.

[Spinoza]

I say its time you throw the slave lords at them....Make them face another intelligent party ....make sure they have crazy amounts of escape and 'get out of jail' possibilities and spy knowledge of the party abilities.

If they don't end up naked/equipment less and in the slave lord pits then your doing it wrong.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

As the DM, you should have control of what system exploits the PCs can and can't use. Explosive Rune stacking and Dust of Sneezing and Choking are definite "Sorry...these don't work quite as well as you'd think" situations. My gut instinct is to put a cap on stacked Explosive Rune damage (a fairly low cap probably...maybe 4-5 cases of it, maximum, and more likely 2-3), and say that Dust of Sneezing and Choking either A: allows a save (fairly low) to negate the stunning (perhaps resulting in a -2 penalty) and has a stun duration of 1-2 rounds, or B: just doesn't exist in a manner that the PCs can get it.

[Flickerdart]

Or you could have cursed Dust of Sneezing and Choking, that is actually a Dust of Disappearance! :3

[Khedrac]

A question on this - Dispel Magic on the book of Explosive Runes?
Who cast the Dispel Magic?
If it was the caster of the runes then it's automatic and the runes are dispelled (you automatically dispel your own spells).
If it's not the caster of the runes then that's a lot of dispel checks - probably best to assume 10 of each result (1 to 20) and roll the other 10. Given equal caster levels the chances are good that half the runes got dispelled. Also if the book has been around for a while, then the caster may have been lower level when they were created...

Edit: and what about the Dust?

Dust of Sneezing and Choking

This fine dust appears to be dust of appearance. If cast into the air, it causes those within a 20-foot spread to fall into fits of sneezing and coughing. Those failing a DC 15 Fortitude save take 2d6 points of Constitution damage immediately. In addition, those failing a second DC 15 Fortitude save 1 minute later are dealt 1d6 points of Constitution damage. Those who succeed on either saving throw are nonetheless disabled by choking (treat as stunned) for 5d4 rounds.Nowhere in the description of either Dust of S&C or Dust of Appearance does it mention a range to the effect's origin. So either they party cast it into the air - and it affected them, or they threw the pouch and it wasn't "cast into the air" so it affected no-one. It is possible to get round this one with mage hand/telekinesis etc., but did they remember to do so?

[docnessuno]

I planned to kill off the more OP characters

You are a bad DM.

[Sith_Happens]

Moral of the story: OP characters with clever players aren't going to be killed by anything legit. Looks like you'll just have to talk to them directly and ask them to tone it down and/or make different characters.

Second Moral of the Story: Always, always ban the heck out of both the Dust of Sneezing and Choking and the Boombox.

[Arcanist]

So, since it was the last session of the year, I decided to throw a great wyrm at
my level 10 party. I planned to kill off the more OP characters, and have an epic fight. Instead I got Dust of Sneezing and choking, and dispel magic on a book of 250 explosive runes in one round. Result: 5293 Damage to the dragon. With 13 rounds of stunning on the dragon left. Now they have a headless dragon corpse and its horde. FML

My question is: Why did you use a Dragon as a brute? :smallconfused: Dragons are supposed to send legions upon legions of monsters at there foes and rarely act physically... Think of Dragons as a King in chess and the entire multiverse as its pawns, rooks, knights, etc :smalltongue:

[NichG]

It sounds like this may be an adversarial campaign. One of the consequences of an adversarial campaign is that the players will not feel guilty about bringing out the cheese. Another consequence is that, when their cheese is nerfed, they will feel that it is just another attack from the DM and may even be part of the expected play dynamic, and so they will just find something else cheesy that the DM hasn't banned yet.

In a more cooperative campaign, this kind of thing can still happen, but generally the players will be more understanding when you say 'okay, this stuff is broken - you'd feel cheated by it if I used it against you, so why don't we just agree to not use this type of thing?'. The nice thing there is, if the players understand that you mean 'generally cheesy stuff' instead of 'this particular source of cheese', they may even go along and self-limit themselves to the point where it stops coming up.

Of course, it really depends on the table's social contract. You could have god wizards in a cooperative game, if thats just the table's culture of what is expected from the game.

[Lonely Tylenol]

So, the party broke my miniboss.

I have a "damage is king" E6 party that is simply too big to fail against most CR-appropriate encounters (and can win almost everything flavored as a "fight" through numbers and brute force if they so choose), and while I like to challenge the party to a variety of different encounters (combat and non-), I was having problems coming up with an interesting, flavorful encounter for the group that would challenging them without being too unbalanced. So, I threw two Jovocs (CR 5) at my 5th-level party, and the two had a good time mutilating each other from the shadows, around corners, at the opposite end of hallways, etc. Chasing them down pissed off the party (in-character) right good. Just as they rounded the corner to a dead-end, having trapped them, they saw one Jovoc throw its claws into the stomach of the other and twist... Hard... And each one of them felt the same pain. And they knew damage would not be king.

So what did they do? Well, after despairing for a brief moment, a lightbulb went off in the heads of a few of the more game-savvy players. "Medium-sized Humanoids get a 1d2 bite attack, right?" "Yes," I said (this wasn't true--they actually get a 1d4 bite attack--but it's more or less the same from a functional standpoint for what they wanted to do). "Great." After a few minutes of planning with the group, they said, "OK, we're gonna try to separate them, and have the biggest guy in the group [who was a grapple-focused Barbarian] pin them down. Then, we're going to have [playername, who has a high enough Use Rope check to reliably pass the opposed check] tie them up, one by one. Then, I [a Halfling with 10 STR] am going to bite them in the neck until dead." They then did so (passing all of the checks easily, as each person performed just the function their class was set out to do), and the Halfling (a Psion) gave himself a healthy ration of temporary Hit Points, and then performed a series of low-damage, low-save coup de graces on both of them until they eventually just failed their saves and died from tooth-on-jugular action.

It was one of my proudest moments as a DM, and it was a fulfilling affair on everyone's part to have had the group outsmart the encounter. If you don't feel the same way about your players bruising up your BBEG, you can feel free to send them to Hawaii to play with me; I'm sure they'll appreciate the change in scenery, and I'm sure I'll be able to find a way to put their talents to good use. :smallbiggrin:

P.S. Did you guys actually roll out the 1500d6, or did you just guess on the number? If the former, then that is awesome.

[Randomguy]

And they did it using all core stuff, too...
Is this a core only game?

If you are no longer able to challenge the players, get creative: Customize monsters, and have them use as much preparation and planning as the players did. A great wyrm, for example, would know about dust of sneezing and choking, and would have a contingency for that, or would prebuff with iron body or elemental body.

[Jarian]

And they did it using all core stuff, too...

Implying that the majority of broken stuff doesn't stem from core. :smalltongue:

[Randomguy]

Implying that the majority of broken stuff doesn't stem from core. :smalltongue:

Heh. I think most books have about the same amount of broken stuff (with some exceptions), but there are only 3 core books, and about a hundred non-core books, so there's probably a lot more broken stuff outside of core, in total.

[Togo]

You should really let whoever threw the Dust of Sneezing DM. He's got the system mastery for it.

Why would that make them a good DM? I mean, sure it helps, but...

Besides, while I love the idea of enchanting a single object with thousands of explosive runes, explosive runes targets the object. 10000 casting of the same spell on the same object wouldn't stack.

And I'd suggest that dust of sneezing and choking is a poison attack, and would be resisted by any form of immunity to poison. Although the real question is why you're letting people activate cursed objects on other people when they're worded not to work that way, or at least not very easily.

Apart from the fact that it makes an awesome scene that is :smallbiggrin:

I feel like a bit of party pooper now :smalleek:. It's great that your party is actually thinking a bit and using stuff imaginatively, and you should go for whatever kind of game is fun. If that involves, as it has with some of my players, using troll telegraph, accelerating objects using lines of commoners, and attacking big bads with combination portable hole and bag holding bombs, then great. Go with it. Make your next nasty a gnomish sorceror monk balancing on a platform held up by an inverted decanter(s) of endless water stuck on gyser mode. Populate the column of water with water elementals who jump and grapple flying PCs, dragging them to earth with their weight. Have fun. :smallcool:

[GloatingSwine]

Rune stacking is easy to defeat, just roll damage against the object for each rune as it goes off, as soon as the first one goes off it destroys the book the rest are written on and they don't happen.

[ryu]

And suddenly we start enchanting our books with Damage Resistance. Problem? :smalltongue:

[Mithril Leaf]

You party is pretty low OP bro. I've got a group of 3 level 7's that can take out monsters CR'd in the upper 50s to mid 60s. Try throwing brokenly optimized characters at them if this is a giant issue.
(PS I was kidding about the first sentence.)

[Rejakor]

I think, learning that 'monster' doesn't mean 'runs at the party flailing ****ty claw attacks', is probably your first step in defeating this problem.

Second step is to ban obviously stupid stuff that is well known on every charop forum in existence - dust of sneezing and choking has NO SAVE, it shuts down GODS, give it a DC 15 fort save to bring it in line with similarly priced magic items, problem ****ing solved. Forever. Unlike 'throwing a great wyrm' at your party where they just make something more broken, houseruling a specific rules flaw that someone is (ab)using fixes the problem forever.

As for explosive rune stacking, people have already made suggestions about that. Use DnD's stacking rules! There's 150 explosive runes in there? Divide that by 8 (18.75 size categories, so 18) to get how many 'size categories' the explosive runes explosion has increased, and then use the 'weapon size' table to upgrade it appropriately, so from 6d6 to 8d6 to 12d6 to 16d6 to 24d6 to 32d6 to 48d6 to 64d6 to 96d6 etc. It ends up at enough damage to kill a dragon still, but that's over a week of castings from a wizard, a single area dispel instantly kills whoever is carrying it or renders it useless (and spellcraft + any kind of arcane vision will let anyone else fire off a dispel at CL 5, the perfect dispel to set them all off), it relies on being throw to within 10' of someone to work (i.e. they throw it at the dragon, and it blows up an illusion, or a simulacrum, or a clone, or an aranea etc etc), and it requires weeks to set up (all campaigns should be on a timeline - if people take a week to do stuff, their enemies are now a lot stronger and they have possibly screwed themselves).

Or just say it does 6d6, which under the spell stacking rules, you are very much allowed to do.

Just run the monsters more intelligently, put the party on a timer, and ban obviously stupid broken **** like dust of sneezing and choking, and you should be fine.

Oh, and also;
Rune stacking, no.
Dust of Sneezing and Choking? Show's he's at least gone through the DMG and made note of useful minutae.

Not necessarily. These two tricks are really well known. They are actually the most well known, probably. They're the tricks that ENworld tells to people as examples of what 'munchkins' do. So not only could this person have gotten them from the internet with one google search, they didn't even necessarily read treantmonk's wizard guide or minmaxboards to get it.

[animewatcha]

Sneezing and coughing?

Why not just plug nose and hold breath - mouth closed? Or heck. Certain gas masks. Ninja face veils. Stuff that covers/blocks off nose and mouth.

[robertbevan]

So, since it was the last session of the year, I decided to throw a great wyrm at
my level 10 party. I planned to kill off the more OP characters, and have an epic fight. Instead I got Dust of Sneezing and choking, and dispel magic on a book of 250 explosive runes in one round. Result: 5293 Damage to the dragon. With 13 rounds of stunning on the dragon left. Now they have a headless dragon corpse and its horde. FML

that's awesome. i feel for you.

[Seatbelt]

So now necromancers are going to be after them for the dragon corpse and rogues and thieves after them for the dragon's horde. You may have botched this encounter but you hardly botched the campaign.

[lsfreak]

Why was the dragon anywhere neat that close to them? A dragon should be in the air strafing them to death unless they can *force* him to the ground.
Why is the dragon even facing them without pulling all his puppet-strings to get whole nations after him? This is a damned millennium-old dragon.
Why wasn't the dragon op-fu'd to at least the same level as the PC's?

Why did they get its horde, unless you lead them straight to its lair? A dragon won't be carrying his horde on his back, it'll be nice and hidden away.

Unless I'm mistaken, the dispel magic trick doesn't work if it's one person both casting the runes and dispelling unless they have something that makes them auto-fail a whole ton of checks in a row, as dispel is automatic with no way of waving that. If someone else cast the runes, they still can't auto-fail the dispel checks and have to make appropriate rolls.
-----
If your problem is overpowered characters, your solution is never "throw something big under the assumption it will take some out." It doesn't work that way. The first solution is an agreement not to let it get to that point, the second solution is to talk to the players.

If your mutual agreement is that it will be dealt in-game like this, then you can't just throw a monster that's meant for a party 8 levels higher, because it won't work. Minimum is optimization to counter everything you know they've got. Preferable is that plus enough extra to deliver a total curb-stomp battle as a way of telling the players, you're too big and you've got waaay too much attention, settle down.

[SowZ]

In my experience, well built PCs can fight mindless creatures about double their CR and optimized intelligent encounters a couple CR above.

I have only used the CR system much for the last year of DMing, though, before that I just ballparked.

[candycorn]

I can't think of a single great wyrm dragon that couldn't wipe the floor with virtually any level 10 party.

Did you roll spell resistance vs the explosive runes? A Great wyrm should be rocking a 30+ Spell Resistance, which will make a level 10 party hard pressed to penetrate it.

In addition, there are several spells that a dragon can have to render it immune to stunning, and, since dragons have low caster level for their CR, they are best served by defensive spells such as these (or breath augmentation spells, or natural attack modification spells).

Things like Blinding Breath, Blood wind, Wraithstrike, those are your offense bread and butter. You don't rely on the spell for the save DC or the damage. They just enhance a dragon's high power abilities.

To ensure it sticks, throw on Heighten Breath. A dragon with +10 Con modifier, and 38 HD, will have a breath DC of 39. Heighten Breath can raise it to 49, and Ability Focus will put it at DC 51. The translation for a level 10 party? Anyone hit by the breath weapon is blind.

[Rejakor]

What happened was that the DM had a great wyrm in a lair, and the party walked into it, and then the great wyrm maybe got one action, where it attacked the fighter, with a bite attack, and then the wizard threw a book at it and dispelled the book (i'm guessing... if the DM twigged that that is 2 standard actions, someone else might have had to throw the book) and it died because the DM didn't realize that the SR would work against the explosive runes.

The lair didn't have any traps beyond what the dungeon had, or none, and was a cave.


That's because most DMs don't treat monsters like their int scores and special abilities demand, even kobolds can ambush and trap and use aid another, but no-one does this, and so even basic ****ty op like books of runes kill the monsters.

EDIT: Oh wait, dust of sneezing and choking. I doubt the dragon got a turn, because despite all the ways to have init buffs, or divinations or minions to warn it of the PCs coming, it had nothing, and thus the rogue or whatever tossed dust on it in the surprise round.

[candycorn]

Spot/Listen checks of +45-50 should have mitigated the rogue sneak up.. As should lair wards.. As should blindsense.

Bear in mind, a single torch sends out light 20 feet bright, and 40 feet shadowy for humans.

The same torch sheds light 40 feet bright, and 80 feet shadowy for elves.

For dragons? 80 feet bright, 160 feet shadowy. A couple torches will light up an entire lair, while leaving it pitch black for most humanoid races.

Also, alarm spells are basic, basic wards.

Basically, if the party reaches the dragon, and the dragon hasn't known the party was coming for 5 rounds, something was done wrong.

Dragons have a lot of resources. We're talking 13-14 feats, several of which are epic. A boatload of spells, a ton of flexibility. I've seen CR 23 dragons run against ECL 20 parties, and the party took a savage beating for almost a minute before they even SAW the dragon.

[Vizzerdrix]

So, since it was the last session of the year, I decided to throw a great wyrm at
my level 10 party. I planned to kill off the more OP characters, and have an epic fight. Instead I got Dust of Sneezing and choking, and dispel magic on a book of 250 explosive runes in one round. Result: 5293 Damage to the dragon. With 13 rounds of stunning on the dragon left. Now they have a headless dragon corpse and its horde. FML

You threw an over CR critter at your group with the intent of teaching a lesson to your players. You ran the monster poorly and lost. They had a contingency ready for such a nasty trick, that tells me the party had some sort of heads up that you intended to do something like this. Maybe not the fist time, yes?

Explosive Runes is an easy spell to avoid, even in such large quantities, and a fun trick to use against a party. If the party is going to use such tactics then you should use them too.

You should feel bad for trying to kill your players in such a blatant manner.

[Arcanist]

So, since it was the last session of the year, I decided to throw a great wyrm at
my level 10 party. I planned to kill off the more OP characters, and have an epic fight. Instead I got Dust of Sneezing and choking, and dispel magic on a book of 250 explosive runes in one round. Result: 5293 Damage to the dragon. With 13 rounds of stunning on the dragon left. Now they have a headless dragon corpse and its horde. FML

Nothing says I want to kill you then sicing an inappropriate CR at the players... seriously the only way it could have made it more obvious is if you said "Rocks fall, everyone roll up a new character" :smallannoyed:

but seriously, kill them with the environment, poison, and the undead :smalltongue:

[Slipperychicken]

So, since it was the last session of the year, I decided to throw a great wyrm at
my level 10 party. I planned to kill off the more OP characters, and have an epic fight. Instead I got Dust of Sneezing and choking, and dispel magic on a book of 250 explosive runes in one round. Result: 5293 Damage to the dragon. With 13 rounds of stunning on the dragon left. Now they have a headless dragon corpse and its horde. FML

There are several things the GM could do (some of which previously mentioned) that would be far more mature ways of solving the problem.

1. Simply ask the players to tone down the optimization, maybe ask them to rebuild/re-kit their characters to be less cheesy. This really works. Seriously. If you do this, #3 should not be necessary, but still do #2.

2. In addition to everything else he does, flat-out ban both Dust of Sneezing and Choking, and Explosive Runes stacking. Those things are broken.

3. If he's going to be immature about it and kill off the higher-powered characters, at least do it right. Have the next enemy (a high-level caster, with no loot on his body) Scry, Teleport in, Foresight+Celerity to pop his own Dust of Sneezing and Choking, then toss Explosive Runes-covered books in such positions as to kill only the offending characters, then Dispel them. If the Dust is wearing off by now, toss another one before KOing the rest of the party, then Teleport the OP characters bodies (and their loot) away, and remove any offending items from the remaining characters. At which point you say:

"I am the Dungeon Master. Anything you throw at me, I can throw back double. Before trying this s*** again, consider this: I am good at optimizing. I have infinite resources. You do not. An arms race with the DM is pointless: I will win. I will always win. Any questions before you roll up new characters?"

End result of #3: OP-characters dead, OP-Players intimidated, offending items removed, futility of arms race against GM demonstrated.

[SowZ]

There are several things the GM could do (some of which previously mentioned) that would be far more mature ways of solving the problem.

1. Simply ask the players to tone down the optimization, maybe ask them to rebuild/re-kit their characters to be less cheesy. This really works. Seriously. If you do this, #3 should not be necessary, but still do #2.

2. In addition to everything else he does, flat-out ban both Dust of Sneezing and Choking, and Explosive Runes stacking. Those things are broken.

3. If he's going to be immature about it and kill off the higher-powered characters, at least do it right. Have the next enemy (a high-level caster, with no loot on his body) Scry, Teleport in, Foresight+Celerity to pop his own Dust of Sneezing and Choking, then toss Explosive Runes-covered books in such positions as to kill only the offending characters, then Dispel them. If the Dust is wearing off by now, toss another one before KOing the rest of the party, then Teleport the OP characters bodies (and their loot) away, and remove any offending items from the remaining characters. At which point you say:

"I am the Dungeon Master. Anything you throw at me, I can throw back double. Before trying this s*** again, consider this: I am good at optimizing. I have infinite resources. You do not. An arms race with the DM is pointless: I will win. I will always win. Any questions before you roll up new characters?"

End result of #3: OP-characters dead, OP-Players intimidated, offending items removed, futility of arms race against GM demonstrated.

And then the players realizes that this theoretical GM views it as a contest, (which is stupid because there aren't rules to arbitrate this contest, anyway,) and all go home, inviting him to Overlord Descent but not to DM D&D anymore. Meanwhile he is left cackling madly in his den, screaming over and over again that he won, he won, they are terrified of me, until his mom pops in and tells him to pipe down and then offers him a hot chocolate. With extra little marshmellows the way he likes it.

[Slipperychicken]

And then the players realizes that this theoretical GM views it as a contest, (which is stupid because there aren't rules to arbitrate this contest, anyway,) and all go home, inviting him to Overlord Descent but not to DM D&D anymore. Meanwhile he is left cackling madly in his den, screaming over and over again that he won, he won, they are terrified of me, until his mom pops in and tells him to pipe down and then offers him a hot chocolate. With extra little marshmellows the way he likes it.

Yeah, basically. Best outcome for everyone.

[AtlanteanTroll]

And then the players realizes that this theoretical GM views it as a contest, (which is stupid because there aren't rules to arbitrate this contest, anyway,) and all go home, inviting him to Overlord Descent but not to DM D&D anymore. Meanwhile he is left cackling madly in his den, screaming over and over again that he won, he won, they are terrified of me, until his mom pops in and tells him to pipe down and then offers him a hot chocolate. With extra little marshmellows the way he likes it.

I wish to sig this.

[Alabenson]

Second Moral of the Story: Always, always ban the heck out of both the Dust of Sneezing and Choking and the Boombox.

Actually, my method of dealing with the dust is simple; the area of effect, no matter what precautions are taken, is always centered on the user.
Throw it into the air? Effect is centered on user.
Fire it out of a blowgun? Effect is centered on user.
Launch it out of a catapult? Container bursts mid-launch, centering the effect on user.
Cast it into the air using telekinesis from a safe distance? Winds pick the dust cloud up and deposit it on the user.
Moral of the story? Don't mess around with cursed, magical items, because they will bite you in the rear.

Also, the Boombox relies on the caster being able to choose to fail their dispel checks, and nowhere in the description of dispel magic does it indicate that they can do that.

[Slipperychicken]

Also, the Boombox relies on the caster being able to choose to fail their dispel checks, and nowhere in the description of dispel magic does it indicate that they can do that.

It also relies on stacking multiple iterations of Explosive Runes on the same item, and I'm.. 80% sure it doesn't work that way. But I think you can cast Explosive Runes at max CL, then Dispel Magic at minimum CL, making it highly unlikely that the Dispel will work.


Even if all that did work, you could say the first Explosive Rune to detonate destroyed the item, and thus invalidates the others. But the best solution seems to be disallowing Boombox-like strategies altogether (before players think up things like casting Explosive Runes on a bunch of pebbles in a bag, then area-dispelling it).

[Hand_of_Vecna]

So, something that didn't occur to me until I'd seen the OP quoted a few times.

Why kill the OP characters in the last session of the year? If we assumed for a moment that in every other way what the OP did was right, why do it in the last session of the year; which could possibly become the last session ever?

Essentially this means the OP character's players have already had all their fun and you aren't taking anything away from them. In a lot of circles making it to the final session and dieing to a fiat encounter is considered winning. It's like beating a videogame that has a depressing ending.

[demigodus]

I'm not sure it is appropriate to ask the party to tone it down at this point.

Once you throw a Great Wyrm at a CR 10 party, you have acknowledged you are doing an arms race, and have no intention of even pretending like you are playing kinda-almost-fairly. You just gave your party a VERY good reason to take their op-fu and up it a notch.

[Yuki Akuma]

Guys.

Area dispels say that you may choose to succeed against spells you've cast.

Only targeted dispels automatically dispel your own spells.

[CIDE]

So, since it was the last session of the year, I decided to throw a great wyrm at
my level 10 party. I planned to kill off the more OP characters, and have an epic fight. Instead I got Dust of Sneezing and choking, and dispel magic on a book of 250 explosive runes in one round. Result: 5293 Damage to the dragon. With 13 rounds of stunning on the dragon left. Now they have a headless dragon corpse and its horde. FML

A game we played purposely overpowered. We killed 3-4 Great Wyrms and only one gave us any real difficulty. Don't always assume the dragon is going to fix everything for you.

Try that Beholder/illithid combo race that is both a lvl 10 Beholder Mage and lvl 10 Illithid Savant with maybe some lacky's in the mix too.


Rune stacking is easy to defeat, just roll damage against the object for each rune as it goes off, as soon as the first one goes off it destroys the book the rest are written on and they don't happen.


I didn't even think oif that. I'll have to remember it.


There are several things the GM could do (some of which previously mentioned) that would be far more mature ways of solving the problem.

3. If he's going to be immature about it and kill off the higher-powered characters, at least do it right. Have the next enemy (a high-level caster, with no loot on his body) Scry, Teleport in, Foresight+Celerity to pop his own Dust of Sneezing and Choking, then toss Explosive Runes-covered books in such positions as to kill only the offending characters, then Dispel them. If the Dust is wearing off by now, toss another one before KOing the rest of the party, then Teleport the OP characters bodies (and their loot) away, and remove any offending items from the remaining characters. At which point you say:

"I am the Dungeon Master. Anything you throw at me, I can throw back double. Before trying this s*** again, consider this: I am good at optimizing. I have infinite resources. You do not. An arms race with the DM is pointless: I will win. I will always win. Any questions before you roll up new characters?"

End result of #3: OP-characters dead, OP-Players intimidated, offending items removed, futility of arms race against GM demonstrated.


For #3 I once again point at the monster I mentioned above. In this case have the creature devour the brains of the OP party members and use it against them at a later date.

[Arbane]

My question is: Why did you use a Dragon as a brute? :smallconfused: Dragons are supposed to send legions upon legions of monsters at there foes and rarely act physically... Think of Dragons as a King in chess and the entire multiverse as its pawns, rooks, knights, etc :smalltongue:

Dragons are 'supposed' to lay waste to the countryside until they get killed by Saint George. But this is D&D, not classical legend, and since D&D Dragons are spellcasters, they are contractually obligated to win at everything forever. :smallannoyed:

[TuggyNE]

Also, the Boombox relies on the caster being able to choose to fail their dispel checks, and nowhere in the description of dispel magic does it indicate that they can do that.

The easiest way to do this is probably to buy or craft a wand of dispel magic at minimum CL, then ensure that your explosive runes castings aren't going to be dispelled by a mere 25 on the check (20+5 vs. 11+14 will do it).

</tangent>

[Spuddles]

You are a bad DM.

This kind of stuff is really rude. I wish the playground would get off its horse about The Right Way to Play.

[ryu]

Also get something that won't break easily I'd think bag of pebble sized adamantite chunks would work.

[docnessuno]

This kind of stuff is really rude. I wish the playground would get off its horse about The Right Way to Play.

Yes, probably it's rude. You can review my posts and i think you won't find any other rude comment, but a DM stating they set up a grossly over-CR encounter with the specific objective to kill off specific PCs (without RP reasons behind it) gets my nerves.

[whibla]

Instead I got Dust of Sneezing and choking,

I have a couple of comments about this alone. Firstly, this is a cursed item, correct? Are you allowing characters to identify cursed items as cursed, because the DMG allows Identify only a 1% chance to do so, and Analyse Dweomer is a 6th level spell, i.e. not usually available to 10th level characters. Secondly, the dust is a ground zero effect, with a 20' radius spread. To affect the dragon the person blowing / throwing it has to be in melee with the dragon's head (I use this term advisedly, because of the size of the dragon, and therefore its reach), and, along with any other nearby party members, will also be affected. Finally, assuming you allow certain spells to mitigate or negate the effects of the dust (delay poison, neutralise poison, heroes feast, iron body, etc) most great wyrms have significant casting ability, and given any time to prepare might well have prepped a bit beforehand. As the DM you have significant leeway in what happens in YOUR game!


and dispel magic on a book of 250 explosive runes in one round. Result: 5293 Damage to the dragon. With 13 rounds of stunning on the dragon left. Now they have a headless dragon corpse and its horde.

Unless your players are exceedingly cunning there's a few get outs here too. Firstly, dispel magic always dispels the casters own spells, and explosive runes explicitly states that they only detonate on a failed dispel magic attempt. Unless the dispel magic was cast by a different party member to the one who spent several months casting the book of explosive runes* the net effect would be ... pfft...the runes are dispelled...who was next?
In addition, how did this book end up next to the dragon? Thrown? It's a pretty small, and light, object to manage to throw with any great precision, especially so when you consider the size of the dragon, and exactly how much air is displaced as it flaps it wings (or thrashes around in paroxysms of sneezing and choking).
And finally on the subject of the runes, and more pertinently, explosive runes allows for spell resistance. Even allowing for feats such as spell penetration, and greater spell penetration (unlikely at 10th lvl) this would negate any damage from roughly 75% of the runes, even assuming they were allowed to detonate in the first place.

Now we come to the question of how the party got that close to a great wyrm in the first place, without it doing anything. Granted, the 3->3.5 blindsight nerf of 30'/age to a flat 60' doesn't do them any favours, but...this is a great wyrm! It has lived for over a thousand years. It's not like it hasn't had plenty of time to prepare a few traps of its own, and being (depending on the dragon type) a 15th+ level caster itself that's a lot of glyphs/contingencies/symbols etc. To go back to your party, and this book of explosive runes. Assuming you've never hit this party with a dispel magic in all the time the wizard was creating it, what happens to him when he walks over a glyph of dispel magic. It's not the dragon taking 5293 damage anymore...

I could go on, but, frankly, I think your players are getting away with blue murder, and you're allowing them to.


FML

At least you're having fun though...

[Hiro Protagonest]

This kind of stuff is really rude. I wish the playground would get off its horse about The Right Way to Play.

What?

This forum supports all sorts of games. Blasty/healy/stabby/stabby #2 (because tanky doesn't work). Wizard/wizard/cleric/druid. Warblade/factotum/beguiler/cleric. It's often stated that there is no true right way to play.

But throwing a double CR monster at party with the intent to try and deal with OOC problems by killing off characters? That is a wrong way to play.

[Fable Wright]

To clarify some of the points (I was there, and saw the whole event):

1. The book was not, actually, made by the same character that dispelled the runes. It was created by one of the characters that left the party, and after a series of humorous incidents with a group of pirates, rumors trickled back about an exploding book, which was subsequently recovered by the party. There was precedent for the rest of the pages of the book not exploding when one page detonated, and it was cast by a different character at CL 8. The dragon in question was a Great Wyrm White dragon, and after willingly failing the dispel check on all of the runes, 10% of them would have gotten through, lowering the dragon to -7 HP.

2. The Dust of Sneezing and Choking was bought before the game by one of the players, for the sole purpose of bringing it out to avoid a TPK. The DM has shown a history of not knowing how to balance encounters, and this would be a good get out of jail free card, like the book. It was brought to the dragon by one of the party members, who activated it to stun the dragon. The character, too, was stunned. However, with the incapacitated dragon, there was no risk for them. The book was then thrown at the dragon by one of the party members, and the other spellcaster (A beguiler) had a readied action to Dispel it when it came near the dragon. By RAW, the dragon's actions (and lack thereof) had to effect on the projectile. There was also the option of Wraithstriked Coup de Grace on the Helpless dragon, but we thought the book would be a more satisfying way of taking it out.

3. The DM had a policy of "If you don't overshadow the rest of the party, you can do it," and as a result I wound up bringing in a DFI Bard (for one of my newbie friends to play) and a Swiftblade to the party. They didn't overshadow the other party members, but they were contributing quite a lot to the rest of the party. As a result of this, anything in any sourcebook was approved, including said Dust.

4.He has 0 skill with optimizing, as well as a lack of sense of balance. We thought that the panic buttons, as I said, were a good idea.

[Spuddles]

To clarify some of the points (I was there, and saw the whole event):

1. The book was not, actually, made by the same character that dispelled the runes. It was created by one of the characters that left the party, and after a series of humorous incidents with a group of pirates, rumors trickled back about an exploding book, which was subsequently recovered by the party. There was precedent for the rest of the pages of the book not exploding when one page detonated, and it was cast by a different character at CL 8. The dragon in question was a Great Wyrm White dragon, and after willingly failing the dispel check on all of the runes, 10% of them would have gotten through, lowering the dragon to -7 HP.

2. The Dust of Sneezing and Choking was bought before the game by one of the players, for the sole purpose of bringing it out to avoid a TPK. The DM has shown a history of not knowing how to balance encounters, and this would be a good get out of jail free card, like the book. It was brought to the dragon by one of the party members, who activated it to stun the dragon. The character, too, was stunned. However, with the incapacitated dragon, there was no risk for them. The book was then thrown at the dragon by one of the party members, and the other spellcaster (A beguiler) had a readied action to Dispel it when it came near the dragon. By RAW, the dragon's actions (and lack thereof) had to effect on the projectile. There was also the option of Wraithstriked Coup de Grace on the Helpless dragon, but we thought the book would be a more satisfying way of taking it out.

3. The DM had a policy of "If you don't overshadow the rest of the party, you can do it," and as a result I wound up bringing in a DFI Bard (for one of my newbie friends to play) and a Swiftblade to the party. They didn't overshadow the other party members, but they were contributing quite a lot to the rest of the party. As a result of this, anything in any sourcebook was approved, including said Dust.

4.He has 0 skill with optimizing, as well as a lack of sense of balance. We thought that the panic buttons, as I said, were a good idea.

Ahhhhhhhhh
/sense of closure


Was it a fun year of gaming? Sounds like it was fun.

[whibla]

To clarify some of the points (I was there, and saw the whole event):

1. The book was not, actually, made by the same character that dispelled the runes. It was created by one of the characters that left the party, and after a series of humorous incidents with a group of pirates, rumors trickled back about an exploding book, which was subsequently recovered by the party. There was precedent for the rest of the pages of the book not exploding when one page detonated, and it was cast by a different character at CL 8. The dragon in question was a Great Wyrm White dragon, and after willingly failing the dispel check on all of the runes, 10% of them would have gotten through, lowering the dragon to -7 HP.

There is no option within RAW (the basic books at least) for willingly failing a dispel check. You can always choose to undercast it ofc, but since the party was 5th level this isn't an option either, since you're at the minimum caster level anyway. By my reckoning that means that about 35% of the runes would have been successfully dispelled, with the rest detonating. Given the rest of your description though it does become somewhat of a moot point.

However, thank you for the background, and run-down of events. It does sound like you're having fun...

[Rubik]

For the people still mentioning that you auto-Dispel your own spells, that's only on the TARGETED version. There is no such clause for the area Dispel.

It was brought up earlier in the thread, but people keep reiterating this (mis)information.

[Acanous]

That reminds me of my exploits with the dust. DM had us fighting about 10 demons, the ones that do that dance of death when there's 3 or more of them? at level 10. My barbarian runs in, DM expects me to declare rage/charge/power attack on one. But no, instead I ask him to have all the demons in a 20' radius centered on me make a fort save (Which was all but 3 of them).
/encounter.

But yeah, that stuff is best busted out as a panic button.

[candycorn]

To clarify some of the points (I was there, and saw the whole event):

1. The book was not, actually, made by the same character that dispelled the runes. It was created by one of the characters that left the party, and after a series of humorous incidents with a group of pirates, rumors trickled back about an exploding book, which was subsequently recovered by the party. There was precedent for the rest of the pages of the book not exploding when one page detonated, and it was cast by a different character at CL 8. The dragon in question was a Great Wyrm White dragon, and after willingly failing the dispel check on all of the runes, 10% of them would have gotten through, lowering the dragon to -7 HP. Then the party resources were not taken into account when the dragon was created. A single feat would have erased that... Awaken Spell Resistance. Increases it by 2, ensuring that 0% of the runes would have gotten through. To top it off, that's one of the first feats in Draconomicon, the book of Dragons.

[Fable Wright]

Then the party resources were not taken into account when the dragon was created. A single feat would have erased that... Awaken Spell Resistance. Increases it by 2, ensuring that 0% of the runes would have gotten through.

In that case, the party would have just Wraithstrike Coup de Graced, killing it anyways. We used the book because we thought it was funnier.

EDIT: Nevermind, this doesn't work. Still, doing 33d6+63 on 3 touch attacks per round for three rounds averages to 535 damage with Warithstrike on a Power attack for the Swiftblade in the 13 remaining rounds of stun results in an average of 535.5 damage, enough to easily kill the Great Wyrm.

[whibla]

@ Rubik. Just a note about the dispel. In order for the dispel to work as described (dispelling all the explosive runes, rather than just a single one) it had to be the targetted version, at an object, namely the book.


In that case, the party would have just Wraithstrike Coup de Graced, killing it anyways. We used the book because we thought it was funnier.

As far as I can tell the condition stunned, while giving the attacker +2 to hit, and denying the creature its dexterity, does not mean the creature is helpless. Helpless (from DMG 3) includes the conditions bound, held, sleeping, paralysed, or unconcious. It also grants the attacker a +4 bonus to hit. While the DMG 3.5 is slightly less clear on the matter (not including a complete list of conditions characters and monsters can be in) the difference in attack bonus alone implies that there is a difference between them. So, while you could have got sneak attack damage, a coup de grace was not an option, unless there's something about wraithstrike that I'm unaware of.

Either way, as I've said before, the dragon was as good as dead anyway, and ultimately what it comes down to is that it was fun.

I guess the moral of the story is: As a DM be very very careful in what magic items you allow your players to have. I can remember an incident of my own, where a chaotic evil 17th level drow mage suddenly found himself wearing a helm of opposite alignment...it certainly wasn't the way I was expecting the encounter to pan out!

[candycorn]

In that case, the party would have just Wraithstrike Coup de Graced, killing it anyways. We used the book because we thought it was funnier.

Stunning doesn't allow coup de grace. Further, there are several ways to make the dragon immune to stuns.

Further, even a white Great Wyrm has enough caster ability and stealth detection to see the party at great distances.

Further, a Great Wyrm white has burrowing, which means that its lair shouldn't even HAVE an entrance.

No matter how you slice it, if a party of level 10 adventurers one shots a CR 20 without difficulty, then the DM screwed up by the numbers.

I mean, this thing has level 6 spells.

Amorphous Form
Stone Body

Those render you immune to stun, from the Sorceror/Wizard list. Adding in a dragon archetype would get access to druid spells, which opens up plant body, or cleric spells, which opens up a LOT.

Stunning Breath: High DC Stun effect. (DC 40+ with heighten breath)

There are others, but a dragon that is prepared and ran even halfway competent shouldn't come close to dying to this.

[AntiTrust]

That reminds me of my exploits with the dust. DM had us fighting about 10 demons, the ones that do that dance of death when there's 3 or more of them? at level 10. My barbarian runs in, DM expects me to declare rage/charge/power attack on one. But no, instead I ask him to have all the demons in a 20' radius centered on me make a fort save (Which was all but 3 of them).
/encounter.

But yeah, that stuff is best busted out as a panic button.

Dance of Ruin. The creature is called a Vrock

Give three of them three rounds to dance around and then 100ft radius 20d6 untyped damage reflex 18 for half. Pretty nasty if they can pull it off, but 3 rounds means they'll need some buffer creatures to slow down the party.

[Fable Wright]

There are others, but a dragon that is prepared and ran even halfway competent shouldn't come close to dying to this.

See also, DM with little system mastery. And for all we know, it could have been a Xorvintaal dragon, and just not had any spellcasting ability.

[candycorn]

See also, DM with little system mastery. And for all we know, it could have been a Xorvintaal dragon, and just not had any spellcasting ability.

Already listed as a great wyrm white.

That said, if it was, then again, point back to DM not taking party abilities into account.

If a DM has low system mastery, and the players are taking advantage of that, then shame on the players.

[Gavinfoxx]

I would get together with the players and suggest to the DM, "Right, it is kind of obvious you don't know much about the game aspects of the system you are running. Do you want some help and some training and tutoring with this sort of stuff, outside of game, or maybe we could go with a simpler system that it is easy to challenge the party? We should be able to find one, together."

[Fable Wright]

Already listed as a great wyrm white.

That said, if it was, then again, point back to DM not taking party abilities into account.

If a DM has low system mastery, and the players are taking advantage of that, then shame on the players.

Xorvintaal is a template in MM V that can be applied to any dragon. That said, it would more accurately be described as trying to survive his low system mastery. His lack of it has led to a near-TPK through poorly CR'd homebrewed (by him, of course) monsters, a large amount of handwaving and fiat to reduce or eliminate powerful abilities of the party, and things like throwing a CR 23 creature at a level 10 party specifically to kill 2 party members. Panic buttons were entirely reasonable things to invest in.


I would get together with the players and suggest to the DM, "Right, it is kind of obvious you don't know much about the game aspects of the system you are running. Do you want some help and some training and tutoring with this sort of stuff, outside of game, or maybe we could go with a simpler system that it is easy to challenge the party? We should be able to find one, together."
We're switching to Legend over the summer, which is much harder to mess up, and throughout the year I had been pointing out various things to improve his game, such as reading Dungeonscape's chapter on encounters, the CR calculator on the SRD, and other such things. It's not just the party sitting back and doing nothing, we've been actively trying to improve the game with the DM.

[Twilightwyrm]

The 250 page explosive rune book wouldn't work, as the first rune to detonate (even if it is a fraction of a second earlier than the others) would destroy the book, and all other runes inside it, ending with just 6d6 damage.

[Fable Wright]

The 250 page explosive rune book wouldn't work, as the first rune to detonate (even if it is a fraction of a second earlier than the others) would destroy the book, and all other runes inside it, ending with just 6d6 damage.

The pages were individual objects attached to each other. The fluff behind it being that the character was often bored between assignments and took to doodling Explosive Runes on sheets of paper, later putting them together in a book. And there was precedance for the book working that way earlier in the campaign, when it was read from by several rather inept pirates and didn't immediately disintegrate.

[candycorn]

Xorvintaal is a template in MM V that can be applied to any dragon. That said, it would more accurately be described as trying to survive his low system mastery. His lack of it has led to a near-TPK through poorly CR'd homebrewed (by him, of course) monsters, a large amount of handwaving and fiat to reduce or eliminate powerful abilities of the party, and things like throwing a CR 23 creature at a level 10 party specifically to kill 2 party members. Panic buttons were entirely reasonable things to invest in.


We're switching to Legend over the summer, which is much harder to mess up, and throughout the year I had been pointing out various things to improve his game, such as reading Dungeonscape's chapter on encounters, the CR calculator on the SRD, and other such things. It's not just the party sitting back and doing nothing, we've been actively trying to improve the game with the DM.

If you're using things like 250 page books full of explosive runes, and dust of sneezing and choking, and the DM balancing against that is one that doesn't know how to win vs ECL 10 parties with an epic level enemy, then I'd say that the question of chicken and egg is moot. That DM won't get any better if he has to contend with High Op. win buttons like that.

So the point stands. There's no possible justification for that. Even if the DM uses very mismatched encounters. Even if there's a truckload of fiat.

[Fable Wright]

If you're using things like 250 page books full of explosive runes, and dust of sneezing and choking, and the DM balancing against that is one that doesn't know how to win vs ECL 10 parties with an epic level enemy, then I'd say that the question of chicken and egg is moot. That DM won't get any better if he has to contend with High Op. win buttons like that.

So the point stands. There's no possible justification for that. Even if the DM uses very mismatched encounters. Even if there's a truckload of fiat.

They were used exactly once during the campaign. We didn't even consider using them at any other point in the game. They were reserved for a situation that would be a TPK without the items, and nothing less. The DM was blindsided by them for a reason- we didn't do anything like this before. It was not a habit or something predictible that could be balanced against. No other cheesy tricks were used, except that one-time use of the Polymorph spell. One other trick, total, over the course of the campaign.

[candycorn]

They were used exactly once during the campaign. We didn't even consider using them at any other point in the game. They were reserved for a situation that would be a TPK without the items, and nothing less. The DM was blindsided by them for a reason- we didn't do anything like this before. It was not a habit or something predictible that could be balanced against. No other cheesy tricks were used, except that one-time use of the Polymorph spell. One other trick, total, over the course of the campaign.

In that case, judging by the optimization skill of the DM and the optimization skill of the players, then these exploits were each used precisely one time too many. My apologies for overstating the transgressions of the player.

Still, use of them at all against an unskilled DM is not justifiable. Even if it was just once. Even if it was to avoid a TPK. Even if (insert rationalization here). Yes, even if that.

[Lonely Tylenol]

I disagree, candycorn. If you threw me (the person, not a character) in a world or a situation specifically designed to kill me, I, being determined to avoid death, would do everything within my power (not everything within reason) to avoid death.

If you throw a group of PCs into a world specifically designed to kill them, then the PCs would do whatever is necessary and within their means to avoid death. If I know this world is a world where rocks have a strong tendency to fall, I will make myself immune to their damage by whatever means, because the alternative is rolling over and dying.

[candycorn]

I disagree, candycorn. If you threw me (the person, not a character) in a world or a situation specifically designed to kill me, I, being determined to avoid death, would do everything within my power (not everything within reason) to avoid death.

If you throw a group of PCs into a world specifically designed to kill them, then the PCs would do whatever is necessary and within their means to avoid death. If I know this world is a world where rocks have a strong tendency to fall, I will make myself immune to their damage by whatever means, because the alternative is rolling over and dying.

And I tell you that this has nothing to do with the PC's. It has to do with the players. Players taking advantage of gaps in the DM's knowledge, specifically.

And using "but it's what my character would do" is no defense against that. D&D isn't a bunch of characters in a fantasy world. It's a bunch of friends sitting around a table, and acting out the adventures of made up characters.

And the moment you try to put "accuracy of made up characters" on a higher level than "being civil to my real friend", then I submit your priorities are way out of whack.

[Lonely Tylenol]

And I tell you that this has nothing to do with the PC's. It has to do with the players. Players taking advantage of gaps in the DM's knowledge, specifically.

Yes, it has everything to do with the players. That person you just threw into a hostile world, with every intention of killing them at every turn? They're sitting across the table from you. That is because the PCs are being controlled by players.


And using "but it's what my character would do" is no defense against that. D&D isn't a bunch of characters in a fantasy world. It's a bunch of friends sitting around a table, and acting out the adventures of made up characters.

So, wait. Doing this:


So, since it was the last session of the year, I decided to throw a great wyrm at
my level 10 party. I planned to kill off the more OP characters

Is characteristic of being a good friend, but stopping it isn't? Am I the only person that doesn't see the completely backwards logic of this?


And the moment you try to put "accuracy of made up characters" on a higher level than "being civil to my real friend", then I submit your priorities are way out of whack.

Where is the civility of the DM, here?

[candycorn]

Yes, it has everything to do with the players. That person you just threw into a hostile world, with every intention of killing them at every turn? They're sitting across the table from you. That is because the PCs are being controlled by players.



So, wait. Doing this:



Is characteristic of being a good friend, but stopping it isn't? Am I the only person that doesn't see the completely backwards logic of this?



Where is the civility of the DM, here?The DM is required to balance the game. Removing game balance is part of that. To many players take a character death personally. It's not.

However, taking advantage of the DMs ignorance is like dunking on the kid with muscular dystrophy. If the DM doesn't have the ability to counter it without fiat, then you shouldn't do it.

In other words, what the DM did was in game. What the players are doing is out of game. That's the difference.

[Lonely Tylenol]

The DM is required to balance the game. Removing game balance is part of that.

I... What? Is this one of those zen koans, where the only correct answer is to scream incomprehensibly and punch myself in the forehead as hard as possible?


To many players take a character death personally. It's not.

You were the one who mentioned that these are friends sitting around a table together. What friend sees fit to run a game and then intentionally punish its players?


However, taking advantage of the DMs ignorance is like dunking on the kid with muscular dystrophy. If the DM doesn't have the ability to counter it without fiat, then you shouldn't do it.

Said DM shouldn't escalate.

You seem to think that the gentle(wo)man's agreement is some sort of one-way street. If the DM sees fit to destroy a Wizard's spellbook, and that Wizard is ignorant of ways to stop you, are you justified in doing so?

Now, the Wizard player is sick of having their spellbooks destroyed all the time, and starts looking up defenses. They shore up that book with better prepared spells, and they start using them to cover themselves up. The next time the DM targets that poor Wizard's spellbook, the decoy blows up in the enemies' face.

Is the Wizard player justified in doing so? Or should they have just let level 3 Rogues sneak in and use the DM's lack of system mastery/obsessive metagaming/"world knowledge" to preempt the Wizard's ability to function as a class?


In other words, what the DM did was in game. What the players are doing is out of game. That's the difference.

The DM throwing a creature of a CR equal to ECL+13 at the party was "in-game"?

[candycorn]

I... What? Is this one of those zen koans, where the only correct answer is to scream incomprehensibly and punch myself in the forehead as hard as possible?Apologies. Removing IMBALANCE is part of that.


You were the one who mentioned that these are friends sitting around a table together. What friend sees fit to run a game and then intentionally punish its players?I have a mantra for you. "Just because my character dies, does not mean the DM hates me and is punishing me. The DM is required to maintain balance. If I introduced imbalance into the game, via being OP, then the DM is perfectly justified in removing what I introduced, and I have no reason to be upset over it. After all, he is only doing what he is supposed to."

Repeat that a few times, mull it over, and get back to me.


Said DM shouldn't escalate.

You seem to think that the gentle(wo)man's agreement is some sort of one-way street. If the DM sees fit to destroy a Wizard's spellbook, and that Wizard is ignorant of ways to stop you, are you justified in doing so?

Now, the Wizard player is sick of having their spellbooks destroyed all the time, and starts looking up defenses. They shore up that book with better prepared spells, and they start using them to cover themselves up. The next time the DM targets that poor Wizard's spellbook, the decoy blows up in the enemies' face.

Is the Wizard player justified in doing so? Or should they have just let level 3 Rogues sneak in and use the DM's lack of system mastery/obsessive metagaming/"world knowledge" to preempt the Wizard's ability to function as a class?The DM specifically said that he was using the creature as a device to enforce his role as a DM (removing OP elements from the game). That is different from what you are describing.

If he saw fit to go CR + 13, I'm willing to bet it's because CR +8 didn't work. Because of OP characters, perhaps?


The DM throwing a creature of a CR equal to ECL+13 at the party was "in-game"?Yes, it was. It was a device to enforce the role of the DM. Did the players choose to escape? Or run? Could they have?

Players chose just as much to meet that challenge. That speaks to a player confidence that they can take anything their DM could throw.

The players are kicking the DM around, likely all campaign, and your objection isn't that, but when the DM finally kicks back?

[kharmakazy]

My only real question is how in the hell you let them get dust of sneezing and choking? It's a cursed item that is universally used by powergamers to break things. There is no legitimate reason a party should have it.

[Lonely Tylenol]

I have a mantra for you. "Just because my character dies, does not mean the DM hates me and is punishing me. The DM is required to maintain balance. If I introduced imbalance into the game, via being OP, then the DM is perfectly justified in removing what I introduced, and I have no reason to be upset over it. After all, he is only doing what he is supposed to."

Repeat that a few times, mull it over, and get back to me.

One problem: in this case, the DM explicitly was trying to punish certain players. This wasn't just a simple case of "whoopsie-daisy, I balanced this encounter wrong", or "this encounter was meant to be intentionally difficult, and hopefully prompt lateral thinking in the players", or even "this is an encounter the PCs weren't necessarily meant to win, or try to win"; this was "I'm trying to kill the players I don't agree with".

This was literally "rocks fall" with poor execution.


The DM specifically said that he was using the creature as a device to enforce his role as a DM (removing OP elements from the game). That is different from what you are describing.

Do you know how I, as a DM, remove OP elements from my games?

"Hey, you're stepping on the other players' toes and it's making it difficult for me to challenge you while still making it feel relevant. Can you please scale it back a bit? I want to make sure the game is fun for you, but I also want to make the game fun for everyone else, too. Thanks."

Do you know how I, as a DM, don't remove OP elements from my games?

Acanous said it best a few months ago:


I've had it happen once. It was a scenerio where
DM does not advertise, player has prepared anyhow.
DM: While walking through the dungeon, you realise your pack feels lighter!
Me: You know I'm invisible and flying all day long, yes?
DM: Yep.
Me: And Bag of Holding type 3 does not actually get any lighter if something is removed from it. Do I notice something tugging at my bag?
DM: No. Next time you go to prepare your spells, you will notice your spellbook is missing.
Me: Ok, where exactly did this theif get a full round to open up my bag, loot around for my spellbook, and bypass the traps on the book, all without me noticing, while I was carrying the bag, flying 5 feet in the air, and invisible?
DM: He's a quickling rogue. He can do that sort of thing, they're really fast.
Me: Did it set off the Alarm spell inside the bag?
DM: ...no.
Me: So he knew the password. When he spoke the password, while holding the bag open, flying in the air adjacent to me, I should have been entitled to a DC 5 listen check. I have more than 4 ranks in Listen, my success is automatic.
DM: He spoke it very quietly.
Me: Alrighty then. Which of the books in the bag did he take?
DM: Your spellbook.
Me: I'm a level 9 wizard with the Colligeate Wizard feat. I've had two spellbooks since level 7. Which one did he take?
DM: Both of them.
Me: Seeing that there were more than just one book, Did he open the books to ensure they were spellbooks before taking off?
DM: Yes.
Me: Alright, give me a save VS Sepia Snake Sigil.
DM: Oh, he already made it.
Me: Ok. The books appear empty aside from the sigil, due to Secret Page. Does he take them anyhow?
DM: Yes, he takes your spellbooks.
Me: Alright, so just to clarify; he's got two spellbooks in hand and is presumably bugging off with them. He's done this feat of aerial acrobatics for two rounds, without anyone hearing (Or feeling) his presence. He's disabled two magical traps, one of which is auto-hit and would have triggered the moment he reached into the bag. All in order to steal a couple spellbooks and leave everything else I was carrying around in there untouched, and not once has he failed a move silently to the entire party's listen checks.
DM: Yep. You no longer have your books.
Me: Alright. Question?
DM: Yes?
Me: How are we all still alive right now? This monster is obviously epic and capable of killing us all.


If he saw fit to go CR + 13, I'm willing to bet it's because CR +8 didn't work. Because of OP characters, perhaps?

So the DM's answer to "escalating to punish the players didn't work" is "MOAR ESCALATION"?


Yes, it was. It was a device to enforce the role of the DM. Did the players choose to escape? Or run? Could they have?

That's a good question that I'd like an answer to.


Players chose just as much to meet that challenge. That speaks to a player confidence that they can take anything their DM could throw.

The players are kicking the DM around, likely all campaign, and your objection isn't that, but when the DM finally kicks back?

I don't know, I think I read the same posts by DMofDarkness as you did, and came to drastically different conclusions about whom was spending most of the campaign kicking whom.

And I'm a DM. And pretty much only a DM (much to my dismay).

[kharmakazy]

Sending an Epic dragon was probably not the best way to deal with the situation. I think most people can agree on this point.

How bad are you at strategy that the epic dragon actually lost though? You literally control everything in the world but the players actions, you intentionally set out to kill them and failed. I think you may need to spend some more time as a player.

[candycorn]

One problem: in this case, the DM explicitly was trying to punish certain players. This wasn't just a simple case of "whoopsie-daisy, I balanced this encounter wrong", or "this encounter was meant to be intentionally difficult, and hopefully prompt lateral thinking in the players", or even "this is an encounter the PCs weren't necessarily meant to win, or try to win"; this was "I'm trying to kill the players I don't agree with".

This was literally "rocks fall" with poor execution.I should certainly hope this wasn't an attempt to kill players. That would have serious consequences.

Assuming you meant that it was an attempt to kill CHARACTERS that he didn't agree with, I STILL disagree. By his own words, it was an attempt to kill characters who were, in his estimation, overpowered.

THAT IS NOT PUNISHMENT.
That is, however, the DM's job, to enforce balance upon the game.

You can choose to view it, if you wish, as punishment, whenever a DM makes a ruling you don't like. It makes for a very unsatisfying session. But that's your choice.


Do you know how I, as a DM, remove OP elements from my games?

"Hey, you're stepping on the other players' toes and it's making it difficult for me to challenge you while still making it feel relevant. Can you please scale it back a bit? I want to make sure the game is fun for you, but I also want to make the game fun for everyone else, too. Thanks."Different strokes, different folks.


Do you know how I, as a DM, don't remove OP elements from my games?

Acanous said it best a few months ago:Again, your call.


So the DM's answer to "escalating to punish the players didn't work" is "MOAR ESCALATION"?No, the DM's attempt to balance the game within the framework of the game rules failed, and he tried again. You and this punish word. I do not think this word means what you think it does.

This is something inexperienced DM's will often do, and while they usually grow out of it, the answer isn't "nuke the DM's stuff even harder until he throws his hands in the air and gives up".

The players escalated, and you're crying foul on the DM. That's the most backward thing I've ever seen.


I don't know, I think I read the same posts by DMofDarkness as you did, and came to drastically different conclusions about whom was spending most of the campaign kicking whom.

And I'm a DM. And pretty much only a DM (much to my dismay).

DM wants to kick, he'll kick. He waited til the end of the campaign. That doesn't sound like what you said. And I'm a DM too.

[Lord Vukodlak]

The pages were individual objects attached to each other. The fluff behind it being that the character was often bored between assignments and took to doodling Explosive Runes on sheets of paper, later putting them together in a book. And there was precedance for the book working that way earlier in the campaign, when it was read from by several rather inept pirates and didn't immediately disintegrate.

Well now you know not to set that precedance again. Don't allow it in the future.

[demigodus]

I find it hilarious how the DM using "rocks fall. You die. The rest of your party is a-ok" is apparently perfectly justified, and players taking precautions against that isn't. Because obviously this is a computer game where the PCs are played by a computer that you can't reason with. And clearly no DM, not even one with horrible system mastery will make error judgement on what is and is not balanced. Therefore clearly there is no need to discuss party balance with others, to possible see their view point.

Also, given how DMofDarkness claims they had multiple near-TPKs, AND there was no toe-stepping, I don't see how anyone was op. A character is op for a system, if they are stepping on the toes of party members. A party as a whole is op (which could be due to one single broken member) if they are just auto-winning everything. If they are suffering near-TPKs, and not because the DM is balancing around the strongest members, but because he is throwing what he considers to be level appropriate at the party, the party is not broken. Depending on play styles, you might even argue they are slightly weak for the campaign setting.

I'm just not seeing how any member of the party, or the party as a whole is op, if what Darkness said is true...


Yes, it was. It was a device to enforce the role of the DM. Did the players choose to escape? Or run? Could they have?

Players chose just as much to meet that challenge. That speaks to a player confidence that they can take anything their DM could throw.

One does not simply run from a Great Wyrm. One either kills it before it can do anything, or dies horribly to it.


The players are kicking the DM around, likely all campaign, and your objection isn't that, but when the DM finally kicks back?

I read the entire thread. I must have missed the parts where evidence was provided for this. Could you please quote them?

[kharmakazy]

Also, given how DMofDarkness claims they had multiple near-TPKs, AND there was no toe-stepping, I don't see how anyone was op. A character is op for a system, if they are stepping on the toes of party members. A party as a whole is op (which could be due to one single broken member) if they are just auto-winning everything. If they are suffering near-TPKs, and not because the DM is balancing around the strongest members, but because he is throwing what he considers to be level appropriate at the party, the party is not broken. Depending on play styles, you might even argue they are slightly weak for the campaign setting.


I'm going to say from experience this isn't always true. You can have an entire OP party and still near TPK pretty often.

What can happen is the DM throws CR appropriate encounters at a group, and they wipe the floor with it, so the DM has to up the ante to keep battles challenging at all due to the OPness of the party. When the DM isn't good at estimating a good challenge since he is no longer going by a chart it is easy to overcorrect and throw things that are a little too hard for the group. Where that sweet spot of challenging but not insane is moves around a bit as the party levels up.

I'm not saying that is what happened here, but it does happen.

[Fable Wright]

To many players take a character death personally. It's not.

However, taking advantage of the DMs ignorance is like dunking on the kid with muscular dystrophy. If the DM doesn't have the ability to counter it without fiat, then you shouldn't do it.

In other words, what the DM did was in game. What the players are doing is out of game. That's the difference.
Couple of things here: 1. This was personal. The DM was using this as an opportunity to kill off two characters because he didn't like them. How is that not personal? Character death also means something to most people- they spent time and energy on their character, and having it all blow up in their faces is not something friends to do with friends.

2. The DM has a policy of no retcons. If he sends something grossly imbalanced at the party, he's going to play it out to the bloody end. Knowing this policy, as a party, we decided that getting a panic button like that would be protecring the DM from himself. He would have a chance to continue the story without restoring to Deus ex Machina. As it turns out, that's more or less what happened, though continuing the story in a way the DM did not expect.

3. How is it in game for the DM to throw something that unbalanced at the party for the stated intent of killing two characters in game, when characters buying protection against potentially lethal encounter out of game? :smallconfused:


The DM specifically said that he was using the creature as a device to enforce his role as a DM (removing OP elements from the game). That is different from what you are describing.

If he saw fit to go CR + 13, I'm willing to bet it's because CR +8 didn't work. Because of OP characters, perhaps?

Yes, it was. It was a device to enforce the role of the DM. Did the players choose to escape? Or run? Could they have?

Players chose just as much to meet that challenge. That speaks to a player confidence that they can take anything their DM could throw.

The players are kicking the DM around, likely all campaign, and your objection isn't that, but when the DM finally kicks back?
1. The DM decided that this dragon was something that the players had to kill. Aside from fighting it, the other option was to run away, through an insanely long corridor, this the faster dragon is right behind us with a breath weapon and other tools. In addition, killing the dragon was the entire objective of the quest- without doing so, at least one of the characters was going to be massacred by a different Great Wyrm Red Dragon that I had previously optimized for the DM.

2. He had not previously tried to kill the characters with an over CR'ed creature. CR +8 was not tried. The Gentleman's Agreement had been in place the entire rest of the game. The players were not kicking the DM around for most of the game. The DM got fed up when the DFI bard pumped the party's damage into the stratosphere, and since then tried to kill off both the bard and the glass cannon Swiftblade with focused fire tactics. The players combatted these tactics without resorting to cheese. The DM had been kicking the players around for a chunk of the game, and when the players got fed up and kicked back, you cry foul?

[ryu]

There's also that whole issue about the CR system being only vaguely related to the actual challenge of a monster or encounter at best. Not to mention the fact that it doesn't suit the base party WotC seems to assume as baseline competent. Not to mention different things at the same CR can be vastly different in terms of effectiveness. Honestly judging encounter strength by CR is an exercise in futility especially at high levels.

[Ailurus]

For the people still mentioning that you auto-Dispel your own spells, that's only on the TARGETED version. There is no such clause for the area Dispel.

It was brought up earlier in the thread, but people keep reiterating this (mis)information.

a) Area dispel does not say you can automatically fail. It says you can choose to "not automatically succeed." You'd still have to at least roll.

b) Using area dispel to set off a book of explosive runes won't work, since area dispel only removes one spell from each object or creature in the area of effect. And nowhere in the spell description does it say explosive runes set off other explosive runes. So, even if you do fail the dispel check at best you're going to get 6d6 damage, and probably a destroyed book.

[Ailurus]

For the people still mentioning that you auto-Dispel your own spells, that's only on the TARGETED version. There is no such clause for the area Dispel.

It was brought up earlier in the thread, but people keep reiterating this (mis)information.

a) Area dispel does not say you can automatically fail. It says you can choose to "not automatically succeed." You'd still have to at least roll.

b) Using area dispel to set off a book of explosive runes won't work, since area dispel only removes one spell from each object or creature in the area of effect. And nowhere in the spell description does it say explosive runes set off other explosive runes. So, even if you do fail the dispel check at best you're going to get 6d6 damage, and probably a destroyed book.

[Ailurus]

For the people still mentioning that you auto-Dispel your own spells, that's only on the TARGETED version. There is no such clause for the area Dispel.

It was brought up earlier in the thread, but people keep reiterating this (mis)information.

Using area dispel doesn't help at all, though.

a) Area dispel does not say you can automatically fail. It says you can choose to "not automatically succeed." You'd still have to at least roll.

b) Using area dispel to set off a book of explosive runes won't work, since area dispel only removes one spell from each object or creature in the area of effect. And nowhere in the spell description does it say explosive runes set off other explosive runes. So, even if you do fail the dispel check at best you're going to get 6d6 damage, and probably a destroyed book.

[Gavinfoxx]

I think this entire thread is completely hilarious...

I notice how the OP stopped responding fairly quickly, too...

Apparently, he didn't like being called out on being incompetent?

[ryu]

Actually as precedent had been set in such a way that pages were individual objects and you could read one page and only it would blow up without destroying the book... A low level area dispel would work extremely well.

[Togo]

What can happen is the DM throws CR appropriate encounters at a group, and they wipe the floor with it, so the DM has to up the ante to keep battles challenging at all due to the OPness of the party. When the DM isn't good at estimating a good challenge since he is no longer going by a chart it is easy to overcorrect and throw things that are a little too hard for the group. Where that sweet spot of challenging but not insane is moves around a bit as the party levels up.

I'm not saying that is what happened here, but it does happen.

Sure, this is why I don't understand all these people claiming that a party of underpowered characters won't survive. I find that nothing shortens a party's lifespan like optimisation. OP is literally a sub-optimal survival tactics, because the DM has to throw broken encounters at you to get any kind of challenge.

[Boci]

Sure, this is why I don't understand all these people claiming that a party of underpowered characters won't survive. I find that nothing shortens a party's lifespan like optimisation. OP is literally a sub-optimal survival tactics, because the DM has to throw broken encounters at you to get any kind of challenge.

No it isn't, because optimization =! broken. Optimization means the DM will have to throw optimized encounters at you.

[Rubik]

a) Area dispel does not say you can automatically fail. It says you can choose to "not automatically succeed." You'd still have to at least roll.Are you trying to disagree with what I said, or clarifying? Because I never said you can automatically fail. I just said that AoE Dispel doesn't auto-succeed.


b) Using area dispel to set off a book of explosive runes won't work, since area dispel only removes one spell from each object or creature in the area of effect. And nowhere in the spell description does it say explosive runes set off other explosive runes. So, even if you do fail the dispel check at best you're going to get 6d6 damage, and probably a destroyed book.Individual pages can be bound in a book, which means they're Dispelled individually. Since Dispel Magic is instantaneous, it hits them all at the same time. The ones that aren't successfully Dispelled are detonated simultaneously.

[Acanous]

Acanous said it best a few months ago:


Man, I remember that session. Half our gaming group eventually got fed up and left. Myself included. Now we're taking turns DMing other sessions. I'm actually up in 2 campaigns, and I've got one particularly interesting setting in mind >.>

As for Dust of sneezing and choking, it's really not that bad in moderation.
When I shopped for the bag I eventually used on those Vrocks, the DM told me "You get one. Only one, ever, don't ask for another one."
Which was perfectly reasonable and understandable in-game (How many people are going to deal in cursed items? they're pretty dang rare to begin with)
and out of game, I get one panic button, which ends one encounter, for a couple thousand GP.

That's fair, and DMofDarkness' party having one, which they had not used until this point, makes sense. Weather you're using it on a gang of Vrocks that could wipe the party with 60d6 in a 100 foot radius, or a big dang dragon, in a setting where having a panic button is justified (Such as most campaigns) and your characters have access to one, there's no reason to deny them one.
It's good DMing 101: Let the players do their cool thing once, THEN adjust for it.

[SowZ]

I wish to sig this.

Haha, sure, I don't mind if you still want to.

[candycorn]

I find it hilarious how the DM using "rocks fall. You die. The rest of your party is a-ok" is apparently perfectly justified, and players taking precautions against that isn't. Because obviously this is a computer game where the PCs are played by a computer that you can't reason with. And clearly no DM, not even one with horrible system mastery will make error judgement on what is and is not balanced. Therefore clearly there is no need to discuss party balance with others, to possible see their view point.I find it reasonable that a DM removes obstacles that he views as imbalanced. I find that within the job description of DM.

I find "stay alive even at the expense of frustrating the DM, who is also a player, and should reasonably be having fun, no matter what, even if I am destroying game balance" to be an unjustifiable position. If you wish to interpret that as "taking precautions", then I would agree, insofar as "loading the boat up with so many floatation devices that nobody else can get in the boat" is simply "taking precautions" and not "being a jerk to everyone else that wants to ride the boat".


Also, given how DMofDarkness claims they had multiple near-TPKs, AND there was no toe-stepping, I don't see how anyone was op.Given how the DM stated that characters were, I would judge that there were characters that gave the DM serious problems with game balance. That sounds like OP to me, at least in the DM's eyes.


A character is op for a system, if they are stepping on the toes of party members. A party as a whole is op (which could be due to one single broken member) if they are just auto-winning everything.Or if they are disrupting game balance.

If they are suffering near-TPKs, and not because the DM is balancing around the strongest members, but because he is throwing what he considers to be level appropriate at the party, the party is not broken.And if the DM needs to send CR 23 creatures at a level 10 party, I'd submit that the party was.

Depending on play styles, you might even argue they are slightly weak for the campaign setting.For all play styles that consider Pun Pun rubbing elbows with the planar sheperd and the incantatrix, sure.

I'm just not seeing how any member of the party, or the party as a whole is op, if what Darkness said is true...And I'm not seein how any member of the party is not, if they're using tactics such as Exploding Rune Books and Dust of Sneezing and Choking. These are items widely viewed as broken. And using them against a fledgling DM, no matter what reason, rationalization, or justification you try, is not justifiable.


One does not simply run from a Great Wyrm. One either kills it before it can do anything, or dies horribly to it.Teleport. Accessible to a level 10 party.


I read the entire thread. I must have missed the parts where evidence was provided for this. Could you please quote them?The part where the DM suggested he was attempting to remedy the problem at the END of a campaign, and not at the beginning, or middle. There is absolutely no evidence for the DM engaging in such behavior beforehand, so assuming so is assuming facts not evidenced.

[SowZ]

I wish to sig this.

Haha, sure, I don't mind if you still want to.

[docnessuno]

Teleport. Accessible to a level 10 party.

Teleport. Accessible to a level 10 Wizard.
Now, even assuming said wizard had it memorized and still aviable, this leaves the rest of the party facing a CR+13 dragon. Without the wizard's help.

Also, once the dragonized falling rock killed the supposedly 'OP' members, i really wonder how the rest of the party was going to survive the encounter.
I guess the chaotic evil dragon would then brofist (broclaw?) with the rest of the group (wich was on a quest to slay him) and let them go, possibly with a share of his hoard. Incredibly plausible.


the DM suggested he was attempting to remedy the problem at the END of a campaign, and not at the beginning, or middle.I really cannot see that part, i must be blind.

since it was the last session of the year

[NilOriol]

try to make an unusual enemy:
if there are more than 1 OP character, then make a book that talks to their mind, a realy realy powerful old artifact, but it wants only one propietary (and turn them into golum likes)
a mirror that copy them to make a challenge is kinda fun too ^^

just some ideas

[candycorn]

Teleport. Accessible to a level 10 Wizard.
Now, even assuming said wizard had it memorized and still aviable, this leaves the rest of the party facing a CR+13 dragon. Without the wizard's help.Correction: Sorceror or Wizard + 3 friends, at level 9. Which leaves the rogue's horse there. A tragedy, but not a TPK.

Seeing as one of the broken tricks used is a Sorceror/Wizard spell only, I'd say that this isn't a reach.

Also, once the dragonized falling rock killed the supposedly 'OP' members, i really wonder how the rest of the party was going to survive the encounter.Perhaps by retreating. Perhaps something more important comes up for the dragon. Perhaps it decides to take its snack back to its lair, and leaves. There are any number of ways that can be done.


I guess the chaotic evil dragon would then brofist (broclaw?) with the rest of the group (wich was on a quest to slay him) and let them go, possibly with a share of his hoard. Incredibly plausible.No, but the pathetically weak pinkskins that pose little to no threat to him can be disregarded as inferior life. That's a lot more plausible than deliberate attempts to be farfetched.


I really cannot see that part, i must be blind.Must be. The writeup suggests a multi-year campaign, and this is the first time it's happened? It doesn't sound like this was game session 2 and the DM was breaking out the arbitrary killing. There is every indication that this campaign has gone on for quite a long time, and no indication that any prior attempts of this sort by the DM were made.

Point stands, unless there are any other semantics you'd care to argue, in favor of dealing with the actual merits of the situation?

[demigodus]

I find "stay alive even at the expense of frustrating the DM, who is also a player, and should reasonably be having fun, no matter what, even if I am destroying game balance" to be an unjustifiable position. If you wish to interpret that as "taking precautions", then I would agree, insofar as "loading the boat up with so many floatation devices that nobody else can get in the boat" is simply "taking precautions" and not "being a jerk to everyone else that wants to ride the boat".

It is only an unjustifiable position if the person not having fun first brings up their lack-of-fun and explains why in a civilized manner. That doesn't involve metaphorical falling rocks. "I can't read minds" is a very justifiable position.


Or if they are disrupting game balance.
And if the DM needs to send CR 23 creatures at a level 10 party, I'd submit that the party was.

There was no evidence of him needing to send a CR 23 creature. Would you like me to quote the part that no CR+8 or such creature was sent first? That the DM jumped straight to the CR+13 encounter?


For all play styles that consider Pun Pun rubbing elbows with the planar sheperd and the incantatrix, sure.

Or for any play style that considers the PCs to be heroes, and not characters that only live on days when the gods bless the dice of their players... You must play in a VERY lethal campaign if the only way to not constantly suffer near TPKs is to play Pun Pun. What? Does your party start fighting gods at level 5?


And I'm not seein how any member of the party is not, if they're using tactics such as Exploding Rune Books and Dust of Sneezing and Choking. These are items widely viewed as broken. And using them against a fledgling DM, no matter what reason, rationalization, or justification you try, is not justifiable.

Would you like me to quote the part where it was mentioned that this was the FIRST TIME the party used either of those tactics? Or the part where they only had those tactics as back up in case metaphorical falling rocks were thrown at them? "using tactics such as", implies multiple uses. In fact, given context, it would imply multiple uses prior to the CR 23 encounter. When there is evidence in this thread that prior to said encounter, they had precisely 0 uses of said tactics.


Teleport. Accessible to a level 10 party.

Lets see. They have a level 10 swift blade, who likely actually isn't high enough level to cast teleport actually (depends on the exact build, but if he entered swift blade asap, then not high enough level)... They have a DFI bard, who don't get teleport. Then they have party members that the DM didn't take issue with. Based on the details given in this chance, odds are they did not have anyone able to cast teleport. So I guess, not OP enough to pull off an escape?

Also, would you like me to quote the post in this thread where it was stated that due to plots given by the DM, retreat was NOT an option? You know, because a Red Great Wyrm had threatened them into doing this? One that was actually optimized?


The part where the DM suggested he was attempting to remedy the problem at the END of a campaign, and not at the beginning, or middle. There is absolutely no evidence for the DM engaging in such behavior beforehand, so assuming so is assuming facts not evidenced.

I was referring to evidence for the players kicking the DM around all campaign.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Teleport. Accessible to a level 10 Wizard.
Now, even assuming said wizard had it memorized and still aviable, this leaves the rest of the party facing a CR+13 dragon. Without the wizard's help.

Nonono, don't you see? The Wizard is clearly a Focused Specialist Diviner, complete with Spontaneous Divination shenanigans (so that all level 5 spells are theoretically divination and thus Teleport, a Belt of Battle, Celerity, and enough MM reducers to fire off a free Quicken. The Wizard then activates the Belt of Battle (2 charges) as a swift action, casts Teleport on one party member, then casts Teleport on a second party member, and then casts Quickened Teleport on the third party member (using the 3.0 interpretation of Quicken Spell, where Quicken is a free action--and not availing the DM of this knowledge), and then, on the dragon's initiative, casts Celerity and then Teleports out as an immediate ac--

What do you mean, there was never any mention of the party having access to 5th-level spells?

DFI Bard? Swiftblade?! No single explicit mention of a full caster even being in the party?

Well in that case, the party clearly needs to roll over and die for being so OP that the DM has to throw CR+13 creatures at them left and right! That'll teach them!

OK, in all seriousness, this thread has just devolved into an endless repetition of the blaming the victim fallacy--the only dispute is who, exactly, is blaming the victim. Can we just agree that we are not reading the same thread here and move on?

EDIT: The forum drop dumped this.


Correction: Sorceror or Wizard + 3 friends, at level 9. Which leaves the rogue's horse there. A tragedy, but not a TPK.

Seeing as one of the broken tricks used is a Sorceror/Wizard spell only, I'd say that this isn't a reach.


1. The book was not, actually, made by the same character that dispelled the runes. It was created by one of the characters that left the party, and after a series of humorous incidents with a group of pirates, rumors trickled back about an exploding book, which was subsequently recovered by the party. There was precedent for the rest of the pages of the book not exploding when one page detonated, and it was cast by a different character at CL 8. The dragon in question was a Great Wyrm White dragon, and after willingly failing the dispel check on all of the runes, 10% of them would have gotten through, lowering the dragon to -7 HP.


Perhaps by retreating. Perhaps something more important comes up for the dragon. Perhaps it decides to take its snack back to its lair, and leaves. There are any number of ways that can be done.


1. The DM decided that this dragon was something that the players had to kill. Aside from fighting it, the other option was to run away, through an insanely long corridor, this the faster dragon is right behind us with a breath weapon and other tools. In addition, killing the dragon was the entire objective of the quest- without doing so, at least one of the characters was going to be massacred by a different Great Wyrm Red Dragon that I had previously optimized for the DM.


No, but the pathetically weak pinkskins that pose little to no threat to him can be disregarded as inferior life. That's a lot more plausible than deliberate attempts to be farfetched.

"Rocks fall, you and you die, but they take no interest in you and you"?


Must be. The writeup suggests a multi-year campaign, and this is the first time it's happened? It doesn't sound like this was game session 2 and the DM was breaking out the arbitrary killing. There is every indication that this campaign has gone on for quite a long time, and no indication that any prior attempts of this sort by the DM were made.


2. The DM has a policy of no retcons. If he sends something grossly imbalanced at the party, he's going to play it out to the bloody end. Knowing this policy, as a party, we decided that getting a panic button like that would be protecring the DM from himself. He would have a chance to continue the story without restoring to Deus ex Machina. As it turns out, that's more or less what happened, though continuing the story in a way the DM did not expect.


2. He had not previously tried to kill the characters with an over CR'ed creature. CR +8 was not tried. The Gentleman's Agreement had been in place the entire rest of the game. The players were not kicking the DM around for most of the game. The DM got fed up when the DFI bard pumped the party's damage into the stratosphere, and since then tried to kill off both the bard and the glass cannon Swiftblade with focused fire tactics. The players combatted these tactics without resorting to cheese. The DM had been kicking the players around for a chunk of the game, and when the players got fed up and kicked back, you cry foul?


Xorvintaal is a template in MM V that can be applied to any dragon. That said, it would more accurately be described as trying to survive his low system mastery. His lack of it has led to a near-TPK through poorly CR'd homebrewed (by him, of course) monsters, a large amount of handwaving and fiat to reduce or eliminate powerful abilities of the party, and things like throwing a CR 23 creature at a level 10 party specifically to kill 2 party members. Panic buttons were entirely reasonable things to invest in.


We're switching to Legend over the summer, which is much harder to mess up, and throughout the year I had been pointing out various things to improve his game, such as reading Dungeonscape's chapter on encounters, the CR calculator on the SRD, and other such things. It's not just the party sitting back and doing nothing, we've been actively trying to improve the game with the DM.

Synopsis: Players spend much of the campaign struggling to survive the DM's insultingly poor grasp of system mastery, but have also reached out in order to try and improve the game over the course of this type. After months upon months of imbalanced self-made homebrew, fiat and arbitrarily over-CR'd creatures, DM suddenly escalates with a CR+13 creature, with the stated intention of killing two members of the party, and the players, after months of conditioning causing them to accept the reality that, hey, they might need an out for when it hits the fan, use that out which they had been holding onto for months for just this type of scenario and defeat the falling rocks.

And you think the DM is doing this to "preserve game balance".

Let's just look at the patterns here: the players knew that a time would come when they would need a panic button, based on months of conditioning to believe that a panic button would be necessary, so when, hey, a panic button suddenly became necessary, the players were not at all surprised, and because this pattern of behavior from the DM was so persistent and predictable, they had prepared.

The DM, by contrast, throws Rocks with Wings at the party, and when the party hits the Big Red Button and the dragon goes boom, it completely blindsides the DM. Either the DM is so incredibly ignorant of what has been happening this whole game, or no pattern had formed that would indicate to the DM that this sort of thing would happen.

I repeat: whom, exactly, is kicking whom?

[Rejakor]

As a note, a 9th level wizard can teleport himself and three others as a standard action using the Teleport spell.

That's a much better 'panic button' than broken items like dust of sneezing and bull****.

[candycorn]

Nonono, don't you see? The Wizard is clearly a Focused Specialist Diviner, complete with Spontaneous Divination shenanigans (so that all level 5 spells are theoretically divination and thus Teleport, a Belt of Battle, Celerity, and enough MM reducers to fire off a free Quicken. The Wizard then activates the Belt of Battle (2 charges) as a swift action, casts Teleport on one party member, then casts Teleport on a second party member, and then casts Quickened Teleport on the third party member (using the 3.0 interpretation of Quicken Spell, where Quicken is a free action--and not availing the DM of this knowledge), and then, on the dragon's initiative, casts Celerity and then Teleports out as an immediate ac--

What do you mean, there was never any mention of the party having access to 5th-level spells?

DFI Bard? Swiftblade?! No single explicit mention of a full caster even being in the party?

Well in that case, the party clearly needs to roll over and die for being so OP that the DM has to throw CR+13 creatures at them left and right! That'll teach them!

OK, in all seriousness, this thread has just devolved into an endless repetition of the blaming the victim fallacy--the only dispute is who, exactly, is blaming the victim. Can we just agree that we are not reading the same thread here and move on?

EDIT: The forum drop dumped this.











"Rocks fall, you and you die, but they take no interest in you and you"?











Synopsis: Players spend much of the campaign struggling to survive the DM's insultingly poor grasp of system mastery, but have also reached out in order to try and improve the game over the course of this type. After months upon months of imbalanced self-made homebrew, fiat and arbitrarily over-CR'd creatures, DM suddenly escalates with a CR+13 creature, with the stated intention of killing two members of the party, and the players, after months of conditioning causing them to accept the reality that, hey, they might need an out for when it hits the fan, use that out which they had been holding onto for months for just this type of scenario and defeat the falling rocks.

And you think the DM is doing this to "preserve game balance".
Is this an attempt to justify using broken tactics on a DM without optimization knowledge to counter?

Yes?

Then there is no justification. Period.

Let's just look at the patterns here: the players knew that a time would come when they would need a panic button, based on months of conditioning to believe that a panic button would be necessary, so when, hey, a panic button suddenly became necessary, the players were not at all surprised, and because this pattern of behavior from the DM was so persistent and predictable, they had prepared.The players didn't need a panic button, unless they viewed character death as a sign that the DM hates them and is punishing them, and this should be avoided at all costs, no matter what, even at the expense of real life friendships.

Since only a crazy person would believe that, we can safely assume that the players didn't "need" a panic button. If they did, a scroll of teleport and the ability to use it is a FAR more acceptable one.


The DM, by contrast, throws Rocks with Wings at the party, and when the party hits the Big Red Button and the dragon goes boom, it completely blindsides the DM. Either the DM is so incredibly ignorant of what has been happening this whole game, or no pattern had formed that would indicate to the DM that this sort of thing would happen.Or was unaware of the impact that the players could cause with a couple incredibly broken items, that had sat on a character sheet for a while.

Because, you know, nobody ever glosses over an item on a character's sheet... Certainly not an inexperienced DM, that may not have understood that these items are among the most unbalancing in the game.


I repeat: whom, exactly, is kicking whom?The players, kicking the DM, as I stated.

And even if every single thing you said is true, then still, bad form by the DM does not excuse bad form by the players. It's still wrong, in much the same way as shooting someone is still wrong, even if they stole something from you.

As a note, a 9th level wizard can teleport himself and three others as a standard action using the Teleport spell.

That's a much better 'panic button' than broken items like dust of sneezing and bull****.This.

[Frog Dragon]

As a note, a 9th level wizard can teleport himself and three others as a standard action using the Teleport spell.

That's a much better 'panic button' than broken items like dust of sneezing and bull****.
Sounds like they had no Sor/Wiz 5 spells available. Their arcane casters, from what I can read, were a DFI bard and a swiftblade. If Swiftblade was entered after 6 levels of wizard, the swiftblade would get 5th level spells next level. The bard doesn't get teleport.

They didn't have teleports.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Is this an attempt to justify using broken tactics on a DM without optimization knowledge to counter?

Yes?

Then there is no justification. Period.

It's an attempt to show you that you aren't reading the circumstances under which a player at the table is explaining they are under.


The players didn't need a panic button, unless they viewed character death as a sign that the DM hates them and is punishing them, and this should be avoided at all costs, no matter what, even at the expense of real life friendships.


Couple of things here: 1. This was personal. The DM was using this as an opportunity to kill off two characters because he didn't like them. How is that not personal? Character death also means something to most people- they spent time and energy on their character, and having it all blow up in their faces is not something friends to do with friends.

I have had players at my table involved enough with their characters that they cried when they lost in tournament matches. That were purposefully nonlethal.

What's more, we're not talking about a fair fight here, nor are we talking about "plot dictates" or even "heroic death". We're talking about the most unceremonious of all deaths possible--the "rocks fall" death, and worse, the "rocks fall due to out-of-game issues" death.


Or was unaware of the impact that the players could cause with a couple incredibly broken items, that had sat on a character sheet for a while.

Because, you know, nobody ever glosses over an item on a character's sheet... Certainly not an inexperienced DM, that may not have understood that these items are among the most unbalancing in the game.

I don't know about you, but I'm DMing my first real campaign, and I have a complete inventory list for every character (for every magic item as well as every significant non-magical item, such as alchemical item, weapons, armor, and tools), as well as a spare filled-out character sheet in case someone loses theirs. Half my players also have their complete inventory sheets either submitted to me via Google Docs, or posted on a wikia devoted to our game.

But this probably isn't a usual case, I admit.

In any case, it's not a whole lot of effort to know what your players have--usually even just a cursory glance at your players' sheets will allow you to at least *see* what they have. For an extra 30 seconds, you can take pictures of all of them! With your phone! Then they're always on you!


And even if every single thing you said is true, then still, bad form by the DM does not excuse bad form by the players. It's still wrong, in much the same way as shooting someone is still wrong, even if they stole something from you.

Is shooting somebody who shoots you wrong?


This.

No CL 9 characters equals... How many teleports?

It sounds more and more to me like you're not saying "the party shouldn't use optimization tricks to survive their DM", but rather "the party should play Wizards".

[nedz]

...

As for Dust of sneezing and choking, it's really not that bad in moderation.
When I shopped for the bag I eventually used on those Vrocks, the DM told me "You get one. Only one, ever, don't ask for another one."
Which was perfectly reasonable and understandable in-game (How many people are going to deal in cursed items? they're pretty dang rare to begin with)
and out of game, I get one panic button, which ends one encounter, for a couple thousand GP.
...
It's good DMing 101: Let the players do their cool thing once, THEN adjust for it.

In my experience you can give a party half a dozen such items and they will use 5 in the next two sessions, or so, and keep the last one "just in case". It will never be used.

[Rejakor]

Sounds like they had no Sor/Wiz 5 spells available. Their arcane casters, from what I can read, were a DFI bard and a swiftblade. If Swiftblade was entered after 6 levels of wizard, the swiftblade would get 5th level spells next level. The bard doesn't get teleport.

They didn't have teleports.

Buy. A. Scroll.

In any case, there's never a reason to use in-game options to fix out of game social problems. Hoarding a known broken item to use because you expect the DM to throw something at you that will kill you for metagame reasons is the essence of social group dysfunction.

[candycorn]

It's an attempt to show you that you aren't reading the circumstances under which a player at the table is explaining they are under.And I am telling you that there are no circumstances under which a player should act in that manner. The DM could have dropped trou and peed on everyone's sheets, and that doesn't justify being childish in this manner. It would justify quitting the game (if you're not happy, and talking doesn't fix it, that is the reasonable action), but not optimizing beyond the DM's ability out of some immature need to 'win'.


I have had players at my table involved enough with their characters that they cried when they lost in tournament matches. That were purposefully nonlethal.My advice to them would be: "Grow up." Seriously, the rules themselves say that death is part of the story, and shouldn't be a bad thing. If a player needs to be victorious so badly that they fall to pieces over temporary losses, then they shouldn't be playing. If there's no chance of loss, there's no reason to play.


What's more, we're not talking about a fair fight here, nor are we talking about "plot dictates" or even "heroic death". Yes, we're talking about a childish reaction to a perceived slight.

We're talking about the most unceremonious of all deaths possible--the "rocks fall" death, and worse, the "rocks fall due to out-of-game issues" death.Again, that doesn't justify what was done.

I don't know about you, but I'm DMing my first real campaign, and I have a complete inventory list for every character (for every magic item as well as every significant non-magical item, such as alchemical item, weapons, armor, and tools), as well as a spare filled-out character sheet in case someone loses theirs. Half my players also have their complete inventory sheets either submitted to me via Google Docs, or posted on a wikia devoted to our game.

But this probably isn't a usual case, I admit.Then it is irrelevant. If it's not typical for DMs, then it's hardly reasonable to expect it of this one.

In any case, it's not a whole lot of effort to know what your players have--usually even just a cursory glance at your players' sheets will allow you to at least *see* what they have. For an extra 30 seconds, you can take pictures of all of them! With your phone! Then they're always on you!But it is a lot of effort to understand the interrelation between the 87 items, 341 possible spells, 32 racial abilities, 43 feats, 14 racial abilities, 21 class abilities, and 632 monsters available for summons, and find the one combo in that. Especially when you aren't immediately familiar with all the above. It's like looking for a needle in a haystack, except you weren't told the needle was in it, and you don't know what the needle looks like.


Is shooting somebody who shoots you wrong?Is responding to a perceived slight by childishly 'showing that meanie DM' out of a childish need to not lose a character wrong?

You betcha.

No CL 9 characters equals... How many teleports?If they spent half the effort gathering teleport as they did gathering the D&D equivalent of atom bombs, I'd say they'd have it 3 times a day.


It sounds more and more to me like you're not saying "the party shouldn't use optimization tricks to survive their DM", but rather "the party should play Wizards".No. I'm saying that it is not justifiable for players to optimize to a level that the DM can't handle, out an unreasonable desire to not lose a character.

Buy. A. Scroll.

In any case, there's never a reason to use in-game options to fix out of game social problems. Hoarding a known broken item to use because you expect the DM to throw something at you that will kill you for metagame reasons is the essence of social group dysfunction.
DING DING DING! We have a winner!

[Fable Wright]

Buy. A. Scroll.

In any case, there's never a reason to use in-game options to fix out of game social problems. Hoarding a known broken item to use because you expect the DM to throw something at you that will kill you for metagame reasons is the essence of social group dysfunction.

No, not because we thought he would kill us for metagame reasons. We thought he would mess up an encounter worse than the first near TPK, and wanted a way to keep playing after that happened. As for buying scrolls, we had the wealth we started with, and nothing else. We didn't get much loot over the course of the game, and no one invested in UMD. A scroll would have been a poor choice of a panic button, indeed.

[Bharg]

Uhm , you don't trust him (well, his DMing skillz) and let him DM anyway? Seems entirely pointless to me.

[candycorn]

No, not because we thought he would kill us for metagame reasons. We thought he would mess up an encounter worse than the first near TPK, and wanted a way to keep playing after that happened. As for buying scrolls, we had the wealth we started with, and nothing else. We didn't get much loot over the course of the game, and no one invested in UMD. A scroll would have been a poor choice of a panic button, indeed.

The bolded text is a metagame reason. You (the players) thought he (the DM) would make an error resulting in an undesirable outcome (TPK). Because you (the players) anticipated an error by the DM, your characters performed an action.

That is an in-game action for out-of-game reasons. I.E. metagame.

And if you're going to metagame, one character investing in UMD, and buying a scroll, is much more acceptable than ambushing a DM with tricks that he's not familiar with.

Period.

[Bharg]

The bolded text is a metagame reason. You (the players) thought he (the DM) would make an error resulting in an undesirable outcome (TPK). Because you (the players) anticipated an error by the DM, your characters performed an action.

That is an in-game action for out-of-game reasons. I.E. metagame.

And if you're going to metagame, one character investing in UMD, and buying a scroll, is much more acceptable than ambushing a DM with tricks that he's not familiar with.

Period.

That, too.

How did you decide to deal with the whole situation now anyways?
Did the epic wyrm kill pass or did you make a roll back?

[Fable Wright]

Uhm , you don't trust him (well, his DMing skillz) and let him DM anyway? Seems entirely pointless to me.

The party was having fun with the noncombat aspects, and the DM had a fair sense of humor. It was balancing combat he was bad at, and I offered to run combat for him earlier. He said he wanted to figure it out for himself, though. Still, if the party's having a good time, why boot the DM?

Also: There is no conceivable way to make a character without metagaming. The character had the dust from character creation. The metagaming is justified, unless you want to argue that you should only choose starting loot based on story events in the character background, and not odds and ends that would be useful in the game.

[candycorn]

The party was having fun with the noncombat aspects, and the DM had a fair sense of humor. It was balancing combat he was bad at, and I offered to run combat for him earlier. He said he wanted to figure it out for himself, though. Still, if the party's having a good time, why boot the DM?

If you want him to figure it out, then introducing things like exploding books of doom do not help this process.

No excuse. You hinder his growth as a DM, which is contrary to your goal. You hindered his ability to mitigate elements he felt were unbalanced, which is contrary to his.

You sacrifice the end goal (a good game, and an atmosphere of trust between DM and player) for a short term desire (not losing your characters). That is a bad trade.

[Fable Wright]

If you want him to figure it out, then introducing things like exploding books of doom do not help this process.

No excuse. You hinder his growth as a DM, which is contrary to your goal. You hindered his ability to mitigate elements he felt were unbalanced, which is contrary to his.

You sacrifice the end goal (a good game, and an atmosphere of trust between DM and player) for a short term desire (not losing your characters). That is a bad trade.

Letting him kill all of the characters as collateral damage also doesn't help. The DM was mostly shocked when it happened, but he's fine with it. No hard feelings.

[Lonely Tylenol]

And I am telling you that there are no circumstances under which a player should act in that manner. The DM could have dropped trou and peed on everyone's sheets, and that doesn't justify being childish in this manner. It would justify quitting the game (if you're not happy, and talking doesn't fix it, that is the reasonable action), but not optimizing beyond the DM's ability out of some immature need to 'win'.

Whosoever said this was about "winning"?

I would have probably quit this game before it got to this point under normal circumstances, but being that I can count the number of DMs who run 3.5 on this island using only my thumbs (and I'm one of them), I can kind of understand DMofDarkness and his group not only wanting the game to end, but not wanting to be forcibly ejected in the process. Heck, I've gone back to the only other DM on this island (who I have suffered through worse with) just because I miss playing as opposed to just DMing all the time.

I posit to you this idea: you've repeatedly stated that optimizing beyond the scope of a DM has absolutely no justifications whatsoever. Does that mean that a high-op player, or a mid-op player, should just not play with a low-op DM? Ever? After all, they'll outpace the DM, and that's just wrong.

What about the reversal? Should a high-op DM never allow mid- and low-op players in their game?


Yes, we're talking about a childish reaction to a perceived slight.

No, I'm not.


But it is a lot of effort to understand the interrelation between the 87 items, 341 possible spells, 32 racial abilities, 43 feats, 14 racial abilities, 21 class abilities, and 632 monsters available for summons, and find the one combo in that. Especially when you aren't immediately familiar with all the above. It's like looking for a needle in a haystack, except you weren't told the needle was in it, and you don't know what the needle looks like.

Only the needle was clearly found in-character, as part of a quest, that the DM must certainly have had a hand in running (unless the group is running games connected directly to the DM's universe and storyline, but not involving the DM, which is wrong, but also not likely to be true).

I have an anecdote for you: the first group I played in, I was a Wizard. I didn't know Wizards were OP, nor did I even choose to be a Wizard: I was asked. I played with this group for close to a year, and over that year, I got better at being a Wizard, but spell access was very harsh (so I was almost better off just being a Sorcerer). One week, after seven levels of never finding another Wizard's spellbook, ever, we kill a Wizard enemy guy, who's also a 7th-level Wizard, with a book full of necromancies that the DM only let us have because he thought that my character, being good, banned necromancy, even though I was a generalist (so I didn't). So I scribed these spells into my spellbook, and even prepared a few (of which Command Undead was one). The next session, we enter this Yuan-Ti castle after roughing up some guards, and in the very first room, there's this fifth-level Cleric who (in the surprise round) Animates a skeletal T-Rex. I win initiative and Command it to eat its master. It obliges (no save), much to the DM's frustration, and two rounds later, I am riding my brand new T-Rex around the lobby like a kid with a motorized Tonka truck.

Is what I did wrong? I used a spell the DM gave me, in a book he allowed to exist in the world, to solve an encounter he threw at me. Nothing existed without the DM's knowledge, and moreover, nothing can, because the DM is the genesis of everything that exists in the game: the player cannot safely assume that any magic item can just be "bought"; it has to be bought by way of the DM's permission.

The players did not--no, they could not--use a magic item that existed in their possession unbeknownst to the DM.


Is responding to a perceived slight by childishly 'showing that meanie DM' out of a childish need to not lose a character wrong?

You betcha.

Are we abandoning any and all attempts at analogy and subtlety now? Or are you just deciding not to answer the question because it doesn't suit your argument? Because I'm pretty sure that's not what I asked at all; I just provided a more fitting analogy than your (false) one.


If they spent half the effort gathering teleport as they did gathering the D&D equivalent of atom bombs, I'd say they'd have it 3 times a day.

One wonders if they had the capacity to use them.


No. I'm saying that it is not justifiable for players to optimize to a level that the DM can't handle, out an unreasonable desire to not lose a character.

It honestly sounds like the DM couldn't handle "UMD a Scroll of Teleport," even if the party could. And again, your answer is "be a Wizard", or more narrowly, "emulate Wizard abilities", which means your answer to the party's "broken" magic item "abuse" is the one thing more broken than any magic item: spellcasting.

EDIT: And if "UMD a Scroll of Teleport" is a valid out to this predicament, then why shouldn't "use a Scroll of Shivering Touch" be? Paralyzed, helpless, coup. If the Swiftblade is a Wiz/Sor capable of casting Haste, then they are also capable of casting Shivering Touch, so they don't even need the UMD ranks. It's an identical trick, and an encounter-ender all the same. Or do you mean to tell me that's not allowed either?

EDIT II:


Letting him kill all of the characters as collateral damage also doesn't help. The DM was mostly shocked when it happened, but he's fine with it. No hard feelings.

Oh, hey, that's good.

[Killer Angel]

It honestly sounds like the DM couldn't handle "UMD a Scroll of Teleport," even if the party could. And again, your answer is "be a Wizard", or more narrowly, "emulate Wizard abilities", which means your answer to the party's "broken" magic item "abuse" is the one thing more broken than any magic item: spellcasting.


Just my 2 cps.
I don't believe Candycorn is advocating "be a wizard", but simply that the most immediate panic button should be something that let you escape a dangerous situation, not a broken trick.
"panic button", is not "I Win" button.

[candycorn]

Whosoever said this was about "winning"?Player desire was, according to them, to prevent a TPK. The way they chose to do it was to carry items that could obliterate things far outside their CR range. That is not avoiding or escaping a bad situation. That is beating it. That is about "winning".


I would have probably quit this game before it got to this point under normal circumstances, but being that I can count the number of DMs who run 3.5 on this island using only my thumbs (and I'm one of them), I can kind of understand DMofDarkness and his group not only wanting the game to end, but not wanting to be forcibly ejected in the process. Heck, I've gone back to the only other DM on this island (who I have suffered through worse with) just because I miss playing as opposed to just DMing all the time.I understand this mentality. However, if you're willing to play, then play ethically. If not, then don't play.


I posit to you this idea: you've repeatedly stated that optimizing beyond the scope of a DM has absolutely no justifications whatsoever. Does that mean that a high-op player, or a mid-op player, should just not play with a low-op DM? Ever? After all, they'll outpace the DM, and that's just wrong.I'm not saying that. I'm saying that a high op player shouldn't Op high when the DM can't handle it. That is wrong.


What about the reversal? Should a high-op DM never allow mid- and low-op players in their game?Let's see. Can a DM capable of balancing vs anything short of Pun Pun handle people playing monks? Yes.

No ethical problems there.


No, I'm not.You may not be calling it a duck, but if it has web feet, feathers, waddles, and quacks... well...


Only the needle was clearly found in-character, as part of a quest, that the DM must certainly have had a hand in running (unless the group is running games connected directly to the DM's universe and storyline, but not involving the DM, which is wrong, but also not likely to be true).And the DM gave all of those other things too. Low experience DMs shouldn't be ambushed with tactics beyond their understanding. No excuse or rationale justifies this.


I have an anecdote for you: the first group I played in, I was a Wizard. I didn't know Wizards were OP, nor did I even choose to be a Wizard: I was asked. I played with this group for close to a year, and over that year, I got better at being a Wizard, but spell access was very harsh (so I was almost better off just being a Sorcerer). One week, after seven levels of never finding another Wizard's spellbook, ever, we kill a Wizard enemy guy, who's also a 7th-level Wizard, with a book full of necromancies that the DM only let us have because he thought that my character, being good, banned necromancy, even though I was a generalist (so I didn't). So I scribed these spells into my spellbook, and even prepared a few (of which Command Undead was one). The next session, we enter this Yuan-Ti castle after roughing up some guards, and in the very first room, there's this fifth-level Cleric who (in the surprise round) Animates a skeletal T-Rex. I win initiative and Command it to eat its master. It obliges (no save), much to the DM's frustration, and two rounds later, I am riding my brand new T-Rex around the lobby like a kid with a motorized Tonka truck.

Is what I did wrong? I used a spell the DM gave me, in a book he allowed to exist in the world, to solve an encounter he threw at me. Nothing existed without the DM's knowledge, and moreover, nothing can, because the DM is the genesis of everything that exists in the game: the player cannot safely assume that any magic item can just be "bought"; it has to be bought by way of the DM's permission.That depends. Did the DM use that optimization level against you? If so, then yes, that's fine. A DM not factoring in for something is not the same as a DM that doesn't understand what needs to be factored for. You seem to be failing to grasp that, and as a result, are creating several rather ridiculous straw-men.


The players did not--no, they could not--use a magic item that existed in their possession unbeknownst to the DM.Correct, but the impact of those items could quite possibly be beyond the DM's optimization knowledge. I've seen a lot of beginning DMs that say, "you want a cursed item? Haha, sure, fine..." because they have no idea that Dust of Sneezing and Choking is broken. They think, "cursed=bad", and that's it. When an experienced DM makes an error like that, hey, it's his own fault. But when a fledgling DM does, well, it's like NBA players beating the crap out of a junior high basketball team. It's not fair play.


Are we abandoning any and all attempts at analogy and subtlety now? Because I'm pretty sure that's not what I asked at all; I just provided a more fitting analogy than your (false) one.Here's a more fitting analogy:

A judge in a courtroom (legitimate authority) states that no gum chewing will be allowed in his courtroom. Several people in the court chew gum. The judge holds them in contempt. Is that justified? Yes. What if those people try to do the same to the judge? Is that ok? Absolutely not. Because they have differing levels of authority.

In the DM's view, the characters violated one of his strictures, in an area of his authority (game balance). Complain all you want about the DM's judgement, but the DM acting to balance the game is legitimate, and players attempting to prevent that is not?

In other words, the situations are different because the players and DM have different roles, and different levels of authority. The judge's job is to judge. That is not true of the defendant.


One wonders if they had the capacity to use them.



It honestly sounds like the DM couldn't handle "UMD a Scroll of Teleport," even if the party could. And again, your answer is "be a Wizard", or more narrowly, "emulate Wizard abilities", which means your answer to the party's "broken" magic item "abuse" is the one thing more broken than any magic item: spellcasting.You're trying to twist my words to support that, but spellcasting can be used in a balanced way. If the players summoned a monster, or teleported, that's fine. If the players chain cast simulacrum to get an Angel army, that's not.

See the difference?

[Lonely Tylenol]

Just my 2 cps.
I don't believe Candycorn is advocating "be a wizard", but simply that the most immediate panic button should be something that let you escape a dangerous situation, not a broken trick.
"panic button", is not "I Win" button.

But again: if I can use my wealth and UMD to be a Wizard of my ECL in casting so that I can use Teleport, why couldn't (or wouldn't) I use my wealth and UMD to be a Wizard of my ECL so that I can use anything and everything else? If Invisibility Sphere has the same means of activation as Teleport, is cheaper, and allows the Assassin to ready a death attack or the party an ambush, why on earth would I limit myself to just Teleport?

[candycorn]

But again: if I can use my wealth and UMD to be a Wizard of my ECL in casting so that I can use Teleport, why couldn't (or wouldn't) I use my wealth and UMD to be a Wizard of my ECL so that I can use anything and everything else? If Invisibility Sphere has the same means of activation as Teleport, is cheaper, and allows the Assassin to ready a death attack or the party an ambush, why on earth would I limit myself to just Teleport?

First off: Invisibility Sphere would have had a bad day vs dragons.

Second: The answer to your final question is: Because it's not right to optimize beyond what the DM can handle. "It's what my character would do" does not justify a player being unfair to someone else at the table.

Third: I'm not advocating being a wizard. I'm advocating against using optimization levels beyond what the DM can handle. You are attempting to straw-man my position and attribute things to me that I did not say.

You are welcome to do that, I suppose, but it means that you're not actually going to convince anyone of anything, because you are only arguing with yourself.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Second: The answer to your final question is: Because it's not right to optimize beyond what the DM can handle. "It's what my character would do" does not justify a player being unfair to someone else at the table.

But it does justify the DM being unfair to someone else, apparently.

That's all.

Ta.

[candycorn]

But it does justify the DM being unfair to someone else, apparently.

That's all.

Ta.

I didn't say that. However, the DM has the right to put whatever he likes in there. Players have the right to stop playing. But D&D gives nobody the right to prey on someone else's inexperience to further a selfish agenda. That's not right.

Say whatever you like. It doesn't change that fact.

[Lonely Tylenol]

I didn't say that. However, the DM has the right to put whatever he likes in there. Players have the right to stop playing. But D&D gives nobody the right to prey on someone else's inexperience to further a selfish agenda. That's not right.

Say whatever you like. It doesn't change that fact.
Ten ninjas.

this thread has just devolved into an endless repetition of the blaming the victim fallacy--the only dispute is who, exactly, is blaming the victim. Can we just agree that we are not reading the same thread here and move on?

[candycorn]

Ten ninjas.

We're reading the same thread. I'm just seeing fault on both sides, and you seem to see the players as paragons of virtue and righteousness, and the DM as a despicable rat not worthy of spitting on.

The DM was being a poor DM, granted.
But that is not an excuse.

The players took advantage of the DM's lack of knowledge. It's no great win when Bobby Fischer beats a chess novice, or an olympic wrestler beats a nine year old. All it shows is that someone can't pick on someone their own skill level, and has no respect for the idea of fair play.

Even if that chess novice is a jerk, or that nine year old is a bully. It does not help anyone to react with such things. If anything, it reinforces such behavior. In such cases, I generally blame the experienced ones, because frankly?

They should know better.

[Rejakor]

No, not because we thought he would kill us for metagame reasons. We thought he would mess up an encounter worse than the first near TPK, and wanted a way to keep playing after that happened. As for buying scrolls, we had the wealth we started with, and nothing else. We didn't get much loot over the course of the game, and no one invested in UMD. A scroll would have been a poor choice of a panic button, indeed.

You're playing a swiftblade, yeah? How did you qualify for that without using wizard or sorcerer? I guess Wu Jens get Haste. And hey, Bards get 3rd level spells at 7 or whatever.

See... It's fine if the guy is good at all DM stuff except for balancing encounters. That's fine. It's /kind of/ fine to have your PCs more than most be preparing for the 'worst' because it occasionally HAPPENS to them. That's fine too.

Abusing a clearly broken mechanic? Less fine.

Not just TALKING to the GM about his problems with the 'broken' characters and show how they really aren't that strong they just 'look' strong, and just stopping time and calling 'bull****' on the great wyrm white dragon? Not fine at all.

-

If your group and the DM are all about using and abusing the rules and playing RAW for the challenge and fun of it, more like a wargame or boardgame than cooperative roleplaying storytelling game, then that's fine. But it doesn't sound like this is happening.

It sounds like you have far more optimizing skill than the rest of the group, and the DM has trouble challenging you while your character (and the other one you made) loom over the party and steal most of the spotlight (regardless of their mechanical power - player skill is a thing, as is spotlight time).

And instead of discussing this with the DM, maybe giving him help with how to challenge you, finding out if the rest of the group is okay with this power level/if they want help in how to get spotlight time or make their characters more interesting, instead there's this weird antagonistic DM vs players thing going on that even if you didn't cause it, you're doing nothing to help fix it.

[elpollo]

*stuff*

I had a fairly long post typed out in response to numerous points, but I've somewhat lost the will to argue over the minutiae whilst doing so.

The overarcing point being: knowing now that escape was not an option (due to no teleporting, etc) how would the deaths of the PCs have made this situation any better? If there is no good answer to that question (and I really don't think there is), and the current situation is as bad as you (pl.) make out, then why does the fault not lie near completely with the DM for setting up such a situation? Ok, the PCs used a bad combo, but it was in an otherwise campaign ending fight. Now everyone has learnt something (possibly even quite a lot), and they can avoid everything even remotely associated with this from ever happening again.

[Rejakor]

The basic assumption that 'use stupid broken ****' was the only possible answer - as opposed to talking to the DM, making the situation not happen in the first place etc - is the problem here, not 'whether or not the PCs should have killed themselves', which is an obvious nonquestion.

[Lonely Tylenol]

You're playing a swiftblade, yeah? How did you qualify for that without using wizard or sorcerer? I guess Wu Jens get Haste. And hey, Bards get 3rd level spells at 7 or whatever.

See... It's fine if the guy is good at all DM stuff except for balancing encounters. That's fine. It's /kind of/ fine to have your PCs more than most be preparing for the 'worst' because it occasionally HAPPENS to them. That's fine too.

Abusing a clearly broken mechanic? Less fine.

Not just TALKING to the GM about his problems with the 'broken' characters and show how they really aren't that strong they just 'look' strong, and just stopping time and calling 'bull****' on the great wyrm white dragon? Not fine at all.

-

If your group and the DM are all about using and abusing the rules and playing RAW for the challenge and fun of it, more like a wargame or boardgame than cooperative roleplaying storytelling game, then that's fine. But it doesn't sound like this is happening.

It sounds like you have far more optimizing skill than the rest of the group, and the DM has trouble challenging you while your character (and the other one you made) loom over the party and steal most of the spotlight (regardless of their mechanical power - player skill is a thing, as is spotlight time).

And instead of discussing this with the DM, maybe giving him help with how to challenge you, finding out if the rest of the group is okay with this power level/if they want help in how to get spotlight time or make their characters more interesting, instead there's this weird antagonistic DM vs players thing going on that even if you didn't cause it, you're doing nothing to help fix it.
These ones are Swordsages!

We're switching to Legend over the summer, which is much harder to mess up, and throughout the year I had been pointing out various things to improve his game, such as reading Dungeonscape's chapter on encounters, the CR calculator on the SRD, and other such things. It's not just the party sitting back and doing nothing, we've been actively trying to improve the game with the DM.


1. The DM decided that this dragon was something that the players had to kill. Aside from fighting it, the other option was to run away, through an insanely long corridor, this the faster dragon is right behind us with a breath weapon and other tools. In addition, killing the dragon was the entire objective of the quest- without doing so, at least one of the characters was going to be massacred by a different Great Wyrm Red Dragon that I had previously optimized for the DM.

I don't disagree out of principle, but this (bolded in your statements) is just factually untrue (because of the bolded in DMofDarkness').

[Rejakor]

Nope.

Tried and failed, maybe, but that sounds a hell of a lot like not trying at all. If the DM doesn't like optimizing, don't optimize his ****ing dragon for him, COMPROMISE. Find a level of optimization that he CAN do, and play at it. If the situation ever gets to the point where the DM is trying to kill off specific characters in game, both sides of the equation have crit failed their diplomacy tests.

[SowZ]

We're reading the same thread. I'm just seeing fault on both sides, and you seem to see the players as paragons of virtue and righteousness, and the DM as a despicable rat not worthy of spitting on.

The DM was being a poor DM, granted.
But that is not an excuse.

The players took advantage of the DM's lack of knowledge. It's no great win when Bobby Fischer beats a chess novice, or an olympic wrestler beats a nine year old. All it shows is that someone can't pick on someone their own skill level, and has no respect for the idea of fair play.

Even if that chess novice is a jerk, or that nine year old is a bully. It does not help anyone to react with such things. If anything, it reinforces such behavior. In such cases, I generally blame the experienced ones, because frankly?

They should know better.

To what degree are players expected to handicap themselves?

At any rate, if a DM is actively trying to kill off a character the player of that character has every right to actively try and keep them alive. The DM has the right to do it because he is the DM and can/is allowed to is just as valid on the other side, (the player has the right to buy ridiculous items because they can, apparently.) The DM 'can' just say that a god turned one of the characters into a pair of pantaloons, no save, and the BBEG is giving them to his wife as a present, and now everyone has to watch this silly exchange but a player cannot just do what they want because someone can always veto it, (the DM.) There is more responsibility in what the DM does, (which no one can stop,) then the players, (who can always be stopped.)

Now, I agree that pulling tricks off which require a great deal of understanding about obscure rules/mechanics and not explaining it to the DM beforehand when you have more experience than the DM is not cool. That would be taking advantage. But if the DM allows you to purchase an item when he knows what its effect is and the DM knows that casting explosive runes over and over on something will make it more damaging then using those things isn't at all taking advantage. The DM didn't expect it, but maybe the DM didn't expect that in the battle against some other adventuring party the rogue would go for the enemy wizard with his bow, (which he didn't prepare against,) rather than the sword he prefers. The DM didn't prepare for it, oh well. The DM can always make more NPCs, typically easier than the players can make more PCs.

Should I also play my Int 17 character with poor tactics because I am playing with an under-average intelligent DM who can't handle much tactical thinking?

Using your spells, items, class features, and build effectively is a big part of the game. Toning everything down and doing calculations in your head as to how the DM would like for the encounter to go is not part of the game, in my experience. I am usually behind the screen and I never expect the party to pull punches and even when I was starting out I knew that my fun was based on them and there were more players so I should tailor encounters to what they wanted and it would be silly of me to expect them to do the same to me.

I am not advocating tricky mechanical exploitations or even combining spell A+B+C to create super awesome effect when the DM doesn't know what you are doing. This can't really be justified with 'it is in character' very well, either, without a whole lotta ranks in arcana since it is assumed characters don't understand mechanics. But sometimes just spell effect A+A+A+A+A is the most useful thing. The DM should account for or adapt to it. If that makes things hard on the DM, well, he'll learn. The easiest way for it to be a real problem is when the DM actually wants his players to lose. I, as a player, am going to assume the DM doesn't want me to die. And if he does, I am not obligated to let it happen just out of respect for the DM and I am not obligated to get out of character and stop roleplaying and not be resourceful.

[Fable Wright]

Nope.

Tried and failed, maybe, but that sounds a hell of a lot like not trying at all. If the DM doesn't like optimizing, don't optimize his ****ing dragon for him, COMPROMISE. Find a level of optimization that he CAN do, and play at it. If the situation ever gets to the point where the DM is trying to kill off specific characters in game, both sides of the equation have crit failed their diplomacy tests.
:smallmad: You're making a number of unfair assumptions here. First, yes, I used a wizard base. Still can't teleport without UMD because of the inability to cast 5th level spells. Second, the DM didn't even try to solve things outside of the game, or even ask if I could tone it down. For most of the game, the DM had no problems with my character. I even asked about it, and the DM said I was fine. I also let the other players have the spotlight most of the time- our characters all have different roles and shine in them. After I built my newbie friend a competant bard and gave the often Hasted party with a Manyshot Ranger +6d6 fire damage to all attacks, the DM started to scale things up. The main problem came in when he entire party, not just my character, became too awesome. Second, leaving without combat would involve fiery death by another, far more involved and dangerous Great Wyrm with a kingdom behind it hunting my character down. Third, investing in a panic button that won't result in success most of the time is a bad idea.

[Ruethgar]

Make an equally or more OP monster Character. Just a great wyrm doesn't cut it, has to be a seven-headed, dreadnaught, spellpowered, great wyrm of legend! That would give it two potential constant haste abilities, the potential to cast most any spell at will(you get 108 points to spend, 3x the spell level to cast at will 4x for constant effect), 14 extra HD and all HD would be maximized, with the Swift Natural Attack(Bite) feat he would get 77 bite attacks per round. Or just apply the relentless template, makes it unable to be killed except by one substance/item in the me-traverse.

Relentless, Multi-Headed, Dreadnaught and Spellpowered are from the Book of Templates Deluxe Edition 3.5, of Legend is from the Monster Manual II

[Killer Angel]

First, yes, I used a wizard base. Still can't teleport without UMD because of the inability to cast 5th level spells.

Don't you have Int 15? Or have I missed something (didn't read all the thread)?

[Kuulvheysoon]

You're making a number of unfair assumptions here. First, yes, I used a wizard base. Still can't teleport without UMD because of the inability to cast 5th level spells.


Don't you have Int 15? Or have I missed something (didn't read all the thread)?

This bothered me as well. I mean, teleport is on the sorc/wiz list, and he's straight-up told us that he used a wizard base.

[Fable Wright]

Don't you have Int 15? Or have I missed something (didn't read all the thread)?


This bothered me as well. I mean, teleport is on the sorc/wiz list, and he's straight-up told us that he used a wizard base.

...Huh. I've been misreading the scroll rules for years, then. It's never come up in the game, as no one used scrolls, but I had thought that you needed to be able to cast the spell (as in, had a spell slot of the scroll's level) for that to work. My bad, then.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Let's see if I can sum this up...

DM has very little grasp on mechanics, and assumes he can handle any new party members, as long as they don't overshadow the low-op characters in his group already.

In response, the two new optimizers decide to use their skills to help the rest of the party.

The DM suddenly finds his encounters getting curbstomped by two high-op tier 3 support characters.

DM refuses help in balancing encounters against the new party, and tries to homebrew monsters that are balanced for the new party, without any outside help, with a bad grasp on the mechanics.

Players, predicting a messed up encounter that'll overwhelm them rather than get curbstomped, invest in safety measures of questionable balance (of course, this is where they're expecting to face encounters of questionable balance).

DM finally does throw an overwhelming encounter at them, expecting the optimized characters to die and the unoptimized characters to... I don't even know. By the sound of the OP, he didn't expect them to win or die.

Players use their safety measures. Cue thread, cue argument.

[ahenobarbi]

candycorn is your point "d&d DM's game so do what DM wants or GTFO" or did I miss something?

[Fable Wright]

Let's see if I can sum this up...

DM has very little grasp on mechanics, and assumes he can handle any new party members, as long as they don't overshadow the low-op characters in his group already.

In response, the two new optimizers decide to use their skills to help the rest of the party.

The DM suddenly finds his encounters getting curbstomped by two high-op tier 3 support characters.

DM refuses help in balancing encounters against the new party, and tries to homebrew monsters that are balanced for the new party, without any outside help, with a bad grasp on the mechanics.

Players, predicting a messed up encounter that'll overwhelm them rather than get curbstomped, invest in safety measures of questionable balance (of course, this is where they're expecting to face encounters of questionable balance).

DM finally does throw an overwhelming encounter at them, expecting the optimized characters to die and the unoptimized characters to... I don't even know. By the sound of the OP, he didn't expect them to win or die.

Players use their safety measures. Cue thread, cue argument.

Actually, no.

1. Players get together, a bunch of melee-types with one caster. DM throws a horridly off-CRed homebrew bunch of Drakes (which I honestly think he used 4e levels of HP for...) at the party.
2. Friend #1 joins the party, coming in with a panic button this time. He plays a Beguiler, spellcaster quits, leaves behind boombook, comes in as Swiftblade.
3. Fun times happen.
4. Friend #2 enters the game, requesting to play a support character. As he has no system mastery, I roll him up a DFI bard.
5. DM throws a large number of trolls generated by a random monster generator at the party. Beguiler does his thing, we now have troll minions.
6. DM lives with it for a while, starts throwing more difficult and acid-based challenges at the party. Trolls still survive, DFI bard still pumps damage to insane levels.
7. Fiat. Acid falls, Trolls die.
8. Last campaign of the year, throw a Great Wyrm at the party to kill of the Bard (and the Swiftblade). Panic buttons were pushed, no more Wyrm.

[Rejakor]

DM responds to optimization in-world - bad.

Players respond to DM by optimizing instead of talking - bad.

/thread

[demigodus]

DM responds to optimization in-world - bad.

Players respond to DM by optimizing instead of talking - bad.

/thread

I really don't see how responding to optimization by customizing challenges to that level is bad. Basically, the first line is missing "without sufficient system mastery, or without letting the players who were suggesting to help, help him"

Also, players did talk. They did suggest helping the DM build the encounters. What more do you want from them? Should they have forced their help on the dm?

[Rejakor]

I refuse to believe that there is a DM that exists that is worth playing in a group with and yet completely fails to listen to advice so completely (to hear DMofDarkness tell it). Essentially I just make a will save to disbelieve the scenario as told.

Also the response to optimization-incompetent DM is not to build DFI bards and swiftblades. Sure, a swiftblade is not as powerful as a properly played GOD wizard but it's pretty close and a lot more flashy.

DMofDarkness specifically said that he changed and built and optimized other people's characters after the DM showed he didn't understand numbers.

Also, pointing someone at a dubiously useful section of a book, or an online monster generator, is not the same as sitting down with them and working out their actual concerns and addressing them. If the DM wanted a low power game and just didn't know how to go about asking the party, how the hell would they know?

I just don't buy 'the DM just wouldn't listen'. There doesn't appear to have been any serious dialogue beyond saying 'lol you should just make more optimized encounters here is minmaxboards handbooks'. I just seriously doubt that the DM's actual attitude is 'I hate overpowered characters and yet make incredibly strong encounters that I know will kill anyone and when it's pointed out that they will kill everyone I just shrug and say that you should have made stronger characters'. That's the attitude of the DM being posited, and I call bull**** on that.

[Aegis013]

No excuse or rationale justifies this.



Is there ever a justification for genocide? From your standpoint, since genocide is almost universally accepted as being by far worse than what you are claiming is unjustifiable there must not be.

What if the only options are genocide or extinction and there are absolutely no other options? I would choose genocide over extinction, by the logic you posited, I'm a horrible monster for saving an enormous number of people. I find that claiming anything is unjustifiable is ridiculous.

I'm fully in agreement with Lonely Tylenol and DMofDarkness. Dead's post suggested that he was explicitly targeting people who, DMofDarkness claimed he told to their faces he was ok with. This is deception, and you are saying that flat out lying to your players and holding personal grudges over their inability to read your mind when you yourself actively leading them astray is ok. I simply cannot fathom it.

[Rejakor]

You can be okay with someone and then target them to kill them. It's a pretty specific situation but not impossible.

That said, I still firmly believe both sides failed their 'communicate with words' checks.

[Fable Wright]

I refuse to believe that there is a DM that exists that is worth playing in a group with and yet completely fails to listen to advice so completely (to hear DMofDarkness tell it). Essentially I just make a will save to disbelieve the scenario as told.

Also the response to optimization-incompetent DM is not to build DFI bards and swiftblades. Sure, a swiftblade is not as powerful as a properly played GOD wizard but it's pretty close and a lot more flashy.

DMofDarkness specifically said that he changed and built and optimized other people's characters after the DM showed he didn't understand numbers.

Also, pointing someone at a dubiously useful section of a book, or an online monster generator, is not the same as sitting down with them and working out their actual concerns and addressing them. If the DM wanted a low power game and just didn't know how to go about asking the party, how the hell would they know?

I just don't buy 'the DM just wouldn't listen'. There doesn't appear to have been any serious dialogue beyond saying 'lol you should just make more optimized encounters here is minmaxboards handbooks'. I just seriously doubt that the DM's actual attitude is 'I hate overpowered characters and yet make incredibly strong encounters that I know will kill anyone and when it's pointed out that they will kill everyone I just shrug and say that you should have made stronger characters'. That's the attitude of the DM being posited, and I call bull**** on that.
If you want the full background? Here it is:
To put it bluntly, we have pathetically short sessions. We meet after school for two hours every Wednesday and Friday to game. There is little time to interact with the DM outside of the game, as he's usually busy with schoolwork. After some of the sessions, I voiced my concern with the DM, though because time is limited, I can only say so much in the time we pack up. Otherwise, I direct him to other sources that can help him improve the game. For the last arc we've been playing so far, he found a random dungeon map generator online that included randomly generated encounters (which I did not, for the record, direct him to). After the dungeon kept spitting out trolls as the encouter, he switched to another method of generating monsters. After sending a group of 4 Guardian Nagas at the party, an EL 14 encounter, I redirected him to the calculator on the SRD that gives you the EL of an encounter when you plug in the individual CRs. The encounters amounted to a dungeon grind in all senses of the word, with monsters more or less just standing there and wailing on the party. Combat, you see, hadn't really been a big part of the game up until then. It happened here and there, but then the DM started to make a crawl for the express purpose of using combat, and the issues with it were made suddenly more urgent. So, I directed him to the Encounters section in Dungeonscape to try to help him improve the game. It has solid advice, and I feel that he would have gotten some use out of it. However, due to his procrastination habits and the fact that his senior project was approaching rapidly, he was unable to read it for 2-3 weeks, and certainly couldn't implement it. Earlier in the year, when he started the campaign, I had offered to run the combats for him, but he declined the opportunity.

As for clarification on several points:
I did not modify or change other people's builds. One of my friends started the game, and had little grasp of the system. He had experience with League of Legends and wanted to play a buffing role, so I make him a DFI Warchanter. By habit, I guess, I made it too strong for the game. The DM had the stated goal of killing the bard in combat, though given that the bard stayed as far away from combat as possible, that made doing so rather difficult. He had previously not expressed concern over my Swiftblade, but his reasoning may have been "Well, if I'm killing off the bard, might as well get rid of all of the powerful characters." Most of the more difficult combats had come around by accident, such as improperly CRed encounters, and when he didn't have extremely difficult combats, he wound up sending a bunch of Easy (EL 9) encounters, the party steamrolled over them and he was irritated about that. Hope this information helps.

[demigodus]

I just seriously doubt that the DM's actual attitude is 'I hate overpowered characters and yet make incredibly strong encounters that I know will kill anyone and when it's pointed out that they will kill everyone I just shrug and say that you should have made stronger characters'. That's the attitude of the DM being posited, and I call bull**** on that.

Just a tip. If you are going to use hyperbole, you will look less ridiculous if you don't claim something who's opposite the side you are attack has said. You still won't convince anyone with making poorly disguised personal attacks, but at least people might take you seriously...

[Rejakor]

don't claim something who's opposite the side you are attack has said

I don't speak whatever language this is.


He had experience with League of Legends and wanted to play a buffing role, so I make him a DFI Warchanter. By habit, I guess, I made it too strong for the game.

This was your first mistake.

Since you have just said it was a mistake 'too strong for the game', I doubt even the gitp political correctness bunnies will jump screaming down my throat for implying anyone is not perfect ever.


He had previously not expressed concern over my Swiftblade, but his reasoning may have been "Well, if I'm killing off the bard, might as well get rid of all of the powerful characters."

Second mistake.

a) He obviously had a problem with the swiftblade (and maybe this.. swordsage? I have a feeling a swordsage was mentioned) that he wasn't mentioning or he wouldn't have tried to kill it. b), and most importantly, the INSTANT that you realized the DM was trying to kill off party members, you didn't stop at the start of the session, and spend half an hour finding out what the problem was and what needed to be done to fix it.

The two solutions you have suggested that you tried, pointing the DM towards optimization resources and offering to run combat, did not work, and I don't really see how in this situation they would have worked. Combat is a big part of DnD and a big part of the fun for the DM. Learning to optimize eats up time and some people don't like it for various reasons (some of those reasons are dumb, but that doesn't matter in conflict resolution - the goal of resolving the conflict is more important). Reducing the power level of the group is just as valid as the DM learning to increase the power of his encounters, and it really sounds like you never discussed things with the DM as if his problems with the power level were relevant - just because some people can handle higher power levels in DnD doesn't mean everyone can.


Most of the more difficult combats had come around by accident, such as improperly CRed encounters, and when he didn't have extremely difficult combats, he wound up sending a bunch of Easy (EL 9) encounters, the party steamrolled over them and he was irritated about that.

Third mistake.

If the DM sends an over-CR'd/improperly CR'd encounter at you and you don't speak up AT THE TABLE RIGHT THEN AND THERE you have just done the DM a disservice. Sure, you might not know what the creature is or not know stuff, but even afterwards you can ask for a retcon if it was unfair mechanically (and especially if the DM didn't know this beforehand).

Am I saying the DM didn't make mistakes? No. Am I saying that your mistakes were malicious or unforgivable or something? No.

All i'm saying is that from my understanding of this situation you could probably have handled it better, and there is a lesson there, if you want to learn it.


Hope this information helps.

Yep, it gave me a much clearer picture, thanks.

[candycorn]

Is there ever a justification for genocide? From your standpoint, since genocide is almost universally accepted as being by far worse than what you are claiming is unjustifiable there must not be.

What if the only options are genocide or extinction and there are absolutely no other options?
This is what you're arguing? Really?

First, the example doesn't mirror reality. In the above example, we're playing a game. Nobody's dying for reals, and anyone can get up and leave the table. This option is always available, and invalidates the above scenario. To rewrite your scenario in a manner which is accurate, change the options to: genocide, extinction, or moving to another town.

Under that set of options, then yes, there isn't a justification.

The behavior that the players exhibit isn't life or death. Real lives don't ride on this decision. It is a game.

Let's take it logically.

Premises:
[1] D&D is a game, comprised of real people acting out make-believe characters.
[2] As the game is dependent on players to play it, consequences in game (things that happen to characters) are always less consequential than consequences that happen out of game (things that happen to players).
[3] A DM optimizing encounters beyond the ability of the player to counter is an action that is inconsiderate to the player.
[4] A player optimizing actions beyond the ability of the DM or the ability of other party members is an action that is inconsiderate to those involved.
[5] Inconsiderate actions can have damaging effects on trust and friendship, among normal, rational people.
[6] Damaging effects on trust and friendship are consequences that go beyond the game (they are out of game).

It follows, as long as [4], [5], and [6] are true, that performing what has been done is an inconsiderate action, that has the potential to have a negative real life consequence. As such, per [2], such an action should be avoided, even at the expense of in game consequences.

Let me be clear.

Losing a character is not anywhere close to equal to genocide, or extinction. It's not even close in level to losing a friendship. It's not even as important as keeping trust in a friendship.

Until you all get a sense of perspective, there's no point debating it. You're seeing this issue on par with life or death decisions, which balance extreme negative consequences versus horrific acts. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The consequence of a TPK of make-believe people is relatively minor, when compared to ANY real life consequence. Because make believe isn't as important as real life.

Therefore real life rudeness to prevent make-believe hardship is never justified. It's like murdering someone to save the life of your imaginary friend. There isn't ever a justification for it. Any argument to the contrary is foolishness.

[demigodus]

Until you all get a sense of perspective, there's no point debating it.

We do have a sense of perspective. It is just different from yours.


You're seeing this issue on par with life or death decisions, which balance extreme negative consequences versus horrific acts.

No. No one has claimed this to be a life and death decision. They provided metaphors, which might have been poorly chosen, but this is either miscommunication, or hyperbole at its finest.
a

The consequence of a TPK of make-believe people is relatively minor, when compared to ANY real life consequence. Because make believe isn't as important as real life.

What do you know. Something we actually agree on...


Therefore real life rudeness to prevent make-believe hardship is never justified.

You see, here is where we have the problem. You assume that the save-our-hides trick in question was a real life rude act to prevent in-game inconvenience. The rest of us might not see it that way.

If the party had ended up using the items for their intended purposes, that would not have been real life rudeness. If someone is prone to making mistakes, but don't have time to fix it, I don't see how preparing for a mistake is rude. It might be rude if you live in social circles with incredibly thin skins, but otherwise, that is just being realistic.

As for the actual case that happened, I would place the DM's actions (railroad the party into a "rocks fall on just two of you, because I didn't feel like discussing the issues out of character, btw if you run, bigger, homing rocks will fall") as far ruder. Sometimes, it is perfectly appropriate to correct rudeness with a lesser degree of rudeness. Two wrongs don't always make a right, but sometimes they do.

However, I think that quote of yours summarizes the problem. You have a VERY different set of morals/standards, that cause you to way the actions of the players very differently. You consider some things the rest of us might consider natural to be rude, while not seeing something I personally (can't speak for others here) would consider rude to be okay.

Morality debates when everyone has different morals that they assume to be universally true, and hence do not define them, are not going to get anywhere

[ahenobarbi]

Premises:
[1] D&D is a game, comprised of real people acting out make-believe characters.
[2] As the game is dependent on players to play it, consequences in game (things that happen to characters) are always less consequential than consequences that happen out of game (things that happen to players).
[3] A DM optimizing encounters beyond the ability of the player to counter is an action that is inconsiderate to the player.
[4] A player optimizing actions beyond the ability of the DM or the ability of other party members is an action that is inconsiderate to those involved.
[5] Inconsiderate actions can have damaging effects on trust and friendship, among normal, rational people.
[6] Damaging effects on trust and friendship are consequences that go beyond the game (they are out of game).

It follows, as long as [4], [5], and [6] are true, that performing what has been done is an inconsiderate action, that has the potential to have a negative real life consequence. As such, per [2], such an action should be avoided, even at the expense of in game consequences.

[3] was attempted but you say nothing about it.

[4] did not really take place. Players secured "panic buttons" in case DM made a mistake.

[kardar233]

What's the real problem here is the disconnect between IC and OOC. I'm piecing together what I hope is an accurate account from the posts made:

DM's encounter balance is off: OOC problem.
Players appeal to DM for better encounter balance: failed OOC solution.
Players get "panic buttons" for serious misbalance: IC solution.
That's not an optimal solution, but as an insurance policy it's decent until better encounter balance can be achieved.

DMofDarkness makes a character for a friend that is more powerful than is warranted: OOC problem.
Game DM increases encounter difficulty level to attempt to kill overly-powerful support char: failed IC solution.
This is a problem. Having a character that you can't balance encounters for is a serious OOC problem which should be handled OOC. It should not be handled by killing the character in game, as this sends the message "if you make a weaker character, you'll just die again" which is counter-productive. People don't like having their characters die, usually. I'm averse to it unless it serves a story purpose.

Game DM decides to deal with OOC problem of overly-powerful characters by sending a very powerful encounter (that basically amounts to "rocks fall, you guys die"): IC solution.
I think (and I think most people would agree with me) that the "rocks fall" method is an IC solution to an OOC problem. "Rocks fall" when done under game rules makes people think "well, I need to step up my game to handle these encounters" and when done as fiat just pisses people off. If a character is being problematic in-game, talk to the player; they are the ones that determine what the character does.

Players deal with the IC problem of "rocks fall" by using IC "panic buttons":
This is an IC-IC conflict that is really just a cover for what's going OOC. At this point, the DM is saying "rocks fall", and the players are saying "No, we're not going to take that".

With my player hat on, I'd say this problem falls squarely on the DM's shoulders. You should be able to recognize an inability to improve your encounter balance especially when your players are telling you so, and trying to kill off the people who are allowing the party to survive these encounters is making this into a DM vs Players game, and those are really only fun if that's what you signed up for in the first place.

With my DM hat on I'd say I'd like to think that I'd have talked to my players about the balance issues and tried to find an OOC resolution to the problems of encounter balance and the potentially overpowered support character. I've frequented these boards enough to recognize DM mistakes like the ones that occur in this story, though I'm not infallible. Most of these problems go away once you really sit down and talk with players though; most players are willing to talk about their issues with the game and accept solutions, and the ones that don't I don't want in my gaming group.

To end with a movie quote: "What we have here is a failure to communicate."

[Killer Angel]

[4] did not really take place. Players secured "panic buttons" in case DM made a mistake.

At the risk of repeating myself:
Book with explosive runes and Dust of sneezing, is not a "panic button". Don't try to tell me that is a life-saving option, when it's simply a broken "I Win" button.
No one is advocating against a contingent plan to save your character when you know you can face an overpowered enemy. It the kind of plan, that can be fair or dirty.

[kardar233]

DMofDarkness has stated that he was unaware that a Scroll of Teleport was viable (due to a misunderstanding in the scroll casting rules) and thus that was off the table. I would say that an "I win" button can perfectly well be a "panic" button, as long as it's only used when there's a "panic". Wish is an "I win" button, used correctly; but many people I know would only use it in the "I win" fashion if in a life-or-death situation.

[BlueEyes]

I'm totally with the players on this one. The DM failed in every way possible and the players are justified in what they did.

[Ceaon]

"What we have here is a failure to communicate."

Indeed we do. Especially since the DM has stopped posting (in his own thread, mind you), while one of the players (DMofDarkness) continues.

To me, it seems both DM and players made errors. It doesn't matter who is (more) to blame, it matters what can be done to correct these errors.

My advice: Instead of talking about each other, talk to each other. If you don't have enough time at the end of a game, use the phone, Skype, e-mail or whatever. If that doesn't work, I suggest someone else start DMing for a while.

[candycorn]

We do have a sense of perspective. It is just different from yours. I'm sorry. I misspoke. I was referring to having a rational perspective.


No. No one has claimed this to be a life and death decision. They provided metaphors, which might have been poorly chosen, but this is either miscommunication, or hyperbole at its finest.And this was to invalidate those poorly chosen metaphors, which justified the player actions by rationalizing what the DM did as a personal attack on the players. It was not. Even if it was, it does not mean that the player act is ok. It just means, at best, that the player and DM were equally wrong, which is very different from the player being right.


You see, here is where we have the problem. You assume that the save-our-hides trick in question was a real life rude act to prevent in-game inconvenience. The rest of us might not see it that way."Obliterate an enemy, reducing it to slag, then reducing that slag to its constituent components, then reducing those components to ash" is not "save our hides". It's "destroy all opposition". Saving your hides would be an action that preserved the party life. It's DEFENSIVE in nature. For example: If you used the dust, then used that 13 rounds to LEAVE? I'd buy "save our hides".

As is, the party pursued uncompromising victory, at any cost, even to the point of pulling one over on an unskilled member at the table. It's no different than putting an NFL team against a junior high football team.


If the party had ended up using the items for their intended purposes, that would not have been real life rudeness. If someone is prone to making mistakes, but don't have time to fix it, I don't see how preparing for a mistake is rude. It might be rude if you live in social circles with incredibly thin skins, but otherwise, that is just being realistic.Except it was not that. Escaping a bad situation would be a valid example of what you said.

Nuke it til they glow is not that. That's pursuing victory, not preserving party life.


As for the actual case that happened, I would place the DM's actions (railroad the party into a "rocks fall on just two of you, because I didn't feel like discussing the issues out of character, btw if you run, bigger, homing rocks will fall") as far ruder.I would place the actions of the inexperienced as less culpable than the actions of the experienced, every time. So does pretty much every society on the planet. If you're trained in deadly force, you have stricter guidelines when engaging in violence, and more culpability if your actions injure or kill. Not because you did, but because you should damn well know better.


Sometimes, it is perfectly appropriate to correct rudeness with a lesser degree of rudeness.Teaching object lessons in sharing to nine year olds by destroying all of their possessions for not sharing is not appropriate.

All times, it is appropriate to do the following: defer to legitimate authority (the DM was), when that authority is not violating the limits of his authority (the DM wasn't).

If that results in a player death from DM error? So be it.


Two wrongs don't always make a right, but sometimes they do.No, they really don't. One bad action does not excuse another. Two wrongs don't make a right. Saying otherwise is a Logical Fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right). It's just a way do distract from the fact that still a wrong.


, I think that quote of yours summarizes the problem. You have a VERY different set of morals/standards, that cause you to way the actions of the players very differently.Well, I'm using generally socially accepted guidelines for mine. You're using Logical Fallacies and red herrings. Therein lies the crux of the problem.


You consider some things the rest of us might consider natural to be rude, while not seeing something I personally (can't speak for others here) would consider rude to be okay.I never said it wasn't rude. Just that it's less culpable, in the same way that we don't hold a amateur boxer to the same standards as a grandmaster blackbelt in four martial arts.


Morality debates when everyone has different morals that they assume to be universally true, and hence do not define them, are not going to get anywhereI am abiding by common standards of social courtesy and etiquette. The general ideas of "defer to authority" and "act to promote fairness and goodwill". These are not radical concepts. They are fundamental to every successful society. Ever.


[3] was attempted but you say nothing about it.Look both above, and here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13377741&postcount=130). I did address it. I just did not allow it to excuse the actions in question.


[4] did not really take place. Players secured "panic buttons" in case DM made a mistake.No, the players secured "victory buttons" designed to circumvent encounters that the legitimate authority (the DM) placed, taking advantage of an imbalance of ability and skill to do so. It's no different than a high school wrestling team getting a world champion olympic champion to face off against the 17 year old wrestlers of a more successful school. Even if that successful team is using steroids, it's not an excuse to be unethical yourself.

It is unethical, and no amount of "but but but we were just protecting ourselves" justifies it. There is a difference between "protecting ourselves" and "preemptively obliterating a potential hostile".


What's the real problem here is the disconnect between IC and OOC. I'm piecing together what I hope is an accurate account from the posts made:

DM's encounter balance is off: OOC problem.
Players appeal to DM for better encounter balance: failed OOC solution.
Players get "panic buttons" for serious misbalance: IC solution.
That's not an optimal solution, but as an insurance policy it's decent until better encounter balance can be achieved.Provided they are designed to save the party, rather than obliterate the opposition via tricks the DM is not yet able to reasonably handle, yes.

This was not that.


DMofDarkness makes a character for a friend that is more powerful than is warranted: OOC problem.
Game DM increases encounter difficulty level to attempt to kill overly-powerful support char: failed IC solution.
This is a problem. Having a character that you can't balance encounters for is a serious OOC problem which should be handled OOC. It should not be handled by killing the character in game, as this sends the message "if you make a weaker character, you'll just die again" which is counter-productive. People don't like having their characters die, usually. I'm averse to it unless it serves a story purpose. Yes it is. It's also a common problem to inexperienced DMs. Lambasting him and stocking "I win" buttons does not teach the DM to break this habit. If anything, it reinforces the adversarial "DM vs Player" mentality, and HINDERS an attempt to fix it.


Game DM decides to deal with OOC problem of overly-powerful characters by sending a very powerful encounter (that basically amounts to "rocks fall, you guys die"): IC solution.
I think (and I think most people would agree with me) that the "rocks fall" method is an IC solution to an OOC problem. "Rocks fall" when done under game rules makes people think "well, I need to step up my game to handle these encounters" and when done as fiat just pisses people off. If a character is being problematic in-game, talk to the player; they are the ones that determine what the character does. See above. You are assigning the responsibility of an experienced DM to the ability of an inexperienced DM. This is not a reasonable expectation.


Players deal with the IC problem of "rocks fall" by using IC "panic buttons": Correct, if you amend "panic" to "destroy everything in eyesight buttons".

This is an IC-IC conflict that is really just a cover for what's going OOC. At this point, the DM is saying "rocks fall", and the players are saying "No, we're not going to take that".And here you have it. Players are not deferring to legitimate authority.

Yes, there are mistakes on both sides, but players do NOT have the right to say, "no, that isn't going to happen in this game" when the DM says otherwise. They have the right to choose not to play, or to play. They don't dictate arbitration to the Judge.


With my player hat on, I'd say this problem falls squarely on the DM's shoulders. You should be able to recognize an inability to improve your encounter balance especially when your players are telling you so, and trying to kill off the people who are allowing the party to survive these encounters is making this into a DM vs Players game, and those are really only fun if that's what you signed up for in the first place. Again, you're assigning culpability to the inexperienced, whilst ignoring the culpability of the experienced. It doesn't work that way.


With my DM hat on I'd say I'd like to think that I'd have talked to my players about the balance issues and tried to find an OOC resolution to the problems of encounter balance and the potentially overpowered support character. I've frequented these boards enough to recognize DM mistakes like the ones that occur in this story, though I'm not infallible. Most of these problems go away once you really sit down and talk with players though; most players are willing to talk about their issues with the game and accept solutions, and the ones that don't I don't want in my gaming group.Players leaving a group is generally far less damaging to relationships than DMs kicking a player out. The former should be done before the latter is required. That's a player problem.


At the risk of repeating myself:
Book with explosive runes and Dust of sneezing, is not a "panic button". Don't try to tell me that is a life-saving option, when it's simply a broken "I Win" button.

THIS.

Some things should only be used in a high op table, where all parties are fully aware of the ramifications of those things.

Explosive Rune books, Planar sheperd, incantatrix, twice betrayer of shar, locate city bombs, dust of sneezing and choking, and candle of invocation are all on this list.

Using them on someone who isn't fully aware that this is the level the game will be played at is not right. It's a jerk thing to do.

[BlueEyes]

I'm sorry. I misspoke. I was referring to having a rational perspective.
Because everyone except you is an irrational idiot, right? :smallannoyed:

[candycorn]

Because everyone except you is an irrational idiot, right? :smallannoyed:

No. They are just using a fallacy with a logical error, making it an irrational argument.

There is a difference between an irrational perspective and an irrational person. And certainly nothing I said would imply stupidity.

Please, there's no need to make things more hostile. That sort of escalation doesn't serve anything.

[Yuki Akuma]

The irony. It is thick enough to cut with a knife.

[candycorn]

The irony. It is thick enough to cut with a knife.
The relevance to the topic at hand. I cannot see it anywhere.

[Killer Angel]

Indeed we do. Especially since the DM has stopped posting (in his own thread, mind you), while one of the players (DMofDarkness) continues.

I'll try to PM the DM, asking if he intends to resume the thread's debate



To me, it seems both DM and players made errors.

Indeed.

[BlueEyes]

No. They are just using a fallacy with a logical error, making it an irrational argument.
Says you.


To me, it seems both DM and players made errors.
But one side made bigger errors.

The players tried talking. The players tried helping. Didn't help. DM ignored/refused. Then proceeded with passive-aggressiveness. He is entirely at fault here. The players were forced into using cheesy measures.

[Ceaon]

But one side made bigger errors.

Hence, my sentence immediately after that.


To me, it seems both DM and players made errors. It doesn't matter who is (more) to blame, it matters what can be done to correct these errors.

While we can argue for several pages where the exact blame lies, we could instead help the DM and his players improve their game in just a few posts. I feel the latter would be more helpful.

[BlueEyes]

I don't see a point. The DM sounds like a lost case. And arguing is more entertaining.

[Killer Angel]

The players tried talking. The players tried helping. Didn't help. DM ignored/refused. Then proceeded with passive-aggressiveness. He is entirely at fault here. The players were forced into using cheesy measures.

Says you (works both ways, see?)
I still fail to understand where's the point when players were "forced" (phisically?) to choose one of the most broken core item to win the fight, instead of a wide range of less extreme and dirty measures.


arguing is more entertaining.
:smallbiggrin:
'til we stay friendly, works for me. :smallwink:

[BlueEyes]

Says you (works both ways, see?)
No, says the player.


I still fail to understand where's the point when players were "forced" (phisically?) to choose one of the most broken core item to win the fight, instead of a wide range of less extreme and dirty measures.
If it's soooo easy as you say then go on, tell me how they could defeat this monster without cheese?
It was either cheese or TPK. In this situation I would choose cheese ten times out of ten.

[candycorn]

Says you.Says logic.

The argument is, "The DM did something wrong, so it's OK that the players did."

It assumes that a wrong act is no longer wrong when preceded by another. This isn't logical. The only thing that IS logical is that both sides committed a wrong act.

Any attempt to use one to justify another is logically unsound.

But one side made bigger errors.Wrong is wrong. And the experienced players are held to a higher standard. Those who are more capable always are.


The players tried talking. The players tried helping. Didn't help. DM ignored/refused.Perhaps the DM felt unable to challenge the players, and the difficulties in appropriately challenging the party were more from a deficiency in ability, rather than malicious intent?

It certainly sounds more plausible, given the DM's lack of proficiency in optimizing.

Then proceeded with passive-aggressiveness.Passive aggressiveness in response to the DM's inability to correct the problem to the player's satisfaction. This is saying that one wrong act is ok, because it was preceded by another, and is precisely what I stated above is illogical.

For it to be logical, there would have to be a logic chain showing that unethical acts are not unethical, if another unethical act precedes them. None has been established. That means it is not logically sound.

He is entirely at fault here.
WRONG.

Each of us is wholly responsible for our own actions. Nobody can choose your actions for you. The players chose to do what they did.

The players were forced into using cheesy measures.They were not forced into anything. They chose to do as they did, in an attempt to enforce their views of how things should be.

But a player's role isn't to enforce the way things should be to the DM. That's the DM's role. In trying to usurp the DM's authority, they overstepped their bounds.

Assuming the players were capable of reasoned thought, they are responsible for their actions. You don't blame someone else for what you choose to do. That is the mark of a lack of character.

Assuming responsibility for the actions that you do, that is the mark of personal character.

[Killer Angel]

If it's soooo easy as you say then go on, tell me how they could defeat this monster without cheese?


It's easy to escape from a deadly fight. Scroll of teleport, even if unavailable, is not the only solution, if you plan ahead.
So, the "panic button" is a safe way to escape, then you start planning, recovering info regarding that dragon (bardic knowledge, and so on).

[BlueEyes]

Says logic.
Your logic, not mine.


The argument is, "The DM did something wrong, so it's justified that the players did."
FTFY.


It assumes that a wrong act is no longer wrong when preceded by another. This isn't logical. The only thing that IS logical is that both sides committed a wrong act.
But one side committed a bigger wrong act, and earlier.


Any attempt to use one to justify another is logically unsound.
Says you.


Wrong is wrong. And the experienced players are held to a higher standard. Those who are more capable always are.
DM has much more power. He choose to use it wrongly. Ignored players who wanted to talk. His fault.


Perhaps the DM felt unable to challenge the players, and the difficulties in appropriately challenging the party were more from a deficiency in ability, rather than malicious intent?
They wanted to talk. He didn't. His fault.


It certainly sounds more plausible, given the DM's lack of proficiency in optimizing.
Proficiency in optimization has nothing to do with talking with players.


Passive aggressiveness in response to the DM's inability to correct the problem to the player's satisfaction.
There was no alternatives. either they fight and die or they run and die from their boss.


For it to be logical, there would have to be a logic chain showing that unethical acts are not unethical, if another unethical act precedes them. None has been established. That means it is not logically sound.
The world isn't perfect. The players don't have to be ethical if the DM isn't. They are justified.


WRONG.

Each of us is wholly responsible for our own actions. Nobody can choose your actions for you. The players chose to do what they did.
I used a wrong word here.


They were not forced into anything. They chose to do as they did, in an attempt to enforce their views of how things should be.
Lol no. There were no alternatives other than die like the DM wanted.


In trying to usurp the DM's authority, they overstepped their bounds.
Uh... what? :smallconfused:


It's easy to escape from a deadly fight. Scroll of teleport, even if unavailable, is not the only solution, if you plan ahead.
So, the "panic button" is a safe way to escape, then you start planning, recovering info regarding that dragon (bardic knowledge, and so on).
From what I read, they would get killed by another overpowered monster if they wouldn't fight.
So I ask gain: How should they defeat the wyrm without cheese, when the DM was out to get them and refused to talk OOC?

[Canarr]

They wanted to talk. He didn't. His fault.


Says who?

We only have the view one of the players brought here on the history of the group - how HE viewed the progression of events. And even he does not claim the GM ignored them, or refused to talk to them, only that communication didn't work.

We don't know how the players' attempts at communication went, how the GM understood them, and whether or not he was willing or even able to communicate back to them. Unless we know that, placing the blame squarely on the GM's shoulders is wrong and unsupported by evidence.

Two wrongs don't make a right - period. You're not justified in acting wrongly, just because someone else acted "more wrongly" first; that's a preschool argument. If the GM wasn't having fun with the cast of PCs in his group, he should've settled that with the players, OOC. And if the players weren't happy with the GM throwing an Epic Dragon at their lvl 10 characters, they, too, should've settled that OOC - say, by halting the game and discussing that something had, apparently, gone wrong somewhere.

Yes, the GM is the more powerful one in the group; but, as a very wise (albeit very annoying) man in a SR-forum I frequent once said it: "The GM's power originates solely in his players' trust that he won't abuse it."

[Rejakor]

If you act to prevent further harm, and your action causes harm, then others can and will judge you based on what you COULD have done differently.

From what i've heard, the players could have done a much better job of communicating with the DM. The DM made mistakes.

I just object to the people saying that the DM was the ONLY one who made mistakes.

Also it might be a good idea to define how i'm using mistake: -
mis·take
   [mi-steyk] noun, verb, mis·took, mis·tak·en, mis·tak·ing.
noun
1.
an error in action, calculation, opinion, or judgment caused by poor reasoning, carelessness, insufficient knowledge, etc.

Some people here seem to think that 'error' means 'on purpose', which is hilariously wrong under any version of the english language.

[BlueEyes]

So, since it was the last session of the year, I decided to throw a great wyrm at my level 10 party. I planned to kill off the more OP characters, and have an epic fight.
I might be reading that wrong, but I think this means it was on purpose.

[UserShadow7989]

There was nothing rude or indecent or wrong about what the party did, and I dare say the DM isn't the villain people are making him out to be either. The party was given in game resources to deal with an in game situation, both by the DM. They used those resources to deal with the situation. They did not bamboozle or con him. There was no intent to ruin the entire campaign or derail a storyline irreparably, nor was that the result. He made no rules against anything they did, no complaints that they were doing too well, no attempts to referee anything he saw as unfair.

His lack of optimization does not make theirs unsportsmanlike or bullying- the party did not deceive the DM out of his lunch money or threaten his kneecaps for his gameboy. They did not mock him, embarrass him, ruin some grand design he had been planning for years. There were absolutely no consequences besides those that occurred in make-believe land, of which... there was little of even there. A monster died.

The DM is, like the party, a player at the table. He is not a judge presiding over a courtroom like candycorn's analogy, and certainly not some almighty authority, he is a friend among other friends. The DM sets scenarios and the party explores them. If one side dislikes the other side's means to fulfilling their part, it should be taken up outside of the game. The DM acted to display his dislike through the game. The party continued playing the game as a game, following the rules outlined in the rulebook, which... is entirely the point of a game.

If the DM is not having fun, he can ask someone to take over, find a new group, ask the party to tone it down, and so on. Just like any other player. By acting through the game, he was taking an action that he knew could prevent others from having fun. The party did not make some sort of 'return volley' or malicious attempt at harm by reacting to the situation with what they had at hand. They played the game they and the DM had agreed to play: Dungeons and Dragons, the game where a party attempts to overcome obstacles and explore scenarios set by the DM.

The only one who did something potentially and intentionally determinable to somebody else's enjoyment was the DM... but honestly, he wasn't breaking enough to be worthy of scolding, either. In normal circumstances I'd say such an action would have been childish and inconsiderate to the other players, but this was NOT a normal situation. This was to be the final session. The characters were at the ends of their stories, with nothing ahead for them except maybe an epilogue. Would it have been unsatisfying to the players of the characters for them to go out that way? Perhaps, but at that point they could simply just shrug and pretend it didn't happen in their own headcanon. Still slightly rude? Yes, but again, not horrendously. He was still acting within his role and the rules set by the game.

Going back to that courtroom analogy, a judge who outlaws gum chewing in his courtroom is well within his right to have those who do so placed in contempt of court. A judge who outlaws gum chewing in his courtroom and proceeds to noisily chew his own gum throughout the entire trial is one who promptly has his title taken away. There are rules even the judge has to follow.

There is WAY too much mud being slung at BOTH sides- the DM is not a monster for what he did. Was it impolite? Slightly, but he doesn't deserve the level of flack he's getting. Nor do the party. This was not some series of unjustifiable sins, it was a couple of people playing with dice and action figures who didn't handle a problem as well as they could have. And they have no hard feelings over it. I think, perhaps, everyone is taking this too seriously and tackling it with too much hot blood.

[Canarr]

There is WAY too much mud being slung at BOTH sides- the DM is not a monster for what he did. Was it impolite? Slightly, but he doesn't deserve the level of flack he's getting. Nor do the party. This was not some series of unjustifiable sins, it was a couple of people playing with dice and action figures who didn't handle a problem as well as they could have. And they have no hard feelings over it. I think, perhaps, everyone is taking this too seriously and tackling it with too much hot blood.

That's... a brillant summary (of the topic, and of the internet :smalltongue: ). Kudos to you.

[ThiagoMartell]

Sincerely, this is not even a case of high op against a BBEG, it's a case of using broken stuff (and not even correctly - dispel + runes does not work that way) against a DM who does not know better.

They could have summoned a few shadows and hidden behind defensive spells.
They could have used true strike + (empowered) shivering touch.
A simple casting of celerity + your-choice-of-geataway-spell would have sufficed.
But no, they had to ignore the rules on both dust of sneezing and choking (they should have been affected) and explosive runes (you automatically dispel your own spells, you can't voluntarily fail a dispel check).
The DM's mistake was being inexperienced and stubborn. The players outright cheated.

[BlueEyes]

I advise you to read the first post. Singling out players and passive-aggressively trying to kill them. That's not being inexperienced and stubborn. That's being a ****.

[Yuki Akuma]

Using Dispel Magic to detonate Explosive Runes isn't cheating. That's how the spell works.

[Mikal]

The bolded text is a metagame reason. You (the players) thought he (the DM) would make an error resulting in an undesirable outcome (TPK). Because you (the players) anticipated an error by the DM, your characters performed an action.

That is an in-game action for out-of-game reasons. I.E. metagame.

And if you're going to metagame, one character investing in UMD, and buying a scroll, is much more acceptable than ambushing a DM with tricks that he's not familiar with.

Period.

No it's not.

[BlueEyes]

Passive Agression is only okay on Call of Duty! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWRrFzIpFXg)

[ThiagoMartell]

Using Dispel Magic to detonate Explosive Runes isn't cheating. That's how the spell works.

Unless you're specifically minmaxed to get it to work, it's very hard to actually do it. You can't do it yourself (you automatically dispel your own spells) and a teammate would need a ridiculous CL to have a decent chance (you can't choose to fail on a caster level check).
Yes, it is cheating.

[Fable Wright]

"Obliterate an enemy, reducing it to slag, then reducing that slag to its constituent components, then reducing those components to ash" is not "save our hides". It's "destroy all opposition". Saving your hides would be an action that preserved the party life. It's DEFENSIVE in nature. For example: If you used the dust, then used that 13 rounds to LEAVE? I'd buy "save our hides".

See also: Red Great Wyrm dragon that was actually optimized as homing rocks if it didn't die..

Sincerely, this is not even a case of high op against a BBEG, it's a case of using broken stuff (and not even correctly - dispel + runes does not work that way) against a DM who does not know better.

They could have summoned a few shadows and hidden behind defensive spells.
They could have used true strike + (empowered) shivering touch.
A simple casting of celerity + your-choice-of-geataway-spell would have sufficed.
But no, they had to ignore the rules on both dust of sneezing and choking (they should have been affected) and explosive runes (you automatically dispel your own spells, you can't voluntarily fail a dispel check).
The DM's mistake was being inexperienced and stubborn. The players outright cheated.
Sir, I take offense at this. One of the party members ran up to the Wyrm, away from the rest of the party, to set off the Dust. The rest of the party was out of range. Second, none of the characters in the current party had made the runes, and whether or not you can auto-fail checks is a debatable area. There's the argument that because it doesn't say you can choose to fail meaning you cannot, or there is the argument that you can choose to fail a check if you want to. It is ambiguous.

(you can't choose to fail on a caster level check).
[Citation Needed]

[only1doug]

There was nothing rude or indecent or wrong about what the party did, and I dare say the DM isn't the villain people are making him out to be either. The party was given in game resources to deal with an in game situation, both by the DM. They used those resources to deal with the situation. They did not bamboozle or con him. There was no intent to ruin the entire campaign or derail a storyline irreparably, nor was that the result. He made no rules against anything they did, no complaints that they were doing too well, no attempts to referee anything he saw as unfair.

His lack of optimization does not make theirs unsportsmanlike or bullying- the party did not deceive the DM out of his lunch money or threaten his kneecaps for his gameboy. They did not mock him, embarrass him, ruin some grand design he had been planning for years. There were absolutely no consequences besides those that occurred in make-believe land, of which... there was little of even there. A monster died.

The DM is, like the party, a player at the table. He is not a judge presiding over a courtroom like candycorn's analogy, and certainly not some almighty authority, he is a friend among other friends. The DM sets scenarios and the party explores them. If one side dislikes the other side's means to fulfilling their part, it should be taken up outside of the game. The DM acted to display his dislike through the game. The party continued playing the game as a game, following the rules outlined in the rulebook, which... is entirely the point of a game.

If the DM is not having fun, he can ask someone to take over, find a new group, ask the party to tone it down, and so on. Just like any other player. By acting through the game, he was taking an action that he knew could prevent others from having fun. The party did not make some sort of 'return volley' or malicious attempt at harm by reacting to the situation with what they had at hand. They played the game they and the DM had agreed to play: Dungeons and Dragons, the game where a party attempts to overcome obstacles and explore scenarios set by the DM.

The only one who did something potentially and intentionally determinable to somebody else's enjoyment was the DM... but honestly, he wasn't breaking enough to be worthy of scolding, either. In normal circumstances I'd say such an action would have been childish and inconsiderate to the other players, but this was NOT a normal situation. This was to be the final session. The characters were at the ends of their stories, with nothing ahead for them except maybe an epilogue. Would it have been unsatisfying to the players of the characters for them to go out that way? Perhaps, but at that point they could simply just shrug and pretend it didn't happen in their own headcanon. Still slightly rude? Yes, but again, not horrendously. He was still acting within his role and the rules set by the game.

Going back to that courtroom analogy, a judge who outlaws gum chewing in his courtroom is well within his right to have those who do so placed in contempt of court. A judge who outlaws gum chewing in his courtroom and proceeds to noisily chew his own gum throughout the entire trial is one who promptly has his title taken away. There are rules even the judge has to follow.

There is WAY too much mud being slung at BOTH sides- the DM is not a monster for what he did. Was it impolite? Slightly, but he doesn't deserve the level of flack he's getting. Nor do the party. This was not some series of unjustifiable sins, it was a couple of people playing with dice and action figures who didn't handle a problem as well as they could have. And they have no hard feelings over it. I think, perhaps, everyone is taking this too seriously and tackling it with too much hot blood.

Very well said, I agree.

We haven't seen a post from the OP in a while perhaps he hasn't been very happy with this thread.

It could be interpreted that the Thread has devolved into an arguement whether he is an awful GM for using over CR'd creatures on his PCs or That he doesn't know how to run a game of D&D (this may not have been the message that some posters intended to send but it may well have been seen by him in this way).

Perhaps the message that should be emphasised is this:



The party was having fun with the noncombat aspects, and the DM had a fair sense of humor. It was balancing combat he was bad at, and I offered to run combat for him earlier. He said he wanted to figure it out for himself, though. Still, if the party's having a good time, why boot the DM?

[ThiagoMartell]

Sir, I take offense at this.
I'm sorry, that was not my intent.


One of the party members ran up to the Wyrm, away from the rest of the party, to set off the Dust. The rest of the party was out of range.
Well, you just said it was optimized:

See also: Red Great Wyrm dragon that was actually optimized as homing rocks if it didn't die..

And I'm wondering which kind of optimized spontaneous caster would not have Celerity as a spell known. Why not Celerity up and destroy the aproaching target (that would necessarily have to suffer an attack of opportunity for entering the considerably large threatened area of a great wyrm, anyway)?
Answer: caster was far from optimized and DM was inexperienced.


Second, none of the characters in the current party had made the runes, and whether or not you can auto-fail checks is a debatable area.
It's specifically stated you can choose to fail on saving throws and on saving throws only. Auto-failing on any other check is a matter of "the rules don't say I can". This is not debatable - you can't do it by RAW, simple as that.
I mean, this is quite simple. The burden of proof is on you. The only mention to auto-fail in D&D is in saving throws. D&D is an exception based system. If it is mentioned that you can do it with saving throws, it means saving throws are an exception. Unless you can somehow prove that dispel checks are another exception, you're wrong.


There's the argument that because it doesn't say you can choose to fail meaning you cannot, or there is the argument that you can choose to fail a check if you want to. It is ambiguous.
Sincerely, it is not. I could just as likely say there is an argument saying you can choose to succeed or you can choose to roll to see if you succeed.
This is, again, a matter of an inexperienced DM having stuff thrown onto him that he doesn't know how to deal. He could have just said "you can't auto-fail".

Anyway, you admitted yourself the DM had bad rules-fu. Glad you're all having fun, RAW does not need to be forced upon anyone else's throat. I just think such decision on houserules should be up to the DM, and it seems you forced it on him. He seems unexperienced enough to have allowed it as a houserule anyway, though.

[lunar2]

Sincerely, this is not even a case of high op against a BBEG, it's a case of using broken stuff (and not even correctly - dispel + runes does not work that way) against a DM who does not know better.

They could have summoned a few shadows and hidden behind defensive spells.
They could have used true strike + (empowered) shivering touch.
A simple casting of celerity + your-choice-of-geataway-spell would have sufficed.
But no, they had to ignore the rules on both dust of sneezing and choking (they should have been affected) and explosive runes (you automatically dispel your own spells, you can't voluntarily fail a dispel check).
The DM's mistake was being inexperienced and stubborn. The players outright cheated.

incorrect. one party member ran up to the dragon and used the dust. perfectly fair.

the party member that dispelled the book is not the one that made the book, so autosucceed doesn't apply (it didn't apply anyway, since only targeted dispells automatically succeed on the caster's spells). the explosive runes were created at CL 8, iirc, and dispel magic was cast at cl 5, meaning that ~65% would activate if they rolled each dispel check seperately. of course, that's assuming that each of the 250 checks were made separately, which is unlikely unless they were using a computer dice roller, which hasn't been mentioned so far. if they only rolled once (a perfectly fair action, given that no one actually wants to roll 250 D20s) then all of the runes explode. even if only 65% explode though, the damage number given by the dm falls within the possible range, although it is on the high side. so, no matter how you look at it, there is no evidence of any cheating going on.

as to the situation in general. the DM has a responsibility to provide fun and balanced encounters to the party. that responsibility doesn't go away just because the dm is inept. a judge that doesn't know the law is still bound by the law, to use candycorn's analogy. now, in a campaign world where the characters routinely encounter unbalanced homebrew creatures that they have to struggle just to survive against, while playing with a DM who will not retcon his mistakes, as pointed out by DMoD, it is perfectly fair for them to prepare for future encounters of similar nature in whatever way there is available.

in this particular situation, that dragon had to die in order for certain characters to survive. running from that dragon would result in death by another, far more powerful dragon.

i repeat: running, in any form, was not an option. panic buttons had to be "i win" buttons, because the situation was set up as win, die now, or die soon.

the players were neither rude nor out of line for winning that encounter by any means necessary. they would have been rude to use those same methods against the other dragon, but they didn't. they were given a challenge, and they solved it through perfectly legal and acceptable means.

[candycorn]

Your logic, not mine.Logic is logic. If you use a different definition than me, you use a different definition than: Mirriam-Webster
The rest of the world.


FTFY.Same thing. Justifying something means that it is ok. For example, killing someone is wrong, generally. But for certain reasons, it is Justified, or not wrong. Those reasons include self defense, when you feel endangered. If it's justified, then in the eyes of authority, it's ok.

But one side committed a bigger wrong act, and earlier.Yes. A player introduced elements that made it difficult for the DM to balance the game. The DM reacted by attempting to remove it, which is wholly within his right.


Says you.Again, says logic. a logical chain establishes a causal relationship. Example:

[1] Water evaporates over time.
[2] Evaporation involves some liquid water becoming gaseous.
[3] Heat accelerates the process of evaporation.
Conclusion: If we have 2 containers of liquid water, and one is warmer than the other, we would expect more liquid to evaporate, and thus over a set amount of time, we can expect less water to remain (all other things being equal, and providing the system allows for the release of gases).

That is logic. It establishes a clear relationship between the premises and the conclusion.

[1]Act A is wrong.
[2]Act B is wrong.
[3]Someone did Act A.
Conclusion: since someone did act A, act B is ok.

Note, there is no logical chain establishing for the invalidation of [2], in this circumstance. Therefore, your argument is not logically sound. Say whatever else you like, your argument is as logical as:

Clouds are white and fluffy. Marshmallows are white and fluffy. Therefore, Marshmallows are made of clouds.


DM has much more power. He choose to use it wrongly. Ignored players who wanted to talk. His fault.Players have more experience. Ignoring of players was not established. I generally attribute ignorance to inexperienced people (the DM), and intent to experienced ones (the players). If you wish to establish malicious intent to the inexperienced DM, please show first where it has been shown that the players wanted to talk, and then where the DM refused to listen (as opposed to didn't understand the situation). You haven't, so this argument is what is known as unsupported.


They wanted to talk. He didn't. His fault.[cite sources]


Proficiency in optimization has nothing to do with talking with players.It has everything to do with understanding the problem. If the players are building Incantatrixes, and the DM is unable to optimize to that level, he tries brute force to challenge, rather than having a (roughly) accurate CR guideline. With less knowledge comes less ability to act in an informed capacity, and less culpability.


There was no alternatives. either they fight and die or they run and die from their boss.Throw dust of sneezing and choking. While dragon is stunned, use the scroll of Teleport that they saved for this occasion with UMD, and leave.

The players could have had alternatives. They chose to invest in "I win" rather than alternatives. They planned this button with forethought, but didn't plan any alternatives. They could have, but their choice was obliteration, not "save our bacon".


The world isn't perfect. The players don't have to be ethical if the DM isn't. They are justified.And here is where we don't agree. Just because your boss commits fraud doesn't mean you're off the hook for embezzling. Just because your wife cheats on you doesn't mean you're off the hook for killing her. There is no reason provided that the justification exists. Therefore, this statement is unsupported, which is the scientific way of saying "meaningless".


Lol no. There were no alternatives other than preparing in advance for this by having an escape button, rather than an obliteration button, or to submit to the DM's judgement that a character is OP, and needs to be removed to preserve game balance.Fixed that for you.


Uh... what? :smallconfused:Read DMG, page 18, column 1, lines one and two. Show me where there is something there stating that the players can overrule the arbiter of the game, if they feel he's wrong.


From what I read, they would get killed by another overpowered monster if they wouldn't fight.There could have been alternatives, had the players chosen to use them.

So I ask gain: How should they defeat the wyrm without cheese, when the DM was acting within his authority?They shouldn't. They should escape the situation or accept the DM's judgement and balance enforcement.

[ThiagoMartell]

incorrect. one party member ran up to the dragon and used the dust. perfectly fair.
And inconsistent with claims the dragon was optimized. How did the party member not die due to runes exploding, btw?


the party member that dispelled the book is not the one that made the book, so autosucceed doesn't apply (it didn't apply anyway, since only targeted dispells automatically succeed on the caster's spells).
It has to be targeted dispel.

For each creature within the area that is the subject of one or more spells, you make a dispel check against the spell with the highest caster level. If that check fails, you make dispel checks against progressively weaker spells until you dispel one spell (which discharges the dispel magic spell so far as that target is concerned) or until you fail all your checks. The creature’s magic items are not affected.
For each object within the area that is the target of one or more spells, you make dispel checks as with creatures. Magic items are not affected by an area dispel.

With area dispel, as soon as the first dispel succeeds, dispel magic stops and the remaining explosive runes remain unaffected.



the explosive runes were created at CL 8, iirc, and dispel magic was cast at cl 5
While you can cast a spell on a lower caster level than usual, please notice dispel magic cares not about the caster level under which dispel magic was cast. A dispel check is 1d20 + caster level, not 1d20 + dispel magic's caster level.

[Mikal]

Unless you're specifically minmaxed to get it to work, it's very hard to actually do it. You can't do it yourself (you automatically dispel your own spells) and a teammate would need a ridiculous CL to have a decent chance (you can't choose to fail on a caster level check).
Yes, it is cheating.

A) An area dispel doesn't automatically dispel, you make the roll.
B) You can tweak the numbers so the area dispel causes it to boom reliably.
C) This isn't hard to do at all.
D) Show where one cannot fail a caster level check
E) This isn't cheating. Cheating implies breaking of rules. No breaking of rules is done by making the Boombox.

[Fable Wright]

I'm sorry, that was not my intent.


Well, you just said it was optimized:

And I'm wondering which kind of optimized spontaneous caster would not have Celerity as a spell known. Why not Celerity up and destroy the aproaching target (that would necessarily have to suffer an attack of opportunity for entering the considerably large threatened area of a great wyrm, anyway)?
Answer: caster was far from optimized and DM was inexperienced.

No, there were two Wyrms in the equation: The Great Wyrm White that the DM built for us to play, and the Great Wyrm Red that I built for the DM that he's using as the king of a kingdom. The Red King would have killed my character if I failed killing the White Great Wyrm. And unlike the White Wyrm, this one did have the Celerity line and immunity to dazing.

EDIT: Also, for the question of how they didn't die to the Boombook: 10' Radius of the book compared to 20' Radius of the Dust.

[Suddo]

Different strokes, different folks.

I haven't read the whole thread but wanted to comment on this specific line, before I forgot. It was in responce to: "Do you know how I, as a DM, remove OP elements from my games?

'Hey, you're stepping on the other players' toes and it's making it difficult for me to challenge you while still making it feel relevant. Can you please scale it back a bit? I want to make sure the game is fun for you, but I also want to make the game fun for everyone else, too. Thanks.'"

And society as a whole thinks that you are wrong candycorn. I mean if someone does something you don't like you ask them to stop not brutally murder them. Yes one is in the game world but like you said its with friends. D&D for me is a game about choices when I play a PC I like to being able to look at a problem and try and figure out how to do something if a DM simply removed all my choices I would immediately walk away from the table because that DM is obviously immature and not capable of dealing with the situation as an adult. I see trying to assassinate characters with a Great Wyrm as the DM like a child throwing a temper tantrum because you're not playing how they want you to, the adult way to deal with this scenario is to talk to the individual not trying to reunion their gaming experience.

[ThiagoMartell]

A) An area dispel doesn't automatically dispel, you make the roll.
And when you succeed, it stops. Very unlikely to blow through the whole book.

B) You can tweak the numbers so the area dispel causes it to boom reliably.
Please show me how.

C) This isn't hard to do at all.
Please show me how.

D) Show where one cannot fail a caster level check
You have it backwards. Auto-failing is somethign specific to saving throws. D&D is an exception based system, it tells you the exceptions. If you could auto fail a dispel check it would say so.

E) This isn't cheating. Cheating implies breaking of rules. No breaking of rules is done by making the Boombox.
If you auto-dispel a whole book, you're either cheating or having a lot of luck.
We're talking about a +10 bonus versus a DC of 19. You'd have to roll 8 or less 250 times in a row. That's very, very unlikely.
Unless the character in question does have reduced caster level, of course. You can't simply lower your caster level for dispel magic (well, you can, it just does not affect your dispel check) so if the character in question had the Mage Slayer feat it would be +6 vs DC 19, a lot more unlikely, but still extremely unlikely to blow up everything.

[ThiagoMartell]

No, there were two Wyrms in the equation: The Great Wyrm White that the DM built for us to play, and the Great Wyrm Red that I built for the DM that he's using as the king of a kingdom. The Red King would have killed my character if I failed killing the White Great Wyrm. And unlike the White Wyrm, this one did have the Celerity line and immunity to dazing.

Ah, that does make a bit of sense. Metagaming, but making else all the same.

[lunar2]

And inconsistent with claims the dragon was optimized. How did the party member not die due to runes exploding, btw?


It has to be targeted dispel.

With area dispel, as soon as the first dispel succeeds, dispel magic stops and the remaining explosive runes remain unaffected.



While you can cast a spell on a lower caster level than usual, please notice dispel magic cares not about the caster level under which dispel magic was cast. A dispel check is 1d20 + caster level, not 1d20 + dispel magic's caster level.

1. the dragon they were fighting was an unoptimized white. the dragon that was going to kill them if they didn't kill the white was an optimized red.

2. they carried him away before dispelling.

3. each page was considered a separate object because they were created separately, and then bound. so area dispel targeted each page individually. note that it was the DM who apparently made that interpretation in a previous encounter, not the players, who merely went by established precedent.

4. actually, a dispel check is not a standard caster level check (such as penetrating SR), it is a dispel check, and is part of the effect of the spell. therefore, anything affecting the spell (such as a reduced caster level, or a metamagic feat) affects the check as well, since the check is part of the spell. like you said earlier, DnD is a game of exceptions. nothing says dispel magic works differently than other spells, so it works the same.

[moritheil]

Rune stacking, no.
Dust of Sneezing and Choking? Show's he's at least gone through the DMG and made note of useful minutae.

I think it more likely shows that he reads CharOp boards. :smalltongue:

[Mikal]

And when you succeed, it stops. Very unlikely to blow through the whole book.

Wrong.


Area Dispel
When dispel magic is used in this way, the spell affects everything within a 20-foot radius...

...For each ongoing spell whose area overlaps that of the dispel magic spell, you can make a dispel check to end the effect, but only within the overlapping area.

The key word being "each"



Please show me how.


It was shown earlier.


Please show me how.
See above

[ThiagoMartell]

The key word being "each"

I just posted the spell description. :smallsigh:
Also, you quoted a part of the text regarding to area spells, while the relevant part regards objects.
This worked in the game at hand because the DM houseruled it weirdly (considering each page a different object).

If that check fails, you make dispel checks against progressively weaker spells until you dispel one spell (which discharges the dispel magic spell so far as that target is concerned) or until you fail all your checks.

[lunar2]

well, there was a good reason for that. from what DMoD said, the caster that made the book was just doodling explosive runes in his spare time on loose paper, and only later bound them together in a book. so when the spells were cast, they were on separate objects. binding the pages together later shouldn't affect the way the spells interact. i would have made the same ruling, honestly.

then again, i would have gone the other way with what happens when the book is read. he said that when the book was read by a pirate, only the first page detonated, and the rest of the book was undamaged. that's fine if the book is a single object (the spell is kind of dumb if it automatically blows up whatever you're trying to protect), but if each page, and the binding, are separate objects, there should have been 1 blank page and a bunch of scraps after that pirate read the book.

[demigodus]

Logic is logic. If you use a different definition than me, you use a different definition than: Mirriam-Webster
The rest of the world.

Very well.

You are apparently using different axioms from us. You are then not clearly defining these axioms, merely claiming that either they are the social standard, ignoring that there are a ton of societies on this planet, many with different standards (some of which don't believe every authority is always right... strange as that may be to you), or the fact that the details can differ between societies. As a result, you are using undefined axioms in your logic.

Furthermore, the fact that you claim two wrong ever making a right is a logical fallacy indicates that you prefer to evaluate actions in a vacuum. Not everyone does so. Some of us prefer to evaluate whether an action is right or wrong given the circumstances. Consequently, as far as morality is concerned, your axioms are DEFINITELY not shared by everyone in the thread. Consequently using logic to determine the morality of the actions is not possible.

Any questions?

[Yuki Akuma]

I just posted the spell description. :smallsigh:
Also, you quoted a part of the text regarding to area spells, while the relevant part regards objects.
This worked in the game at hand because the DM houseruled it weirdly (considering each page a different object).

You know, it's been pointed out in the thread several times that the DM had ruled that each page of the Book o' Runes counted as a separate object.

Several times.

They did not cheat.

[BlueEyes]

Logic is logic.
One man's logic is another man's insanity.


Same thing.
It's justified.


A player introduced elements that made it difficult for the DM to balance the game. The DM reacted by attempting to remove it, which is wholly within his right.
It was the other way around.


Again, says logic.
Your logic isn't the only true and right one.


If you wish to establish malicious intent to the inexperienced DM, please show first where it has been shown that the players wanted to talk, and then where the DM refused to listen (as opposed to didn't understand the situation). You haven't, so this argument is what is known as unsupported.
Read the OP. Also read the players posts.


[cite sources]
Read the players posts.


It has everything to do with understanding the problem.
The players (or at least this one player who posts in this thread) wanted to talk. It didn't help.


If the players are building Incantatrixes
They didn't. What more, they wanted to help the DM. He didn't want that.


Throw dust of sneezing and choking.
BUT THAT IS CHEESE! :smalleek:


While dragon is stunned, use the scroll of Teleport that they saved for this occasion with UMD, and leave.
No one could and the player who technically could didn't know he could. So that wasn't an option. Also they would be killed by another dragon if they didn't kill this one.


The players could have had alternatives. They chose to invest in "I win" rather than alternatives. They planned this button with forethought, but didn't plan any alternatives. They could have, but their choice was obliteration, not "save our bacon".
Could you actually read the players posts instead of throwing this accusations?


Show me where there is something there stating that the players can overrule the arbiter of the game, if they feel he's wrong.
Show me where the players overruled the DM.


There could have been alternatives, had the players chosen to use them.
There was no alternatives. Dead of their characters isn't an alternative.


They should escape the situation or accept the DM's judgement and balance enforcement.
Here's the problem that you're either ignoring or just don't see. First - they couldn't escape. Second - the DM said nothing to the players and instead choose to be passive-aggressive and a **** about it.

Candy, it doesn't matter what twisted sense of justice you have in your mind. The world doesn't work the way you'd like it to work. Accept that.

[Fable Wright]

then again, i would have gone the other way with what happens when the book is read. he said that when the book was read by a pirate, only the first page detonated, and the rest of the book was undamaged. that's fine if the book is a single object (the spell is kind of dumb if it automatically blows up whatever you're trying to protect), but if each page, and the binding, are separate objects, there should have been 1 blank page and a bunch of scraps after that pirate read the book.

As it turns out, Explosive Runes deals damage only to creatures and the specific object that it was scribed upon. The page would blow up, but the bindings and such, as separate objects, would stay in one piece.

[ThiagoMartell]

You know, it's been pointed out in the thread several times that the DM had ruled that each page of the Book o' Runes counted as a separate object.

Several times.

They did not cheat.

I acknowledged that in the very post you quoted. :smallconfused:

[The Glyphstone]

Great Modthulhu: Locked for review.