Spell Compendium or no?

[People Wonder]

I am running into an issue with a player (the same one mentioned in my previous post here: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=299109) where he is wanting to use the spells within the spell compendium in accordance to his newest class. This was fine...until he went and spent hours of time looking up all of the weakest spells and turning them into spells that are ruining the game for others right now.

I understand that basically the spell compendium only really brings spells from previous versions, or just compiles all the others, so there's also the idea behind it that he might be able to find such powerful "loopholes" from other basic core books.

So here is the problem I have come to: do I ban it, having the only effect being removing a resource that he is simply utilizing, or am I going to actually be removing some of his more powerful spells, despite removing the simply, small ones too?

Also, what do you do when you get such a problematic player on your hands? I hate to say it, but he is taking up too much of my time and honestly just starting to piss me off, and I feel as if that also i removing some of the fun that other players are having because i can't get anything done.

Thanks for any help available and also understand that I am quite a new player having to deal with such things.

[Qwertystop]

What's he doing, exactly? Are they the weakest spells, or are they game-breakers? Is he being innovative, changing the rules, or just noticing things that you'd have missed?

[People Wonder]

He's not exactly breaking the rules, and being innovative is pushing it. Simply, what is happening is he is utilizing small things that are not specified within the description of the spell, which normally would be fine if i had to come to a ruling on a few spells, but it is a constant. I talk to this person out of game every day, so i am constantly having to determine how i want a spell to actually happen. While completely banning a book might be a littler drastic, it would definitely give me more time to think about something that isn't his spells and how they work (hopefully....)

[Chronos]

Personally, I think that allowing things on a book-by-book basis is a bit silly to begin with. If a good spell (or feat, or prestige class, or magic item) is in the same book as a bad spell (feat, PrC, item), then allow the good one and ban the bad one. This is especially applicable for a book as diverse as the Spell Compendium.

You obviously need to give some baseline, so your players don't have to ask "DM May I?" for everything on their character sheet, but that's what core is for.

[Aracor]

He's not exactly breaking the rules, and being innovative is pushing it. Simply, what is happening is he is utilizing small things that are not specified within the description of the spell, which normally would be fine if i had to come to a ruling on a few spells, but it is a constant. I talk to this person out of game every day, so i am constantly having to determine how i want a spell to actually happen. While completely banning a book might be a littler drastic, it would definitely give me more time to think about something that isn't his spells and how they work (hopefully....)

Do you have an example of what he's doing?

[Beleron]

If the problem is the player, then its the player you have to deal with.

[nedz]

The PH contains most of the really broken spells, the stuff in the SpC is usually just a bit more novel.

That said — do read the SpC Errata, it's available on the WotC site.

[Raendyn]

Adopt at least the first two and you will solve many problems, trust me.
My number one golden rule:
You can only do what is specifically stated that you can, not everything that isnt forbidden.

My #2 rule:Things never happen in the most favorable way, unless its clearly stated this way, including simultaneous effects,that ppl tend to follow in a very specific order.

#3:PPL trying to convince me of things that obviously underestimate my Inteligence, die very often.

#4:Familiars/psicrystals/animal companions and hired NPC's have their own feelings/fears/agentas/personalities.

#5: PPL that convince me that if I ban a feat/item/class/spell, their build is unplayable have the priviledge to learn my 6th rule.

#6: When something is so good that you can't play without it, and every similar build should include it, then said thing is bad and toxic, so is banned.


Do you have an example of what he's doing?

I am curious about it too.

[Morphie]

Adopt at least the first two and you will solve many problems, trust me.
My number one golden rule:
You can only do what is specifically stated that you can, not everything that isnt forbidden.

My #2 rule:Things never happen in the most favorable way, unless its clearly stated this way, including simultaneous effects,that ppl tend to follow in a very specific order.

#3:PPL trying to convince me of things that obviously underestimate my Inteligence, die very often.

#4:Familiars/psicrystals/animal companions and hired NPC's have their own feelings/fears/agentas/personalities.

#5: PPL that convince me that if I ban a feat/item/class/spell, their build is unplayable have the priviledge to learn my 6th rule.

#6: When something is so good that you can't play without it, and every similar build should include it, then said thing is bad and toxic, so is banned.



I am curious about it too.

By reading your fifth and sixth rules, I would guess that you don't get many druids with Natural Spell at your table...

To the OP: I think it all comes down to your relation with the player, it's not about the book, it is about him.

[Ranting Fool]

My number one golden rule:
You can only do what is specifically stated that you can, not everything that isnt forbidden.

My #2 rule:Things never happen in the most favorable way, unless its clearly stated this way, including simultaneous effects,that ppl tend to follow in a very specific order.

#3:PPL trying to convince me of things that obviously underestimate my Inteligence, die very often.

#4:Familiars/psicrystals/animal companions and hired NPC's have their own feelings/fears/agentas/personalities.

#5: PPL that convince me that if I ban a feat/item/class/spell, their build is unplayable have the priviledge to learn my 6th rule.

#6: When something is so good that you can't play without it, and every similar build should include it, then said thing is bad and toxic, so is banned.




I would phase them a tad different when dealing with players but I have copied them down.

@OP
I have a general rule of "If you want to use a spell or ability from a book you have to tell me before hand so I at least have a chance to read it" (There are a LOT of books out there)
With Arcane is easy as they either don't find a scroll, need to buy it or research it (Which tends to be between sessions so I can have a look around) and so we can have an open discussion about what the spell can and can't do before the player gets it and not at an important moment at the table.
Divine is harder as they get all spells, but my players tend to stick to the arcane more often then not.

[Mnemnosyne]

When in doubt, and when you think the effect the player is trying to get is out of line with the spell, remember this: Spells do exactly what it says in their spell description, no more and no less. Even if it seems they should logically do more, they don't.

Granted, if it's not something that's abusive and it makes sense, you should probably allow it, but if the effect the player is trying to get is clearly out of line with the power of the spell, it's quite simple: the spell has only the very precise effects stated in its description, and nothing more. No logical inferences, no extras because it makes sense.

[pwykersotz]

I get the feeling that the player is trying to work things like "can I shape an anti-magic field so that it centers on me but is not in my 5' square so I can still cast magic" or similar RAW challenges.

If this is the case, you won't help yourself by adjudicating every spell, unless you enjoy doing that sort of thing. You have to correct the player. Let him know that he's playing a game you don't want to play. He's not bad for doing it, but as the GM you create and maintain the playing field, and there's not room for what he's trying.

If I had a player doing that who I wanted to stop, I'd probably say tell him "Keep bringing the legit stuff to me, but before you do, ask yourself if this is part of my world that you can see. Is the economy based on wizards using Wall of Iron and Fabricate? Are resetting traps of create X around? Do most divers use the drown-healing rule? If not, then assume it's not viable."

But yeah...playstyle incompatibility is tough.

[Rosstin]

It sounds like the player is wasting your time with pointless rules debates regarding the spells.

Tell him you'll only evaluate one new spell per session because of the strain on your time.

I've played with a number of players who spend considerable time monopolizing the poor DM in and out of game to delve into the minutiae of their abilities. It's definitely a player-problem, exacerbated in players who have lacking social skills.

[People Wonder]

I love the 6 golden rules, and look forward to implementing them for future circumstances with this person, but just to give you guys clarity on what is happening:

http://dndtools.eu/spells/magic-of-faerun--20/launch-item--1770/ this is the trouble spell for the most part, but there are others.
Within the spell it does not say that there is a necessary attack role to make the item hit. Basically his argument was supplied by the fact he just wanted to use it in this way, and used the sole argument that "it does not say that it requires a role or save, and any magic spell that does not explicitly say that it gives a save does not give one"

Ofc, I did not want a level 4 alchemist getting a decently powerful ability that does more than the creators probably wanted it to, just because they did not clarify.

So I make the argument that the spell states: "This spell is normally used to launch dangerous items (flasks of acid, thunderstones, and so on) farther than you could normally throw them." Basically stating that that spell is only used to throw items farther, or throw dangerous items, respectively. Also, the flask still has to travel at them, so I figured that they should be entitled at least a reflex save. He did not agree

So we did eventually resolve this, I came to the conclusion that AC applies, basically saying that anything beyond the item moving would be an effect of alchemists fire (so launch item moves it, only fulfilling the need to be thrown.) Ofc, I got grief for this (not something I wanted after having to search for a few hours for different opinions, arguments, and thoughts based on the wording.) So now I figure i will use all 6 rules to avoid future situations, and spend that time I have set aside for "DnD stuff" to make my campaign more enjoyable, takes notes on core rulebooks, get to know the game better, Ect. to try and make it a more enjoyable experience for everybody

Yet again, thank you guys for all of your wonderful help, I appreciate it all.

[herrhauptmann]

All it lets you do is throw the item farther.

So if you've got to make a ranged attack vs AC normally, you've got to make one with the spell.
If it's a ranged touch attack normally, then it's a ranged touch attack with the spell.
If it's just attacking a square that someone's in (AC 10 or something), then that's all you gotta do with the spell.
That's how I read the spell anyway.

There is still a chance he could try to abuse it by using Shrink Item on a house or something, then using Launch Item. In which case, you'll need to read up on the rules for throwing heavy objects (Hulking Hurler references them).

[Hiro Protagonest]

#5: PPL that convince me that if I ban a feat/item/class/spell, their build is unplayable have the priviledge to learn my 6th rule.

#6: When something is so good that you can't play without it, and every similar build should include it, then said thing is bad and toxic, so is banned.


Actually, these hurt weaker classes more. Sure, Natural Spell is really strong, but a Druid without Natural Spell is still tier 1.

[prufock]

All it lets you do is throw the item farther.

This guy has it right. Note that the target of Launch Item is an object. When it says saving throw: none and spell resistance: no, it means the object doesn't get a saving throw. If you throw that object as an attack you still make an attack roll, you just have much better range.

[rockdeworld]

http://dndtools.eu/spells/magic-of-faerun--20/launch-item--1770/ this is the trouble spell for the most part, but there are others.

<snip>
It doesn't allow a save and it does require a ranged touch attack to hit. Just because you can throw an item doesn't mean you can hit anything with it.

Knowing the basics helps me understand what spells and effects do, and knowing them well helps me understand them easier.

I've heard of a player who wanted to play a tier 1 caster with some optimization, and so he told the DM what he planned to do with his levels, what spells he wanted to use, and how he wanted to use them. I think if your player wants to use a tier 1 caster, that's not too much to ask.

[Qwertystop]

That's not Spell Compendium, and the site isn't coming up with a SpC version of it (or any other 3.5 version). Still valid ingame, but are you sure you got the right spell?

[Lonely Tylenol]

Qwertystop: yes, Launch Item is indeed in the Spell Compendium, and no, dndtools doesn't have the Spell Compendium version of spells. I have had this exact same issue numerous times, sometimes with spells that actually were changed (like the Bard's Improvisation spell).

[Grod_The_Giant]

That's not Spell Compendium, and the site isn't coming up with a SpC version of it (or any other 3.5 version). Still valid ingame, but are you sure you got the right spell?
Pretty sure I've seen it in my print copy.

In any case, it sounds like the problem is with your player, not any individual book. I'd allow him to keep using the SpC, if for no other reason than it makes things easier for you to look things up. But I'd also talk to him about rules-lawyering spells.

[John Longarrow]

People Wonder,

I'd suggest next session you have a talk with your group. Let them know that if they do something you don't know how to adjudicate, you will make a quick ruling for the specific encounter. Afterwards you will look up how it should have gone, and let everyone know.

If it takes you a while to find the right answer, ask one (or more) of your players to look up the proper reference. This should be someone other than the person who initially tried it unless you know they will do a good job.

After you have the right answer, let everyone know what should have happened. If you got it right, great. If not, great. Just keep to the proper result from then on.

If someone wants to discuss it, or change your mind, tell them to work with you after the game. Your goal should be to enjoy the game while you have the group together. If one person wants to spend the session argueing, tell them NO, and remind them the sessions are for everyone to have fun. Normally this keeps sessions rolling better.

[Harrow]

A phrase to keep in mind : "I don't think that's balanced"

RAW really doesn't matter too much. If someone interprets the rules as doing something weird, as the DM you don't have to argue with them, just make a "houserule" that matches whatever interpretation you think is best. Players can argue with DM's all night on what a particular passage in any given rulebook is supposed to mean, but once a DM says that they don't care what the rules are, this is how they want to run it, the conversation changes.

The purpose of this is to change the conversation from "This is what I'm doing, because the rules say I can" to "This is what I want to do, and this is why". It changes the DM/Player dynamic from one of opponents to allies : everyone wants to have fun, and if you can get everyone to actively work together to that end it's going to make your job a lot easier. I find making a player come up with justification for why a rule should be a particular way is more effective than just arguing whether it is that way or not.

Not that arguing RAW isn't fun, it's just not the focus of most campaigns. A time and a place for everything.

[Pickford]

I love the 6 golden rules, and look forward to implementing them for future circumstances with this person, but just to give you guys clarity on what is happening:

http://dndtools.eu/spells/magic-of-faerun--20/launch-item--1770/ this is the trouble spell for the most part, but there are others.
Within the spell it does not say that there is a necessary attack role to make the item hit. Basically his argument was supplied by the fact he just wanted to use it in this way, and used the sole argument that "it does not say that it requires a role or save, and any magic spell that does not explicitly say that it gives a save does not give one"

Ofc, I did not want a level 4 alchemist getting a decently powerful ability that does more than the creators probably wanted it to, just because they did not clarify.

So I make the argument that the spell states: "This spell is normally used to launch dangerous items (flasks of acid, thunderstones, and so on) farther than you could normally throw them." Basically stating that that spell is only used to throw items farther, or throw dangerous items, respectively. Also, the flask still has to travel at them, so I figured that they should be entitled at least a reflex save. He did not agree

So we did eventually resolve this, I came to the conclusion that AC applies, basically saying that anything beyond the item moving would be an effect of alchemists fire (so launch item moves it, only fulfilling the need to be thrown.) Ofc, I got grief for this (not something I wanted after having to search for a few hours for different opinions, arguments, and thoughts based on the wording.) So now I figure i will use all 6 rules to avoid future situations, and spend that time I have set aside for "DnD stuff" to make my campaign more enjoyable, takes notes on core rulebooks, get to know the game better, Ect. to try and make it a more enjoyable experience for everybody

Yet again, thank you guys for all of your wonderful help, I appreciate it all.

The version you linked is out of date:


You can use this spell to make an attack with a splash weapon. If you choose to do so, you must make an attack roll as normal, but you suffer no penalties for range.

So no, it's just a regular attack roll. (i.e. no save, but no auto-hit either)

edit: This seems like a pretty great case for recommending that one actually use the books rather than, typically inaccurate, web postings.
edit: bleh, apparently I'm late to this shindig.

[eggynack]

The version you linked is out of date:



So no, it's just a regular attack roll. (i.e. no save, but no auto-hit either)

edit: This seems like a pretty great case for recommending that one actually use the books rather than, typically inaccurate, web postings.

Actually, dndtools has been generally accurate in my experience, and this is no exception. The site is just accurately quoting launch item from Magic of Faerun, which is distinct from launch item from the Spell Compendium. The real lesson to take from all this, if there truly is a lesson to be taken, is that you should read the sources for spells when using dndtools, and not use the site as a source for Spell Compendium spells, because the site doesn't really have Spell Compendium spells. It's admittedly a far less broadly applicable moral, but the morals we'd like to take from our experiences, and the morals we actually do take, are often very different.

[Raendyn]

I love the 6 golden rules, and look forward to implementing them for future circumstances with this person
Remember to take it easy, I play with the same ***** for 3 years and being sharp and strickt is how it works for me. Don't auto ban creative ideas outside the rules just cause well, its outside the rules:smalltongue:, People can and will have nice ideas that will make the game funnier.



http://dndtools.eu/spells/magic-of-faerun--20/launch-item--1770/ this is the trouble spell for the most part, but there are others.
Within the spell it does not say that there is a necessary attack role to make the item hit. Basically his argument was supplied by the fact he just wanted to use it in this way, and used the sole argument that "it does not say that it requires a role or save, and any magic spell that does not explicitly say that it gives a save does not give one"

Typical #1 case. Answer is simple, "Does it say (Auto hit)?, No? Then sry it doesnt auto hit, period .- "


Actually, these hurt weaker classes more. Sure, Natural Spell is really strong, but a Druid without Natural Spell is still tier 1.

Druids can still play without NS, its just a nice adition addition, I see it like a feat that gives improve initiative +a bit Nat armor at the same time, and can trade those for swim/fly speed.

I also wouldn't ban Craven from a guy that already has(plans to take) 5-6d6 sneak, but I would definately ban it from a guy with 1d6 sneak and a nice cheesy abuse to manage 12 touch attacks/round.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Bear in mind that using Launch Item to launch utility devices like the broad spectrum of alchemical items, grappling hooks, and so on, is actually a pretty innovative use of the spell (which I have advocated for in the past, so color me biased), that is not in itself imbalanced, in that even as a power spike for cantrip use, it still doesn't match the power of 1st-level spells (not to mention later level play). The player just needs to use the spell correctly: the thrown alchemical item still requires a ranged touch attack, plus a save if it already demanded one (such as a Thunderstone). The latter brings save-or-suck items back in line with their contemporaries, and the former doesn't really significantly affect things.

[eggynack]

Druids can still play without NS, its just a nice adition addition, I see it like a feat that gives improve initiative +a bit Nat armor at the same time, and can trade those for swim/fly speed.
Where's the trade off come into play? A lot of the best defensive forms, particularly the desmodu hunting bat, have the whole massive AC and initiative thing, and the great flight speed thing simultaneously. I dunno if you can get a defensive aquatic form though. Haven't really looked into it. In any case, non-flight forms also tend more towards offense, because you're generally on the ground because you want to be close to the enemy. Also dire tortoises, but those guys are in a separate category.

[RFLS]

My number one golden rule:
You can only do what is specifically stated that you can, not everything that isnt forbidden.

My #2 rule:Things never happen in the most favorable way, unless its clearly stated this way, including simultaneous effects,that ppl tend to follow in a very specific order.

#3:PPL trying to convince me of things that obviously underestimate my Inteligence, die very often.

#4:Familiars/psicrystals/animal companions and hired NPC's have their own feelings/fears/agentas/personalities.

#5: PPL that convince me that if I ban a feat/item/class/spell, their build is unplayable have the priviledge to learn my 6th rule.

#6: When something is so good that you can't play without it, and every similar build should include it, then said thing is bad and toxic, so is banned.



That's explicit in the core rules.
In the case of numerical bonuses, this is wrong. It is explicit that the player chooses in which order his bonuses are applied.
This is where I'm starting to have a problem. You're recommending that an out of game problem be solved by in-game antagonism from the person that, by definition, cannot "lose," should he play the game in such a silly manner?
This is tricky. All of these explicitly have their own personalities, fears, and feelings. However, familiars, psicrystals, and animal companions, RAW and RAI, follow their master's agenda and orders.
So...you've got five rules.
This is downright silly. The only T1 class that this has the remotest effect on is Druid. On the other hand, you've just destroyed a lot of particular paths and lower level characters, because they really can't survive without particular goodies.

[nedz]

My #2 rule:Things never happen in the most favourable way, unless its clearly stated this way, including simultaneous effects,that ppl tend to follow in a very specific order.
This seems very silly.
Fred is dead. I want to cast Raise Dead followed by Heal, but this is not allowed ? I must cast Heal followed by Raise Dead ?


#5: PPL that convince me that if I ban a feat/item/class/spell, their build is unplayable have the privilege to learn my 6th rule.
#6: When something is so good that you can't play without it, and every similar build should include it, then said thing is bad and toxic, so is banned.

These two are one rule and also seems quite silly.
Every Monk build must have a level of Monk and so Monk is banned ?
Basically you have to ban all classes to implement this rule.
However if I build a Wizard/Incantatrix, but simply don't talk about it, this is fine ?

I think I know where you are coming from with these rules, but they are not phrased very well. They are also worded in a very confrontational manner, which is not a good approach — it tends to make people want to prove you wrong.

[ericgrau]

If he stretches a spell, then give a ruling and move on. It can be as simple as "no". If he tries to argue it tell him it's using too much game time and to do it after the session is over. For now your decision holds. If it becomes a repeated problem, deal with the player himself. If he doesn't respond well you can go as far as warning that you may kick him out of the group, and then if the warning doesn't work you follow through and do it.

If it's actually power creep then you ask if it is similar to other power creep you allow. If so, then let it be. If not, then simply bump it up one spell level.

If it's a spell that's truly broken for your group, then just ban it and move on. DMs shouldn't get ban happy and impose sweeping bans because that limits options, but eliminating a few problematic spells out of hundreds won't limit options too much. In fact, it may effectively give more options because it lets the lesser spells come out.

[Deaxsa]

rule 0 him? unless the entire party is on board with him doing this (and by that i mean the players), in which case use the same tactics against him. suddenly, not so fun.

[Pickford]

Actually, dndtools has been generally accurate in my experience, and this is no exception. The site is just accurately quoting launch item from Magic of Faerun, which is distinct from launch item from the Spell Compendium. The real lesson to take from all this, if there truly is a lesson to be taken, is that you should read the sources for spells when using dndtools, and not use the site as a source for Spell Compendium spells, because the site doesn't really have Spell Compendium spells. It's admittedly a far less broadly applicable moral, but the morals we'd like to take from our experiences, and the morals we actually do take, are often very different.

Touche to the bolded part. :)

However, it totally 'does' have SpC spells:

http://dndtools.eu/spells/spell-compendium--86/black-blade-disaster--3532/

I do find it faster to just flip open my copy of the SpC however.

[eggynack]

Touche to the bolded part. :)

However, it totally 'does' have SpC spells:

http://dndtools.eu/spells/spell-compendium--86/black-blade-disaster--3532/

I do find it faster to just flip open my copy of the SpC however.
Huh. That's super weird. I don't think it has all SpC spells though, because I look up something like nerveskitter, and it's not there at all. Just doing a quick check for nearby spells, they also don't have Bite of the Werewolf, or the SpC version of Blackfire (they have the CArc version). Picking one at random, they're also missing the SpC version of Life Bolt, but they do have the MoF version again. I'd generally avoid the site for any and all Spell Compendium purposes, even if they do happen to have a spell or two from the book.

[Pickford]

Huh. That's super weird. I don't think it has all SpC spells though, because I look up something like nerveskitter, and it's not there at all. Just doing a quick check for nearby spells, they also don't have Bite of the Werewolf, or the SpC version of Blackfire (they have the CArc version). Picking one at random, they're also missing the SpC version of Life Bolt, but they do have the MoF version again. I'd generally avoid the site for any and all Spell Compendium purposes, even if they do happen to have a spell or two from the book.

Yep, it's definitely missing a lot, only 161 spells from SpC listed.

[nedz]

Yep, it's definitely missing a lot, only 161 spells from SpC listed.

Well the site is still a WIP, and several things are missing/incomplete.

[Raendyn]

snip
Skipping the fact that you are just bitching around without any point in the thread, and just trying to (provoke?) offend a fellow playgrounder.
You shouldn't criticise something that you didnt understand,

OTHER people arround thought that I was refering to NAtural spell, I already spoke once of it, and I declined it. In case you are interested, I am talking about cheesy abuseses that with one little silly trick transform an idiotic and useless build into a monster, and I cba to explain further, if you haven't yet understand, then consider yourself lucky that you haven't bumped into guys that make you, wanna create sush a rule.


This is where I'm starting to have a problem. You're recommending that an out of game problem be solved by in-game antagonism from the person that, by definition, cannot "lose," should he play the game in such a silly manner?

We are talking about problematic players and also it seems like you missed that my whole answer was more jokingly-irony, to create some fun, rather than "be a douchrbag to the douchebag". I even proposed to consider something far beyond mini rules bending, homebrew.

Remember to take it easy, I play with the same ***** for 3 years and being sharp and strickt is how it works for me. Don't auto ban creative ideas outside the rules just cause well, its outside the rules:smalltongue:, People can and will have nice ideas that will make the game funnier.





In the case of numerical bonuses, this is wrong. It is explicit that the player chooses in which order his bonuses are applied.

Where is that? Show it to me pls.
And by that I don't mean an example that you understand as a silent errata for similar situations, I am looking for "when effects happen simultaneous the player gets to pick the order".


Fred is dead. I want to cast Raise Dead followed by Heal, but this is not allowed ? I must cast Heal followed by Raise Dead ?

Every Monk build must have a level of Monk and so Monk is banned ?
Basically you have to ban all classes to implement this rule.
However if I build a Wizard/Incantatrix, but simply don't talk about it, this is fine ?


Please, sto making fun examples of something I said and you obviously didn't even got close to a mile in understanding it, its embarasing, and thats not for me.



I think I know where you are coming from with these rules, but they are not phrased very well. They are also worded in a very confrontational manner, which is not a good approach — it tends to make people want to prove you wrong.

In case you haven't yet noticed, we are talking about a guy that tries to abuse the rules, bend them in his favor and at the same time annoy the DM and make his gaming less fun. I don't think that there is a more polite way to adress him. Also, the approach is put in this way on purpose, and if ppl just try to prove me wrong instead of contribute to the thread, then the word "silly", which you used more than once when quoting me, is the most polite word to describe you,rfls and every other rude guy that thinks alike.

Have a nice day.:smallcool:

[Segev]

Raendyn, I think you're actually the one missing the collective point of those to whom you're responding. They're not misunderstanding your set of rules, though it may be that your rules sound too blanket even given the context and so the context of "these only apply to problem players" (which, I admit, I didn't get from reading your post) was missed.

I actually agree with each of the criticisms given of your proposed rules, but it all comes from one core point: your rules seem to be trying to apply an IC, in-rule response to an essentially OOC problem. I've seen one situation where this was both necessary and useful, and that was in a Living Campaign where hundreds of judges and thousands of players all play through it. And even then, the only aspect of that "blanket rule" that worked really well (and which I would not typically do at a home game) was, "If there are two ways to interpret something, the way that screws the PC the most is the one to be chosen."

It also only worked because even with the Living Campaign, there was a LOT of trust between players and judges and players and the Campaign Admin. So they knew that the way to apply this rule was to not bring up edge and corner cases where it could be avoided and thus not be caught trying to cheese. It still screwed people sometimes, but at least it was predictable and consistent.


But, Raendyn, I'm not trying to insult or besmirch you, nor do I think anybody else was. Certainly, I do not think the first person to whom you responded was trying to insult. He was expressing serious concerns about your proposed rules.

And they do have a core of antagonism between you and your players, or at least a "slave pit rules" vibe if taken literally as presented. I've played with DMs who have those kinds of harsh "the PCs have to be weak and have disadvantages from the get-go" games; I don't usually enjoy them and feel like I'm being punished just for entering them, let alone trying to play them. Of course, I can, and if the DM is one who then allows gamist optimization out of his slave pit starting point, it can be rewarding as a challenge, but that is atypical, because slave pit rules DMs usually fight tooth and nail to permit no amount of optimization.

And that goes back to trust between players and DM; the rules you present smack of blanket distrust of your players, which is always a dangerous place to start.