Disable the Druid!

[sumkidy]

Hey guys, so I'm running a game, and one of my players, who was playing a temporary character because her original died and could not immediately be resurrected.

The current one, a spelless ranger, is evil, and wishes to rob the party of parts of an artifact they've found and escape. However, she wants to leave with a 'parting shot'. This includes:

cutting off the hands of the barbarian (whom her character despises),
then breaking the spirit of the paladin, who was charged with the leadership and duty to protect his comrades,
and lastly... a Raptoran Druid - she wants to break or destroy one or both of his wings.


Now, she is trying to collect poison to paralyse them, but they hit level 9 before she could execute her plan, and that of course means... Venom Immunity.

I'd like to know some ways in which a PC can disable the rest of the party without it being totally unfair/broken/etc. It needs to make sense without the players calling bull**** etc (they don't normally throw fits or anything, but I want this to be fair).

[Flickerdart]

So you want to maim the entire party, and think they'll go along with this? Yeah, good luck with that.

[Story]

Maximized Shivering Touch

Edit: Oh, you're trying to do it as a Ranger without magic? That's going to be a lot tougher. Maybe you could hire a caster to do it for you (then again an evil caster might just stab you in the back too).

[hymer]

@ OP: Since you seem to have your heart set on having the players harm each others' characters: At least don't take sides in PvP. It should be up to the player to find a way for her character to screw all the other guys over, and you should give not a hint or an idea or any advice whatsoever. Favouritism is ugly, particularly so in RPGs.

Oh, and don't worry, it'll be memorable. There's a real chance they will never forgive whoever they choose to blame.

[Darrin]

There is no way you can pull this stuff without the players calling bullsnot and being perpetually butthurt about it later.

That being said... Necklace of Adaptation + Dust of Sneezing and Choking.

[sumkidy]

@ OP: Since you seem to have your heart set on having the players harm each others' characters: At least don't take sides in PvP. It should be up to the player to find a way for her character to screw all the other guys over, and you should give not a hint or an idea or any advice whatsoever. Favouritism is ugly, particularly so in RPGs.

Oh, and don't worry, it'll be memorable. There's a real chance they will never forgive whoever they choose to blame.

To clarify - I do not want to facilitate this happening, I just want to get an idea of what she could be coming up with so I'll be able to say 'that would never work, etc,' beforehand and not be talking completely out of my ass. She let me know what she would like to do, and I am not going to stop her, but I won't help her either.

[Morbis Meh]

To clarify - I do not want to facilitate this happening, I just want to get an idea of what she could be coming up with so I'll be able to say 'that would never work, etc,' beforehand and not be talking completely out of my ass. She let me know what she would like to do, and I am not going to stop her, but I won't make it easier either.

You could just say no, after all this may generate a lot of hostillity towards this player for gimping the people she's playing with just because she can get away with it (temp character is basically getting away with it). Alos if this particular character is hostile and is planning such things wouldn't the otehr PC's pick up on it and you know stop adventuring with a person?

[YossarianLives]

Playing a character is a big commitment. And I feel attached to almost every character I've every played for more than one session. I would furious if the entire party was maimed by another player. Especially the DM had intended this to happen and it wasn't just a fluke that had happened due to terrible rolls.

I would say don't do it. Especially since if they're 8th level they'd have been playing they're characters for a decent time and are bound to like them.

This would also mean pretty much starting a new campaign as the part would now be useless.

[eggynack]

To clarify - I do not want to facilitate this happening, I just want to get an idea of what she could be coming up with so I'll be able to say 'that would never work, etc,' beforehand and not be talking completely out of my ass. She let me know what she would like to do, and I am not going to stop her, but I won't help her either.
That sounds a lot like facilitating this happening to me. If her plan would fail, allow it to fail, and if it would succeed, honestly, it might be best to cause it to fail. Unless, of course, your party is all for inter-party fighting and treachery, in which case you could let her succeed if her plan would be successful. However, you still shouldn't give any sort of advice, because what's the point of treachery if you need help?

[mucat]

I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that this will cause hard feelings among the players, without knowing more about this group and how they interact. It might be that a dramatic and memorable betrayal is, by their standards, a great way for a temporary character to leave the party.

However, if you're not sure the players would see it this way, then I agree with most of the other posters here. In a lot of groups, this would be considered a **** move, on the part of both the player (especially since she's using a temporary character to inflict permanent consequences on the other PCs) and the GM (because if you're advising her on what will and won't work, then you're facilitating her plan.) Hell, even if you are staying neutral and not facilitating it, sometimes it's the GM's job to ask a player, "Explain again why you think this will make the game more fun for everyone at the table?"

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Maybe hit them initially with Dust of Sneezing and Choking (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/cursedItems.htm#dustofSneezingandChoking). That just stuns them though, it doesn't really make them disabled enough to deliver a CDG which is probably what he would need to maim them.

[Drachasor]

So you want to maim the entire party, and think they'll go along with this? Yeah, good luck with that.

I think the OP has clarified this alright.

I'd take into account that they are almost 9th level. So there's nothing that can't be fixed with a regeneration spell. That's just under 1k to buy a casting.

So I don't see a big problem with this as long as they aren't stuck out in the middle of nowhere. A Barbarian needed to deal with not having hands for more than an hour or so of game time (at most) sounds unfun to me

Though, that said, I wouldn't want to DM a game like this. Personally I don't find evil PCs fun from either side of the table. But it could be ok in the right group.

Personally, I'm rooting for the Druid to stomp this into the ground before much happens.

[sleepyphoenixx]

It'd require a staggering amount of luck or a piece of magnificent bastardry to pull that plan of as a non-caster, even without the poison immunity.

I'd say stick to (reasonable) RAW and otherwise let it surprise you, if you actually want to let it happen.
It can work out and be fun with a good group with the right mindset but it is far more likely to leave you short one or more players when the dust settles.

[Drachasor]

It'd require a staggering amount of luck or a piece of magnificent bastardry to pull that plan of as a non-caster, even without the poison immunity.

I think the biggest question to getting this off, assuming she has their trust, is what poison she is using. All of them have good fort saves. One is a Barbarian who probably has high constitution. Another is a Paladin who adds Charisma to saving throws. The last is a Druid who ostensibly should be spending a lot of time in animal form with a pretty good con.

So we're looking at a bonus of +7 or +8 on the low end of these saves, and possibly as high as +12 or so for the Paladin.

Ensuring the poison works is going to be pretty hard. And that's assuming no one has any spells or items to neutralize poison available.

[Corrin Avatan]

Have you had the talk where you say "So, you know that the other people around the table are going to think that you're an ass for doing that, right? And that 'I was just playing my character' is likely to have them just 'playing their character' and f*ing with your next one?"

If she's able to do it, and can gather the resources without any of the party noticing, that's one thing. But usually when I see threads like this, it usually turns out that it is the person having the least amount of fun turning vindictive (noted that you stated that she couldn't be resurrected immediately, I've seen "waiting to resurrect" turn into players making bad decisions), or just doesn't think about other people would react to their actions.

It's one thing for the DM to mess with the players, there's a bit of antagonism that's expected. Unless you think that your group is mature enough to handle this, (they probably aren't), I wouldn't even recommend entertaining the thought. For a lot of people, there are unspoken rules. The party sticks together. Either this is "look at me"-itis, because she's bored of not being able to play the character she wants to play, she doesn't actually have investment in the game, or flat out naivete in thinking that there will be no hard feelings at all.

Evil games only work if everyone is in on it from the beginning, and knows they can be double-crossed at any time (in actuality, that one game I played was the most civil freaking game I've ever played).

As Mucat said:


"Explain again why you think this will make the game more fun for everyone at the table?"

[AkbarTheGreat]

Something I think a lot of posters are missing here is that the DM is not asking "Would you guys allow this/do you think its ok?"

He has flat said, it's ok with him and if the player in question can pull it off, its fine. With that knowledge, he simply wants to know legit ways this could work, not opinions on how it would alter his players. Drop trying to talk him out of allowing it and help with his question. It's his game after all.

My very mundane recommendation? Have the character buy rounds of drinks after a hard fought win, get some of the characters drunk (maybe even drink a little himself to fake it) and then play from there.

[hymer]

@ Akbar: It's not quite as clear cut as that. The OP also wants to avoid unfairness, brokenness and calling foul:


[...]without it being totally unfair/broken/etc. It needs to make sense without the players calling bull**** etc (they don't normally throw fits or anything, but I want this to be fair).

I've removed the shouty tags for convenience.

[icefractal]

I think it is highly likely the players will call bull****. Maybe about the method, maybe not (I've noticed that when it comes to life and death, rules get very carefully analyzed, and any vagueness argued about). But method aside, this is a pretty ass-move to do as a temp character. You're not even removing your own character from the game to accomplish this petty revenge (not that that would necessarily be acceptable either), you're 'cheating' by using a throwaway.

I would not be surprised if, should this happen, or even get close to happening, the rest of the PCs "forget" to have said player's character resurrected.

Edit: Oh, and there is a very big downside to introducing Dust of Sneezing and Choking into the game. Namely that the players will then use it against every BBEG, with full justification.

[eggynack]

Something I think a lot of posters are missing here is that the DM is not asking "Would you guys allow this/do you think its ok?"

He has flat said, it's ok with him and if the player in question can pull it off, its fine. With that knowledge, he simply wants to know legit ways this could work, not opinions on how it would alter his players. Drop trying to talk him out of allowing it and help with his question. It's his game after all.

My very mundane recommendation? Have the character buy rounds of drinks after a hard fought win, get some of the characters drunk (maybe even drink a little himself to fake it) and then play from there.
Even were there no request for advice about whether this is advisable, and there kinda is one, there's something of an ethical standard to uphold (as much as ethical standards exist on a 3.5 high optimization message board) wherein you tell someone if you think they're doing something that has the potential to be game ruining. It's the OP's game, and he has the prerogative to make whatever decision he sees fit at the end of the day, but that decision should be an informed one

[Umbranar]

I can only say, let her come with her own plan and see how the druid eats the spelless ranger without breaking a sweat. I would even like to see how a spelless ranger thinks to fair against a raging barbarian in an attempt to cut his hands off. I myself would never allow such things in my party. What I dont understand is how this evil Ranger could be in a party with a paladin.

[nobodez]

Well, the Paladin should already be fallen by now, so there's that (adventuring with the evil ranger, unless under dire circumstances, should put the Paladin into a fall). For the druid, the wings are good, as is going after the animal companion.

Of course, this is why I don't allow evil characters in my games.

[hymer]

(adventuring with the evil ranger, unless under dire circumstances, should put the Paladin into a fall)

Not really, though. The bit you're thinking of is not part of the paladin's code of conduct. It's from the following section (called 'Associates'), which presents its own exceedingly weird problems, quite besides those of the paladin's code.

[eggynack]

Really, one of the bigger challenges to this may just be cutting body parts off, cause I have no idea how someone can accomplish that. It's just not really a thing that exists in the mechanics to my knowledge, and if it does it'd probably be tied to a specific ability or item. It may be wise to figure that out before letting any of this proceed. I'd figure that helpless would be a prerequisite to dismembering.

[Umbranar]

Really, one of the bigger challenges to this may just be cutting body parts off, cause I have no idea how someone can accomplish that. It's just not really a thing that exists in the mechanics to my knowledge, and if it does it'd probably be tied to a specific ability or item. It may be wise to figure that out before letting any of this proceed. I'd figure that helpless would be a prerequisite to dismembering.

Dismemberment is not in the rules anywhere except for the weird passage in Regenerate/Regeneration (ability or spell) that says you can regrow them. In the campaign Im running atm (War of the Burning Sky) there is a wizard that uses a spell called Severing Slash that allows dismemberment. Other than that I have never seen any effect that hacks off limbs.

[cakellene]

Dismemberment is not in the rules anywhere except for the weird passage in Regenerate/Regeneration (ability or spell) that says you can regrow them. In the campaign Im running atm (War of the Burning Sky) there is a wizard that uses a spell called Severing Slash that allows dismemberment. Other than that I have never seen any effect that hacks off limbs.

Perhaps it's a holdover from Called Shots in 3.0?

[Zanos]

Of course, this is why I don't allow evil characters in my games.

Don't ban evil characters. Ban evil players.

Seriously, if an evil character causes problems in your campaign it's probably because of the person sitting in the chair.

[Seffbasilisk]

Fair is an inherently arbitrary concept.


So have her poison their food, and mess up a rabbit. When the druid goes to help the rabbit, like six traps hit him at once, then she comes in for nonlethal. Once he's out, muck up the wing, take a cleaver to the rage-machine. Leave the cookspoon in the Paladin's hand. Tah dah!

[cakellene]

I foresee a fair chance of books or worse being used on the offending player if this does happen.

[nobodez]

Don't ban evil characters. Ban evil players.

Seriously, if an evil character causes problems in your campaign it's probably because of the person sitting in the chair.

I run and play heroic fantasy games. There's nothing heroic about an evil character.

And that's as far as I'm going to derail this thread. If you want to discuss this further, PM me.

[Telonius]

If you insist on taking this course...

Craft (painting) on a metal shield to make it appear to be made of wood.

Before it all goes down ...

"Hey, Druid, would you mind holding this for a second? I need to go retrieve some arrows."

Druid spellcasting and wildshape are not a problem for the next 24 hours.

[Snowbluff]

If you insist on taking this course...

Craft (painting) on a metal shield to make it appear to be made of wood.

Before it all goes down ...

"Hey, Druid, would you mind holding this for a second? I need to go retrieve some arrows."

Druid spellcasting and wildshape are not a problem for the next 24 hours.

"Dude, I'm a hawk. I can't hold your shield." "You're a ranger, you don't need a shield." "You don't need me to hold a shield."

I'm rooting for the druid and paladin here. How you fix this is that you tell everyone else in the party what is going on. I want a detailed report on them destroying this character.

[sleepyphoenixx]

If you insist on taking this course...

Craft (painting) on a metal shield to make it appear to be made of wood.

Before it all goes down ...

"Hey, Druid, would you mind holding this for a second? I need to go retrieve some arrows."

Druid spellcasting and wildshape are not a problem for the next 24 hours.

That's a very biased interpretation of the druidic prohibition against metal armor. While it can be interpreted like that if you go by the literal RAW it seems fairly obvious to me that the prohibition is against actually using metal armor or shields, not merely picking them up.
An actual violation of the oath instead of the kind of rules lawyering that spawns ideas like "you can heal by drowning".
Also, druids of Mielikki are allowed to use metal armor & shields (don't know if it's relevant for the campaign in question).

It certainly doesn't fit with the OP's desire for fairness.

Even if you go with it the druid would get at least a spot check to notice something wrong with the shield. A check he is very likely to pass thanks to high Wis and spot as a class skill.

[Andezzar]

Whether that is intended or not, armor must be worn to trigger the drawbacks, shield already trigger them if they are carried.

The writers could have used "to ready" or "to strap to your arm" or even "to use", which would all clearly indicate what is prohibited, yet they used "to carry" which also includes transporting the shield in a way that provides no benefit in combat.

We don't know why it works like that. Another interesting point: Steel armor is prohibited yet the druid is proficient with several weapons that are at least partially made of metal: dagger, dart, scimitar, sickle, short spear and spear.

I'd say trying to get the druid to carry a painted shield is a valid tactic, but asking him would require a bluff check.

[veti]

I'm guessing you don't want your campaign to end, acrimoniously and immediately.

I'm further guessing, although this is more of a stretch, that your player doesn't want that to happen. If you haven't discussed it with her, it might be worth asking that question explicitly: what does she as a player want the end-state of this to be, what does she want the next session - assuming there is one - to be like?

If the damage can be easily repaired, then - OK. But if not - if the repairs will be hard to come by, for any reason - then I'd tell the player, up front, that you're not going to let it happen. She's welcome to come up with a plan, and you'll play it through, but it Will All Be A Dream.

Then play it through in a special session. Tell the players beforehand that this isn't a real session, the results are liable to be retconned immediately, but they will earn XP for roleplaying in the meantime. Best case, if a spell-less ranger can pull this off successfully, it should certainly teach the rest a lesson in humility.

[Story]

Or make sure there are some convenient scrolls of Regeneration.

[icefractal]

You know, I realized why this rubs me the wrong way. It's inconsistent use of PvP. The Ranger is going full PvP mode, but when that character joined the party, they likely got the benefit of the "PC Halo", with the assumption that they weren't going to do such things.

What I mean is that, in a full PvP context, someone asking to join the party doesn't get to sign up just because they're a PC. You treat them with the same suspicion you would for a random NPC joining. Which could mean:
* Some information gathering to learn about their history/reputation.
* An attempt to detect their real form and alignment.
* An interview (under Mark of Truthtelling, if possible) about whether they've betrayed companions in the past, would do it in future, for what reasons, etc.
* Potentially, one of those contracts that curses you if you break it.
* A probationary period before being allowed to do anything like hold the treasure or stand watch alone. Or maybe never, if they didn't seem completely trustworthy.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing that didn't happen. "You're a PC, you get to join" only works in a non-PvP context, which this isn't any more.

Likewise, this "hold my shield" thing. If the other players are aware that PvP is fully present, then such a request should be treated with a level of suspicion. Which, yes, can make things annoying - that's why I don't often play full PvP campaigns. If they're under the impression that it isn't, then you're effectively lying to them OOC, not just IC.

[TuggyNE]

If they're under the impression that it isn't, then you're effectively lying to them OOC, not just IC.

That is, indeed, the short version of why this is so obnoxious. It's almost certainly a severe breach of the out-of-game social contract. Even if the group can handle it, they will have to do so by either a) ejecting the problem player or b) renegotiating the contract more explicitly, probably to include PvP, which means this sort of shenaniganry will no longer work well.

Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma, basically.

[veti]

What I mean is that, in a full PvP context, someone asking to join the party doesn't get to sign up just because they're a PC. You treat them with the same suspicion you would for a random NPC joining. Which could mean:
* Some information gathering to learn about their history/reputation.
* An attempt to detect their real form and alignment.
* An interview (under Mark of Truthtelling, if possible) about whether they've betrayed companions in the past, would do it in future, for what reasons, etc.
* Potentially, one of those contracts that curses you if you break it.
* A probationary period before being allowed to do anything like hold the treasure or stand watch alone. Or maybe never, if they didn't seem completely trustworthy.

Wow, you must have played with some very paranoid people.

In my groups, there is no bar against PvP - for anyone. If you want to do it, you can. All it requires is making the effort, and dealing with the repercussions. But still, the idea that there's some formal procedure like this to "join the party" would be met with incredulous hilarity. Basically, if you're prepared to tag along, take the risks and help out, you're eligible for a share in the loot. (Not necessarily a 'fair' share, mind. It's not unheard-of for one player to scoop a whole haul for themselves and only share as much of it as they've a mind to. If the character and the player can deal with the blowback from the rest of the party for doing this, then it's not my job as a DM to say they can't.)

Everyone knows this going in, it's the same for everyone. But the bottom line is, if you're not willing to trust others to stand watch, you end up very very tired (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0014.html). In practice you have to trust people, otherwise you'd never get anything done.

[icefractal]

Ring of Sustenance. :smallamused:

I don't often often play in games that have that level of paranoia, but I don't often play in full-PvP games either. It seems pretty foolish, in such a context, to let some random person you have no reason to trust stand watch. I mean, they might be an evil ranger who plans to cut off your hands! :smalltongue:

Not like it's that outlandish, either. I'm pretty sure they have more of a screening than that before they let you join a SWAT team, or the special forces.

[veti]

Not like it's that outlandish, either. I'm pretty sure they have more of a screening than that before they let you join a SWAT team, or the special forces.

Sure, but isn't that exactly the kind of gritty realism that we play fantasy games to get away from?

The whole recruitment process you outline - well, it's a personal preference thing, but it's not easily compatible with my interpretation of 'heroic fantasy'.

[Story]

Reminds me of one of the fictional campaigns in AGC where the players deliberately avoided using some of their abilities so they could pull it out as a surprise in the inevitable PVP at the end.

It sounds like that kind of paranoia can be fun, but it's not what you normally play with.

[Norfire]

This is a sensitive area where you can loose a player or maybe even a game. If you think other players will not be okay with this then as gm it is up to you to tell the player no. Any player trying to take down other players is going to ruffle feathers and it's best to avoid the situation. I also have to question why the player would make such a character, temporary or not. I think best option is to tell the player no but that when they get their permanent character back you will run the temporary as an npc and enact the evil plan for them attempting to harm every player.

[MadGreenSon]

I have lost players in games and almost lost friendships over someone getting a wild hair and trying stuff like this. (and that was like a car accident, sudden, brutal, and completely unexpected)

Stuff like this is game-killing.

My players know it's one thing if I maim them, traumatize them, kick their dog, have a villain feed their dead cohort to his pet Beholder, or whatever.

PCs don't do this stuff because it can ruin the group dynamic and the trust between the players.

It's just wrong for them to have someone playing with them, with a temp character until her new one can be worked in no less, and have her break trust with the other players by going all Silence of the Lambs on them and then skipping on to her new character.

Is this kind of thing normal in your games? If so, disregard what I said, but otherwise, think about how the players will react to this.
It doesn't matter if it's all good by the rules, this is a social game and this kind of thing ruins a good social atmosphere in most cases.

[CrazyYanmega]

Speaking from the perspective of the ranger, we have a few options: 1: Summon Pazuzu. 2: Do the other players trust her enough to let her take watch? Let them all fall asleep, then coup de Grace the lot of them. She has no reason to leave them alive, and they could easily track her down. She needs to END them.

Also, raptorans are essentially flying elves. They have arms. You're thinking the home-brewed Hawkbloods.

Now, as to your stance that you are "not taking sides." You are telling her what the strengths of the party are. You have made it clear you are going to systematically inform her what plans won't work, which means you are telling her which plan WILL work by ommittance. You will likely set up a situation where her plan will succeed. YOU WILL BECOME EMOTIONALLY INVESTED IN THIS PLAN. You will subconsciously want to see this through, you will want to see this succeed, because you will want to see what happens. Because the evil ranger being killed for her treachery right away is boring.

The other players likely have NO idea that this player would go so far to maim their characters, and I have a feeling you aren't telling.

Do you personally LIKE this player? Are you trying to win her over by helping facilitate this? If so, you need to learn to keep your personal feelings out of DMing.

Of course, you are likely just going to skim this thread for stuff you like, ignore the stuff you don't, pass on the tips to the PKer (That is what she is. Don't even THINK about sugarcoating it), and say "Smell ya later."

EDIT: Venom immunity only works on natural poisons. Manufactured poisons are plenty effective. You could even choose to "overlook" the druid's poison immunity, or houserule it out. Quite frankly, we are past the point of "no bs." You have chosen your side, and now you have to work with it.

[hymer]

Venom immunity only works on natural poisons. Manufactured poisons are plenty effective.

I don't know what gave you that impression. PHB and SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/druid.htm#venomImmunity) are quite clear: It's all poisons.