Players casted dispel... a lot... what happens to their stuff?

[felinoel]

Ok so my players are going up against something and instead of figuring out what was going on they just dispelled the effects of an object causing it over and over again and just beat it until it broke... but... they are carrying magic items...

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dispelMagic.htm

Wouldn't some of their items be dispelled? Some fully and some temporarily?



3.5e

[Afgncaap5]

Probably not if they were using a "targeted dispel" on a particular item or creature. If it was an area dispel? Possibly; but likely only for a few rounds.

[Fouredged Sword]

The only spell that permanently breaks items is disjunction. Dispel magic simply suppresses the effects of items for a short time. Their items will be fine in a matter of rounds.

[Asrrin]

The only time that Magic Items are affected by a Dispel is when they are specifically targeted. They are not affected by an area dispel, are not affected if worn by a creature that has been targeted, or near an object that has been targeted. Even then, if they are specifically targeted, the magic of the item is simply suppressed for the duration of the dispel.

[Darkweave31]

The only time that Magic Items are affected by a Dispel is when they are specifically targeted. They are not affected by an area dispel, are not affected if worn by a creature that has been targeted, or near an object that has been targeted. Even then, if they are specifically targeted, the magic of the item is simply suppressed for the duration of the dispel.

+1 to this, no reason to screw them over for properly using their magic.

[TuggyNE]

Just in case it hasn't been sufficiently reiterated: (greater) dispel magic cannot, does not, will not, and should not permanently destroy magic items of any variety, whether scrolls, wands, staffs, wondrous items, armor, weapons, potions, rods, or any other variety. Only disjunction can do that, and it is often argued that the capability is poorly designed even on a ninth. PF changed disjunction specifically to avoid that, in fact.


The only time that Magic Items are affected by a Dispel is when they are specifically targeted. They are not affected by an area dispel, are not affected if worn by a creature that has been targeted, or near an object that has been targeted. Even then, if they are specifically targeted, the magic of the item is simply suppressed for the duration of the dispel.

That's correct.

[felinoel]

Well... these are items with spells with permanency casted on them...
and they use the item for emergencies and I was only planning on affecting one of them with it and it is near the end of the game anyways I just wanted an excuse to slow the game down a bit so they level a bit more before the final boss.



It seems that my previous DM misused the dispel then if all of you are saying no to this...

[Slipperychicken]

Ok so my players are going up against something and instead of figuring out what was going on they just dispelled the effects of an object causing it over and over again and just beat it until it broke... but... they are carrying magic items...

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dispelMagic.htm


They all recover 1d4 rounds.


If the object that you target is a magic item, you make a dispel check against the item’s caster level. If you succeed, all the item’s magical properties are suppressed for 1d4 rounds, after which the item recovers on its own. A suppressed item becomes nonmagical for the duration of the effect. An interdimensional interface (such as a bag of holding) is temporarily closed. A magic item’s physical properties are unchanged: A suppressed magic sword is still a sword (a masterwork sword, in fact). Artifacts and deities are unaffected by mortal magic such as this.

As for area dispels:


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.

All of this was right there in the spell description which you linked. Please try to carefully read through spell descriptions before posting a thread about them.

EDIT:

Well... these are items with spells with permanency casted on them...

Those are spell effects, not magic items, and the distinction is very important: Dispelling a permanent spell removes it. Permanently. Even with an area dispel. That's the risk of using permanencied spells instead of magic items.


Permanency (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/permanency.htm)
Spells cast on other creatures, objects, or locations (not on you) are vulnerable to dispel magic as normal.

[With a box]

how about make a dead man switch to activate some traps when it dispelled?

[felinoel]

All of this was right there in the spell description which you linked. Please try to carefully read through spell descriptions before posting a thread about them.Yes I was trying to get my confusion for what my previous DMs had done explained because the link wasn't saying what they said.


Those are spell effects, not magic items, and the distinction is very important: Dispelling a permanent spell removes it. Permanently. Even with an area dispel. That's the risk of using permanencied spells instead of magic items.Yes that was why I made the distinction, so then definitely the permanencied items within the area will be forever ruined until repermanencied then?

[tyckspoon]

Yes that was why I made the distinction, so then definitely the permanencied items within the area will be forever ruined until repermanencied then?

Only if they were unwisely using an Area dispel instead of directly targeting the object they wanted to suppress; a Targeted dispel affects one thing and one thing only, and has no chance of hitting anything else. An Area Dispel makes one check against every viable target in its area (excluding attended magic items.. an item bearing a Permanent spell is not technically a magic item. It's an item with a spell on it. The difference, as has been mentioned, is significant.) If you have ruled that breaking the object they were dispelling itself released a dispel against them, then their Permanent spells are at risk, but they shouldn't be at much risk from casting their own Dispels.. it sounds like they applied an inelegant solution, but not a dangerous one.

Unless I'm misunderstanding what happened and what they were really doing. You haven't provided much detail. :smalltongue:

[Urpriest]

Yes I was trying to get my confusion for what my previous DMs had done explained because the link wasn't saying what they said.

Yes that was why I made the distinction, so then definitely the permanencied items within the area will be forever ruined until repermanencied then?

If they were dispelled at the time, yes. (As has been said, that depends on what version of the spell was cast.)

Note that there are only a few spells that Permanency can make permanent on objects. In the PHB you've got Animate Objects, Invisibility, Magic Mouth, Shrink Item, and maybe the Symbol spells. So if your players aren't using one of those then they probably didn't use Permanency after all.

[dextercorvia]

so then definitely the permanencied items within the area will be forever ruined until repermanencied then?

Only if they used an area dispel, and they were in the area, and the CL check actually dispelled the permanency or the original spell. If you didn't actually check any of that at the time, it would be a bull move to fiat it now.

[felinoel]

Only if they were unwisely using an Area dispel instead of directly targeting the object they wanted to suppress; a Targeted dispel affects one thing and one thing only, and has no chance of hitting anything else. An Area Dispel makes one check against every viable target in its area (excluding attended magic items.. an item bearing a Permanent spell is not technically a magic item. It's an item with a spell on it. The difference, as has been mentioned, is significant.) If you have ruled that breaking the object they were dispelling itself released a dispel against them, then their Permanent spells are at risk, but they shouldn't be at much risk from casting their own Dispels.. it sounds like they applied an inelegant solution, but not a dangerous one.

Unless I'm misunderstanding what happened and what they were really doing. You haven't provided much detail. :smalltongue:Yes that was why I made the distinction, to include their permanencied items as well as their magic items in the discussion since the magic items were already stated to not take effect.


If they were dispelled at the time, yes. (As has been said, that depends on what version of the spell was cast.)

Note that there are only a few spells that Permanency can make permanent on objects. In the PHB you've got Animate Objects, Invisibility, Magic Mouth, Shrink Item, and maybe the Symbol spells. So if your players aren't using one of those then they probably didn't use Permanency after all.They casted a lot of different versions of it. It was the endgame magic item and they haven't yet realized that there are a TON of them strewn about the multiverse. Once they do realize it they will likely stop trying to destroy each individual one and start trying to take out the people controlling it... :smalltongue:


Only if they used an area dispel, and they were in the area, and the CL check actually dispelled the permanency or the original spell. If you didn't actually check any of that at the time, it would be a bull move to fiat it now.Ehh, they instigated a battle, it would have been weird to throw something else in there, plus they never needed this item anyways.

[Darkweave31]

I guess it comes down to this then:

1. Did they specifically target the object using the targeted variant of dispel magic? If yes then their stuff (permanency or not) is fine. If no move on to 2.

2. Are they actually in the area of the area dispel? If yes move onto 3.

3. Are the magic items in question permanent magic items, or a spell effect made permanent by a permanency spell?
If they are permanent magic items the area dispel would not affect them, only a targeted dispel would do that. (If that were the case they are inactivated for 1d4 rounds, then they're fine).
If they are spell effects made permanent by the permanency spell, then they are subject to dispel as normal.

[felinoel]

I guess it comes down to this then:

1. Did they specifically target the object using the targeted variant of dispel magic? If yes then their stuff (permanency or not) is fine.If they complain I'm gonna houserule that one of the many dispels they casted backfired and swept back at them in an area effect. It will only affect one player and one permanencied item anyways.

[Urpriest]

They casted a lot of different versions of it. It was the endgame magic item and they haven't yet realized that there are a TON of them strewn about the multiverse. Once they do realize it they will likely stop trying to destroy each individual one and start trying to take out the people controlling it... :smalltongue:

By "it" do you mean dispel magic or permanency? Because there aren't any different versions of permanency, those are all the spells you can make permanent.

[Windstorm]

If they complain I'm gonna houserule that one of the many dispels they casted backfired and swept back at them in an area effect. It will only affect one player and one permanencied item anyways.

I would be careful with this. it sounds like your players are simply using normal tools at their disposal according to the rules given, and a GM fiated "backfire" without some indication at time of the event is a REALLY good way to cheese off your players.

if they weren't entirely sure of how things worked, then it is still a terrible idea to put in effects after the fact, however what you can do is all of you learn from it in case it happens again.

[felinoel]

By "it" do you mean dispel magic or permanency? Because there aren't any different versions of permanency, those are all the spells you can make permanent.I was quoting someone who asked which version of dispel magic they used, by it I meant dispel magic. By different versions I meant both area and target and also natural ability and just a spell.


I would be careful with this. it sounds like your players are simply using normal tools at their disposal according to the rules given, and a GM fiated "backfire" without some indication at time of the event is a REALLY good way to cheese off your players.

if they weren't entirely sure of how things worked, then it is still a terrible idea to put in effects after the fact, however what you can do is all of you learn from it in case it happens again.It sounds like that but it isn't, they abused a fluff thing I added in the game because they were asking questions about how a mage shop works in the elemental plane of wood since according to the Manual of the Planes book no fire exists in that plane nor can the wood burn so how does the mage shop have glass potion bottles?
Because of the abuse of fluff I am doing this, no other reason.

[Graypairofsocks]

Note that you when you are using an area targeted Dispel Magic you can aim it to hit an enemy in it, but avoid your allies.

[felinoel]

Note that you when you are using an area targeted Dispel Magic you can aim it to hit an enemy in it, but avoid your allies.But this particular piece of DM intervention is saying that one of the unsuccessful attempts ricocheted

[dextercorvia]

But this particular piece of DM intervention is saying that one of the unsuccessful attempts ricocheted

I'm not sure why you asked, when you were just going to fiat it all along.

[felinoel]

I'm not sure why you asked, when you were just going to fiat it all along.As I said above, I asked because the rules on the d20srd link I posted were unfamiliar to me and not what I was taught, because of this thread I am only dispelling one item in total, whereas before I was going to dispel like 42 or so.

[Eldaran]

What spell was on the item that was made permanent by Permanency?

[Mellack]

The players were working within the rules. To decide to have it the spell "rebound" as a result of some separate dealing about the plane of wood seems like a jerk move to me. Changing effects need to be done carefully and with lots of thought as to consequences. Even worse is your idea of changing what happened well after the events themselves, which is what you are proposing. Being near the end of the story line is not a good excuse either, because if you do things such as this, you may find yourself without willing players next time around.

[Slipperychicken]

The players were working within the rules. To decide to have it the spell "rebound" as a result of some separate dealing about the plane of wood seems like a jerk move to me. Changing effects need to be done carefully and with lots of thought as to consequences. Even worse is your idea of changing what happened well after the events themselves, which is what you are proposing. Being near the end of the story line is not a good excuse either, because if you do things such as this, you may find yourself without willing players next time around.

Agreed. It's bad GMing to change the rules mid-game just to screw the PCs out of their stuff.

[Urpriest]

What spell was on the item that was made permanent by Permanency?

Yeah, you still haven't answered that, and that's what I'm most concerned with here. There are only a few spells that can be made permanent with Permanency, it's not the sort of thing you can make a big portion of your gear.

[felinoel]

What spell was on the item that was made permanent by Permanency?

a fluff thing I added in the game because they were asking questions about how a mage shop works in the elemental plane of wood since according to the Manual of the Planes book no fire exists in that plane nor can the wood burn so how does the mage shop have glass potion bottles?

-----------------------


The players were working within the rules. To decide to have it the spell "rebound" as a result of some separate dealing about the plane of wood seems like a jerk move to me. Changing effects need to be done carefully and with lots of thought as to consequences. Even worse is your idea of changing what happened well after the events themselves, which is what you are proposing. Being near the end of the story line is not a good excuse either, because if you do things such as this, you may find yourself without willing players next time around.Except it wasn't well after the events, the session ended right after the battle it caused.
The "excuse" is that I didn't want them to take a shortcut to get around this obstacle, I wanted them to go the long way, and they don't even need the item anymore.


Agreed. It's bad GMing to change the rules mid-game just to screw the PCs out of their stuff.No rules were changed, I specifically explained that of the countless dispels being casted, the ones that didn't succeed flew off in various ways to give the failing the check some flavor.


Yeah, you still haven't answered that, and that's what I'm most concerned with here. There are only a few spells that can be made permanent with Permanency, it's not the sort of thing you can make a big portion of your gear.It isn't a big portion of the gear... it is just a minor thing that they turned into basically a hazmat suit.

[Darkweave31]

I don't understand how taking away one of their items (by bending the rules, admit that you're changing them and be honest with your players, otherwise it's a huge rules argument waiting to happen, not to mention a violation of trust) will somehow prolong the plot until they get enough levels to defeat the boss... as a DM, now is the time to be flexible. Create some sort of plot twist that necessitates the players doing something extra now that they bypassed the "long way". Get creative with it, you have time before the next session. Use this as an opportunity to create more plot.

BBEG is in the next room? Well too bad you just spent the last 2 minutes bashing away at his doomsday device very loudly, I guess he escaped. BBEG just lost contact with one of her doomsday orbs? Well I guess it's time to send in a platoon of minions to scout the area and determine what went wrong. The possibilities are literally endless.

If their progress down this shortcut is somehow inextricably linked to the item in question and you positively must destroy it for the sake of the plot, perhaps face them with a monster that can dispel magic as a spell-like ability and hit them with that. It would be a far more agreeable outcome to the players since it's well within the rules and they get to gangstomp the perpetrator as opposed to "On behalf of my plot I'll punish you".

[Slipperychicken]

No rules were changed, I specifically explained that of the countless dispels being casted, the ones that didn't succeed flew off in various ways to give the failing the check some flavor.


Did you have them rolling a backfire chance this whole time? Because otherwise, this just looks like an asspull.

[Mellack]

-----------------------

Except it wasn't well after the events, the session ended right after the battle it caused.
The "excuse" is that I didn't want them to take a shortcut to get around this obstacle, I wanted them to go the long way, and they don't even need the item anymore.

No rules were changed, I specifically explained that of the countless dispels being casted, the ones that didn't succeed flew off in various ways to give the failing the check some flavor.


It is after the events, as since you never had them making any dispel checks on their items, they never had any chance to alter their behavior. This is even more important to do at the time as you definitely were changing the rules as they are written. Dispel magic has very specific rules listed in the spell, and it is reasonable for your players to expect those rule to be how it behaves unless discussed otherwise beforehand.
You seem distressed that they are not following the plan you laid out for them. Players almost NEVER behave the way you expect. Don't punish them for that, especially since they don't know everything you know. You said they didn't know there are more of them. The players behaved in a reasonable manner for the information available to them. Alter your story to account for this change. Trying to punish them and railroad them to your predetermined path will just cause discord.

[Malimar]

Changing the rules, with no prior warning, to remove PC resources, because the players have been playing halfway intelligently? A huge jerk move; you'd deserve to get all the PHBs thrown at your head.

The least awful way to accomplish something like this might be for the next enemy they face to have a spell turning spell active, and hope the PCs keep using the same tactic. (Perhaps have the encounter take place in a room too small for them to use an area dispel without hitting themselves.) It's not 100% clear to me how spell turning and dispel magic interact, but there's certainly room to argue that it would reflect a targeted dispel back at the caster (probably both spells take effect; the dispel magic is reflected, but the spell turning is dispelled?).

[Eldaran]

a fluff thing I added in the game because they were asking questions about how a mage shop works in the elemental plane of wood since according to the Manual of the Planes book no fire exists in that plane nor can the wood burn so how does the mage shop have glass potion bottles?

This is not an item with Permanency on it, this is a magic item, and so would not be subject to dispel in the first place. You haven't answered what spell is on this item because you obviously don't know, rendering this whole argument pointless in the first place. There's a small list of spells that can be made permanent with Permanency, and nothing you've described is one of them.

If you want to just randomly screw over your players by DM fiat because they're not doing what you want them to, you definitely can, but it's a bad idea and has nothing to do with dispel checks or anything else besides your whims.

[felinoel]

I don't understand how taking away one of their items (by bending the rules, admit that you're changing them and be honest with your players, otherwise it's a huge rules argument waiting to happen, not to mention a violation of trust) will somehow prolong the plot until they get enough levels to defeat the boss... as a DM, now is the time to be flexible. Create some sort of plot twist that necessitates the players doing something extra now that they bypassed the "long way". Get creative with it, you have time before the next session. Use this as an opportunity to create more plot. Because with the items they can skip through places instead of exploring.


BBEG is in the next room? Well too bad you just spent the last 2 minutes bashing away at his doomsday device very loudly, I guess he escaped. BBEG just lost contact with one of her doomsday orbs? Well I guess it's time to send in a platoon of minions to scout the area and determine what went wrong. The possibilities are literally endless.That is what I did though, when they destroyed it a portal opened up and several minions came out of it and then the session ended. The campaign is heavy with planar travel.


If their progress down this shortcut is somehow inextricably linked to the item in question and you positively must destroy it for the sake of the plot, perhaps face them with a monster that can dispel magic as a spell-like ability and hit them with that. It would be a far more agreeable outcome to the players since it's well within the rules and they get to gangstomp the perpetrator as opposed to "On behalf of my plot I'll punish you".Meh, too obvious...


Did you have them rolling a backfire chance this whole time? Because otherwise, this just looks like an asspull.I guess it is whatever an asspull is then?


It is after the events, as since you never had them making any dispel checks on their items, they never had any chance to alter their behavior. This is even more important to do at the time as you definitely were changing the rules as they are written. Dispel magic has very specific rules listed in the spell, and it is reasonable for your players to expect those rule to be how it behaves unless discussed otherwise beforehand.
You seem distressed that they are not following the plan you laid out for them. Players almost NEVER behave the way you expect. Don't punish them for that, especially since they don't know everything you know. You said they didn't know there are more of them. The players behaved in a reasonable manner for the information available to them. Alter your story to account for this change. Trying to punish them and railroad them to your predetermined path will just cause discord.My players didn't understand the rules, they assured me that dispel magic would just remove all magic and I had to look up the SRD to prove it to them...


Changing the rules, with no prior warning, to remove PC resources, because the players have been playing halfway intelligently? A huge jerk move; you'd deserve to get all the PHBs thrown at your head.

The least awful way to accomplish something like this might be for the next enemy they face to have a spell turning spell active, and hope the PCs keep using the same tactic. (Perhaps have the encounter take place in a room too small for them to use an area dispel without hitting themselves.) It's not 100% clear to me how spell turning and dispel magic interact, but there's certainly room to argue that it would reflect a targeted dispel back at the caster (probably both spells take effect; the dispel magic is reflected, but the spell turning is dispelled?).The last time this player abused fluff material he ended up with a horde of dragons following his every whim... I ended up having Tiamat step in for that.


This is not an item with Permanency on it, this is a magic item, and so would not be subject to dispel in the first place. You haven't answered what spell is on this item because you obviously don't know, rendering this whole argument pointless in the first place. There's a small list of spells that can be made permanent with Permanency, and nothing you've described is one of them.

If you want to just randomly screw over your players by DM fiat because they're not doing what you want them to, you definitely can, but it's a bad idea and has nothing to do with dispel checks or anything else besides your whims.This is an item with permanency.
It is not that I don't know, it is that it is a fluff thing, something that doesn't actually exist but helped the story.

I don't want them to face the end boss at a low level, I am NOT nerfing this boss. I've already made up new dungeons for them to go leveling in but that just doesn't fit the story.

[Phelix-Mu]

A few things.

1.) Let's all be careful about piling on when we have seriously limited information about what is going on. DM fiat happens, houserules happen. It isn't always clean, and it isn't always ideal. We may cast aspersions from afar, but in the end it's the OP's game and a DM has to rely on their own judgement about just what s/he can or can't get away with.

2.) Pretty sure many DMs add to or subtract from the list of what can be made permanent or not (and the spell even suggests that something of that kind is possible). While the information provided seems sketchy, if the DM has decided that item x works because there is some permanent spell effect on it, then the DM is right.

3.) Changing things retroactively is bad. There is no two ways about it; it ruins suspension of disbelief, irritates anyone that has a thing for continuity and internal consistency, and otherwise is likely to raise the ire of the players. That said, the nature of the game is often that consequences of actions aren't immediately apparent, and the flow of the game can easily cause the DM to not mention important things until much later than would have been ideal. Even so, it's worth avoiding this if possible.

I would suggest removing the item from play (if the item is really the problem) through some other device. Give the players a chance to identify some kind of interplanar blight thing that is affecting their imported item, and give them a chance to fix it. Just have that process take the item out of play long enough to trigger the desired plot rerouting or whatever.

And, first and foremost, talk to your group out-of-game. Tell them that you gave them something that you shouldn't have, that it's a DM mistake, and that the story will be better if they don't use it. Try to come to an understanding, so that the players feel like they can be participants in the change (as opposed to victims of retconning and railroading). Give them agency, and you can turn this would-be screw up into a chance to improve (or at least preserve) the feel of the story.

[Deophaun]

Because with the items they can skip through places instead of exploring.
Pity that your campaign doesn't make them want to explore, then.

My players didn't understand the rules, they assured me that dispel magic would just remove all magic and I had to look up the SRD to prove it to them...
Apparently, none of you really understand the rules. Look up the rules for permanency and the rules for dispel magic. Memorize them. Live by them. If you are allowing crazy spells to be made permanent, then stop doing that. Stick with the core list until you know how to handle them.

The last time this player abused fluff material he ended up with a horde of dragons following his every whim... I ended up having Tiamat step in for that.
Come up with better fluff. I still have no idea what you could have come up with that was abusable in the case of explaining glass bottles on a plane of wood. You could have just used a metal box enchanted with a continuous heat metal as a kiln. Heck, it could have just been simple trade.

It is not that I don't know, it is that it is a fluff thing, something that doesn't actually exist but helped the story.
This indicates a deeper problem: if the fluff you create "doesn't actually exist," then you are looking at your world as a static set piece, roped off from the PCs, much like the parallax background in a side-scrolling video game. But this isn't a video game. It's a table-top RPG, and the great strength of the tabletop is that if it's in the game, it can be interacted with, it can be changed, it can be used. So you're wrong. Not only does the fluff exist, it's the reason to play. You have to understand that before you can hope to deal with a player that ravages your world with a dragon army.

[felinoel]

3.) Changing things retroactively is bad. There is no two ways about it; it ruins suspension of disbelief, irritates anyone that has a thing for continuity and internal consistency, and otherwise is likely to raise the ire of the players. That said, the nature of the game is often that consequences of actions aren't immediately apparent, and the flow of the game can easily cause the DM to not mention important things until much later than would have been ideal. Even so, it's worth avoiding this if possible.He is becoming a god, they all are (and then the Vashar bad guys will attack them in hordes), they will quickly forget the lost item when they are gods.


I would suggest removing the item from play (if the item is really the problem) through some other device. Give the players a chance to identify some kind of interplanar blight thing that is affecting their imported item, and give them a chance to fix it. Just have that process take the item out of play long enough to trigger the desired plot rerouting or whatever.The item isn't of much use to them now anyways.


And, first and foremost, talk to your group out-of-game. Tell them that you gave them something that you shouldn't have, that it's a DM mistake, and that the story will be better if they don't use it. Try to come to an understanding, so that the players feel like they can be participants in the change (as opposed to victims of retconning and railroading). Give them agency, and you can turn this would-be screw up into a chance to improve (or at least preserve) the feel of the story.They won't care regardless, they are more upset that their deities are dying off and that the cleric can no longer heal them.


Pity that your campaign doesn't make them want to explore, then.They have an expanded Cubic Gate, one that just randomizes all planes and when they roll it they go to random planes, they just roll it over and over again, I had to add a cooldown time.


Apparently, none of you really understand the rules. Look up the rules for permanency and the rules for dispel magic. Memorize them. Live by them. If you are allowing crazy spells to be made permanent, then stop doing that. Stick with the core list until you know how to handle them.I've already stopped doing that, I did it once to let a mage shop in the elemental plane of wood make sense and never did it again.


Come up with better fluff. I still have no idea what you could have come up with that was abusable in the case of explaining glass bottles on a plane of wood. You could have just used a metal box enchanted with a continuous heat metal as a kiln. Heck, it could have just been simple trade.I doubt metal or even heat metal would exist on the elemental plane of wood...


This indicates a deeper problem: if the fluff you create "doesn't actually exist," then you are looking at your world as a static set piece, roped off from the PCs, much like the parallax background in a side-scrolling video game. But this isn't a video game. It's a table-top RPG, and the great strength of the tabletop is that if it's in the game, it can be interacted with, it can be changed, it can be used. So you're wrong. Not only does the fluff exist, it's the reason to play. You have to understand that before you can hope to deal with a player that ravages your world with a dragon army.You misunderstand me, when I said it doesn't actually exist I meant that there is no official spell name or stats for it. Of course it exists, I made it exist, but people wanted to know what it was.

[Deophaun]

I doubt metal or even heat metal would exist on the elemental plane of wood...
So none of the PCs had metal weapons or armor when they went to the elemental plane of wood, because it wouldn't exist?

[The Grue]

I'd just like to point out that there's a difference between engaging in discussion, and dissecting someone's post to respond with a dozen parallel one-sentence rebuttals.

Felinoel, it seems to me you have already made up your mind about what it is you want to do and how to accomplish it. You don't need us anymore. Have fun with your campaign.

[Windstorm]

I think my fundamental problem with this thread is that you came looking for answers, didn't like the ones you got, and are now attempting to defend a very one-sided decision to do something when it expressly violates the rules you asked for.

the extra information provided simply points to deeper problems in your group mindset than incorrect interpretations of rules. I hope you have a sit down with your players and actually try and be open about problems and solutions, or things are likely headed for a good blowup/walkout down the road.

[Phelix-Mu]

If they are becoming gods, and don't need the item, and have much bigger fish to fry, then go ahead and retconn this detail into non-existence. They probably won't care, and might not even notice. I've read other threads on this campaign (I think), and it involves a level of ambition and scope such that smaller issues are substantially less likely to impact the grand scale of things. If the Vashar are killing off all the gods, and the pcs become gods as part of trying to stop the Vashar, then the fate of [random, no-longer-relevant custom item] is probably irrelevant.

Still, the devil is in the details. I stand by what I said about trying to keep continuity and maintaining suspension of disbelief. Those are hallmarks of good storytelling, and can only help make a campaign better. But I'm glad you don't feel that this snafu is going to derail things. However you want to spin it sounds like it will work.

[felinoel]

So none of the PCs had metal weapons or armor when they went to the elemental plane of wood, because it wouldn't exist?Obviously I was talking about what exists before the players get there...


I'd just like to point out that there's a difference between engaging in discussion, and dissecting someone's post to respond with a dozen parallel one-sentence rebuttals.

Felinoel, it seems to me you have already made up your mind about what it is you want to do and how to accomplish it. You don't need us anymore. Have fun with your campaign.Key word there is anymore because my question was answered ages ago and as I said (also ages ago) that you guys informed me of my misinformation and instead of the planned 42 items getting ruined there is now only 1 item getting ruined.


I think my fundamental problem with this thread is that you came looking for answers, didn't like the ones you got, and are now attempting to defend a very one-sided decision to do something when it expressly violates the rules you asked for.No I liked the answers I got, the answer was that I was taught the permanency spell wrong and the rules I looked up and linked to were indeed correct ones.


the extra information provided simply points to deeper problems in your group mindset than incorrect interpretations of rules. I hope you have a sit down with your players and actually try and be open about problems and solutions, or things are likely headed for a good blowup/walkout down the road.I've already spoken to the one who I mentioned in a previous game abused a fluff part of the story and ended up with a horde of dragons and Tiamat angry at him, but after this thread I doubt I will DM for a long, long time.


If they are becoming gods, and don't need the item, and have much bigger fish to fry, then go ahead and retconn this detail into non-existence. They probably won't care, and might not even notice. I've read other threads on this campaign (I think), and it involves a level of ambition and scope such that smaller issues are substantially less likely to impact the grand scale of things. If the Vashar are killing off all the gods, and the pcs become gods as part of trying to stop the Vashar, then the fate of [random, no-longer-relevant custom item] is probably irrelevant.Which was my point on the matter, and yes those threads are for the same campaign, even the one about the lycanthrope.


Still, the devil is in the details. I stand by what I said about trying to keep continuity and maintaining suspension of disbelief. Those are hallmarks of good storytelling, and can only help make a campaign better. But I'm glad you don't feel that this snafu is going to derail things. However you want to spin it sounds like it will work.I'm good at making stuff up and totally BS'ing things, I have a long history of customer experience jobs and BS'ing is pretty much all that is.

[Deophaun]

Obviously I was talking about what exists before the players get there...
I was, too. If the players could bring metal to the plane of wood, then other entities were certainly capable of bringing metal over to the plane of wood before the party ever arrived. The only thing that would make the "there's no metal on the plane of wood" excuse fly is if metal was somehow destroyed by the plane's environment.

And I still have no idea what you could have possibly done that was that open to abuse.

[TuggyNE]

I'm good at making stuff up and totally BS'ing things, I have a long history of customer experience jobs and BS'ing is pretty much all that is.

Um. Please tell me you are not treating players like customers? That does not sound like a healthy headstate to be in for DMing. Unless we're talking Tomb of Horrors or something. :smallsigh:

[Sartharina]

Apparently, none of you really understand the rules. Look up the rules for permanency and the rules for dispel magic. Memorize them. Live by them. If you are allowing crazy spells to be made permanent, then stop doing that. Stick with the core list until you know how to handle them.
Permanency explicitly allows for unlisted magical effects to be subject to the spell's effects at DM discretion. When a DM allows an unusual spell to be made permanent, he is not breaking or changing the rules.

Also, anal-retentive analysis, dissection and adherence to the written guidelines in tabletop games is the fastest way to render them completely unplayable.


And @ OP - Listen to Phelix. He knows what he is talking about, and is very wise. TuggyNE is too.

[Deophaun]

Permanency explicitly allows for unlisted magical effects to be subject to the spell's effects at DM discretion. When a DM allows an unusual spell to be made permanent, he is not breaking or changing the rules.
But dogs have tails and water is wet.

How does that address what you've said? It doesn't. Just like what you wrote doesn't address anything I wrote.

Read the thread: OP was letting his players permanency a wide-array of powerful spells because he didn't know better, and then he didn't know how to cope with the result. Solution: Stop letting them permanency everything, and stick to the predefined list until he understands the implications.

But, I guess this is terrible, horrible, double-minus bad advice.


Also, anal-retentive analysis, dissection and adherence to the written guidelines in tabletop games is the fastest way to render them completely unplayable.
And killing puppies is the fastest way to become a psychopath. What? I'm sorry, I thought we were just spouting random bad things that no one in this thread has done and feeling morally superior about ourselves for it. My bad.

[felinoel]

I was, too. If the players could bring metal to the plane of wood, then other entities were certainly capable of bringing metal over to the plane of wood before the party ever arrived. The only thing that would make the "there's no metal on the plane of wood" excuse fly is if metal was somehow destroyed by the plane's environment.

And I still have no idea what you could have possibly done that was that open to abuse.Oh, no it was already canon that visitors were not at all canon to the elemental plane of wood.


Um. Please tell me you are not treating players like customers? That does not sound like a healthy headstate to be in for DMing. Unless we're talking Tomb of Horrors or something. :smallsigh:It was a joke, I was being facetious.


But dogs have tails and water is wet.

How does that address what you've said? It doesn't. Just like what you wrote doesn't address anything I wrote.

Read the thread: OP was letting his players permanency a wide-array of powerful spells because he didn't know better, and then he didn't know how to cope with the result. Solution: Stop letting them permanency everything, and stick to the predefined list until he understands the implications.

But, I guess this is terrible, horrible, double-minus bad advice.


And killing puppies is the fastest way to become a psychopath. What? I'm sorry, I thought we were just spouting random bad things that no one in this thread has done and feeling morally superior about ourselves for it. My bad.No... just one spell, and it isn't that powerful just is very... protective...

[Deophaun]

No... just one spell, and it isn't that powerful just is very... protective...
Is there a reason you are being coy and not just telling us what you did?

[dextercorvia]

Is there a reason you are being coy and not just telling us what you did?

Yes there is.

[felinoel]

Is there a reason you are being coy and not just telling us what you did?Just because it is difficult to explain.

[TuggyNE]

Just because it is difficult to explain.

It is also extremely difficult for some of us to imagine a valid explanation, which causes a certain amount of disquietude.

[Phelix-Mu]

It is also extremely difficult for some of us to imagine a valid explanation, which causes a certain amount of disquietude.

But, as disquietude is pretty much the hallmark of this kind of thread, we are really just par for the course.:smallamused:

Personally, I have done a few sketchy bits of houseruling in my time, and was present for one bit of really brutal retconning that a brand-spanking new DM had to do after us players pushed him to keep going beyond what he had planned out. Our fault really, as his reaction was to try to railroad a thoroughly chaotic (and half divine caster) party into doing a favor for an evil god of thirst. Mid way through the ensuing tpk, we convinced him that this was all a terrible mistake, it was his first time DMing and we shouldn't have taken him so far out of his comfort zone (improv'ing was not this guy's strong suit at the time). So the entire scene was deleted, chalked up to a collective nightmare after the party ate some chili that had turned or something.

I'm sure we've all been around for some unusual or questionable DM calls. As often as not, things work out and the plot moves on. The above campaign was one with a rotating DMship, and went on to be the second longest-running campaign I've had the privilege to be part of (at just over three years and about 25 levels in length), and featured some of the best DMing and role playing I've seen from my group (yes, even that new DM went on to become quite the accomplished storysmith). It takes all kinds.

[Urpriest]

My guess is that the effect is some spell that protects from the effects of some specific homebrewed plane.

I don't think that the spell would have been made permanent using Permanency...but I do think that it would be a spell of Permanent duration, so it still would have been at risk from dispelling anyway.

I do think it's a little mean to retcon that they screwed it up, though. If they were casting on a specific target, they would have known not to use an area version of the spell. Characters know a lot more about their spells than their players do after all. I agree that if your goal is just to make your players sweat there are better ways to do it.

Come to think of it, do your players even know that the spell effect on these items is permanent? Why can't the duration just start running out?

[dextercorvia]

I think it was a more clunky/unbalanced spell like that -- some sort of planar bubble effect. That allowed his glass blower to have a bit of fire on his wood plane. My guess is they heard that, went all murder-hobo on the shop keeper, and are using it to protect their characters as they do all that random plane shifting. By shutting this down, he is hoping to stop their plane hopping, since it might have consequences for their characters.

It is still a jerk move, but that is the most plausible theory I have for why he's doing this.

[felinoel]

Come to think of it, do your players even know that the spell effect on these items is permanent?Yes.


I think it was a more clunky/unbalanced spell like that -- some sort of planar bubble effect. That allowed his glass blower to have a bit of fire on his wood plane. My guess is they heard that, went all murder-hobo on the shop keeper, and are using it to protect their characters as they do all that random plane shifting. By shutting this down, he is hoping to stop their plane hopping, since it might have consequences for their characters.

It is still a jerk move, but that is the most plausible theory I have for why he's doing this.No, some weird combination of force shape and permanency. Shaping force.

I had already stated that no one knew what fire was.

They gave the mage shop a TON of gold and waited months in game and got hazmat suits made with air bubble for planar traveling. Planar traveling was supposed to be difficult and worrisome but with those hazmat suits they just kept rolling the modified cubic gate over and over and over and over again.

[Sliver]

It sounds like something you knew the consequences off... If it's something that you didn't like, why didn't you just say no in the first place, instead of... That?

Should it take months of in-game time to get a spell made permanent?

[Deophaun]

They gave the mage shop a TON of gold and waited months in game and got hazmat suits made with air bubble for planar traveling. Planar traveling was supposed to be difficult and worrisome but with those hazmat suits they just kept rolling the modified cubic gate over and over and over and over again.
They just need to go to one plane with sentient morphism. There's nothing like an entire plane actively reciprocating their complete rejection of it to get the point across.

[felinoel]

It sounds like something you knew the consequences off... If it's something that you didn't like, why didn't you just say no in the first place, instead of... That?

Should it take months of in-game time to get a spell made permanent?The spell was designed to make vials, not hazmat suits.

It took months in game to tailor the suits as well as to perfect the creation since the spell hasn't been made for clothing before.

[Endril]

This is quite a read, so editing the OP could be helpful here.

At any rate, from what I've seen, it looks like you already had a dispel magic reflect at one of your players and were just looking for a way to explain why it did that? I'm also reading that there are multiple copies of this item, and you want them to put a stop to the items by going after the source?

I find an easy way to do things to players without threatening their trust in you is by doing it through NPC's rather than coming up with some different mechanic that hurts them in some way. If this powerful being controlling the items doesn't want them dispelled, maybe there's some spell he put on them (can't think of one right now... maybe a version of spell turning that works on items, or maybe a contingency) that causes the players to risk dispelling their own permanent spells (and contingent items if they have those... if I'm not mistaken, that's one magic item that IS destroyed by dispels) when they try to dispel the items. Realizing this, they're more likely to go after the being himself rather than just throwing dispels around.

[dextercorvia]

The spell was designed to make vials, not hazmat suits.

It took months in game to tailor the suits as well as to perfect the creation since the spell hasn't been made for clothing before.

So, in summary:

1. You made up something on the fly to answer a one off question by a player. (Good for you, this is a decent thing to do.)
2. The players then figured out a way to abuse your explanation, and asked if they could. (Good for them, that is a player prerogative.)
3. You came up with an elaborate scheme to make it work for them, including prices, wait time, etc. (Wait, what? But, okay, its your (2nd person plural) game.)
4. You took their characters' in game money (A LOT according to you).
5. They abused it -- as promised -- along with ANOTHER custom item (random plane generator) that you have provided them.
6. Sick of looking in the Planar Handbook, you decide to throw RAW out the window, and use a non-abusive situation to deprive them of the thing their characters spent money on.

I think I'd better stop reading/responding to this thread, lest I have a disproportional response.

tl;dr You made up a spell, broke the spell to do something else, sold it to them, and then broke RAW to take it away.

[felinoel]

This is quite a read, so editing the OP could be helpful here.

At any rate, from what I've seen, it looks like you already had a dispel magic reflect at one of your players and were just looking for a way to explain why it did that? I'm also reading that there are multiple copies of this item, and you want them to put a stop to the items by going after the source?

I find an easy way to do things to players without threatening their trust in you is by doing it through NPC's rather than coming up with some different mechanic that hurts them in some way. If this powerful being controlling the items doesn't want them dispelled, maybe there's some spell he put on them (can't think of one right now... maybe a version of spell turning that works on items, or maybe a contingency) that causes the players to risk dispelling their own permanent spells (and contingent items if they have those... if I'm not mistaken, that's one magic item that IS destroyed by dispels) when they try to dispel the items. Realizing this, they're more likely to go after the being himself rather than just throwing dispels around.I would edit the OP except my question has been answered.


So, in summary:

1. You made up something on the fly to answer a one off question by a player. (Good for you, this is a decent thing to do.)
2. The players then figured out a way to abuse your explanation, and asked if they could. (Good for them, that is a player prerogative.)
3. You came up with an elaborate scheme to make it work for them, including prices, wait time, etc. (Wait, what? But, okay, its your (2nd person plural) game.)
4. You took their characters' in game money (A LOT according to you).
5. They abused it -- as promised -- along with ANOTHER custom item (random plane generator) that you have provided them.
6. Sick of looking in the Planar Handbook, you decide to throw RAW out the window, and use a non-abusive situation to deprive them of the thing their characters spent money on.

I think I'd better stop reading/responding to this thread, lest I have a disproportional response.

tl;dr You made up a spell, broke the spell to do something else, sold it to them, and then broke RAW to take it away.The random plane generation item is the game's MacGuffin.

Also they got a LOT more loot since then and money is trivial to them now (if they could find a shop still in business with all of the planes currently merging) and besides I only affected one of the players' items since he was the only one near the object being cast on. Also also he was the one who in all of my campaigns abuses whatever he can.

[The Grue]

...and besides I only affected one of the players' items since he was the only one near the object being cast on. Also also he was the one who in all of my campaigns abuses whatever he can.

So not only is it DM fiat, it's retributive justice? This player allegedly "abuses whatever he can", so it's okay for you to fudge the rules to his detriment because he deserves it?

[felinoel]

So not only is it DM fiat, it's retributive justice? This player allegedly "abuses whatever he can", so it's okay for you to fudge the rules to his detriment because he deserves it?I imagined it more as something to make him consider not doing it in the future but it definitely won't do that since they won't use it anymore regardless of whether or not it still works...

Nice username btw:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nigRT2KmCE

[Dorian Gray]

I imagined it more as something to make him consider not doing it in the future but it definitely won't do that since they won't use it anymore regardless of whether or not it still works...

I think that what you view as abuse, the player sees as being creative. Using the game world in interesting ways is something you should reward players for, instead of doling out random punishments that are in no way supported by the rules.

[felinoel]

I think that what you view as abuse, the player sees as being creative. Using the game world in interesting ways is something you should reward players for, instead of doling out random punishments that are in no way supported by the rules.One time I used a prebuilt adventure to fill a single session when I didn't have the time to prepare, this player stole the Huge sized golden doors in it.

[The Grue]

One time I used a prebuilt adventure to fill a single session when I didn't have the time to prepare, this player stole the Huge sized golden doors in it.

Right. That's called being creative.

What I'm hearing is that your thought process went something like this: "I don't like how Player A plays, so I'm going to teach him a lesson by breaking his items." Is this accurate?

[felinoel]

Right. That's called being creative.

What I'm hearing is that your thought process went something like this: "I don't like how Player A plays, so I'm going to teach him a lesson by breaking his items." Is this accurate?Yes, quite accurate apparently, because the way he plays is by memorizing the monster manual, as well as many, MANY other books, forcing me to use homebrew monsters instead of official ones.

[Gavinfoxx]

Yes, quite accurate apparently, because the way he plays is by memorizing the monster manual, as well as many, MANY other books, forcing me to use homebrew monsters instead of official ones.

So clamp down on metagaming, make him make knowledge checks to know things about monsters. Do his characters have all knowledge skills trained? Do they have collector of stories? Any particular class features that let him know what to do when he sees a particular monster? Next time he metagames, ask him, "How did your character know that?" and then make him roll in front of you a knowledge check for the creature's type, which he HAS to have trained to get more than DC 10 common knowledge about the creature. And enforce a no metagaming rule. Or just... you know... reskin monsters so they dont LOOK LIKE what their stats say!

For advice... read this module:

http://campbellgrege.com/work-listing/the-metaphysical-revolution-dd-3-5-module/

It shows the sort of thing you should be doing... note how that there are DCs for what people know with each monster...

Also, read this:

http://community.wizards.com/forum/previous-editions-general/threads/1074581

DOES the character have ranks in:

Knowledge Arcana
Knowledge Religion
Knowledge The Planes
Knowledge Local
Knowledge Dungeoneering
Knowledge Nature
Knowledge Psionics

??

[ericgrau]

If you made a big mistake, then say sorry and take it back out of game. If it's a small mistake, then roll with it. If you want them to wait before the final fight, then make it harder and/or add more encounters before it, and/or make plot events so that the players clearly see that there's more work to be done.

When the clouds part and the nerf bat descends from the heavens making random swings and the players' shiny things, it will be annoying.

[felinoel]

So clamp down on metagaming, make him make knowledge checks to know things about monsters. Do his characters have all knowledge skills trained? Do they have collector of stories? Any particular class features that let him know what to do when he sees a particular monster? Next time he metagames, ask him, "How did your character know that?" and then make him roll in front of you a knowledge check for the creature's type, which he HAS to have trained to get more than DC 10 common knowledge about the creature. And enforce a no metagaming rule. Or just... you know... reskin monsters so they dont LOOK LIKE what their stats say!

For advice... read this module:

http://campbellgrege.com/work-listing/the-metaphysical-revolution-dd-3-5-module/

It shows the sort of thing you should be doing... note how that there are DCs for what people know with each monster...

Also, read this:

http://community.wizards.com/forum/previous-editions-general/threads/1074581Except, he metagames differently, if he knows he is fighting a vampire he will be inclined to only do things that could hurt a vampire, not directly doing it because he knows the NPC is a vampire but indirectly not doing things that wouldn't hurt a vampire.

Because of this I have hinted strongly that they are up against an entire army of vampires but it is only the Vashar who in his defense look like vampires.


DOES the character have ranks in:

Knowledge Arcana
Knowledge Religion
Knowledge The Planes
Knowledge Local
Knowledge Dungeoneering
Knowledge Nature
Knowledge Psionics

??Yes, to most of those (not psionics or local), another character has all though.


If you made a big mistake, then say sorry and take it back out of game. If it's a small mistake, then roll with it. If you want them to wait before the final fight, then make it harder and/or add more encounters before it, and/or make plot events so that the players clearly see that there's more work to be done.

When the clouds part and the nerf bat descends from the heavens making random swings and the players' shiny things, it will be annoying.But they aren't even using them anymore... it will be many sessions before they even notice it.