Troublesome Player

[Kesnit]

I'm running into some problems with one of my players and am looking for some advice on how to handle him.

PARTY
Human Fighter 2/Barbarian 3 (P, my mother-in-law)
Human Cloistered Cleric (Spontaneous Caster variant) 4/Warlock 1 (going into Eldritch Disciple) with Vow of Poverty (S, my wife)
(Race from 3rd Party book with LA+1) Ninja 4 (B, problem player)

CAMPAIGN AND APPLICABLE HOUSE RULES
The party is in the World's Largest Dungeon. I started them at 4th level with a little over WBL. The entry area is "safe," though no natural healing or refresh of daily abilities can occur there. There is a sled in the entry that allows non-living items to be sent though, but living creatures turn to goo if they try to leave that way. (The idea is to allow the party to sell off items and get new stuff. I picture a town outside that's economy is based around adventurers trying to defeat the dungeon.) The party has medallions that allow teleport from their location to the entry room and back (like Town Portals in Diablo). The Cleric can use cure wands and her medallion without violating her Vow. (The other two have to buy the wands from their share of the funds, but she can use them.)


1) The first game session, B started using a power he called Spellfire. After the session, it hit me I had no idea how he was powering it. When asked, he said it's from Magic of Faerun and he is powering it with ki. I told him it doesn't work that way, and he said a prior DM let him. I told him I wasn't going to do that unless he could show me a feat that allows him to do it. He swears it's from a Dragon magazine, but can't find it. (I've also tried doing a Google search, but have had no luck.) When I told him he couldn't use the power until he could show me how he was doing it, he complained I was "nerfing" his character. (I would have had no problem if he had swapped out whatever feat he took for one that works, so the only "nerf" is in his head.)

2) A few sessions ago, the party encountered a group of goblins that are worshiping a new god. Actually, the "new god" is a statue of a goblin that has been turned to stone by a cockatrice. S wants to prove the "new god" is a false god, so the party sets off to meet the new god. (S rolled REALLY WELL on her knowledge religion roll and knew the "new god" has never been mentioned before.) They find the statute and S again makes the rolls (listed in the book) to know that this is a goblin that has been turned to stone. Being Exalted, she believes the Goblin is an innocent victim and should not be destroyed. So she and P decide to take the statute back to the entry hall and send it through the sled with a note to stone-to-flesh the statute. Payment for the spell is to come from S's part of the treasure, with anything left going to the goblin so (s)he can start a new life. (Since she can give to charity, I felt that would be an appropriate donation. The party found a very valuable item, so they each got a lot of gold.)
B did not like this plan, and did everything he could to try to destroy the statute. He even tried to Slight of Hand to switch notes on the statue from "Please save this helpless creature" to "Destroy this statute." (I gave him a Slight of Hand roll and S a Spot roll. She easily beat his SoH and caught him.)
After all of this, I told B that his actions are pointing him towards an alignment shift to Evil. (He is currently True Neutral.) He tried arguing that his actions aren't evil because it was a goblin. I pointed out that he was trying to destroy an innocent, intelligent creature, which is an Evil act. I also made it clear that I was not forcing the alignment shift at that time, but if he kept on this path, he would slip to NE. This, of course, can create a problem in the party since S is Exalted and cannot associate with Evil. She pointed out that as long as she doesn't know he's Evil, she can still do it. However, the likely next area the party goes to has lot so traps that do extra damage to Evil creatures, and there's a lot of Celestials who will know B's character is Evil (if he is by that point).

3) B is the only Rogue-ish PC in the party, and he is a crappy Rogue. At LVL 4, he has an Open Lock of +6. That isn't 6 ranks; it's a total of +6, between ranks and ability mod. His Disable Device and Search also pretty poor, though I don't know the exact numbers. For this reason, the party is missing a lot of opportunities and getting caught in a lot of traps.

4) He whined for the one combat when I positioned the enemy in a way that kept him from being able to engage. The party came to a point where a 10' hallway intersected the 5' hallway they were in. The Large monster was standing at the intersection, meaning the only place it could be fought is from the front, right in its face. P got right up there, and S took a few rounds to circle around to be able to get to P in order to use a cure wand on her. B spent the entire combat asking how high the celing was and if he could jump on the monster's back. (It was a dire wolf.)

5) The party found (and B put on) a magical ring that turned out to be cursed. The curse is rather minor - can't go invisible, can always be scryed without a save, must act LG (though actual alignment does not change). B is having a fit. Granted, not being able to go invisible negates Ghost Step, but that is the only in-game mechanics effect. He's trying to push S to take Remove Curse when she can. (That will be at least LVL 10, since she won't be able to pick 3rd level spells until she is casting as an 8th-level cleric.) He is going to buy a scroll of Remove Curse, but S can't use it because of VoP.

6) Most importantly, I know he is cheating. (a) Before I stopped him from using Spellfire, he was throwing it around a lot. (Probably more times than he has ki points, though I wasn't counting to be sure.) He was also rolling 5 or 6d6, even against opponents who weren't flat-footed (so no Sudden Strike). (b) He uses a spear as his weapon, but until I confronted him about it, was using it as both a reach and a close-up weapon. He swears he was taking a 5' step and keeping range, but I know he wasn't. Last session, after I asked him about it, he still "forgot" to take a 5'step away from attackers until I reached up and moved his mini back. Since he wasn't paying attention, he backed his PC into a wall, then complained that there was nowhere he could go without provoking an AoO. (c) He has Boots of Speed and I know he had them going more than 10 rounds. I didn't start out counting them, but after he used them every round for 3 straight combats, I asked how often he could use them. He told me 10 rounds/day, and this was his last round. Two rounds later, he tried to use them again until I brought it up. Later, S told me B used the Boots more than 10 rounds, since she cast Ice Slick (4 round duration) 3 times and his Boots used his boots more than the duration of the spells.

[GilesTheCleric]

I'm running into some problems with one of my players and am looking for some advice on how to handle him.

PARTY
Human Fighter 2/Barbarian 3 (P, my mother-in-law)
Human Cloistered Cleric (Spontaneous Caster variant) 4/Warlock 1 (going into Eldritch Disciple) with Vow of Poverty (S, my wife)
(Race from 3rd Party book with LA+1) Ninja 4 (B, problem player)

CAMPAIGN AND APPLICABLE HOUSE RULES
The party is in the World's Largest Dungeon. I started them at 4th level with a little over WBL. The entry area is "safe," though no natural healing or refresh of daily abilities can occur there. There is a sled in the entry that allows non-living items to be sent though, but living creatures turn to goo if they try to leave that way. (The idea is to allow the party to sell off items and get new stuff. I picture a town outside that's economy is based around adventurers trying to defeat the dungeon.) The party has medallions that allow teleport from their location to the entry room and back (like Town Portals in Diablo). The Cleric can use cure wands and her medallion without violating her Vow. (The other two have to buy the wands from their share of the funds, but she can use them.)


1) The first game session, B started using a power he called Spellfire. After the session, it hit me I had no idea how he was powering it. When asked, he said it's from Magic of Faerun and he is powering it with ki. I told him it doesn't work that way, and he said a prior DM let him. I told him I wasn't going to do that unless he could show me a feat that allows him to do it. He swears it's from a Dragon magazine, but can't find it. (I've also tried doing a Google search, but have had no luck.) When I told him he couldn't use the power until he could show me how he was doing it, he complained I was "nerfing" his character. (I would have had no problem if he had swapped out whatever feat he took for one that works, so the only "nerf" is in his head.)

Spellfire is a fairly high-powered option, much like Leadership, that requires GM permission to take on a character. You'll find it in Magic Of Faerun 23; there's a feat and a PrC. Basically, your character becomes a rod of spell absorption (they are effectively immune to spells), and then can turn spells cast at them into ranged attacks for 1d6/spell level spent. Last time I asked a (lenient) GM if I could use it in a game, I got turned down without a second thought.


2) A few sessions ago, the party encountered a group of goblins that are worshiping a new god. Actually, the "new god" is a statue of a goblin that has been turned to stone by a cockatrice. S wants to prove the "new god" is a false god, so the party sets off to meet the new god. (S rolled REALLY WELL on her knowledge religion roll and knew the "new god" has never been mentioned before.) They find the statute and S again makes the rolls (listed in the book) to know that this is a goblin that has been turned to stone. Being Exalted, she believes the Goblin is an innocent victim and should not be destroyed. So she and P decide to take the statute back to the entry hall and send it through the sled with a note to stone-to-flesh the statute. Payment for the spell is to come from S's part of the treasure, with anything left going to the goblin so (s)he can start a new life. (Since she can give to charity, I felt that would be an appropriate donation. The party found a very valuable item, so they each got a lot of gold.)
B did not like this plan, and did everything he could to try to destroy the statute. He even tried to Slight of Hand to switch notes on the statue from "Please save this helpless creature" to "Destroy this statute." (I gave him a Slight of Hand roll and S a Spot roll. She easily beat his SoH and caught him.)
After all of this, I told B that his actions are pointing him towards an alignment shift to Evil. (He is currently True Neutral.) He tried arguing that his actions aren't evil because it was a goblin. I pointed out that he was trying to destroy an innocent, intelligent creature, which is an Evil act. I also made it clear that I was not forcing the alignment shift at that time, but if he kept on this path, he would slip to NE. This, of course, can create a problem in the party since S is Exalted and cannot associate with Evil. She pointed out that as long as she doesn't know he's Evil, she can still do it. However, the likely next area the party goes to has lot so traps that do extra damage to Evil creatures, and there's a lot of Celestials who will know B's character is Evil (if he is by that point).

Alignment is always a tricky thing. BoED and BoVD have some good quotes on it.


3) B is the only Rogue-ish PC in the party, and he is a crappy Rogue. At LVL 4, he has an Open Lock of +6. That isn't 6 ranks; it's a total of +6, between ranks and ability mod. His Disable Device and Search also pretty poor, though I don't know the exact numbers. For this reason, the party is missing a lot of opportunities and getting caught in a lot of traps.

Your Cleric can step up to the trapfinding role very easily. Have them cast Find Traps, and perhaps a few skill boost spells. Or, they could boost the skill of the rogue so as to not make that class entirely useless. They can also use summons (some last hours/lvl) to trigger traps.


4) He whined for the one combat when I positioned the enemy in a way that kept him from being able to engage. The party came to a point where a 10' hallway intersected the 5' hallway they were in. The Large monster was standing at the intersection, meaning the only place it could be fought is from the front, right in its face. P got right up there, and S took a few rounds to circle around to be able to get to P in order to use a cure wand on her. B spent the entire combat asking how high the celing was and if he could jump on the monster's back. (It was a dire wolf.) Sounds like the rogue needs to craft a ranged weapon. SA works within 30' without any extra feats or PrCs. Also, unless there's a 10ft ceiling, entering an opponents square isn't something you can do unless you're smaller than Small, or grappling. There might be a few other ways to do it, but that's what I remember.


5) The party found (and B put on) a magical ring that turned out to be cursed. The curse is rather minor - can't go invisible, can always be scryed without a save, must act LG (though actual alignment does not change). B is having a fit. Granted, not being able to go invisible negates Ghost Step, but that is the only in-game mechanics effect. He's trying to push S to take Remove Curse when she can. (That will be at least LVL 10, since she won't be able to pick 3rd level spells until she is casting as an 8th-level cleric.) He is going to buy a scroll of Remove Curse, but S can't use it because of VoP. This is an even trickier alignment and player agency issue. Usually it's not a good idea to tell players how to play their characters. Sure, there's things in the game that do, but that doesn't mean they should be used. I was wondering why grabbing a spell would be a problem as a cleric, then I saw that it's a spontaneous version. Oh dear. Scrolls are a good solution for many utility spells; it sounds like in this situation they're even better. If the cleric picks up Share Talents, then the rogue can use the scroll. Also, the rogue should have UMD anyway. It's the best skill in the game other than diplomacy and spellcraft.


6) Most importantly, I know he is cheating. (a) Before I stopped him from using Spellfire, he was throwing it around a lot. (Probably more times than he has ki points, though I wasn't counting to be sure.) He was also rolling 5 or 6d6, even against opponents who weren't flat-footed (so no Sudden Strike). (b) He uses a spear as his weapon, but until I confronted him about it, was using it as both a reach and a close-up weapon. He swears he was taking a 5' step and keeping range, but I know he wasn't. Last session, after I asked him about it, he still "forgot" to take a 5'step away from attackers until I reached up and moved his mini back. Since he wasn't paying attention, he backed his PC into a wall, then complained that there was nowhere he could go without provoking an AoO. (c) He has Boots of Speed and I know he had them going more than 10 rounds. I didn't start out counting them, but after he used them every round for 3 straight combats, I asked how often he could use them. He told me 10 rounds/day, and this was his last round. Two rounds later, he tried to use them again until I brought it up. Later, S told me B used the Boots more than 10 rounds, since she cast Ice Slick (4 round duration) 3 times and his Boots used his boots more than the duration of the spells.

Spellfire does actually work like that, but he can't maintain it unless foes or allies are casting a lot of spells at him to replenish the levels. There's a cap of con score (not mod) spell levels you can store at once; if they try to store more spellfire levels, then they start to spontaneously combust. Not joking.

It sounds like your player isn't actually cheating (unless they're using infinite spellfire levels without having the drawback, and there's no way to get around that without taking the PrC, which only increases the number of levels you get. There's still a hard cap), but is really bad at tactics and is whiny. There's a bunch of players on the market, but few GMs. Replacing the player seems like a good option if it's causing friction in the group.

[ComaVision]

Giles, did you miss that he's fueling Spellfire with Ninja abilities?

Are you not sure about booting him because you've only got 3 players with him included?

[Segev]

One note: the cleric can use items on others' behalfs. The item belongs to the other person, and she's just doing them a favor by using it for them. She is not violating her Vow of Poverty to use that scroll that B paid for and asked her to use on him.

She could even carry around and use wands and staves, as long as they came from other PCs' share of the loot and she uses them for them. That is, as they direct or need. The Exalted feats have a huge helping of "spirit of the rules" with them, which is not codifiable in legalistic terms, but is pretty darned obvious. As long as she's not decking herself out in items for her own benefit, she's probably not breaking her Vow.

[GilesTheCleric]

Giles, did you miss that he's fueling Spellfire with Ninja abilities?

Are you not sure about booting him because you've only got 3 players with him included?

Wait, what? What? Apparently. Yes, that is blatantly cheating. And, how does he even get enough uses of Ninja abilities to make good use of spellfire? Absorbing spell levels can be a pretty efficient engine, certainly more powerful than any other class ability I can think of besides turns or music.

[Darrin]

1) The first game session, B started using a power he called Spellfire. After the session, it hit me I had no idea how he was powering it. When asked, he said it's from Magic of Faerun and he is powering it with ki.


Spellfire allows him to absorb spells cast on him, but he has to ready an action in order to do so. Since readying is a standard action, he has to spend pretty much his entire turn (usually multiple turns) to "charge up". He can absorb a number of spell levels equal to his Con score. He can discharge the stored levels by making a ranged touch attack as a standard action. If he's trying to dish out 5d6 spellfire damage, then he actually has to absorb 5 spell levels first.

Absorbing your own Supernatural abilities really isn't something that can be combined with spellfire. First, the text for spellfire says it can only absorb spells. While SLAs might count, and it might be possible to absorb your own SLAs under certain conditions, the action types aren't compatible. If you ready a standard action to absorb, you don't have a standard action available to activate your SLA. Ninja Ki powers are (Su) not (Sp). Even if you could tap on your own Ki powers, a 4th level Ninja can only use Ki powers 2/day.

I would recommend: Tell him you aren't going to allow Spellfire because it's 3.0 material that wasn't explained very well, and as written it's not very useful or balanced. If he wants to keep the "blasting" power for his character, then offer to allow him to trade one of his Ninja levels for a level of Warlock. This is much easier to keep track of than trying to track how many spell levels he's absorbed. He can still get Sudden Strike damage on eldritch blasts as long as it's within 30'.



B did not like this plan, and did everything he could to try to destroy the statute.


I would recommend against enforcing an alignment change. (Actually, I thoroughly despise any alignment mechanics beyond "Play the character however you think they should be played". Anything beyond that is just a flamewar waiting to happen.) No amount of alignment mechanics or browbeating will cause this player to change how he plays his PC. It's best to just treat his PC as "Chaotic Stupid" and just have the party act accordingly.

As far as the statue, I'd just tell him, "This is the DM speaking, and I'm telling you to drop it and move on." If he forces the issue, ask him to explain to the group why this is so important to move the story forward, and then have the players (not the PCs) vote. If he's still butthurt about it afterward, then point out you went above and beyond what any DM might consider reasonable to accommodate his wishes, and the rest of the group still thought it was a dumb idea.



3) B is the only Rogue-ish PC in the party, and he is a crappy Rogue. At LVL 4, he has an Open Lock of +6. That isn't 6 ranks; it's a total of +6, between ranks and ability mod. His Disable Device and Search also pretty poor, though I don't know the exact numbers. For this reason, the party is missing a lot of opportunities and getting caught in a lot of traps.


Make the traps obvious to spot or stop using traps entirely. Unless the party has an interesting way to interact with the traps, then you're just inflicting an arbitrary "HP Tax". Recommended reading: Bad Trap Syndrome (http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.php/90/bad-trap-syndrome/) and Bad Trap Syndrome Part 2 (http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.php/91/bad-trap-syndrome-curing-the-bad-trap-blues/).



4) He whined for the one combat when I positioned the enemy in a way that kept him from being able to engage. The party came to a point where a 10' hallway intersected the 5' hallway they were in. The Large monster was standing at the intersection, meaning the only place it could be fought is from the front, right in its face. P got right up there, and S took a few rounds to circle around to be able to get to P in order to use a cure wand on her. B spent the entire combat asking how high the celing was and if he could jump on the monster's back. (It was a dire wolf.)


Yeah, been there before, so I understand his frustration, but one single combat does not invalidate your entire character. I would have allowed a Jump or Tumble check to try and get on the other side of the dire wolf (with a warning about getting an AoO), but I'm guessing his skill ranks are not high enough to allow a reasonable chance for success. Assuming a 10' ceiling, he can still blast or stab with a reach weapon over P, so it's not like he couldn't attack... not sure why he'd be whining here. Combat in narrow tunnels is going to limit who can attack what. Max out Tumble or invest in some short-distance teleport items.



5) The party found (and B put on) a magical ring that turned out to be cursed. The curse is rather minor - can't go invisible, can always be scryed without a save, must act LG (though actual alignment does not change). B is having a fit.


Ditch the ring ASAP. Scroll of remove curse, wandering cleric, rod of cancellation with one charge, "it just falls off", whatever you prefer. The curse does nothing to advance the story, and the player isn't mature enough to roleplay it as an interesting setback.



6) Most importantly, I know he is cheating.


These are all maturity issues. The best strategy here may be to have a private conversation with him, and just explain that you as the DM are going to make sure his character gets plenty of chances to shine in the spotlight and do awesome things, and you're not going to deliberately sandbag or screw over his character unless there's a good story reason to do so. These "awesome moments" will happen regardless of whether he has spellfire or a spear that suddenly changes size for no reason or if he has to take a 5' step every so often. Then make sure you give him abilities/items that are continuous, that don't have charges or specific durations, or are easy to keep track of. Building trust and encouraging him to act more maturely... yeah, good luck there. If he still considers everything "bad" that happens to his character as a personal attack orchestrated by an antagonistic and vindictive DM, and you're going out of your way to be accommodating and non-judgemental, then at a certain point you have to point out to him, "Look, your playing style doesn't really work well with this group. You may need to consider changing your style, taking a break, or finding a different group."

For the spear thing, point him towards the Shorten Grip feat in Dragon Compendium. For the Boots of Speed... try giving him 10 poker chips when he activates the boots, and then collect one chip every round. Same thing with Ki abilities, daily uses, etc. Use different colored chips or playing cards for different abilities.

[BowStreetRunner]

It sounds to me like B lacks a bit of maturity and is looking for attention. I've DM'ed with a player like that in the past and it worked out fine. You just have to have some patience. It's not likely that B is actually coming into the game with the intention of cheating, but rather fudges things more and more the less he feels like he is getting the attention he wants. What players like him would really like is to have lots of those awesome moments where their character just completely shines and everybody else looks at them and says how cool they are. It IS a game after all and he is trying to have fun.

The first thing you need to do is to avoid becoming too confrontational about it. If one player fudges their rolls make ALL players roll their dice in front of everyone else without singling anyone out. If one player tries to use a build that is illegal, make ALL players provide sources for their builds. If one player is not keeping an accurate count of the rounds their spell lasts or the number of arrows left in their quiver, make ALL players use Counters that you can see. Don't call the player out, just announce that everyone needs to do this from now on.

Next, you really need to pay attention to how much attention every PC is getting. I made the mistake in one game of assuming all the characters would get an opportunity organically if I followed the module. As it turns out, the two Tier 1 characters (cleric & wizard) and the meatshield (fighter) saw most of the action. The skillmonkey (rogue) felt left out. So I started finding more opportunities for the rogue to step up. This took some creativity on my part, but payed off in the end. It sounds like B's character is the weak link and will have the least opportunities to shine without some DM intervention. Remember, even Bilbo needed a Ring to get him going.

While I am on the topic of characters from Tolkien books, whenever you DM you should try to remember the following scenes from Lord of the Rings:

Boromir keeps fighting and sounding his horn despite being already filled with arrows.
Éowyn tells the Witch-King of Angmar "I am no man." before killing him.
Aragorn tells the hobbits "you bow to no one" and he and everyone else bows to them.


I could go on and on, but the point is that every player wants to be able to see their character like this. Even when they fail and die, they want their character to go out like Boromir having a heroic death. B in your game wants to have fun and for him that means he wants his Ninja to be awesome and get to do awesome things. You just need to work with him to make that happen within the rules and as a member of the current party.

[Kesnit]

Spellfire is a fairly high-powered option, much like Leadership, that requires GM permission to take on a character. You'll find it in Magic Of Faerun 23;

I know what Spellfire is and where the rules about it are located. (Sorry that I wasn't clear about that.) My issue isn't with him using Spellfire. It's that he was trying to use it in the wrong way.


Your Cleric can step up to the trapfinding role very easily. Have them cast Find Traps, and perhaps a few skill boost spells.

Spontaneous caster variant.


Or, they could boost the skill of the rogue so as to not make that class entirely useless.

A Ninja doesn't get UMD in-class. I don't think B took any ranks in it cross-class.


SA works within 30' without any extra feats or PrCs.

B is a Ninja, not a Rogue. I only referred to him as a Rogue since he is the closest the party has to a Rogue.


Also, unless there's a 10ft ceiling, entering an opponents square isn't something you can do unless you're smaller than Small, or grappling.

I know, which is why I wouldn't let him do it.


Scrolls are a good solution for many utility spells; it sounds like in this situation they're even better.

No one can use them. The write-up for VoP says "you may not use any magic item of any sort...nor may you yourself cast a spell from a scroll, wand, or staff." (BoED, p 48). That's why I houseruled S could use cure wands - so the party would have some form of healing. (B and P also have Healing Belts, but those aren't sufficient for the damage they are taking.)


If the cleric picks up Share Talents, then the rogue can use the scroll.

No one has ranks in UMD.


Spellfire does actually work like that, but he can't maintain it unless foes or allies are casting a lot of spells at him to replenish the levels.

Which wasn't happening. That's why I started to wonder how he was powering Spellfire.


There's a bunch of players on the market, but few GMs. Replacing the player seems like a good option if it's causing friction in the group.

We had a devil of a time finding B. S posted a message at the local gaming store and we got 2 players. The other one's work schedule changed and he can no longer game with us.


Are you not sure about booting him because you've only got 3 players with him included?

This, exactly. He's driving me and S crazy, but we don't want to stop playing.


One note: the cleric can use items on others' behalfs.

No, she can't. See above.


Wait, what? What? Apparently. Yes, that is blatantly cheating. And, how does he even get enough uses of Ninja abilities to make good use of spellfire?

He doesn't. Even if he could power it with ki points, he used it a lot more than the number of points he has. (I'm not sure how many since it didn't occur to me to count. I never dreamed he'd cheat like that.)


Absorbing your own Supernatural abilities really isn't something that can be combined with spellfire.

I know. According to B, he had a previous DM who let him do it. B argues that there is a feat that allows it, but neither he nor I have been able to find it.


I would recommend: Tell him you aren't going to allow Spellfire because it's 3.0 material that wasn't explained very well, and as written it's not very useful or balanced.

Actually, I'd allow Spellfire if he would use it within the rules in Magic of Faerun. It's an interesting (though weak) system.


I would recommend against enforcing an alignment change. No amount of alignment mechanics or browbeating will cause this player to change how he plays his PC. It's best to just treat his PC as "Chaotic Stupid" and just have the party act accordingly.

*sigh* Much as I hate to, you're probably right. It's easier than trying to convince him his acts really are Evil. And it saves me having to mediate between an NE and a CG Exalted PC (who is played by my wife and was CG before B became NE).


As far as the statue, I'd just tell him, "This is the DM speaking, and I'm telling you to drop it and move on." If he forces the issue, ask him to explain to the group why this is so important to move the story forward, and then have the players (not the PCs) vote.

S and P both wanted to remove the statue and save the goblin, so there was a player vote. B just didn't like that result.


Make the traps obvious to spot or stop using traps entirely.

I'm running a module, so the traps are pre-placed with set DCs. And it isn't just the traps. He can't open locked doors or find anything.


Yeah, been there before, so I understand his frustration, but one single combat does not invalidate your entire character.

It was more like 4 rounds, but this was after several combats where he kicked rear-end.


I would have allowed a Jump or Tumble check to try and get on the other side of the dire wolf (with a warning about getting an AoO),

No ranks in either. Though I did consider the Jump check, by this point of the evening, I was so annoyed that I was questioning my objectivity towards him.


Assuming a 10' ceiling, he can still blast or stab with a reach weapon over P,

It was a T-hallway. The party was in the cross-bar part, and the wolf was in the lower part. Though now that I think about it, he could have done that...


Max out Tumble or invest in some short-distance teleport items.

No teleport in World's Largest Dungeon. (My homebrew medallions are the only exception.)


Ditch the ring ASAP. Scroll of remove curse, wandering cleric, rod of cancellation with one charge, "it just falls off", whatever you prefer. The curse does nothing to advance the story, and the player isn't mature enough to roleplay it as an interesting setback.

No one in the party can use the scroll. There are Celestrials in another area that could cast it (or use the scroll), but the party isn't there. (That area is likely the next area they will go to.)

If I let it go, I feel like I am rewarding him for his childishness. You're right, he isn't mature enough to handle it. On the other hand, I don't want him to think I'll give in to him any time he whines.


These are all maturity issues. The best strategy here may be to have a private conversation with him, and just explain that you as the DM are going to make sure his character gets plenty of chances to shine in the spotlight and do awesome things, and you're not going to deliberately sandbag or screw over his character unless there's a good story reason to do so. These "awesome moments" will happen regardless of whether he has spellfire or a spear that suddenly changes size for no reason or if he has to take a 5' step every so often. Then make sure you give him abilities/items that are continuous, that don't have charges or specific durations, or are easy to keep track of. Building trust and encouraging him to act more maturely... yeah, good luck there. If he still considers everything "bad" that happens to his character as a personal attack orchestrated by an antagonistic and vindictive DM, and you're going out of your way to be accommodating and non-judgemental, then at a certain point you have to point out to him, "Look, your playing style doesn't really work well with this group. You may need to consider changing your style, taking a break, or finding a different group."

I didn't make the ring. It was part of the module. I also didn't make him put it on; he did that himself. Regarding items, I'm going with what is already in the module and allowing the PCs to buy (through the sled) items that they want. (That's how he got the Boots of Speed.) I''m pretty lenient on what I will allow, so long as the player can point to it in a book on online article.


For the Boots of Speed... try giving him 10 poker chips when he activates the boots, and then collect one chip every round. Same thing with Ki abilities, daily uses, etc. Use different colored chips or playing cards for different abilities.

That's a good idea.

[Segev]

*re-reads Vow of Poverty*

Huh. Even worse written than I remembered, but you're right.

You can selfishly benefit from others' work and expending their items on your behalf, but you cannot help them benefit from their own items. Wow.

[elonin]

Can the pc's refresh spells and daily use abilities at all?

Personally I wouldn't have allowed the ability without being able to read over it. It is problematic if the player can't produce some documentation. A large number of groups don't allow 3rd party material, including Dragon Magazine.

IMHO trying to sabotage the rescue of the goblin isn't strictly a good act, it isn't necessarily evil. I'd also point out that neutral has a bit more leeway than a good aligned person. Depending on the character concept I can imagine some good characters being justified in that course of action.

[Kesnit]

Can the pc's refresh spells and daily use abilities at all?

Yes, there are places where PCs can rest - either rooms marked as "Safe," or rooms the PCs choose to lock from the inside.


Personally I wouldn't have allowed the ability without being able to read over it.

I didn't. He came in with it in the first session. It was only after the first session that it hit me I had no idea how he was powering it.


It is problematic if the player can't produce some documentation. A large number of groups don't allow 3rd party material, including Dragon Magazine.

When first asked, he said it was from Magic of Faerun. Only when we confronted him about the rules in MoF did he mention a feat from Dragon Mag. (My wife and I are both familiar with Spellfire since we had a plan for another game where I'd play a Spellfire Channeller and she'd play a Warlock and my "battery." The DM nixed the idea since he bans all Faerun books.) I've told him that he can't use the ability unless he can provide me documentation of where it is and how it works.


IMHO trying to sabotage the rescue of the goblin isn't strictly a good act, it isn't necessarily evil. I'd also point out that neutral has a bit more leeway than a good aligned person. Depending on the character concept I can imagine some good characters being justified in that course of action.

As I said above, much as it galls me, I don't think I'll be pushing the alignment shift unless he really goes overboard on the Evil.

[Segev]

To be fair, whta the ring does is actually what a lot of people seem to mistakenly believe alignment does: it compels behavior.

"You don't do that, because it would be chaotic/evil."
"You have to do this, because it's good/lawful."

It's a geas, essentially. You are compelled to act in the manner that a lawful good person would in all situations.

[Enran]

To be fair, whta the ring does is actually what a lot of people seem to mistakenly believe alignment does: it compels behavior.

"You don't do that, because it would be chaotic/evil."
"You have to do this, because it's good/lawful."

It's a geas, essentially. You are compelled to act in the manner that a lawful good person would in all situations.
... Which is one of the worst sorts of items to have put on you, not necessarily from a character perspective, but definitely from a player perspective. In my honest opinion, short of crying and screaming and storming out, there really isn't a response to that sort of things that's too childish to be justified. When I'm a player, my character, through their personality and abilities, is the only method I have to interact with the world, and their choices are the only way the world ends up different on their account. Long-term mental control quite literally prevents me from taking any meaningful part in the game.

(Hey, there's a solution to the problem with the player himself; he's cursed with imposed Lawful Goodness, making his decisions largely irrelevant, so the OP can ask him to leave the table and NPC his character and nothing meaningful would change, since the player's agency was already thoroughly stripped anyway. :smallamused:)

At least with most forms of mental control, there's an end somewhere in sight; once the party kills the bad guy the spell will end, or it's limited to a particular duration. Those things can feel like challenges or difficulties, akin to failing your Save in a Web spell and getting stuck. Those can be endured, and may even make later victories feel sweeter. But this is just a curse. There's no enemy to defeat to end the effect, there's no method of nullifying it even temporarily (actually, would a Protection from X spell possibly help?) so they can act normally, and no clock to run out since curses don't end on their own. There isn't even a goal he can hold out for the party to strive for, because the current party composition can't make use of the only level-appropriate resource that could help him.

Of course, that right there's a bigger problem to highlight on this count than the player. If the module recommended giving the party a cursed item that takes away so much player choice without also including a way to remove it if the party doesn't have that capability itself, the module was in the wrong. You aren't rewarding the player's childish reaction, you're punishing the module for being stupid and fixing it in the process.

[Sqmach]

Except he didn't have to put the ring on. If you don't know what a magic item does, putting it on and trying to use it might be a valid method, but its obvious there may be consequences. Its a random magic item they found, it could have done anything. As far as he knew, putting on that ring might have just killed him. There are other methods of item identification that don't have these risks, he chose to take the risk and it turned out poorly, that's the game.

[Segev]

It's also worth noting that "LG behavior" is pretty broad-spectrum. And, as has been covered in numerous other threads (and I shall here invoke Red Fel's name to see if that summons the other purveyor of evil alignment to this thread), a lot of Evil PCs can find ample reason to behave in ways easily equivalent to LG.

Since the ring doesn't change his alignment, if he can find ways of acting "LG" that still benefit himself, he's free to. He may have to rescue those innocents, but that doesn't prohibit him from turning around and leveraging that goodwill for positive treatment and popularity. He might not be able to backstab his buddy, but that doesn't mean he can't hold out the fact that he is magically trustworthy as a reason to trust him above others. He can't ignore the rules to which he subscribes, but he can bend and twist their letter to any shape he likes...as long as he doesn't engage in evil or hurting innocents in the process.

[Red Fel]

It's also worth noting that "LG behavior" is pretty broad-spectrum. And, as has been covered in numerous other threads (and I shall here invoke Red Fel's name to see if that summons the other purveyor of evil alignment to this thread), a lot of Evil PCs can find ample reason to behave in ways easily equivalent to LG.

Since the ring doesn't change his alignment, if he can find ways of acting "LG" that still benefit himself, he's free to. He may have to rescue those innocents, but that doesn't prohibit him from turning around and leveraging that goodwill for positive treatment and popularity. He might not be able to backstab his buddy, but that doesn't mean he can't hold out the fact that he is magically trustworthy as a reason to trust him above others. He can't ignore the rules to which he subscribes, but he can bend and twist their letter to any shape he likes...as long as he doesn't engage in evil or hurting innocents in the process.

Ordinarily, I usually wait until I'm invoked three times. (Seriously, three times, people. It's not a tough rule. There was a movie about it and everything.)

In the instant case, however, I wanted to chip in for two reasons.

First, I wanted to agree with Segev. There are many ways to be "Affably Evil," which is my favorite kind of Evil. What this guy was doing, however, can be described either as Stupid Evil or Chaotic Backstabbing. Or, as I occasionally refer to it, True Douchenozzle. Guy is a jerk and a cheater. But the point is, there are ways to play Evil that are helpful to the party, friendly to the players, and amenable to cohesion; and there are ways to play non-Evil that are utterly unpleasant in every way. There are ways to play every alignment, including the LG scumbag. This delightful font of cess at your table has graciously offered to introduce you to some prime examples of the the True Douchenozzle alignment, both in and out of character. Be grateful for the experience!

But here's my second point. I wanted to disagree with Segev. I take serious issue with this ring. I get that it's in the module, I get that he picked it up and voluntarily put it on. And, as I've often said, (I even discussed at length the possibility of how to play an LG character who got switched to CE as more or less the same person, just with different perspective) alignment change doesn't change the individual or his particular personality; it just changes his worldview.

But here's my problem. This guy is a simpleton. To put it bluntly, the player is a cheat and likely an imbecile. A change in alignment is wonderful if the player in question has the maturity to handle it; knowing what you've told us and no more, I would not credit this individual with the maturity to choose his own clothing in the morning. Using the ring - and I don't care if it's part of the module, the module has a bad part then - is fiat, it's force, and it won't end well. I'm not saying you have to treat this twit kindly - I certainly wouldn't - but DM fiat just isn't the way to do it. I'm going to fault you for that, as DM; unless you're in organized play, you should be willing to depart from certain non-vital aspects of the module in the interests of fun and table cohesion.

And on a related point, how did he come into the game with Spellfire and you not know about it? I'm going to dock points from Gryffindor for that, too. You ought to know better than to let people walk in with their character sheets and not at least give them a once-over. Take this as a lesson for the future.

And next time, I hope you all have the good sense to invoke me correctly. Honestly, some people.

[Segev]

Proper invocation is a pain, though. Do you knwo how hard it is to get the floor space for a summoning circle? And the sealing runes done in proper engraved mother-of-pearl are prohibitive. Besides, I'm at work, and etching the floor - or even staining it with the blood of virgin goats - is rather frowned upon.


In defense of the OP, he said he knew of Spellfire ahead of time, and approved it. The bit that he caught himself after the fact on is that he hadn't asked the player how he was fueling it. He has since learned the method was not one he was allowing. I believe he is thus simply not going to allow it. (As he should not allow it.)

I'm also not under the impression that this ring is something the DM is trying to use to "solve" the problem of this player. It happens that this player got himself into this situation. The DM is asking what to do about it. It seems much of the advice is "retcon it, because it's a bad piece of design and shouldn't be in there."


If the OP wants to try to use it to solve his problem, what he could do is have the ring's power be "absorbable." Let the player, every time he acts in an LG fashion (and the DM decides if it's LG; if the DM doesn't think so, even if the player does, this doesn't happen), the ring is said to have discharged a spell level into the wearer of it to "compell" that behavior. While he is still compelled, his Spellfire can be charged by a spell level from it.

Disallow his ki empowering it, but make it a property of the ring.

Now he can charge himself up by acting in party-friendly ways! You've introduced a carrot more than a stick.

[Trasilor]

Why can't the player simply break the ring?

The ring did not cast a curse spell on the person, rather it is imposing a 'curse' upon the player.


Physical Description
Rings have no appreciable weight. Although exceptions exist that are crafted from glass or bone, the vast majority of rings are forged from metal—usually precious metals such as gold, silver, and platinum. A ring has AC 13, 2 hit points, hardness 10, and a break DC of 25.

Simply buy a hammer and chisel and the player will have the ring off. Cursed items are not artifacts, they are magical items gone wrong. As such, they follow the general rules for magical items.

After reading the World's Largest Dungeon, the cursed ring is worse than originally stated.

First, Identify spell identifies it as a ring of chameleon power - so even if the player waited, they would still be cursed. The ring is described as a Cursed ring of Inescapable Location (like the amulet in ring form), with additional side effects: No save on scrying, no invisibility regardless of spell level, constantly under Zone of Truth spell, alignment can be detected by any any good cleric / paladin without the use of a spell and finally, the wearer cannot violate any Lawful Good tenant (book lists killing innocents, betraying trust or deceiving a fellow man as examples).

Now the OP/DM may have changed the cursed item, but it does limit player agency (ability to make my own choices).

Here the funny thing - the player can just remove the cursed item. Unless I am misreading cursed items, unless otherwise stated, there is no compulsion to use the item. The characters simply removes the ring and that's it. Break enchantment and remove curse are only ever needed when the cursed item is deceiving the person.

[Remedy]

Ordinarily, I usually wait until I'm invoked three times.

Wait, wait, wait, hold the phone, this is really important.

You want one person to invoke you three times, or three separate people to invoke you once each? And what happens if we do it one too many times, does this turn into a Corpse Party scenario?

[BowStreetRunner]

Unless I am misreading cursed items, unless otherwise stated, there is no compulsion to use the item. The characters simply removes the ring and that's it. Break enchantment and remove curse are only ever needed when the cursed item is deceiving the person.
Correct. Normally a character won't know what the curse is simply by using it any more than they would know what the enchantment is simply by using a normal magic item. So the trick of the cursed item is that you are using it without knowing it is cursed. In some instances the item actually deceives the character into believing it is working as a normal magic item, in which case Remove Curse is required to convince the character that the item is cursed (if you just tell them so they won't believe it). And in rare instances the item actually compels the character to keep and use it, in which case a Remove Curse is absolutely needed.

So unless there is something in the description of this item that says the player believes it not to be cursed or is compelled to keep and use it, it can just be thrown away once it is recognized as a cursed item.

[Red Fel]

Wait, wait, wait, hold the phone, this is really important.

You want one person to invoke you three times, or three separate people to invoke you once each?

Like I said. I wait until I'm invoked three times. I didn't qualify the language. Rules As Written, chief.


And what happens if we do it one too many times, does this turn into a Corpse Party scenario?

Would you like to find out?

https://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m23mqbpPy91r19p3ho1_500.gif

Anyhow, as Trasilor notes, certain cursed items explicitly contain language that they cannot be removed without Remove Curse. For example, the Bracers of Defenselessness (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/cursedItems.htm#bracersofDefenselessness) description contains the language, "Once their curse is activated, bracers of defenselessness can be removed only by means of a remove curse spell." By contrast, the Mace of Blood (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/cursedItems.htm#maceofBlood) does not. Thus, if the ring's curse is only in effect while it is worn, and there is nothing in its description preventing its removal, just chuck it.

[Segev]

You know, I could see a use for that ring. Give it to somebody as a token exchange to seal the deal on a bargain. When they wear it, the curse won't let them remove it because they would be dealing in bad faith, and that's not Lawful behavior.

[Kesnit]

But here's my second point. I wanted to disagree with Segev. I take serious issue with this ring. I get that it's in the module, I get that he picked it up and voluntarily put it on. And, as I've often said, (I even discussed at length the possibility of how to play an LG character who got switched to CE as more or less the same person, just with different perspective) alignment change doesn't change the individual or his particular personality; it just changes his worldview.

But here's my problem. This guy is a simpleton. To put it bluntly, the player is a cheat and likely an imbecile. A change in alignment is wonderful if the player in question has the maturity to handle it; knowing what you've told us and no more, I would not credit this individual with the maturity to choose his own clothing in the morning. Using the ring - and I don't care if it's part of the module, the module has a bad part then - is fiat, it's force, and it won't end well. I'm not saying you have to treat this twit kindly - I certainly wouldn't - but DM fiat just isn't the way to do it. I'm going to fault you for that, as DM; unless you're in organized play, you should be willing to depart from certain non-vital aspects of the module in the interests of fun and table cohesion.

I get your point. I honestly (and, I admit, stupidly) didn't think the player would react like that. When I read the description of the curse, I didn't (and still don't) think it is a big deal. I think it is even less of a big deal now that people have pointed out how he can act LG while still acting in his own interest. Scrying isn't happening. The Cleric/Warlock can detect his alignment, but right now he shows up as Neutral, so no big deal. He loses one of his ki powers (Ghost Step), but he wasn't using it anyway.


And on a related point, how did he come into the game with Spellfire and you not know about it? I'm going to dock points from Gryffindor for that, too. You ought to know better than to let people walk in with their character sheets and not at least give them a once-over. Take this as a lesson for the future.

A lesson learned, I admit.


In defense of the OP, he said he knew of Spellfire ahead of time, and approved it. The bit that he caught himself after the fact on is that he hadn't asked the player how he was fueling it. He has since learned the method was not one he was allowing. I believe he is thus simply not going to allow it. (As he should not allow it.)

Not quite. I didn't know he had Spellfire on his sheet when the game started. However, he had used it on his last character (a Rogue/SORC/Daggerspell Mage) and I didn't object. I was assuming (probably wrongly, looking back on it) that he was powering it with his spell slots. I know that isn't RAW, but Spellfire is such a weak system that I decided to give him a small break.

When he used Spellfire in the first game with the Ninja, I didn't think anything of it since he had been using Spellfire previously. That's why it didn't occur to me until later that he had no way to power it any more. Once he said he was powering it with ki, I put my foot down and said no. If he can show me a feat that allows it, he can go back to using ki to power Spellfire. Until he does, he can't use it.


I'm also not under the impression that this ring is something the DM is trying to use to "solve" the problem of this player. It happens that this player got himself into this situation. The DM is asking what to do about it. It seems much of the advice is "retcon it, because it's a bad piece of design and shouldn't be in there."

While I understand why people are saying this, I'm going to repeat that I am hesitant to do it. I talked to S about it today, and she feels much the same way I do - giving in to B's whining will just teach him that whining gets him what he wants. If this was a one-time issue, I wouldn't care. But he has complained when I told him he couldn't use Spellfire, complains when he can't make the Open Lock/Disable Device checks, and complains when he can't be in the middle of combat.

All of that said, see below...



If the OP wants to try to use it to solve his problem, what he could do is have the ring's power be "absorbable." Let the player, every time he acts in an LG fashion (and the DM decides if it's LG; if the DM doesn't think so, even if the player does, this doesn't happen), the ring is said to have discharged a spell level into the wearer of it to "compell" that behavior. While he is still compelled, his Spellfire can be charged by a spell level from it.

Disallow his ki empowering it, but make it a property of the ring.

*thinking* That could work... Maybe... But it would require me to keep track of how many spell levels he has absorbed, since I can't trust him to keep accurate track. And I'm afraid it will turn into an eternal "I should get a spell level for this action." But it is something to consider...


Why can't the player simply break the ring?

The ring did not cast a curse spell on the person, rather it is imposing a 'curse' upon the player.

Simply buy a hammer and chisel and the player will have the ring off. Cursed items are not artifacts, they are magical items gone wrong. As such, they follow the general rules for magical items.

*rereads about cursed items.* Huh... I always thought cursed items were stuck there until something like Remove Curse was cast, but there is nothing in the rules that says that.


After reading the World's Largest Dungeon, the cursed ring is worse than originally stated.

First, Identify spell identifies it as a ring of chameleon power - so even if the player waited, they would still be cursed. The ring is described as a Cursed ring of Inescapable Location (like the amulet in ring form), with additional side effects: No save on scrying, no invisibility regardless of spell level, constantly under Zone of Truth spell, alignment can be detected by any any good cleric / paladin without the use of a spell and finally, the wearer cannot violate any Lawful Good tenant (book lists killing innocents, betraying trust or deceiving a fellow man as examples).

To my credit, I didn't have the book in front of me when I wrote the original description, so did forget a few things.


Now the OP/DM may have changed the cursed item, but it does limit player agency (ability to make my own choices).

I read it right out of the book, so it is what you wrote above.


Here the funny thing - the player can just remove the cursed item. Unless I am misreading cursed items, unless otherwise stated, there is no compulsion to use the item. The characters simply removes the ring and that's it. Break enchantment and remove curse are only ever needed when the cursed item is deceiving the person.

Here's the thing... The party never identified the item. The player knows OOC what the ring does, but the PC does not.


So unless there is something in the description of this item that says the player believes it not to be cursed or is compelled to keep and use it, it can just be thrown away once it is recognized as a cursed item.

That's rather metagaming at this point. The PC has no idea what the ring is supposed to do. No joke - they found the ring, I described it's physical appearance, and the player said his PC puts it on. IC, the PC has no reason to get rid of it because, as far as he knows, it's a gold ring with a gemstone setting.

[Remedy]

IC, the PC has no reason to get rid of it because, as far as he knows, it's a gold ring with a gemstone setting.

"Doesn't look like it does anything. I'll put it in the bag to sell later, then." I mean, it seems logical to me, unless his character has previously displayed an active enjoyment of wearing mundane but pretty jewelry. That's probably what I would say I do if I wore the ring for a while and figured it wasn't doing anything. (Of course, I generally wouldn't put on any item that hadn't been identified, but what's done is done.)

[Kesnit]

"Doesn't look like it does anything. I'll put it in the bag to sell later, then." I mean, it seems logical to me, unless his character has previously displayed an active enjoyment of wearing mundane but pretty jewelry. That's probably what I would say I do if I wore the ring for a while and figured it wasn't doing anything. (Of course, I generally wouldn't put on any item that hadn't been identified, but what's done is done.)

The party knows it is magical. (The Cleric/Warlock did detect magic on it and it reads as strong Transmutation.)

[Twurps]

First: your player group composition is a powder-keg. I mean: how are you going to DM unpartially in a game with your wife (Backed up by her mother) on one side, and a relative stranger on the other? This is nigh impossible, as your natural tendency probably is to be a little biased towards your wife. And if nothing else: you understand what she’s trying to accomplish faster and better than you do with other players. And even if you do manage to be completely impartial, give everybody equal ‘spot-light time’ etc. You’re still going to appear biased in the eyes of other players.
There really is very little you can do about this. Just realize you will have this problem to a certain extend with any player, and cut the ‘relative stranger’ some slack.
If you want to continue with this group: It might be easier to explain to your wife and mother in law why B gets extra attention, than it is to convince B everybody gets his/her fair share.

Second: Why can S use wands, but not the one scroll B would like used on him? This seems rather arbitrary, and no matter the intention, is going to come across as a prime example of ‘first’ above. You’ve houseruled wands, make it wands and scrolls, and be done with it.

Third: I’m with Darrin on the alignment mechanics thing. As you’ve noticed: it’s hard enough for people to stick to a chosen alignment and make it work. Having to play a different alignment makes it even worse. Some players can handle it, yours can’t. So skip it. (I know it’s in the module, which takes us to four). Also: unless neutral means ‘supreme court judge’, a neutral character should be able to do evil stuff from time to time, and balance it with some ‘good stuff’.

Four: Some players can build and play commoners able to kill a tarrasque at lvl6. My entire current group of 6 would prolly not manage at lvl 15. The module should be fun to play for both. You’re the DM. It’s your task to make the adventure challenging for your particular group. If trap DC’s are too high, lower them. If creatures die too quickly, make them stronger. If a cursed ring is c***, scratch it. (or have it be a different curse). The module should help you, not hamper you.

[Kesnit]

First: your player group composition is a powder-keg. I mean: how are you going to DM unpartially in a game with your wife (Backed up by her mother) on one side, and a relative stranger on the other? This is nigh impossible, as your natural tendency probably is to be a little biased towards your wife.

My wife and I have been running games where the other is a player for over 6 years. According to the other players, we're harder on each other than we are on them.


And if nothing else: you understand what she’s trying to accomplish faster and better than you do with other players. And even if you do manage to be completely impartial, give everybody equal ‘spot-light time’ etc. You’re still going to appear biased in the eyes of other players.

My mother-in-law does not care about spotlight time. She wants to smash things, which is why she is playing a Fighter/BARB. B actually gets more screen-time than S or P, because he's the one handling traps and locked doors, and has pretty good damage output. (Due to quirks of rolls, he gets more kills than P.)


Second: Why can S use wands, but not the one scroll B would like used on him?

Where do I draw the line? "OK, now S can use helpful scrolls. What? You want her to use a staff? You want to buy more scrolls for her?" I bent the rules once for the good of the party. There has to be a line, and I drew it. The entire party knew what the line was.


This seems rather arbitrary, and no matter the intention, is going to come across as a prime example of ‘first’ above. You’ve houseruled wands, make it wands and scrolls, and be done with it.

WAY too open to abuse. Please note that I didn't houserule that she could use any wand. I specifically limited it to Cure wands. I did that on purpose.


Third: I’m with Darrin on the alignment mechanics thing. As you’ve noticed: it’s hard enough for people to stick to a chosen alignment and make it work. Having to play a different alignment makes it even worse. Some players can handle it, yours can’t. So skip it. (I know it’s in the module, which takes us to four). Also: unless neutral means ‘supreme court judge’, a neutral character should be able to do evil stuff from time to time, and balance it with some ‘good stuff’.

And if he did Good things, this wouldn't be an issue. He doesn't; all of his actions are Neutral to Evil, which is why I've told him he is heading towards an alignment shift.

That said, I'm thinking about implementing a "3-strikes Rule" on everyone. (The number may or may not be 3.) Three(?) Evil/Good acts done after a warning about the consequences will trigger an alignment shift. Good acts counter-act Evil, and vice versa. (i.e. If someone does 4 Evil acts and 2 Good acts, an alignment shift won't happen since the 2 Good counter 2 of the Evil. But one more Evil without a Good will trigger the shift.) I'm not set on this plan, but it is a thought.


If trap DC’s are too high, lower them. If creatures die too quickly, make them stronger. If a cursed ring is c***, scratch it. (or have it be a different curse). The module should help you, not hamper you.

I really never imagined B would put the ring out without identifying it. That said, it was pointed out a few posts ago that cursed items can be removed without needing a Remove Curse spell if the PC realizes the item is cursed. B did say he was going to Ghost Step, but didn't because he knew the invisibility wouldn't work because of the ring. I'm thinking about telling him he tried to Ghost Step and failed, making him realize IC that something is wrong.

[Enran]

"Well, I murdered that guy on the street for looking at me funny, but then I donated to charity so it's cool."

3 strikes you're out alignment doesn't work, regardless of whether or not that number is three. Alignment is too simplistic, but it's still more nuanced than you give it credit for. With the exception of truly unbelievably alignment-oriented acts, one act just doesn't change your alignment, nor do three or five or what have you. Alignment is a descriptor of general pattern of behavior, not a numeric tally of the exact composition of their actions.