Looking for Trolly character ideas. lvl1 3.5

[Pezofpower]

So I'm about to possibly join a group with a rules ignorant DM, who compensates for is lack of preparedness by exerting the "DM=God" motif pretty hard to the dismay of a good friend of mine. That being said, I've never met the guy and don't intend to take the group too seriously. So I'd like to play a character that doesn't overtly screw the rules, I want a character that operates well within the rules as written, but will catch a underprepared DM hard and put him in his place.
For reference we are talking about concepts like Bullrushing being something he is unfamiliar with.
I was thinking of a touch cleric, since he probably doesn't have a good concept of Touch AC, but I am very open to suggestions. Especially stuff that's hard to rules lawyer without being totally unfounded.
Also I reiterate, I don't want something that is distinctly broken, just something to troll with.
We start at level 1 with all 3.5 official books.

[daremetoidareyo]

Honestly, any of the TOB classes are good for this, especially if he's unfamiliar with that subsystem.

Sparrow hengeyokai dragonfire adept? Tiny bird with big breath weapons that it never needs to roll for?

Tibbit warlock: a cat that shoots fell energy from his little kitten mittens

Artificer: immediately complain about a lack of downtime, ignore the first quest and use your money to craft the perfect item for the quest that your friends just finished.

[Saintheart]

Just go get Pounce. Melee characters full-attacking after a charge ought to knock him back a step.

[Vhaidara]

Honestly, any of the TOB classes are good for this, especially if he's unfamiliar.

No. Do not do this. All this will accomplish is further spreading of the completely false belief that ToB is overpowered.

[Meepo_]

I've had DM=god DMs who overuse house rules because they don't know the rules very well (no skills, crits are different, etc.); they suck. A lot. And if you try to mess with / fight them, expect a lot of 'random' accidents to happen.

[JNAProductions]

Repeat after me: No gaming is better than bad gaming.

[daremetoidareyo]

No. Do not do this. All this will accomplish is further spreading of the completely false belief that ToB is overpowered.

Well, someone just got trolled. :tongue:

Actually, When I think of trolling a DM, I think of old man henderson. But that is because he was playing the game wrong. He totally destroyed the Cthulu atmosphere by turning it into a crazy rambo story with demons.

So what kind of campaign are you doing?

Ignore all that other stuff I said, we need to find a way to get vow of peace and nonviolence on your first level character. Nothing could troll the atmosphere of D&D harder, other than being a CG kender. Do you get flaws?

[elonin]

Why bother? DM's who do this are just going to play the way they want to. All you are doing is wasting your time.

On the other hand if you wanted to pick on someone who doesn't have a good grasp of the rules; make a grapple monkey. Are there DM's who don't understand touch ac?

[Pezofpower]

Repeat after me: No gaming is better than bad gaming.

I am more thirsty for 3.5 than I am a good woman. I feel you though.

[LTwerewolf]

Human ghedon with troll blooded. Now get yourself immunity to fatigue, fire, and acid. You don't need to be able to wreck every npc he's got. All you have to do is BE.

[Necroticplague]

Human ghedon with troll blooded. Now get yourself immunity to fatigue, fire, and acid. You don't need to be able to wreck every npc he's got. All you have to do is BE.

If you're starting at level 1, Gheden using the rules for starting at level 1 with LA (basically, -1 to all d20 rolls, nat AC, and DC of abilities) Would give you enough to have Tireless, Troll-blooded (its prereq is a bonus from Gheden), and immunity to nonlethal. Make it a Crusader, and pick up the stance and first level strike for healing in case of fire or acid. You should be pretty hard to keep down.

[Garktz]

Just go uber charger with a frenzied berseker, you dont need to troll, just kill every thing while being frenzied...
You know, talking with that important npc? oh, you stabbed yourself accidentally and went full berserk onto him...
Need to scort someone? lost arrow made you lose it and kill the vip...

[Uncle Pine]

Troll character? Get resistance to fire 5+ or fire immunity. Alternatively, take any character concept with Tumble (or Ride, because you can swap it for Tumble via Cityscape's web enhancement) and get Flame's Blessing. Make your clothes fireproof (+150 gp), or don't wear clothes, or wear an armor with more than 4 points of hardness. Then set yourself on fire whenever you feel like it.
The only way to accomplish this at 1st level is by going Swordsage 1. Otherwise, any character with at least 3.000 gp can do it from 2nd level onward.

[SangoProduction]

Just go uber charger with a frenzied berseker, you dont need to troll, just kill every thing while being frenzied...
You know, talking with that important npc? oh, you stabbed yourself accidentally and went full berserk onto him...
Need to scort someone? lost arrow made you lose it and kill the vip...

Can I thumb that up?

[ekarney]

Just go get Pounce. Melee characters full-attacking after a charge ought to knock him back a step.

The original build was by ihititwithmyaxe I added in the dungeoncrasher bits for versatility since it already has shock trooper, but if we're going down this road.
Race: Human
1 Lion Totem Barbarian - Power Attack, Cleave
2 Dungeoncrasher 1 - Improved Bullrush
3 Dungeoncrasher 2 - EWP (Spiked Chain)
4 Dungeoncrasher 3 - Buy a valorous spiked chain if you can.
5 Dungeoncrasher 4 - Great Cleave
6 Dungeoncrasher 5 - Leap Attack
7 Dungeoncrasher 6
8 Dungeoncrasher 7
9 Dungeoncrasher 8 - Shock Trooper

Bonus points: Get a flying race so you can pummel enemies into the ground with your bullrush.
Alternatives: Replace Dungeoncrasher 7 with Warrior (UA) to get all your feats by level 8.



Two-handed Damage = {weapon + 1 magic + (str*1.5) + [(power attack*2)+leap attack]}x2 valorous

= {2d4 + 1 + (6*1.5) + [(7*2)*2]}x2

= (2d4+1+9+28)x2

= 4d4+76

Massive damage for everyone!

Original Build (http://ihititwithmyaxe.tumblr.com/post/5994449301/the-charging-fighter-breaking-35-dd)

[Segev]

If you really want to catch a DM who doesn't "get" the rules unprepared, play a Tier 1 caster to the hilt.

Don't go for the various "trick" builds that make the melee types seem overpowered. You'll fool the DM, but only into thinking that melee is overpowered. Don't use anything that has a reputation for being overpowered in the less-than-savvy areas of the gameplaying community (psionics, ToB, etc.). Play something that "can't possibly" be overpowered because it's in the core rules. Play a druid, and optimize the heck out of it using as much core-only material as possible. Or play a cleric who uses his spells and abilities to out-fighter the fighter, out-rogue the rogue, and be a competent primary caster. Or play a wizard, and go for the oft-considered "underpowered" spells that you use during downtime to build massive, game-altering power at play-time. Change the face of the game without him even necessarily realizing it's happening before it's too late, and leave him wondering what happened.

Do NOT do something with huge numbers as its primary schtick. Do NOT do something that makes a mundane seem complicated and intricate. DO build something whose mechanics "sneak up" on people who aren't looking. Grease, web, sleep, color spray, and other crowd-control spells are your friends. Polymorph the beatstick into forms that make him better at it. Planar bind Outsiders which let you dominate encounters. Use rope trick and magnificent mansion to adventure in safety and eventually luxury. Use scry-and-die tactics implementing the whole party.

To catch a DM who doesn't grok the game mechanics, you play something that is "balanced" in the eyes of the ignorant; you do not play something that looks like it was designed to be a powergaming fetish. If he doesn't "get" the rules but thinks he does, he is probably already expecting these "broken" builds others have suggested, and is ready to claim his savvy great enough to nip them in the bud. Complexity is your enemy when dealing with a DM like this. The simpler your character page looks, the better. "Straight Druid" or "Straight Wizard," even foregoing PrCs, will be your best bet. It doesn't matter if the PrC you choose WEAKENS you, he'll likely blame it rather than the rules he didn't understand if you take one.

[Telonius]

I'd say straight-up Cleric would be better in the situation described. It is pretty easy for a DM to screw with Wizards (attacks during the night, ethereal filchers making off with the spellbook, no scrolls available for purchase, no time to research, etc.) at low-to-mid levels. He might even enforce a "familiarity" penalty for the Druid, limiting the forms he can change into. It's a lot harder to mess with a Cleric, especially if he's used to Clerics being nothing but healbots.

[Segev]

I'd say straight-up Cleric would be better in the situation described. It is pretty easy for a DM to screw with Wizards (attacks during the night, ethereal filchers making off with the spellbook, no scrolls available for purchase, no time to research, etc.) at low-to-mid levels. He might even enforce a "familiarity" penalty for the Druid, limiting the forms he can change into. It's a lot harder to mess with a Cleric, especially if he's used to Clerics being nothing but healbots.
The "familiarity" penalty isn't going to inhibit much; choose your animal companion carefully, if needs be, to get familiar with a particularly beneficial form.

But yes, straight Cleric is plenty good enough, if you know what you're doing and he doesn't.

[Psyren]

No. Do not do this. All this will accomplish is further spreading of the completely false belief that ToB is overpowered.

That. We need fewer GMs in this camp, not more.


Repeat after me: No gaming is better than bad gaming.

Also that.

[ComaVision]

Inexperienced DMs can't handle Dragonfire Inspiration optimization, particularly if there's a lot of melee in the group.

[daremetoidareyo]

Inexperienced DMs can't handle Dragonfire Inspiration optimization, particularly if there's a lot of melee in the group.

There needs to be a mook workshop put into the back of the monster manual. Tucker kobolds could go there, along with phalanx fighting hobgoblins. Monster tactics make or break the fun of optimized melee fighters

[noob]

Expert because everyone knows they are unbalancing for a normal team.
Do take it after having convinced three independents players to be skill-monkeys and have only skills they have and minimize your skills.

[Urpriest]

Anything rules-based won't work, because these sorts of games are full of houserules.

In my experience, the best way to troll a bad DM is through roleplaying. Basically, you need to make a habit of talking to every annoying NPC in the setting and convincing them to act like they would in reality/in a well-written story, rather than the way your DM is making them act. Logically lay out why doing what they're doing isn't in their best interests, why their evil plan couldn't possibly work, and why you're actually on the same side. Most bad DMs really aren't prepared for that sort of thing, though just in case your DM tries to fob off the conversation to a roll you should also have good scores in the various social skills.

[TheIronGolem]

You are not going to "put the DM in his place" with this scheme. At best, you're just going to make him double down on his "DM=God" stance and distort his view of whatever race/class/subsystem you use. At worst, you'll be That Guy who ruins the game for anyone else who may be enjoying it.

If your motivation for joining a D&D group is to troll someone you've never met because you don't like the way he plays pretend, do everyone involved a favor and don't join that group.

[SangoProduction]

You are not going to "put the DM in his place" with this scheme. At best, you're just going to make him double down on his "DM=God" stance and distort his view of whatever race/class/subsystem you use. At worst, you'll be That Guy who ruins the game for anyone else who may be enjoying it.

If your motivation for joining a D&D group is to troll someone you've never met because you don't like the way he plays pretend, do everyone involved a favor and don't join that group.

Could not agree more.

[Garktz]

well, if you want to keep it simple, druid 10 planar shepherd 10 and totally break the game with a "simple" character

[TIPOT]

Why would you join a game just to troll? It seems pointlessly rude :smallconfused:

[Deadline]

So I'm about to possibly join a group with a rules ignorant DM, who compensates for is lack of preparedness by exerting the "DM=God" motif pretty hard to the dismay of a good friend of mine. That being said, I've never met the guy and don't intend to take the group too seriously. So I'd like to play a character that doesn't overtly screw the rules, I want a character that operates well within the rules as written, but will catch a underprepared DM hard and put him in his place.
For reference we are talking about concepts like Bullrushing being something he is unfamiliar with.
I was thinking of a touch cleric, since he probably doesn't have a good concept of Touch AC, but I am very open to suggestions. Especially stuff that's hard to rules lawyer without being totally unfounded.
Also I reiterate, I don't want something that is distinctly broken, just something to troll with.
We start at level 1 with all 3.5 official books.

So you want to go into a group you've never played with before, under a DM whose style you've never personally experienced, and do your level best to ruin everyone's fun with your antics? Why? What do you think this will accomplish?

The other posters have this right: No gaming is better than bad gaming.

The only thing you'll teach this DM (and most likely his current crop of players) with this behavior is that they shouldn't have invited you to play. And believe me, they'll learn that lesson very quick.

[dascarletm]

I said this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19623342&postcount=54) a while back, but let me repost it here.


Another one similar to what others have said...

"My DM is a jerk because X. Help me break his game."

The thread continues as such:

A: Build a Wizard with Z, and Y prestige classes. <Insert strong build>
B: That's not the right way to handle it have you tried talking?
C: I've tried this, and it doesn't work. The DM will just say no.
D: WOW What a Jerk DM! I would walk from a game if a DM did X.
E: Z and Y won't work together in the same build it's illegal.
A: No it can work, I just used Z to fulfill the requirement.
E: That doesn't work it is illegal
A: No it does work look at the FAQ
E: FAQ isn't RAW
Curmudgeon: <Insert how the rules actually work>
A: *Ignores Curmudgeon* FAQ are rules. Wizards wrote them
Threadnaught: That's Rudisplorkery...
Loyal Paladin: you should champion good and just do <Insert something Torm would give a thumbs-up to>
Red Fel: You should do this... first get a 10ft. pole <Insert something deliciously evil... or evilly delicious>
A: you are all ******* idiots and should kill yourselves and go **** your **** mother with...
Haruki-kun: The Winged Mod: Thread locked for review.

[Troacctid]

You shouldn't antagonize people. It's not nice.

If you just want to play something disarmingly weird, though, I'd suggest playing one class, but acting like you're playing a different class. For example, a "Paladin" who is actually a regular Fighter that just happens to be LG, follows the Paladin's code, and occasionally shouts "Smite evil!" when he attacks.

[dascarletm]

You shouldn't antagonize people. It's not nice.

If you just want to play something disarmingly weird, though, I'd suggest playing one class, but acting like you're playing a different class. For example, a "Paladin" who is actually a regular Fighter that just happens to be LG, follows the Paladin's code, and occasionally shouts "Smite evil!" when he attacks.

I'm currently doing this as a barbarian. Rage=Smite Evil.

[Deadline]

I'm currently doing this as a barbarian. Rage=Smite Evil.

There was a magnificent post here a while back about someone playing a half-orc "Wizard" who was actually a barbarian who drew funny pictures in his "spellbook" and frequently cast his "Sword" spell. It was glorious.

[Pezofpower]

Why would you join a game just to troll? It seems pointlessly rude :smallconfused:

I know over half the group personally. The DM is the only one who is behaving this way and there's a general disagreement about play. Most of us cannot stand house ruling, but if we don't agree to his terms we simply don't have a DM. In my eyes, it's better to play at all than not at all but that doesn't mean I have to enjoy the house rules aspects of play. So, given his general unpreparedness I want to leave myself in a defensible position when I inevitably get house ruled because I'm playing a character that is not broken but has a few hours of reading put into it. When a DM dictates all of your actions, you're better off playing a video game. At least this way, if the dude is gonna be a prude I won't give him any room to be.

[TheIronGolem]

I know over half the group personally. The DM is the only one who is behaving this way and there's a general disagreement about play. Most of us cannot stand house ruling, but if we don't agree to his terms we simply don't have a DM.

Then you need to talk things out with the DM, or get another DM. Passive-aggressive trolling isn't going to fix anything.


In my eyes, it's better to play at all than not at all but that doesn't mean I have to enjoy the house rules aspects of play. So, given his general unpreparedness I want to leave myself in a defensible position when I inevitably get house ruled because I'm playing a character that is not broken but has a few hours of reading put into it.

That's impossible. Any defensibility of your position would rely on the RAW-compliance of your character, which doesn't mean a thing if he's implementing houserules (i.e. definitely not RAW)


When a DM dictates all of your actions, you're better off playing a video game.

True, but note that this contradicts what you just said about whether it's better to play at all or not. In any case, this is exactly the reason why you and the other players need to bring up your concerns to the DM directly, and see if you can work out something you can all agree to. If you can't, then you have a case of incompatible playstyles, and you need a different DM.

[ekarney]

There needs to be a mook workshop put into the back of the monster manual. Tucker kobolds could go there, along with phalanx fighting hobgoblins. Monster tactics make or break the fun of optimized melee fighters

Speaking of phalanx , arming Vrill with reach/trip weapons and giving them Swarmfighting is horrific.

It doesn't matter how good your mods are eventually you're gonna roll a one and be stuck in a trip loop for all eternity, or until you die.

[Zanos]

Anything rules-based won't work, because these sorts of games are full of houserules.

In my experience, the best way to troll a bad DM is through roleplaying. Basically, you need to make a habit of talking to every annoying NPC in the setting and convincing them to act like they would in reality/in a well-written story, rather than the way your DM is making them act. Logically lay out why doing what they're doing isn't in their best interests, why their evil plan couldn't possibly work, and why you're actually on the same side. Most bad DMs really aren't prepared for that sort of thing, though just in case your DM tries to fob off the conversation to a roll you should also have good scores in the various social skills.
My experience with real people seems to indicate that people don't often act in their best interests, and don't react positively towards you when you try to convince them that is so. Likewise, while I won't draw specific examples, megalomania and tremendous egos often lead people to committing to incredibly ambitious plans that anyone else can see are doomed to fail.

Real people aren't very logical. Writing people this way is bad, yeah , because it isn't very entertaining. That doesn't mean it isn't grounded somewhat in reality, however.

[Flickerdart]

Tibbits? ToB? Hell, even touch attacks are too complicated for this guy.

Be a sorcerer. Blow his mind.

[Kelb_Panthera]

That. We need fewer GMs in this camp, not more.



Also that.

Agreed on both counts. If you absolutely must be a troll, pleas don't ignore the former. Noncasters already have enough trouble getting nice things without the ToB is overpowered myth being spread further.

That said, trolling is entirely counterproductive (yes, even when it's hilarious). This is either a communications issue or a conflict of play-style preference.

In the former case, what you need to do is talk this out with the DM about the group's expectations from the game. He needs to know your preferences and expectations if he's going to work with you in meeting them, even partially, and the only way for him to gain that knowledge is for you to give it to him. Don't make demands on it. That tends to rub people the wrong way. Be courteous and explain your position with him and encourage your other friends to do the same. A good DM will want this information and will want to work with you.

Which, of course, leads to talking about his preferences and expectations. If they differ from yours and/ or the other players then a compromise will have to be reached so that everyone can be happy with the game. The point of gaming is to have fun, after all. If his preferences conflict too starkly, however, and no acceptable compromise can be reached then all there is to do is call it quits. There's absolutely no point in everyone gathering together periodically just to make each other miserable. If you're friends outside of this hobby, find something else to do; video games, cards, nattering at how dumb a bad movie is, whatever. Gaming is a great pass-time but it's not worth damaging relationships over. If the DM isn't your friend, decide if you want to be friends with him and go from there. Either find something else you have in common or tell your other friends you'll see 'em around some other time on game nights.

Seriously though, just don't be a troll. Two wrongs don't make a right, eye for an eye makes everyone blind, <insert third, applicable, cliche truism here>, and so on.

[mabriss lethe]

I'm going to suggest something different, play a commoner. Pick some feats that give you some scaling benefits. devotion feats, binder feat chain, draconic aura.... Whatever. Put your skill points in things like handle animal. If you're starting at a high enough level, see if you can't pick up some cheap but useful magic items. Basically be a mundane assistant, and don't worry about mechanics too much. Then , play him to the hilt as the most memorable character in the game.

[Zakerst]

Something that might help us help you and maybe help you help yourself, get/give us a clear list of house rules. If the DM can't/wont what you're playing is not DND 3.5 its Calvin Ball, and as a player you're not Calvin.

Some solutions that have I think show some merit so far are: 1. Talk with problem DM,
2. Switch out who is DMing
3. Don't use anything complex/minimize complexity,
4. don't use a system that is not widely liked/understood as this will perpetuate misconceptions,
5. in general Druids and clerics are going to be your go to answers for having good survivability and versatility, however both get their powers from "somewhere/someone" so the DM might just rule that your god/ideal/nature doesn't give you the spells you want so you only get the ones he wants you to have, if you can swing it play a generic spell caster (UA) [perhaps an arcane one with a high int for skills], or as said a sorcerer, though anything that relies on spells may just encounter rampant AMFs Wild Magic and other things which are for "reasons" immune.
6. If you want to be truly "trolly" play something that you'll have fun with in spite of "DM=god" going on, maybe something derpy who's thing is using sparkly and prismatic spells only to try and become the terrifying "sparkles the lich" at the end game assuming the game even goes that far...

[SangoProduction]

I know over half the group personally. The DM is the only one who is behaving this way and there's a general disagreement about play. Most of us cannot stand house ruling, but if we don't agree to his terms we simply don't have a DM. In my eyes, it's better to play at all than not at all but that doesn't mean I have to enjoy the house rules aspects of play. So, given his general unpreparedness I want to leave myself in a defensible position when I inevitably get house ruled because I'm playing a character that is not broken but has a few hours of reading put into it. When a DM dictates all of your actions, you're better off playing a video game. At least this way, if the dude is gonna be a prude I won't give him any room to be.

So, he's the only one willing to DM, and you want to play... so you're going to troll him for doing it a way you don't like? That's an ...odd thought process. Of course, if half of your group trolls when someone DMs do something you don't like I probably see why he's the only one willing to DM.

Why don't you just DM yourself? Say from the outset that it's going to be a comedic adventure, and then you can troll all you want, and it would probably enhance the experience rather than take away from it.

[daremetoidareyo]

So, he's the only one willing to DM, and you want to play... so you're going to troll him for doing it a way you don't like? That's an ...odd thought process. Of course, if half of your group trolls when someone DMs do something you don't like I probably see why he's the only one willing to DM.

Why don't you just DM yourself? Say from the outset that it's going to be a comedic adventure, and then you can troll all you want, and it would probably enhance the experience rather than take away from it.

I think some of us are forgetting that it is fun to be transgressive of others. It's why we laugh at pranks.
Being outright mean to the DM is different than taking measures to be a bit of a thorn in that DM's shortcomings.
It's a matter of dosage, to be sure.
But assuming OP and DM aren't actively authentically hurting each other, pranking like this can teach more than its own value in frustration.
It sounds mean, but when you talk about applying theory of mind to any endeavor, you wind up sounding sociopathic.

[Deadline]

But assuming OP and DM aren't actively authentically hurting each other, pranking like this can teach more than its own value in frustration.

I've never seen pranking of any sort teach anything other than how to identify who the jerk is. I've seen it be entertaining to those who weren't the subject of the prank, sure (schadenfreude), but never productive. It's, at best, a low form of comedy, not a teaching tool.

[dascarletm]

I've never seen pranking of any sort teach anything other than how to identify who the jerk is. I've seen it be entertaining to those who weren't the subject of the prank, sure (schadenfreude), but never productive. It's, at best, a low form of comedy, not a teaching tool.

You need to experience pranks that are actually witty and not just:

"Ha Ha I hit him in the face when he wasn't looking."

Gnomes would approve of this method of teaching

[Gabrosin]

If your group has a bad DM, and no one else wants to step in and be the DM, you're stuck with a bad DM. You're not going to make him a better DM by trolling him. You might make him a worse DM.

[daremetoidareyo]

If your group has a bad DM, and no one else wants to step in and be the DM, you're stuck with a bad DM. You're not going to make him a better DM by trolling him. You might make him a worse DM.

But you, and your fellow PCs might have a better time. While simultaneously rolling on the gambling wheel of DM personal growth. You're not entirely obligated to fix people, and many people resent the idea that they even need to be fixed. They don't feel suboptimal and they chase what they like.

Generally speaking, you should try to help people to achieve better things, don't get me wrong, but this can easily be pulled off harmlessly. At least amongst adults. And we all know someone who does things the way that they do things, come hell or high water. If you can still interact with a fellow like that who enjoys being DM, and increase your and those around you's enjoyment, I say go for it.

[Deadline]

For those advocating pranking, trolling or whatever the heck "witty" pranks are supposed to be (aside from pretentiously titled), can you please provide me with an example? i.e a "witty" prank designed to teach the subject of the prank a lesson that actually succeeded in doing so.

I've honestly never seen it, and have considerable doubt that it is even possible, let alone easy. I have, however, seen plenty of the opposite.

[LTwerewolf]

Pranks aren't for teaching a lesson, real pranks are for having a bit of fun a little at someone's expense, but said person can appreciate it in the context of the situation. In this situation, it depends on if the dm has a sense of humor. Trying to teach someone a lesson isn't a prank in any respect. What many people call pranks aren't pranks, but just them being a jerk.

[Troacctid]

For those advocating pranking, trolling or whatever the heck "witty" pranks are supposed to be (aside from pretentiously titled), can you please provide me with an example? i.e a "witty" prank designed to teach the subject of the prank a lesson that actually succeeded in doing so.

I've honestly never seen it, and have considerable doubt that it is even possible, let alone easy. I have, however, seen plenty of the opposite.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KarmicTrickster

[TheIronGolem]

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KarmicTrickster

I'll note that that page lacks a "Real Life" subsection.

[daremetoidareyo]

Pranks aren't for teaching a lesson, real pranks are for having a bit of fun a little at someone's expense, but said person can appreciate it in the context of the situation. In this situation, it depends on if the dm has a sense of humor. Trying to teach someone a lesson isn't a prank in any respect. What many people call pranks aren't pranks, but just them being a jerk.

None of ya'll have friends that s**ttalk you? Brutally throwing their perceptions of your flaws at you? That is still the interpersonal dynamic between my old high school buddies and I. None of ya'll have an "unjustifiably entitled" friend? Or a "constantly picks fights with republicans" friend? Or a general "gets pretty sloppy when drunk" friend? All of whom can be mercilessly ribbed for their idiosyncracies.

Maybe that's just a manifestation of my masculine bonding schema, but I don't think so, comedy roasts are a thing. At some point in personal responsibility, we are relinquished from constant duty to change things that are imperfect and aren't going to change, and just accept them as is: comedic cannon fodder. Knowing the boundaries is relatively simple, and apologies exist for a reason.

[LTwerewolf]

It's like you quoted me and didn't read anything I said. I specifically mentioned it depends on the context of the situation. In this case context we don't have. Comedy roasts are also not about trying to teach someone a lesson. They're about having a bit of fun at someone's expense and that someone in the context of said roast being able to appreciate it. Like I said.

[daremetoidareyo]

It's like you quoted me and didn't read anything I said. I specifically mentioned it depends on the context of the situation. In this case context we don't have. Comedy roasts are also not about trying to teach someone a lesson. They're about having a bit of fun at someone's expense and that someone in the context of said roast being able to appreciate it. Like I said.

I was using your point as a jumping off point, seeing as it was one of the few that were conducive to the concept that imperfect behaviors aren't necessarily destructive and can, in some cases, be totally fine.

Transgression is an important ingredient for humor. For all we know, OP is the funniest dude around, and is just brainfarting on a build.

[Ger. Bessa]

Play a human with at least 13 dex.

Pick the feats "Born flyer" (Races of the Wild) and "Hover" (Monster Manual, among others).

You can levitate (well, hover). Never stop reminding everyone how cool it is. (bonus points if it ends up useful)

[Kelb_Panthera]

Play a human with at least 13 dex.

Pick the feats "Born flyer" (Races of the Wild) and "Hover" (Monster Manual, among others).

You can levitate (well, hover). Never stop reminding everyone how cool it is. (bonus points if it ends up useful)

Doesn't work. While you can, indeed, take hover after born flyer without a fly speed, you must already be flying to hover. Since you can't fly, you can't hover.

[SangoProduction]

http://i.imgur.com/l3kTtPW.jpg
I think this is relevant.
As is this:
http://imgur.com/gallery/Lr6Ncvd

[LTwerewolf]

Excellent examples. Those are in fact pranks (not an insult, I actually mean it).

[Thrice Dead Cat]

I truly think the best course of action here is to be a DM yourself to show him and the rest of the group how it's done. Start with a module or two and laugh as he does almost everything wrong due to lack of knowledge.

If everyone else is happy, then he may vote with his feat, benefiting the everyone.

[Deadline]

http://i.imgur.com/l3kTtPW.jpg
I think this is relevant.
As is this:
http://imgur.com/gallery/Lr6Ncvd

Yep, those are some fun pranks. They aren't one of these "teaching" pranks that have been talked about, but fun all the same. :smallsmile:

[dascarletm]

For those advocating pranking, trolling or whatever the heck "witty" pranks are supposed to be (aside from pretentiously titled)
Pretentiously titled? :smallconfused:
I mean I guess if you think being witty is pretentious? That's seriously strange.


can you please provide me with an example? i.e a "witty" prank designed to teach the subject of the prank a lesson that actually succeeded in doing so.

The thing about wit is that it usually requires you to be quick. This usually means you'll be doing it on-the-spot. Pranks don't need to be planned and thought out. My friends/wife at time-to-time prank me in minor ways that make light of my flaws. It's more effective than a (in my opinion more pretentious) sit-down-and-talk. This is usually more effective for minor character flaws.


I've honestly never seen it, and have considerable doubt that it is even possible, let alone easy. I have, however, seen plenty of the opposite.

This depends on the person some people are better able to accept their faults than others. It takes a certain type of person to be able to take that sort of thing light-heartedly.

[Deadline]

Pretentiously titled? :smallconfused:
I mean I guess if you think being witty is pretentious? That's seriously strange.

It's been my experience that the terms 'witty' and 'prank' are not things that go together (quite the opposite, in fact). So to hopefully clear up your confusion, I consider calling something a witty prank to be as pretentious as calling boxed Mac 'n' Cheese sprinkled with parsley fine dining. Or referring to any sort of pun as high comedy. It's a misuse of the term, is what I'm saying. If all you meant was that pranks can be funny, well then we agree on that.

*The above should not be considered an expression of dislike for boxed Mac 'n' Cheese. I love it, but I also understand it's not fine dining.

So, I guess I'll ask again, does anyone have an example of using a prank to teach something? I'm all about learning new things, and would love to see how a prank can be an effective teaching tool. I am not a trained educator, but as a parent and someone who is often called upon to teach my colleagues, I do keep my eyes peeled for new teaching tools.

[daremetoidareyo]

So, I guess I'll ask again, does anyone have an example of using a prank to teach something? I'm all about learning new things, and would love to see how a prank can be an effective teaching tool. I am not a trained educator, but as a parent and someone who is often called upon to teach my colleagues, I do keep my eyes peeled for new teaching tools.

That's a difficult question to answer. There is this supposition that the only role for causing discomfort in others is for the higher cause of education, but it needs to be demonstrably enough to render into anecdote form. Very few things are going to make it to the threshhold of acceptability for that standard. I can tell you that difficult people have definitely improved me as a person, from the troublesomely lazy coworker to the foster kid that did nothing but fight the rigid rule structure of the foster care agency that I worked for.

I can tell you that frustrating and troublesome players have taught me a lot about how to handle others by handling myself. As both a DM and a PC. It's an experience that can't be replicated anywhere else. And if the troublesome player is funny too, well that just makes handling the frustration more complicated. A person trolling you all session long, a person who you still like at the end of the night, keeps you from making charisma a real-life dump stat. In this way, they prepare you for the real world conflicts that happen between coworkers. You have to laugh at their observation of your approach to things. They are a trigger to change it up.

In a perfect world, the sanctity of the feelings of others will always be respected, but that isn't how people work. Growth requires a certain destruction of ego, ego is the most selfish internal force humans experience, it will do anything to avoid extirpation. A good jester will pierce that veil and use social pressure to depress that ego to the point where positive change is better than remaining the same. You aren't a victim if you have to deal with a prickly funnyman and you are capable of laughing at yourself. I know fun is being had at another's expense, but that interaction is not necessarily a negative catalyst.

If the OP is being jerk. I think we can all agree that OP should strive not to be a jerk. But, if OP is just playing with trespassing on some arbitrary sacred cows of a mutual friend, even if it isn't for pure purposes (say, it makes him feel good to be funny in such a way that someone else might have negative feelings), It seems overly protective to assume that the DM in this case simply can't handle it. And if he can't handle it, he has to address it, either correctly or wrongly, which will yield results that will either encourage him in the best way to move forward. The DM may grow from this. Either by setting better personal standards for how they are treated, or doubling down on dictatorial control of fantasy space, which, may trigger the less puckish friends to open the conversation about what a better option is. Sometimes the negative example, experienced in real life, is a necessary step.

Further, there is a chance that this whole ordeal will backfire, and OP will seem like a jerk to the crew, for which he will either have to make amends or refuse to and suffer the consequences of.

I think it is fine for young people to play with fire. A single burn teaches you more about flames than any amount of warning ever will. OP and his trollquest fit in here just as well. Hell, OP came to us for ideas to troll with, that are capable of maximum enjoyment. OP cares about how to pull this off well. I think he would rather this fall into that prank category and not a result of a crying DM running away and never playing again. OP doesn't want to deprive himself or his friends of fun, he wants a way to pro-actively lampoon an inefficiency in another. If the DM in question has already been complained to about his playstyle and he refused to change, the follow up step is prankery.


If I can amplify the issue a bit. If you replace DM with government and OP with protester, the advice on this thread would be much different. The protester can assume that the government heard his problems and chose to not address them. Especially if protestor is a part of a movement that specifically addressed the issue in public fora. After so much time being ignored, protestor must take action, not just be nice to the status quo. The status quo always demands niceness.

So when people complain about a single religions' holy stuff being put on public property, rather than make futile appeals to a government structure that ignores them, the Satanic Temple uses the rule structure to get permission to install statues of "Baphoment chillin with some kids" in public areas. That is capital T trolling for positive ends. The ST would rather have the separation of church and state maintained than actually get their way, and if they get their way, they still undermine the original goal of the statue erection, which is respect for a plurality of religious beliefs sanctioned by the guvmint.

[dascarletm]

It's been my experience that the terms 'witty' and 'prank' are not things that go together (quite the opposite, in fact). So to hopefully clear up your confusion, I consider calling something a witty prank to be as pretentious as calling boxed Mac 'n' Cheese sprinkled with parsley fine dining. Or referring to any sort of pun as high comedy. It's a misuse of the term, is what I'm saying. If all you meant was that pranks can be funny, well then we agree on that.

I think you just need to open your mind to the idea. It seems as though, and correct me if I am wrong, that you have these ideas very set in stone.

Side note, your use of pretentious is misused here. I'm not "attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed." In fact I see your arguments falling into this category. "...calling boxed Mac 'n' Cheese sprinkled with parsley fine dining. Or referring to any sort of pun as high comedy," is a bit pretentious. :smalltongue: I mean read that with a foppish accent.
"A pun? High comedy? That's positively barbaric!"
"Don't get me started with the food. They served Mac n' cheese above all else."
"Commoners, they sprinkle some parsley on something and call it fine dining. How droll."



*The above should not be considered an expression of dislike for boxed Mac 'n' Cheese. I love it, but I also understand it's not fine dining.
Gourmet mac and cheese is a thing. Just google it. Add some lobster, BAM! Served in restaurants awarded Michelin stars. Boxed, right. Well that's more specific than your analogy's target.


So, I guess I'll ask again, does anyone have an example of using a prank to teach something? I'm all about learning new things, and would love to see how a prank can be an effective teaching tool. I am not a trained educator, but as a parent and someone who is often called upon to teach my colleagues, I do keep my eyes peeled for new teaching tools.
(I'd only recommend it among peers)


My friends/wife at time-to-time prank me in minor ways that make light of my flaws. It's more effective than a (in my opinion more pretentious) sit-down-and-talk. This is usually more effective for minor character flaws.

This depends on the person some people are better able to accept their faults than others. It takes a certain type of person to be able to take that sort of thing light-heartedly.

If you want a specific example, well that's a bit hard. The nature of wit is that it is usually off-the-cuff/spontaneous. If you can't fathom it then I suppose we are at an impasse. We can agree to disagree :smallsmile:

[Urpriest]

Gourmet mac and cheese is a thing. Just google it. Add some lobster, BAM! Served in restaurants awarded Michelin stars.


They also don't get it out of a box.

[dascarletm]

They also don't get it out of a box.

I may have misread that part.... well...


Whoops!

EDIT:

I suppose witty isn't the exact word I'd use since it pertains more towards verbal humor. Perhaps clever.

[Deadline]

I think you just need to open your mind to the idea. It seems as though, and correct me if I am wrong, that you have these ideas very set in stone.

Only in the sense that I have plenty of experience with one side, and absolutely none with the other. So yeah, until someone can come along and explain that what we are looking at is called a platypus, I'm probably still going to be thinking that it's some sort of duck. :smalltongue:

I wouldn't say that I've got a closed mind on the issue, just that you haven't provided anything substantive enough to support your argument. I'm more than happy to consider anything you want to throw out at me. But "willing to consider" and "take as fact" are definitely not the same thing.


Gourmet mac and cheese is a thing. Just google it. Add some lobster, BAM! Served in restaurants awarded Michelin stars. Boxed, right. Well that's more specific than your analogy's target.

Indeed, and I'd like to point out that the specific example your mind jumped to is the same kind of thing I'm asking for here. If I was, say, unaware completely of gourmet mac and cheese and had asked for examples of mac and cheese as "fine dining", the lobster mac would have been an excellent example to use.

@daremetoidareyou - That is an excellent post, and I'm going to need to take some time to digest it before responding. Your example of the Satanic Temple may be exactly what I'm looking for, but for some reason it doesn't quite click. It could be that what they did doesn't gel with the definition of a prank to me. It's possible that I'm being overly strict in my reading of the word, so I'll need to mull it over for a bit.