stopping playable character

[katatonic]

One of the guys in my campaign, made this dhampir luckbringer and I cant do anything to it. Id like to find something that can trap it or kill it. Is there a way to stop it besides changing the rules? Its a lvl 9 undead dhampir luckbringer. Any Ideas?

[Sagetim]

I mean, first off you're going to need to be more specific than 'dhampire luck bringer'. Things like feats, class abilities, skills, gear, and so on are rather important information to have when trying to dispense advice on how to trap or kill the thing in question.

Now, that said: Why are you trying to trap or kill the player's character? This sounds like it might be a problem that can be resolved by talking to the person out of character.

I'm assuming that you are the DM in this situation, so did you check their character sheet before the game and go over any problem points with regards to your house rules or setting? Just because there are rules for something to exist, doesn't mean it's always available as a player option.

In my opinion, players should generally be able to pick anything out of the player's handbook and run it without an issue, and anything beyond that should be checked with the GM if they haven't already okayed it. That said, I've been in games where even core classes were made unavailable (and not just to the players), and those games could still be fun.

I know that Dhampir isn't a core rulebook class, and unless Luckbringer is some kind of luck domain cleric, then I'm fairly sure that's not from the core either. So, did you okay this character without looking it over, or did they just gradually gain levels and now it's untouchable?

[Mehangel]

I know that Dhampir isn't a core rulebook class, and unless Luckbringer is some kind of luck domain cleric, then I'm fairly sure that's not from the core either. So, did you okay this character without looking it over, or did they just gradually gain levels and now it's untouchable?

Dhampir is a race (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/other-races/featured-races/arg-dhampir/). Luckbringer is probably referring to this class (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-classes/rite-publishing/luckbringer/).

[RoboEmperor]

One of the guys in my campaign, made this dhampir luckbringer and I cant do anything to it. Id like to find something that can trap it or kill it. Is there a way to stop it besides changing the rules? Its a lvl 9 undead dhampir luckbringer. Any Ideas?

Why do you want to kill PCs? DMs don't kill PCs. If a DM doesn't like a PC and goes on a mission to kill him, then that's a terrible DM. If a PC is too strong and trivializes all the encounters, then you ask the player to play something weaker so everyone can have fun. In game the PC leaves, and a new PC joins.

[Necroticplague]

Specifically, what abilities of it are giving you problems? Would help if we know what we need to shut down.

[Eldariel]

The problem is clearly neither the race nor the class as neither of those is especially powerful. Does he have lots of items? Some busted feat combo? Or such? Please extrapolate a bit on what he does to trivialise the things you send at him. Do remember that CR 5 creatures aren't really a challenge for a level 5 party but a single level 5 character. Level 5 party only needs to use about 25% of their daily resources to beat it according to the CR system (they can survive 4 such fights daily without much trouble with very high chance of success and low probability of PC death). Thus you might want to consider higher CRs if that's the beef.

[Red Fel]

One of the guys in my campaign, made this dhampir luckbringer and I cant do anything to it. Id like to find something that can trap it or kill it. Is there a way to stop it besides changing the rules? Its a lvl 9 undead dhampir luckbringer. Any Ideas?

First off:


Why do you want to kill PCs? DMs don't kill PCs. If a DM doesn't like a PC and goes on a mission to kill him, then that's a terrible DM. If a PC is too strong and trivializes all the encounters, then you ask the player to play something weaker so everyone can have fun. In game the PC leaves, and a new PC joins.

This.

How do you stop an unstoppable PC? By talking to the player.

More accurately, I'd go through a two-part analysis followed by a one-part solution.

Analysis:
Is this PC causing problems for the other players? Does the fact that he's basically unstoppable ruin their fun? Does he outshine them or steal the spotlight? If the other players are fine with this PC, then they're fine with him; he's not ruining their fun. And at the end of the day, the game is about having fun, for certain definitions of fun.
Is this PC causing problems for me, the DM? I don't mean in the "I can't stop this PC" sense. I mean actual problems, like derailing the plot. Because if the only problem is that this is a well-built PC, well... tough. No nice way to say it - "PC is good at PCing" is not a reason to try to get rid of a PC.
Now, if the answer to either or both of those points is "Yes," here's your one-step solution: Talk to the player. Tell him, "Look, you've got a really great PC there, but it's [ruining the other players' fun] / [making it hard for me to run my game], and I'd appreciate if you could either tone it down or retire it." Doing that shows that you respect the player, gives a perfectly legitimate reason, and asks the player to show some respect for you as well.

It's extremely bad form to (1) go out of your way to eliminate a particular PC, or (2) change the rules on the fly, particularly with respect to a single PC. It's unfortunate that you had to learn during play that this particular class or race/class combination was apparently unstoppable; that happens. Usually, if you're not sure or somewhat wary of material, particularly third party material, it's best to ban it before gameplay starts; retroactive bans or rule changes are nasty business. Sadly, sometimes what looks reasonable on paper turns out to be pretty ugly in practice; you can use this opportunity to learn what to allow (or not allow) in future games.

But yeah. Talk to the player.

[RoboEmperor]

There's no reason to get rid of an unkillable player as long as he doesn't derail the game. Super high AC untouchable PCs were never a problem in the games I've been in. Monsters just ignored them and killed everyone else. If being unkillable gives that player tremendous joy so be it, it's when PCs start making other PCs worthless/irrelevant there starts to be a problem, like PCs that oneshot the entire encounter.

You're supposed to let the PC win.

I had a DM who got angry at a player because he had his AC so high nothing but a crit hit him. He was also a DM who made weapons fly off on a roll of a 1 and enjoyed watching players die hilariously. He was an absolute trash DM and I left 3 sessions later, when he kicked said player from the group and badmouthed him. Another DM, didn't mind high AC characters and found it amusing. He was running an adventure path and had 0 complaints with the PC being unkillable. He was an awesome DM and we had loads of fun.

[Drakevarg]

You're supposed to let the PC win.

http://www.housepetscomic.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/2012-04-16-wizard-needs-sleep-badly.png
If'n you say so.

[exelsisxax]

http://www.housepetscomic.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/2012-04-16-wizard-needs-sleep-badly.png

If'n you say so.

I think the implied meaning is "if they're winning, let them" rather than letting them get their way no matter the circumstances. OP's PC seems to be winning fairly, and the GM wants to cheat the players out of it.

[Drakevarg]

Think that's projecting a bit, we don't really have much intel one way or the other on the matter.

(Also, throw the pic in a spoiler please, I realized it was too big and I don't wanna get slapped with an infraction by proxy.)

[RoboEmperor]

http://www.housepetscomic.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/2012-04-16-wizard-needs-sleep-badly.png
If'n you say so.

I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Are you saying DMs should make encounters so PCs die 50% of the time? Are you saying the DMs goal is to TPK the entire party? Adjusting the difficulty level of the game so that the PCs win their last encounter for the day with only 1hp left is still letting the players win.

[Drakevarg]

I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Are you saying DMs should make encounters so PCs die 50% of the time? Are you saying the DMs goal is to TPK the entire party? Adjusting the difficulty level of the game so that the PCs win their last encounter for the day with only 1hp left is still letting the players win.

I don't 'let' the players win unless I feel I miscalculated and gave them an unfair fight to begin with (for example, rigging a fight with consideration towards NPC support that proved a lot less helpful than it seemed it would be on paper). The rest of the time I simply set up the encounters and they win or they don't. I try not to rig for or against the players. Doing otherwise, I feel, is merely dishonest. If a fight is nothing but an elaborate pantomime with the outcome basically already guaranteed, why bother with it in the first place?

[Sagetim]

Dhampir is a race (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/other-races/featured-races/arg-dhampir/). Luckbringer is probably referring to this class (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-classes/rite-publishing/luckbringer/).

oh, I wrote class instead of race. Doop doop, silly me. Unrelated, I find it heartening that Red Fel is giving the same core advice as me (though with a much greater focus and depth, while I left it at one line and wandered off to other questions).

[Jack_McSnatch]

Most of what I might say has been said better by Fel and Tim. Don't go in with the intention of killing players, that's missing the point of D&D, but if you just want to challenge this "unstoppable" character, figure out how he does what he does, and make a foil for him. You know, a villain. The Joker to his Batman. For example, If the player is a LuckBRINGER, than make Jerkface McEvilston a LuckSTEALER. You still haven't mentioned what it is he's doing to be so strong, so I can't offer any solid advice, but thinking of a foil is a good start.

[RoboEmperor]

I don't 'let' the players win unless I feel I miscalculated and gave them an unfair fight to begin with (for example, rigging a fight with consideration towards NPC support that proved a lot less helpful than it seemed it would be on paper). The rest of the time I simply set up the encounters and they win or they don't. I try not to rig for or against the players. Doing otherwise, I feel, is merely dishonest. If a fight is nothing but an elaborate pantomime with the outcome basically already guaranteed, why bother with it in the first place?

You do realize you setup encounters so that they are winnable and pose a challenge and not a 50:50 chance of TPK right ?

[Drakevarg]

You do realize you setup encounters so that they are winnable and pose a challenge and not a 50:50 chance of TPK right ?

You do, perhaps. I generally plan my encounters to be 1-2 levels above the players at least and make it clear that surviving an encounter is every bit as valid as overcoming it (i.e., if you can't handle it, run). As long as a PC's death is a result of poor tactics and not unlucky dice or unfair obstacles (DR 10/Magic in a no-magic campaign, for example), I'm satisfied.

[Guizonde]

You do realize you setup encounters so that they are winnable and pose a challenge and not a 50:50 chance of TPK right ?

in my experience, the first victim of battle is expectations. the second is the battle plan. i dm using the dark heresy crit rules. let's just say battles get messy fast. most pc's are about 2-3 hits away from painting the scenery. that makes the pc's emphasize either paranoia and coordination or action-movie bravado. i threw a pretty zoggin' big monster at them, thinking it'd be a challenge for them. they threw an anti-tank mine and ran like they'd eaten tex-mex (awesome, if unexpected, battle plan). i threw 4 street thugs armed with rusty pipes and it almost caused a tpk (1 broken knee, fractured ribs, a broken arm and a caved in skull). the pc's got jumped and had tremendous misfortune. that encounter was barely supposed to register on the "threat-o-meter".

when i want to shut down my pc's and scare them stupid, i've got one trick: psych-out grenades. basically, an emp that works on humans, like god flicking your off-switch. they actually exist, but they're lethal at 70%, so they're kinda-sorta banned by every country in their right minds. it's a concussive force that knocks you out. in 18 pc's, only one resisted its effects (barely, and he got ganged on with blackjacks to shut him down). of course, i ask for their sheets, they're scared, i call for a smoke break to add tension, and come back. they're usually nude and in a cage. this forces them to collect and use their wits asap. they get their stuff back if they play with cunning, and i usually give one psych-out for a rainy day.

my players love that scenario. one player who dm'd actually pulled the same stunt on me. i loved and hated it. it's a mid-late campaign scenario usually, and to survive, the team needs to be rock-solid and organized. why do i pull it on my players like a tradition? because i talk to them, and they expect that session to test teamwork between characters, players, and dm. when a pc gets too powerful, the trick is to make the team talk it out, so either one reigns it back, or the team depends on it so everyone has fun. a pc in a game got so comedically hard to kill, he ended the campaign counting as an armored fighting vehicle. his team used him as a refused flank and a mobile firepoint. the squishy team organized around the fact that everything was trying to kill the space marine equivalent with the big flashing lights and neon paintjob. by the end, i simply fired anti-building artillery at him to make him slightly less confident in his survival. in another campaign with less solid teammates, he'd have felt wretched.

do note that i am not a psycho-killer dm. i play by the rule of cool in an exceptionnally lethal system so that the heroics of the pc's are put on a pedestal. fraggin' cthulu is boring if you're guaranteed survival. but shutting down the mafia lord in a gunfight on top of a building knowing you're gutshot and it's down to you heroic last shot that you survive makes for a memorable story years later. i've got dozens of stories like that. encounters where pc's suffer in heroic bloodshed for the good of the story appeals to my players and me.

i don't know the op, but it sounds like typical dm frustration. what do you do with a pc that shuts down all your strategies? killing the pc is stupid. it only leads to bad blood out of the gaming table. figuring out why the pc shuts down all your strategies will help, and coming up with an answer when frustrated is hard. i wouldn't be surprised if the dm was venting, honestly.

[Drakevarg]

i don't know the op, but it sounds like typical dm frustration. what do you do with a pc that shuts down all your strategies? killing the pc is stupid. it only leads to bad blood out of the gaming table. figuring out why the pc shuts down all your strategies will help, and coming up with an answer when frustrated is hard. i wouldn't be surprised if the dm was venting, honestly.

It's also possible, seeing as how we've gotten no new data since the OP, that the DM doesn't actually want to kill the PC. They just want to be able to present scenarios that are realistically capable of doing so, since the Luckbringer has apparently been nope-ing past everything thrown at him so far, which isn't satisfying for anyone unless they think the image I linked above presents an ideal scenario.

[Calthropstu]

The DM's goal is to tell a story. He has to decide the results of PC action.
Here, we have a supposedly unstoppable dhampir amidst a (presumably) less op group. So the dm has to ask: what is their enemies' response? Obviously this dhampir is a greater threat, so how will they counter? Will they hire an assassin to take him out? I honestly have no issue with OP's question. But it should be more along the lines of "Here is the PC build, here is the evil organization they are fighting. Here is what the PCs have accomplished. What should this organization send?"
Obviously, the big bad is probably overkill at this point... but if the PCs did enough damage, and thoroughly trounced their defenses, it's possible the organization will not take any chances. So sending in overkill to eliminate him may be story driven.

[Sagetim]

The DM's goal is to tell a story. He has to decide the results of PC action.
Here, we have a supposedly unstoppable dhampir amidst a (presumably) less op group. So the dm has to ask: what is their enemies' response? Obviously this dhampir is a greater threat, so how will they counter? Will they hire an assassin to take him out? I honestly have no issue with OP's question. But it should be more along the lines of "Here is the PC build, here is the evil organization they are fighting. Here is what the PCs have accomplished. What should this organization send?"
Obviously, the big bad is probably overkill at this point... but if the PCs did enough damage, and thoroughly trounced their defenses, it's possible the organization will not take any chances. So sending in overkill to eliminate him may be story driven.

I mean, it's not out of the question to call in the God Squad when a pesky undead is running loose and giving you trouble. Sure, it might be considered incredibly racist by Dhampirs, but being hunted by paladins and clerics who want to bathe you in positive energy until you stop moving kind of comes with the territory of being a sentient undead. At least, it usually does. Now, I don't know if Luckbringer has any particular way around that, but the God Squad seems like the way to go (A paladin, a pair of good clerics, and a fighter/rogue for all those pesky traps and locked doors that no one else in the party wants to deal with because they're too holy. Alternately a Ranger/Rogue with favored enemy undead for tracking and trap breaking and such).

[EndocrineBandit]

Am i the only one to notice the O.P. has had no interaction with this thread past the posting of it?

[RoboEmperor]

-snip-


-snip-

That's an interesting philosophy. I actually don't agree with this. Having a very good chance to lose battles tends to make players optimize very heavily to ensure their character doesn't die. If my character dies once or twice because of the difficulty of the encounters, I would just flat out build a mega unkillable power house (not TO but very high-op) and end up hogging battles and trivializing encounters, which creates problems obviously, and if the DM tells me to tone it down and roll a weaker character while not making the encounters easier, I'd probably get angry at him saying he's a murder happy DM who enjoys watching PCs die.

Iunno, everyone likes to win and not die or run away with their tail between their legs. If I don't trivialize encounters, then at the very least my character with be unkillable without the DM completely changing every encounter to kill my character specifically.

I'm not saying encounters should be easy, I'm saying they should be fun and winnable, not impossible with escape as the only valid option with a 50:50 chance a PC dies. Escape should only happen if the players mismanaged their resources, they rolled terribly, made a grievous tactical error, or it's a plot-related thing like a preview to the boss you have to kill at the end of the campaign or somethning. The encounters I find fun are the ones where every PC expends virtually all of their resources (including hp) just to barely win it.

[Florian]

@someonenoone11:

You can´t compare that. Systems like Warhammer/Dark Heresy are quite lethal and stay lethal, even when your character gains experience. In a way, they are more heroic than the usual D&D fare as engaging in combat is always risky, no matter the enemy.

What happens is a change of usefulness of certain abilities and tactics. Purely mundane means for scouting, information gathering and social skills drastically raise in comparative power as a first tier of handling combat, followed by pure toughness and the ability to carry a big weapon.

The fun lies in knowing how bad the odds are and still coming out at least alive, victorious if possible.

Taking out a cultist hideout in Dark Heresy is less like a dungeon crawl and more like a police or military op. You gain info on the cult, try to get your hands on the blueprint of the hideout, talk to their arms dealer, scout the perimeter, try to figure out how to cut their power and block their communication, pull rank with the local defense forces to get some additional boots on the ground and maybe get your hand on a light attack vehicle or helicopter, combat drop into the action and let the flash-bangs fly. This is less room-by-room but rather one very large and complicated fight.

[Pleh]

I dunno, everyone likes to win and not die or run away with their tail between their legs.

Snip

The encounters I find fun are the ones where every PC expends virtually all of their resources (including hp) just to barely win it.

As long as you recognize that these statements are about you. They're subjective. It's worth mentioning because there's a chance other players in the scenario feel as you do, but if none of them do, it ends up being irrelevant.

Running away doesn't have to be shameful, it can be simply a tactic. Simple version of this is to start a fight you can't win, retreat, and draw them into a trap. But remember the art of the assassin: you can't expect every hit to go down the planned way. You can't let it ding your reputation for circumstances to go sideways.

Rather, when the mark slips past your fingers, they ought to feel the crushing weight of the contract on their life. They should feel hunted and haunted at all times, not secure that the assassin was inept. Instead they feel lucky that fate spared them once, and wary that the assassin is sure to come again with no promise that fate should be so kind a second time.

And if the foolish mark should make the mistake of laughing at their good fortune, the assassin will grin all the more wickedly as the target chokes on their own blood the next time they meet.

TL;DR: losing a battle doesn't have to be a loss in D&D, it can be just another turn in the story.

[Florian]

TL;DR: losing a battle doesn't have to be a loss in D&D, it can be just another turn in the story.

It´s sad but that´s a bit of a problem when using D&D. The reward mechanics (GP and XP) are geared towards continual success and progress, not for story or drama, at least not RAW.

The Basic Roleplaying System (BRP, d100) has you "mark" any skill the character actively used and make a roll later to see if that skill increased. A try, failure, escape and re-try will have you use more skills and offer more chances of advancement.

Legend of the Five Rings (L5R 4th) is samurai drama and stresses honor and bushido as above "mundane" success or failure. Fighting and losing can actually net you more Glory and a good reputation then simply using overwhelming force to win. Glory in turn is far more powerful than raw personal power and prowess. This reflects the core values of a warrior society.

Simply put, reward mechanics are quite possibly the most powerful means to enhance the fun of the game and help create or support the emerging story. It actually helps of there´s a reward for "losing".

[RoboEmperor]

@Florian
I am a little confused about what you are saying. Perhaps I wasn't clear. I was saying that if encounter difficulties rise so high that there is a good chance PCs die every session, then the players will most likely optimize their characters to be unkillable, especially me, and if the DM gets angry at the fact that he cannot kill PCs and either raise the difficulty even further or tell me to play a weaker character that might die every session, I will leave the table in anger. I'm not comparing anything here.

As for the retreating, I guess it depends. If the goal is to retreat, then by retreating you overcome the encounter and gain full XP, and I am fine with that. If we retreat an encounter because we made a severe tactical error or we rolled really crappy dice, I am fine with that too. So I guess I'm fine with retreating.

@Pleh
Yup, I recognize that these statements are about me. If you like the threat of death and don't mind rolling new characters, sure by all means, I'm just saying, at least the people I played with all intend to keep their characters from levels 1 all the way to 20, wrote hefty backstories, put a lot of thought into their personalities, etc. and PC death ruins their entire day, maybe even ruin an entire week for them, and will start power gaming heavily to prevent another PC death. But again these are all subjective. I know some people who are just in it for the combat, write 0 backstories and just roll new characters after new characters, which is fine, but I figured "normal" D&D players are the roleplay heavy types and the nonroleplay players are the exceptions, so i was saying PC death should be a very rare event and encounters should be winnable challenge and not potentially splatter PCs every session.

That's all I'm saying, higher difficulty encounters that kill PCs results into more optimized power gaming PCs that don't die to those encounters which frustrates the DM who wants PCs to die and as a result increases difficulty even further and in turn PCs optimize further because they don't like dying, and round and round it goes, so unless the players actually enjoy watching their PCs die, you should make encounters not kill PCs without some act of god or immense stupidity and DMs should really not care if they can't kill a really hard to kill PC to avoid this escalation loop.

edit: When I said "let them win" I don't mean let them breeze through everything. Failing and retreating is fine, as long as PC death is rare.

[Guizonde]

@Florian
I am a little confused about what you are saying. Perhaps I wasn't clear. I was saying that if encounter difficulties rise so high that there is a good chance PCs die every session, then the players will most likely optimize their characters to be unkillable, especially me, and if the DM gets angry at the fact that he cannot kill PCs and either raise the difficulty even further or tell me to play a weaker character that might die every session, I will leave the table in anger. I'm not comparing anything here.

As for the retreating, I guess it depends. If the goal is to retreat, then by retreating you overcome the encounter and gain full XP, and I am fine with that. If we retreat an encounter because we made a severe tactical error or we rolled really crappy dice, I am fine with that too. So I guess I'm fine with retreating.

@Pleh
Yup, I recognize that these statements are about me. If you like the threat of death and don't mind rolling new characters, sure by all means, I'm just saying, at least the people I played with all intend to keep their characters from levels 1 all the way to 20, wrote hefty backstories, put a lot of thought into their personalities, etc. and PC death ruins their entire day, maybe even ruin an entire week for them, and will start power gaming heavily to prevent another PC death. But again these are all subjective. I know some people who are just in it for the combat, write 0 backstories and just roll new characters after new characters, which is fine, but I figured "normal" D&D players are the roleplay heavy types and the nonroleplay players are the exceptions, so i was saying PC death should be a very rare event and encounters should be winnable challenge and not potentially splatter PCs every session.

That's all I'm saying, higher difficulty encounters that kill PCs results into more optimized power gaming PCs that don't die to those encounters which frustrates the DM who wants PCs to die and as a result increases difficulty even further and in turn PCs optimize further because they don't like dying, and round and round it goes, so unless the players actually enjoy watching their PCs die, you should make encounters not kill PCs without some act of god or immense stupidity and DMs should really not care if they can't kill a really hard to kill PC to avoid this escalation loop.

edit: When I said "let them win" I don't mean let them breeze through everything. Failing and retreating is fine, as long as PC death is rare.

i only lost two characters ever. one was done in-between sessions by a psycho dm who hated that character, and it still stings years later. the other was a tpk to take down the final boss (we blew out a window to hard vacuum). worth it, honestly, that endgame became legendary. we were on the backfoot, the bbeg was grinning thinking he'd won, and a teammate casually tossed a grenade at the window while we threw out "you can't win if you die too" as a parting quip.

most of our encounters are balanced to be won through brains or balls. either one works, and teams will favor either depending on mood. now, because it's a very lethal system, when i dm, i'm very lenient towards fate points, bionics, surgery, anything to make the pc's suffer short term physical trauma at the expense of long-term mental trauma.

the human tank example above? burned a fate point to survive a fall that broke his back instead of killing him. he got bionic'd so much that he willingly turned into a cyborg. his mental state was... different after that. great rp potential, and the players know that combat is very risky, so they either avoid it or blitz it (read: make sure they get the surprise round and slaughter everything in as little time as possible).

to show how careful my players are, last campaign, they started with between 3 and 4 fate points. after 15 sessions, one was full, two had burned one, and the unluckiest was on his last. to make sure i get the point across to new players, i make them do a pretend fight (which they tend to lose, since "attack attack attack" is not the way to win). starting the character creation process with a gory death (that doesn't count) is a quick way to teach players carefulness.

[Pleh]

@Pleh
Yup, I recognize that these statements are about me. If you like the threat of death and don't mind rolling new characters, sure by all means, I'm just saying, at least the people I played with all intend to keep their characters from levels 1 all the way to 20, wrote hefty backstories, put a lot of thought into their personalities, etc. and PC death ruins their entire day, maybe even ruin an entire week for them, and will start power gaming heavily to prevent another PC death. But again these are all subjective. I know some people who are just in it for the combat, write 0 backstories and just roll new characters after new characters, which is fine, but I figured "normal" D&D players are the roleplay heavy types and the nonroleplay players are the exceptions, so i was saying PC death should be a very rare event and encounters should be winnable challenge and not potentially splatter PCs every session.

That's all I'm saying, higher difficulty encounters that kill PCs results into more optimized power gaming PCs that don't die to those encounters which frustrates the DM who wants PCs to die and as a result increases difficulty even further and in turn PCs optimize further because they don't like dying, and round and round it goes, so unless the players actually enjoy watching their PCs die, you should make encounters not kill PCs without some act of god or immense stupidity and DMs should really not care if they can't kill a really hard to kill PC to avoid this escalation loop.

edit: When I said "let them win" I don't mean let them breeze through everything. Failing and retreating is fine, as long as PC death is rare.

I respect this. I will share for my part that my group doesn't pay much attention to our "odds of success." We tend to focus on meaningful enounters, rather than resources maintenance and game equity. In story based games, sometimes the odds are stacked against you. It'd be a little condescending to never put a tpk scenario on the table.

As long as I can sense and be sure that any difficulty given by my DM is intended to be fun for me rather than at my expense, I can roll a million characters I love and kill every one. Because I can expect each death to still be meaningful and heroic.

[Mehangel]

That's all I'm saying, higher difficulty encounters that kill PCs results into more optimized power gaming PCs that don't die to those encounters which frustrates the DM who wants PCs to die and as a result increases difficulty even further and in turn PCs optimize further because they don't like dying, and round and round it goes, so unless the players actually enjoy watching their PCs die, you should make encounters not kill PCs without some act of god or immense stupidity and DMs should really not care if they can't kill a really hard to kill PC to avoid this escalation loop.

edit: When I said "let them win" I don't mean let them breeze through everything. Failing and retreating is fine, as long as PC death is rare.

I just wanted to say that I have found this to be true. Even I myself am guilty of it. The more difficult an encounter becomes, the more paranoid I as a player become, and the more I optimize a character. I have never really optimized to the point of 'theoretical optimization', but as long as the GM continues to dramatically increase the challenge rating of encounters, the loop continues.

[Eldariel]

I just wanted to say that I have found this to be true. Even I myself am guilty of it. The more difficult an encounter becomes, the more paranoid I as a player become, and the more I optimize a character. I have never really optimized to the point of 'theoretical optimization', but as long as the GM continues to dramatically increase the challenge rating of encounters, the loop continues.

This is much a function of playstyle too. Sandbox is more "you reap what you sow"-kind where players tend to only get as much in over their heads as they themselves cause themselves to, aside from cases of failed information gathering and poor luck. More railroaded games are more in DM control. That said, even there you can avoid the arms race by just putting on the limits on blatantly unplayable stuff (loops, stupid high bonuses, etc.) and then pushing the optimization levers as high as possible - if the PCs optimize to the best of their ability and the DM optimizes NPCs and monsters to match, the game reaches an equilibrium where PC death is quite possible if not likely but PCs are still probably slightly favoured, and most importantly, coming back isn't that tricky (the more you optimize, the easier not-dying to basic death is). Thus character continuity is quite likely even if deaths do occur with some regularity. Aside from the greater degrees of death.

[Pleh]

That said, even there you can avoid the arms race by just putting on the limits on blatantly unplayable stuff (loops, stupid high bonuses, etc.) and then pushing the optimization levers as high as possible - if the PCs optimize to the best of their ability and the DM optimizes NPCs and monsters to match, the game reaches an equilibrium where PC death is quite possible if not likely but PCs are still probably slightly favoured.

This merits a caveat: equilibrium of max optimization only occurs when all players (and especially the DM) possess comparable system mastery.

Carry on.

[Eldariel]

This merits a caveat: equilibrium of max optimization only occurs when all players (and especially the DM) possess comparable system mastery.

Carry on.

Well, it can also be intra-party cooperative activity. But yes, that really helps.

[Deophaun]

There's no reason to get rid of an unkillable player as long as he doesn't derail the game.
Unkillable players are the worst. They keep taunting you with their immortality by setting the place on fire, carrying ebola, and eating the lead figurines. You need to encase them in a block of concrete and dump them in the middle of the Pacific just to get a break.

[DarkSoul]

More encounters. Assuming the luckbringer class is the same one as appears on D20PFSRD, all their abilities can only be used x times a day. You just need to get them to a point where they feel they have to ration their remaining uses. With respect to this character, it sounds like you're in a "15 minute adventuring day" situation more than anything. Don't let them stop and rest after a single encounter and they won't be able to replenish all their powerful abilities.

[katatonic]

Thank you all for the help. Were playing a home brew, so third party stuff applies. I dont necessarily want to kill them just trying to make it more fun. I did read over the sheets before hand and knew what i was getting into just didnt think the campaign would go on this long. He just does anything with no regret because nothing effects him. While other players are cautious he jumps in and gets them almost killed. I just want something for this guy to do really without getting others hurt. A curse or spell or item to make him alive or trap him in something or brainwash. An enemy for him? A blessing to power up other pcs?

[RoboEmperor]

Thank you all for the help. Were playing a home brew, so third party stuff applies. I dont necessarily want to kill them just trying to make it more fun. I did read over the sheets before hand and knew what i was getting into just didnt think the campaign would go on this long. He just does anything with no regret because nothing effects him. While other players are cautious he jumps in and gets them almost killed. I just want something for this guy to do really without getting others hurt. A curse or spell or item to make him alive or trap him in something or brainwash. An enemy for him? A blessing to power up other pcs?

How about the party ditches him the next time he endangers everyone? Assuming the players already told him not to do that again. All of them teleport away leaving the dhampir alone to fend for himself. Other than that all the other PCs kick him from the party, because why would they travel with someone who constantly gets them killed? Players who sadistically enjoy getting their party members killed shouldn't be in a party.