Our Sorceress cannot cast spell

[mistermarv]

Hi all,

I’m seeking advice from more experienced players out there regarding what would the players generally do in this situation.

6 level 7 players are stuck saving a market town from an “old god” cultist who tried to siphon the party’s only arcane spellcaster’s magic. The party’s PC sorceress was caught by the cultist and cuffed with magic manacle that cut her off from the weave and so she cannot cast magic at all, even through subtle spell. The only way to uncuff the manacle is through getting the “old god’s body fluid”.

The party recently freed some of the brainwashed cultist and party will chase the remaining ones to try and free or neutralize those who followed the “old god” on purpose.

Question:
My friend who played the sorceress is not sure on how to proceed, as she cannot use her magic at all and the party plans to chase these cultists within the hour.

Her main concern is:

➢ Cannot do melee at all due to only have STR of 7.
➢ Hand is cuffed magically so cannot use ranged weapon like bows or xbow to reload 2nd shot.
➢ If the party forces her to come as that is the quickest way to remove the manacle all she can do is stealth, help with perception check in battle if some enemies are hiding, or do other ability checks with disadvantage if it involves using her hands

She asked me on what her next course of action should be and she seems stressed now. The only thing that cross my mind is for her to buy alchemist fire so she can throw it at enemy for support in combat while we’re in the market town quickly.

Hoping the forum can provide advice.

[denthor]

Scrolls are not her magic. She can read them.

Wands same

If you get blink she might be able to phase out of the cuffs when off plane. A blink ring allows you to pass through walls your DM may allow this to work. If spell work on her. Fireball still does damage when she is in the area effect. Then a blink may allow her to unchain herself.

[Blackhawk748]

Get her a wand of an offensive spell. Its not her magic she'd be using so she could still contribute in a meaningful way. If your DM rules that she can't use a wand, they are being obtuse.

[DragonBaneDM]

Buying items is good, stuff like caltrops or potions can be used, along with any attunemenr item you can swap over to her (you’ve got the hour). Throwing daggers might be a way to use decent Dex and proficiency bonuses in combat.

The Help action is out there too. It makes the sorceress put herself into danger, but it’s a pretty nice buff for weapon attackers.

But honesty I think it might be time for the Sorceress’s player to talk to the DM and talk about how unfun this has been for them. Hopefully the DM has thought of one or two interesting/tense/story-important moments to use this lack of magic with, and has also thought out some ways for this to get resolved.

Those two having a discussion might help this get stuff back to a fun place faster for everyone, stuff sounds stressful.

[Grod_The_Giant]

But honesty I think it might be time for the Sorceress’s player to talk to the DM and talk about how unfun this has been for them. Hopefully the DM has thought of one or two interesting/tense/story-important moments to use this lack of magic with, and has also thought out some ways for this to get resolved.
This. "Take the PC's powers away from them" is a common story element that's very, very easy to get wrong, and (at least in cases this extreme) really shouldn't be done at all without the player's assent. Doubly so when it's just one out of a large group. If all the casters are disabled for a session, that at least shifts tactics and spotlight in a comprehensive way; doing it to just one character doesn't have the same effect.

[Calimehter]

In fairness to the DM, getting captured by cultists could have easily resulted in all manner of nasty things. Death, disfigurement, brainwashing, etc.. Things could be worse.

Still, those cuffs seem to be an odd bit of work, needing a mcguffin of sorts to unlock.

Has anyone tried Remove Curse?

Can the gauntlets be destroyed at all instead of being unlocked?

If the answer to these is "no", is the DM aware that these things are (or nearly are) artifact level power, and the PCs now own them?

Amputating the lower arms of the sorcereress is an extreme possibility. Regenerate spell would either be available right away if you're high level, or a good quest goal if you are not. If she has subtle spell (which it sounds like she does) and has or can quickly acquire an arcane focus, she can even contribute in combat till said Regenerate spell is cast. If she knows Mage Hand, even better.

[Laserlight]

Point out to the DM that "playing a caster who can't cast" is generally less fun than "staying home and streaming movies". If the DM wants this player to keep showing up, he should think about how to make this situation fun for that player, and communicate that to her now.

One suggestion would be "have her run another character that she wants to run"--perhaps another prisoner who they helped escape. But "that SHE wants to run" is the key element here; the DM should have consulted with the player in advance before springing this.

[Ventruenox]

One unconventional solution could also be to bench that character and play a substitute temporarily. Let the surrogate have an essential role in aiding the return of the Sorceress' powers.

[The_Ditto]

could you hire somebody to cast a disjunction or something on the shackles? (but I'm assuming no "time" from the situation description .. *shrug* )

[Snowbluff]

Get her a wand of an offensive spell. Its not her magic she'd be using so she could still contribute in a meaningful way. If your DM rules that she can't use a wand, they are being obtuse.

Using an item to cast is still casting. The thing says they can't cast.

Real solution: Cut off her arm. Call it a day. Better a one handed sorcerer than a 2 armed commoner. Hire to cast regenerate to taste.

[Unoriginal]

Find a Cleric capable of casting Regeneration, cut off the sorceress's arms, make her regrow the arms.

Since I suppose Remove Curse won't work.

[BreaktheStatue]

Find a Cleric capable of casting Regeneration, cut off the sorceress's arms, make her regrow the arms.

Since I suppose Remove Curse won't work.

I just imagined a funny/messed-up scenario where the cleric turned-out to be a con artist, and now the sorceress is handless and magicless. I imagine the player might quit the game after something like that, though.

[Segev]

Gruesome, but what if the wrist bearing the manacle were cut off?

[Neknoh]

Tell the DM that he is ruining the fun for that player and ask if he wants to drive her away from the group.

He has taken away her character, and either it's malicious, in which case he will have to say so, or it's not intended, in which case he needs to back down.

Otherwise she should bring a new character to the table or stay at home until it's fixed.

The DM is being an *******, wether intentional or not. This could permanently damage the way that player feels about playing with the rest of you and should be talked about as soon as possible.


Also: watch the manacles magically protect the arms or attach to the regrown ones if you try to cut the arms off.

[Skylivedk]

They can't be uncuffed, but what about Enlarge/reduce her out of the cuffs? If that can't work, put her in the heaviest armour available, give her utility items (caltrops, potions, healer's kit) and a weapon. The weapon is just so that she looks more convincing as a warrior... Might serve as a distraction/get her targeted slightly less

[Aelyn]

Has this been affecting her for multiple sessions already, or did this happen at the end of the last session? Based on the description, it sounds like it's only just happened.

My advice: Buy her some alchemist's fire / potions etc, then trust the DM for one session (he may have a plan to keep her useful, after all)

Alternatively, see if you can buy a Potion of Reduction. If she shrinks yo half her normal size, she may be able to just slip out of the manacles nice and easily.

If it's been multiple sessions, or the DM has said (OOC) that he doesn't have a specific plan, then it's time to bring it up OOC.

[JackPhoenix]

Leave her at home and let the player make a different character until the problem is solved.

[Asmotherion]

Remove a caster's magic and it's effectivelly the same as having the martials play for a couple of sessions after you cut off their hands (there's spells to fix that; the DM won't say when you'll meet an NPC able to cast them).

Some people appreciate this amount of realism after an intense battle. Others don't. Nobody appreciates to be railroaded into it though.

My concern with this plot is that it does seem railroaded rather than something that happened because of a bad decission out of player agency. Thus the player should not have to feel "punished" and unable to contribute to combat just because the DM thought "this creates a better narrative".

That said perhaps the player in question was focusing too much in combat encounters and the DM wants them to start Role Playing a bit more?

[Unoriginal]

I just imagined a funny/messed-up scenario where the cleric turned-out to be a con artist, and now the sorceress is handless and magicless. I imagine the player might quit the game after something like that, though.

"It was just an armless prank, but then things got out of hand."

[Rukelnikov]

Has this been affecting her for multiple sessions already, or did this happen at the end of the last session? Based on the description, it sounds like it's only just happened.

My advice: Buy her some alchemist's fire / potions etc, then trust the DM for one session (he may have a plan to keep her useful, after all)

Alternatively, see if you can buy a Potion of Reduction. If she shrinks yo half her normal size, she may be able to just slip out of the manacles nice and easily.

If it's been multiple sessions, or the DM has said (OOC) that he doesn't have a specific plan, then it's time to bring it up OOC.

One of the most reasonable answers.

Everyone is jumping on the DM for putting an obstacle in the PCs way... I sincerely don't get why being 1 or 2 sessions without being able to cast is so terrible, actually seems like a good opportunity for character growth.

Anyways, the item seems to be based or, or really similar to a 3.x item, the manacles were adamantine and created an bodytight antimagic field around the manacled person, so magic will probably not work, also I get the impression that the DM is not expecting for her to be uncuffed before you chase the cultists. In combat she can still use the Aid action, though that would put her perilously close to the enemies. Maybe... darts or throwing daggers, I doubt any kind of weapon is "handcuffs friendly".

[Draconi Redfir]

embrace it. have the sorcerer pick up something else to help. Maybe you can get ahold of a sling and some alchemists fire that she can hurl around in combat, even with her hands cuffed, she should still get a good amount of range.

Or get her a decent medkit and let her run around the battlefield bandaging minor wounds that the cleric can't tend too.

Maybe now would be the perfect time for some ranks in knowledge (Engineering) to come up. Magic may be out of the picture, but technology is still fair game.


i can't say i agree with everyone else that removing her magic is "ruining the fun". "Ruining the fun" would be killing every enemy before you had the chance to even fight them. This is what's known as an obstacle or a conflict. the fun comes from thinking outside the box and working around it, and learning a bit about your character in the process.

If it helps any, Thunderstone + Metal pipe + trigger mechanism = Sound gun.

Tindertwig + Smokestick = long-lasting smoke-bomb

Alchemist fire + Sling = ranged AOE

pipe + Dart dipped in acid, poison, or other substance = effective acid splash or other ranged attack.

Bag of sand + Enemy's eyes = blindness.

Bag of spiders = Fear tactics.


Find some spells your sorceress commonly uses, and think of how they can be replicated using mundane or alchemichal means. You may find something fun and effective at the same time! OR go for something she doesn't commonly do at all, let her experience something new before going back to what she knows.

this is nothing short of an opportunity. Go with it. Don't fight the punches you're given, roll with them.

[Neknoh]

If the DM doesn't allow the PC to use a crossbow because "loading requires both hands", then I doubt the DM would let them use any kind of contraption.

And yes, you can load a crossbow with manacles, since the loading action of heavier bows usually involve putting a foot through a stirrup and pulling on the strings with both hands.

[ImproperJustice]

My suggestion would be for her to go hang out with friends/family and watch some good movies or play a solid video Game like Breath of the Wild or Horizon Zero Dawn.
At least until the GM is finished uaing her character as an NPC.

Can I ask: Has he targeted other PCs in a similar fashion of making them dead weight for whole sessions?


It’s kinda like when your playing Axis & Allies war in the Pacific with the full 8 player expansion.
It is common courtesy to tell the United States player who will go last, that they can leave after Japan takes their initial turn, because it’s gonna be a good 6-8 hours after that until their turn comes around.

[Blackhawk748]

One of the most reasonable answers.

Everyone is jumping on the DM for putting an obstacle in the PCs way... I sincerely don't get why being 1 or 2 sessions without being able to cast is so terrible, actually seems like a good opportunity for character growth.

Anyways, the item seems to be based or, or really similar to a 3.x item, the manacles were adamantine and created an bodytight antimagic field around the manacled person, so magic will probably not work, also I get the impression that the DM is not expecting for her to be uncuffed before you chase the cultists. In combat she can still use the Aid action, though that would put her perilously close to the enemies. Maybe... darts or throwing daggers, I doubt any kind of weapon is "handcuffs friendly".

Because this isn't just an obstacle, this is "You are now a commoner" A sorcerer without casting has no class features, and can barely contribute. Combine this with the fact that they can't use ranged weapons (for some reason, Manacles don't restrain your movements to the point where a crossbow is impossible to use, unless there is no chain in between the cuffs), and the fact that it sounds like she didn't do anything wrong or stupid and Im getting red flags here.

As someone pointed out, this would be like chopping off both of the Fighter's hands and then making them wait an entire session to get that fixed. Except that the Fighter in that scenario can at least walk up in melee and do the Aid action because, unlike the Sorcerer here, tey actually have decent HP and AC. If the Sorcerer were to do that, it would probably be a death sentence.

[Draconi Redfir]

If the DM doesn't allow the PC to use a crossbow because "loading requires both hands", then I doubt the DM would let them use any kind of contraption.

And yes, you can load a crossbow with manacles, since the loading action of heavier bows usually involve putting a foot through a stirrup and pulling on the strings with both hands.

something like the Repeating Crossbow (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment/weapons/weapon-descriptions/crossbow-repeating-heavy/) where it holds multiple shots could work. She might need assistance per reload, but other then that it'd be fine.

and i really doubt the DM would prevent them from using "any kind of contraption". So long as it's not one that requires you to separate your hands very far you should be fine. Might even be able to explain the crossbow as fine with what you described there, using your foot and two hands together.

some people just get the mental image of holding the crossbow with one hand and reloading it with the other by placing the bolt in the slot and pulling it back with the string. not exactly an uncommon trope.


A sorcerer without casting has no class features, and can barely contribute.

then you FIND ways to contribute. that's the challenge, that's what you need to overcome.

[Unoriginal]

then you FIND ways to contribute. that's the challenge, that's what you need to overcome.

Cutting off the appendage is overcoming it.

A Sorcerer's magic is just as part of their bodies as their limbs, but if the hand's already too restrained to be able to use a crossbow (or any ranged weapon, according to OP) it's the choice between carrying dead weight and the use of your body.

[Max_Killjoy]

Buying items is good, stuff like caltrops or potions can be used, along with any attunemenr item you can swap over to her (you’ve got the hour). Throwing daggers might be a way to use decent Dex and proficiency bonuses in combat.

The Help action is out there too. It makes the sorceress put herself into danger, but it’s a pretty nice buff for weapon attackers.

But honesty I think it might be time for the Sorceress’s player to talk to the DM and talk about how unfun this has been for them. Hopefully the DM has thought of one or two interesting/tense/story-important moments to use this lack of magic with, and has also thought out some ways for this to get resolved.

Those two having a discussion might help this get stuff back to a fun place faster for everyone, stuff sounds stressful.


This. "Take the PC's powers away from them" is a common story element that's very, very easy to get wrong, and (at least in cases this extreme) really shouldn't be done at all without the player's assent. Doubly so when it's just one out of a large group. If all the casters are disabled for a session, that at least shifts tactics and spotlight in a comprehensive way; doing it to just one character doesn't have the same effect.


My suggestion would be for her to go hang out with friends/family and watch some good movies or play a solid video Game like Breath of the Wild or Horizon Zero Dawn.
At least until the GM is finished uaing her character as an NPC.

Can I ask: Has he targeted other PCs in a similar fashion of making them dead weight for whole sessions?


Yeah, either we're missing something or this is a jerk move by the DM.

[Laserlight]

Everyone is jumping on the DM for putting an obstacle in the PCs way... I sincerely don't get why being 1 or 2 sessions without being able to cast is so terrible

The next two sessions you play, don't use any of your class features. Then tell us whether it was fun.

Even then, you're better off than this player, because you're the one deciding to be ineffective, the DM didn't arbitrarily dump on you.

[Mad_Saulot]

Removing player agency without somekind of out of character arrangement is cruel, but it depends how long its been, has she been incapacitated for multiple sessions or was it literally the end of last session?

If the latter then I'd trust that the DM has somekind of dramatic but cool schtick to play but to me this sounds arbitrary esp considering your other spellcasters are fine.

Although as someone else pointed out this gauntlet thingy sounds like its uber powerful, and therefor valuable, though it just sounds to me like the DM is being an cockwomble.

I would never do this to a player without a mutual plan for dramatic RP reasons.

I'd be interested to hear how this went, please keep us informed.

[Draconi Redfir]

So when you guys are playing a video game like tomb raider or just cause or whatever, and you enter one of those story missions where your character is knocked out and imprisoned, and you need to carefully make your way out of the enemy stronghold with just your wits and the enviroment around you, maybe slowly gaining your equipment back along the way, maybe just getting it all back at the very end...

... do you guys just quit the game at that point? :smallconfused: because that's kind of what it sounds like so far.

Games do that not only to change things up and give you something new to experience, but also so you can get an epic revenge scene and go on a kill-frenzy when you finally get all your stuff back. But so far it sounds like the moment anything remotely interesting happens that you're not in 100% control of, you just quit and call the game BS.

[Max_Killjoy]

So when you guys are playing a video game like tomb raider or just cause or whatever, and you enter one of those story missions where your character is knocked out and imprisoned, and you need to carefully make your way out of the enemy stronghold with just your wits and the enviroment around you, maybe slowly gaining your equipment back along the way, maybe just getting it all back at the very end...

... do you guys just quit the game at that point? :smallconfused: because that's kind of what it sounds like so far.


I have, yes, especially when it's done as an unavoidable cutscene moment, and doubly especially when that cutscene shows something happening that I know I could avoid easily while actively playing the character.

Those moments are so contrived and loathsome that I've not even purchased video games when I've known about it ahead of time.

[ImproperJustice]

So when you guys are playing a video game like tomb raider or just cause or whatever, and you enter one of those story missions where your character is knocked out and imprisoned, and you need to carefully make your way out of the enemy stronghold with just your wits and the enviroment around you, maybe slowly gaining your equipment back along the way, maybe just getting it all back at the very end...

... do you guys just quit the game at that point? :smallconfused: because that's kind of what it sounds like so far.

Games do that not only to change things up and give you something new to experience, but also so you can get an epic revenge scene and go on a kill-frenzy when you finally get all your stuff back. But so far it sounds like the moment anything remotely interesting happens that you're not in 100% control of, you just quit and call the game BS.

No. That sounds exciting and engaging!

I quit when the game takes over and forces me into a 16 hour cutscene as a spectator while my buds all get to play and have a good time next to me.

See the difference?

We have one PC, specifically targeted to be a potato for more than one whole game session while everyone else is able to play the game as normal.
And the reason is for vaguely designed plot reasons?

Honest moment, is it worth your time to sit through 1-2 multi-hour game sessions where you do almost nothing while everyone else gets to play?
And maybe that is ok with some folks.
Our group would certainly not.

[Solusek]

She asked me on what her next course of action should be and she seems stressed now. The only thing that cross my mind is for her to buy alchemist fire so she can throw it at enemy for support in combat while we’re in the market town quickly.

Alchemists fire is a good idea. Presumably the next step is the group going to get her powers restored. Sounds like she is the focus of the quest right now and everyone is going to be working together to "rescue" her powers. How cool. Tell her to just chill and wait for the story to unfold and the character to get her powers back.

A lot of people in this thread coming off as overly whiny and gamist for my tastes. D&D is as much a storytelling adventure as it is a combat simulator. Tell her to let this part of the story unfold and she can have the characters combat simulation powers back soon. Relax.

[Draconi Redfir]

I have, yes, especially when it's done as an unavoidable cutscene moment, and doubly especially when that cutscene shows something happening that I know I could avoid easily while actively playing the character.

Those moments are so contrived and loathsome that I've not even purchased video games when I've known about it ahead of time.

that explains some things then.


No. That sounds exciting and engaging!

I quit when the game takes over and forces me into a 16 hour cutscene as a spectator while my buds all get to play and have a good time next to me.

See the difference?

Expect none of that is happening. the player STILL HAS full control of her character. She can move, think, talk, act, and do anything within reason of two limitations: It's can't be magic, and her hands can't be more then X distance from one another. That's completely different then "a 16 hour cutscene as a spectator"

you just need to put in a little bit of thought and effort into what you can do. patch some wounds, work with some alchemichal items, hell spend a round sharpening the fighter's sword so he has one more action available to him when he charges in.

like i said in the last page, technology and alchemy still exists, they are still viable options. the challenge is THINKING about it and putting in the EFFORT to make the best of the situation. Way i see it you have two options in that situation.

1. Sit down, whine about how you don't get to do anything, and annoy both yourself, and everyone around you

or 2. Figure out how to roll with the punches, but in some effort, and think outside the box to do something you wouldn't before.

one is significantly more engaging then the other. why you'd choose the one that isn't is beyond me.

edit: Also pretty much everything Solusek said up there @^ from what we've heard, this is a relatively new thing that's barely begun. no sense in calling the DM a hack for leaving the session on a cliffhanger.

[Max_Killjoy]

Alchemists fire is a good idea. Presumably the next step is the group going to get her powers restored. Sounds like she is the focus of the quest right now and everyone is going to be working together to "rescue" her powers. How cool. Tell her to just chill and wait for the story to unfold and the character to get her powers back.

A lot of people in this thread coming off as overly whiny and gamist for my tastes. D&D is as much a storytelling adventure as it is a combat simulator. Tell her to let this part of the story unfold and she can have the characters combat simulation powers back soon. Relax.

Yeah, so "gamist" to object to PCs being arbitrarily depowered.

This sort of "but the story needs to unfold" snobbery is exactly why some of us distrust story-focused gaming so much, and how story-focused gaming gets its reputation for being so vulnerable to railroading GMs. The player is under no obligation to set aside their own active engagement, and wait for the GM to finish telling this part of the GM's precious little story.

[Draconi Redfir]

Yeah, so "gamist" to object to PCs being arbitrarily depowered.

This sort of "but the story needs to unfold" snobbery is exactly why some of us distrust story-focused gaming so much, and how story-focused gaming gets its reputation for being so vulnerable to railroading GMs. The player is under no obligation to set aside their own active engagement, and wait for the GM to finish telling this part of the GM's precious little story.

i mean what's the alternative?

"You stand in the middle of the field. you've got goblins to your left, and kobolds to your right, have fun"

and then the DM just walks away?

there is no Lack of engagement happening. the Sorceress is still there, she is still engaged and playing a role. a (temporary) limitation is not nearly a "this character is dead now" as you keep making it out to be.

[Erys]

Yeah, so "gamist" to object to PCs being arbitrarily depowered.

This sort of "but the story needs to unfold" snobbery is exactly why some of us distrust story-focused gaming so much, and how story-focused gaming gets its reputation for being so vulnerable to railroading GMs. The player is under no obligation to set aside their own active engagement, and wait for the GM to finish telling this part of the GM's precious little story.

Guess it all depends on how much you trust your DM...

Sometimes a DM is too story sensitive and you fall out of line you don't get 'narratively weaker' you get punished- and that is wrong.

Sometimes the "GM's precious little story" is deep and engaging, you are part of a bigger story and, sometimes, during that story one or more players have to overcome adversity like what the player in the OP is dealing with. If you think the story can only be fun when you and your fellow PCs are always full strength and never have any real challenge past a CR... then you are losing out on a lot of what RPGs in general can offer.

[Max_Killjoy]

i mean what's the alternative?

"You stand in the middle of the field. you've got goblins to your left, and kobolds to your right, have fun"

and then the DM just walks away?

there is no Lack of engagement happening. the Sorceress is still there, she is still engaged and playing a role. a (temporary) limitation is not nearly a "this character is dead now" as you keep making it out to be.

Yes of course, the only other alternative to anything must be the opposite extreme.

(And no one is making it out as if the Sorcerer in question is dead.)

[JackPhoenix]

you just need to put in a little bit of thought and effort into what you can do. patch some wounds, work with some alchemichal items, hell spend a round sharpening the fighter's sword so he has one more action available to him when he charges in.

like i said in the last page, technology and alchemy still exists, they are still viable options. the challenge is THINKING about it and putting in the EFFORT to make the best of the situation.

Let's go through your "viable options" then.


embrace it. have the sorcerer pick up something else to help. Maybe you can get ahold of a sling and some alchemists fire that she can hurl around in combat, even with her hands cuffed, she should still get a good amount of range.
Alchemist fire + Sling = ranged AOE

Sling, per the ammunition property, requires two free hands to use reload. And the sorceress apparently can't use ranged weapons per OP (I mean, how are you using a sling when your hands are tied?). Flask of alchemist's fire is also much heavier and larger than a sling bullet, and it's 50 gp per flask. And while sorcerers are proficient with slings, her Dex modifier is likely worse than her Cha.


Or get her a decent medkit and let her run around the battlefield bandaging minor wounds that the cleric can't tend too.

Doesn't do anything unless she's got a feat for it. She can stabilize people once they drop to 0 hp... if the GM allows it when she can't properly use her hands. Or she can try to feed them 50 gp healing potions. Hope she's very wealthy, and that stuff is available in whatever town she's in.


Maybe now would be the perfect time for some ranks in knowledge (Engineering) to come up. Magic may be out of the picture, but technology is still fair game.


No such things exist. And even if it did, unless she invested her proficiency in pretty much useless skill during character creation, it wouldn't help her when she was made useless who-knows-how-far into the game.


If it helps any, Thunderstone + Metal pipe + trigger mechanism = Sound gun.
Tindertwig + Smokestick = long-lasting smoke-bomb

No such thing as thunderstone. Or smokestick. Or tindertwig.


pipe + Dart dipped in acid, poison, or other substance = effective acid splash or other ranged attack.

Being non-proficient with blowgun, requiring two hands to use it (ammunition property again) and the price of poison (100 gp for a vial of the cheapest, pretty much useless stuff) makes it both non-effective and non-efficient. Acid is cheaper at 25 gp per flask, but dipping blowgun darts in acid is a nice way to destroy the darts. Again, assuming she can get that stuff where she is in the first place.


Bag of sand + Enemy's eyes = blindness.

Improvised weapon, so no proficiency. No called shots, and the whole thing is entirely up to the GM's decision. OP's GM doesn't sound like the type to make good decisions.


Bag of spiders = Fear tactics.

Where does she get a bag of spiders? What good are they in a bag, and why aren't they dead after she trows it? Also, improvised weapon again.


spend a round sharpening the fighter's sword so he has one more action available to him when he charges in.

What is that supposed to accomplish?


this is nothing short of an opportunity. Go with it. Don't fight the punches you're given, roll with them.

Yes, opportunity to be a liability in combat situation, as she can't contribute to defeating enemies or protect herself properly.

[Rukelnikov]

Because this isn't just an obstacle, this is "You are now a commoner" A sorcerer without casting has no class features, and can barely contribute. Combine this with the fact that they can't use ranged weapons (for some reason, Manacles don't restrain your movements to the point where a crossbow is impossible to use, unless there is no chain in between the cuffs), and the fact that it sounds like she didn't do anything wrong or stupid and Im getting red flags here.

As someone pointed out, this would be like chopping off both of the Fighter's hands and then making them wait an entire session to get that fixed. Except that the Fighter in that scenario can at least walk up in melee and do the Aid action because, unlike the Sorcerer here, tey actually have decent HP and AC. If the Sorcerer were to do that, it would probably be a death sentence.

Hasn't this ever happened to you? Haven't you ever had gimped characters? I have gone thru it as a player, and dealt it as a DM, and has never felt like an outrageous moment, it's not like she's dead, in which case I could see being bothered by it.

My group plays with Lingering Injuries (DMG 272), so ftrs losing hands, and rangers losing eyes isn't uncommon.

Its as if the game was solely about combat, she can still do stuff, she can still do almost anything she could beforehand, just isn't as useful in combat as she used to be, if you are playing a wargame, then sure, my caster is gimped (momentarily), but this is a roleplaying game.


The next two sessions you play, don't use any of your class features. Then tell us whether it was fun.

Even then, you're better off than this player, because you're the one deciding to be ineffective, the DM didn't arbitrarily dump on you.

A couple years after 4th ed came out, our FR setting reached the time of the spellplague, and we played thru that, I was a semi-retired elven high mage bladesinger, (more focused on magic than melee by that point), and I spent the entire arc (~15-20 sessions) almost unable to cast spells, we found a couple vishanti artifacts that allowed 2 spells per day, and could sometimes with great difficulty cast some very low level spells, 3rd lvl or below.

EDIT: We were still playing 3.x

It was part of the story, and the party had to figure what to do with it.

[Grod_The_Giant]

So when you guys are playing a video game like tomb raider or just cause or whatever, and you enter one of those story missions where your character is knocked out and imprisoned, and you need to carefully make your way out of the enemy stronghold with just your wits and the enviroment around you, maybe slowly gaining your equipment back along the way, maybe just getting it all back at the very end...

... do you guys just quit the game at that point? :smallconfused: because that's kind of what it sounds like so far.

Games do that not only to change things up and give you something new to experience, but also so you can get an epic revenge scene and go on a kill-frenzy when you finally get all your stuff back. But so far it sounds like the moment anything remotely interesting happens that you're not in 100% control of, you just quit and call the game BS.
Sure, that sort of thing can be fun. But this isn't the same. This is "you're playing a co-op game and you enter a mission where only one player gets all their weapons taken away." That could work, if the level is designed so that they can, oh, sneak along a parallel path helping their buddies...but it could also fail miserably if it just turns the whole thing into an escort mission where the victim has to stand back and watch the whole time. "Anti-magic gauntlets" aren't inherently wrong, but they are associated enough with bad, railroad-y GMs to raise questions.

No-one's saying "cry and complain to the DM," just... talk to them. Say "hey, I'm stressed about this thing, can we talk about it? Can you give me a sense of what you envisioned?"


Its as if the game was solely about combat, she can still do stuff, she can still do almost anything she could beforehand, just isn't as useful in combat as she used to be, if you are playing a wargame, then sure, my caster is gimped (momentarily), but this is a roleplaying game.
Worth noting-- not just has she lost her magic, she's also handcuffed. Social stuff is also going to be penalized, because who's going to listen to someone in cuffs? Stealth is also going to be penalized, because rattly chains and difficulty using your hands and all that. "Using your environment" in general is going to be hard, because you're handcuffed. There's a reason that manacles are used to imprison people, not as fashion accessories.

[Unoriginal]

So when you guys are playing a video game like tomb raider or just cause or whatever, and you enter one of those story missions where your character is knocked out and imprisoned, and you need to carefully make your way out of the enemy stronghold with just your wits and the enviroment around you, maybe slowly gaining your equipment back along the way, maybe just getting it all back at the very end...

... do you guys just quit the game at that point? :smallconfused: because that's kind of what it sounds like so far.

A video game isn't a tabletop RPG. In a video game, you can die and retry and learn, and the challenge is to get your skills up to the point where you can do the task. None of this applies to D&D.

And this isn't just "lose your equipment for one mission", it's "you're locked in manacles that hinder everything you try to do with your hands and you can't use any of your class features."

[Erys]

Sure, that sort of thing can be fun. But this isn't the same. This is "you're playing a co-op game and you enter a mission where only one player gets all their weapons taken away." That could work, if the level is designed so that they can, oh, sneak along a parallel path helping their buddies...but it could also fail miserably if it just turns the whole thing into an escort mission where the victim has to stand back and watch the whole time. "Anti-magic gauntlets" aren't inherently wrong, but they are associated enough with bad, railroad-y GMs to raise questions.

No-one's saying "cry and complain to the DM," just... talk to them. Say "hey, I'm stressed about this thing, can we talk about it? Can you give me a sense of what you envisioned?"


Worth noting-- not just has she lost her magic, she's also handcuffed. Social stuff is also going to be penalized, because who's going to listen to someone in cuffs? Stealth is also going to be penalized, because rattly chains and difficulty using your hands and all that. "Using your environment" in general is going to be hard, because you're handcuffed. There's a reason that manacles are used to imprison people, not as fashion accessories.

Social situations shouldn't be that impacted, cover the handcuffs to look like some kind of fashionable muff (hand warmer) or similar- no reason any NPC would know otherwise (generally). Plus, if the market that is being saved is where the social encounters are: they probably will be in on why she is cuffed and be more likely to help considering the circumstances.

Stealth shouldn't be impacted either, imho. If it is a long chain, you can cinch it so it doesn't make noise.

Hopefully the DM is wise enough to have some wand or similar item available in the market place so the Sorcerer isn't completely SoL during the next games chapter. If not, she can use that Cha as a means to be the bait, drawing cultist/enemies into areas for the party to move swift against them.

[Laserlight]

OP said the sorc player is already stressed about it and asking what to do, which indicates that "trust in the DM" and "relax and accept it" are not really good answers for that particular player.

I'd advise talking to the DM before the next session. That way the sorc player feels less anxiety, and has time to build an alt character if that's the way she and the DM decide to handle it.

[BreaktheStatue]

OP said the sorc player is already stressed about it and asking what to do, which indicates that "trust in the DM" and "relax and accept it" are not really good answers for that particular player.

I'd advise talking to the DM before the next session. That way the sorc player feels less anxiety, and has time to build an alt character if that's the way she and the DM decide to handle it.

This is the kind of plot device that would have been great to run if the sorceress' player was going on vacation for a week or two and needed a reason to not contribute.

But I don't think it's something I would have done without talking to the player first. Some people might enjoy the challenge, others just find it a waste of their time.

[Teaguethebean]

So when you guys are playing a video game like tomb raider or just cause or whatever, and you enter one of those story missions where your character is knocked out and imprisoned, and you need to carefully make your way out of the enemy stronghold with just your wits and the enviroment around you, maybe slowly gaining your equipment back along the way, maybe just getting it all back at the very end...

... do you guys just quit the game at that point? :smallconfused: because that's kind of what it sounds like so far.

Games do that not only to change things up and give you something new to experience, but also so you can get an epic revenge scene and go on a kill-frenzy when you finally get all your stuff back. But so far it sounds like the moment anything remotely interesting happens that you're not in 100% control of, you just quit and call the game BS.

But does the video game give you other characters that are way stronger than you for the whole mission

[Erys]

This is the kind of plot device that would have been great to run if the sorceress' player was going on vacation for a week or two and needed a reason to not contribute.

So very true.

I love working in these kinds of plots to justify absent PCs.

[Blackhawk748]

So when you guys are playing a video game like tomb raider or just cause or whatever, and you enter one of those story missions where your character is knocked out and imprisoned, and you need to carefully make your way out of the enemy stronghold with just your wits and the enviroment around you, maybe slowly gaining your equipment back along the way, maybe just getting it all back at the very end...

... do you guys just quit the game at that point? :smallconfused: because that's kind of what it sounds like so far.

Games do that not only to change things up and give you something new to experience, but also so you can get an epic revenge scene and go on a kill-frenzy when you finally get all your stuff back. But so far it sounds like the moment anything remotely interesting happens that you're not in 100% control of, you just quit and call the game BS.

There is slowly gaining your stuff back because you broke out of your cell, and what is going on here. This would be like me trying to go through a Skyrim dungeon with my lvl 50 Mage and having no Magika. Is that possible? Yes. Is that going to be fun for me? No, because my character doesn't have the abilities to pull this off.

Lara is a Rogue, her pulling off improv and stealth is part of her character. Trying to go through a dungeon with your arms almost literally tied behind your back is altogether different

Edit:

Hasn't this ever happened to you? Haven't you ever had gimped characters? I have gone thru it as a player, and dealt it as a DM, and has never felt like an outrageous moment, it's not like she's dead, in which case I could see being bothered by it.

My group plays with Lingering Injuries (DMG 272), so ftrs losing hands, and rangers losing eyes isn't uncommon.

Its as if the game was solely about combat, she can still do stuff, she can still do almost anything she could beforehand, just isn't as useful in combat as she used to be, if you are playing a wargame, then sure, my caster is gimped (momentarily), but this is a roleplaying game.

I've played cahracters who had to deal with having Bestow Curse or otehr long term debuffs stuck on them before, but thats having a pile of negatives not, "Here is a massive list of things you can't do because you hands are literally tied".

And no she can't "Do almost anything she could do before" She can't cast spells (90% of her character) she can't use ranged weapons, and she can't spread her arms more than a foot apart (tops) because SHE'S HANDCUFFED! And if she can't operate a crossbow, or any other ranged weapon as per WoG then I imagine that they look a lot like this:


http://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/S3kAAOSw-jhUDgfq/s-l300.jpg


Ya, have fun being useful wearing those, cuz remember, those where invented to stop people from doing things.

[Throne12]

Using an item to cast is still casting. The thing says they can't cast.

Real solution: Cut off her arm. Call it a day. Better a one handed sorcerer than a 2 armed commoner. Hire to cast regenerate to taste.

Nooo! Using a wand of magic missile is not casting it a use object action.

[Haydensan]

@OP

Probably been mentioned but I'm on my phone so may have missed it, but what level is the group and the PC specifically?

[mistermarv]

First of all, thank you to all who responded to this thread.

There are further updates regarding this situation and it is as follows:

The DM told some of us that we are entering a plot arc for her character. Which is why he has decided to shackled her magic down. I personally do not know what her character’s background story is aside from blowing up her own house and realizing she has arcane powers – this is her first D&D campaign although we have run the campaign for almost 1 year.

I would still like to believe my DM has good intention and is trying in his own way to make her role player her character more as she shines the best when in combat. She tries hard to role-play, but at the same time still shy and nervous and trying her best not to Meta game which is something I appreciate very much.

In regards to her situation for the coming Friday:
➢ The next session this coming Friday will be the 4th session she cannot use magic. Currently, she only has a dagger as weapon and a 1 shot crossbow because she can’t reload – she reloads the crossbow outside of combat.

➢ The manacles, although prevents her from using magic, will also prevent magic being used on her. So a fireball’s explosion will curve around her if she stands within the blast radius. In the same manner, Remove Curse and Cure Wounds will also not affect her if cast by myself (Paladin of Bahamut) and our Cleric (of Lathander).

➢ Unlikely to find someone who can cast Regenerate if we cut off her hands – was suggested by DM’s girlfriend (uncertain if just a joke or real jab at the sorceress's player). All PC characters is at level 7 right now.

➢ She tried something creative to make her arms bigger via “Alter Self” (She pretends to be a female version of “the rock” sorcerer) before in the hopes that when the manacles locked in by the cultist, she could shrink her arms afterward and slid it out. Unfortunately DM ruled that the manacles shrink to fit her wrist.

➢ In about 1 hour in-game time we will start chasing the runaway cultist so she wouldn’t have plenty of time to do shopping at leisure.

From the current situation and discussion in this forum, I will suggest her to buy:
- Alchemist Fire and Daggers to throw at enemies (her DEX is 14) so she wouldn’t feel useless in combat.
- Acid Vials and other items (She has a bag of holding and about 1,000 gold to spend).
- Scrolls and Wands (If DM permitted to cast spells through it)

Are there other items or things that she could buy to defend herself or assist the party? I can only think of

[mistermarv]

@OP

Probably been mentioned but I'm on my phone so may have missed it, but what level is the group and the PC specifically?

Hi Haydensan,

We are all at level 7. Currently, we have very minimum magic items or equipments. Our sorceress only have her bag of holding as her only magic item.

[mistermarv]

In fairness to the DM, getting captured by cultists could have easily resulted in all manner of nasty things. Death, disfigurement, brainwashing, etc.. Things could be worse.

Still, those cuffs seem to be an odd bit of work, needing a mcguffin of sorts to unlock.

Has anyone tried Remove Curse?

Can the gauntlets be destroyed at all instead of being unlocked?

If the answer to these is "no", is the DM aware that these things are (or nearly are) artifact level power, and the PCs now own them?

Amputating the lower arms of the sorcereress is an extreme possibility. Regenerate spell would either be available right away if you're high level, or a good quest goal if you are not. If she has subtle spell (which it sounds like she does) and has or can quickly acquire an arcane focus, she can even contribute in combat till said Regenerate spell is cast. If she knows Mage Hand, even better.

Thank you for your reply. The manacles prevents her from using magic, but at the same time magic itself will not work on her. From what DM describes, if a fireball explodes in front of her the blast will curve around her body causing no harm although other people caught in the blast will still get hurt.

Currently, as we are at level 7, i don't think someone with Regenerate will suddenly appears out of the blue to open the manacles for her.

[mistermarv]

My suggestion would be for her to go hang out with friends/family and watch some good movies or play a solid video Game like Breath of the Wild or Horizon Zero Dawn.
At least until the GM is finished uaing her character as an NPC.

Can I ask: Has he targeted other PCs in a similar fashion of making them dead weight for whole sessions?


It’s kinda like when your playing Axis & Allies war in the Pacific with the full 8 player expansion.
It is common courtesy to tell the United States player who will go last, that they can leave after Japan takes their initial turn, because it’s gonna be a good 6-8 hours after that until their turn comes around.

As of today, everyone are still able to contribute in combat specifically designed for their class. As for the last 2 character arc story (her's being the 3rd apparently) none of the character is being de-powered as big as her's.

[Kadesh]

Nooo! Using a wand of magic missile is not casting it a use object action.


While holding it, you can use an action to expend 1 or more of its Charges to cast the Magic Missile spell from it.
No, it quite explicitly is casting.

[Mad_Saulot]

wait, she's literally immune to enemy magic?

Assuming an enemy spellcaster isnt armed and armoured she could charge the cultist or whatever with impunity and stab them in the face, can she holda short spear while she charges an enemy spell caster?

I still maintain however that doing this to a shy newcommer is cruel, I suspect there is something else going on, does the DMs girlfriend have beef with this girl?

If she's already put up with if for 3 sessions one would hope she is nearing the end of her (punishment?)

Cheers for the update, this situation is very interesting.

[ImproperJustice]

wait, she's literally immune to enemy magic?

Assuming an enemy spellcaster isnt armed and armoured she could charge the cultist or whatever with impunity and stab them in the face, can she holda short spear while she charges an enemy spell caster?

I still maintain however that doing this to a shy newcommer is cruel, I suspect there is something else going on, does the DMs girlfriend have beef with this girl?

If she's already put up with if for 3 sessions one would hope she is nearing the end of her (punishment?)

Cheers for the update, this situation is very interesting.

I bet immunity to magic could have some plot point that could be helpful.

A Sorceror trying to melee someone while manacled seems like a disaster though.

But three whole sessions of this?
Someone should probably talk to the GM at that point. They are failing at their job to ensure that players are having fun. Unequal treatment can be ok in the short term, but this is getting wierd.

[Snowbluff]

No, it quite explicitly is casting.

Indeed. I can't think of a magic items that doesn't say it's casting.

[Calimehter]

Currently, as we are at level 7, i don't think someone with Regenerate will suddenly appears out of the blue to open the manacles for her.

**If** the sorceress has Subtle Spell (which you had hinted that she did) you don't even need to wait for the Regenerate spell.
Chopping a hand (or maybe both) will still get the manacles off . . . and then with subtle spell, she can still cast spells (limited by sorcerer points) and participate

Getting the Regenerate would then be the new quest after the cultists were defeated.

Might need to acquire an arcane focus that doesn't need manipulation, which might be doable in 1 hour if shopping is allowed. How badly this step would be needed depends on whether any (or how many) of her spells even need a material component to begin with.

[Draconi Redfir]

I still maintain however that doing this to a shy newcommer is cruel, I suspect there is something else going on, does the DMs girlfriend have beef with this girl?

If she's already put up with if for 3 sessions one would hope she is nearing the end of her (punishment?)

Cheers for the update, this situation is very interesting.


"Never attribute to malice what can be explained by ignorance. People are far more stupid then they are evil."


Most likley the DM saw the player was relying on her magic in order to play and wanted to challenge her and see how she coped or what she did with herself. It's only this thread that assumed a challenge was inherently evil.


for the Sorceress, i still recommend looking up as many alchemichal items you can get as possible. Smoke bombs, ever-burning torches, anything that exists since apparently tindertwigs and other such things don't exist anymore? Try and get creative with mundane items. Even something as simple as a net, or a pair of Bolas if you can figure out how to throw them could be useful in combat.

[Kadesh]

Why does "I want to stop you doing the thing you are having fun doing" not inherently be malicious to start with?

[J-H]

Four sessions? Wow.

Sorceress: "Hi everyone. Since my character is sitting on 1,000 gold, she hired a pair of twins from the Outlands. Here are Thag and Thog, 6th level half-orc barbarians, with their character sheets. Thag is going to act as my bodyguard, since the artifact on my wrists is rendering me helpless until we can take it off and sell it for an extremely high price based on its abilities. Thog is going to go help you guys get what you need to temporarily neutralize this. I'm paying them 50 gold per day each, plus a bonus of 10% of the value of these artifact grade magic manacles once we sell them.

I'm also paying an 8th level bard fifty gold a day to hang out with Thag and and write down a chronicle of our adventures so far. With two people guarding me, I should be safe. Have fun!"

[Max_Killjoy]

Why does "I want to stop you doing the thing you are having fun doing" not inherently be malicious to start with?


It certainly comes across as malicious. There's also a difference between "solve this occasional problem without magic" and "I'm going to take away the thing your entire PC was built around and that you clearly enjoy, for multiple sessions in a row".

[Draconi Redfir]

Why does "I want to stop you doing the thing you are having fun doing" not inherently be malicious to start with?

Because (as far as we know at least) he never said " want you to stop doing the things you are having fun doing"

All we can tell so far is that he said "Here's a new challenge, try to overcome it" like you know... ANY KIND OF MEDIA EVER

[Max_Killjoy]

Because (as far as we know at least) he never said " want you to stop doing the things you are having fun doing"

All we can tell so far is that he said "Here's a new challenge, try to overcome it" like you know... ANY KIND OF MEDIA EVER

Yeah, and most media is garbage.

Seriously, 4 sessions is not "here's a new challenge, overcome it", it's "sucks to be you, have 'fun' with this".

[KorvinStarmast]

then you FIND ways to contribute. that's the challenge, that's what you need to overcome. OSR PoV noted. :smallbiggrin: (Hence the pushback you are receiving)

Yeah, either we're missing something or this is a jerk move by the DM. Yeah, for how long has this been going on?
... do you guys just quit the game at that point? :smallconfused: because that's kind of what it sounds like so far.
It appears that the question was asked during a gaming session, but I some suggestions.

1. If the PC is disabled to the point that they are captured and, like this, unable to play at all, then the DM can have the player run / play the monsters for that session so that they have something to do. I've done that many times, as DM and as player, when something really bad happened to a PC.

2. The Sorcerer has high charisma. RP opportunity to try and talk someone into something
"If you take these off I'll join your cult" as a persuasion or deception effort or "please come help me, you big strong Mercenary ..." this leads to

3. PC persuades an NPC fighter, like a Beserker or a Knight or a Gladiator, to protect her/fight for her, for pay or for some other quid pro quo. She plays the NPC until the rescue attempt.

This sort of "but the story needs to unfold" snobbery is exactly why some of us distrust story-focused gaming so much, and how story-focused gaming gets its reputation for being so vulnerable to railroading GMs. Fair point.
OP said the sorc player is already stressed about it and asking what to do, which indicates that "trust in the DM" and "relax and accept it" are not really good answers for that particular player. Agree. Who can she hire to protect her. She can offer some magical protection due to the cuffs ... where's the local mercenary guild?
So very true. I love working in these kinds of plots to justify absent PCs. Yeah, and that puts a time pressure on the group: you have two session to free her, since she'll be back at session 3 from now!
As of today, everyone are still able to contribute in combat specifically designed for their class. As for the last 2 character arc story (her's being the 3rd apparently) none of the character is being de-powered as big as her's. DM may have overstepped a bit.
I bet immunity to magic could have some plot point that could be helpful. Yes. Exploit that.

Expanded treatment of my hire a merc idea Chuckled, I did, nice post. :)

[Kadesh]

Because (as far as we know at least) he never said " want you to stop doing the things you are having fun doing"

All we can tell so far is that he said "Here's a new challenge, try to overcome it" like you know... ANY KIND OF MEDIA EVER
All we can tell so far is that a player who wants to spend their free time doing fun things can now longer do the fun things they wanted completely removing the point of them playing the game.

[KorvinStarmast]

All we can tell so far is that a player who wants to spend their free time doing fun things can now longer do the fun things they wanted completely removing the point of them playing the game. There are other fun things she can do, see a lot of the above, but I agree with you from the stand point of "this has been going on for 4 sessions, the DM's design of this challenge strikes me as flawed." Or the party has kept missing clues and has the answer in front of them and it should have been solved in session two or three. Here again, DM might need to get better at dropping hints.
(Obligatory reference to Three Clue Rule (https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1118/roleplaying-games/three-clue-rule) goes here ...)

[Guy Lombard-O]

I'm all for challenges and switching it up a bit now and then, but this seems sort of overboard. Especially since it's not the whole party having fun with being nerfed at the same time, but just the one character.

I think the reason I don't like this particular "story arc" is that the targeted character has basically been reduced from hero to maiden-in-distress. The player is no longer the rescuer of the town, she's just another victim. She's a pretty new player and apparently likes being able to control magical powers and perform arcane wonders in the game, which let's face it, is a pretty cool thing to be able to do and a distinct break/departure from the frustrations of real life. Now she's less able in-game than she is IRL.

It's really hard to say if this DM and game group are trustworthy and still having fun from the OP's description, but it sounds to me like things have probably gone off the rails. The shy and quiet girl who's enjoying the game's power-tripping element is now targeted by the DM and pushed outside her comfort zone, presumably for the purpose of "challenging her". Sounds to me like maybe she was having fun at the previous challenge level of the game, and didn't see the need for her challenge level (and only her challenge level) to get amped up to sky-high levels? :smallannoyed:

That said, maybe she should buy some serious armor at the market? I mean, sure, she's not proficient. But who cares!?! She basically cannot do anything anyhow, so why not at least be safe? Use those otherwise-useless hands to hold a shield while she's at it. Buy splint mail, a shield, and a riding horse for keeping up/fleeing.

[Segev]

Because (as far as we know at least) he never said " want you to stop doing the things you are having fun doing"

All we can tell so far is that he said "Here's a new challenge, try to overcome it" like you know... ANY KIND OF MEDIA EVER

The first time I saw the anime Slayers, I stopped watching it after the second episode where Lina's "time of the month" made her unable to use her magic. It was annoying and forced weakness.

I later did come back and watch it again, getting much further, and mercifully, they never used that plot point again, despite (presumably) Lina still having a monthly power-outage.

[DeTess]

Because (as far as we know at least) he never said " want you to stop doing the things you are having fun doing"

All we can tell so far is that he said "Here's a new challenge, try to overcome it" like you know... ANY KIND OF MEDIA EVER

When's the last time you watched you watched an eipsodic adventure/scif-fi/fantasy/super-hero show in which the MC spend more than 2/3 of an episode depowered? I agree that temporarily depowering a character can make for a fun adventure, but only if at the end of the day the status quo regarding their abilities is restored (and preferably while the rest of the party is similarly crippled).

"You've all been imprisoned and need to escape and get your gear back" can be fun. "your (and only your) character's effectiveness is reduced by 85% for the next couple of RL weeks/months, and only I get to make the call for when you get it back" isn't. I'd also like to note that the player tried to figure out some ways to get free that sound imminently reasonable, so she did try to overcome her weakness, and was simply told "no, you can't do that".

So, my advice would be to have a talk with the DM, and ask him to, at the very least, commit to a limited time before the situations is over (and no more than 1-2 more sessions), as with 4 sessions gone by now, this has gone from 'have an interesting character-limit', to 'why are you even bothering to turn up?'

[Unoriginal]

since the artifact on my wrists is rendering me helpless until we can take it off and sell it for an extremely high price based on its abilities.


You have a big point here.

Those manacles are ridiculously powerful, essentially trapping the shackled person into a person-shaped Anti Magic Field. And it can't be removed by the usual remove-cursed-items methods (not even mutilation, if OP is correct).

Plain and simple, many Legendary magic items are weaker than that.

And that cult either has a several of them, or decided to waste the only ones they had on a mid-level caster when they could make Mordenkainen-grade archmages retreat and reconsider.

[DeTess]

You have a big point here.

Those manacles are ridiculously powerful, essentially trapping the shackled person into a person-shaped Anti Magic Field. And it can't be removed by the usual remove-cursed-items methods (not even mutilation, if OP is correct).

Plain and simple, many Legendary magic items are weaker than that.

And that cult either has a several of them, or decided to waste the only ones they had on a mid-level caster when they could make Mordenkainen-grade archmages retreat and reconsider.

That's also something to keep in mind. Anti-magic shackles are very useful if you're not wearing them. I suspect our current DM is still kicking himself for the time he sent us on a quest to free a very powerful Naga spellcaster that had been chained with a monster-sized anti-magic shackle. That one could simply be deactivated by removing it, but that hasn't stopped us from slapping it on every dragon and other big spellcaster we've faced since then to turn of their magic.

[Unoriginal]

The first time I saw the anime Slayers, I stopped watching it after the second episode where Lina's "time of the month" made her unable to use her magic. It was annoying and forced weakness.

I later did come back and watch it again, getting much further, and mercifully, they never used that plot point again, despite (presumably) Lina still having a monthly power-outage.

I've recently read a comic book where the villain was a slaver and brothel-owner who had the power to turn females into males, and the reverse, but only when it was her "time of the month".

At the end of the story the protagonists force her to turn herself into a man under threat of horrific tortures so that she'd lose her power definitively.

I kinda stared at the comic book in horror for a while.

[Laserlight]

Because (as far as we know at least) he never said " want you to stop doing the things you are having fun doing"

All we can tell so far is that he said "Here's a new challenge, try to overcome it" like you know... ANY KIND OF MEDIA EVER

He certainly did say "I want you to stop doing the things you are having fun doing", he just phrased it as "Your character can't cast or use her hands until I get around to telling you otherwise."

As for your "any media ever", I'd have to say I don't remember the part in Star Wars where Luke had to fight his way through the enemy fighters while being both blind and unable to use the Force.

Now, if it'd been one "no magic" encounter --sure, that's perfectly fair.
If it'd been a short dungeon where they knew what they were getting into and had the opportunity to plan--also fair, although I'd hope there's another dungeon coming up where the fighters are helpless and the casters get all the fun.
If the sorc player had said "Hey, I'm going out of town" or "I want to do this funky thing where my character can't use her magic and I end up multiclassing into rogue"--go for it.

But to basically put the character in time out for four sessions without an explanation to the player is horrible DMing. I seriously wonder if the DM is trying to get her to quit the group and just doesn't have the honesty to come out and say it.

[Kadesh]

There are other fun things she can do, see a lot of the above, but I agree with you from the stand point of "this has been going on for 4 sessions, the DM's design of this challenge strikes me as flawed." Or the party has kept missing clues and has the answer in front of them and it should have been solved in session two or three. Here again, DM might need to get better at dropping hints.
(Obligatory reference to Three Clue Rule (https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1118/roleplaying-games/three-clue-rule) goes here ...)

Such as playing a merc? Has the player expressed a wish to play something else other than their own character they currently are playing? Was that the only way the player could be engaged in the game, by removing their character from being anything other than an observer in the game?

Watching multiple hours of cutscenes until they can act again because the DM wanted to introduce the mcguffin sounds like trash.

DM's cry continually about their players not following their plot hooks and burning down carefully crafted stories taht they want to play. This is exact same, where a DM is outright moping anything you want to do. These DM's who supposedly care so much about challenges only really mean the players.

Why is this DM not challenging himself to design an encounter that this character would be able to fulfil? There might be invisible nopes, such as a Counterspell capable caster being rolled out, or leaders being given enough cursory training to use a Scroll of Dispel Magic. Perhaps when unleashing tons of fireballs, there are just enough waves that it takes more fireballs than Caster has. Maybe a shadow Monk mage Slayer bounty hunter gets hired.

The invisible walls stay invisible preserving the path without being as ar itrarily nopish as say elemental Immunity vs the elementally focused caster, or removing the ability to cast spells or attack.

It's a game and it needs to be fun. If it's not, why is anyone playing?

[KorvinStarmast]

Such as playing a merc? Has the player expressed a wish to play something else other than their own character they currently are playing? That information was not provided, and I was providing a suggestion. It's a way to stay engaged and have a different challenge for a while.

Was that the only way the player could be engaged in the game, by removing their character from being anything other than an observer in the game?
Untwisting the knickers would be handy at this point, mate.
Here, I have an better idea.
How about you fly to the city where they are playing, and you give the DM a right ass chewing, or as you might say in Aus, a right bollocking. That'll sort it out!
It's an idea, not necessarily the only one.

Watching multiple hours of cutscenes until they can act again because the DM wanted to introduce the mcguffin sounds like trash. Which is not what I was suggesting, so not sure why you recommended that in response to me.

But your post does raise this valid point, or rather, raises the same point yet again:
the DM needs to rule that option (run the merc until the manacles removed) as viable - "yes, if you hire a merc, you can play the merc for a while until your sorcerer gets out of her problem." It is a way to stay engaged in play, and there needs to be a light at the end of the tunnel.
If the DM does not open that option, the player is much more limited in options, and IMO that's a poor way forward.

Why is this DM not challenging himself to design an encounter that this character would be able to fulfil? He appears to be challenging the team as well, but as I noted above, DM technique might could use some work. Laserlight makes a good point, and I think you are on side with it.

But to basically put the character in time out for four sessions without an explanation to the player is horrible DMing. I seriously wonder if the DM is trying to get her to quit the group and just doesn't have the honesty to come out and say it. This is where my reference above to the "three clue rule" from Alexandrian is something the DM may need to apply better. This player needs a clear path forward in terms of "things she can do" while trying to get out of this mess in character. If Laserlight's fear is the truth, that the DM is trying to drive the player out of the game, then I'll join you in hollering "Leper, Unclean!" across the tubes of the interwebs.
Scroll of Dispel Magic. Hopefully that would work, but since other spells seem to "deflect around it" then I am going to guess that the DM would rule "no workee."

It's a game and it needs to be fun. If it's not, why is anyone playing? I agree.
Fun is where you find it.

As noted previously, this extended "you are screwed" scenario risks losing this player, and beyond various suggestions, I'd suggest a few of these ideas from the thread be tossed at the DM to see if any stick. (And for that matter, toss a few to the player, she may find one or two useful enough to use).

As I have not played at this table ... they have been playing together for a year. That's a good sign. But each of us as DM's have blind spots here and there. This DM may be wondering why a few of the "obvious clues" that help the party get to the resolution of this problem for the sorcerer have yet to be recognized and followed up on.

For the OP: my last post provided a link to the Alexandrian's fine article on the Three Clue Rule. Not sure how to tactfully pass that along to the DM, but it might be that there are more clues that get you all pointed to the resolution of this problem and they just aren't registering or being uncovered/provided.

[Rukelnikov]

And no she can't "Do almost anything she could do before" She can't cast spells (90% of her character) she can't use ranged weapons, and she can't spread her arms more than a foot apart (tops) because SHE'S HANDCUFFED! And if she can't operate a crossbow, or any other ranged weapon as per WoG then I imagine that they look a lot like this:


http://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/S3kAAOSw-jhUDgfq/s-l300.jpg


Ya, have fun being useful wearing those, cuz remember, those where invented to stop people from doing things.

Which is exactly the point, she CANT FIGHT.

The problem is this has gone for 4 sessions, which is a bit too much, 2 would have been perfectly fair game in my book.

[Digimike]

Sounds like a magic item with an antimagic field on it.

TBH If I were the player, I'd just break my hands and then get them healed. 4 sessions is stupidly long to be without your main class feature.

[Sethcor]

I personally would have likely have just wandered off and done things unrelated to that group until my character was able to make use of some of their abilities. though would have given two sessions a go before just having the char find a safe place to wait it out while the rest of the group did things.
I might wait longer if the dm did make available other options to use, but seems this character is being rather limited, given lack of ranged i would guess throwing things is out. wands appear to be a no go either, guessing same for scroll.

[KorvinStarmast]

i would guess throwing things is out. Hmm, in soccer one throws the ball in using two hands close together, so the manacled hands should not stop throwing. I think.
As I'm not the DM, I am not sure what is and isn't kosher at that table.

[Provo]

Sounds like a magic item with an antimagic field on it.

TBH If I were the player, I'd just break my hands and then get them healed. 4 sessions is stupidly long to be without your main class feature.

Not just your main class feature. All your class features outside of health and saves. On top of that, her already pitiful combat ability has been hindered (no ranged and no shield allowed)

She was given something cool (immune to magic), but it isn’t something she controls. That really only leaves skill checks, but a number of those have disadvantage from manacles.

It seems that the DM was trying to give something special with a story arc, but failed spectacularly. Removing player agency doesn’t make players feel special, and the railroaded story arc won’t feel special when the player doesn’t feel like she is contributing.

[Max_Killjoy]

Not just your main class feature. All your class features outside of health and saves. On top of that, her already pitiful combat ability has been hindered (no ranged and no shield allowed)

She was given something cool (immune to magic), but it isn’t something she controls. That really only leaves skill checks, but a number of those have disadvantage from manacles.

It seems that the DM was trying to give something special with a story arc, but failed spectacularly. Removing player agency doesn’t make players feel special, and the railroaded story arc won’t feel special when the player doesn’t feel like she is contributing.

Yeah. It's the sort of thing that sometimes maybe works in fiction media if done right/well, but does not work in an RPG. The character in a work of fiction is not the same as the PC of an actual person playing a game.

[guachi]

You already have your answer:

"The only way to uncuff the manacle is through getting the 'old god’s body fluid'."

Get the old god's body fluid.

Personally, I'd love playing in a game where the DM was able to challenge the PCs in ways that weren't just death or nothing.

It might make a cool finale of the fight. Cause god to bleed or whatever. Put on manacles. Sorceress opens up a can of whoop-*** on the Old God. PCs win. Yay!

Last adventure I ran the gnome was possessed by an insane evil wizard and two other PCs (an elf and halfling) outright died and were reincarnated as gnomes. A part of a human, three gnomes, and their dog was certainly fun times! Then the adventure ended and everyone was back to normal. But it certainly was fun while it lasted.

EDIT: There are three pillars in the game. If all you really care about is combat I guess I could see feeling like your DM is out to get you. But if your game is almost entirely combat I'd have already left the table.

[Reynaert]

Hmm, in soccer one throws the ball in using two hands close together, so the manacled hands should not stop throwing. I think.

Have you ever wondered why the rules make soccer players throw the ball in like that?

It's to make it as awkward as possible, so that the throw in gives the least amount of advantage possible.

[Kadesh]

You already have your answer:

"The only way to uncuff the manacle is through getting the 'old god’s body fluid'."

Get the old god's body fluid.

Personally, I'd love playing in a game where the DM was able to challenge the PCs in ways that weren't just death or nothing.

It might make a cool finale of the fight. Cause god to bleed or whatever. Put on manacles. Sorceress opens up a can of whoop-*** on the Old God. PCs win. Yay!

Last adventure I ran the gnome was possessed by an insane evil wizard and two other PCs (an elf and halfling) outright died and were reincarnated as gnomes. A part of a human, three gnomes, and their dog was certainly fun times! Then the adventure ended and everyone was back to normal. But it certainly was fun while it lasted.

EDIT: There are three pillars in the game. If all you really care about is combat I guess I could see feeling like your DM is out to get you. But if your game is almost entirely combat I'd have already left the table.

If the consequence of death is lack of being able to use your character, what is the difference here?

[KorvinStarmast]

Have you ever wondered why the rules make soccer players throw the ball in like that? It's to make it as awkward as possible, so that the throw in gives the least amount of advantage possible. I played soccer starting about age 5, stopped in my mid 30's. It's a way to throw that is effective when you learn it properly, and when you learn to use your whole body in the throw. It's remarkable how far a soccer ball can go.
Yes, you won't pitch a baseball or cricket ball that way. That isn't the point.
For tossing potions of alchemy, flasks of contact poison, etc, it can be an effective technique.
(A little practice with beer bottles would not hurt to get used to that motion ...).

[Kadesh]

It's football. And if not, you're a cretinous colonial and therefore capable of offering invalid (but still legitimate) opinions.

[Unoriginal]

You already have your answer:

"The only way to uncuff the manacle is through getting the 'old god’s body fluid'."

Get the old god's body fluid.

Personally, I'd love playing in a game where the DM was able to challenge the PCs in ways that weren't just death or nothing.

It might make a cool finale of the fight. Cause god to bleed or whatever. Put on manacles. Sorceress opens up a can of whoop-*** on the Old God. PCs win. Yay!

Last adventure I ran the gnome was possessed by an insane evil wizard and two other PCs (an elf and halfling) outright died and were reincarnated as gnomes. A part of a human, three gnomes, and their dog was certainly fun times! Then the adventure ended and everyone was back to normal. But it certainly was fun while it lasted.

EDIT: There are three pillars in the game. If all you really care about is combat I guess I could see feeling like your DM is out to get you. But if your game is almost entirely combat I'd have already left the table.

The problem isn't being challenged, the problem is that the Sorcerer is forced to be dead weight for the whole task of getting the god's "fluid".

This is not "everyone is thrown into jail and they have to beat the boss without their equipment". It's "one single PC was made to spend 4 sessions without their class features or even the full use of their limbs".

[Pex]

You already have your answer:

"The only way to uncuff the manacle is through getting the 'old god’s body fluid'."

Get the old god's body fluid.

Personally, I'd love playing in a game where the DM was able to challenge the PCs in ways that weren't just death or nothing.

It might make a cool finale of the fight. Cause god to bleed or whatever. Put on manacles. Sorceress opens up a can of whoop-*** on the Old God. PCs win. Yay!

Last adventure I ran the gnome was possessed by an insane evil wizard and two other PCs (an elf and halfling) outright died and were reincarnated as gnomes. A part of a human, three gnomes, and their dog was certainly fun times! Then the adventure ended and everyone was back to normal. But it certainly was fun while it lasted.

EDIT: There are three pillars in the game. If all you really care about is combat I guess I could see feeling like your DM is out to get you. But if your game is almost entirely combat I'd have already left the table.

After your wonderful superior One True Way roleplaying rules everthing you are terrible players if you like combat, when the inevitable icky poo combat does happen by all means enjoy sitting there for two real world hours doing nothing on your turn because your character is shackled unable to do anything. I would have already left the table. In fact, I had done just that once when the DM had a combat when my character wasn't there taking a real world hour me sitting there doing nothing, and once it was finally over and a few minutes real world time passed another combat started and my character was still not on camera. It was a 2E game a long time ago but same difference.

[Contrast]

EDIT: There are three pillars in the game. If all you really care about is combat I guess I could see feeling like your DM is out to get you. But if your game is almost entirely combat I'd have already left the table.

Well...she's nerfed in the other pillars as well as spells often offer out of combat utility. This isn't like a ranger or an arcane trickster losing their spellcasting (though I would still object to that if it lasted 4 sessions) where they can fall back on their other class abilities. This is literally all her class abilities (unless she's a dragon sorc I guess in which case...whoo better AC?).

In another system we are in the midst of a prison break. It took us 2 sessions to get our equipment back and those with mental powers suffered from a drug which dampened their powers which coincidentally happened to wear off just as we reclaimed our equipment. I had no problem with that at all. If just one person had been chained up I would have been frowning at the DM at the start of the second session.

4 sessions really is too long for that level of nerfing, particularly when it doesn't seem from what OPs said that an immediate end is in sight either.

Its fun to face challenges but the game gives you abilities to overcome those challenges. You earn those abilities by overcoming challenges and its also fun to use the rewards you earned to overcome harder challenges.

[Draconi Redfir]

If the consequence of death is lack of being able to use your character, what is the difference here?

Hmmm. But i thought...


(And no one is making it out as if the Sorcerer in question is dead.)




So you need the old-god's body fluid right? Sorcerers are supposed to have high charisma. Have her seduce the Old God:smallamused::smallwink:
/Joke

[Kadesh]

Hmmm. But i thought...





So you need the old-god's body fluid right? Sorcerers are supposed to have high charisma. Have her seduce the Old God:smallamused::smallwink:
/Joke

You waved that point as it went happily sailing by, didn't you?

[KorvinStarmast]

So you need the old-god's body fluid right? Sorcerers are supposed to have high charisma. Have her seduce the Old God:smallamused::smallwink:
/Joke I am going to guess that as of the posting by the OP describing the problem/frustration, getting to the Old God has not quite happened yet. After that, one would expect that they'd be on the cusp of resolution to the problem.
I soooo wanted to riff off or your joke there, but I held back as long as I could

[Draconi Redfir]

You waved that point as it went happily sailing by, didn't you?

i mean SOMEONE had too :smalltongue: honestly surprised it wasn't brought up sooner.

[Unoriginal]

i mean SOMEONE had too :smalltongue: honestly surprised it wasn't brought up sooner.

Maybe people didn't want to accuse the OP's DM of wanting the Sorceress to have to perform a sex-related act with the god of the cult that took away her power and agency, and making so it's the only way to escape her predicament.

[Max_Killjoy]

Maybe people didn't want to accuse the OP's DM of wanting the Sorceress to have to perform a sex-related act with the god of the cult that took away her power and agency, and making so it's the only way to escape her predicament.

That would be taking this from questionable GMing to bad personing, honestly. Unless we get some indication from OP that this is what's going on, I think it's best if we just leave it.

[Kadesh]

i mean SOMEONE had too :smalltongue: honestly surprised it wasn't brought up sooner.

You mean the part where you utterly missed the point of a character who is virtually useless and can take virtually no action and thus a dead weight not being an equivalent to dead, given that the biggest penalty of death in a game whose resource cost is Resurrection is loss of actions?

[Unoriginal]

That would be taking this from questionable GMing to bad personing, honestly. Unless we get some indication from OP that this is what's going on, I think it's best if we just leave it.

Yeah, that is why I didn't want to bring it up. There is no reason to believe it's what is happening, so implying it is... not a good idea.

[Draconi Redfir]

You mean the part where you utterly missed the point of a character who is virtually useless and can take virtually no action and thus a dead weight not being an equivalent to dead, given that the biggest penalty of death in a game whose resource cost is Resurrection is loss of actions?

... last time i checked, not being able to do magic and having your hands bound but nothing else does not nearly represent "completely useless and virtually dead" I go without magic every day, and it'd be tricky, but i could probably make a sandwich, clean the house, type on a computer, jog around the block, ride my bike, play a video game, and probably even kick another man's ass with my hands bound together.

for godssake man she's a normal every day human being with her hands tied together. "equivalent to dead" this does not make. not by a long shot.

[Blackhawk748]

Yeah, that is why I didn't want to bring it up. There is no reason to believe it's what is happening, so implying it is... not a good idea.

Did you miss the White Text? It was supposed to be a joke.

Anyway, since this has been going on for four sessions that's another red flag for me. Talk to the DM, because this just seems off.

[Kadesh]

... last time i checked, not being able to do magic and having your hands bound but nothing else does not nearly represent "completely useless and virtually dead" I go without magic every day, and it'd be tricky, but i could probably make a sandwich, clean the house, type on a computer, jog around the block, ride my bike, play a video game, and probably even kick another man's ass with my hands bound together.

for godssake man she's a normal every day human being with her hands tied together. "equivalent to dead" this does not make. not by a long shot.

Excellent. A normal every day human with hands tied together. In a game that is about basically superheroes.

I assume you think people getting ha scuffed in real life is just for show, too?

[Draconi Redfir]

Excellent. A normal every day human with hands tied together. In a game that is about basically superheroes.

I assume you think people getting ha scuffed in real life is just for show, too?

And i assume you think someone getting a thumb cut off is "basically useless and/or dead"

[Max_Killjoy]

... last time i checked, not being able to do magic and having your hands bound but nothing else does not nearly represent "completely useless and virtually dead" I go without magic every day, and it'd be tricky, but i could probably make a sandwich, clean the house, type on a computer, jog around the block, ride my bike, play a video game, and probably even kick another man's ass with my hands bound together.

for godssake man she's a normal every day human being with her hands tied together. "equivalent to dead" this does not make. not by a long shot.


In D&D, what happens to people with no fighting skills, no magic, and their hands tied together, when they try to take on circumstances and opponents intended for level 7 characters?

[Kadesh]

And i assume you think someone getting a thumb cut off is "basically useless and/or dead"
Depends on the penalty applied to that, given that you are now coming up with rule less scenarios.

[Unoriginal]

And i assume you think someone getting a thumb cut off is "basically useless and/or dead"

Where is this accusation coming from? How does losing a thumb is anything near "being a normal person in a superhero game"?

Losing one thumb is far less hindering than those manacles are. The only adventuring things where two thumbs are required, strictly speaking, is archery.

[ImproperJustice]

I think at this point it would be interesting to either hear what the results of the OPs next conversation with the GM is like, or what happens in the next session.

[JakOfAllTirades]

"Never attribute to malice what can be explained by ignorance. People are far more stupid then they are evil."


Most likley the DM saw the player was relying on her magic in order to play and wanted to challenge her and see how she coped or what she did with herself. It's only this thread that assumed a challenge was inherently evil.




Oh my, a sorcerer, RELYING ON MAGIC!!!

Of course any sensible dungeon master would put a stop to that immediately. [/sarcasm]

You expect anyone to take drivel like this seriously?

[Draconi Redfir]

Where is this accusation coming from? How does losing a thumb is anything near "being a normal person in a superhero game"?

Losing one thumb is far less hindering than those manacles are. The only adventuring things where two thumbs are required, strictly speaking, is archery.

The point i'm trying to make here is that A hindrance or handicap =/= DEAD

Why you're all so quick to act like the sorceress should just sit down and give up rather then actually play into the story and see what happens i don't know.

You guys are the ones making a big deal out of a small thing that we haven't even see the resolution too. Maybe you outta calm down a little bit. the Sorceress isn't effectively dead, the DM isn't inherently an *******, Ya'll just need to chill.

The question in the OP was "How can this temporarily handicapped character still contribute?" and all I've seen here is "The DM is an ass" or "she can't, she's dead now." Rather then, you know... some kind of help.

[Skylivedk]

She's the third player to get repowered as part of a background related story arc? - besides the four session nerf going against most of my D&D beliefs about the importance of player agency, I can't really give props for cycling content this way.

Does your, @OP, group do debriefing sessions? My table(s) do(es) it for every session. If yes, has this been addressed in this or any of the other arcs? If no, I suggest doing it.

Our format: each player gives their brief review of the session, uninterrupted. Points usually include:
Overall feel
Enjoyable/unenjoyable encounters
OOC remarks (good at giving each other space, players interrupted each other too much, turn time, etc)
Pacing

And always: play of the day. In the light-hearted campaign (a group where every character is best suited as a sidekick), it has often been a funny in character moment. Exceptional RP, creative play, vivid descriptions have all also one. The player who gets the most nominations start next session with an inspiration die.

DM participates in the round as well and always goes last. Sidebared rule discussions usually are also addressed in the debrief.

[Max_Killjoy]

Why you're all so quick to act like the sorceress should just sit down and give up rather then actually play into the story and see what happens i don't know.

You guys are the ones making a big deal out of a small thing that we haven't even see the resolution too. Maybe you outta calm down a little bit. the Sorceress isn't effectively dead, the DM isn't inherently an *******, Ya'll just need to chill.

The question in the OP was "How can this temporarily handicapped character still contribute?" and all I've seen here is "The DM is an ass" or "she can't, she's dead now." Rather then, you know... some kind of help.



Other than one person, who has said she's literally or effectively dead? Stop broad-brushing.


Regardless, though, forcing a character to go without 90% of their capability, and the things that the player clearly enjoys playing, for 4 sessions and counting, is a jerk move by a DM, full stop, no qualifications, no "but she could throw rocks at the bad guys", none of that. For most of my gaming "career", that would be over a month of real-life span so far, and about 20 hours of table time.

This has gone beyond "temporarily handicapped" to "what the heck is the DM thinking?"

[Blackhawk748]

The point i'm trying to make here is that A hindrance or handicap =/= DEAD

Why you're all so quick to act like the sorceress should just sit down and give up rather then actually play into the story and see what happens i don't know.

You guys are the ones making a big deal out of a small thing that we haven't even see the resolution too. Maybe you outta calm down a little bit. the Sorceress isn't effectively dead, the DM isn't inherently an *******, Ya'll just need to chill.

The question in the OP was "How can this temporarily handicapped character still contribute?" and all I've seen here is "The DM is an ass" or "she can't, she's dead now." Rather then, you know... some kind of help.

Because she is part of a highly effective combat team and is now utterly useless in combat? Seriously, how can you consider someone, who is innately magical, losing access to their magic be minor? That's like the party martial losing their leg, they kind of need that to not suck.

Also, no one said she was dead, we said she should stay out of combat for the time being because she's a flipping commoner right now. Because she is.

Here, let's stop looking at this as a game and get our RP hats on. You are an Adventurer and one of your teammates just lost their ability to use magic. Their primary contribution (90-95% of what they do) to the team has been magic, and they have no other applicable skills for the situation. I don't know about you, but if it was my teammate in that situation, I would hire a couple of local toughs, find a nice defensible spot, and have her hole up until we can get the solution to the problem, because, in her present condition, she is a liability. Not only to herself but to the team as well.

And the more I think about this, the weirder it all gets. The DM ostensibly wants her to Roleplay more (lets ignore the fact that combat can very well be Roleplay), right? Except that the solution to her problem is to go kill a bunch of cultists in their base, yet he removed her ability to participate in combat in any meaningful fashion.

[Mellack]

Since she can't cast spells (her main power) and was told she can't even use a ranged weapon such as a crossbow, she is less useful than a hired guard. The reasonable action would be to stash her somewhere safe and hire a thug or two if more help was needed. It would be like having your soldier buddy who got his arm blown off be expected to still go out on patrol.
That this has already gone on for four sessions is either rude or foolish.

[BreaktheStatue]

Since she can't cast spells (her main power) and was told she can't even use a ranged weapon such as a crossbow, she is less useful than a hired guard. The reasonable action would be to stash her somewhere safe and hire a thug or two if more help was needed. It would be like having your soldier buddy who got his arm blown off be expected to still go out on patrol.
That this has already gone on for four sessions is either rude or foolish.

Even a soldier with his arm blown-off could at least use his sidearm if he really had too. This is even worse than that.

[Ganders]

This might be a horrible situation because she is nearly useless in terms of being a spell-slinging hero. This definitely calls for a discussion with the DM. You are allowed to discuss things out of game you know... and sometimes the explanation can help quite a lot.

If the DM is actually picking on one player you have much bigger problems, beyond the scope of this thread. But... maybe it's more of an opportunity, and in future sessions other characters will be captured and disabled so they need rescuing too, and it'll all even out. I dunno... maybe.

But I would try to look at it as an opportunity. I can imagine all sorts of aw-shucks roleplaying and bonding where you get to see how far your friends will go to help you and how much they'll do to keep you safe. You can do quite a bit of that. Others can roleplay about it too, take about how upset, stressed, and/or angry they are that you're in the predicament, and how much they want to help.

In terms of what to actually DO: the biggest thing is going to be throwing things -- maybe you can't shoot arrows but you can throw daggers and other weapons, also oil, caltrops, torches, nets, and so on. Also you can cause distractions that help the other characters in their attacks, either to give them advantage or just to get a few orcs to run after you for a few turns. Assisting with skill checks might give your teammates advantage on some of those... that's not nothing. Or just try to trip someone so your fighter gets advantage when they're prone. Or bring potions to other characters when they need them -- a healing potion might save someone's life. You can also carry stuff you wouldn't normally carry... a ten foot pole for instance, or even an entire door that you can hide behind during combat.

[JNAProductions]

The main issue I can see is that it's been four sessions.

For me, that's about 12 hours and an entire month or more of gaming.

Especially since it JUST affects her, that's NOT FUN.

[guachi]

If the consequence of death is lack of being able to use your character, what is the difference here?

The character can be used. That's the difference here. The character isn't unconscious. The character isn't dead.

The PC can participate in the exploration and social pillar. The player can have a limited participation in combat via the help action. The player can still tell and make suggestions at the table. Is the player only out for himself?

In any event, the DM has outright told the players what to do. Get some god droppings. They are adventures. It's what adventures do.

Now, we don't know how long it will last. But people in this thread are completing that even one session is completely out of bounds. And it just isn't.

[Illven]

Now, we don't know how long it will last. But people in this thread are completing that even one session is completely out of bounds. And it just isn't.

At this point 4+ sessions.

[guachi]

After your wonderful superior One True Way roleplaying rules everthing you are terrible players if you like combat, when the inevitable icky poo combat does happen by all means enjoy sitting there for two real world hours doing nothing on your turn because your character is shackled unable to do anything. I would have already left the table. In fact, I had done just that once when the DM had a combat when my character wasn't there taking a real world hour me sitting there doing nothing, and once it was finally over and a few minutes real world time passed another combat started and my character was still not on camera. It was a 2E game a long time ago but same difference.

When you have to use a strawman argument I know you have no real argument and are just trolling.

And trolling isn't allowed in this forum.

[JNAProductions]

When you have to use a strawman argument I know you have no real argument and are just trolling.

And trolling isn't allowed in this forum.

I believe they were using an actual example from their gaming life.

But, if you feel they're trolling and in violation of the rules... Report them.

[Blackhawk748]

At this point 4+ sessions.

It's going to be 5 as they are going to spend a fair chunk of the next session getting the God blood. Seriously, for me 5 sessions would be like 40 hours of nerfdom

[Mellack]

The character can be used. That's the difference here. The character isn't unconscious. The character isn't dead.

The PC can participate in the exploration and social pillar. The player can have a limited participation in combat via the help action. The player can still tell and make suggestions at the table. Is the player only out for himself?

In any event, the DM has outright told the players what to do. Get some god droppings. They are adventures. It's what adventures do.

Now, we don't know how long it will last. But people in this thread are completing that even one session is completely out of bounds. And it just isn't.

The exploration and social pillar could probably be completed just as well by a hireling. The combat pillar would definitely be better handled by a hireling.

We know that it is already up to four sessions. That is far too long already.

[Blackhawk748]

The character can be used. That's the difference here. The character isn't unconscious. The character isn't dead.

The PC can participate in the exploration and social pillar. The player can have a limited participation in combat via the help action. The player can still tell and make suggestions at the table. Is the player only out for himself?

In any event, the DM has outright told the players what to do. Get some god droppings. They are adventures. It's what adventures do.

Now, we don't know how long it will last. But people in this thread are completing that even one session is completely out of bounds. And it just isn't.

Did the fact that this particular player may not like those other two pillars ever cross your mind? The OP stated that they are shy and that they were enjoying combat, so forcing them to stop doing combat and into the others, particularly when they are shy, just seems jerkish. Maybe their intentions are good, but how they went about it is questionable. 4 sessions of utter nerfdom is not acceptable.

[Provo]

The OP stated that they are shy and that they were enjoying combat, so forcing them to stop doing combat ... just seems jerkish ... 4 sessions of utter nerfdom is not acceptable.

4 sessions of nerfdom is especially unacceptable when it was railroaded by the DM...

Keep in mind that the DM said this was her “story arc”, so it is unlikely that she was captured due to RNG or bad decisions and more likely that that was the DM’s intention from the beginning.

[Finback]

So when you guys are playing a video game like tomb raider or just cause or whatever, and you enter one of those story missions where your character is knocked out and imprisoned, and you need to carefully make your way out of the enemy stronghold with just your wits and the enviroment around you, maybe slowly gaining your equipment back along the way, maybe just getting it all back at the very end...

... do you guys just quit the game at that point? :smallconfused: because that's kind of what it sounds like so far.

Games do that not only to change things up and give you something new to experience, but also so you can get an epic revenge scene and go on a kill-frenzy when you finally get all your stuff back. But so far it sounds like the moment anything remotely interesting happens that you're not in 100% control of, you just quit and call the game BS.

Bad example, because TR isn't a multiplayer game. If it was, and everyone else got to run around with guns and tools, but you just had to move around, would you consider that a fun game? Would Mario Kart be fun, if everyone else had red shells, but the game said YOU couldn't even have a kart?

This is about denying a player their agency to contribute to the game, without providing a means by which that PC can engage with the game. If the DM had given the PC the chance to steal some wands to compensate for not being able to use *the very thing that makes the PC the PC, it might be different.

Or better - let's say you play a fighter, but the DM has your arms and legs cut off. Would you want to keep playing, until you maybe possibly found someone who could cast Regeneration?

[n00b]

and she seems stressed now.



This is really the only part that's relevant. It's a game and a player should never feel stressed over something the DM did to them. Whether it be 30 minutes or 4 sessions is irrelevant. Period. End of story. Bad move by the DM.

[Rukelnikov]

This is really the only part that's relevant. It's a game and a player should never feel stressed over something the DM did to them. Whether it be 30 minutes or 4 sessions is irrelevant. Period. End of story. Bad move by the DM.

With such a mindset DMing is impossible, you try to make it fun and compelling, but you can never know before hand, 4 sessions is a given, 30 mins is not.

[BreaktheStatue]

This is really the only part that's relevant. It's a game and a player should never feel stressed over something the DM did to them. Whether it be 30 minutes or 4 sessions is irrelevant. Period. End of story. Bad move by the DM.

Moderation is the answer to most things in life. Completely nerfing someone for 4+ sessions is bad, but to say that players should *never* feel stress due to DM action seems equally unreasonable.

Stress isn't always a bad thing. In this situation, it probably is, but stress also accompanies challenge, and growth, and even fun. When DMs are smart about it, it's perfectly fine.

[Rynjin]

Because she is part of a highly effective combat team and is now utterly useless in combat? Seriously, how can you consider someone, who is innately magical, losing access to their magic be minor? That's like the party martial losing their leg, they kind of need that to not suck.

Incorrect, and there pretty much is no martial equivalent besides being completely "stumped" or permanently paralyzed or similar.

A martial with one leg can stump around with a peg leg. A martial with NO HANDS can still lay the smack down on some guys with 1-2 hook hands as weapons, or take an option that lets you use unarmed strikes to attack.

A magic-less caster is far worse off than that.


The main issue I can see is that it's been four sessions.

For me, that's about 12 hours and an entire month or more of gaming.

Especially since it JUST affects her, that's NOT FUN.

And that's at a minimum. My average session length is 4-6 (with some outliers lasting only 2-3), and sometimes due to circumstances we only play a given game once a month to a month and a half.

So this could represent anywhere between 8 and 24 hours of game time spread across a month to 5 months of real time and counting, but apparently that isn't an issue to some people? Which boggles my mind.


Moderation is the answer to most things in life. Completely nerfing someone for 4+ sessions is bad, but to say that players should *never* feel stress due to DM action seems equally unreasonable.

Stress isn't always a bad thing. In this situation, it probably is, but stress also accompanies challenge, and growth, and even fun. When DMs are smart about it, it's perfectly fine.


There's a very big difference between TENSION (which is what you're talking about) and STRESS.

A session being tense, as players are worried about their party's survival, or the fate of [Insert Thing They Care About Here] is good. Tension is healthy.

Stress is inherently unhealthy, and a strong secondary cause of death for a large portion of the human population, and probably the largest indirect killer of human beings on the planet. I get stressed when I do my taxes, or think about the fate of a sick family member. That's not a feeling I should have in my downtime playing games with friends.

[Battlebooze]

➢ Cannot do melee at all due to only have STR of 7.
➢ Hand is cuffed magically so cannot use ranged weapon like bows or xbow to reload 2nd shot.
➢ If the party forces her to come as that is the quickest way to remove the manacle all she can do is stealth, help with perception check in battle if some enemies are hiding, or do other ability checks with disadvantage if it involves using her hands

She asked me on what her next course of action should be and she seems stressed now. The only thing that cross my mind is for her to buy alchemist fire so she can throw it at enemy for support in combat while we’re in the market town quickly.

Hoping the forum can provide advice.

No ranged weapons on top of no spells. And I see it's been this way for four sessions.

I advise finding a new Games Master.

[Mordaedil]

Can't she learn to use Subtle magic and cast that way?

Or take a page from 3.5 and take Justiciar class, gaining proficiency in manacles and using them as a weapon to subdue enemies.

[Unoriginal]

Can't she learn to use Subtle magic and cast that way?

She has the Subtle Spell metamagic. It doesn't work because the manacles work like an anti-magic field around her body.



Or take a page from 3.5 and take Justiciar class, gaining proficiency in manacles and using them as a weapon to subdue enemies.

She's a STR 7 Sorcerer with her hands bound together by the manacles. How is she supposed to do that?

[mistermarv]

Hi all,

Firstly, I’m very surprised that this post has garnered so much comments and I would like to thank you all for giving your precious time to read and post ideas and suggestions to my friend.

I will keep you all updated regarding my friend’s situation after the game this coming Friday. I will post some updates ASAP for those who are interested to hear what happened next.

To answer some of the comments in the forum:

➢ It has been confirmed by DM that the manacles acts as some sort of anti magic field so her subtle spell metamagic cannot be used.

➢ The game run for about 3-4 hours each session. I apologized, in advanced, if the general D&D communities differentiate the meaning of session. What I refer by session is every Friday night where we do our D&D game.

➢ We managed to catch DM just before he finished his lunch break and he provided the following clarification: crossbows and ranged weapons can be used, but since her hands are chained she will need a full action to reload her weapon (currently a light crossbow). So I guess if we were in combat it will be: turn 1 (fire crossbow), turn 2 (reload) and then turn 3 (fire again).

➢ To grab items from her bag of holding will be considered as a full action. Therefore if she doesn’t have an alchemist fire attached somewhere on her waist, but needs to find it inside the bag it will take 1 action and use them on the next turn. Similar for other items inside the bag of holding like darts, daggers, poison vials, etc.

➢ We confirmed that scrolls and wands would not be usable if she casts them due to the anti magic field from the manacles.

➢ The character cannot be shelved, as this is her story arc. She is also starting to wonder if this is a “subtle” way of the DM to ask her to role a new character although she very much enjoyed playing her current sorceress character (she plays a shadow sorcerer).

In addition, I quickly asked him, before he went offline, if he is giving her a challenge level that might be too hard for her to accomplish considering that this is her 1st D&D campaign ever (I asked her to join last year just to try it)?

His response was a bit strange, “she just needs to be creative despite not being able to use her magic” – I will keep you all updated again on what happened this Friday on her 4th session being de-powered.

[Blackhawk748]

➢ We managed to catch DM just before he finished his lunch break and he provided the following clarification: crossbows and ranged weapons can be used, but since her hands are chained she will need a full action to reload her weapon (currently a light crossbow). So I guess if we were in combat it will be: turn 1 (fire crossbow), turn 2 (reload) and then turn 3 (fire

Better, much better. She can actually do something now.



His response was a bit strange, “she just needs to be creative despite not being able to use her magic” – I will keep you all updated again on what happened this Friday on her 4th session being de-powered.

Well...that sounds rather douchey. So either he's being a jerk, or he fails to realize how crippling taking away a mage's magic is.

[DeTess]

I still seriously recommend having the sorceress' player ask the DM how much longer the story arc is supposed to take during or after the next session, or have the DM suggest some creative methods she can still meaningfully contribute if she can't find any. Or maybe even have the player ask him outright if she's supposed to make a new character because he didn't like this character. Assuming the DM is merely missing the point here about what is enjoyable, a question like that might make him realize how this story arc is being received.

Or alternatively, send him to this thread, with a warning that forums generally tend to assuming extremes, as this might give him some insight into what his story arc looks like from an outsider's perspective.

[Unoriginal]

➢ The character cannot be shelved, as this is her story arc.

This seems a rather strange claim. Could you tell us what happened in those 3 sessions, relating to the Sorceress, aside from being manacled and unable to help much in combats? Did she get to talk with NPCs or discover ancient lore or show her skills in any way?



In addition, I quickly asked him, before he went offline, if he is giving her a challenge level that might be too hard for her to accomplish considering that this is her 1st D&D campaign ever (I asked her to join last year just to try it)?

His response was a bit strange, “she just needs to be creative despite not being able to use her magic” – I will keep you all updated again on what happened this Friday on her 4th session being de-powered.

If I were in your place, I would re-contact him ASAP and explain how crippling the manacles are in practice, no matter what he intended, that no amount of creativity can make up for the loss of all your class features, because you need power to express your creative ideas, and that he's just making the player unhappy and stressed out.


Better, much better. She can actually do something now.


If "using a ranged weapon less efficiently than an untrained civilian" counts as doing something worthwhile, yes.

[Pelle]

Well...that sounds rather douchey. So either he's being a jerk, or he fails to realize how crippling taking away a mage's magic is.

I think nerfing the magic is fine, but the real issue is imposing the character arc without any kind of buy in from the player. Just getting a thumbs up for some extra challenge being in stock for this character would be enough. Get the player on board to join the sessions with right expectations, and then the character can suffer from all kinds of punishments without the player minding.

[MaXenzie]

I don't see how the DM still thinks this is an arc worth progressing. If I was OOCly told by my players that they weren't enjoying an arc and there was nothing i could do to fix it besides just ending it (such as the premise being "the spellcaster is no longer a spellcaster"), I'd rush through it or even go so far as to retcon it entirely.

But for the DM to specifically target one player and disable all of their class features and then go "hey look you're special now" is a whole new level.

[Blackhawk748]

If "using a ranged weapon less efficiently than an untrained civilian" counts as doing something worthwhile, yes.

Well it is an objective improvement even with the idiotic restriction. Seriously, reloading a crossbow is on the short list of things that Manacles don't inhibit. The point is she can actually do *something* in combat now besides throw expensive ammo at the enemy


I think nerfing the magic is fine, but the real issue is imposing the character arc without any kind of buy in from the player. Just getting a thumbs up for some extra challenge being in stock for this character would be enough. Get the player on board to join the sessions with right expectations, and then the character can suffer from all kinds of punishments without the player minding.

For one, maybe two sessions, but they better be engaged. Otherwise I agree

[Unavenger]

Yeah, this is thoroughly awful. I don't even use "Nyah, you can't use your powers now!" abilities for even a single combat, because they universally suck. To do so for four sessions is thoroughly obnoxious. The player should not ask, but tell the DM to stop it, because it's just pure downside in terms of fun.

[Neknoh]

The character cannot be shelved?

Bugger that, reroll. Seriously, if the DM is even blocking her from playing some other character because he's too invested in the story and does not care about absolutely tanking her character, it's not worth showing up, because his story is more important than her enjoyment of it.

[Willie the Duck]

Well...that sounds rather douchey. So either he's being a jerk, or he fails to realize how crippling taking away a mage's magic is.

While I'm not feeling particularly compelled to defend this DM, I will point out a third option. The 'PCs end up in jail, without their weapons or spellbooks, and have to figure out how to escape despite their usual methods of addressing problems having been stripped from them' is a tried and true gaming scenario. One so well known and stereotyped that.. along with 'you all meet at a tavern'... it might not really get played all that often anymore because everyone's heard of it. I posit that perhaps the DM thinks that is what they are doing, and does not realize/understand the (not that subtle) difference that the other factors (such as everyone else still getting to do their schtick) brings to the equation. That doesn't make the action non-douche, it certainly is, but my suspicion is that the DM is a fool, not a jerk. That's a distinction that doesn't really change the player-in-question's experience of the game, but it probably alters the best course of action in addressing the situation.

[ImproperJustice]

Thanks for the update.

I find his responses concerning.

He clearly has in his head, how she is “supposed” to be playing her character, and is unwilling to communicate what that is outside of negative reinforcement.

If this was at my table, I would be absolutely outraged that a new player was being picked on in this fashion, and would call him out on it.
If the other players are half way decent people they should too.
Few things upset me more than elitist DMs bullying new players.
The male/female dynamic isn’t lost on me here either.

GM needs a reality check and owes this player an apology for singling her out and wasting what is presumably 16 hours of her free time, and potentially driving her away from the hobby entirely.

[OverLordOcelot]

Gimping a character works fine if the player is going to be away for a while or if it's short term. Capture scenarios can work as a one-off, but in that case you're gimping the PARTY, not one character. Removing one character's abilities on a permanent or semi-permanent basis is worse than just killing them off, it makes the character useless and clearly singles the player out. D&D is a high fantasy game where PCs play characters with amazing abilities, that's what generally attracts people to the game, but in this case he DM has made it clear that he thinks her enjoying casting spells in a high fantasy game is BadWrongFun and is trying to put a stop to her doing what she enjoys. Worse, he's doing it to one player, not the party - if this was a 'lets use the permanent maiming table' campaign that would be one thing, but it's not - she, and only she, is getting singled out not to be able to do anything for the long term.

I would put up with this for a session because I'm too patient. By the second session I'd tell the DM that playing a weakened version of a commoner is not what I'm interested in. After that, I'd leave the campaign entirely, and probably not play another game run by that DM. I have friends, meetup groups, board game nights, computer games, movies, TV, books, and other RPG games as a player, plus I could get around to running my own game, so if a particular game isn't enjoyable to me then why should I spend any time on it? Yeah, the bad DMs are saying 'oh, you should tough it out and endure the challenge, wuss', but this is something that I'm voluntarily doing in my free time. If it's not fun, and especially if (like seems to be the case from the updates) the DM is opposed to me having fun in a broad since 'actually casting spells on my sorcerer in a fantasy game', why spend the time and energy on it ?

I feel sorry for the new player, the DM is actively ruining her fun and she seems to feel like she has to put up with this. It's bad enough in the abstruact, but given the genders and the general picture painted by the updates I wouldn't be surprised if there is a significant sexual motivation for what he's doing, the subtext is abundantly clear. Making her character spend multiple sessions bound and helpless and at his mercy while desperately needing get the “old god’s body fluid” on her body waves an entire sea of red flags for me.

[KorvinStarmast]

1. None of us knows, and none of the players yet know, what the pay off is when the arc is over. (IMO, it better be awesome, given the crap she's had to put up with).
2. What are the other players doing to help her?
3. Has she hired a merc, and if she can she hire a merc can she play the merc? not a "solution" but a way to be actively engaged in the continuing adventure ...

For the OP/mistermarv:

4. For other players have had "a character arc" did they get an awesome pay off? What's the expectation here?

Social Group:

5. The people who play the game are meeting together as friends and playing. That right there is a great incentive to show up and play regardless of what ever else is going on. I think some of this "the game's the thing" perspective is tunnel vision.

The above considered, making opportunities to engage/play/participate when the character is so handicapped is partly on the players/party, and partly on the DM to toss some situations in their path where her contribution is needed/matters.

I spent two levels in a very similar situation with my first ever PC, circa 1975. Magic User, OD&D. I had one or two spells per day, and no cantrips. I threw daggers a lot. :smalltongue:

Old School Casters did a lot of not casting:

In OD&D, at first level, the caster had the chance to hold torches, toss flasks of oil, and otherwise be a brain to offer up ideas. We had one spell. Make it count! (Charm Person, if used on the right NPC / Monster, got the caster a body guard/archer ... or two. :smallwink: In those days, it lasted for days depending on the Int of the NPC/charmee). We didn't have cantrips.
At level 1: 1 Spell. at level 2: two spells. At level 3 a power spike: 3 1st level and 1 2d level spell.
Most of what we did at low levels was anything but casting.

But this is 5e, and quite frankly I like that the wizard or bard can, if needed, toss a cantrip in lieu of a prepared spell. It's a feature/change that I think was very much for the better. Beyond that, this is a group who are at 6th/7th level. (By then, we used to have a wand or another magic item in the old games). So there's a lot of versatility and input lost to the group here. As I led with, the payoff for this nerf period needs to be awesome given the crap she's put up with as a player.

For mistermarv:

6. I'll be interested to learn how this all plays out, in the end, and I hope that the groups gets to this god and its fluids during the next session. Please let us know.

Making her character spend multiple sessions bound and helpless and at his mercy while desperately needing get the “old god’s body fluid” on her body waves an entire sea of red flags for me. You assume the worst, and I sincerely hope for that small group's sake that you are not correct. If you are correct .... ugh, that would be bad news from multiple angles. :smallmad: And IMO it would be grounds for the whole group walking.

[Mad_Saulot]

I'm not saying this is what the DM is guilty of but my flags are up:

misogyny
Dictionary result for misogyny
/mɪˈsɒdʒ(ə)ni/
noun
noun: misogyny

dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women.
"she felt she was struggling against thinly disguised misogyny"

The DM has restrained a new female player requiring "Body fluids" to release her, this should be called out, does the DM have a superior he answers to? If so report the situation to the shop/overlord/head DM/whatever....

Only a bad DM would sanction this kind of *challenge* (and is borderline illegal here in the united kingdom, game or not)

You and your friend should start your own game or find a new table

[OverLordOcelot]

The people who play the game are meeting together as friends and playing. That right there is a great incentive to show up and play regardless of what ever else is going on. I think some of this "the game's the thing" perspective is tunnel vision.

Actually, I think the 'friend's the thing' perspective is the one with tunnel vision. If people are genuinely friends, then they will want to do enjoyable activity with you, they don't want to do an activity where everyone else has fun and you're there because they won't be your friends if you don't put up with it. It's not 'the game's the thing' to only want friends who actually treat you appropriately and with respect, and to actively refuse to accept emotional manipulation like 'if you were really my friend, you'd keep coming to this game for months even though it's not actually fun for you'. If they're real friends but you don't enjoy this activity, you could say 'lets get together on X day and do this other thing that I actually enjoy'.

And "friends" emotionally blackmailing you into roleplaying a nonconsentual "long-term bondage that can only be fixed by begging-for-bodily-fluids" scene are just... yeah. I'm not 'assuming the worst', I'm accurately describing what the situation is without blinders. What are the incorrect assumptions there? Wearing manacles is bondage, keeping it going is long-term, removing character abilities is rendering her helpless, and the bodily fluid thing is in the OP.

[Kadesh]

The character can be used. That's the difference here. The character isn't unconscious. The character isn't dead.
They can't. The character is defined by their actions, and their actions that allow them to do things are being prohibited. The reason someone chose to use certain things to go and do is what they consider fun, enjoyable, engaging, and something moreover that THEY want to do.


The PC can participate in the exploration and social pillar. The player can have a limited participation in combat via the help action. The player can still tell and make suggestions at the table. Is the player only out for himself?
I'll run you over obstacle courses with your hands tied. I'll let you go into social encounters with your hands cuffed.

In any event, the DM has outright told the players what to do. Get some god droppings. They are adventures. It's what adventures do.[/quote]
Excellent. Get some "god droppings" and you can play again seems like a wonderful tool to get the players invested. Mind if I drop out for 5 sessions and wait in our hotel room until I you guys get it? Because that doesn't sound like fun.


Now, we don't know how long it will last. But people in this thread are completing that even one session is completely out of bounds. And it just isn't.
I disagree that making any part of any session not fun as a complete waste of time. While it's an impossibility to guarantee that is the case, there is no intent from myself to make it so that that the individual CANNOT do what they want to do.

Let's get a picture of the team; Pete the Paladin, his Holy Sword held aloft while he uses his Plate Armour and Shield to protect the weak. Bob the Barbarian who can stop an army with his shout. Rob the Rogue, who can pick any lock in the universe. And Steve the Sorcerer who can't cast spells and only shoots a Light Crossbow bolt every other turn.

[Teaguethebean]

I would put up with this for a session because I'm too patient. By the second session I'd tell the DM that playing a weakened version of a commoner is not what I'm interested in. After that, I'd leave the campaign entirely, and probably not play another game run by that DM. I have friends, meetup groups, board game nights, computer games, movies, TV, books, and other RPG games as a player, plus I could get around to running my own game, so if a particular game isn't enjoyable to me then why should I spend any time on it? Yeah, the bad DMs are saying 'oh, you should tough it out and endure the challenge, wuss', but this is something that I'm voluntarily doing in my free time. If it's not fun, and especially if (like seems to be the case from the updates) the DM is opposed to me having fun in a broad since 'actually casting spells on my sorcerer in a fantasy game', why spend the time and energy on it ?


What makes this even worse is that this is the Sorceress player's first ever game so she probably doesn't have other ways to play.

[KorvinStarmast]

Actually, I think the 'friend's the thing' perspective is the one with tunnel vision. You are assuming the worst. If you are right, then I utterly agree with the rest of your post.
If not, then ... why do people play games together? It's a social activity.
I've played golf competitively.
I've played golf socially.
The two are very different settings for the same game/social activity.
You are making an assumption on the purpose of this groups game, whereas I am not.
You and I aren't at that table, so we really don't know. And I really hope, as I stated above, for their sake as friends that your 'worst case scenario' isn't the case here. If it is, then ... bad things, man.

[KorvinStarmast]

What makes this even worse is that this is the Sorceress player's first ever game so she probably doesn't have other ways to play. They've been playing together for a year, per the OP, so let's give her a little credit in terms of soaking up how other classes work/operate.
But yeah, I agree, for a first time player doing this even with the seasoning that playing for a year brings is IMO harsh. For those with numerous campaigns worth of experience, less of a beat down and more of a challenge.

I've been at this since about 1975, and I'll observe that this isn't something I do to anyone. Not my style of challenge.
If I think someone needs a challenge, I'll challenge their creativity without a nerf. I don't see the point of nerfs: as a DM I can always turn up the dial to 11!

Our first 5e DM did a thing like this, sort of, to our bard player. We ran into a night hag and she did that nightmare thing every freaking night to him, and we could not reach here in the ethereal plane. Levels 4/5. That losing max HP and not benefitting from a rest this is penal to a bard.

Nightmare Haunting (1/Day). While on the Ethereal Plane, the hag magically touches a sleeping humanoid on the Material Plane. A protection from evil and good spell cast on the target prevents this contact, as does a magic circle. As long as the contact persists, the target has dreadful visions. If these visions last for at least 1 hour, the target gains no benefit from its rest, and its hit point maximum is reduced by 5 (1d10). If this effect reduces the target’s hit point maximum to 0, the target dies, and if the target was evil, its soul is trapped in the hag’s soul bag. The reduction to the target’s hit point maximum lasts until removed by the greater restoration spell or similar magic.

We spent a bunch of gold and got him greater restoration, and the next night the Hag was back.

We mitigated it first by having my cleric always room with the bard, and casting prot from evil when the nightmares began, and then he finally got LTH (he would cast it as a ritual, which solved that problem in the longer term). But we never solved it. I was trying to convince the other players that we needed to find a way to parlay with the Night Hag, to get her to leave him alone, but we had not arrived at a way forward (around level 6) by the time the campaign died to RL taking our DM away.

As annoying as that was, and it was annoying as hell, it wasn't an utter nerf to his ability to do other things with his character. He was still the bard doing bard things, it's just that he had a higher risk and I had to save a spell each day to make sure he was taken care of over night until he got LTH. (You could say the DM nerfed my cleric by a slot ...)

[Laserlight]

if the DM is even blocking her from playing some other character because he's too invested in the story and does not care about absolutely tanking her character, it's not worth showing up, because his story is more important than her enjoyment of it.

Concur. I've had a "won't listen because His Story is more important than you" DM --not as bad as this one--and it was extremely frustrating. It's Bad DMing, and doing it to a new, shy player just makes it worse. If I were at the table, I'd explain that I was leaving the group because of what the DM was doing to the sorc player.

[Skylivedk]

Thanks for the update.

I find his responses concerning.

He clearly has in his head, how she is “supposed” to be playing her character, and is unwilling to communicate what that is outside of negative reinforcement.

If this was at my table, I would be absolutely outraged that a new player was being picked on in this fashion, and would call him out on it.
If the other players are half way decent people they should too.
Few things upset me more than elitist DMs bullying new players.
The male/female dynamic isn’t lost on me here either.

GM needs a reality check and owes this player an apology for singling her out and wasting what is presumably 16 hours of her free time, and potentially driving her away from the hobby entirely.

Thank you! My co-sign. I think debriefs would have solved this after the 1st session it happened. A bit of empathy would have avoided the situation entirely. If the new player is a bit shy, show some solidarity with your comrade in narrative arms. As a new player, she might think this kind of sidelining is normal. I can't help, but feel sad for her.

[Unoriginal]

They've been playing together for a year, per the OP, so let's give her a little credit in terms of soaking up how other classes work/operate.
But yeah, I agree, for a first time player doing this even with the seasoning that playing for a year brings is IMO harsh. For those with numerous campaigns worth of experience, less of a beat down and more of a challenge.

I've been at this since about 1975, and I'll observe that this isn't something I do to anyone. Not my style of challenge.
If I think someone needs a challenge, I'll challenge their creativity without a nerf. I don't see the point of nerfs: as a DM I can always turn up the dial to 11!

Our first 5e DM did a thing like this, sort of, to our bard player. We ran into a night hag and she did that nightmare thing every freaking night to him, and we could not reach here in the ethereal plane. Levels 4/5. That losing max HP and not benefitting from a rest this is penal to a bard.


We spent a bunch of gold and got him greater restoration, and the next night the Hag was back.

We mitigated it first by having my cleric always room with the bard, and casting prot from evil when the nightmares began, and then he finally got LTH (he would cast it as a ritual, which solved that problem in the longer term). But we never solved it. I was trying to convince the other players that we needed to find a way to parlay with the Night Hag, to get her to leave him alone, but we had not arrived at a way forward (around level 6) by the time the campaign died to RL taking our DM away.

As annoying as that was, and it was annoying as hell, it wasn't an utter nerf to his ability to do other things with his character. He was still the bard doing bard things, it's just that he had a higher risk and I had to save a spell each day to make sure he was taken care of over night until he got LTH. (You could say the DM nerfed my cleric by a slot ...)

No one in your group had a way to get Blink, even as a scroll?

[Sigreid]

In her place I would tell the DM straight that I don't give a damn about his story arch for my character, this has gone on too long and I'm not having fun, which is the only reason to play the game. It's time for there to be a real possibility of getting out, an end to the character or an end to my showing up.

If it turns out there have been opportunities to end the limitation and I missed them, then that's different. But right now she's not only being railroaded, but it's a particularly un fun train.

[Willie the Duck]

I spent two levels in a very similar situation with my first ever PC, circa 1975. Magic User, OD&D. I had one or two spells per day, and no cantrips. I threw daggers a lot. :smalltongue:

Old School Casters did a lot of not casting:

In OD&D, at first level, the caster had the chance to hold torches, toss flasks of oil, and otherwise be a brain to offer up ideas. We had one spell. Make it count! (Charm Person, if used on the right NPC / Monster, got the caster a body guard/archer ... or two. :smallwink: In those days, it lasted for days depending on the Int of the NPC/charmee). We didn't have cantrips.
At level 1: 1 Spell. at level 2: two spells. At level 3 a power spike: 3 1st level and 1 2d level spell.
Most of what we did at low levels was anything but casting.

To be fair to oD&D, a much larger part of the game was the stuff other than the magic user/cleric casting spells or fighting man/cleric swinging weapons--especially before the introduction of the thief class, when everyone was effectively a thief. The magic user only has one or two uses of their ability (sleep spell also was an early-level 'we win' card for a single encounter)? Well, they can still do what the fighting man and cleric are doing most of the time as well--ad hoc adventuring with not a lot of rule structure (:smallbiggrin:).


What makes this even worse is that this is the Sorceress player's first ever game so she probably doesn't have other ways to play.

The real concern for me is that she walk away from gaming in general after this experience. The existence of poor DMs is just a fact of life. Having a poor DM during a formative time in learning to love the game can be a tragedy.


You assume the worst, and I sincerely hope for that small group's sake that you are not correct. If you are correct .... ugh, that would be bad news from multiple angles. And IMO it would be grounds for the whole group walking.

I think that's were everyone is. There's two reasonable possibilities--incompetence/inadvertent problematic behavior, or deliberate problematic behavior, and we don't yet really have enough information to know which it is.

[ChildofLuthic]

This. "Take the PC's powers away from them" is a common story element that's very, very easy to get wrong, and (at least in cases this extreme) really shouldn't be done at all without the player's assent.

This. In a game I DM, I let a player risk losing their own sight in order to try to make a blindness spell permanent for someone else. Even with the player's consent, and even considering that it wasn't a huge nerf, I feel like it made the game less fun for them, and it took away game time for everyone else. I can't imagine doing something like this to a player without even talking to them about it first.

[OverLordOcelot]

You are assuming the worst. If you are right, then I utterly agree with the rest of your post.

Either point out what I'm 'assuming' the worst, or stop claiming that I'm assuming anything. I have taken things that have been explicitly stated by the OP and put them together into a description of what is happening. I'm not 'assuming' that there's bondage, it's been clearly stated that the character is in inescapable manacles that's... bondage. I'm not 'assuming' that the character has been made helpless, that's been gone over multiple time. I'm not assuming that it's long term, multiple sessions of play and in this context is long term. I'm not assuming that the character needs elder god bodily fluids, that was explicitly stated and I quoted it.


If not, then ... why do people play games together? It's a social activity.
I've played golf competitively.
I've played golf socially.
The two are very different settings for the same game/social activity.
You are making an assumption on the purpose of this groups game, whereas I am not.

No, I'm saying that regardless of the purpose of the group's game, what the DM is doing is messed up. If it's just a fun activity together, then what he's doing is making it unfun for one player. If it's a competitive activity, he's making it so she can't compete. Doing something as a social activity but deliberately tanking one person's ability to have fun at that activity is not cool. Doing something as a competitive activity but deliberately making one person non-competitive is also not cool.

[Kadesh]

You are assuming the worst. If you are right, then I utterly agree with the rest of your post.
If not, then ... why do people play games together? It's a social activity.
I've played golf competitively.
I've played golf socially.
The two are very different settings for the same game/social activity.
You are making an assumption on the purpose of this groups game, whereas I am not.
You and I aren't at that table, so we really don't know. And I really hope, as I stated above, for their sake as friends that your 'worst case scenario' isn't the case here. If it is, then ... bad things, man.

When was the last time you played Golf with your hands tied?

[Willie the Duck]

When was the last time you played Golf with your hands tied?

There are handicaps in golf all the time. :smallbiggrin:

More seriously, you keep harping on this one issue, as though just stating it is an argument in one direction or another (or maybe the statement alone is supposed to mean something, it's unclear). What about the hands tied bit supports your argument and why?

[Neknoh]

A note on the social aspect:

This is the equivalent of hanging out with four friends playing a multiplayer videogame that you really like, but they only have four controllers, and you haven't gotten to play for a month or two.

You still get to drink beer, laugh, shoot the **** and have fun, theorize on what is happening and you can still backseat game like there is no tomorrow.

But the guy who owns the Gamebox 3000 has not let you hold a controller, and he's telling you that this is because he wants to challenge you to think differently about the game.

And all you do when you hang out is sit next to your friends on the couch whilst they play.

Every time.

For a month.

[Sigreid]

There are handicaps in golf all the time. :smallbiggrin:

More seriously, you keep harping on this one issue, as though just stating it is an argument in one direction or another (or maybe the statement alone is supposed to mean something, it's unclear). What about the hands tied bit supports your argument and why?

I'll disregard debates about fair/unfair. Bottom line for me is the sorceress player is apparently noticeably not having fun. This can be ok for a short term, but several entire sessions of not having fun is in itself a problem.

[Kadesh]

There are handicaps in golf all the time. :smallbiggrin:

More seriously, you keep harping on this one issue, as though just stating it is an argument in one direction or another (or maybe the statement alone is supposed to mean something, it's unclear). What about the hands tied bit supports your argument and why?

Handicapped, not handcuffed.

I keep "harping" on this one issue? You mean the OP? Or the bit where a DM is basically telling one person to sit in a corner and do nothing of what they want to do for multiple sessions? Please explain, because I'm struggling to understand how you think telling one person "no you can't play the way we're playing" (such as, by having class features) is any way okay.

[Skylivedk]

- and let's be frank. If the DM had wanted to spur creativity and had put some thought into it, there's plenty of ways to do so. Top of my head:

a) give her a Batman belt of non-magic items

b) up the amount of social encounters (rallying a village that's been oppressed by the cult to rise against them; Breaker of Chains style)/encounters that play to other strengths of the Sorcerer to give the player a feeling of being impactful in New and Wondrous Ways. This can be done very easily by the DM: the high charisma of the Sorcerer and the symbolism of the sorcerer's situation could function as a strong catalyst and a magnet for the hopes and aspirations of the downtrodden

c) let the Sorcerer gain a bit of control of the anti-magic field through sheer willpower and heroic awesomeness. Instead of spells, she can expand the anti-magic field in dispelling whip like lashes, create temporary dead zones and counterspell as a reaction attack

d) make it so the anti-magic field allows the Sorcerer to see through certain illusions and other magical tricks and traps to save the party

... And so on and so forth.

Do we know the DM hasn't done that? No. Can we guess so? I'd consider it very probable, since this thread wouldn't exist if the DM had compensated the Old Fun with New Fun.

It's all kinds of weird to see this. In my campaigns, I usually have to stop my players from overly gimping themselves (in particular my group has a tendency to let high wis characters have low wisdom traits: lack of emotional control, etc.). As mentioned, it's easy to turn up the challenge dial as a DM. Without consent this entire arc seems unnecessarily punishing to a player finding her feet.

... And I'll avoid commenting on the bodily fluids part. I sincerely hope the DM didn't see this angle rather than it being a misogynistic juvenile power trip. That being said: I highly doubt it's (borderline) illegal unless it's a public group with minors participating. My groups have had dark, very very dark, sessions. We've also stopped a campaign due to the players feeling the need for something more light-hearted. Again, meta communication is key.

Was there any warning in a session zero about the DM wanting these kind of sessions?

[KorvinStarmast]

No one in your group had a way to get Blink, even as a scroll? Nope. Did you read the level this occurred at?
Our one wizard did not have that spell in his book.
Nor was there a scroll with blink in any treasure we found.
Nor did the Bard select that spell, and maybe that was a good idea. One v One a level 4/5 bard versus a night hag in the ethereal plane with no other party members present ... lose fight, ass kicked. LTH was the better solution, as a spell choice, for the Bard.
I imagine that if my brother, our wizard, had thought to ask around for Blink, and had wanted to be the one to solve the problem, he might have found a scroll for sale when we paid for the greater res, but as I said it was the first campaign in 5e for our group ... hindsight is 20-20, eh?

When was the last time you played Golf with your hands tied? Never. I have played injured when I hurt myself the night before our round during a trip (long story). It sucked, but the beer helped to mitigate the pain. You question is irrelevant, though, since I was using the analogy to point out differences in context of the same social activity.

To be fair to oD&D, a much larger part of the game was the stuff other than the magic user/cleric casting spells or fighting man/cleric swinging weapons--especially before the introduction of the thief class, when everyone was effectively a thief. The magic user only has one or two uses of their ability (sleep spell also was an early-level 'we win' card for a single encounter)? Well, they can still do what the fighting man and cleric are doing most of the time as well--ad hoc adventuring with not a lot of rule structure (:smallbiggrin:). Yes. A different form of the same game.

I think that's were everyone is. There's two reasonable possibilities--incompetence/inadvertent problematic behavior, or deliberate problematic behavior, and we don't yet really have enough information to know which it is. yeah.


Either point out what I'm 'assuming' the worst, or stop claiming that I'm assuming anything. You are invited to read Willie's post, which I quoted. I bolded the part that might interest you regarding your assumptions.

A note on the social aspect: Not a bad analogy.

I'll disregard debates about fair/unfair. Bottom line for me is the sorceress player is apparently noticeably not having fun. This can be ok for a short term, but several entire sessions of not having fun is in itself a problem. Yeah, and it is because of that concern that our OP showed up here, and a whole bunch of people who aren't at that table are also now concerned and not able to do anything about it but (1) offer advice, or (2) rant. Looks like some of the advice has been taken on board. The rants look to me like a lot of mental masturbation, but that's what the internet is for, I suppose.

1. Will the DM reconsider? Unknown.
2. Will they get to the old god and get some fluid sooner, not later? I hope so.
3. Is the DM going to award/reward the suffering sorcerer for this char arc with something cool/awesom/just what the sorcerer needs? I hope so. Not doing that would be a dirk move.

[Rukelnikov]

A note on the social aspect:

This is the equivalent of hanging out with four friends playing a multiplayer videogame that you really like, but they only have four controllers, and you haven't gotten to play for a month or two.

You still get to drink beer, laugh, shoot the **** and have fun, theorize on what is happening and you can still backseat game like there is no tomorrow.

But the guy who owns the Gamebox 3000 has not let you hold a controller, and he's telling you that this is because he wants to challenge you to think differently about the game.

And all you do when you hang out is sit next to your friends on the couch whilst they play.

Every time.

For a month.

This is a good analogy, one which serves to bring forth what I think is the may point of divergence in this thread.

In the scenario that you are describing, you still get to hang out with your friends, but eventually you are gonna be like "well, c'mon guys, I've been sitting back here for a month, just pass me a controller already", and truth be told, it would happen far before than a month.

But thing is, I don't think its the same scenario, it would be if you had no character, you would have no input in the story, just as not having a controller forbids you from having a direct input in the game. I get the impression that, for many in this thread, a character that is unable to fight is equal to not having a character at all (or worse even). And I just don't agree with that.

It probably has to do with how different groups play. For a some time now (all of our time playing 5e), we generally have 1 big fight per session, with maybe a random encounter at some point, so fighting in our tables is about 1/3rd of the game, and tbh I personally care much more for what the fight is for, than for the fight itself. So having a character that effectively can't fight, doesn't seem to me to be the same as not having an input in the story.

[Skylivedk]

This is a good analogy, one which serves to bring forth what I think is the may point of divergence in this thread.

SNIP

So having a character that effectively can't fight, doesn't seem to me to be the same as not having an input in the story.

Spells are also pretty useful out of fights. So are hands.

[Willie the Duck]

I keep "harping" on this one issue? You mean the OP?

No, you. Like this:

I'll run you over obstacle courses with your hands tied. I'll let you go into social encounters with your hands cuffed.

When was the last time you played Golf with your hands tied?

You apparently think you are showing something or making some point.


Or the bit where a DM is basically telling one person to sit in a corner and do nothing of what they want to do for multiple sessions?

Everyone is in agreement that this is a problem. Others are trying to make nuanced and reasoned points on the matter. You are taking someone else (KorvinStarmast) who has stated things you don't like, and suggested that you will handcuff them, or that they should play a different game they were using as and analogy while handcuffed, and acted like it was making a coherent point. I was suggesting you actually try to make a reasoned and logical argument towards the position you wanted to take. Feel free to ignore the suggestion if you think you know better.


Please explain, because I'm struggling to understand how you think telling one person "no you can't play the way we're playing" (such as, by having class features) is any way okay.

Ah, you mean something I never once even remotely said? I have been quite persistent with exactly one position* which does not resemble that in the least.
*The DM is screwing up, but we do not have enough information to determine the reasons why. This problem should be addressed by dialogue between the relevant parties.


Spells are also pretty useful out of fights. So are hands.

That is a darn good point. I don't really feel, though, that the level of how much this nerfing sucks really matters--it just plain sucks. Sucks hard, sucks eggs, etc. If it sucked roughly the same for everyone, but overcoming it was an evening's challenge, it might be fine, regardless of how bad is sucked (everyone is handcuffed and can't do much). It is the disproportionateness of the situation that I feel is the big red flag, not the actual level of it.

[Kadesh]

This is a good analogy, one which serves to bring forth what I think is the may point of divergence in this thread.

In the scenario that you are describing, you still get to hang out with your friends, but eventually you are gonna be like "well, c'mon guys, I've been sitting back here for a month, just pass me a controller already", and truth be told, it would happen far before than a month.

But thing is, I don't think its the same scenario, it would be if you had no character, you would have no input in the story, just as not having a controller forbids you from having a direct input in the game. I get the impression that, for many in this thread, a character that is unable to fight is equal to not having a character at all (or worse even). And I just don't agree with that.

It probably has to do with how different groups play. For a some time now (all of our time playing 5e), we generally have 1 big fight per session, with maybe a random encounter at some point, so fighting in our tables is about 1/3rd of the game, and tbh I personally care much more for what the fight is for, than for the fight itself. So having a character that effectively can't fight, doesn't seem to me to be the same as not having an input in the story.

"Sit and watch while we talk about it".

Really selling it here.

[OverLordOcelot]

You are invited to read Willie's post, which I quoted. I bolded the part that might interest you regarding your assumptions.

So you're not willing to actually make a clear statement of what I'm supposedly assuming, and instead are going to sort of insinuate that it might be related to something someone else said. I've been online way too long to play the game where you insinuate something, I reply in good faith, and then you pull the 'oh no, you guessed wrong, I win' card. Since you aren't willing to make a clear statement, I'm going to say that the 'assumptions' claim is pure smokescreen, and that there is nothing substantive to the claim.

What you seem to be implying is that I am assuming that the DM is engaged in "deliberate problematic behavior" rather than " incompetence/inadvertent problematic behavior", but I am not assuming that and have made no statement claiming that. The problem is that the DM is engaged in "problematic behavior", as both alternatives suggest, and nothing that I said depends on one or the other causes for the problematic behavior.

[OverLordOcelot]

In the scenario that you are describing, you still get to hang out with your friends, but eventually you are gonna be like "well, c'mon guys, I've been sitting back here for a month, just pass me a controller already", and truth be told, it would happen far before than a month.

If I'm hanging out with 'friends' and they're arbitrarily deliberately excluding me from the activity, I'm going to stop thinking of them as friends.


But thing is, I don't think its the same scenario, it would be if you had no character, you would have no input in the story, just as not having a controller forbids you from having a direct input in the game. I get the impression that, for many in this thread, a character that is unable to fight is equal to not having a character at all (or worse even). And I just don't agree with that.

For one thing, it's not just 'unable to fight' as people have pointed out over and over in the thread, it's 'playing a sorcerer who isn't able to do any sorcery in or out of combat'. Trying to frame it as just 'oh, you kids, there's more to the game that combat' is not making an honest argument in the first place. But ignoring that the character is gimped in far more than combat, this argument still falls apart. Combat is a big part of all versions of D&D, the rules for combat and combat statistics dominate the rulebooks, and even in your supposedly 'low combat' games fully 1/3 of the time is spent in combat. Taking one person's character and making them ineffective at 1/3 or more of the game while letting the other players enjoy all parts of the game is a big problem. Further, it's already been stated that the player enjoys casting spells in combat. That may not be where you derive enjoyment, but you don't get to declare what other people must enjoy. Your disagreement doesn't magically make what she wants to do BadWrongFun.

And because people keep actively not mentioning it, it's not just 'unable to fight' it's "having the female player's character stuck in long term bondage and rendered mostly helpless and dependent on the goodwill of the rest of the group to do anything, and forcing her to seek out the bodily fluids of a powerful being that's controlled by the DM to escape from the cuffs". The more one writes out the actual situation instead of euphemizing it to 'unable to fight', the more off-putting it is.

[Sigreid]

I don't automatically think female player has anything to do with it. The situation just sucks. I mean, the ES games all start you out as a prisoner, but you move on from that almost immediately. Other games and even D&D modules can wind up with the party as prisoners stripped of their gear, but the point is for them to immediately start working to break out. Unless there is something big we are missing, the DM just wants to force the player to not depend on their magic.

[Blackhawk748]

So you're not willing to actually make a clear statement of what I'm supposedly assuming, and instead are going to sort of insinuate that it might be related to something someone else said. I've been online way too long to play the game where you insinuate something, I reply in good faith, and then you pull the 'oh no, you guessed wrong, I win' card. Since you aren't willing to make a clear statement, I'm going to say that the 'assumptions' claim is pure smokescreen, and that there is nothing substantive to the claim.

What you seem to be implying is that I am assuming that the DM is engaged in "deliberate problematic behavior" rather than " incompetence/inadvertent problematic behavior", but I am not assuming that and have made no statement claiming that. The problem is that the DM is engaged in "problematic behavior", as both alternatives suggest, and nothing that I said depends on one or the other causes for the problematic behavior.

You were implying a skeevy sexual motivation that most people don't automatically jump to. The two most probable reasons are A)They're an idiot and don't realize what they're doing or B) they are a railroading jerk. C) Its a skeevy sexual thing is waaaaaay down the road from those two.



And because people keep actively not mentioning it, it's not just 'unable to fight' it's "having the female player's character stuck in long term bondage and rendered mostly helpless and dependent on the goodwill of the rest of the group to do anything, and forcing her to seek out the bodily fluids of a powerful being that's controlled by the DM to escape from the cuffs". The more one writes out the actual situation instead of euphemizing it to 'unable to fight', the more off-putting it is.

See? You just did it again right here. You assume that the gender of the player/character has anything to do with this. Yes they used thee word "fluids" instead of blood, but Blood is a fluid, mucus and spit are fluids. Hell, for all we know the old god is a giant slug and all she needs to do is touch the slimy thing.

You are jumping to a conclusion that we don't have direct evidence to suggest.

[Draconi Redfir]

A note on the social aspect:

This is the equivalent of hanging out with four friends playing a multiplayer videogame that you really like, but they only have four controllers, and you haven't gotten to play for a month or two.

You still get to drink beer, laugh, shoot the **** and have fun, theorize on what is happening and you can still backseat game like there is no tomorrow.

But the guy who owns the Gamebox 3000 has not let you hold a controller, and he's telling you that this is because he wants to challenge you to think differently about the game.

And all you do when you hang out is sit next to your friends on the couch whilst they play.

Every time.

For a month.

Handicapped, not handcuffed.

I keep "harping" on this one issue? You mean the OP? Or the bit where a DM is basically telling one person to sit in a corner and do nothing of what they want to do for multiple sessions? Please explain, because I'm struggling to understand how you think telling one person "no you can't play the way we're playing" (such as, by having class features) is any way okay.

Again though, none of this is happening. you keep acting like it's the end of the world for her, but the sorceress is still 100% ABLE to play. She's not banned from the game or anything like that, she still has inputs and actions she can take. the OP actively told us she's been using a dagger, crossbow, and alchemists fire to interact with the game.

A better example i can think of: Look up the game "Last year: The nightmare". In that game there are five kids who can choose from four classes. the fighter, who hits the bad guy, The medic, who heals allies, the engineer, who can build traps, turrets, and barricade doors, and the Scout: Who has a machine with a flashlight that detects when the bad guy is nearby.

In a pinch that flashlight-machine can be used to flash-blind the killer for a few seconds, but the scout doesn't have any other way to defend themselves very well. They rely on communicating with their teammates and staying close to others. Sure they might not be actively engaging in fighting the killer, but they're still THERE. they're still impacting the game.

The Sorceress is just the Scout in this scenario, maybe she's used to playing the fighter, but now she's found herself as the scout. that doesn't mean she's suddenly thrust out of the game.

things she can still do that this thread has covered:


Alchemist fire
Thrown daggers
Crossbow (Maybe find one with multiple shots per load?)
Technology (If any is available)
Nets
Torches
Caltrops
Thrown Daggers
Other Alchemichal items (Smoke bombs, flash bombs, stink-bombs, etc)
Use the anti-magic field to block or dispel magic such as illusions, magic-missile, fireballs, etc.
Almost everything involved in social interactions so long as you're not trying to talk through sign-language
Hire help
Act as bait
Stabilize dying party members
Drag the wounded off the battlefield


And that's just stuff that's been covered in this thread. There's still things like pulling levers / buttons in order to trigger traps they've set up, kicking people in the face, maybe using some kind of modified spear, etc. With a bit of creativity and a friendly blacksmith, i'm sure you could come up with some kind of reliable ranged or reach weapon she could use either without issue or with only a little assistance to set it up. Maybe we should even focus less on how the sorceress can help the party, and more on how the party can help the sorceress. Teamwork is a two-way street after all.

having all these options to continue interacting with the game is hardly "not allowed to take part in the game"

[Blackhawk748]

She has a 7 Strength so nets and anything else Strength related is out. And thats not even the point, the point is she's spent 4 sessions not being able to do what she wants to do. She wants to be throwing fireballs/Lighting bolts, not following along as a gimped pack mule.

[Jakinbandw]

I'd be tempted to call the gms bluff if I was the sorceress. Grab a dagger and run into combat, right in the middle of all the enimies. When there is a spellcaster run through all opponents and grapple them, ignoring all foes. Open doors instead of the rest of the party, walk first down halls.

Then, when my character dies, play the sorceresses sister who is surprisingly identical in every way.

[Mellack]

Again though, none of this is happening. you keep acting like it's the end of the world for her, but the sorceress is still 100% ABLE to play. She's not banned from the game or anything like that, she still has inputs and actions she can take. the OP actively told us she's been using a dagger, crossbow, and alchemists fire to interact with the game.

A better example i can think of: Look up the game "Last year: The nightmare". In that game there are five kids who can choose from four classes. the fighter, who hits the bad guy, The medic, who heals allies, the engineer, who can build traps, turrets, and barricade doors, and the Scout: Who has a machine with a flashlight that detects when the bad guy is nearby.

In a pinch that flashlight-machine can be used to flash-blind the killer for a few seconds, but the scout doesn't have any other way to defend themselves very well. They rely on communicating with their teammates and staying close to others. Sure they might not be actively engaging in fighting the killer, but they're still THERE. they're still impacting the game.

The Sorceress is just the Scout in this scenario, maybe she's used to playing the fighter, but now she's found herself as the scout. that doesn't mean she's suddenly thrust out of the game.

things she can still do that this thread has covered:


Alchemist fire
Thrown daggers
Crossbow (Maybe find one with multiple shots per load?)
Technology (If any is available)
Nets
Torches
Caltrops
Thrown Daggers
Other Alchemichal items (Smoke bombs, flash bombs, stink-bombs, etc)
Use the anti-magic field to block or dispel magic such as illusions, magic-missile, fireballs, etc.
Almost everything involved in social interactions so long as you're not trying to talk through sign-language
Hire help
Act as bait
Stabilize dying party members
Drag the wounded off the battlefield


And that's just stuff that's been covered in this thread. There's still things like pulling levers / buttons in order to trigger traps they've set up, kicking people in the face, maybe using some kind of modified spear, etc. With a bit of creativity and a friendly blacksmith, i'm sure you could come up with some kind of reliable ranged or reach weapon she could use either without issue or with only a little assistance to set it up. Maybe we should even focus less on how the sorceress can help the party, and more on how the party can help the sorceress. Teamwork is a two-way street after all.

having all these options to continue interacting with the game is hardly "not allowed to take part in the game"

While they can do many of those things, they cannot do them very effectively. They can throw something every other round. THey don't have the strength to attack well. They may not have the skills to stabilize. Many of those could be accomplished more effectively by a hireling. It is very disappointing to a player to be less effective than a hired grunt. It would be like if your baseball team had a player rip a rotator cuff. Just because they like him they don't have him still on the field.

[Unoriginal]

Unless there is something big we are missing, the DM just wants to force the player to not depend on their magic.

... but the PC is a sorcerer. Magic is what they are.

It'd be like trying to make a Monk not dependent on chi and martial art training.

[Max_Killjoy]

She has a 7 Strength so nets and anything else Strength related is out. And thats not even the point, the point is she's spent 4 sessions not being able to do what she wants to do. She wants to be throwing fireballs/Lighting bolts, not following along as a gimped pack mule.

As noted earlier, for me, that would have been about a month of real-life timespan, with 16 to 20 hours of actual gaming table time, spent without most of the features I invested in during character build and progression negated, so that the DM could impose his vision of a "good story" on my character.

The whole "but she can still throw rocks" thing some are pushing is... just silly. If someone is fine with spending all that gaming time intentionally stripped down to throwing rocks and bottles, and limping along manacled, then I guess more power to them. But if a DM did that to my character, and it got to the point where it lasted beyond a single session / beyond part of one into part of another, there would be words.

And the whole "games are more than combat" thing is an insulting red herring, as if we don't know that, and as if the restriction only affects combat. Spells extend well beyond combat, the manacles are a serious hindrance outside of combat for both physical and social reasons, and so on. Comments to the effect that anyone bothered by this sort of thing is just some murderhobo or combat monkey, "informing" us that there's more to RPGs than combat, are ironic given that they're coming from the same person who keeps ignoring all the out-of-combat effects of the manacles.

[Sigreid]

... but the PC is a sorcerer. Magic is what they are.

It'd be like trying to make a Monk not dependent on chi and martial art training.

I wasn't defending the DM from anything other than accusations that they're picking on the player to dominate the girl. We dont have any way to know that's true and I like presumptions of innocence. I totally think the situation is a terrible way to run the game.

[KorvinStarmast]

So you're not willing to actually make a clear statement of what I'm supposedly assuming, I thought I had made clear which statement of yours it was that I saw as an assumption that you were making. Go back and read my first response to you (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23669575&postcount=145).
here's the slow motion replay.


]Quote Originally Posted by OrverlordOcelot
Making her character spend multiple sessions bound and helpless and at his mercy while desperately needing get the “old god’s body fluid” on her body waves an entire sea of red flags for me.
You assume the worst, and I sincerely hope for that small group's sake that you are not correct. If you are correct .... ugh, that would be bad news from multiple angles. And IMO it would be grounds for the whole group walking. For the red flags to be flying, you have to be assuming the worst about the DM. As Willie points out, we don't have enough info, and I will repeat my view that if the DM is coming from that place, yeah, that's a bad thing. One hopes that is not the case.

Nobody is trying to play some "win or lose game" here, at least I am not. I respond to hyperbole when I see it - I find the tendency to overstate things not helpful to the appeal made by the OP, mistermarv. His opening post, and the revisits, were as I read them a case of seeking advice. Some has been offered, along with a variety of rants, observations, and digressions.

The rest of your long winded post isn't worth replying to, as it's one of a number of rants in this thread that does not provide advice to the OP. (Yeah, I now and again rant on the internet, so I get the impulse too sometimes).

[Unoriginal]

I wasn't defending the DM from anything other than accusations that they're picking on the player to dominate the girl. We dont have any way to know that's true and I like presumptions of innocence. I totally think the situation is a terrible way to run the game.

Oh, I agree.

[OverLordOcelot]

You were implying a skeevy sexual motivation that most people don't automatically jump to. The two most probable reasons are A)They're an idiot and don't realize what they're doing or B) they are a railroading jerk. C) Its a skeevy sexual thing is waaaaaay down the road from those two.

No, I am pointing out that the situation the DM has created has a significant kinky subtext to it that is REALLY blatant if one simply describes the situation in a straightforward manner without euphemizing and hinting by simply placing the known facts together. The subtext exists regardless of his motivations, and all I have said about his motivations is that I would not be surprised if that's the case. My guess as to the most likely cause is that he's engaging in a power fantasy and picking up some cultural signals that have painted a picture he didn't consciously intend, and that he would be shocked if someone pointed out the picture that he's painted, but I'm not assuming that any of that is true, and have not predicated anything I've posted on that being true.


See? You just did it again right here. You assume that the gender of the player/character has anything to do with this. Yes they used thee word "fluids" instead of blood, but Blood is a fluid, mucus and spit are fluids. Hell, for all we know the old god is a giant slug and all she needs to do is touch the slimy thing.

You are jumping to a conclusion that we don't have direct evidence to suggest.

No, I did not assume anything beyond 'the OP is not lying'. Everything that I stated is something that the OP has clearly stated is part of the situation. The player and character are female, that's simply not an assumption. The phrase “old god’s body fluid” is not my word choice, it was a phrase in quotation marks in the OP. The conclusion that you're jumping to is your own.

[Kadesh]

Again though, none of this is happening. you keep acting like it's the end of the world for her, but the sorceress is still 100% ABLE to play. She's not banned from the game or anything like that, she still has inputs and actions she can take. the OP actively told us she's been using a dagger, crossbow, and alchemists fire to interact with the game.

A better example i can think of: Look up the game "Last year: The nightmare". In that game there are five kids who can choose from four classes. the fighter, who hits the bad guy, The medic, who heals allies, the engineer, who can build traps, turrets, and barricade doors, and the Scout: Who has a machine with a flashlight that detects when the bad guy is nearby.

In a pinch that flashlight-machine can be used to flash-blind the killer for a few seconds, but the scout doesn't have any other way to defend themselves very well. They rely on communicating with their teammates and staying close to others. Sure they might not be actively engaging in fighting the killer, but they're still THERE. they're still impacting the game.

The Sorceress is just the Scout in this scenario, maybe she's used to playing the fighter, but now she's found herself as the scout. that doesn't mean she's suddenly thrust out of the game.
She doesn't want to play the scout. She wants to play the fighter. And now the DM is wanting to say 'No you must play the scout'.


things she can still do that this thread has covered:


Alchemist fire
Thrown daggers
Crossbow (Maybe find one with multiple shots per load?)
Technology (If any is available)
Nets
Torches
Caltrops
Thrown Daggers
Other Alchemichal items (Smoke bombs, flash bombs, stink-bombs, etc)
Use the anti-magic field to block or dispel magic such as illusions, magic-missile, fireballs, etc.
Almost everything involved in social interactions so long as you're not trying to talk through sign-language
Hire help
Act as bait
Stabilize dying party members
Drag the wounded off the battlefield


And that's just stuff that's been covered in this thread. There's still things like pulling levers / buttons in order to trigger traps they've set up, kicking people in the face, maybe using some kind of modified spear, etc. With a bit of creativity and a friendly blacksmith, i'm sure you could come up with some kind of reliable ranged or reach weapon she could use either without issue or with only a little assistance to set it up. Maybe we should even focus less on how the sorceress can help the party, and more on how the party can help the sorceress. Teamwork is a two-way street after all.

having all these options to continue interacting with the game is hardly "not allowed to take part in the game"
Things she can't do:
- cast spells

Things she wants to do
- cast spells

[Neknoh]

I'm with Kadesh on this, it is very much like that game, except that ever since they got it, the group that she's in the couch/on discord with refuses to let her play anything but the scout.

She played the warrior for a while, but the guy who has the most social power in the group decided that the game got boring because she was too good at it, so now he's forcing her to play the scout and only the scout, for a month.

At LEAST a month.

She never liked it, she never wanted to do it, she's still playing because it's with friends and maybe one day she'll get to play the warrior again.

But that is entirely up to the team leader and he never asked her if she wanted to play the scout for a while because it's a cool aspect of the game, he just forced her into the role of scout and refuses to tell her why other than "it's for your own good." and "it's better this way."

[Draconi Redfir]

She doesn't want to play the scout. She wants to play the fighter. And now the DM is wanting to say 'No you must play the scout'.

TEMPORARILY



Things she can't do:
- cast spells

Things she wants to do
- cast spells
Yes i get it, i understand. All i am saying is that not being able to cast spells while playing a spell-casting character Does not equate to the player being unable to participate in the game full stop.

[Neknoh]

The character participating and the player enjoying the game are two completely different things.

[OverLordOcelot]

For the red flags to be flying, you have to be assuming the worst about the DM. As Willie points out, we don't have enough info, and I will repeat my view that if the DM is coming from that place, yeah, that's a bad thing. One hopes that is not the case.

No, a red flag just means that something is a warning sign - it doesn't require any assumption of 'the worst' whatsoever. If don't think it's at all unreasonable to say that him making her character spend multiple sessions bound and helpless and at his mercy while desperately needing get the “old god’s body fluid” on her body is something that one should be unconcerned about. And even if the red flag turns out to be pointing out a problem, there are a LOT of things that would be unpleasant but don't involve any intention to physically harm her - and anything that's not "the worst" doesn't fit your assumption.

I think the most likely explanation is something fairly bland like "he's actually misogynistic and is unconsciously living out a power fantasy that he doesn't even realize is there, and would be horrified if you actually gave him a straight 'do you realize what you're doing is..'" But I don't assume that ANY particular motive is the case, and trying to conclusively diagnose unconscious motivations from a third party's forum post about a situation is a fools errand.


Nobody is trying to play some "win or lose game" here, at least I am not.

If you're not playing, then there's no reason to make "win or lose game" setups in your post, like making vague statements that are clearly intended to force the other person to guess what you mean, then 'catch' them for a 'win' if they don't guess right.


I respond to hyperbole when I see it - I find the tendency to overstate things not helpful to the appeal made by the OP, mistermarv. His opening post, and the revisits, were as I read them a case of seeking advice. Some has been offered, along with a variety of rants, observations, and digressions.

Nothing in my post was hyperbole or overstated. The statement that's getting you so worked up is entirely factual, it just paints an unpleasant picture when you put the facts together. The fact that people are disturbed by it is an indication that calling it a "red flag" or "warning sign" is entirely reasonable.

[Draconi Redfir]

The character participating and the player enjoying the game are two completely different things.

yeah, was a typo there. meant the player participating. the player can still participate etc.

We've heard the player was "stressed" about all this in one or two posts from OP. As far as i can recall at least nothing's stated she wasn't having fun. If she's not, maybe this thread could instead try and come up with different ways she could have fun while avoiding her temporary handicap?

[GlenSmash!]

Alchemist Fire and Daggers to throw at enemies (her DEX is 14) so she wouldn’t feel useless in combat.


Darts work just as well for throwing as daggers, but are cheaper and lighter.

As to the broader topic at hand I'll just say this:

As a DM I have an open door policy. If at anytime you are not having fun lets talk after the session and see if we can't solve it together.

If I've gone more than 4 sessions with a player being frustrated by the same issue, I would majorly feel like I have failed as a DM to do my part to make our games fun and memorable.

[Kadesh]

TEMPORARILY
Then temporarily stop posting in this thread, because I want to challenge you. For, I dunno, let's call it a month, because you seem to think that is a reasonable amount of time.


Yes i get it, i understand. All i am saying is that not being able to cast spells while playing a spell-casting character Does not equate to the player being unable to participate in the game full stop.
'hey guys we're playing in this game but whenever I feel like it I'm going to remove all of your class features'
Stick with being on the player side of the screen.

[Draconi Redfir]

Darts work just as well for throwing as daggers, but are cheaper and lighter.

You could probably even work a blow--dart setup with a bit of effort. Hold the blow-dart in both hands, use mouth to shoot, and have extra darts on your belt for re-leading. Pipe goes in one hand, dart in the other, be careful to hold the pipe in such a way that the dart won't fall out, and you've got a re-loaded blow-pipe all over again.

[Max_Killjoy]

On the "red flag" question -- could we agree that it's a set of implications that's staring us in the face, and that could make the player uncomfortable regardless of the DM's intent, to the extent that the DM is at the very least exceedingly tone-deaf regarding the situation he's created here.

[Unoriginal]

TEMPORARILY


Yes i get it, i understand. All i am saying is that not being able to cast spells while playing a spell-casting character Does not equate to the character being unable to participate in the game full stop.

The problem with your analogy is that she's not able to play the scout either. The "scout" character type in the game you discussed might not have combat capacities, but they have plenty of scout-specific utility ones that makes them a valuable member of the team.

A Sorcerer without magic doesn't have that kind of capacity. So she's not "the scout", she's "a warrior who can't warrior".

Your argument defeats itself, because you're both saying the "scout" role has capacities that set it aside from the rest, which makes it awesome to be the scout, AND that someone who can exclusively use what available to every single class can take the "scout" role and be fine. Both can't be defended at the same time.

Furthermore, it is ignoring the fact that the manacles hinder the PC in the "scout" role too, even if she tried to do it.

[Rukelnikov]

On the "red flag" question -- could we agree that it's a set of implications that's staring us in the face, and that could make the player uncomfortable regardless of the DM's intent, to the extent that the DM is at the very least exceedingly tone-deaf regarding the situation he's created here.

Tbh, I didn't think of it that way, until someone pointed it out, and then it sounds like some people just have gender issues, bucause i'm sure they wouldn't be inferring the same if it was a guy, that whole "arc" of the conversation wouldn't be there. Unless it was a colour man ofc, then it would be there again...

[Provo]

Then temporarily stop posting in this thread, because I want to challenge you. For, I dunno, let's call it a month, because you seem to think that is a reasonable amount of time.

Whoa, this is in no way similar to the current issue. Now if you challenge Draconi to not use any verbs for a month, that would be similar. Her can still participate that way (just like the sorceress can)

[JackPhoenix]

You could probably even work a blow--dart setup with a bit of effort. Hold the blow-dart in both hands, use mouth to shoot, and have extra darts on your belt for re-leading. Pipe goes in one hand, dart in the other, be careful to hold the pipe in such a way that the dart won't fall out, and you've got a re-loaded blow-pipe all over again.

So she could be even LESS effective while using a weapon she's not proficient with, that does even less damage, and can only shoot every other round? Sounds like a *great* suggestion.

[Max_Killjoy]

Whoa, this is in no way similar to the current issue. Now if you challenge Draconi to not use any verbs for a month, that would be similar. Her can still participate that way (just like the sorceress can)

That's a great comparison -- spend 20 hours of game time without using any verbs. Or without talking at all. You can still "participate", but only using hand gestures and expressions.

Might be fun for part of one session.

For 4+ sessions? Forget it.

[Draconi Redfir]

The problem with your analogy is that she's not able to play the scout either. The "scout" character type in the game you discussed might not have combat capacities, but they have plenty of scout-specific utility ones that makes them a valuable member of the team.

A Sorcerer without magic doesn't have that kind of capacity. So she's not "the scout", she's "a warrior who can't warrior".

Then find her some scout-utility abilities

That's what i'm trying to say here! She can't do what she's normally supposed to, so find her something that can help the rest of the party in the meantime! For godsake all i'm saying is that a little creativity and effort can go a long way. Get her a gaddang foot-bow (https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Foot-Bow_(3.5e_Equipment))or something!

put your "this is bull, it's all bull, it's a bad DM blah blah blah" shtick aside for two second and think.

She can't move her hands more then X distance apart, and she can't use magic. Okay, we know this. we understand this, we've spent six pages now knowing this.

So rather then focus on what she CAN'T do. How about we focus on what she CAN do Hmm? What can we suggest to help her overcome this obstacle? lets stop focusing on limitations and START focusing on Possibilities

[Max_Killjoy]

Then find her some scout-utility abilities

That's what i'm trying to say here! She can't do what she's normally supposed to, so find her something that can help the rest of the party in the meantime! For godsake all i'm saying is that a little creativity and effort can go a long way. Get her a gaddang foot-bow (https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Foot-Bow_(3.5e_Equipment))or something!

put your "this is bull, it's all bull, it's a bad DM blah blah blah" shtick aside for two second and think.

She can't move her hands more then X distance apart, and she can't use magic. Okay, we know this. we understand this, we've spent six pages now knowing this.

So rather then focus on what she CAN'T do. How about we focus on what she CAN do Hmm? What can we suggest to help her overcome this obstacle? lets stop focusing on limitations and START focusing on Possibilities


After 4+ sessions and umpteen hours of actual playing time... it's gone well past that.

[Draconi Redfir]

Whoa, this is in no way similar to the current issue. Now if you challenge Draconi to not use any verbs for a month, that would be similar. Her can still participate that way (just like the sorceress can)

o.k.:smallbiggrin: I https://i.imgur.com/FQbGrC5.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/py5aHTB.jpg that.

[Willie the Duck]

On the "red flag" question -- could we agree that it's a set of implications that's staring us in the face, and that could make the player uncomfortable regardless of the DM's intent, to the extent that the DM is at the very least exceedingly tone-deaf regarding the situation he's created here.

Tbh, I didn't think of it that way, until someone pointed it out, and then it sounds like some people just have gender issues, bucause i'm sure they wouldn't be inferring the same if it was a guy, that whole "arc" of the conversation wouldn't be there. Unless it was a colour man ofc, then it would be there again...

I would definitely want to hear clarification from the OP before making any even remotely solid thoughts. It would depend on the otherwise existing gender makeup of the group, if the DM has any other history of worrying statements, and whether they actually used the term "god's bodily fluids". If the latter, agree with Max on the tone-deaf bit--What woman would not hear that and think 'oh, you could have said blood, or blood and tears, but you actively chose for it to be 'bodily fluids,' what exactly were you expecting us to assume you meant?'

[Unavenger]

So rather then focus on what she CAN'T do. How about we focus on what she CAN do Hmm? What can we suggest to help her overcome this obstacle? lets stop focusing on limitations and START focusing on Possibilities

Alternatively, the DM could stop nerfing the character into the ground. There, one change and the character is fun to play again.

Look, I like overcoming challenges. But when the challenge is "You can't do the thing you wanted to", that sucks.

[Reynaert]

Suppose this player were to tell the DM: "I'm not having fun." How should this DM react?

[Provo]

Great, thinking about the possibilities seems to be the intention of the DM... except that the sorceress and OP have been trying to do just that, and the DM seems to be punishing them rather than trying to work with them.

Most combat options seem to be either a direct no, will take an extra turn, or will have disadvantage. On top of this the DM is apparently not offering any sort of direction other than “be more creative” and than punishing creativity.

[ImproperJustice]

OOC, I shared the original post with my wife and her friend for an outisde gamer perspective.

They both shot back immediately after hearing about handcuffs, a female depowered, bodily fluids, and “needing to get creative”, that the GM is a kinky perv.....

[Unoriginal]

Then find her some scout-utility abilities

That's what i'm trying to say here! She can't do what she's normally supposed to, so find her something that can help the rest of the party in the meantime! For godsake all i'm saying is that a little creativity and effort can go a long way. Get her a gaddang foot-bow (https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Foot-Bow_(3.5e_Equipment))or something!

put your "this is bull, it's all bull, it's a bad DM blah blah blah" shtick aside for two second and think.

She can't move her hands more then X distance apart, and she can't use magic. Okay, we know this. we understand this, we've spent six pages now knowing this.

So rather then focus on what she CAN'T do. How about we focus on what she CAN do Hmm? What can we suggest to help her overcome this obstacle? lets stop focusing on limitations and START focusing on Possibilities

Alright, let me get the point clear, since you didn't get it in my last post:

There is no scout-utility abilities for her, because those scout-utility abilities require you to be a scout

This is not me being anti-intellectualist or ad-absurdum-reductionist.

It is a factual statement that D&D 5e is designed to be played with class features, and to this effect, BY DESIGN, there is NOTHING available to the PCs in the game that can match a class feature without either a) being less practical than/inferior to the class feature b) being less available than the class feature c) being more costly to use than the class feature d) all of the above.

That's the reason why the Battle Master's Manoeuvres are different from the combat options available to everyone, why using a Firebolt cantrip is more efficient than throwing the costly Alchemist's Fire, why Magic Initiate doesn't give you as much power as the Spellcasting class feature.

Why?

Because if there was a non-class-feature available to everyone that matched a class feature in term of capacity, then everyone would do it and it'd make the class feature obsolete, and so reduce it to dead weight for the class, which would make the whole class worse.

So, that being said, you want me to think about what she can do? Fine.

What she can do is what every other person in the world can do, except badly because she has a Sorcerer's proficiencies, can't move her hands well, and has 7 STR.

She can use DEX weapons. Which is inefficient as most of her options don't let her use her proficiency, and the damage will be low. Not to mention how she can only do it every other turn for most of her options.

She can put on an armor and try to survive if bad guys reach her. It will cost a fortune to get anything giving a decent AC in those circumstances, and that's not even going into how hindering an armor is to a STR 7, non-proficient character.

She can throw alchemical substances. Which cost a fortune, is a limited ressource, doesn't do much damage and, once again, she doesn't have the proficiency for it and the DM said she could only do so every other turn unless they're right at her belt.

Et cetera, et cetera. I won't list all the things every single character in D&D 5e can do, but she can do them. Badly.

That doesn't make her "the scout", or even close to "scout-like". It just makes her a character which can only do what everyone else can do, but with more restriction.

Maybe the DM was not aware of this entirely intentional design choice and genuinely thought that a Sorcerer could go by without their class features and contribute in a way more significant than what Average Joe the Commoner could provide if he tagged along on the adventure, but not being aware of it doesn't mean it's not a mistake. Even a wizard who got their spellbook burned and who is in an antimagic dungeon would be more able to help than the Sorceress in her current situation, because at least they'd have their hand free.

Creativity is a great thing, but you can't create things ex nihilo, you need the means to do so. What the DM did with those manacles is the equivalent of teleporting McGiver in a featureless, completely empty white room with no way out and no tool on him and telling him "be creative and escape". Sure, McGiver can use his clothes and body to try to dig his way out of the predicament, but that's not being creative, it's struggling in a desperate attempt to get out of the predicament because the person who put you there confiscated all your actual means of contributing in an exceptional way and made you do what anyone else could try to do, badly.

[Sigreid]

On the "red flag" question -- could we agree that it's a set of implications that's staring us in the face, and that could make the player uncomfortable regardless of the DM's intent, to the extent that the DM is at the very least exceedingly tone-deaf regarding the situation he's created here.

No. Because automatically assuming the worst of people we've never met is no way to go through life.

[Mad_Saulot]

It would be interesting to see that entire group join this debate, at the very least we could get more info from each perspective.

[JackPhoenix]

She can put on an armor and try to survive if bad guys reach her. It will cost a fortune to get anything giving a decent AC in those circumstances, and that's not even going into how hindering an armor is to a STR 7, non-proficient character.

Funny thing about this part: how is she putting the armor on if her hands are bound? Depends on the design of the armor, but in vast majority of cases, she would be unable to don the armor like that, even with outside help. That's true about normal clothes as well... how is she putting her hands through the sleeves like that?

[CorporateSlave]

From the current situation and discussion in this forum, I will suggest her to buy:
- Alchemist Fire and Daggers to throw at enemies (her DEX is 14) so she wouldn’t feel useless in combat.
- Acid Vials and other items (She has a bag of holding and about 1,000 gold to spend).
- Scrolls and Wands (If DM permitted to cast spells through it)

Are there other items or things that she could buy to defend herself or assist the party? I can only think of

Sorry if this is a duplicate... but can she get ahold of a Portable Hole somehow (does someone else in the party have one or anything)? Since apparently magic items still work for her (e.g. Bag Of Holding), have her blitz the enemy and drop the Hole into the Bag of Holding. If I were DM I would sure rule that the Gate that is opened won't affect her since it is an effect of combining two magic items so it only sucks through enemies within 10'.

She can also be a great bait since, AOE spells don't affect her. Charge in, draw a crowd, then have Fireball scroll centered on her.

Has nobody mentioned flasks of oil? If she's any good at stealth she can set traps with flammable puddles of oil...or possibly pour oil directly on someone. A torch is carried easily enough. Burn them all! Not a ton of damage, but wildly destructive potential.

...

Or she could strike a deal with one of the Old Ones and be freed on condition she takes a level in Warlock next level advance?


That's a great comparison -- spend 20 hours of game time without using any verbs. Or without talking at all. You can still "participate", but only using hand gestures and expressions.

Might be fun for part of one session.

For 4+ sessions? Forget it.

Heh, I had a mute character built around this concept! It was great fun!

[Unoriginal]

Funny thing about this part: how is she putting the armor on if her hands are bound? Depends on the design of the armor, but in vast majority of cases, she would be unable to don the armor like that, even with outside help. That's true about normal clothes as well... how is she putting her hands through the sleeves like that?

I thought about it, and I'm assuming mutilated clothes being used as ponchos/togas, or she didn't change since the manacling.

For the armor, she would be able to wear a chest plate, leg armor, an helmet... and that's about it. Might count as half-plate.

[Rukelnikov]

I'm astounded as to how terrible the IN-GAME situation seems to a lot of people, "can't use class features + manacles = may as well tear up my sheet".

[Unoriginal]

I'm astounded as to how terrible the IN-GAME situation seems to a lot of people, "can't use class features + manacles = may as well tear up my sheet".

I wouldn't go so far, but "can't use class features + manacles = basically dead weight in any adventure + has to rely on the group for everything adventure-related + is no match against the cultists we have to beat to free me" is accurate.

We're talking about an adventurer who would be utterly blocked, as in has-to-give-up-and-go-home, if stopped by a 10ft wall, without other people's help.




------------------------
At this point, it'd be searching if there wasn't other old gods who might be willing to bleed on the manacles for me.

[Kadesh]

Whoa, this is in no way similar to the current issue. Now if you challenge Draconi to not use any verbs for a month, that would be similar. Her can still participate that way (just like the sorceress can)
But it's challenging bro, and that's what matters. It's cool, he can get some godsnot and it'll be okay, though.

Bro just needs to widen his thoughts, because I don't want him to continually rely on posting in this thread.

[Blackhawk748]

Then find her some scout-utility abilities

That's what i'm trying to say here! She can't do what she's normally supposed to, so find her something that can help the rest of the party in the meantime! For godsake all i'm saying is that a little creativity and effort can go a long way. Get her a gaddang foot-bow (https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Foot-Bow_(3.5e_Equipment))or something!

put your "this is bull, it's all bull, it's a bad DM blah blah blah" shtick aside for two second and think.

She can't move her hands more then X distance apart, and she can't use magic. Okay, we know this. we understand this, we've spent six pages now knowing this.

So rather then focus on what she CAN'T do. How about we focus on what she CAN do Hmm? What can we suggest to help her overcome this obstacle? lets stop focusing on limitations and START focusing on Possibilities

SHE'S A SOCERER, THEY DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE. THAT'S THE POINT!!

She's not a Druid, or a Cleric, or a Ranger, or a Paladin. She's a Sorcerer. A class notorious for having nothing to do excpet cast spells, which she can't do. She has next to no class skills, almost no proficnecies and she isn't built to use ranged weapons, she's a commoner with more HP for gods sake! So you sitting there and going "but she can still contribute" isn't actually helping because the situation she's in IS BS! Its unfair and stupid that the DM thinks this is ok, and thats why we all keep going on about it!

[Mellack]

There is a difference between being able to participate and being able to meaningfully participate. She can currently participate, but being little better than a common mook does not make her participation meaningful.

[Blackhawk748]

I'm astounded as to how terrible the IN-GAME situation seems to a lot of people, "can't use class features + manacles = may as well tear up my sheet".

I don't think anyone said"tear up their sheet" most of us are saying "Stay at the Inn until its over" Because she's in a very, very dangerous line of work and she's so gimped she's a liability to her team right now, so that would be safest for everyone. Except that she's being railroaded into going on the adventure which is moronic.

[CorporateSlave]

There is a difference between being able to participate and being able to meaningfully participate. She can currently participate, but being little better than a common mook does not make her participation meaningful.

Too bad they're four sessions in, or she could have just repeated the following phrase at 60 second intervals; "I stand still, staring into the distance with a blank look on my face. I am lost, for the weave was my identity, my life. And now it is taken from me."

60 second intervals. All session. If the DM doesn't take the "hint" then next session? 50 second intervals. Reduce interval and repeat during further sessions as needed.

No need to go off on the merits or drawbacks of antagonizing the DM. This would be a fairly accurate in character response frankly, and if the DM doesn't like the consequences of what he hath wrought, he is free to change it. If he's ruining a player's fun, and the "creative" options mentioned aren't viable or aren't helping her enjoy herself, then he deserves to be stressed as well, and she is after all, only acting in character.

[Unoriginal]

SHE'S A SOCERER, THEY DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE. THAT'S THE POINT!!

She's not a Druid, or a Cleric, or a Ranger, or a Paladin. She's a Sorcerer. A class notorious for having nothing to do excpet cast spells, which she can't do. She has next to no class skills, almost no proficnecies and she isn't built to use ranged weapons, she's a commoner with more HP for gods sake! So you sitting there and going "but she can still contribute" isn't actually helping because the situation she's in IS BS! Its unfair and stupid that the DM thinks this is ok, and thats why we all keep going on about it!

To be 100% fair, she still got skills and the like, but those won't help with the brunt of the adventure. It's be like being a Rogue and becoming made unable to do anything meaningful but try to open locks. Occasionally useful, sure, but that make you worse than a Knock spell, 'cause the spell doesn't risk dying at every combat.

[Blackhawk748]

To be 100% fair, she still got skills and the like, but those won't help with the brunt of the adventure. It's be like being a Rogue and becoming made unable to do anything meaningful but try to open locks. Occasionally useful, sure, but that make you worse than a Knock spell, 'cause the spell doesn't risk dying at every combat.

Continuing to be fair, the Sorcerer Skill list is anemic and most of them arent terribly helpful or are done better by another party memeber. WHich is usually fine because they have magic, which is a great class feature and plugs an awful lot of holes that they have. Except, you know, when they can't use it for 4 sessions.

[Unoriginal]

Continuing to be fair, the Sorcerer Skill list is anemic and most of them arent terribly helpful or are done better by another party memeber. WHich is usually fine because they have magic, which is a great class feature and plugs an awful lot of holes that they have. Except, you know, when they can't use it for 4 sessions.

Indeed, indeed.

Wonder what's the Sorceress's Background

[Rukelnikov]

I don't think anyone said"tear up their sheet" most of us are saying "Stay at the Inn until its over" Because she's in a very, very dangerous line of work and she's so gimped she's a liability to her team right now, so that would be safest for everyone. Except that she's being railroaded into going on the adventure which is moronic.

Nobody said that (I think), but many of the comments sounded far more fatalistic than "stay at the Inn until its over", idk I've played a couple "combat inepts" and one of them is amongst my most cherished characters, it was a human in WoD, the rest of the table were Mages, antagonists included many supernaturals, even when I was a decent combatant by human standards, I couldn't do **** compared to the templated characters, so combat was never an option for that char, most of the time I tried to evade it, but still I never felt like I couldn't do anything.

That obviosuly varies from player to player, and table to table, and at this point, I'm pretty sure no kind of concensus will be had in this thread (which isn't necesarilly bad btw). It's just I was incredibly surprised at how different people views about gameplay, and most importantly, about DMing, can be from mine.

[Kadesh]

Nobody said that (I think), but many of the comments sounded far more fatalistic than "stay at the Inn until its over", idk I've played a couple "combat inepts" and one of them is amongst my most cherished characters, it was a human in WoD, the rest of the table were Mages, antagonists included many supernaturals, even when I was a decent combatant by human standards, I couldn't do **** compared to the templated characters, so combat was never an option for that char, most of the time I tried to evade it, but still I never felt like I couldn't do anything.

That obviosuly varies from player to player, and table to table, and at this point, I'm pretty sure no kind of concensus will be had in this thread (which isn't necesarilly bad btw). It's just I was incredibly surprised at how different people views about gameplay, and most importantly, about DMing, can be from mine.

None of those choices were imposed on you by the DM. You went into those games playing the characters you wanted to do so.

The lack of consensus from apologists for all but telling someone that they can't play the way they want to in a fantasy game. Otherwise we're all pretty much in agreement.

[Blackhawk748]

Nobody said that (I think), but many of the comments sounded far more fatalistic than "stay at the Inn until its over", idk I've played a couple "combat inepts" and one of them is amongst my most cherished characters, it was a human in WoD, the rest of the table were Mages, antagonists included many supernaturals, even when I was a decent combatant by human standards, I couldn't do **** compared to the templated characters, so combat was never an option for that char, most of the time I tried to evade it, but still I never felt like I couldn't do anything.

That obviosuly varies from player to player, and table to table, and at this point, I'm pretty sure no kind of concensus will be had in this thread (which isn't necesarilly bad btw). It's just I was incredibly surprised at how different people views about gameplay, and most importantly, about DMing, can be from mine.

Well, thats WoD, a game that is far mroe freidnly to the non-combat monkies than DnD. DnD has always had combat as a large portion of the game design, and thats clearly intentional. Its based off of Sword and Sorcery novels and comics which are high action. Yes the other parts are there too, but Combat is usually about 50%+ of what DnD is.

[Skylivedk]

Indeed, indeed.

Wonder what's the Sorceress's Background

According to the DM: Extra.


... sorry, couldn't help myself.

[Max_Killjoy]

No. Because automatically assuming the worst of people we've never met is no way to go through life.

Assuming the worst would be assuming he did it on purpose, with all the skeevy symbolism entirely intentional.

[Sigreid]

Assuming the worst would be assuming he did it on purpose, with all the skeevy symbolism entirely intentional.

The kind of thought process you've got going does not, in my opinion lead anywhere good. Most people are not of ill intent, either overt or hidden.

[Max_Killjoy]

There is a difference between being able to participate and being able to meaningfully participate. She can currently participate, but being little better than a common mook does not make her participation meaningful.


Exactly. In a 7th level campaign, the DM is forcing her to play a damn NPC for weeks on end.

[Max_Killjoy]

The kind of thought process you've got going does not, in my opinion lead anywhere good. Most people are not of ill intent, either overt or hidden.

Again, who said assume ill intent?

Here's my statement again, with the part about intent bolded.



On the "red flag" question -- could we agree that it's a set of implications that's staring us in the face, and that could make the player uncomfortable regardless of the DM's intent, to the extent that the DM is at the very least exceedingly tone-deaf regarding the situation he's created here.


If you're going to call people out, call them out for what they actually posted.

I did not suggest that we assume the worst, I suggested that we go with what's in the OP's statements, and agree on the least-bad option, which is that the DM is just really tone-deaf and doesn't get it.

And yes, that is the least-bad option, the most charitable assumption, that we can get out of the situation as described.

[Sigreid]

Again, who said assume ill intent?

Here's my statement again, with the part about intent bolded.



If you're going to call people out, call them out for what they actually posted.

We don't know the relationship between the people. It's quite possible that the only uncomfortable thing for the sorceress player is she's bored of not getting to use her cool powers. Anything beyond that with the information we have is projecting.

[XanKrieger]

I'm kind of confused as to why the validity of her manacling is a main topic of discussion considering the fact that OP said the sorceress was actively captured by evil cultists whose entire agenda is to siphon magic. The fact that her character seems to be alive without any kind of daring rescue signals some modicum of mercy on the part of the DM. You guys are suggesting a gauntlet of ideas from just not showing up to passive-aggressive mutiny, just being childish for no reason. She still gets to play a character, as opposed to possessing some sort of autonomy in controlling an admittedly gimped character, she could easily be completely absent by being in some cultists cage...or dead. Honestly all of the hullabaloo here makes it sound as if you guys would prefer it that way. Or didn't read that part of the opening post.

Honestly what might help is an explanation of how she got captured. Was it just random bad luck, or was she railroaded because it makes a difference.

[Max_Killjoy]

We don't know the relationship between the people. It's quite possible that the only uncomfortable thing for the sorceress player is she's bored of not getting to use her cool powers. Anything beyond that with the information we have is projecting.


Here, have a rainbow and some puppies to go with that unicorn and flowers. :smallconfused:

Given what we've been told, and no assumption, no projection, nothing, the DM has set up a situation that's so laden with "unfortunate" symbolism that he's either tone-deaf, or a skeev. "Tone deaf" is not assuming the worst. "Just a skeev" would be assuming the worst.

[Unoriginal]

I'm kind of confused as to why the validity of her manacling is a main topic of discussion considering the fact that OP said the sorceress was actively captured by evil cultists whose entire agenda is to siphon magic. The fact that her character seems to be alive without any kind of daring rescue signals some modicum of mercy on the part of the DM. You guys are suggesting a gauntlet of ideas from just not showing up to passive-aggressive mutiny, just being childish for no reason. She still gets to play a character, as opposed to possessing some sort of autonomy in controlling an admittedly gimped character, she could easily be completely absent by being in some cultists cage...or dead. Honestly all of the hullabaloo here makes it sound as if you guys would prefer it that way. Or didn't read that part of the opening post.

Honestly what might help is an explanation of how she got captured. Was it just random bad luck, or was she railroaded because it makes a difference.

Again, those manacles are more powerful than most Legendary items. And the cult just happened to slap those on the PC. It doesn't happen by random bad luck.

[KorvinStarmast]

OOC, I shared the original post with my wife and her friend for an outisde gamer perspective. They both shot back immediately after hearing about handcuffs, a female depowered, bodily fluids, and “needing to get creative”, that the GM is a kinky perv..... *cackle*

Here's an idea from a Crawford tweet.

@JeremyECrawford
29 Aug 2018
As a game of conversation, D&D always involves talk between the DM and the players. Those conversations are best when they're friendly and dedicated to the group's collective enjoyment. I wonder if that's happening at that table.

Suppose this player were to tell the DM: "I'm not having fun." How should this DM react? Hopefully, mistermarv can share with us how that went.
No. Because automatically assuming the worst of people we've never met is no way to go through life. Indeed, but it seems to be common currency on the internet.
It would be interesting to see that entire group join this debate, at the very least we could get more info from each perspective. I'd rather not see them debate, but rather share ideas and suggestions. I'd like to see this thread help the group at the table, which I think was the OP's original desire.
SHE'S A SOCERER, THEY DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE. THAT'S THE POINT!! Well, with a high charisma, she does have the usual social skills thing any potential party face has, but your point on the sorcerer's limited kit is valid.

Too bad they're four sessions in, or she could have just repeated the following phrase at 60 second intervals; "I stand still, staring into the distance with a blank look on my face. I am lost, for the weave was my identity, my life. And now it is taken from me."

60 second intervals. All session. If the DM doesn't take the "hint" then next session? 50 second intervals. Reduce interval and repeat during further sessions as needed.
*Cackle.*
With the right delivery, that might be both effective and hilarious.



@LordOcelot: when you decide to talk to me, not at me, we can (perhaps) have a conversation. (It is really easy on the internet to talk at people, rather than to them. Happens to us all).

[Pex]

For one thing, it's not just 'unable to fight' as people have pointed out over and over in the thread, it's 'playing a sorcerer who isn't able to do any sorcery in or out of combat'. Trying to frame it as just 'oh, you kids, there's more to the game that combat' is not making an honest argument in the first place. But ignoring that the character is gimped in far more than combat, this argument still falls apart. Combat is a big part of all versions of D&D, the rules for combat and combat statistics dominate the rulebooks, and even in your supposedly 'low combat' games fully 1/3 of the time is spent in combat. Taking one person's character and making them ineffective at 1/3 or more of the game while letting the other players enjoy all parts of the game is a big problem. Further, it's already been stated that the player enjoys casting spells in combat. That may not be where you derive enjoyment, but you don't get to declare what other people must enjoy. Your disagreement doesn't magically make what she wants to do BadWrongFun.

Thank you. This is what I wrote in response to someone else but more eloquently put.


And because people keep actively not mentioning it, it's not just 'unable to fight' it's "having the female player's character stuck in long term bondage and rendered mostly helpless and dependent on the goodwill of the rest of the group to do anything, and forcing her to seek out the bodily fluids of a powerful being that's controlled by the DM to escape from the cuffs". The more one writes out the actual situation instead of euphemizing it to 'unable to fight', the more off-putting it is.

I hadn't seen the situation in this way at first. I never had the picture. Now that a few people are mentioning, yeah, I see it. We don't have concrete proof the DM was going there on purpose for that intent, but the circumstance is strong.


I'm astounded as to how terrible the IN-GAME situation seems to a lot of people, "can't use class features + manacles = may as well tear up my sheet".

For 4 games sessions and counting.

[Skylivedk]

I'm kind of confused as to why the validity of her manacling is a main topic of discussion considering the fact that OP said the sorceress was actively captured by evil cultists whose entire agenda is to siphon magic. The fact that her character seems to be alive without any kind of daring rescue signals some modicum of mercy on the part of the DM. You guys are suggesting a gauntlet of ideas from just not showing up to passive-aggressive mutiny, just being childish for no reason. She still gets to play a character, as opposed to possessing some sort of autonomy in controlling an admittedly gimped character, she could easily be completely absent by being in some cultists cage...or dead. Honestly all of the hullabaloo here makes it sound as if you guys would prefer it that way. Or didn't read that part of the opening post.

Honestly what might help is an explanation of how she got captured. Was it just random bad luck, or was she railroaded because it makes a difference.

There's an argument to be had that dying would have been more fun. At least, she'd reroll and get a character with, y'know, class features.

I've plenty of times removed options from my own characters and seen my players do the same. That's way different from having them taken from you. Unless there's a conversation between the DM and the player we haven't heard about (which seems unlikely given the comment about the player feeling stressed about the situation), the DM has effectively done something worse than killing a player: robbing then of agency and impact.

My previous post had a range of ways where magic could be lost and agency redirected. I have a feeling we would have heard about some of them.

A question to OP: what happens if the Sorcerer touches/hugs someone who is buffed. Is the buff suppressed? I'm searching for ways, or POSSIBILITIES, to make this more fun for our newly induced player.

[Max_Killjoy]

Indeed, but it seems to be common currency on the internet.


Given what we know, I'm not assuming the worst of the DM. Assuming that he's just tone-deaf is the least-bad thing we can conclude. The worst is far worse.


OOC, I shared the original post with my wife and her friend for an outisde gamer perspective.

They both shot back immediately after hearing about handcuffs, a female depowered, bodily fluids, and “needing to get creative”, that the GM is a kinky perv.....

Even "kinky perv" isn't all the way to the worst.

[KorvinStarmast]

Given what we know, I'm not assuming the worst of the DM. Assuming that he's just tone-deaf is the least-bad thing we can conclude. The worst is far worse. We "know" very little, and we only get one side of the story. But I cannot hand wave away the concern about someone being tone deaf, and worse, since I have been at a number of tables with people who pulled stuff like that from either side of the screen. It's a possibility that I hope is not the reality.

Even "kinky perv" isn't all the way to the worst. Agreed. As I posted a while back, I really hope that the payoff for the crap this Sorcerer is going through is an awesome item, boon, something.

mistermarv will hopefully let us know how it all got resolved. The DM seems to have an intention as regards "arc" ... and their next game is Friday.

[Fryy]

The character cannot be shelved, as this is her story arc. She is also starting to wonder if this is a “subtle” way of the DM to ask her to role a new character although she very much enjoyed playing her current sorceress character (she plays a shadow sorcerer).

In addition, I quickly asked him, before he went offline, if he is giving her a challenge level that might be too hard for her to accomplish considering that this is her 1st D&D campaign ever (I asked her to join last year just to try it)?

His response was a bit strange, “she just needs to be creative despite not being able to use her magic” – I will keep you all updated again on what happened this Friday on her 4th session being de-powered.

To the OP (MisterMarv)

You have a friend. You introduced her to D&D. You invited her to join your group. By your words, she’s stressed, she’s shy, she’s trying to roleplay, and she’s even trying to not metagame. Your DM has imposed a ‘her story arc’ on her character which she apparently does not enjoy (i.e. stress) and has been unable to get beyond for 4 sessions and counting.

The situation is strange enough… or awkward, uncomfortable, or unpleasant enough for you that you have asked this forum for advice.

You could, as a friend, remind your friend that she can always stick up for her own self and decide herself what level of stress (or grief or abuse as some might categorize it) that she is willing to put up with to conform to a group’s norms or an individual’s rules… in her social life.

You could decide to defend your friend more actively to the group. She’s shy. You know these people. It’s up to you how to accomplish this.

You need to decide what you want to do for yourself and to help your friend. This is an out-of-game problem. In-game solutions won’t really resolve the underlying social dynamic.

From your posts, you and your group have thus far allowed this situation to continue. Your group might accept this. At some point, it's passive acceptance whether the issue is raised or not.

[Rynjin]

I'm kind of confused as to why the validity of her manacling is a main topic of discussion considering the fact that OP said the sorceress was actively captured by evil cultists whose entire agenda is to siphon magic. The fact that her character seems to be alive without any kind of daring rescue signals some modicum of mercy on the part of the DM. You guys are suggesting a gauntlet of ideas from just not showing up to passive-aggressive mutiny, just being childish for no reason. She still gets to play a character, as opposed to possessing some sort of autonomy in controlling an admittedly gimped character, she could easily be completely absent by being in some cultists cage...or dead. Honestly all of the hullabaloo here makes it sound as if you guys would prefer it that way. Or didn't read that part of the opening post.

Honestly what might help is an explanation of how she got captured. Was it just random bad luck, or was she railroaded because it makes a difference.

Why are you acting as though this is some kind of "mercy"? If a character is dead, they can be resurrected, or you just bring in a new character. Either way you're out maybe part of a session, tops, and you're back and able to contribute just as well as before with a new character.

This kind of gimping is the exact opposite of mercy. It really is worse than death, in an OOC sense.

That's even without taking into account the DM has apparently all but forbidden her to just cut her losses with this character and move on to a new one, even temporarily.

[KorvinStarmast]

To the OP (MisterMarv)
You have a friend. You introduced her to D&D. {snip the rest} What a fine post. Hopefully, this perspective will help our dear OP help his friend.
*applause*

[Neknoh]

Yes, as said at the start and as said over and over:

Talk to the DM, like, proper, sit-down talk, explain that she never asked for this, that she's not having fun and that you are both wondering when this will end, don't let him wriggle away this time, have a proper talk.

[OverLordOcelot]

Tbh, I didn't think of it that way, until someone pointed it out, and then it sounds like some people just have gender issues, bucause i'm sure they wouldn't be inferring the same if it was a guy, that whole "arc" of the conversation wouldn't be there. Unless it was a colour man ofc, then it would be there again...

"If the situation was different, you'd have a different take on the situation" is not a negative trait. If the DM was also putting male player's characters into extended bondage, left their character mostly helpless to the point that they require assistance to even wear clothing, and required them to get "old god’s body fluid” to get free, then I would just say that it moves it from a sea of red flags to a plethora of red flags. It's still worrying behavior, but lacks the specifically misogynistic flavor and the targeted feeling.

But I'd be willing to bet good money that the DM has not put any of the male player's characters into extended bondage that renders them mostly helpless and then required them to track down "old god’s body fluid”. The OP can answer specifically, but he did say earlier that no one else had anything quite like this happen to them, and I'm pretty sure that month-long bondage scenes would have been mentioned if they were a common occurance in this campaign.


I hadn't seen the situation in this way at first. I never had the picture. Now that a few people are mentioning, yeah, I see it. We don't have concrete proof the DM was going there on purpose for that intent, but the circumstance is strong.

The thing is, at no point did I say "the DM was going there on purpose for that intent"; the 'don't assume' people just assume themselves that I must be thinking that on the basis of no evidence. I actually think that the most likely 'motive' is that it's unintentional on the DM's part and that he doesn't realize what he's actually doing.


If the latter, agree with Max on the tone-deaf bit--What woman would not hear that and think 'oh, you could have said blood, or blood and tears, but you actively chose for it to be 'bodily fluids,' what exactly were you expecting us to assume you meant?'

Fascinating fact: My first thought upon hearing 'bodily fluids' wasn't semen, but spit. I can see why people would go that route, but it's amusing that all of the people claiming that I'm making assumptions have made big assumptions of their own, and assumed I've made them too. Which bodily fluid is involved doesn't alter that much to me, the human experience is a rich tapestry and any fluid that exists or you imagine could be involved in a this kind of power exchange in a non-innocent manner.

[OverLordOcelot]

The fact that her character seems to be alive without any kind of daring rescue signals some modicum of mercy on the part of the DM. You guys are suggesting a gauntlet of ideas from just not showing up to passive-aggressive mutiny, just being childish for no reason. She still gets to play a character, as opposed to possessing some sort of autonomy in controlling an admittedly gimped character, she could easily be completely absent by being in some cultists cage...or dead. Honestly all of the hullabaloo here makes it sound as if you guys would prefer it that way. Or didn't read that part of the opening post.

Rendering a character useless and unable to do the thing that's actually fun for the player is not 'mercy', it's the DM being an ass to the player. Ignoring the subtext, in the situation described by the OP I would rather my character be dead than be stuck in this "you have to show up for weeks on end to be bored and unable to do the thing that's the reason you play the game in the first place" limbo indefinitely. If a raise dead is available, then death is just a mild expense, if it's not then it's time to roll up something different and have fun playing that; in neither case is "weeks of standing around while other people are allowed to have fun" the result.

What's actually 'being childish' is tolerating bad behavior from people for the sake of "friends" and going and wasting hours on an activity that you don't enjoy that isn't providing you some benefit. If I schedule a game, I'm going there to have fun gaming, not out of some sense of duty. If I schedule a game with friends, I'm going there to play a game with my friends, not to play a fraction of the game while I'm arbitrarily restricted from at least 1/3 of the action and all the stuff in game that I enjoy doing.


I'm astounded as to how terrible the IN-GAME situation seems to a lot of people, "can't use class features + manacles = may as well tear up my sheet".

It's more "Can't play an actual D&D 5e character, may as well play an actual game I enjoy with a character of my choosing". I would save the sheet and hope to play the character in a more fun game down the road.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Rendering a character useless and unable to do the thing that's actually fun for the player is not 'mercy', it's the DM being an ass to the player. Ignoring the subtext, in the situation described by the OP I would rather my character be dead than be stuck in this "you have to show up for weeks on end to be bored and unable to do the thing that's the reason you play the game in the first place" limbo indefinitely. If a raise dead is available, then death is just a mild expense, if it's not then it's time to roll up something different and have fun playing that; in neither case is "weeks of standing around while other people are allowed to have fun" the result.


Right. In TTRPGs, death is merciful compared to being crippled but unable to re-roll. Death means 15 minutes (at most) of rebuilding a character. Being crippled can take sessions (if not more) to resolve and shatters verisimilitude hard (why is the group dragging this crippled person on these vital missions instead of letting them retire with honors?)

[Sigreid]

So, I think I'll shift gears and try to be helpful. From what I understand, the DM said that the sorceress just needs to be creative. It's possible the group has had the means to remove the manacles the whole time, so here are some thoughts.


Can the party get to an anti magic field area and see which one wins?
Can someone in the party try a displell magic on the manacles? Maybe they can be supressed long enough to get them off.
Any chance the story arc is the sorceress discovering that the ancient diety is the distant ancestor responsible for her gifts? She could try her own blood, saliva and/or tears.
Any chance the cult has a holy relic that contains some of the deity's blood that could be acquired in a raid?
Is she still vulnerable to magic (this would be unfair in my opinion)? If she isn't, are the manacles? Can a magical fire break them?
Are they unbreakable? Can a blacksmith brute force them off?
Can you track down some pixies or something else with the polymorph spell to change her into something that they don't fit?


Those are just a few off the top of my head ideas. But it may be that it's not actually that hard to get them off and he's surprised it's taken this long.

[Pex]

Fascinating fact: My first thought upon hearing 'bodily fluids' wasn't semen, but spit. I can see why people would go that route, but it's amusing that all of the people claiming that I'm making assumptions have made big assumptions of their own, and assumed I've made them too. Which bodily fluid is involved doesn't alter that much to me, the human experience is a rich tapestry and any fluid that exists or you imagine could be involved in a this kind of power exchange in a non-innocent manner.

I was thinking blood.

[Max_Killjoy]

I was thinking blood.

I was thinking blood, but the term is open-ended enough that other possibilities occurred to me.

[Erys]

I was thinking blood, but the term is open-ended enough that other possibilities occurred to me.

Dirty minds take things to dirty places.


***
I still think the sorceress should just be used as bait. If it is successful it lures bad guy cultist into traps, worst case she gets to re-roll. Win/win.