When a Party Vastly Exceeds their WBL

[Karsh]

Tonight in my gaming group, we managed to disarm an assassin of four of her weapons and ran her off inside of an enemy castle, then we grabbed the weapons we'd made her drop and we ran out of the castle. The party consists of 5 level 5 characters, and we made off with a Short Sword of Subtlety, an Assassin's Dagger, a +2 Defending Short Sword, and a +2 Hand Crossbow, catapulting our party wealth into the stratosphere. This game takes place in Dragonlance, so there's not an abundance of magic items to trade out for it, but we literally cannot make use of all of these weapons (especially considering we also already had a +2 dagger and a +1 Keen Longsword)...

Obviously, DM did not intend for this to happen. So, my question to you all is... how exactly should we anticipate the WBL being equalized against our now walking-armory adventuring group?

[Mewtarthio]

Rust monsters, disjunctions, sundering, the usual. If your DM's nice, you might be able to donate the excess wealth to an Assassin's Guild in exchange for political power (perfectly in-character, since influence is as good as money and you weren't using the stuff anyway). In fact, if it's in your character to deal with any sort of stealth-oriented organization (that is to say, you're not a Knight or Paladin or anyone else morally opposed to subtlety), you should suggest something like that in-character. You could even request a Knowledge (geography) or Knowledge (local) check from the DM to locate such an organization. Better that than any of the alternatives I mentioned in the first sentence.

[Nattypat]

I agree, DMs always love it when their players are willing to work with them in fixing problems that happen in game. It always warms my heart when one of my players shows enough care to help me fix my game for the better.

[tyckspoon]

That assassin was carrying too many weapons (well, too many magic weapons.) My prediction for the first attempt to relieve you of them is that same assassin; expect her to find out where you're staying and attempt to steal her armory back while you're asleep.

I agree with Mewthartio about disposing of the extra wealth on your own terms. Find somebody important you want to think well of your group and make a gift of the extra gear.

[Chronos]

(that is to say, you're not a Knight or Paladin or anyone else morally opposed to subtlety)Paladins might (or might not) find subtlety distasteful, but they won't (or shouldn't) find it morally offensive. They will, though, find assassins morally offensive.

One caveat, though: The very possession of such weapons might be illegal, in which case, depending on who the party offloads them to (whether for money or intangibles), they might have to answer some awkward questions.

[MrNexx]

Alternate suggestion: Let them keep it, but they don't find much new until their L catches up with their WB.

[Karsh]

Well, one of our characters is a VoP monk, so a fifth of the value is being given away to charity. The DM has also just posted a post on our forum that we can only get around 40% due to the fact that there's not a big market for magic items in Nordmaar and there's only one magic item shop in the town we're in, so that also cuts down on the amount of gold we can get for it.

The problem with giving it away is that we're in the War of the Lance and really have no allies aside from the people of Nordmaar who were responsible for giving us that Keen Longsword, so...

The DM intended the Assassin to rough us up and get overwhelmed before fleeing, but she got stunned in the first round and dropped her short swords, leading to our Warlock/Marshal repeatedly disarming her with his spiked chain (oddly enough, his build makes no sense, but he's one of the most useful characters in the party).

This WBL does, however, make up a little bit for the fact that my character is basically a dulled down Aristocrat with magic items (Good/Neutral gods haven't been discovered yet and I'm playing a cleric, so while I have the Blue Crystal Staff, I can't do much else).

[Toliudar]

Also, to be honest, none of those new items are win buttons. The offense of the melee minded is augmented slightly - which means that they'll be keeping up just a little bit better with the spellcasters, just as you're reaching levels where the casters start to shine. IMO, not a big deal.

[herrhauptmann]

Back to the idea of donating them in exchange for influence/favor.
How about donating the 'evil' type weapons to a church of paladine, or a group of paladins, and requesting that they be destroyed/redeemed for the good of the balance.

[Karsh]

Because there are no good churches; we're in the War of the Lance.

[Mewtarthio]

I'm not familiar with Dragonlance, but if there are no Good gods in the world, I think it's a safe bet that there's no stigma against using poison and the like. At least, somebody you want on your side is bound to be interested. In the meantime, I'm not sure what a Short Sword of Subtlety does, but the Assassin's Dagger is pretty situational (it provides a bonus to poison DCs, right?), so that's not too overpowering. As for the other things--hey, they're a nice treat until you get rid of them. Remember, one way or another, the DM's bound to change circumstances such that you no longer have your goodies. It's up to him whether they get arbitrarily taken from you, or whether you end up in a situation where you get something out of it--and, quite frankly, you deserve a bonus for getting the items. Remind him of that.

[tyckspoon]

I'm not familiar with Dragonlance, but if there are no Good gods in the world, I think it's a safe bet that there's no stigma against using poison and the like. At least, somebody you want on your side is bound to be interested. In the meantime, I'm not sure what a Short Sword of Subtlety does, but the Assassin's Dagger is pretty situational (it provides a bonus to poison DCs, right?), so that's not too overpowering. As for the other things--hey, they're a nice treat until you get rid of them. Remember, one way or another, the DM's bound to change circumstances such that you no longer have your goodies. It's up to him whether they get arbitrarily taken from you, or whether you end up in a situation where you get something out of it--and, quite frankly, you deserve a bonus for getting the items. Remind him of that.

(Short)sword of Subtlety gives an extra +4 to hit and damage when making a sneak attack, which is nice for the rogue, if there is one. The Assassin's dagger increases the DC of a Death Attack; if there's no Assassin in the party, it's functionally just a +2 dagger (still useful, every character should have at least one dagger stuck in their boot/belt/wherever.) ..huh. You've got 5 characters, and you can't make use of some weapons that are individually at or only a little bit above level-appropriate? I wouldn't be surprised if nobody had the right proficiency for the hand crossbow, but the other things shouldn't be hard to find a home for.

[Kantolin]

Alternate suggestion: Let them keep it, but they don't find much new until their L catches up with their WB.

I like this idea. It's what I use when I'm DMing.

[Karsh]

These weapons are nearly individually wealth appropriate? The combined value of the four weapons we confiscated is in the area of 64,000 gp... A party of 5 level 5 characters should have 45,000 gp total.

It's not that good gods don't exist, in Dragonlance during the War of the Lance, the Good and Neutral gods have just withdrawn from the world and don't grant spells.

As for people being able to use them, we have a Fighter/Rogue with feats devoted to fighting with a Scythe, a Warlock/Marshal with feats devoted to fighting with a Spiked Chain, a VoP monk, a Rogue/Bard who's using the Sword of Subtlety, and myself, a Cleric (who, without turning or spellcasting, is actually worse than the Aristocrat class) with only Simple Weapon proficiencies... so yeah.

[Closet_Skeleton]

There's always the old Drow gear ploy :smallbiggrin:

[Karsh]

What, where everything is poisoned?

[Azerian Kelimon]

Or it requires you are a drow to use it.

[Vectner]

I had a similar problem when I created a dagger chucking fighter as an assassin that was after the party. He had dozens of daggers, one was +3 a couple +2 and the rest masterwork. He also had a +3 chain shirt and Gauntlets of Ogre power. He was supposed to kill the NPC sister of the half-orc barbarian and escape.

Well the barbarian raged, of course, and was able to outrun the assassin and catch up to him. A good crit with the great axe and that blade chucker was down. and I was in a pickle.

The party was lvl 4 at the time and there was no way I was going to let them get +3 items.

I used the rage to my advantage, and had the barbarian keep hacking at the guy until he was a pulp and his armor and items were in shreds. By the time the rest of the party caught up to the barbarian, only the assassins' hands were left unscathed. The party collected up the rest of the daggers that they could find, about a half dozen masterwork. The barbarian got the gauntlets, the ranger whined about the chain shirt, but the party made off with about 1800gp in daggers, so I call that fair.

[Aquillion]

I think Closet_Skeleton meant 'turns to dust / goes nonfunctional permanently when exposed to sunlight'.

[JadedDM]

There are no Drow in Dragonlance, though.

[tainsouvra]

Obviously, DM did not intend for this to happen. So, my question to you all is... how exactly should we anticipate the WBL being equalized against our now walking-armory adventuring group? A low-level group just game into possession of a large amount of rare and precious items without also getting a place that is safe to store them against foes that would consider those weapons worth fighting over, and with at least one of those foes having a strong suspicion that they have them and knowing how to identify them. Enemy groups should be trying to take your stuff any minute now.

[Kaelik]

I used the rage to my advantage, and had the barbarian keep hacking at the guy until he was a pulp and his armor and items were in shreds.

When in doubt, take control of the PC away from the Player. What classy DMing.

I'd rather be lied to and be deprived of loot then not be allowed to control my own character and be deprived of loot.

[Craig1f]

When in doubt, take control of the PC away from the Player. What classy DMing.

I'd rather be lied to and be deprived of loot then not be allowed to control my own character and be deprived of loot.

I think it's completely reasonable for the DM to take control of a raging barbarian. The players tell the DM what they intend to do, but the DM describes to the players what happened; especially after an assassin just tried to take a shot at the Barbarian's sister. Self-control is not something a raging barbarian should have.

We were in an amnesia fog one time. We didn't know it yet, until I said "hey, can anyone tell which way is north?" and the DM said "you hear Oz say, 'hey, can anyone ... uh"

It's also highly dependent on the playing style of the person playing the character. In my last campaign, we had a VERY experienced player playing a frenzied berserker. I realize most people have a rule against FB's, but we needed a character that strong to face hordes of demons.

Well, when he entered a frenzy, he didn't do any of this "um, let's see, how can I avoid hurting you ... I guess I'll try to grapple him instead of swinging my axe". No sir, he said "Raaawwr, I start raging also, take 5 steps into the middle of the group, go full power attack, and start with a a full-attack on the Wizard. Does a 30 hit?" He was out for our blood, and had no compulsions against trying to take advantage of his great cleave on the entire party.

Fortunately, the DM decided that we had to roll initiative before he got our attack because of the "raaaaawwwr", I won, and put up a wall of stone.

[holywhippet]

It's not that good gods don't exist, in Dragonlance during the War of the Lance, the Good and Neutral gods have just withdrawn from the world and don't grant spells.

Somewhat correct IMO. Basically in the distant past (several hundred years I think) the good Gods were kind of annoyed at their followers. They'd won the war against the forces of evil, but were now busy killing, enslaving or destroying anything they considered to be evil. Unfortunately their definition of evil was basically anything that they didn't like or understand - arcane magic, dwarves etc. were all on the kill list. The elves were some of the worst offenders, a number of them wore members of the clergy, but they had no belief in the Gods at all - they just wanted the chance to arrange things to their liking. The Kingpriest of Istar who was the highest ranking member of the good clergy prayed to the good gods demanding the power to completely cleanse evil from the world. The Gods weren't happy about this since they believe that a balance between good and evil must be maintained for stability. So they extracted all of their good and loyal clerics, then they dropped a mountain of fire on the Kingpriest.

This event became known as the cataclysm. The blast was so hard it reshaped the world - even the seas changed position. The remains of Istar ended up at the bottom of the ocean and other port cities wound up landlocked. With all the clerics gone there were no faith in the Gods at all. People assumed the Gods had abandoned them completely - a group called the Seekers eventually arose who claimed to be seeking new Gods to worship.

The head of the evil Gods, Takhisis had previously been banished from the world by the legendary Knight Huma. However the desecration of one of her old shrines gave her a crack with which to affect the world through. She began setting plans in motion, building up an army in secret and gathering clerics to her cause.

The good and neutral gods are still there, they just don't have anyone with the faith or inclination to pray to them.

[tainsouvra]

I think it's completely reasonable for the DM to take control of a raging barbarian. While you are welcome to houserule that in, there is nothing in the rules about the player not being allowed to play his character and one rule that would unequivocally prevent what happened from being legal. Remember, the rules specifically permit the barbarian to end his rage at will, which means that the DM making the barbarian not able to take control of his actions again after felling his opponent is completely contrary to the ability's description. At a bare minimum, the player is completely justified in saying "my character stops raging". Additionally, it is generally bad form for the DM to take control of a player's character when it isn't strictly necessary. In effect, it's using Rule 0 to stop a player from playing the game.

[Kaelik]

Well, when he entered a frenzy, he didn't do any of this "um, let's see, how can I avoid hurting you ... I guess I'll try to grapple him instead of swinging my axe". No sir, he said "Raaawwr, I start raging also, take 5 steps into the middle of the group, go full power attack, and start with a a full-attack on the Wizard. Does a 30 hit?" He was out for our blood, and had no compulsions against trying to take advantage of his great cleave on the entire party.

Fortunately, the DM decided that we had to roll initiative before he got our attack because of the "raaaaawwwr", I won, and put up a wall of stone.

That's exactly my point. Trust the Players to RP their characters. He's a Raging Barbarian, he shouldn't be saying "I look through his pockets!"

I've played many characters that wouldn't have bothered looting the Assassin at all, giving the DM time to have people on the street run over and grab things from his body before the rest of the party showed up.

My favorite is a current Wizard who won't even touch anything unless he thinks it's magic or related to.

He has so far touched:
A staff (given to the Sorcerer)
A spellbook (kept)
A few Component pouches (mostly just glanced inside and then dropped right there)
A wand (given to the Cleric)

Everytime he kills some thief or something, he just leaves the body. He refuses to make touch attacks (doesn't use any of those spells) because he would have to touch something mundane. He even has a Fortifying Bedroll so that he doesn't have to sleep in something mundane (no MMM yet) and he flie with Overland Flight so he doesn't touch the ground.

[Vectner]

While you are welcome to houserule that in, there is nothing in the rules about the player not being allowed to play his character and one rule that would unequivocally prevent what happened from being legal. Remember, the rules specifically permit the barbarian to end his rage at will, which means that the DM making the barbarian not able to take control of his actions again after felling his opponent is completely contrary to the ability's description. At a bare minimum, the player is completely justified in saying "my character stops raging". Additionally, it is generally bad form for the DM to take control of a player's character when it isn't strictly necessary. In effect, it's using Rule 0 to stop a player from playing the game.

Just to clarify, the assasin did succeed in killing the barbarian's sister. The barbarian didn't really want to stop. The players never knew what the guy actually had, and DM's are DM's. Why is it that there is so much "it's not fair" crap with 3rd edition players? The rules are a just a guidline, the important thing is that everyone have fun, not who wins.

[Leicontis]

The party I ran for a couple years got high treasure values on a regular basis - if they'd actually kept all of it, they would have made WBL look like NPC gear value. However, one of their biggest rewards, that for their very first quest, was a small fortified manor house and associated outbuildings, etc. By game end, they were well on their way to having a small keep/castle with a town and farmland growing around it. Much of the treasure they got just got poured into construction.

Long story short, real estate can be an awesome cash sink - it gets the money out of the PCs gear, while still allowing them to do something fun with it.

[tainsouvra]

Just to clarify, the assasin did succeed in killing the barbarian's sister. The barbarian didn't really want to stop. The players never knew what the guy actually had, and DM's are DM's. Why is it that there is so much "it's not fair" crap with 3rd edition players? The rules are a just a guidline, the important thing is that everyone have fun, not who wins. It would have been unfair in second edition, had that ability existed, just as much as it is in this edition. I would know, I played 2E for years. Don't pull the edition-war crap, it's a red herring and a poor one.

The real issue is this: Roleplayers play their characters because it's fun to do so. Things that don't allow roleplayers to play their characters are not as much fun. If the important thing is that everyone have fun, not who wins, then why would the DM not allow a player to play his character? Especially when he does it in a way that the player is completely justified in contesting, and when the DM's purpose is to avoid letting the party win too much? It's exactly the opposite of what your little rant espouses.

Just answer me this, a simple straight answer:
When is it ok for the DM to take control of a PC in a way that is explicitly forbidden by the rules in order to penalize the party for doing something completely reasonable?
My answer to that is "never", which is why I disagree with the idea that a PC becomes an NPC when he rages.

[Kaelik]

Just to clarify, the assasin did succeed in killing the barbarian's sister. The barbarian didn't really want to stop. The players never knew what the guy actually had, and DM's are DM's. Why is it that there is so much "it's not fair" crap with 3rd edition players? The rules are a just a guidline, the important thing is that everyone have fun, not who wins.

Except nobody complained about losing the items or "it not being fair." I specifically said that in that situation I would prefer the DM saying, "The dagger melts in your hand/it's an illusion/ something as stupid as he has no weapons" over saying, "I now control you character! He is mine to do as I please!"

What the DM did was declare that that Player was no longer allowed to play. He had no control over anything, and his job was to sit in the corner for five minutes. Yes he then got to play again, but that doesn't make it okay to take it away in the first place.

[goat]

Personally, I'd probably have thought "ohcraphedroppedallhisstuff!" and then ret-conned the power level down a bit.

Unless they somehow KNEW beforehand the exact mechanical details of the assassin. Which I'm not sure why they would.

[Craig1f]

While you are welcome to houserule that in, there is nothing in the rules about the player not being allowed to play his character and one rule that would unequivocally prevent what happened from being legal. Remember, the rules specifically permit the barbarian to end his rage at will, which means that the DM making the barbarian not able to take control of his actions again after felling his opponent is completely contrary to the ability's description. At a bare minimum, the player is completely justified in saying "my character stops raging". Additionally, it is generally bad form for the DM to take control of a player's character when it isn't strictly necessary. In effect, it's using Rule 0 to stop a player from playing the game.

This makes the game so mechanical. But I guess I see you're point. Come to think of it, I've never been told what my character is doing unless he was under some influence. The DM will say something like "the fire feels nice. You feel like maybe you should jump into it. It's calling to you. You're free to act as you wish." to which the player said "I get the hell away from the fire.


That's exactly my point. Trust the Players to RP their characters. He's a Raging Barbarian, he shouldn't be saying "I look through his pockets!"

I've played many characters that wouldn't have bothered looting the Assassin at all, giving the DM time to have people on the street run over and grab things from his body before the rest of the party showed up.

My favorite is a current Wizard who won't even touch anything unless he thinks it's magic or related to.

He has so far touched:
A staff (given to the Sorcerer)
A spellbook (kept)
A few Component pouches (mostly just glanced inside and then dropped right there)
A wand (given to the Cleric)

Everytime he kills some thief or something, he just leaves the body. He refuses to make touch attacks (doesn't use any of those spells) because he would have to touch something mundane. He even has a Fortifying Bedroll so that he doesn't have to sleep in something mundane (no MMM yet) and he flie with Overland Flight so he doesn't touch the ground.

That's a very cool character. I like it. I think soon, I'm going to start playing characters with more personality, with a little bit less focus on maxing them.

I guess I see your point though. The guy who plays the FB is very experienced. If you deny players that aren't as good, the opportunity to practice RP, then they won't be very good. When I started out about a year ago, I could never play in character, and all I cared about was loot. I got some crap from people because, at one point, my 50 speed barbarian (boots of striding) ran towards an army to loot some gear from an orc we'd just killed, while the party was desperately trying to escape in the other direction. I didn't get grief for actually succeeding in getting the loot, but I did get grief because I felt that it was my loot, and felt that I got to choose who got what.

I have, since, learned to compromise and play my character. Playing a cleric is a good way to have a "trial by fire", since they're so difficult to RP. The DM is staunchly against "telling anyone else how to play their character."

I would argue that the DM might tell the player that he "desperately wants to beat the corpse to a bloody pulp." If he stops, he gets the armor, but takes an RP penalty. If he destroys the corpse, he gets RP points, but loses the armor. After all, a level-headed Barbarian is probably an example of poor RP.

[Craig1f]

Personally, I'd probably have thought "ohcraphedroppedallhisstuff!" and then ret-conned the power level down a bit.

Unless they somehow KNEW beforehand the exact mechanical details of the assassin. Which I'm not sure why they would.

I would say that you shouldn't change the stats of items after-the-fact, but after discussing on this board, I'd say that taking over a player's character is at least as bad. So downgrading the items would be better than taking control from a player.

[Kaelik]

I would argue that the DM might tell the player that he "desperately wants to beat the corpse to a bloody pulp." If he stops, he gets the armor, but takes an RP penalty. If he destroys the corpse, he gets RP points, but loses the armor. After all, a level-headed Barbarian is probably an example of poor RP.

The DM should definitely not say that. First of all, he's still trying to control the character. Trust the Player to know what their character would do, only bring it up after they've made a odd seeming action.

Secondly, that's just the DM trying to fix his problem by using the PC. He should solve his own problem, for example contingent teleport upon death. Or people in the street taking the loot. Or downgrading the loot. Or having it be trapped to teleport away. Or just by giving it to them.

Thirdly, Never ever tell a player what they want to do unless they are under some influence they don't know about (IE charm spell, and then just tell them about it.)

[Vectner]

I don't see how reminding a player of what just transpired , i.e "this guy just killed your sister in front of you and you failed to stop it" is taking control of the PC.

I didn't want this thread hijacked like this, I was mearly pointing out that DM's have more options that just letting the PC's get the "oops" loot.

Of course the best way to prevent this is to not give the bad guys the good equipment in the first place.

[Kaelik]

I don't see how reminding a player of what just transpired , i.e "this guy just killed your sister in front of you and you failed to stop it" is taking control of the PC.

So far (Not including this post) no one has actually suggested that.

There was a "I control your character not you." Followed by "You feel a strong desire to do X." The Player knows what his character wants to do.

Saying, "Hey this guy just tried to kill your sister." is a fine thing to do. Of course, the correct response is to say "Yeah, and now he's dead, so my character isn't interested in beating on a dead corpse for a minute."

Honestly, if you are playing an intelligent character, it'd be smart to not thrash the body, since Speak With Dead only works if the body can still talk. And if someone had tried to kill my sister, I'd be trying to find out why, not hit things just to hit things (I don't know what this character would have done, but my point is that the DM doesn't really know either. Let the player tell you by his actions.)

[Kami2awa]

I think Closet_Skeleton meant 'turns to dust / goes nonfunctional permanently when exposed to sunlight'.

Even nastier, from Terry Pratchett's latest book: they are made of Stygium! (A fantasy metal that heats up to a temperature hot enough to burn a hole in someones hand when exposed to bright light.)

It's popular with assassins, after all...

[JadedDM]

It would have been unfair in second edition, had that ability existed, just as much as it is in this edition. I would know, I played 2E for years. Don't pull the edition-war crap, it's a red herring and a poor one.

Who said anything about 2E? He could have been talking about 1E, and berserkering rage did exist then. (It also existed in 2E, though--it just wasn't core).

[Talic]

Beat him to the punch. It WILL get removed, if your dm is worth his salt. Granted, he/she already violated my number 1 DM rule. "Don't put anything in the world that you're not ready to let the players get." Because players will. They're sneaky like that.

The other truism is, "Rogues come to the wealthy PC." Or rust monsters, or what have you. And it's gone. For nothing. How do you fix this? Simple. Give the DM what he wants: You not having the goods... But get something in exchange. Something expendable. Like, say, a service. Of someone or something powerful. Perhaps political influence, perhaps a sweetheart deal with some jailers to either expedite your paperwork and get you released sooner when you're arrested, or to "lose" someone else's, giving you more time with an antagonist behind bars.

Perhaps a trade for a hit on someone. Or for discounted healing from a temple. I hear donating lots of stuff to temples gets you a favored status there.

D&D isn't like the real world. In situations like this, you "use it or lose it". So use it. And if it makes the DM think you're trying to make his job easier (when really you're wringing every single cp out of his mistake), so much the better.

[Craig1f]

So far (Not including this post) no one has actually suggested that.

There was a "I control your character not you." Followed by "You feel a strong desire to do X." The Player knows what his character wants to do.

Saying, "Hey this guy just tried to kill your sister." is a fine thing to do. Of course, the correct response is to say "Yeah, and now he's dead, so my character isn't interested in beating on a dead corpse for a minute."

Honestly, if you are playing an intelligent character, it'd be smart to not thrash the body, since Speak With Dead only works if the body can still talk. And if someone had tried to kill my sister, I'd be trying to find out why, not hit things just to hit things (I don't know what this character would have done, but my point is that the DM doesn't really know either. Let the player tell you by his actions.)

Describing your characters impulses to him is not taking control of him. DMs are supposed to describe the world as the characters experience it. If a goblin walks up to you and the players say "oh look, and orc" then the DM should say "the orc says, in Goblin, ....". Because at this point, the players believe that the goblin is an orc.

If a player chases someone down and kills him, he's still playing a game, and might forget that he's supposed to be playing an adrenline-raged killing machine. He's probably thinking "sweet, loot. As long as no PCs died!" If his response isn't to masacre the body, I'd say that the DM saying "you look down on the fallen assassin who slaughtered your sister, and you can't help but feel contempt. You're still raging, and you have the assassin on the ground. You can't make a heal check to see if he's alive, because you're raging, but you do see his leg twitch. What do you do?"

Again, it probably depends largely on your experience with that player. I try to play my barbarian like a barbarian. I chased down an orc, and noticed a tattoo on his left arm. Rather than worry about having to describe the tattoo later, or carrying the body back, I swung my axe, took his arm off, and carried it back to the group saying "hey fellas, look at this!".

[Kaelik]

If a player chases someone down and kills him, he's still playing a game, and might forget that he's supposed to be playing an adrenline-raged killing machine. He's probably thinking "sweet, loot. As long as no PCs died!" If his response isn't to masacre the body, I'd say that the DM saying "you look down on the fallen assassin who slaughtered your sister, and you can't help but feel contempt. You're still raging, and you have the assassin on the ground. You can't make a heal check to see if he's alive, because you're raging, but you do see his leg twitch. What do you do?"

Except:
1) It doesn't require a heal check to see if someone is alive.
2) You can end you rage whenever you want, and most people (even in the real world) would end it once they have killed the only combatant.
3) Who the hell is so stupid that they mutilate the body? People don't do things like that, and not all Barbarians have Int 3. I already said that anyone smart would not mess up the dead body so that some information could be gleaned from the corpse.

Did your Barbarian, upon noticing the tattoo, decided to chop the arm over and over again right on the tattoo so that no one else would ever see it? Of course not, because people don't do that.
4) Why would you see a leg twitch when the leg didn't twitch? Did the Barbarian take the flaw Hallucinations? Of course not.
5) Describing the world is the DM's job. The Player's job is to have their character react to the world. How the character feels is a reaction and belongs to the player, not the DM. Take this to the next logical step.

Player: I am a Brave Knight! (In his own head because he doesn't want to be thought of as cliche.)
DM: You see a Bugbear. You are scared. You want to run away.
Player: No I don't.
DM: Yes you do.

See how stupid that is? The Player knows what their character would feel because they know what type of character they are playing. The DM does not.

And that is why it is stupid of a DM to claim, "You want to mutilate a corpse for no reason in order to prevent yourself from finding out how to protect your sister because you secretly want her to die." And yes, mutilating a body for no reason only makes sense if the character hate their sister.

[Starbuck_II]

These weapons are nearly individually wealth appropriate? The combined value of the four weapons we confiscated is in the area of 64,000 gp... A party of 5 level 5 characters should have 45,000 gp total.

It's not that good gods don't exist, in Dragonlance during the War of the Lance, the Good and Neutral gods have just withdrawn from the world and don't grant spells.

As for people being able to use them, we have a Fighter/Rogue with feats devoted to fighting with a Scythe, a Warlock/Marshal with feats devoted to fighting with a Spiked Chain, a VoP monk, a Rogue/Bard who's using the Sword of Subtlety, and myself, a Cleric (who, without turning or spellcasting, is actually worse than the Aristocrat class) with only Simple Weapon proficiencies... so yeah.

Well, you the Cleric can use the short sword od Defending (+2 AC). It helps and who cares if you can't hit, you will just use the defending property for AC.

[Yeril]

3) Who the hell is so stupid that they mutilate the body? People don't do things like that, and not all Barbarians have Int 3. I already said that anyone smart would not mess up the dead body so that some information could be gleaned from the corpse.

Woah woah woah.. Are you serious? :smallannoyed:

Because I read that as "Don't be silly, not even a raging barbarian is going to want to maul guy who killed his sister, because hes soo totaly gonner be thinking too much about finding out any useful information about who sent the assasin."

[Kaelik]

Because I read that as "Don't be silly, not even a raging barbarian is going to want to maul guy who killed his sister, because hes soo totaly gonner be thinking too much about finding out any useful information about who sent the assasin."

This is precisely my point.
1) He can stop Raging.
2) You are assuming all of that. You don't know his character. Only one person can know what his character would do, and that's the Player. So the DM can't say, "You want to do X." Because no matter what X is it is equally wrong to try to tell a Player how his character feels.

A barbarian does not mean stupid. Spend two points on Literacy and you are no different then a Fighter who specializes in explosive strength. (IE not a retard, you can be a calm collected person who channels themselves well.) There are lots of Barbarians who upon killing someone would stop attacking and stop raging. There are lots of Barbarians that would never waste energy on chopping a dead guy because it is against their beliefs in the superiority of combat. There are lots of Barbarians who might be more concerned with protecting their sister then beating on a dead body.

Only the Player knows what type of character he is playing. The DM doesn't get to make that decision.

If someone tried to assassinate my sister after I killed them, I'd go back to her, because I'd want to keep her alive, not beat on a dead guy. What is so strange about a character valuing the life of their sister over a chance to beat on a dead guy.

Bottom Line, you missed the most important part. He already mauled the guy, He's done now.

[tainsouvra]

This makes the game so mechanical. But I guess I see you're point. Come to think of it, I've never been told what my character is doing unless he was under some influence. That's because that's how D&D (like many other RPG's) was meant to be played. Players play their own characters. Unless there is a mind control effect going, the DM doesn't tell the player what a PC does, that turns the PC into an NPC and leaves the player in the cold :smallsmile:

[Jayabalard]

Except:1) It doesn't require a heal check to see if someone is alive.Personally, I don't see any reason to tell a player how many hp an opponent has left, so knowing the difference someone who is dead and someone who is faking it would probably require some sort of check. This is probably something that would vary from game to game, and I can easily see it as something that might be houseruled in, or ruled on the spot by the DM.


2) You can end you rage whenever you want, and most people (even in the real world) would end it once they have killed the only combatant.I seem to recall that other RPGs and previous editions of D&D are a more restrictive in dropping this sort of effect, so houserules to this effect don't seem too far fetched, especially since the word "rage" itself generally includes a lack of restraint or control, which is implied in the rules with the anti-lawful requirements on barbarians even if it isn't explicitly stated.

As for your real world comment... I know plenty of people who would disagree; while most people, after the fact, would want to have ended that rage, it's not unknown for people to not have that sort of control in the heat of the moment...


3) Who the hell is so stupid that they mutilate the body? People don't do things like that, and not all Barbarians have Int 3. I already said that anyone smart would not mess up the dead body so that some information could be gleaned from the corpse.Yes, people do indeed do that sort of thing, even people with above average intelligence. Strange things can happen when people lose their head in a stressful situation.


4) Why would you see a leg twitch when the leg didn't twitch? Did the Barbarian take the flaw Hallucinations? Of course not.Why do you say that the leg didn't twitch? Dead bodies can twitch in the real world (the proverbial "chicken with it's head cut off") and considering how abstract D&D's HP mechanics are, there's no reason to assume that someone at -10hp would not twitch.


5) Describing the world is the DM's job. The Player's job is to have their character react to the world. How the character feels is a reaction and belongs to the player, not the DM. I disagree, there are plenty of situations where it's ok for the DM to dictate how a character feels. Some of those situations are covered by rules, and some of them are not. It's certainly not something that should be overused.

Just as an easy example: many games where the characters are going to routinely run into "things that man was not meant to see" have specific rules to handle character reactions that are beyond the player's control. These sort of situations can exist in D&D, and there's nothing wrong with dictating that something evokes a certain reaction or action from a character.


DM: You see a <insert Monster here>. You are scared.
This one is also fine; I'd agree that there are better ways to describe this that may not be as threatening to a player, but there's nothing wrong with a situation dictating a particular emotional response, even if there aren't explicit rules for that case.

You want to run away.
This one is the piece that you should be careful about overusing; it's fine if it's a creature that explicitly has that property, or if it's something that you've added as part of the homebrew, but not something that should be thrown around without a good reason.

Again, it's something that should not be overused, but it's definitely something that has it's place.

[Craig1f]

Except:
1) It doesn't require a heal check to see if someone is alive.

In my group it requires a heal check to tell if a creature is alive by looking at him, without inspecting him first, unless he is obviously dead from having his head cut off or something.



2) You can end you rage whenever you want, and most people (even in the real world) would end it once they have killed the only combatant.

I disagree. I've seen too many fights where the winner didn't stop punching until he was pulled off.



3) Who the hell is so stupid that they mutilate the body? People don't do things like that, and not all Barbarians have Int 3. I already said that anyone smart would not mess up the dead body so that some information could be gleaned from the corpse.

I don't agree. People are that stupid. You're living in a western society, which has better morals than 95% of the world (even if we, as a culture, are expected to pretend that we aren't better than the rest of the world). Even in this culture, gruesome things occur. Most DnD adventures take place in Middle East settings, or Medieval settings. Middle Easterners routinely mutilate dead bodies today, in front of cameras, or in large angry mobs. Medieval societies back in the day were just as bad.

And are you telling me that a raging barbarian is actually thinking about casting Speak To Dead while he's swinging his axe? Hell, I cast Speak To Dead in my last campaign, and half of the party shunned me because they felt like it was an abomination. Not to mention that a Barbarian has no idea what the heck Speak To Dead is.



Did your Barbarian, upon noticing the tattoo, decided to chop the arm over and over again right on the tattoo so that no one else would ever see it? Of course not, because people don't do that.

No, he'd stopped raging. That was me actually attempting to see your point of view by illustrating that a player can be trusted to play his character well. Also, we weren't jumped, it was our attack, so we had a plan. I think it makes more sense to drop out of rage at will when YOU are the attacking group, since you're aware of what's going on, than it does if you're jumped, and don't actually know when the fight has ended.



4) Why would you see a leg twitch when the leg didn't twitch? Did the Barbarian take the flaw Hallucinations? Of course not.

Actually, if he was dead, his leg would probably be twitching. Dead people twitch. Although, the barbarian could misconstrue this as thinking that he was still alive.



5) Describing the world is the DM's job. The Player's job is to have their character react to the world. How the character feels is a reaction and belongs to the player, not the DM. Take this to the next logical step.

Although I'm arguing with you, I am starting to see your point, and more than anything, I submit to the argument that taking away power from a character simply isn't "fun". Even if the DM feels that the barbarian player is not doing a good job of playing a chaotic, adrenaline-fueled killing-machine, he probably shouldn't take control away. However, if the Barbarian always thinks things through, and doesn't act according to his INT and WIS scores, perhaps he shouldn't be a barbarian.



Player: I am a Brave Knight! (In his own head because he doesn't want to be thought of as cliche.)
DM: You see a Bugbear. You are scared. You want to run away.
Player: No I don't.
DM: Yes you do.

I think that's a bad example, because I don't agree with that either unless the players are panicked or frightened.

A better example is:
Player: I am a Brave Knight!
DM: You see a Bugbear. He's huge, foaming at the mouth, and looks extremely angry. He's seething and as he turns to you, you start to wonder if this is a good idea. What do you do?
Player: Stand my ground, ready an action to attack if he charges.
-or-
Player: It doesn't sound like I think I can take him. I will flee.


This is precisely my point.
1) He can stop Raging.

That depends if you think that stopping rage is an IC or OOC action. If it's IC, would he really WANT to stop raging? I think not.


2) You are assuming all of that. You don't know his character. Only one person can know what his character would do, and that's the Player. So the DM can't say, "You want to do X." Because no matter what X is it is equally wrong to try to tell a Player how his character feels.

I think that you're describing to the player what the player is experiencing. I think describing an intense rage towards a target is valid.


A barbarian does not mean stupid. Spend two points on Literacy and you are no different then a Fighter who specializes in explosive strength. (IE not a retard, you can be a calm collected person who channels themselves well.) There are lots of Barbarians who upon killing someone would stop attacking and stop raging. There are lots of Barbarians that would never waste energy on chopping a dead guy because it is against their beliefs in the superiority of combat. There are lots of Barbarians who might be more concerned with protecting their sister then beating on a dead body.


I disagree. I think Barbarians are stupid, emotional, and impulsive. They glorify strength and action over talking and negotiating. Plus, the sister was just killed by the assassin, so there's no sister to protect anymore.

As for the whole destroying the corpse thing, I still think it was sort of clever, but I guess you're all right that the argument against taking over a character is correct. The DM has never told me what my character was doing, unless it was something in character like "Oz would know, and probably mention that casting planeshift here probably will not work."

[Kaelik]

However, if the Barbarian always thinks things through, and doesn't act according to his INT and WIS scores, perhaps he shouldn't be a barbarian.

Do you not see your false assumption? What if the Barbarian is acting in accordance with his Int and Wis scores? What if he has high ones? Barbarian is a way of fighting, not a way of being. You can use Explosive Strength to fight without being an idiot. For all you know he could have had 14s for both and be well above average.


I disagree. I think Barbarians are stupid, emotional, and impulsive. They glorify strength and action over talking and negotiating.

And I think you have a very narrow limiting interpretation of Barbarians that limits your world and deprives it or character and fun that it might otherwise have.


Plus, the sister was just killed by the assassin, so there's no sister to protect anymore.

Excuse me. I don't know how, but I misread the previous posts and was under the impression that the Assassin failed to kill the sister. This has quite colored my response (though I still believe taking control is wrong, and that RPing the rage should be left to the player.)

[Jayabalard]

Do you not see your false assumption? What if the Barbarian is acting in accordance with his Int and Wis scores? What if he has high ones? Barbarian is a way of fighting, not a way of being. You can use Explosive Strength to fight without being an idiot. For all you know he could have had 14s for both and be well above average.This doesn't really seem relevant; regardless of thier intelligence, we're talking about someone who has flown into a rage, not someone who is calm, cool, collected and in control. Even the smartest and wisest people can lose control.

The idea that the player should always be control is a bad one; while it's something that a DM needs to be careful about overusing, there should definitely be times when the player isn't in control...

[tainsouvra]

The idea that the player should always be control is a bad one; while it's something that a DM needs to be careful about overusing, there should definitely be times when the player isn't in control... Of his own character? Please name one. Short of mind control/possession/etc, I really don't believe that there is an appropriate time for turning a player's character into an NPC while the player sits on the sidelines.

[Kaelik]

This doesn't really seem relevant; regardless of thier intelligence, we're talking about someone who has flown into a rage, not someone who is calm, cool, collected and in control. Even the smartest and wisest people can lose control.

This was a specific statement to demonstrate that his preconceived bias (All Barbarians are retarded) was effecting his view of the issue at hand. And once again, Raging doesn't have to be losing control. It doesn't say "While raging the Barbarian is under the affects of a FeebleMind spell." It just says they can't preform complex actions.


The idea that the player should always be control is a bad one; while it's something that a DM needs to be careful about overusing, there should definitely be times when the player isn't in control...

The idea that the player should always be in control is the only one. If they aren't in control they they aren't playing and you should just DM the campaign for yourself. D&D (though many people argue the combat subsumes it) is a roleplaying game. Your players respond to stimuli, you have to believe they know how to respond or you are just wasting you time. Say someone is under a Compulsion effect, do you take their character sheet away and tell them to sit in th corner? Or do you tell them what the Compulsion effect is and then have them continue playing their character?

[Craig1f]

And I think you have a very narrow limiting interpretation of Barbarians that limits your world and deprives it or character and fun that it might otherwise have.

Correction: A barbarian, who is in a rage, is a stupid, emotional, and impulsive killing machine, almost by definition. Out of range, they can be a tactician all they want. Intelligence has no hold on someone overcome with rage, in my opinion. The decision to drop out of rage should be an IC decision, not an OOC decision. That is, "does the barbarian WANT to drop out of rage?" Does this adrenaline fueled creature WANT to start thinking clearly? I don't know.

With my barbarian, I play that he'll never drop out of rage, unless someone says something like "Hey Tordac, you can calm down now. It's over." Because it won't occur to him to stop until his friend tells him to. But that's just my style because I'm trying very hard to RP the role better.

Speaking of which, my barbarian campaign starts back up next Monday, since we just finished my current one! We won, but my eldritch disciple was destroyed by some artifact that sucked him in to nonexistence :-(. I'll miss that guy *sniff*



Excuse me. I don't know how, but I misread the previous posts and was under the impression that the Assassin failed to kill the sister. This has quite colored my response (though I still believe taking control is wrong, and that RPing the rage should be left to the player.)

Hey, no problem. I think that at this point, I agree that the DM shouldn't have taken over (although the DM was still clever in his tactic, he just didn't consider the error of that tactic). However, giving the player a very strong incentive to keep hacking at the corpse, by simply informing the character of how angry he was, is not out of the question.

I guess I'm torn between the fact that, I sort of agree that the DM shouldn't take over a character, but also that, that WAS a clever solution. And I still like that solution better than retroactively downgrading the armor, although I think the better solution would have been to just give him the armor, and then find a solution later that did not involve re-weaving the universe or dominating a player.

[Craig1f]

And we've ignored the simplest solution of all ....

"As you bring your final swing down on the fleeing assassin, you feel the high-pitch-sound of metal, and you see the glow of sparks, as you strike with such force that you cleave him into two, from his right shoulder, to his left hip."

Something along those lines. I realize it breaks the sunder rules, since you probably have to do 30 damage in one hit to bypass hardness and destroy the armor, but you haven't dominated a player, and you haven't changed the armor. You could RP it that the armor had already been damaged or something. Problem solved.

We had a similar problem when we were trying to kill someone and steal there clothes to pose as part of an orc tribe. We had to kill someone with a grapple to avoid ruining his clothes.

[Kaelik]

that WAS a clever solution. And I still like that solution better than retroactively downgrading the armor, although I think the better solution would have been to just give him the armor, and then find a solution later that did not involve re-weaving the universe or dominating a player.

I don't think that was a clever solution at all. I think that it was a terrible solution because:

1) He had to take control of a PC to do it.
2) Did he really make all those sundering roles? Did he factor in the huge penalties to hit since the Barbarian wasn't even aiming at the weapons? When there are already mechanics for this sort of thing, use them, I doubt he did.
3) It was a clumsy way of handling an intricate problem.
4) I can think of better ones
a) Just don't mention the loot. It's unlikely that the Barbarian would really start looking over the knives to see which ones are magical right then, and if he doesn't those are knives that could get lost very quickly.
b) Some guards, having watched this brutal murder in the street don't give him time to loot the body, they bring him in for questioning and confiscate the weapons.
c) Depending on the power level of the Assassin, he could have had a Contingency on his body, or an ally who (possibly a Wizard) that shatters the weapons and leaves.
d) A super powerful Wizard who hired the assassin was scrying the whole time, now he casts instant summons all the sweet gear. Especially the knife/whatever that has the sisters blood on it, since he needs it for some ritual.

My personal favorite is b.

[Kaelik]

And we've ignored the simplest solution of all ....

"As you bring your final swing down on the fleeing assassin, you feel the high-pitch-sound of metal, and you see the glow of sparks, as you strike with such force that you cleave him into two, from his right shoulder, to his left hip."

Something along those lines. I realize it breaks the sunder rules, since you probably have to do 30 damage in one hit to bypass hardness and destroy the armor, but you haven't dominated a player, and you haven't changed the armor. You could RP it that the armor had already been damaged or something. Problem solved.

We had a similar problem when we were trying to kill someone and steal there clothes to pose as part of an orc tribe. We had to kill someone with a grapple to avoid ruining his clothes.

The problem with that it that several weapons and his armor and probably some other items would all have to be destroyed in one attack, which is silly.

[Craig1f]

The problem with that it that several weapons and his armor and probably some other items would all have to be destroyed in one attack, which is silly.

I think he said he gave them everything except the armor, because it was +2 or +3 or something, which was way beyond their pay grade. They neglected to take the +3 daggers, and they got the gauntlets and whatever the last thing was.

My understanding was that the only thing he destroyed by taking over the character was the armor. So this solution works as fine as the dominate PC solution, except, of course, it ignores sunder rules.

Edit: He made it so they couldn't find the nice daggers in the mess, which is basically the same as destroying them. Again though, he says that the party wasn't willing to wade through the remains, so that's a reasonable way to keep those items from them.

Meh ... I just don't feel very strongly about this. At this point, I think I'm just arguing for the sack of arguing. You're right, he shouldn't take over the PC. I think it was a bad solution, but not the worst of solutions. I think it was clever to a point, but someone who thinks the "don't dominate PCs" rule is obvious isn't going to agree. And I think he's thinking "jeebus christ, I'm never posting to these boards again" after how hard everyone has come down on him for what was supposed to be a passing anecdote.