What to do with a PC that ignores the warnings.

[Ash_Gazn]

A Fighter/Sorcerer fought a Wererat and took its Pipes of the Sewers.

The PC, Judging that the Pipes were EVIL, burnt the Pipes in his forge while working on his sword. (double checked w/ the player that he didn't just burn them, but burnt them while he was actively working on his weapon. Not making it magic, just doing standard sharpening and repairs). I Thought this was dumb, and that, at some point, there would be an effect of this.

A bit later, the PC acquired a function to throw their sword and do damage to all creatures in a line (like a ray). Well, at that point, just for grins, I decided that since he'd burned the pipes of the sewers while working on the sword, 25% of the time when he threw the sword like this, it would whistle and attract local mice and rats to the area, ie a bit of the summoning power of the pipes got stuck in the sword sitting in the forge. The rodents did not attack. They came around, and just hung out, occasionally dancing around the PC in joy.

The Player decided he didn't like this, and the PC started asking around trying to figure out how to get this latent magic of of this blade. He was told there was an anvil that could be used to get the magic out, in the dwarf colony that they were headed towards anyways. (I'd read about the Anvil in the Paizo RPG Superstar and really liked).

But the PC became impatient and decided not to run off to where the anvil was. Being a sorcerer with a fire and lightning fetish, he decided that one morning, while doing his pushups and meditation readying for the day, he would BURN all his spell slots of the day as lightning and fire spells, and channel them thru his blade, burning the magic out.

I might have just allowed this to have the intended effect, except the day he decided to do this, the party was standing in a clearing in a mountain range known for magic being disrupted, or having the "wild magic" trait, ie Spells Don't Work Right.

I triple checked. Yes, he was doing this, in this place, now.

What would you do, as a DM?

[arguskos]

Roll each spell on the Wild Magic table. If they all work, the magic is burned out. If they don't work normally, do whatever the table says.

This has a high chance to light the guy on fire/melt his face/destroy lots of stuff.

[un_known]

I say make him go explodie! Boom! Smash! Explosion! Then after he's dead tell hi mthat he did burn the magic out of the blade isntead replacing his soul inside it. Now he is stuck inside the blade.... Have fun.

[Golden-Esque]

Before I start, this shouldn't be in the homebrew forum.

I would say that your player successfully burns out the magic ... by overwhelming the sword with arcane magic, causing it to shatter into ninety-eight fragments. He's casting a whole bunch of spells at his weapon trying to "burn the latent magic" out, right? I wouldn't even bother with the Wild Magic chart; just say that his wild magic-enhanced powers overwhelmed the blade, causing it to ignore the sword's hardness and shatter it.

From a gameplay perspective, by casting a spell on his own weapon, it doesn't get a saving throw unless its Intelligent. Its a perfectly logical result of a fairly dumb move, and you can still force him to go to your anvil, because he's now got to repair his shiny magic sword, right?

[Eagle]

{{scrubbed}}

[Lix Lorn]

After he did something really, REALLY stupid.
Plus, it wasn't a penalty. It was decidedly neither good nor bad-if he got vermin empathy or something, he could make it an advantage.

Also, there's no need to swear.

[Nero24200]

While I feel Eagle could have worded it better, I do agree with what he says.

Nothing in the rules even hints that putting a magical item into a fire makes the fire magical, and thus applies magical effects to any weapon forged with it. If it does, then I surely hope no PC ever dies in a mundane fire, otherwise his magic gear could cause all sorts of unusal effects in the flames.

Your PC didn't like the item, and is now trying to get rid of it. I'd let the spells destory the weapon if he wants (since you can't really burn magic out of a weapon, magic doesn't work that way in D'n'D) then let him rebuild it if desired, but I'd leave it there after that.

[Leecros]

Roll each spell on the Wild Magic table. If they all work, the magic is burned out. If they don't work normally, do whatever the table says.

This has a high chance to light the guy on fire/melt his face/destroy lots of stuff.

This is definitely the best answer in the thread so far.


avoiding any approval or disapproval for your actions(you're the DM so it was your choice), the deed is done. All there is to do now is roll with it.

[Mongoose87]

While I feel Eagle could have worded it better, I do agree with what he says.

Nothing in the rules even hints that putting a magical item into a fire makes the fire magical, and thus applies magical effects to any weapon forged with it. If it does, then I surely hope no PC ever dies in a mundane fire, otherwise his magic gear could cause all sorts of unusal effects in the flames.

Your PC didn't like the item, and is now trying to get rid of it. I'd let the spells destory the weapon if he wants (since you can't really burn magic out of a weapon, magic doesn't work that way in D'n'D) then let him rebuild it if desired, but I'd leave it there after that.

This. It kinda feels like you're being a little silly, here. Did you at least warn him that there might be something, if he burned the pipes like that?

[Starbuck_II]

While I feel Eagle could have worded it better, I do agree with what he says.

Nothing in the rules even hints that putting a magical item into a fire makes the fire magical, and thus applies magical effects to any weapon forged with it. If it does, then I surely hope no PC ever dies in a mundane fire, otherwise his magic gear could cause all sorts of unusal effects in the flames.

Your PC didn't like the item, and is now trying to get rid of it. I'd let the spells destory the weapon if he wants (since you can't really burn magic out of a weapon, magic doesn't work that way in D'n'D) then let him rebuild it if desired, but I'd leave it there after that.

Agreed. Giving a flavor ability that is disliked and making it hard to get rid of... are you punishing him for fun or not noticing that the ability upsets him?

Then you decide if he wants to get rid of it: punish him more. Why did you make the cure so hard?

[Magicyop]

Agreed. Giving a flavor ability that is disliked and making it hard to get rid of... are you punishing him for fun or not noticing that the ability upsets him?

Then you decide if he wants to get rid of it: punish him more. Why did you make the cure so hard?

I disagree with most of the comments saying this. If this is the case, what is the point of having "Cursed Items"?

DM: You find a crystal ball.
Player: I scry on the sorcerer.
DM: Make a will save against a suggestion effect.
Player: Aww frick. Crystal Hypnosis Ball? That's stupid. I hate that. Make it a regular crystal ball.
DM: Okay!

No DM should be sadistic, sure, but unexpected things happening is a big part of D&D. I think it's a very cool idea to add this curse to the blade. That being said, if the player wanted to remove it, the anvil nonetheless should have been easier to get to, but I think even this is remedied when you said you'd allow him to burn the magic out through brute force.

However, if he's actually trying to just buffet his weapon with many spells, in an area that he knows is wild-magic affected, that falls in the category of whatever-happens-happens. Roll on the chart, make the effects happen as they should.

[JKTrickster]

I just want to point out that the OP never meant for his attempt to fail and in fact says that he might just would have allowed it.

BUT the PCs ARE in a Wild Magic place. Using ALL of your spells, one of them is bound to fail in a spectacularly bad way. I would think that you are suspending disbelief if you just allow his attempt to go without any repercussions. Otherwise, what is the point of putting the Wild Magic area there?

[ErrantX]

Agreed. Giving a flavor ability that is disliked and making it hard to get rid of... are you punishing him for fun or not noticing that the ability upsets him?

Then you decide if he wants to get rid of it: punish him more. Why did you make the cure so hard?

I think people jumping all over the OP for doing something that isn't expressly by the rules (i.e. magic items showering latent magic on a weapon when burned) is really just plain hypocritical. Any DM worth their salt has fudged a rule, made up rules on the spot to run a situation that isn't in a rulebook, or simply made a split second decision on their game.

Additionally, I would call it far from sadistic to make someone's sword friendly to rats. The PC doesn't like it? Boo-hoo, maybe they shouldn't have burned the pipe in the first place. Either go on the silly side quest, or sell the weapon and get a new one. Magic, at the end of the day, is MAGIC. It can do anything it wants to do, and if the DM says that it is that way, it is that way. End of story. If the player doesn't like it, maybe next time he won't be so cavalier about burning items in his forge fire while working on a weapon.

I thought it was a great idea. Perhaps if he goes to the forge to work on the weapon, he gains vermin-bane instead? Obviously, he hates rats. I see no reason why he couldn't just give a free +1 to a weapon through this situation. It's fun.

As far as burning the magic out? Roll on the table and see what happens, and each spell he burns through the sword should reduce the hardness of the sword by 1 and inflict 1d4 points of damage to it. Supreme stresses of heat will ruin any sword, and that just seems reasonable. The character is being dumb and deserves to lose his sword potentially, or at least wreck it. Either way, sure, if he runs a few spells through it, give each spell a cumulative 5% chance to burn the latent magic out.

2 cents,
-X

[Scarlet Tropix]

I personally think that the Sword of Rat Attraction is quite amusing myself. I'd say it's a bit overmuch to call the OP a bad DM for something as minor and flavorful as that.

...That aside, I also agree with arguskos. Let him take the risk if he really wants to. The worst that could happen is that he ruins his own weapon. Or possibly himself. Or a good chunk of the mountain. But at least you let him make his own decisions, as ill advised as they might be!

[wayfare]

Why do so many players want their DMs to be whipped? Should the guy run pre-approved campaigns read by the PCs too?

Come on, messing with your players is part of the fun of being a GM. And this was hardly a curse, sounds easy to get rid of, uses an optional rule (the sword throw thing), and has no meaningful play issue. It could be the stuff of good role-playing.

Besides, if you are convinced that you have an evil artifact on hand, would you burn it while forging your blade?

[DracoDei]

I like your GMing style. That sort of weirdness can really add a lot of flavor to the game. I believe that PCs lives should be free to be the pits. When players start buying continuous items of Endure Elements that have no mechanical effect (due to the campaign's weather) on the excuse that their character's don't LIKE to be too hot or too cold (the same reasons central heat and air-conditioning were invented), THEN we can start talking about the character's fluff suffering being a punishment on the player... except that that intense of a character actor type roleplayer would probably LOVE roleplaying the character's ongoing "struggle with the evil magic".

I would go ahead and roll the standard stuff for a wild magic area as he channels his spells... but give him the option to stop after each wild surge(without prejudicing your wording or tone either way)... if he gets to... say the 3rd or 4th wild effect, then don't roll for that one on the usual chart (feel free to modify as you see fit):
1d100

I am sorry if the bit about the mouse was a bit long, but I have long wanted to write up that sort of thing as a purely fluff item (like an Ebberron graft, but smaller, cuter, and more of a fashion craze among the rich than adventuring gear). You would have to bond a significant number of them before they would start dealing Constitution damage.

[Leecros]

I don't mind the occasional twists and turns and weirdness and things you just don't expect from a DM(like this). Unfortunately it is possible to have too much, i wouldn't complain about this, but my last DM messed with us all the time


we had a wizard friend...The Wizard yes annoying, but we paid him to do our enchanting....and random stuff would always happen, we had a sword that shot lightning, a chain...something with 15 foot reach that shrunk to 5 during the process, a chain shirt that was always backwards...it got annoying after awhile. The DM used The Wizard as the way he nerfed things that were too overpowered or strengthened stuff that was underpowered

[Iferus]

I disagree with most of the comments saying this. If this is the case, what is the point of having "Cursed Items"?

DM: You find a crystal ball.
Player: I scry on the sorcerer.
DM: Make a will save against a suggestion effect.
Player: Aww frick. Crystal Hypnosis Ball? That's stupid. I hate that. Make it a regular crystal ball.
DM: Okay!

No DM should be sadistic, sure, but unexpected things happening is a big part of D&D. I think it's a very cool idea to add this curse to the blade. That being said, if the player wanted to remove it, the anvil nonetheless should have been easier to get to, but I think even this is remedied when you said you'd allow him to burn the magic out through brute force.

However, if he's actually trying to just buffet his weapon with many spells, in an area that he knows is wild-magic affected, that falls in the category of whatever-happens-happens. Roll on the chart, make the effects happen as they should.

This contains all the answers you need.

@DracoDei: I like that table!

[Debihuman]

A Fighter/Sorcerer fought a Wererat and took its Pipes of the Sewers.

The PC, Judging that the Pipes were EVIL, burnt the Pipes in his forge while working on his sword. (double checked w/ the player that he didn't just burn them, but burnt them while he was actively working on his weapon. Not making it magic, just doing standard sharpening and repairs). I Thought this was dumb, and that, at some point, there would be an effect of this.

From The SRD:

Magic items, unless otherwise noted, take damage as nonmagical items of the same sort. A damaged magic item continues to function, but if it is destroyed, all its magical power is lost.

The pipes are wooden. If they were destroyed in the fire, they'd just be a pile of ash and wouldn't be magical at all. Why did you think that this was dumb? Because the player thought attracting wererats would be EVIL?

I think you are making a bad call on this one. The PC is out one magic item. That's his consequence.

A bit later, the PC acquired a function to throw their sword and do damage to all creatures in a line (like a ray). Well, at that point, just for grins, I decided that since he'd burned the pipes of the sewers while working on the sword, 25% of the time when he threw the sword like this, it would whistle and attract local mice and rats to the area, ie a bit of the summoning power of the pipes got stuck in the sword sitting in the forge. The rodents did not attack. They came around, and just hung out, occasionally dancing around the PC in joy.

So forging the sword in the flame of a burning pipes of the sewers caused the sword to attract mice and rats. It sounds like you play in a high magic campaign, which can be a lot of fun. If all the rats and mice did was hang out, dance, and didn't attack; it doesn't sound like a problem.

The Player decided he didn't like this, and the PC started asking around trying to figure out how to get this latent magic of of this blade. He was told there was an anvil that could be used to get the magic out, in the dwarf colony that they were headed towards anyways. (I'd read about the Anvil in the Paizo RPG Superstar and really liked).

You should have talked to the player about this. It could have been a one-time effect if the player didn't like. Also, you gave him a clue about a magic anvil. So far, so good.

But the PC became impatient and decided not to run off to where the anvil was. Being a sorcerer with a fire and lightning fetish, he decided that one morning, while doing his pushups and meditation readying for the day, he would BURN all his spell slots of the day as lightning and fire spells, and channel them thru his blade, burning the magic out.

Sounds like he simply wanted to destroy the item. Fair enough. It's his item and he can do what he likes with it.

I might have just allowed this to have the intended effect, except the day he decided to do this, the party was standing in a clearing in a mountain range known for magic being disrupted, or having the "wild magic" trait, ie Spells Don't Work Right.

Did they know this beforehand or did you just throw that at them?

I triple checked. Yes, he was doing this, in this place, now.What would you do, as a DM?

There are charts to determine random effects. However, I'd rule that he destroys the magic item and gains one effect from the list of effects from a wand of wonder.

Also, what level is the PC? You can throw more weirdness as suggested by Draco Dei at higher levels.

Debby

[DracoDei]

@DracoDei: I like that table!

Thank you, I have now edited the "Mouse on Forehead" result, both for clarity, and to add the "Celestial Mouse" option.

[Lix Lorn]

The DM used The Wizard as the way he nerfed things that were too overpowered or strengthened stuff that was underpowered

Uh.
If that's why he did it, that seems fair to me.

[DracoDei]

Why did you think that this was dumb? Because the player thought attracting wererats would be EVIL?

Destroying the pipes was good roleplay. Destroying them in a fire at the same time as giving his sword a tune-up was good roleplay as well... of a low wisdom character. Having a quirky (not harmful) side effect fits.
Also the pipes don't attract wererats... just regular rats. There former owner was a wererat though.

[Silverscale]

I'd say that if the Player/PC has reasonable knowledge that he is about to attempt this in a place known for Wild Magic and he still thinks it's a good idea to go ahead with the foolish plan then by all means let it blow up in his face (or whatever random effect gets rolled on the Wild Magic Table)

[Fable Wright]

My idea: Perhaps, as the pipes' powers were conferred onto the sword while they were both in the fire, perhaps the fire actually strengthens the bond between the pipes and the sword. And, as the character is trying to destroy the sword, the pipesword responds negatively. Thus, the sorcerer manages to summon an army of flaming rats shooting out of the sword and attacking him. This would only apply to the spells that did not blow up in the wild magic area.

[DracoDei]

My idea: Perhaps, as the pipes' powers were conferred onto the sword while they were both in the fire, perhaps the fire actually strengthens the bond between the pipes and the sword. And, as the character is trying to destroy the sword, the pipesword responds negatively. Thus, the sorcerer manages to summon an army of flaming rats shooting out of the sword and attacking him. This would only apply to the spells that did not blow up in the wild magic area.

This sounds both less fun, and more cruel. I am against it.

[Draconi Redfir]

My idea: Perhaps, as the pipes' powers were conferred onto the sword while they were both in the fire, perhaps the fire actually strengthens the bond between the pipes and the sword. And, as the character is trying to destroy the sword, the pipesword responds negatively. Thus, the sorcerer manages to summon an army of flaming rats shooting out of the sword and attacking him. This would only apply to the spells that did not blow up in the wild magic area.

this made me laugh. an army of flaming rats XD

^ this should happen. Maybe let the guy direct the direction the mice shoot out of afterwards so he can use them to attack his enemies


Then for the rest of the game, he can have various things involving vermin or rodents happen to/around him.

[Leecros]

Uh.
If that's why he did it, that seems fair to me.

It wasn't so much whether it was overpowered or not, but whether he liked it or not.


One of the worst times was when a character wanted to use a spiked chain. So the next time he had an opportunity he took the exotic weapons feat so he could use it and the next time they were in town he bought one. Mr. DM didn't read up on spiked chains. So he didn't mind. Well after a few combats our DM really started hating it for its trip attacks and 10 ft reach. So when this guy went to enchant his spiked chain(from the wizard because that was the only person who could do it apparently) it shrunk down to 5ft and he wasn't able to use it to trip things.

After this the character started to abuse the +2 bonus on opposed attack rolls made to disarm an opponent. Which the DM also didn't like. After the person went back to 'the wizard' to enchant it again it shrunk even more, to the point(according to the DM) where the best it could be used for was an elaborate hairpiece.

So now this player is out...not only a weapon, and the gold it costed to enchant the weapon without a refund, but he also basically lost a feat that he could have used on something entirely different and more useful to his class.


This was just one incident... So while yes, i agree with you that it was a 'fair' idea if used correctly. The execution of it was more often then not...very badly done.

[TheMeMan]

It wasn't so much whether it was overpowered or not, but whether he liked it or not.


One of the worst times was when a character wanted to use a spiked chain. So the next time he had an opportunity he took the exotic weapons feat so he could use it and the next time they were in town he bought one. Mr. DM didn't read up on spiked chains. So he didn't mind. Well after a few combats our DM really started hating it for its trip attacks and 10 ft reach. So when this guy went to enchant his spiked chain(from the wizard because that was the only person who could do it apparently) it shrunk down to 5ft and he wasn't able to use it to trip things.

After this the character started to abuse the +2 bonus on opposed attack rolls made to disarm an opponent. Which the DM also didn't like. After the person went back to 'the wizard' to enchant it again it shrunk even more, to the point(according to the DM) where the best it could be used for was an elaborate hairpiece.

So now this player is out...not only a weapon, and the gold it costed to enchant the weapon without a refund, but he also basically lost a feat that he could have used on something entirely different and more useful to his class.


This was just one incident... So while yes, i agree with you that it was a 'fair' idea if used correctly. The execution of it was more often then not...very badly done.

That's rather idiotic, I must say. If the DM is going to do something like that, he really needs to confer with the player that Action A will result in something less than desired(Doesn't necessarily have to specify what, just make it clear that things aren't going to be necessarily beneficial in all regards). Likewise, if he hated the Chain, he could have talked to the player about using it in a different means, or perhaps finding a way to get rid of it in game, and then give him a "free" feat replacement. Or do the ol' DM trick of "what goes around comes around", where if a player abuses something, it can be used on them. A DM being to lazy/unimaginative to understand how something can be a abused(While initially OKing it, then nerfing it completely) is unacceptible.

However, that doesn't mean everything needs to be spelled out. The OP, for instance, didn't provide any actual nerf, or detrimental effect to the player's actions. So long as a DM makes things that are outside of the box that he does not detrimental, then I see no problem. A good player could take a neutral situation like that and make it a positive through some mean. Still, The Player was given the relatively easy way of getting rid of it: Go to the dwarves in the city where they are headed anyways. Whoop. Dee. Doo. He chose not to, and is exhibiting a great deal of stupidity in channeling all of his magic into the item to begin with(Which I would think would destroy it outright to begin with), let alone in a Wild Magic area. If he knows its a wild magic area, then he deserves whatever comes to him.

[Kuma Kode]

To the OP: I'd say roll on the table.

My Two Cents Into the Discussion: I can see either side. Yes, having the pipes transfer their effect to create a sword of Rat Attraction is amusing and not really a punishment, it's flavorful.

However, the problem arises with doing things that the rules don't imply or state, and the ramifications that has on the world. Players have certain expectations on how things will work. They assume things work as in the book unless you specifically state otherwise.

For instance, a friend of mine was complaining about a DM they had. In the game, the archer had been mind-controlled by a mind flayer and was attacking friends with his intelligent bow, which possessed a 1/day lightning bolt special power. The barbarian did the only thing he could really think to do, and ended up sundering the weapon. Both players understood why, but the DM ruled that the lightning bolt was released, and damaged both the archer and the barbarian, killing the already injured players.

The problem arises not so much in the DM's ruling, but that it conflicts with what the players expected. Nowhere does it state that intelligent weapons, or magic items in general, unload their offensive abilities when destroyed. If the players had known that was the case, they likely would have avoided harming the weapon at all costs.

On the subject of the pipes, you've now introduced the idea of transferring enchantments by destroying one object while tending to the other. Could the sorcerer then research a means of using this new quality he's discovered to transfer enchantments from one weapon to another, at seemingly no cost or experience requirements? If not, why not?

The problem with little flavorful things like that is that they're not consistent. If the player tried to exploit the mechanic you just introduced, would you be annoyed? Having magic be unpredictable and strange might work for a low-magic setting, but in high fantasy, magic should be reasonably understood. If no one understands it, after all, how do they study and manipulate it?

[fil kearney]

magicyop +1