PCs out of Balance - Need some Help

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Rupert Boleyn wrote:
> On 30 Mar 2005 19:18:58 GMT, dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca (David Alex Lamb)
> carved upon a tablet of ether:
>
>>It seems to me it would make sense for a follower of Moradin to use the god's
>>favourite weapon. Even if it is numerically suboptimal.
>
> Only if Moradin was the sort who would approve (or through inaction
> allowed his followers to think that). If Moradin has the practical
> streak that dwarves are generally portrayed as having, he could well
> think you were an idiot.

"Every deity has a favored weapon...and his or her clerics consider it a
point of pride to wield that weapon." PHB, p. 31. If Moradin's clerics
consider it a point of pride to wield a warhammer, it's not absurd to
think that his paladins might, as well.

-Will

>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 23:48:12 GMT, Keith Davies
<keith.davies@kjdavies.org> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> Oops. They *never* did that again. Eventually they developed:
>
> . cleric carries no more than one, unless there are lots. He gets one
> to 'make sure' he's available with his spells;
> . everybody gets at least one. If it's uneven, they go to front-line
> types, or mobile types (the first because they're the ones most likely
> to need them *now*, the mobiles because they get usually get them to
> where they need to be).

That's about how we've been doing this since the mid-90s. Another
reason mobiles get them is, IMO, that they are the most likely to get
themselves in trouble out of reach of the rest of the party.

> Scouts. In a case like this (where minions are disappearing) any leader
> with strategic ability would have patrols out *looking for why*. Orders
> are to *not* engage, but fall back with the information.

My favourite is one patrol to encounter the group (and get munched by
it), and another (stealthier) group to observe. Requires you not care
about your men though, or that you are so concerned about the apparent
threat that you feel you have to 'risk' men to get intelligence.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Peter Meilinger wrote:

> Well, I'll let out a bit myself - instead of deliberately
> fudging/cheating to get rid of the berries, what about saying to the
> player, "Hey, I think those berries turned out to be way more powerful
> than I was expecting. I'm going to say they've rotted, but I wanted you
> to know why I made that decision?"

Testify!

Personally, I think that if it's a metagame problem, it needs a metagame
solution. Depending on the personalities involved, I'd even go as far as
to tell the player, "I think the berries are more powerful than I was
expecting, and I want to remove them from the game. You're the only player
whose character is currently using them: do you have any suggestions on
how to remove them from the game, or shall I take care of that?" Of
course, in a group more adversarial game contract, this approach may not
work: YMMV.

Cheers,

Gary Johnson
--
Home Page: http://www.uq.net.au/~zzjohnsg
X-Men Campaign Resources: http://members.optusnet.com.au/xmen_campaign
Fantasy Campaign Setting: http://www.uq.net.au/~zzjohnsg/selentia.htm

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 23:53:38 GMT, Keith Davies
<keith.davies@kjdavies.org> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> What weapons does the fighter use? He's 4th or 5th level, he should
> probably be specialized in *something*. Don't give weapons that cater
> to the barbarian (a +2 greatsword at 5th level? That seems a bit much),
> give a magic longsword. Or magic *heavy* armor. Or a magic ranged
> weapon (though the ranger would probably get that... unless the fighter
> is better with bows than him).

Magic shields. WE've been told the fighter is a sword and shield guy,
so a decent magic shield should go to him.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Rupert Boleyn wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 23:53:38 GMT, Keith Davies
> <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> carved upon a tablet of ether:
>
>
>>What weapons does the fighter use? He's 4th or 5th level, he should
>>probably be specialized in *something*. Don't give weapons that cater
>>to the barbarian (a +2 greatsword at 5th level? That seems a bit much),
>>give a magic longsword. Or magic *heavy* armor. Or a magic ranged
>>weapon (though the ranger would probably get that... unless the fighter
>>is better with bows than him).
>
>
> Magic shields. WE've been told the fighter is a sword and shield guy,
> so a decent magic shield should go to him.

Saw an article somewhere about charged items for lower level characters
to fill the gap between masterwork armnor and weapons and standard magic
armor and weapons.

Maybe something like a shield +0 with 50 charges: 1 charge adds a +1
armor bonus to the shield (max +5, duration 1 minute).

If that seem to rinky-dink, allow 5 charges to summon up a Shield Spell
effect? Maybe the second ability is too much?

DWS

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 01:08:38 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"
<bradd+news@szonye.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> Short version: To the anti-fudging camp, the ends do not justify the means.

Instead, the means justify the end.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 01:08:38 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"
><bradd+news@szonye.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:
>
>> Short version: To the anti-fudging camp, the ends do not justify the means.
>
> Instead, the means justify the end.

Heh, good one! Not sure whether that's sympathetic or cynical though.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Rupert Boleyn wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 01:08:38 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"
> <bradd+news@szonye.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:
>
>>Short version: To the anti-fudging camp, the ends do not justify the means.
>
> Instead, the means justify the end.

I guess I'm too much the moderate here, then. I generally oppose
fudging, but...

When I design enounters, I generally know ahead of time how hard I mean
for it to turn out. If the party gets their ASS romped in my 'break the
monotony' encounter, simply because I misjudged how hard it would be,
I'll not use a spell or ability that an opponent has, or have the enemy
flee earlier than I normally would.

If the party is mopping the floor with my 'difficult' encounter, simply
because I made the encounter too weak, I might send in reinforcements.

If the party is kicking my encouters ass becuase they put together a
clever maneuver, then, oh well. If they're getting stomped because they
acted stupidly... oh well.

I feel that, as the stakes rise (i.e. the game is approching a state of
UnFun), fudging becomes more acceptable.

I'd rather have a group of friends dedicated to getting together for
some joyous gaming goodness than adhere to any sort of Game Mastering
philosophy.

I'm a heretic!

DWS

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Serhienko wrote:
> When I design enounters, I generally know ahead of time how hard I mean
> for it to turn out. If the party gets their ASS romped in my 'break the
> monotony' encounter, simply because I misjudged how hard it would be,
> I'll not use a spell or ability that an opponent has, or have the enemy
> flee earlier than I normally would.

Yeah, I'm the same way, largely because I'm a big softie despite my
anti-fudging philosophy. Like you, I won't fudge just because the
players got smart, stupid, or unlucky, but I will try to fix things if I
feel that /I/ made a mistake.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 01:13:26 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"
<bradd+news@szonye.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> > This flexibility is the fighter's strength - none else is as good at
> > multiple roles.
>
> Except for clerics!

Sorry, multiple 'traditional' fighting roles. As in, footslogger,
mounted meleeist, archer, & etc.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

<laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu> wrote in message
news:1112251312.121302.54390@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Jeff Goslin wrote:
> > <laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu> wrote in message
> > news:1112213504.331695.177840@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > ...I suspect the Barbarian may fail his spot check... I'm not
> sure
> > > why
> > > > > I get that feeling.
> > > >
> > > > That's the kind of DMing I can get behind. 😉
> > >
> > > Dear god. I hope you guys' players are aware that you've Rule
> Zeroed
> > > the Spot skill to only work when it's convenient for you.
> >
> > Not all the time, just when it's remarkably convenient, and will
> result in
> > saving the campaign from imminent meta-game destruction as players
> leave
> > because they are nowhere near useful enough to be taking part.
> What's wrong
> > with fudging a few rolls from time to time, for the sake of the game?
>
> It's bad for the same reason rubber-band AI is wrong in a racing game.
> It rewards stupidity by the players.

It *can* reward stupidity, if used incorrectly. I generally DON'T fudge
when the characters aren't winning through no fault of my own. Whatever the
reason, tactics, resources, poor rolls on the players part, sometimes a
battle just goes bad.

What we're trying to correct here is a DM-induced imbalance, combined with
more than a bit of rather transparant min/max style power gaming on the part
of the player. So, the berries have to go. You can either rule zero it and
have a reality shift(the berries are gone, basically they never were, sez
DM), or you can fudge a die roll or two against the characters. Hell, it
doesn't even have to be a fudged roll, either, just up the amount he needs
to get to an unattainable level(don't know the exact terminology, but want
to say DC 50(?)), let the player roll, tell him he missed his spot check(it
was a REALLY good pickpocket).

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, David Serhienko wrote:

> Gary Johnson wrote:
>
>> Maybe you could tell him that the Toughness feat automatically converts
>> into the Improved Toughness feat once the character is 4th level and
>> meets the +2 base Fort save prerequisite?
>
> Is the Improved Toughness feat supposed to replace Toughness?

Not by the book - it's a suggestion to let a feat that's good only at very
low levels swap out for a feat that isn't so good at low levels but is
better in the long term. Myself, I wouldn't usually recommend taking
Toughness as a feat when designing a fighter, but since the player has,
they may as well get the *useful* version of it that improves as the
character gains levels.

Toughness has no prerequisites and gives +3 hp: good at 1st level, but not
so good long-term.

Improved Toughness has a prerquisite of +2 base Fort save and gives +1
hp/hit dice: that's not as good at 1st level, as good as Toughness at 3rd
level and better at 4th level and above.

Cheers,

Gary Johnson
--
Home Page: http://www.uq.net.au/~zzjohnsg
X-Men Campaign Resources: http://members.optusnet.com.au/xmen_campaign
Fantasy Campaign Setting: http://www.uq.net.au/~zzjohnsg/selentia.htm

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Gary Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, David Serhienko wrote:
>
>> Gary Johnson wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe you could tell him that the Toughness feat automatically
>>> converts into the Improved Toughness feat once the character is 4th
>>> level and meets the +2 base Fort save prerequisite?
>>
>>
>> Is the Improved Toughness feat supposed to replace Toughness?
>
>
> Not by the book - it's a suggestion to let a feat that's good only at
> very low levels swap out for a feat that isn't so good at low levels but
> is better in the long term. Myself, I wouldn't usually recommend taking
> Toughness as a feat when designing a fighter, but since the player has,
> they may as well get the *useful* version of it that improves as the
> character gains levels.
>
> Toughness has no prerequisites and gives +3 hp: good at 1st level, but
> not so good long-term.
>
> Improved Toughness has a prerquisite of +2 base Fort save and gives +1
> hp/hit dice: that's not as good at 1st level, as good as Toughness at
> 3rd level and better at 4th level and above.

Thanks. I'll stick this idea in my pocket, and bring it out if the
Fighter's player decides taking Toughness may have been, after all, silly.

DWS

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Donald Tsang" <tsang@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:d2g8em$1qtb$1@agate.berkeley.edu...
> Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
> >"David Serhienko" <david.serhienko@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote:
> >> GOOD IDEA. The Orc Barbarian is currently unsupervised, hanging out in
> >> the Player's rented townhouse. I bet he gets himself into some trouble
> >> in town and gets arrested. He is, after all, not, in any sense of the
> >> word, civilized... he's been out of the forests for all of a week.
> >
> >*raises hand* How, exactly, would he get arrested? He can wipe the
floor
> >with a vast assortment of nasty critters already, you think the town
guard
> >is going to be able to reign him in?? Just thought you'd like to mull
over
> >that little crink in the plan before you try to arrest him. 😉
>
> By forces of numbers. Grappling. One Enlarge Person on the Str
[snip a bunch of ways to do it]
> When the City Watch is on your tail, it's almost never a good idea to
> stand and fight...

Well, there is the little matter of simple morale. A town guard peon is
going to agree to gang tackle possibly the best fighting machine he's ever
seen? That's more the perspective I was looking at it from. Plus which, I
don't know about your campaign, but the town guard generally doesn't have
spells at it's disposal in my campaign.

The town guard in my campaign is to keep the common folk in line, there's
almost no realistic way of keeping monstrous adventuring types in check
without going and finding your own, bigger adventuring type to take care of
the one causing trouble. Even force of numbers doesn't work out so well,
given the morale factor.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd4njgs.tqj.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
> > ??? That must be a change from 2E. There's a "great axe" now, isn't
> > there? That must be the two handed version. In 2E there's hand axe
> > and battle axe, 1 and 2 handed respectively.
>
> Incorrect. In AD&D2, the hand axe is a small weapon, and the battle axe
> is a medium weapon. A human can wield either one-handed. RTFM.

I guess I need to, because despite having not used a battle axe in quite
some time for pretty much ANY character or NPC, I have a very clear (if
supposedly incorrect) memory as to WHY, it was two handed and didn't do much
damage in comparison to other 2 handed weapons. Personally I thought the
damage was a little low for a two handed weapon, but instead of changing it
myself for our little house rule, I just decided to use swords instead.

I'll go look into that whole one handed vs two handed thing(books
downstairs).

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd4njm6.tqj.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> If you play AD&D, and you've never noticed a character vastly outstrip
> another character of the same level, then you:
>
> 1. Have never seen a fighter and a magic-user in the same party, or

Well, each one excels at their own thing, and it balances out in the end.
The same comparison barbarian to fighter is a bit tougher to find the break
even point for the relationship(because there pretty much isn't one, near as
I can tell).

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
news:n2kn41huoinonteo43k6s7efpnjrd9veab@4ax.com...
> >Oooh, I like that. Especially with my players, they use metagame
> >information almost at will.
>
> The same players you describe as good roleplayers?

Yep. When they are role playing(you would call it "play acting"), they role
play well. When they are not actively role playing, they'll use metagame
information quite often. It's something I'm used to, and I don't terribly
mind that it happens.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
>"David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
>news:424af980.31032420@news.telusplanet.net...

>> One obvious reason is that it is unnecessary. These are berries.
>> Berries do not have an indefinite shelf life. Resorting to
>> unspottable pickpocketry should be a last resort.

>Eehh... there's an argument to be made that magical berries, due to their
>magic, would not spoil.

The only magical berries I know of in the game are Goodberries,
and they lose their magic fairly quickly. I guess the big question
might be, are these berries magical items like potions or enchanted
with a spell like goodberries? If they're enchanted, having the spell
wear off makes perfect sense.

> I have never heard of pretty much ANY magic item
>simply spoiling on it's own. Sure, potions might have their bottles broken,
>scrolls burned, wands broken, etc, but they don't just go bad like spoiled
>milk, at least I don't know of a magic item that goes bad from non-use like
>that.

How are they being stored? Berries are ridiculously fragile,
after all, more so than glass bottles. Unless the barbarian
has specified that he's taking special care with them, I
wouldn't expect them to last more than a week of normal
adventuring.

>Let's take a look at this from the other angle, then. Assuming that they
>are "magically prevented from spoiling" for some magical arcane reason, and
>you DIDN'T want them to be just stolen by rule zero, how would YOU
>expeditiously handle the removal of these troublesome berries from the hands
>of the characters? Yes, you could simply wait until they are used up, force
>their use, etc, but then they get the benefit of them, something you're
>trying to avoid.

>From my perspective, a simple pick pocketing is a good way to go, even if
>the PLAYER isn't aware that his character really didn't have a chance to
>spot it.

Tell the player, "Those berries are too powerful, and I'm afraid
I have to take them out of the game. I hope you understand."

How the hell hard is that?

Pete

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

firelock_ny@hotmail.com wrote:
> freakybaby wrote:
> > In fact ten foot deep pit traps with opponent using longspears is
> quite fun
> > too widdle down an enemy with.
>
> That's what Jump skill is for...now, what happens when a
> jumping character is AO'ed halfway through their leap? ;-)

They quickly discover why the armored codpiece was invented.

--
Jay Knioum
The Mad Afro

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd4nm29.tqj.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> The exact total depends on the level of the scrolls and the AC of the
> bracers. If they're 4th-level spells and AC 8 bracers, that's worth
> 8,265 gp. If the bracers are AC 6, the total jumps to at least 20,265 gp.
> In D&D3, a 6th-level character should have about 13,000 gp worth of
> gear. Unless those bracers are AC 8, your wizard actually has more
> magical gear than a typical D&D3 character.

Hrm. So explain to me then, how is it that there ALWAYS seems to be an
abundance of magic when people talk about 3E campaigns? Everyone has +
weapons and + armor, various potions and scrolls, misc magic, even at low
levels. At least that's the appearance of things.

> Your characters actually only have a little less than a D&D3 PC (more,
> if the wizard has good bracers). Sure, your PCs have fewer items than a
> typical D&D3 PC, but what they do have is better.

Hrm. I try to give them useful things but not too many things. It's rare
that I randomly roll treasure to give them some bullshit minor potion or
something.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jeff Goslin" wrote
> "John Phillips" wrote
> > > It's not an assumption. The problem, as described by the original
> poster,
> > > stems directly from an extremely powerful character in comparison to
the
> > > others. The only way to accomplish this is either through munchkinism
> or
> > > min/maxing, and the original poster admitted to as much.
> >
> > The Only way?
>
> Maybe I'm just not thinking of another way, but to me, if one character of
> the same level as another vastly outstrips all the other characters of
that
> level, the only instance I've ever seen that have been in the case of an
> over-magicked character or a super-game-mechanics-optimized character.
I'm
> pleased to learn if there are other things that can cause that, so that I
> can avoid those causes as well.

You have never seen poor game mastering, bad choices at character creation,a
room full of poor players and one skilled player or anyone playing a low
level magic user in a 1st ed game?


John

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jeff Goslin" wrote
> "John Phillips" wrote
> > A battle axe is one handed, a great sword is two handed. It all depends
on
>
> ??? That must be a change from 2E. There's a "great axe" now, isn't
there?
> That must be the two handed version. In 2E there's hand axe and battle
axe,
> 1 and 2 handed respectively.

Yep, 3rd ed has one and two hand axes. They are (more or less) the
equivalent of one and two hand swords.

> > > Of course you'd have reasons for it! I'm not suggesting for example
> > > randomly assigning a TRIDENT to a nomadic tribesman of the northern
> desert
> > > or some such thing! Club for the seal hunting family, Spear for the
> > family
> > > of proud spear carriers(or something), Axe for the guy who was a
> > > disillusioned lumberjack, etc etc.
> >
> > Actually, all those weapons are pretty similar in usefulness, and on par
> > with a longsword.
>
> Club? d4 damage(vs medium creatures, 2E).

In 3rd ed its d6 damage and useable by anyone.

>Spear, d6,

In 3rd ed, d8 and long spears have reach. Reach is good.

>battle axe d8(if memory serves, haven't had an axe wielding character for
some time).

A one handed battle axe is on par with a long sword, a two handed battle axe
(great axe) is on par with a two handed sword (great sword)

> I guess weapons have changed since 2E.

A bit yes, non standard weapons are more usable now.

> > A barbarian with a Big Sword is not min/maxing. Its playing to the
genera.
>
> From a certain perspective, I'd be tempted to agree with you. It sounds
to
> me that the barbarian class in general is the wet dream fighter type for
> power gaming players. It may simply be an unbalanced character from the
get
> go.

Not unbalanced, nor is it power gaming unless all you do is melee combat.


John

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Goslin wrote:
> "David Alex Lamb" <dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca> wrote in message
> news:d2holm$874$1@knot.queensu.ca...
> > Firewalling (between player knowledge and character knowledge) is a
> nontrivial
> > roleplaying skill; I'm having to work at teaching it to my 10-year
old,
> and
>
> Well, I guess that depends on what you seek in your game.

Or on who you've got at the table. My last group consisted mostly of
people brand new to RPGs, so I let a lot more of the metagaming slide
than I normally would. I was more worried about everyone getting a
knack for the rules than the niceties of roleplaying, anyway.

--
Jay Knioum
The Mad Afro

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Rupert Boleyn wrote:
> On 31 Mar 2005 21:34:50 GMT, dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca (David Alex
Lamb)
> carved upon a tablet of ether:
>
> > Prayer time in the dwarven stronghold:
> > Thorin Stonecrusher: Lord Moradin, grant me success in battle.
> > Moradin: You'd do better if you traded in that lousy warhammer for
a
> > greataxe.
> > Thorin: But, but... I picked *your* weapon...
> > Mordadin: That doesn't change the fact that damage potential is
much better
> > with the greataxe.
> > Thorin: But, but... Wny do *you* use a warhammer?
> > Moradin: Ur, umm... That's a secret.
>
> Moradin: It's symbolic of a smith's hammer, you idiot. I'm a god, my
> weapons do damage irrespective of their form. You aren't, your don't.
> Buy an axe.

You guys are ghostwriting "The Order of the Stick," aren't you?

--
Jay Knioum
The Mad Afro

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Peter Meilinger" <mellnger@bu.edu> wrote in message
news:d2h70a$ih2$1@news3.bu.edu...
> Tell the player, "Those berries are too powerful, and I'm afraid
> I have to take them out of the game. I hope you understand."
>
> How the hell hard is that?

Not hard at all. I would probably tell the player such a thing in
confidence before a gaming session, then "run" a pickpocketing scenario at
an appropriate time, just so there's an in game resolution to the problem.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right