Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Thorsbjorn 11-07-07, 10:52 PM	I was looking over the black slaad and noticed that it has the epic spell spell worm as a spell-like ability. Spell worm gives the target a compulsion to lose spells (or spell-slots), and the subject (on failed Will save) must use a standard action each round to divest himself or herself of a spell or spell slot, starting with the highest level. At one point in the spell description the text says that the subject gets to choose among spells of the same level, but then the text turns around and says that the subject is unaware of losing the spells. That seems like a bit of a contradiction, and maybe they mean that the subject's player gets to choose which spells of equal level to lose (i.e. it's really a metagame rule), but that the subject isn't aware of it. I think that some players could handle the difference, but others can't, and in the heat of combat with the character's life on the line the temptation to play the character with player knowledge instead of character knowledge can get particularly strong. I'm just wondering how people have run the spell mechanically. Do you tell the player what's happening and allow him or her to pick which spell to lose (when there's more than one spell remaining of the highest level), and just tell the player to play the character as unaware that he's losing spells? Do you keep the player in the dark and choose for him to ensure that the player doesn't play the character with player knowledge that the character doesn't have? Or do you just let the player play the character as knowing the spells are missing? Thanks. :)
rob_douglas 11-07-07, 11:57 PM	I haven't used it, but I had planned to (I gave a one time use of it to a PC as a deific gift, then the player moved away. :( ) I thought it would work like a multiple personality - they burn the slots, but are then surprised they are gone. But then I thought it would make more sense to just have the DM do the choosing. As powerful as it is, and that it starts with your highest level spells, it should also just take out the most useful/powerful/damaging of them. It certainly would make it easier. Then they might not know which spells are gone until they go to use them - and won't know why - even better. ROB
Thorsbjorn 11-08-07, 12:10 AM	I haven't used it, but I had planned to (I gave a one time use of it to a PC as a deific gift, then the player moved away. :( ) I thought it would work like a multiple personality - they burn the slots, but are then surprised they are gone. But then I thought it would make more sense to just have the DM do the choosing. As powerful as it is, and that it starts with your highest level spells, it should also just take out the most useful/powerful/damaging of them. It certainly would make it easier. Then they might not know which spells are gone until they go to use them - and won't know why - even better. ROB I hate when you do something like that and the player has to move. I've had some great PC backgrounds and DM storylines designed around them only to have the players move. In two cases they'd become my best friend too. One player finished his internship with, um, an agency out here :P and got himself hired by a defense contractor on the opposite coast and into a master's program in rocket science out there. For a year he called in and played by speaker phone, but over time activities there (like launching a rocket!) got in the way and he stopped. Another moved only half way across the country to care for his aging grandmother. Yet another, as a legal Canadian alien, had trouble getting work and had to move out of state for a job. He did manage to come back, and asked if he could return, but his wife gave birth and he found out the hard way that he couldn't. I had another player leave for about six months when his kid was born, but he called in and played by phone. Yet another player had his defense contract expire and again had to move out of state for a job. He still calls in to play by speaker phone. Oh and one of my DMs had to quit running our semi-weekly Sunday game because his defense contract too ran out. He started running a different campaign on Wednesday nights, but then he got some crazy new defense contract job with bizarre hours that precluded that time and day. For the Canadian guy I had a particularly rich secret PC background meshed to the PC background that he knew. Actually the PC background for the rocket scientist was also pretty good, although not secret. I find that it's hard to come by these extremely good DM-player character background interactions. It requires a lot of creativity on their part within the homebrew campaign world I've created and usually an exceptionally good DM-player rapport. Two of those players turned into best friends before they left, so I felt their departure particularly keenly. Anyway ... :P I do like your idea. What did you plan to tell the player about what his character was doing with his standard action each round? :)
rob_douglas 11-08-07, 11:23 AM	Actually, I wasn't casting it on the player, but gave it to the player to cast. I am looking forward to using it on the new party spellcaster though (a monk/sorcerer with Spellcasting Harrier) who was so nasty to my spellcasters last time. The plan would be to have them decide what they think they want to do, and each round they think they do that, but instead, I keep a separate tally of what they really do. If any other player is around, they can do a DC20 Sense Motive to determine the compulsion is in effect, and if not, they may just complain that their spells actually aren't doing anything. If he tries to attack, he will again, just stand there, but think he moves, but the rest of the party won't notice. At that point, I will tell the rest of the party privately that he isn't really moving or doing any damage, etc., privately (I love private message. AIM is great for that....) but let him keep going. He will move his piece around the table until someone cures/dispels/breaks enchantment on it. Then I will put him where he really is - but not tell him about his spell loss until he tries to use the missing spell slots. :) OK, now I really, really want to do this! (I hope he isn't reading this now....) ROB
Thorsbjorn 11-08-07, 12:03 PM	Actually, I wasn't casting it on the player, but gave it to the player to cast. I am looking forward to using it on the new party spellcaster though (a monk/sorcerer with Spellcasting Harrier) who was so nasty to my spellcasters last time. You know, it occurred to me after I posted that you'd said you were going to give the item to the character rather than use it on him, but I also thought you'd described how you would use it on him, and I was too tired to go back and figure it out. Also I wanted to know how you would use it if you used it on a PC. :) The plan would be to have them decide what they think they want to do, and each round they think they do that, but instead, I keep a separate tally of what they really do. If any other player is around, they can do a DC20 Sense Motive to determine the compulsion is in effect, and if not, they may just complain that their spells actually aren't doing anything. If he tries to attack, he will again, just stand there, but think he moves, but the rest of the party won't notice. At that point, I will tell the rest of the party privately that he isn't really moving or doing any damage, etc., privately (I love private message. AIM is great for that....) but let him keep going. He will move his piece around the table until someone cures/dispels/breaks enchantment on it. Then I will put him where he really is - but not tell him about his spell loss until he tries to use the missing spell slots. :) OK, now I really, really want to do this! (I hope he isn't reading this now....) ROB Ah, you're DMing online. Yeah I always hope that my players don't read my posts too! :D I like your idea of letting the player of the affected character think he's casting or whatever. I'd give the other characters a chance to notice that he just stands around doing nothing. Really that shouldn't be too hard unless the affected character is invisible or out of their line of sight. I could see that it could be amusing. Wizard: "I cast a meteor swarm at the black slaad." DM: "Roll your caster level check. Hmm. The spell doesn't seem to affect the slaad." (DM hands note to ranger's player.) Ranger: "Why aren't you casting any spells?! This slaad is eating us alive!" Wizard: "what do you mean?! I just cast a meteor swarm at it!" Ranger: no you didn't! You just stood there with a blank look on your face!" :schemes:
Kesuk2k5 11-13-07, 03:47 PM	I always looked at it as a certain amount of metagaming, meaning the player chooses which spells are lost but the character realizes nothing. With the way some things function in the game, the fourth wall has to be broken, but this isn't very drastic of a break.
Thorsbjorn 11-14-07, 10:18 AM	I always looked at it as a certain amount of metagaming, meaning the player chooses which spells are lost but the character realizes nothing. With the way some things function in the game, the fourth wall has to be broken, but this isn't very drastic of a break. You're running it exactly the way it's written. That's probably the easiest way to run it too, but I think it could be more fun to run it as Rob has suggested. :) Knowing me, by the time I go to run the thing, I'll have forgotten this conversation. :P