Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Aldor Cadarn 06-23-04, 05:13 PM	Hi everybody, I've been playing a N/N Human Wizard named Aldor Cadarn in a Campaign that has been going on for almost a year. I had recently achieved the 9th level, had developed his story, and always received major Role-Playng XP awards for my trouble. He is a cynic, proud wizard (I have to admit, kinda Raistlin-like) that ended up growing a bit of a soft spot for his companions (including a 17 year-old innocent Paladin). Well, on our last session we confronted oponnents we had been chasing for a long time. One of them was Solivar, a powerful Sorcerer who had previously humiliated Aldor by cursing him, reducing his intelligence from 18 to 12 (the curse was lifted by powerful clerics afterwards)! During the ensuing combat the sorcerer was felled by the arrows of our Elven archer friend. As the combat was ending, and my character felt everything was under control, he advanced to Solivar's body and he was still alive. In all his hatred against Solivar, he ripped his clothes and equipment (includin his Staff), tore his tongue and fingers and made him drink a healing potion! Once he was awake, Aldor made a speech (something like "I told you" :) ) and finished him with a Vampiric Touch. I decided not to retain Solivar's items for Role-Playng reasons ("I don't want the items of this wretch!"). The DM automatically promoted me to neutral evil. Following this, while the party discussed, Solivar's apprentice shows up from nowhere desperate because of the death of his master. He grabs his staff and runs in our direction. the Rogue throws a Rope of Entaglement and entangles him, the Dwarven Warrior trips him and says that will put his axe on the apprentice's neck. Me and the Cleric companion get near him to talk with this guy. What follows is the sad part: Our DM says, well the guy brakes the staff, it is a staff of power with 40 charges, that means 320 damage! The rogue survives (evasion), me, the dwarf and the cleric are wiped out of existence. I don't know, but i thnk the game was supposed to offer challenges to which you could respond, not some automatic character wiping like this. I'm very sad about it, do I think I'm just being a cry-baby or am i right ? Should i talk to the DM, or what ? He has told us to make other characters but i'm not sure if i will... Thanks in advance!
mickyb 06-23-04, 05:28 PM	Did he roll to see if the staff got broke? If no, then get him to reinstate the characters cos that is a major piece of arbitrariness there. However, if he did roll for it then you don't really have a leg to stand on. Hope that helps. Dragonlover P.S- I'm on someone else's comp, hence the name discrepancy
tarkin 06-23-04, 05:28 PM	1) If he was caught and entangled, he should not have been able to break the staff. 2) If you had caught him and released him, why did you let him keep touching the staff? 3) Considering he was a major enemey of yours, why had you not realized he had a staff of power? and then taken control of it before an apprentice could get it? 4) A staff of Power with 40 charges left is worth over 175,000 gp. 9th level players should not be facing someone that has it.
MetalGemini 06-23-04, 05:33 PM	I'm going to have to go with you (the player) on this one. While your actions against the sorcerer were evil, one act is not enough to change you alignment from True Neutral to Neutral Evil. If you had a history of unnecessary violence, then I could see this as being the culmination of your transition to NE. But it sounds like it was just one act of rage. As far as the staff goes, thats a bit excessive. Even if the DM had it scripted for the apprentice to break the staff, killing off three players at once is too much. He should have thought that through more. The future is up to you. As a group, I'd suggest talking to the DM and asking why he felt it necessary to kill 3 of the PCs that are obviously doing much better role-playing than some people I've seen. I don't think I would let this be the end of your gaming with the group. Might be time to hint at a DM change if possible....
Lincoln Hills 06-23-04, 05:35 PM	Sometime when you're not in-game, take your DM aside. Explain to him that you're a little surprised at the sudden ending your campaign had. Do not act resentful: do not let your anger show. Take up the following points with him: 1) He created a villain (I notice the alignment isn't listed) who your character learned to hate. Your character "tore his tongue and fingers" - presumably in an effort to cripple his spellcasting. (Torture of a helpless foe IS an evil act, but your character was not exactly doing this in cold blood.) Was this ONE act of evil enough - in your DM's opinion, now that both of you are calmer - to justify an alignment shift to evil? 2) Assure him that you (and your fellow players?) are unlikely to have interest in continuing the campaign as is, or "ret-conning" it back to a point just before the staff-breaking. Ask what plans he has for a new campaign. Do not "throw blame" - he'll probably feel bad enough already - simply ask, "What now?" 3) Suggest a house-rule that a fully entangled character (failed his save) cannot break an item without a huge Strength check. 4) Strongly consider switching DMs. This guy was upset because you killed off a guy who had an important campaign function: that doesn't explain the Suicide Bomber Apprentice. Sheer DM pique.
Dunbar 06-23-04, 05:44 PM	Ok, info on the Staff of Power from the SRD: A staff of power can be used for a retributive strike, requiring it to be broken by its wielder. (If this breaking of the staff is purposeful and declared by the wielder, it can be performed as a standard action that does not require the wielder to make a Strength check.) All charges currently in the staff are instantly released in a 30-foot radius. All within 2 squares of the broken staff take points of damage equal to 8 x the number of charges in the staff, those 3 or 4 squares away take 6 x the number of charges in damage, and those 5 or 6 squares distant take 4 x the number of charges in damage. All those affected can make DC 17 Reflex saves to reduce the damage by half So you don't need to make any kind of check to break the staff if that is what you want to do. So as long as the apprentice knew the nature of the staff (or at least if his master had informed him of the power released if it were broken), he should be able to break it. Now for the rope of entanglement, an entangled character has penalties to AC and dex, but it doesn't say in the rules that he cannot break the staff. Since entangled characters can still attack and such (albeit at a penalty), allowing him to break the staff seems reasonable. Finally, assuming this apprentice is dedicated to his master, see him not only defeated but his body also defiled by you may well have put him into a suicidal rage. Even if he didn't see it happen, when he sees his master's mutilated body and a group of people nearby with bloody weapons, it isn't too much of a stretch to guess what happened. Knowing he was no match for you normally, he decided to strike back the only way he could, with his master's staff. So all in all, it seems like the situation was on the up and up. I'm assuming you are fairly high level to be facing an NPC weilding a staff of power. The lesson to be learned: don't leave powerful magical items lying around! Even if you didn't want to have the staff, you should take it to properly dispose of it. Though, in your defence, I would have asked for spot/listen checks to notice the approach of the apprentice, followed by initiative rolls to see who would have gotten to act first. He may not have even been able to get to the staff that way.
cheesegrater 06-23-04, 05:48 PM	[redundant]
Aldor Cadarn 06-23-04, 06:02 PM	Hello guys, thank you for your fast replies, just to clarify some points:´ - The Alignment of the villain is evil. We know it because the Paladin was detected. - The point about the relative power of the villain and the party: This campaign world was created by me, and because of the great number of players in my area, we used to have two groups (of 6 players each), who played in different parts of the campaign world and in one special session they would join to combat a major threat. After that campaign, this DM (who is actually my friend), asked me to use my campaign world, and used the same process (two groups, joining in one, big session). There were 12 PCs against 6 high level characters. That is why he was powerful enough to have a staff of power while the group was 9th level (with the exception of two rogues of higher level). - Though my friend who plays the dwarf got mad about having the guy entangled and an axe in his throat, that's not exactly my point. My point is, since the DM plans to continue the campaign: if the campaign is done (in general) for the fun of the players, in which way this kind of thing contributes to the fun (killing three PC giving them no means of escape) ?
Incensius 06-23-04, 06:13 PM	question: How oculd you not have sensed that is is a magic staff? And if you didn't....he's a high level enemy spellcaster, with a staff.....you're a spellcaster....staff....spellcaster...hi gh level.....*skies clear and clouds dissipate* well? Mat
LoricDAHPaladin 06-23-04, 06:21 PM	I agree with a few of the posters above who gave their reasons for supporting you with regard to alignment change and the staff thing. I find that your alignment, if this was an isolated, or rare incident, should not be affected. I also think that the staff stunt was over-the-top and unfair. The game is not about killing the PCs, it is about the stories that tell of their advancement and glory. That is my very brief take on it, anwya.
Dunbar 06-23-04, 06:22 PM	As far as the whole alignment thing, it doesn't really matter much that the villian was evil. In DnD, it is evil to torture a helpless sentient creature. Now whether or not that single act should have pushed you over into being evil depends on your character's actions up to that point. But considering the circumstances, you may have just been acting out of rage, and while the incident is a mark against you, is not enough in and of itself to make you evil. But if you had been heading down that path, it could certainly push you over the edge. As far as the situation being unfair, it's hard to say. I mention in my previous post that you should have had a chance to stop the apprentice...without that opportunity, I can certainly see how this death can leave a bad taste in your mouth. It's one thing to go down heroically in battle, and another to get blown to bits by a cheap shot. But let's reverse the situation for a minute. Let's say it was your master (or some other character your PC really cares about) who was tortured and killed at the hands of ruffians. If you had been the one to dash in and break the staff of power, would that have been unfair to the NPCs who just got blown to bits? A lot of this depends on your DM. If he only inserted the apprentice into the situation just to punish the characters for killing his bad guy, then it's out of line. If he had planned for the apprentice to be there, then the apprentice is acting appropriately. Any way you slice it, however, it's a pretty hard blow to any campaign to kill off the majority of the PCs all at once. Isn't there any way for your characters to be raised?
Scion of Coldshard 06-23-04, 06:50 PM	Sounds fine, tearing out peoples tongues, tearing off of their fingers, and then making them drink a healing potion just so that you may cast a spell to kill them is definately an evil act. Whether or not it is worth an immediate alignment shift is up to the dm, but since the character was true nuetral it isnt like it was a big step. It doesnt sound terribly out of line that causing an incredible amount of undue suffering is horribly evil enough to cause an immediate shift. SRD: “Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master. Definately a form of killing for sport here. As for the staff though.. SRD: A staff of power can be used for a retributive strike, requiring it to be broken by its wielder. (If this breaking of the staff is purposeful and declared by the wielder, it can be performed as a standard action that does not require the wielder to make a Strength check.) All charges currently in the staff are instantly released in a 30-foot radius. All within 2 squares of the broken staff take points of damage equal to 8 x the number of charges in the staff, those 3 or 4 squares away take 6 x the number of charges in damage, and those 5 or 6 squares distant take 4 x the number of charges in damage. All those affected can make DC 17 Reflex saves to reduce the damage by half. You cant take a measely 160 damage? ;) Still though, nothing stopping this from happening. Sounds pretty viable no matter how it is sliced. He had it in his hand, he chose to use his standard action to break it, done and done. Sadly enough, the apprentice has a decent chance of still being alive..lol
Aldor Cadarn 06-23-04, 07:33 PM	About the alignment change: Well, I agree, that the act was evil, but there are two main reasons I think it should not result in a an alignment change: - as it was pointed by some of you it was an act of rage, I wanted to have my revenge. - second, i had joined a group with clearly good objectives, and had done some good acts but they didn't turn me into a neutral good character! The thing is, i think people are more impressed by evil than by good! About the Staff: In fact, we could have stopped the threat in many ways: I could have not decided to roleplay (get the staff or examine it during my rage); or we could just have destroyed the suicidal apprenticie before he reached us with arrows, magic missiles and stuff... but as a roleplaying game we don't just go killing NPCs if we don't have motive to do so. To me (due to the party's ignorance about the power of the staff), this situation is as valid as the following: (for a party of 9th level) - Players: We will split the group - half go to the left, half go to the right. - DM: Ok, dudes, unfortunately the party that went to the left entered a region of poisonous gas that deals 320 dmg. make your saves. (it doesn't matter if you save or not you´re dead meat anyway) I just didn't think it was a reasonable course to the campaign (and of course to my character...heheh)
eRaz0r 06-23-04, 07:46 PM	I take issue with the suggestion that this is killing for sport. It most certainly was not. It was revenge, pure and simple. Rage or not, it was motivated in response to an evil person screwing the character over. There was an existing personal relationship (the Sorcerer had cursed this guy, and spent much time taunting him.) It wasn't a *good* act, but it was not killing for sport either. Since the guy isn't "good", I don't have a problem with it. I mean, it was cruel and nasty and selfish, but the guy was evil. Is there, or is there not, a stable middle ground between Good and Evil called Neutral ? I mean, by this sort of logic, you're either Good or Evil, and any act is one or the other, and instantly pushes you over the line either way. I don't agree. This guy is Neutral. This one act mostly just balances up the good he's been doing at the side of the Paladin.
Hathorym 06-23-04, 07:47 PM	Regarding the Alignment change: If we changed alignments that quickly based on our actions, we'd qualify for paladin and assassin once a week each. Yeah, you went overboard, but c'mon - that would have been a warning that your alignment was awfully close - not a complete and total shift. If anything, I'd say it was more chaotic than evil, really. Regarding the Staff of Power: Sounds to me like the DM wanted the campaign to end.
Scion of Coldshard 06-23-04, 07:51 PM	It is not the parties job to make you good. That is the characters/players choice. I knew another guy who used this same arguement, and he also went evil. Apparently he said his character wanted to be good, but good was boring, so he had to be evil instead and try to kill the party. Which would defintely seem more like he was always evil, but in denial. It was definately an act of evil, revenge or not, rage or not, definately evil. As for the staff, so long as it was within the characters wealth limit it seems pretty legal. Your example is a bit more extreme than what actually happened, you had a chance to figure out at least something about the staff, and possibly even to ready a few actions vs any hostile actions (which would've been some sort of check to keep the staff from being broken) Pretty harsh sure, but then if the enemy was high enough level to have the weapon in the first place then those are the breaks ;) Everyone in the party being within a few feat of the guy and not having taken any preperations.. well, they found out why that is a Bad Thing (tm).
Scion of Coldshard 06-23-04, 08:03 PM	Originally posted by eRaz0r I take issue with the suggestion that this is killing for sport. Hence why I said a 'form' of sport. He killed for revenge about someone who had, apparently, only hurt his feelings before. So, because his feelings were hurt he tore out the guys tongue and then his fingers and then force fed his foe a healing potion just so that the damaging spell would deal more damage. That sort of thing is torture, plain and simple. Toying with your enemy. A pretty decent definition of killing for sport, just in a slightly different venue. If you put out an enemy, hunt them down, and kill them that is 'for sport', there is very little difference here. If the next time someone bumps your car making you have to pay $50 to take out the dent and you hunt them down, tear out their tongue, rip off their fingers and then force feed them rat poison you can try to say it isnt evil and psychotic all you like ;) Originally posted by eRaz0r any act is one or the other, and instantly pushes you over the line either way. How many acts are completely neutral? probably not many. But, there are varying degrees. This one was pretty far up there. Mangling a defensless opponent all because he hurt your feelings and then slaughtering him is just about the epitome of Evil.
Aldor Cadarn 06-23-04, 08:16 PM	It is not the parties job to make you good. That is the characters/players choice. I knew another guy who used this same arguement, and he also went evil. Apparently he said his character wanted to be good, but good was boring, so he had to be evil instead and try to kill the party. Which would defintely seem more like he was always evil, but in denial. It was definately an act of evil, revenge or not, rage or not, definately evil. Maybe I wasn't clear about that. I had made some good actions along the way... but that never got me into a neutral good alignment. Reforcing my statement, I think people are more impressed by good than by evil. about the staff: let me correct then the situation i created: DM: You feel a strange smell to the left. Party: half of us go to the left DM: Everybody take that 320 dmg!! Abou the staff, we werepaying attention to other things, (like the wounded and near dead fellows, and talking to one of the captives we managed to make)
Aldor Cadarn 06-23-04, 08:24 PM	Oh, and another thing...he didn't "hurt my feelings". He cursed me, reducing my intelligence (the most important thing for a wizard, and even more for a proud one like the one i play)! The mangling of him was done so that he could feel like my character when i was captured by him previously (defenseless, with no possibility to use my magic to save me), and I gave him some moments of life (by giving him the healing potion, he was alive but had -something hit points) just to let him see that i had been able to carry out my promise. I don't discuss that it is an evil act, but it was not a random one, not unprovoked, and as i sad before, it was the only one during the whole game.
Nick Soapdish 06-23-04, 08:42 PM	It might be the only one act, but it's a pretty extreme act. It's a lot more sadistic than anything that Raistlin ever did for example. As an even more extreme example, if you've got a paladin who just decides to burn down a village, killing hundreds, does he just turn around and say, "Hey, it was just one act. I'll atone." and everything's hunky dory again. And the reasoning behind why you did it is because he hurt your feelings, at least as far as I can tell. Sure, he knocked your intelligence low, but what it really did is make you feel impotent and you wanted to show him how that really felt (although with a 12 Intelligence, you aren't really impotent - just severely gimped). And IMO, cutting off his fingers and tongue is a heckuva lot worse than just cursing somebody. I guess the staff of power thing works by the books. But it does sound like the DM was just trying to end the campaign or something.(By the way, I can't help but notice that paying attention to other things also includes torturing the owner. So it's not like you didn't have time.)
eRaz0r 06-23-04, 08:42 PM	Scion : Killing for Sport is a completely different kind of thing to this. That sort of thing is torture, plain and simple. Toying with your enemy. A pretty decent definition of killing for sport, just in a slightly different venue. If you put out an enemy, hunt them down, and kill them that is 'for sport', there is very little difference here. Torture != killing for sport either. Torture isn't toying with the enemy. Killing for sport implies it's a form of fun. This wasn't fun - it was revenge. Bloody disgusting revenge, but not sport. It's a different thing. The act certainly wasn't good, we can agree on that. But being attacked and cursed by someone isn't "hurt feelings" and I'm assuming (perhaps erroneously) that this Sorcerer was a BBEG that had plagued the party through multiple appearances, causing them greater injury than just taunting. So you're making the distinction greater than it is to make your point. I don't think it's warranted. How many acts are completely neutral? probably not many. But, there are varying degrees. This one was pretty far up there. Mangling a defensless opponent all because he hurt your feelings and then slaughtering him is just about the epitome of Evil. So you're saying there is *no way* a person can be neutral then ? After all, there are degrees of evil, (and good) acts, but few neutral ones. And performing any of them results in an alignment change to reflect which act you've most recently performed. What if this guy decided to donate his entire wealth to an orphanage after saving a damsel in distress from certain death ? Is he now Good ? My point is that neutral characters are neutral because they don't always do the right thing. They aren't good. But they're not evil either. If he's been hanging around a Paladin all this time, fighting the good fight, and then he exacts some petty revenge on one annoying evil sorcerer, that suddenly makes him Evil ? I don't think so. If the guy had surrendered - that would be different. Still - I have a problem with any campaign which supports a Paladin who wantonly slaughters his way through a thousand minions to the BBEG's fortress, yet punishes the Neutral character for one act of revenge against the unrepentant evil mastermind. Sorry, but you need to use the same yardstick for everyone, and killing sentient beings in anything other than self-defense cannot be considered "good" no matter who they work for. If it's ok for the LG Paladin to kill someone who doesn't attack him first, then it's ok for the NEUTRAL character to be a little darker without stepping into NE. But that's just my opinion. Alignment sux.
Graven 06-23-04, 09:00 PM	I would of given you a warning, this type of thing wouldn't completely change your alignment. As for the staff of power incident it sounds like one of two things. 1) The DM wanted to teach you a lesson 2) The DM didn't think out his actions Your options: 1) Talk it out with the DM 2) Roleplay a way out of it, looking for a way to get true res'd or just normally res'd and continue on. Death happens, you move on as best you can. As the dmg states, sometimes bad things happen to good characters.
Nick Soapdish 06-23-04, 09:01 PM	First, what paladin? Never mind. Found him along the companions, although I still don't see the hordes of guys that he's been hewing through. And second, the problem IMO is that it's not just a little darker. It's the sort of major sicko bad that gets you the lawyer trying to plea insanity. The killing isn't what bothered me. It's the torturing and then gloating about it.
Edward 06-23-04, 09:06 PM	With the alignment. I would not have changed your alignment for that alone (big step however) Of cause it really doesn’t matter. You will act the same. Action based alignment change doesn’t mean you have to act your new alignment. If you act neutral for a goodly time you will return to neutral. As to the staff. A wizards aprentive has reclaimed his dead masters stalf (wich you had to assume was powerfull). You had him grappled and a ax at his throat. 2 charicters walk up to talk AND NOBODY THINKS TO DISARM HIM. This is clearly not the GMs fault entirely. That said this dose seem to have every indication of the GM wanting to end the campaign so he killed most of the characters I consider this bad form. I like my characters to retire and I like to allow my players to retire their characters if they can win. Edward
Aldor Cadarn 06-23-04, 09:20 PM	Well let me clear some other details so you guys can be informed: Resuming the last happenings of the campaign: There is a massive storm covering the whole world. This storm was invoked by the drow so they could go to the surface and take everything for them. They destroyed the most important Human city in the world, except one building: the Wizard's Tower. (this happened after almost a year of adventuring, after I had my conflict with te sorcerer and everything). The drow are being led by a Drow Lich and his lieutenants. One of them is Solivar (the sorcerer), who had previously captured the Paladin's sister (which I helped to save in the beginning of the campaign), cursed me, and led the main assault against the city, among other things The assailants managed to capture an important item from the Wizard's Tower, by trading it for some captives, and then left the city. Since the Wizards are occupied in mantaining the city, the group joined to make a final strike against the forces of evil. There is an evil temple in the desert where the storm is being generated and we were heading towards it. When we reached the mountains that we had to cross to get to the desert we encountered a group of hostile drows and defeated them. They were in fact a group being led by the villains of the story (except the lich who i presume is hidden in the temple). I challenged Solivar to a duel (though i was clearly outpowered, i had a card up my sleeve: a scroll of anti-magic field. I planned to use it, grapple the sorcerer and kill him with it). The group didn't let me. They were there to destroy us so combat started. Near the end of the combat, Solivar used a Dimension Door, but the arrows of the elf reached him nonetheless (one of them a crit), and he fell. I went after him while the battle still ocurred and found him alive (-something). I did what i told previously and came back to the group, leaving the items there. Then the apprentice showed up near the items and started to run in our direction. We could have destroyed him along the way but due to our good tendencies we just wished to capture him. Results: 3 players turned to dust.
eRaz0r 06-23-04, 09:39 PM	Originally posted by Nick Soapdish First, what paladin? Never mind. Found him along the companions, although I still don't see the hordes of guys that he's been hewing through. Well - there's a lot of combat. I expect there's a lot of evil doers who've been hacked up. It's sort of par for the course in DnD, right ? Combat is a pretty big component of most games, and this sounds like no exception. And second, the problem IMO is that it's not just a little darker. It's the sort of major sicko bad that gets you the lawyer trying to plea insanity. The killing isn't what bothered me. It's the torturing and then gloating about it. I agree that this is pretty nasty stuff. That's unquestioned. However, I submit that any campaign where it is considered *good* to kill evil creatures should show some extra lee-way for what is considered "pure evil" or there can be no "neutral" at all. If the character were to make a habit of it, there's no question that he's going to start showing up on the Paladin's Radar. But we're talking a society where an Eye for an Eye could be an acceptable legal code. This game isn't set in the Modern world where our more advanced culture supports a sophisticated legal and moral system... There are evil creatures taking over the world and it's the Heroes' job to stop them. If you're not requiring the Paladin to offer clemency to every foe, giving them each the opportunity to surrender, and perhaps letting them all go if they promise not to do evil anymore (BoED gives us some ideas for this)... if the Paladin, in fact, is able to kill any Drow he sees on sight because they're presumed enemies in a war zone, then a little lee way for the NEUTRAL wizard should be a given. In many cultures, what your modern sensibilities call torture, they call Justice.
Scion of Coldshard 06-23-04, 09:41 PM	Originally posted by Aldor Cadarn [B]Maybe I wasn't clear about that. I had made some good actions along the way... but that never got me into a neutral good alignment. Reforcing my statement, I think people are more impressed by good than by evil. It is easy to become evil, very hard to become good. That is how good and evil work, doing good deeds all of your life makes you good, doing a single evil deed is all it takes to make you evil. If the deed is evil enough. Well, your act certainly qualifies as horribly evil ;)
Scion of Coldshard 06-23-04, 09:46 PM	Originally posted by Aldor Cadarn Oh, and another thing...he didn't "hurt my feelings". He cursed me, reducing my intelligence (the most important thing for a wizard, and even more for a proud one like the one i play)! Who cares? it didnt even really damage you, simply a curse which you nullified. Much like someone casting magic missile on you and it being healed later. Not a big deal. Mostly the same as if he had cast bane on someone.. like say the party fighter.. uh oh.. now he has a penalty to hit, his most important asset! All he did was bruise your feelings. No lasting damage, just a slight setback. It has been long since fixed with no lasting harm done at all. In fact, having to get it cured may have caused you to pick up some extra allies along the way, so it may have been a benefit to you. Originally posted by Aldor Cadarn The mangling of him was done so that he could feel like my character when i was captured by him previously (defenseless, with no possibility to use my magic to save me), and I gave him some moments of life (by giving him the healing potion, he was alive but had -something hit points) just to let him see that i had been able to carry out my promise. Evil. Definately Evil. Trying to justify the blatantly evil act does not make it any less evil. You could have cursed him instead and sent him on his way. There you are, exactly the same punishment. Nope, you went to incredibly torturous extremes and then killed him. Eye for an eye holds no bars with your character, he had his feelings hurt and so that person must suffer horribly and then die by your hands. See my comment above about the bump in the car, exactly the same thing.
Scion of Coldshard 06-23-04, 09:54 PM	Originally posted by eRaz0r Killing for Sport is a completely different kind of thing to this. He hunted the guy down, captured him, slowly tortured him, and then killed him with a spell from his very hand. What exactly differs from that and 'sport'? I would have to say that they are close enough to be the same. Originally posted by eRaz0r Torture != killing for sport either. Torture isn't toying with the enemy. Killing for sport implies it's a form of fun. Sounds like he had 'fun' to me, in an evil sort of way. He was exacting his revenge in one of the most painful ways possible. Revenge is one thing, but this was just brutal. It sounds like he is also unrepentant, and would probably do it again in a heartbeat. Along with doing it again in the future. Maybe he doesnt enjoy in a pleasureing way now, but he is certainly on that path. Originally posted by eRaz0r So you're saying there is *no way* a person can be neutral then ? After all, there are degrees of evil, (and good) acts, but few neutral ones. And performing any of them results in an alignment change to reflect which act you've most recently performed. A character who performs actions either way all of the time which are minor on the good/evil scale will likely be neutral. Nice try putting words in my mouth though. The alignment system works like that, and sure it may suck that becoming good is hard while becoming evil is easy, but that is just how the game works. It sounds like he was doing minor good deeds for awhile, for what purpose we dont know, and those 'might' eventually qualify him to be good. But then we have this act of cold blooded torture and murder. Now there is a huge black mark on the record, those good deeds are very likely 'nothing' when compared to this. Hunting someone down to kill them is definately a variation on the 'hunting for sport'. What was done here was hunting someone down for a slight against the guys ego (a fairly easily fixed spell was used.. low level even.. are we going to hunt down and murder anyone who might have cast a spell on us in the past? down that path lies evil). A good character would try to redeem the evil doer, forgive transgressions, and try to make the other person his friend. Turn them from evil. An evil character will do exactly what was done here.
Scion of Coldshard 06-23-04, 09:56 PM	Originally posted by eRaz0r But we're talking a society where an Eye for an Eye could be an acceptable legal code. So... someone casts some random spell on you, which you get fixed easily. Now you are justified to hunt them down, torture them, and murder them. Wow.. must've been a really large eye he hit with that random, easily fixable, spell.
Aldor Cadarn 06-23-04, 09:58 PM	[quote]Evil. Definately Evil. Trying to justify the blatantly evil act does not make it any less evil.[/qoute] Well I went out of my way in the beginning of the campaign to save the Paladin's sister, sacrificing my studies and risking my life (against this same Sorcerer guy, and his apprentices). Good. Definately Good. Blatantly Good. But doing this thing once does not turn a neutral character into a good character on any campaign i know.
Nick Soapdish 06-23-04, 10:03 PM	Originally posted by eRaz0r I agree that this is pretty nasty stuff. That's unquestioned. However, I submit that any campaign where it is considered *good* to kill evil creatures should show some extra lee-way for what is considered "pure evil" or there can be no "neutral" at all. Well, let me commit the heresy of trying to use a real-world example. There's lots of individuals that make their living in a profession that risks them having to kill others - policemen. Soldiers, too. Very few ever are forced into that situation. But generally, when they do, there's little question that they're still good guys. (I say generally since some do get accused of being trigger-happy.) OTOH, when you hear examples of folks chopping off body parts and killing people, they usually go hand in hand with loooong jail sentences. To me, neutral creatures don't go on a killing spree and then donate their entire wealth to save starving orphans. They do good and evil acts, but they just do little ones. They'll shoplift from Walmart and then help walk an old lady across the street. They don't put themselves out too much to help others, but they don't put others out too much. They move into good or evil alignments when they do one of those grand acts. Now in real life, those grand acts don't actually have to be that grand. Someone who spends every weekend feeding the homeless or building houses and then spends a few nights a week combating illiterate sounds like a pretty good person because they're really putting lots of effort. The same thing doesn't mean as much in D&D. The player could say as much and the DM just hand-waves it and it's happened. The character never really sacrificed anything. In D&D, I think the character needs to make actual sacrifices which usually involves wealth, power, or the potential loss of life. (Rescuing the paladin's sister could qualify.) Also, I agree with Scion in that it's a lot easier to slip into evil than to remain good. Heck, it's a major tenet of at least 4 major religions.
Korhal_IV 06-23-04, 10:26 PM	Originally posted by Scion of Coldshard So... someone casts some random spell on you, which you get fixed easily. Now you are justified to hunt them down, torture them, and murder them. You are absolutely justified. We're dealing with magic here, which is like weaponry in the real world. The wizard has been deprived of his livelihood, has suffered extensive brain damage, and depending on the society's view of magic you could even argue that the curse is the mental equivalent of a rape, and therefore merits all the same punishments. The loss of the wizard's mind also directly affects those whose lives rest on his, in this case the party, at least one of whom would be by our standards a minor. Further, everyone is completely missing the point with "torture" accusations. The enemy sorcerer had his fingers broken and his tongue removed so that he could not cast spells. This is not torture, this is gruesome pragmatism. Any spell by that sorcerer could easily kill or maim dozens, including the party, which the wizard had a duty to protect. It is true that it was not a good act by any definition, but I do think it was a neutral act. A good person ignores harm done to them. To use a biblical quote, (since everyone's tossing around "an eye for an eye") when someone steals your cloak, offer them your shirt as well. When someone hits you, turn the other cheek. A neutral person will do to others what they do to them. If you do good, they do good to you. An evil person does harm to others for whatever reason he sees fit.
bitnine 06-23-04, 10:36 PM	Originally posted by Aldor Cadarn Well I went out of my way in the beginning of the campaign to save the Paladin's sister, sacrificing my studies and risking my life (against this same Sorcerer guy, and his apprentices). Good. Definately Good. Blatantly Good. But doing this thing once does not turn a neutral character into a good character on any campaign i know. Yeah, that's probably the thing to focus on. I wouldn't spend much effort that saying that the measures that the character went to constitute an evil act; but single acts don't define an alignment. If this, for example, is a character who protects people and tries to do right on occaision, but can be pushed to taking terrible vengeance, he might be neutral. If it's more that he's got a 'familiy' that he cares about, doesn't give a rat's ass about the rest of the world - except for those who tick him off, he might well be neutral evil. In any event, I'd agree with the poster who suggested that you speak with the DM after the session and things cool down. If it holds true, point out that your character hasn't in fact changed, and that he'll continue to do the things that's he's been doing previously, including working with the party and saving people and whatnot - the question is if the DM considers the character's capability for vengeance to be such a pressing and overweighing feature. After all, alignment should be a categorization of a character's outlook, not a punishment for getting naughty with a BBEG.
Nick Soapdish 06-23-04, 10:54 PM	Originally posted by Korhal_IV Further, everyone is completely missing the point with "torture" accusations. The enemy sorcerer had his fingers broken and his tongue removed so that he could not cast spells. This is not torture, this is gruesome pragmatism. Gag for the mouth and tie the hands together. It's even faster. I'll agree that it's gruesome, but it's at the expense of being pragmatic.
Nick Soapdish 06-23-04, 11:08 PM	Originally posted by Aldor Cadarn Well I went out of my way in the beginning of the campaign to save the Paladin's sister, sacrificing my studies and risking my life (against this same Sorcerer guy, and his apprentices). Good. Definately Good. Blatantly Good. But doing this thing once does not turn a neutral character into a good character on any campaign i know. Sacrificing your studies? So, how much did it slow down your advancement? Did you level more slowly since you weren't able to stay closeted in the library? Do you have fewer spells now? Or monetary considerations? I'll buy that as a sacrifice if it means that you are in a campaign with a very tight timeline and no chances to sit back and copy spells, but otherwise, it's a minor inconvenience at most. Usually, in D&D, going out and fighting is the way to get richer and advance your studies. The wizard who pores over his books all day long gets practically zip. The wizard that goes out and fights monsters and saves damsels is the one that learns the trade fast. I'm not saying that it wasn't a good act. You did risk yourself and as it turned out there were actual negative consequences. But if you want Eye for an Eye, then I think you've got to be specifically trading the gimping, rather than a risk of gimping. And like I said before, they don't call it the straight and narrow for nothing. It's easier to slide into evil than to climb into good.
Aldor Cadarn 06-23-04, 11:52 PM	So, how much did it slow down your advancement? Did you level more slowly since you weren't able to stay closeted in the library? Do you have fewer spells now? Or monetary considerations? I'll buy that as a sacrifice if it means that you are in a campaign with a very tight timeline and no chances to sit back and copy spells, but otherwise, it's a minor inconvenience at most. In fact, this IS a campaign with a very tight timeline. Just to have an idea, the Item Creation Feats were discouraged by the DM since we wouldn't get the time to do them. Since my character joined this group, in an effort to help turn the evil tide, he has had very few spare time to study. Most of his study occurs while travelling, at a slower rate, and yes, I do have fewer spells because of that, less money. It was a sacrifice for the character. The fact is I didn't get too angry abou the AL change, since I figured that with some roleplaying this could be changed. Unfortunately I was blasted into small pieces 30 seconds after turning NE!
thalious 06-24-04, 12:40 AM	Originally posted by Dunbar The lesson to be learned: don't leave powerful magical items lying around! Even if you didn't want to have the staff, you should take it to properly dispose of it. Though, in your defence, I would have asked for spot/listen checks to notice the approach of the apprentice, followed by initiative rolls to see who would have gotten to act first. He may not have even been able to get to the staff that way. This covers it pretty well.
Scion of Coldshard 06-24-04, 04:31 AM	Originally posted by Korhal_IV You are absolutely justified. We're dealing with magic here, which is like weaponry in the real world. The wizard has been deprived of his livelihood, has suffered extensive brain damage, and depending on the society's view of magic you could even argue that the curse is the mental equivalent of a rape, and therefore merits all the same punishments. The loss of the wizard's mind also directly affects those whose lives rest on his, in this case the party, at least one of whom would be by our standards a minor. Pretty much completely false, let us look at bestow curse shall we. SRD: Bestow Curse Necromancy Level: Clr 3, Sor/Wiz 4 Components: V, S Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Touch Target: Creature touched Duration: Permanent Saving Throw: Will negates Spell Resistance: Yes You place a curse on the subject. Choose one of the following three effects. • –6 decrease to an ability score (minimum 1). • –4 penalty on attack rolls, saves, ability checks, and skill checks. • Each turn, the target has a 50% chance to act normally; otherwise, it takes no action. You may also invent your own curse, but it should be no more powerful than those described above. The curse bestowed by this spell cannot be dispelled, but it can be removed with a break enchantment, limited wish, miracle, remove curse, or wish spell. Bestow curse counters remove curse. Note the lack of the [Evil] descriptor. Not the lack of any real damage done. It is simply a curse. At this point a touch of idiocy spell is actually more 'damaging', I doubt that many people would say that someone casting touch of idiocy on you is grounds to flay them alive. There was no 'brain damage'. There was no depriving of livelyhood (he could still cast spells even, and use all of his available spell slots). If cursing someone is 'mental rape' then I guess pretty much every spell is mental rape. This is an incredibly benign spell, it is more of a 'hey, I dont like you very much, live with this curse' more than anything else. Fireball is way more destructive, damaging, and in danger of making you lose your livelyhood (namely, your life). Not only all of that, but it is easily fixed. The the curse is lifted with no permanent effects. Woo. As for the fingers and tongue to 'prevent spellcasting' I call b.s. Killing was the ultimate goal, and there would have been any number of other ways to stop the guy from casting spells. Simply taking away his spell component pouch gets most of them nearly all of the time. Area of silence, bound and gagged, whatever. And then you could curse him, that is eye for an eye. Hunting down, torturing, and then killing doesnt even come close. Pure, unadulterated, evil. Slipperly slope indeed, no one is forced to get on a sled and enjoy the ride down though ;)
Naeron 06-24-04, 05:28 AM	Originally posted by Scion of Coldshard Hence why I said a 'form' of sport. He killed for revenge about someone who had, apparently, only hurt his feelings before. So, because his feelings were hurt he tore out the guys tongue and then his fingers and then force fed his foe a healing potion just so that the damaging spell would deal more damage. That sort of thing is torture, plain and simple. Toying with your enemy. A pretty decent definition of killing for sport, just in a slightly different venue. If you put out an enemy, hunt them down, and kill them that is 'for sport', there is very little difference here. Firstly it was a lot more than hurt feelings - this was a recurring BBEG so there would be a lot more history than is shown here, and the BBEG had cursed the Soerceror before. Secondly, It was not torture. In case you missed it the BBEG was unconcious. It IS an entirely valid tactic to disable the casting abilities of high level enemies by damaging the tongue and fingers. Also hurting or killing non-innocents is not evil in terms of D&D alignments. "Evil implies hurting" does not mean "all hurting = evil". The healing that was done seems to have been for the purpose of returning the BBEG to conciousness so that the PC could speak to them, after which a quick execution was done. This act was Neutral, and perfectly acceptable for most Good PC's, except those governed by a strict honour code.
Killgolli Knight 06-24-04, 06:05 AM	In my game I have created the following system called the Alignment Shifting System. Cards are made with an alignment part written on them (good, evil, chaotic, etc...) When a PC takes an action that involves an alignment based decision and if the action has game impact then the PC can recieve a card. (If the action is good then he gets a good card). The decision is based either on morals (good, evil) or ethics (law chaos). Once the DM decides if the decision was moral or ethical he decided which way the action taken leans on the moral, ethic scale. If the action showed indifference then it was probably worth a neutral card (if the action had game impact). If you get 5 cards that do not agree with you alignment then your PC's alignment shifts one step in that direction. If you get 5 cards that agree with you alignment then you may do one of the following: - Keep the cards to negate 5 opposing cards if your in danger of alignment shift. -Trade them in for 100 XP per level as good a role playing award. - You may re-roll once and keep the better role. -If you worship a god you may gain access to the special power from one of his/her domains for one day. (This one I thought was a good way to convince non-clerics that worshipping a god may be a good thing). If you are already a creric then you gain the special power from a domain you dont already have. Most gods have three or more domains so this works fine. Now some of you may think this sounds silly but I want to tell you that the very game i introduced A.S.S. cards I immediatley noticed an effort from my players to role-play better. This could have helped out in the situation here with the sudden alignment shift and all. It may have also persuaded you to not take the actions you took since they would have been worth evil cards. :teach:
Archangel 06-24-04, 07:31 AM	After 1 and a half page here's my oppinion: 1. That was an evil act but it changes your alignment only if you do not feel guilty about it soon. But it doesn't change your behaviour, it only impacts game mechanics so no real change for you, just keep away from other evil acts and you'll get neutral again. Also try to explain to your party paladin that you acted out of rage and that you are willing to atone 2. Your DM is either an idiot or he didn't want to be a DM any more. Just ask him why he did it and if tell him if he wants to continue the campain he should give you back your characters (somebody ressurected them or just do a trip through time) Play D&D and have fun!
jasper 06-24-04, 09:49 AM	Quit whining. Gee. You been fighting this guys for months with a larger than avg power base. What was it 12 pcs in the group? And the party got the upper hand but lost it when reinforcements came in. Turn around and see the evil guy pov. You killed my master. You going to kill me. I can take you out if I sucide. See you at Asmodeus' door step. You can hope the surviving party members scoops the bodies and runs for a friendly cleric. yes D&D is suppose to be fun. But is fun never to lose. IMC the pc body count is about 20% 10 % after raise deads and god calls. Hey the dm did his job. He played the npc smart. Or do like the game play of you are captain kirk and the pcs are your budds everyone else is red shirts???? If I was playing I would not want my pc to be raised. I when down fighting against the odds.
Aldor Cadarn 06-24-04, 10:40 AM	[quote]Quit whining. Gee. You been fighting this guys for months with a larger than avg power base. What was it 12 pcs in the group? And the party got the upper hand but lost it when reinforcements came in.[/qoute] First of all, this is not whining. Although I'm defending my point, my interest here is to sincerely know what people think of this so that when I go and talk with the DM (which has been a long time friend and happens to be DMing in a campaign world I made), I don't mess it up. Second, the groups just joined in this single confrontation. During this one-year gaming, there were two six-player parties. [quote]You can hope the surviving party members scoops the bodies and runs for a friendly cleric.[quote] Due to some characteristics of this gaming world, ressurection is close to impossible. [quote]If I was playing I would not want my pc to be raised. I when down fighting against the odds.[quote] See, you just hit the point about the staff incident. Let me give an example. During the combat my Wizard was hit by an empowered enervation spell cast by this same sorcerer. I lost many of the spells I had, and was reduced to 2 HP. At this time, I had planned to use a scroll of Bigby's Pushing Hand on a Werewolf Lord trying to rip the dwarf apart. Since it was too risky to cast a spell from a scroll with -6 and I had few uses left in the combat, I threw myself in the front of the Werewolf, drew my sword (yes I use a sword...:) ) and pointed it at his face, taunting him to attack me instead of joining a fight with the dwarf. Well, this was a very acceptable time for the demise of the character, due to a great (if not foolish) act of courage. Well, it so happens that the werewolf just decided to humiliate me and disarmed me telling me to flee. Unfortunately I was spared from an honorable death, just to have it with a suicide-bombing attack. My critique is that due to the roleplaying I chose (not to meddle with my hatred opponent's posessions, and not urge the party to kill a running apprentice on site since i didn't knew that staff was a staff of power), a situation of unavoidable death was created for 3 characters.
Aldor Cadarn 06-24-04, 10:47 AM	As everyone is talking about eye for an eye, let me remember you that this Babillonian code of Eye for an Eye was not anything like "You cursed me, I curse you". In fact, a thief who stole from another member of the society had one hand severed for the crime. If he did it again, another hand goes. Although I didn't take his fingers and tongue to have it Eye for an Eye style - it was just gruesome pragmatism as Korhal-IV mentioned - if people want to compare it, let's remember that it is not like "I stole a dollar from you, the thief loses a dollar"
PhaedrusXY 06-24-04, 02:15 PM	Originally posted by Nick Soapdish And second, the problem IMO is that it's not just a little darker. It's the sort of major sicko bad that gets you the lawyer trying to plea insanity. That is a perfect example. And it is a good argument against what you're saying. You don't put people in prison that the court decides were temporarily insane. You get them some psychiatric help and afterwards, if you think that worked, you let them go. In D&D terms, they wouldn't be evil. They would be good or neutral characters who commited an evil act in a heated moment. If they did that kind of thing repeatedly, they'd become evil. Now to the original poster... I'm not saying that I think you shouldn't have had your alignment changed. You said you were playing the guy as dark and brooding and alot like Raistlin. Raistlin DID become evil. I wasn't at the table for all of your character's adventures, so I don't know if he was more on the good side of neutral before this, more toward the evil side, or right in the middle. If he had been near the evil side at all, this would easily have been enough to push him over the edge. If he was in the middle or more towards good, I'd say it wouldn't. But obviously not everyone views alignment in the same way. And as far as the Staff of Power thing, what the DM did sounds kind of extreme but not completely out of line. After all, you ARE playing a wizard, and Staffs of Power are pretty much eye-popping, awe inspiring, legendary things to all low to medium level wizards, as far as I know. You SHOULD have been able to tell it was an object of extreme power just by looking at it and using a simple Detect Magic cantrip. You SHOULD have been paying attention to what was happening to it, after you realized how powerful it was. Did the guy cast any spells out of it? Your DM probably expected you to catch on to what it was and the ramifications of that, especially if the apprentice thing was planned beforehand. I'd say see if the DM gives your characters a way to be brought back. If this guy was a majorly powerful NPC villain in the campaign, then he was bound to have had some majorly powerful GOOD enemies whom might be willing to bring your characters back, and maybe even use a Wish to get all of your old equipment back (I allow that in games I run. It gets rid of the "broken-ness" of Mordenkainen's Disjuction. I only allow it for magic items that you owned and that were destroyed, however.)
Scion of Coldshard 06-24-04, 02:30 PM	So exactly how many people does one have to mutilate and murder in cold blood to become evil?
eRaz0r 06-24-04, 02:50 PM	I don't know Scion.. Ask the paladin. Oh, wait, so in the middle of the battle is in cold blood now ? Haven't you ever heard of the hero who was pushed too far once and did something he regretted, then spent the rest of the story trying to make up for it ? I agree with Archangel. On the flip side, how many altruistic acts does it take to change your alignment to good ? I reiterate : Alignment is a joke.
Aldor Cadarn 06-24-04, 02:54 PM	And as far as the Staff of Power thing, what the DM did sounds kind of extreme but not completely out of line. After all, you ARE playing a wizard, and Staffs of Power are pretty much eye-popping, awe inspiring, legendary things to all low to medium level wizards, as far as I know. You SHOULD have been able to tell it was an object of extreme power just by looking at it and using a simple Detect Magic cantrip. You SHOULD have been paying attention to what was happening to it, after you realized how powerful it was. Did the guy cast any spells out of it? Your DM probably expected you to catch on to what it was and the ramifications of that, especially if the apprentice thing was planned beforehand. I agree with you. But in fact, the wizard didn't use his staff, and in fact, the staff was not described. Although it was highly unlikely, to our knowledge it could be a simple walking stick. I never realized how powerful it was. As I was roleplaying a moment of wrathful revenge, I decided (consciously) not to start detecting or identifying the items. I know the situation is not absurd (the sorcerer having the staff, his apprentice grabbing it and destroying a fourth of the party), but i question its necessity in terms of story advancement and in promoting good roleplaying, instead of "whack-them-before-they-get-to-you" and "scavenge-their-corpses" routines. My character in fact never had qualms about getting items from his opponents, but in this case i felt it was unappropriate roleplaying-wise. What wizard would not like to have the magical items of a major villain, with all of them at his reach and no other party members near you ? But that is not the purpose of the game, i think.
Aldor Cadarn 06-24-04, 03:10 PM	So exactly how many people does one have to mutilate and murder in cold blood to become evil? I'd like to reiterate that the act IS evil, but I don't feel some of you guys got the picture right: - The oponent had been felled by arrows (the DM let slip he had -8HP) and was already near death, probably the apprentice would save him but we didn't know it at the time; - He lost his fingers and tongue while at -8 (unconscious), so, there was no pain during the dismemberment (dude, that is really gruesome detailing like that :) ). My objective was to not let him make a daring escape when I awoke him; - I gave him the potion not to torture him physically, but to make him see that I had him where I promised him I would. That is mental torture at most, I didn't stick him with heated pokes or anything. It lasted about 12 seconds (2 rounds) - I murdered him with a Vampiric Touch Spell. Is it evil ? Yes. Truly Evil ? Yes. But is it burning a village with 200 children ? Not. Was it unprovoked, "for sport" ? I don't think so. Although we, players know that Bestow Curse can be removed, For the characters, It is a major invasion to your ego, one you do not have certainty of removing (We usually roleplay as if each spell of each wizards, sorcerer, cleric or anything, has different nuances so that You don't have the attitude "ah, it is just a bestow curse spell"). Saying that it can be removed easily, so it is not a problem is just like saying that a rape is ok because after it you get to be fixed by a doctor. It is the psychological state of humiliation and invasion that made the character go to those lengths. (I'm not sure if this is too heavy for the boards, but I will risk it. No harm intended.)
cheesegrater 06-24-04, 03:13 PM	It does promote good roleplaying. Your characters made a large tactical error, and they suffered for it. It wouldn't be very realistic if they got off the hook for no reason, would it? The campaign is going on with the other characters. They get to deal with the PC deaths, which is always a good dramatic turn of events. You get to invest some creative energy in a new character, which is never a bad thing. This was all legal and by the book and you could have easily prevented it by your own actions, yet chose not to. Deal with the consequences of your actions (or lack there of).
warpdragon 06-24-04, 03:34 PM	Form what yo uposted it sounds like: 1. You rip out tongue and fingers 2. You give him potion so he doesn't die 3. You go back to camp to heal 4. Apprentace says Master died 5. Apprentace breaks staff From this it seems that you had no intention to kill the guy and infact wanted him to stay alive. Am I misenterpreting this or did you kill him with a spell after giving him the potion as some people are acusing?
Nick Soapdish 06-24-04, 03:53 PM	Originally posted by warpdragon Form what yo uposted it sounds like: 1. You rip out tongue and fingers 2. You give him potion so he doesn't die 3. You go back to camp to heal 4. Apprentace says Master died 5. Apprentace breaks staff From this it seems that you had no intention to kill the guy and infact wanted him to stay alive. Am I misenterpreting this or did you kill him with a spell after giving him the potion as some people are accusing? He didn't kill the apprentice. He killed the master. We aren't exactly accusing him of killing him with a spell. He stated it in the initial post. Originally posted by Aldor Cadarn As the combat was ending, and my character felt everything was under control, he advanced to Solivar's body and he was still alive. In all his hatred against Solivar, he ripped his clothes and equipment (includin his Staff), tore his tongue and fingers and made him drink a healing potion! Once he was awake, Aldor made a speech (something like "I told you" :) ) and finished him with a Vampiric Touch.
Nick Soapdish 06-24-04, 03:55 PM	Originally posted by PhaedrusXY That is a perfect example. And it is a good argument against what you're saying. You don't put people in prison that the court decides were temporarily insane. You get them some psychiatric help and afterwards, if you think that worked, you let them go. In D&D terms, they wouldn't be evil. They would be good or neutral characters who commited an evil act in a heated moment. If they did that kind of thing repeatedly, they'd become evil. That's why your lawyer is trying to cop a plea. IMO, being really angry doesn't qualify as temporarily insane despite the fact that both could be described as "mad". It's two different meanings.
jasper 06-24-04, 03:57 PM	Aldor I have no problem with you waking the guy up to kill him so that is good role playing. But you and your team made a tactic error. Pcs died. End of story for them but the remaining heroes will make the villians pay. Where turn into an evil alignment would depend on all your actions not this one. Depending on your god(s) you may get some not nice dreams.
Nick Soapdish 06-24-04, 04:18 PM	Originally posted by Naeron Firstly it was a lot more than hurt feelings - this was a recurring BBEG so there would be a lot more history than is shown here, and the BBEG had cursed the Soerceror before. Secondly, It was not torture. In case you missed it the BBEG was unconcious. It IS an entirely valid tactic to disable the casting abilities of high level enemies by damaging the tongue and fingers. Also hurting or killing non-innocents is not evil in terms of D&D alignments. "Evil implies hurting" does not mean "all hurting = evil". The healing that was done seems to have been for the purpose of returning the BBEG to conciousness so that the PC could speak to them, after which a quick execution was done. This act was Neutral, and perfectly acceptable for most Good PC's, except those governed by a strict honour code. It's still torture. Pain still hurts, even if you're unconscious. I've been awakened numerous times by the agony (well, it wasn't that painful, but I'm a bit of a wimp about pain) of a leg cramp or moving wrong with a twisted back. Plus, as I noted before, the same thing could have been accomplished by a simple gag and some rope and it would've taken a lot less time. Just two rounds as opposed to at least 11 to chop off his fingers and his tongue. And it wasn't to question the BBEG. It was simply to gloat about getting the upper hand and then kill him. It's an evil act. Even Aldor says so. The question is just whether it justifies an alignment change. Personally, I think so because I feel it's harder to slip down than climb back up AND because I put higher weight on what you've done lately.
eRaz0r 06-24-04, 04:37 PM	BTW - Scion - I disagree that Touch of Idiocy with it's duration of 10 min/level is as damaging as Bestow Curse. which is both permanent and a flat -6 to any ability score. To an NPC who won't last the combat, Idiocy is probably worse, since it has no save, requires only a touch attack and affects all three mental scores with the same 1d6 penalty (guaranteeing usefulness against all three caster types). That's an average of 3 points off their casting attribute (and two other attributes that aren't as important). However, vs a PC, who probably has quite a high main casting attribute, loss of 1d6 to his Int, Wis and Cha for 10 minutes/level isn't as bad as a guaranteed -6 to his main casting attribute, permanently (removable only by remove curse, which is a very campaign dependant thing... some games it's worse than others, since not every game has a Cleric on hand to cast it) It takes it from an average of -3 spell levels to a guaranteed -6 levels. A Maximized Touch of Idiocy is a 6th level spell and still only lasts 10 minutes per level. Bestow Curse is a 3rd level spell (4th for Sorcerers). Vs PCs, the curse is probably worse. All of that is, of course, irrelevant to whether the guy is NE or not.
Scion of Coldshard 06-24-04, 05:36 PM	Originally posted by eRaz0r Oh, wait, so in the middle of the battle is in cold blood now ? Middle of battle? All opponents being unconscious, and he spent time to see if he was alive is somehow 'the middle of battle'? Yeah right. Cold. Blooded. Murder.
Scion of Coldshard 06-24-04, 05:38 PM	Originally posted by Aldor Cadarn Is it evil ? Yes. Truly Evil ? Yes. And there you have it, done and done. Just because there may be things in the universe that are also evil has no bearing.
warpdragon 06-24-04, 05:49 PM	Originally posted by Nick Soapdish He didn't kill the apprentice. He killed the master. We aren't exactly accusing him of killing him with a spell. He stated it in the initial post. I missed the vampiric touch part.
Dunbar 06-24-04, 06:58 PM	I have no problem with him finishing off a defeated opponent. If he just ran over and finished him quickly, I wouldn't call that an evil act. It's hardly cold blood at that point...the battle is just finishing (assuming the BBEG's allies were all also incapacitated), your adrenaline is still pumping. And how do you know he isn't faking...maybe he has the diehard feat? I wouldn't say it is a good act to finish off the wizard, but I wouldn't call it evil either, assuming this wizard is evil and has done evil things, which seems to be the case. Evil things beyond the whole "he cursed my PC!" thing. However, mutiliating his body first, then reviving him so you can gloat (and so he can experience the pain of these fresh injuries), is evil. There is no way around that. Is it understandable? Perhaps, considering your character's temperment. That doesn't make it any less evil, however. DnD is very black and white on that score. But again, this single act will not make you evil, but it certainly puts you on the path. At the same time, intentionally doing good deeds in an attempt to atone for evil actions (I can rape women from time to time I'll stay neutral as long as I donate to the church regularly!) just doesn't fly. You can risk your life to rescue all the Paladin's sisters you want to; if you make a practice of torturing helpless foes you will still become evil no matter what else you do.
Aldor Cadarn 06-24-04, 07:53 PM	Hey Dunbar, I agree with you. I think that if this became my "modus operandi" it would certainly turn me into an evil character. This was the way my wizard tried to have his vengeance. It was an evil act but it is not the way he acts normally. I didn't plan to keep on with this type of thing, and I planned to roleplay his transition to a calmer state after some sessions. Unfortunately that Al-Qaeda apprentice just exploded me and my other two friends. :)
jetmaster007 06-24-04, 08:03 PM	Wait a minute.... Did anyone else notice this part? the Rogue throws a Rope of Entaglement and entangles him, the Dwarven Warrior trips him and says that will put his axe on the apprentice's neck. So let me get this straight.... The apprentice is on the ground, and entangled with an axe to his throat. With out a doubt, I would say that's a Coup De Grace. He's completely helpless. Sure he has a staff in his hands, but the dwarf would be able to cut off his head before he was able to even move his hands. What I'm saying is, is that as soon as they realized what he was trying to do, the Dwarf should have had a Coup De Grace on him, or at least an Attack of Oppurtunity. If you had this option, then you really shouldn't complain. About the whole alignment thing, I don't really remember your original alignment, but I definitly don't think it should be evil. Sure maybe your character jus developed a horrible temper, but that's good and it adds to the roleplaying. You should not be penalized for great roleplaying...
Aldor Cadarn 06-24-04, 08:09 PM	What I'm saying is, is that as soon as they realized what he was trying to do, the Dwarf should have had a Coup De Grace on him, or at least an Attack of Oppurtunity. If you had this option, then you really shouldn't complain. No we never had an option.
Nagol 06-24-04, 08:19 PM	So let me get this straight.... The apprentice is on the ground, and entangled with an axe to his throat. With out a doubt, I would say that's a Coup De Grace. He's completely helpless. Sure he has a staff in his hands, but the dwarf would be able to cut off his head before he was able to even move his hands. What I'm saying is, is that as soon as they realized what he was trying to do, the Dwarf should have had a Coup De Grace on him, or at least an Attack of Oppurtunity. If you had this option, then you really shouldn't complain. Actually, its not a coup-de-grace. Rope of Entanglement is much weaker than it was in earlier editions. It no longers holds its victim; it entangles them. Entangled is a specific condition that provides a penalty on AC, Dexterity, and movement. Entangled characters can still move are are not helpless. Below is the section from the SRD: Entangled: The character is ensnared. Being entangled impedes movement, but does not entirely prevent it unless the bonds are anchored to an immobile object or tethered by an opposing force. An entangled creature moves at half speed, cannot run or charge, and takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls and a –4 penalty to Dexterity. An entangled character who attempts to cast a spell must make a Concentration check (DC 15 + the spell’s level) or lose the spell.
jetmaster007 06-24-04, 08:21 PM	Ouch, yea you should pretty much always be able to react when the result will be a character death (let alone 3). If the DM was simply trying to teach you all to shoot him down before he got to you, then he really didn't need to penalize you so heavily. He simply could've got his point off if the staff had 5 charges. And why won't he let the rogue go ressurect you guys. He should've been able to do it pretty much for free, since it was bad DMing that got him there in the first place (maybe after selling all of the mage's and apprentice's equipment). Perhaps though, the DM just got sick of the campaign and wanted to end it.... If this is the case, he should have drawn it slowly to a close, and then released the characters on their, not simply kill them. I would definintely have a talk with your DM, and if he doesn't change his ways, I would leave, or DM yourself. Sure he did it all with logic and within the game rules, but the object of the game is to have fun. It would have been the same if he simply pitted you up against a very high CR with no chance of escape. It's within the rules, and it could have logically been placed there, but that still doesn't change the fact that the DM really screwed everyone over.
jetmaster007 06-24-04, 08:25 PM	Originally posted by Nagol Actually, its not a coup-de-grace. Rope of Entanglement is much weaker than it was in earlier editions. It no longers holds its victim; it entangles them. Entangled is a specific condition that provides a penalty on AC, Dexterity, and movement. Entangled characters can still move are are not helpless. This I was not aware of. But its basically been accepted, that when someone has complete control over you (you can't exactly escape) and an axe to your throat, your pretty helpless. Even if he is a very very strict DM, he could've at least given the dward an AOO for the simple fact that his axe was at his throat, and the guy was on the ground trying to perform a standard action (it could possibly be a full round, even though I doubt it, as it would probably take about 6 second to raise and break the staff in his position).
the dmg 06-24-04, 09:28 PM	Either way about the Rope of Entanglement, it does not matter. The fact is that the apprentice was tripped, then pinned down. Now from there, you would have to be able to roll initiative in order to see who would be able to act first, which would most likely not be the apprentice. Since the apprentice was pinned, how would he have been able to break the staff, and I would point out that he would only get a partial action. I think that you should definitely get together with your group first, then consult your DM as a group about the situation and you feeling that the characters were killed unfairly. Ask if the situation can be replayed, from where the apprentice was pinned, and roll for initiative. From the looks of it, the DM definitely was enraged that you killed his evil NPC, and took it out on you guys in game.
Frodo Lives 06-24-04, 10:05 PM	Good role playing, after all a character of questionable morals, and is (at least portrayed) to be proud, vain, and maybe a little arrogant would want to take revenge on the BBEG. After all, one could argue that he deserved what he got. That being said you tortured him, healed him to gloat and rub it in his face, and then killed him with your bare hands. That is unquestionably an evil act. After all, I think everyone would agree that no matter what the reason a paladin would have to attone after doing something like that, so it is pretty clear it is an evil act. That being said, I doubt that I would have an alignment shift to Evil over one act, and even still from the sounds of it that isn't even what you are having a problem with. It isn't even that the apprentice broke the staff and killed 3 characters, but it sounds like it's the WAY it happened. Yes, you decided to role play instead of doing the smart hack n' slash thing which is fine, it wouldn't get you out of this situation in my campaign, but it wouldn't put you in this spot either. What is a problem is that you had a guy entangled and pinned AND an axe to his throat and he still managed to break a staff of power and you and your party members were powerless to stop it. That is not only unbelevable in terms of story telling, it is also a huge leap when dealing with the rules. The DM messed up, there is no way anyone (much less a physically weak wizard) could break a staff when pinned, entangled, and had an axe to his throat without anyone else being able to do anything about it. It sounds to me that the DM was angry for whatever reason and decided to stick it to you. What the apprentice did had no possitive effect on the campaign, and wasn't the least bit realistic that he could have done what he did. This is what makes me think that the DM was out of line and did it as a You vs Me thing.
Scion of Coldshard 06-24-04, 10:19 PM	Originally posted by Frodo Lives That is not only unbelevable in terms of story telling, it is also a huge leap when dealing with the rules. Apprentice on the ground, other pcs crowding around, he has a rope around his legs and a character is about to put an axe to his throat. Apprentice mind *oh no, this is it.. they are going to surround me, mutilate me and murder me like they did my master* ::clutches his masters staff closer to his chest:: Pc's: I put my axe at his throat, the rest of us gather around to mutilate this guy too. After all, anyone associated with that guy back there deserves to die horribly, but lets question him first. Apprentice mind *good thing my master told me about his staff.. he said never press and hold this button for a full second, it would destroy everything within 30'.. but he is dead, and they are going to kill me.. I have no choice* ::presses button:: Explosion, apprentice killed and/or plane shifted. Pc's probably killed. Apprentice has his revenge. Sounds perfectly fine within the core rules, and storytelling. Actually, sounds like 'great' roleplaying by the apprentice. Sucks for the pc's, but then I dont much care for that items ability anyway. It is still core though, and nothing was mechanically wrong, and the roleplaying situation was perfect for the apprentice.
Frodo Lives 06-24-04, 10:33 PM	Originally posted by Scion of Coldshard Apprentice on the ground, other pcs crowding around, he has a rope around his legs and a character is about to put an axe to his throat. Apprentice mind *oh no, this is it.. they are going to surround me, mutilate me and murder me like they did my master* ::clutches his masters staff closer to his chest:: Pc's: I put my axe at his throat, the rest of us gather around to mutilate this guy too. After all, anyone associated with that guy back there deserves to die horribly, but lets question him first. Apprentice mind *good thing my master told me about his staff.. he said never press and hold this button for a full second, it would destroy everything within 30'.. but he is dead, and they are going to kill me.. I have no choice* ::presses button:: And you think that to break a staff of power means pushing a button? How did you come to this conclusion? :rolleyes: Who said anything about the group torturing THIS guy? I've never read anything that leads me to believe that. As a matter of fact with a paladin with them I doubt he would allow it anyway. And on a side note I don't think that the pally should have let you torture the BBEG either, unless he didn't know what was going on for whatever reason. I'm not suggesting that it was bad role playing for the apprentice to break the staff, as a matter of fact I don't have a problem with it at all. If he feels that he is going to die it is totally reasonable to think "I might as well take you :censored: with me". What is unrealistic is that he has the chance to do so without any interfearance when he is entangled, pinned, and has a weapon to his throat, not about to, HAS a weapon to his throat. Like what, nobody notices what he is doing? They are actively paying attention to him and are right there! It isn't like he snuck in unnoticed and broke the thing, they were on top of him! So yes, both mechanically and RP-wise (realistic story telling) it was very poor DMing, and if I was a player it would leave a very bad taste in my mouth and I feel that Aldor has every right to be shaking his head in annoyance.
Frodo Lives 06-24-04, 10:53 PM	Under the description of the Staff of Power for retributive strike (DMG page 245) says that with a STANDARD ACTION the weilder can BREAK the staff to unleash it's stored power. Again that is the only thing that I have a problem with, that the apprentice could do something like that in the described situation with no AOOs, no rolls, no nothing. It seems unbelievable and and seeing as it does absolutely nothing to advance the story or campaign I'll stand by my opinion. All it is is the DM saying "rule 0, you die" and too bad, so sad. That isn't good DMing in my book. I have no problem with anything else that occured (although the immediate alignment change is debateable). Although it does seem that maybe your judgement over the retributive strike may be colored by your stance on the previous torture, but I could be wrong.
was_fired 06-24-04, 11:00 PM	Frodo so having a mage cast a fireball which hits the entire party is bad DMing since it could kill all of them? Really 10th level mage against a 10th level party he could roll max damage 60 force a massive damage save from all of them if they failed their reflex save and kill every one of them instantly. How is making the PCs face a smart foe bad DMing?
Scion of Coldshard 06-24-04, 11:11 PM	Originally posted by Frodo Lives And you think that to break a staff of power means pushing a button? How did you come to this conclusion? Pushing a button makes as much sense as just about anything else. He could have simply pulled the staff up to his chest sortof like warding off the blow, but not offensive enough for anyone to worry about, and then simply snapped it. Either way, it is a standard action that does not require a strength check. But otherwise is undescribed. So, the button works, holding it up to ones chest works, simply looking at it properly would work. Since it is not described specifically the dm can set it up anyway he sees fit, so long as it fits the basic parts. Which is what I did. So, rules worthy? yep, definately. Works from a story point of view? definately. In character? most certainly! Originally posted by Frodo Lives Who said anything about the group torturing THIS guy? After what happened to his master? why would he think that he is immune? Seems much more likely he would think that his life is about to end horribly. Might as well go out on his own terms. Originally posted by Frodo Lives So yes, both mechanically and RP-wise (realistic story telling) it was very poor DMing, and if I was a player it would leave a very bad taste in my mouth and I feel that Aldor has every right to be shaking his head in annoyance. Prove it. So far we have this: The apprentice is holding the staff, it requires an unspecified standard action, entangled does not stop it, having someone come at you with an axe does not stop it. if someone is coming at your neck with an axe, you feel you have no chance, and you have a weapon in your hand which will kill your enemies.. done. Again, perfectly in character and perfectly in line with the rules. Unless you can find something that says, 'you cannot use the staffs retribution action when someone is watching you or coming at you with an axe' then I think you will have to admit it is well within the raw. Sure, it may suck, but it is a problem with the staff itself. The implimentation was perfectly legal.
cheesegrater 06-24-04, 11:17 PM	Originally posted by Frodo Lives Again that is the only thing that I have a problem with, that the apprentice could do something like that in the described situation with no AOOs, no rolls, no nothing. It seems unbelievable and and seeing as it does absolutely nothing to advance the story or campaign I'll stand by my opinion. All it is is the DM saying "rule 0, you die" and too bad, so sad. That isn't good DMing in my book.[/B] By the book, that's exactly what should have happened. Adding an AOO or a roll would've been the invocation of rule zero. Even entangled, even tripped, even with an axe at his throat, breaking the staff is an allowable action that requires no roll. Unless someone readied an action to go off specifically when the apprentice did something with the staff, there's really no way to prevent the retributive strike according to the written rules. That's one reason the item is so powerful. And it's not like they didn't have other chances to prevent the explosion earlier in this sequence of events.
Nick Soapdish 06-24-04, 11:18 PM	Getting to the mechanics of the situation ... Let's pretend that they're doing normal combat, with rolls and everything. The apprentice acts first and grabs the staff (move equivalent action) and moves to the party - the rest of his action. The rogue uses the rope of entanglement which is his standard action for the round. The dwarf trips him - again, a standard action - and states that he will put his axe to his throat. Mechanically speaking, that's nothing. He doesn't have a standard action left so he can't ready a standard action (unless he's hasted a la 3.0). If he has Improved Trip, he has an extra attack, but that isn't the same thing as having a standard action. Otherwise, a 12th level wizard could cast two (non-quickened) spells a round. In any event, he can't ready a coup de grace. It's a full round action, besides which the apprentice isn't eligible for a coup de grace because he's not helpless. Cleric and wizard move up. They may still have a possible ready action, but unless they specify it, it doesn't happen. Round 2: The apprentice, seeing himself surrounded, entangled, and prone, breaks the staff. This is a standard action. Since he's using a magical item, this may provoke an attack of opportunity. Miscellaneous magic items usually do; staves usually don't. It doesn't say specifically under the staff of power's listing. It just says that if the breaking of the staff is declared and purposeful, it doesn't require a strength check which implies that it's automatic. As a DM, I would probably rule that it doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity because I can see it either way and I'd rather not add unnecessary AoOs. But ask me tomorrow and I'll probably say the reverse.
the dmg 06-24-04, 11:35 PM	Originally posted by Frodo Lives Under the description of the Staff of Power for retributive strike (DMG page 245) says that with a STANDARD ACTION the weilder can BREAK the staff to unleash it's stored power. Again that is the only thing that I have a problem with, that the apprentice could do something like that in the described situation with no AOOs, no rolls, no nothing. It seems unbelievable and and seeing as it does absolutely nothing to advance the story or campaign I'll stand by my opinion. All it is is the DM saying "rule 0, you die" and too bad, so sad. That isn't good DMing in my book. I agree with this. Since the apprentice was attempting to break it, therefore it provokes an attack of opportunity. Plus, like I said before, initiative should be rolled to see who acts first in the round. Here is the description of the staff of power, Scion. Originally posted by Dunbar A staff of power can be used for a retributive strike, requiring it to be broken by its wielder. (If this breaking of the staff is purposeful and declared by the wielder, it can be performed as a standard action that does not require the wielder to make a Strength check.) All charges currently in the staff are instantly released in a 30-foot radius. All within 2 squares of the broken staff take points of damage equal to 8 x the number of charges in the staff, those 3 or 4 squares away take 6 x the number of charges in damage, and those 5 or 6 squares distant take 4 x the number of charges in damage. All those affected can make DC 17 Reflex saves to reduce the damage by half If you read it carefully you will notice that you have to declare that you are going to break the staff before actually breaking it. The way Aldor described it implies that the DM just basically said he broke the staff and you all die from the blast because it was the staff of power.
Scion of Coldshard 06-24-04, 11:51 PM	Originally posted by the dmg If you read it carefully you will notice that you have to declare that you are going to break the staff before actually breaking it. The way Aldor described it implies that the DM just basically said he broke the staff and you all die from the blast because it was the staff of power. Now, describe to me how this is different than useing a normal charge from a staff. You have to 'declare' this, use a standard action, and it goes off. Exactly the same thing. The character had an action, he used it, done and done. Now, if you dont like the retributive strike, which does suck, then it is time to change it directly. But, by the raw, he was fine.
bitnine 06-24-04, 11:59 PM	Originally posted by Scion of Coldshard So exactly how many people does one have to mutilate and murder in cold blood to become evil? I'm going to go with three.Pain still hurts, even if you're unconscious.I'm tempted to sig that.Hey Dunbar, I agree with you. I think that if this became my "modus operandi" it would certainly turn me into an evil character. This was the way my wizard tried to have his vengeance. It was an evil act but it is not the way he acts normally. I didn't plan to keep on with this type of thing, and I planned to roleplay his transition to a calmer state after some sessions.If that's the case, then concern yourself with that: that alignment should be an accurate descriptor of a character's moral outlook. Flipping it about after singular actions is probably indeed overly hasty. And I think the real moral of the story is clear here. Kill apprentices of evil overlords on sight.
Frodo Lives 06-25-04, 12:32 AM	Unless you can find something that says, 'you cannot use the staffs retribution action when someone is watching you or coming at you with an axe' then I think you will have to admit it is well within the raw. Well my interpertation of the rules means that the apprentice has to break the staff of power, not look at it or push a button, or pass wind or anything other than break it. What I said I have a problem with is that there was an axe to his throat, not coming for him, but on his throat. I find it hard to believe that with a blade to your neck you have time to break a staff without any reprisal. The staff does not get broken as a free action, but rather a standard action which in my books means it actually takes a few seconds to do. This would give the PCs plenty of time to apply a little pressure and kill him. A lot standard actions provoke an attack of opportunity which includes activating a magic item, and in this case I'd rule it would provoke an AOO.
Scion of Coldshard 06-25-04, 12:51 AM	Originally posted by Frodo Lives Well my interpertation of the rules means that the apprentice has to break the staff of power, not look at it or push a button, or pass wind or anything other than break it. And what is the difference exactly? If you want to do it and have a standard action, it is done. Who cares if it is a button, staring at it, or whatever else. He is completely unrestricted from doing so in this example. Originally posted by Frodo Lives What I said I have a problem with is that there was an axe to his throat, not coming for him, but on his throat. The example given said that the dwarf said his intention and then the staff was blown. So, someone was about to put a axe to his throat and he responded. Originally posted by Frodo Lives The staff does not get broken as a free action, but rather a standard action which in my books means it actually takes a few seconds to do. This would give the PCs plenty of time to apply a little pressure and kill him. A lot standard actions provoke an attack of opportunity which includes activating a magic item, and in this case I'd rule it would provoke an AOO. So you are saying that you allow cdg just at random? that is a full round action that provokes an aoo that can only be used on a helpless foe. Even if it allowed for an aoo simply attacking the character wouldnt have solved anything. Chances are good he would have enough hp to take a single hit anyway. Plus, there is just as much reason to think there is no aoo as there is giving an aoo. Since staves generally seem to not trigger aoo's then possibly the stronger side is no aoo anyway. Since the problem seems to be the item, and not any rules problems, I would have to say solving it at the source would be best. The rules say it is ok to do what was done, to me that means that the retributive strike itself is the problem.
Aldor Cadarn 06-25-04, 01:12 AM	Hey guys, I couldn't post anything in the last hours. I thank you all for the interest you've been showing to my story/problem/thing :) . To clarify certain things... - I happen to have my friend who played with the dwarf next to me and we could recall the exact happenings: - The paladin didn't interfere with my character and his vengeance because the evil sorcerer was a bit far (about 150 feet away from the main struggle) from the scene and occupied with our last opponent. I chose the moment well. When I came back, he was detecting evil in the area, searching for more enemies and he detected me! He looked at me with surprise (since I had already been turned into a neutral evil villain :) ) and told me we would talk afterwards. There was some roleplaying between the characters. - Then the apprentce shows up grabs the staff and starts to run in our direction, babbling something like "You killed my master...you don't understand...things are going to be a lot worse...". The DM asks for initiative rolls when the apprentice was about 40 feet away. - The Rogue wins, gets near and throws the rope of entanglement. The guy is entangled. - The Dwarf charges the enemy, tripping him instead of causing damage (so that we could talk to him, as it seemed he had something to say.). As he has the improved trip feat he has a free attack. He says he is going to use this attack to enter a grapple. Now here is the funny thing...the DM says "Dude, the guy is entangled and prone!", *shrugging* (giving the impression there was no need for such an excess). The dwarf says, ok I'll just put my axe to his throat (abdicating his free attack). - My action, I move towards the seemingly helpless apprentice, and say something like: "Don't you remember I had warned you and your master ? Even before this combat started I warned him that his death was nigh!" - The cleric approaches and says he will try to talk to the guy using a diplomacy check. We don't really remember, but i think the DM says it is going to take a full round for it, so he ends his action. - It is the apprentice's turn. There goes the 320 dmg for four of the party members! The rogue evades, the rest bites the dust. Hope that helps!
cheesegrater 06-25-04, 01:26 AM	I don't think the grapple would've mattered anyway - activating a magic item in a grapple still doesn't require any kind of a roll. Tell your dwarf buddy the magic word for next time this comes up is 'Disarm!'
Aldor Cadarn 06-25-04, 01:30 AM	Tell your dwarf buddy the magic word for next time this comes up is 'Disarm!' Cheesegrater, believe me if we suspected this was a staff of power at ANY time, that apprentice would be dropped dead in a wink of an eye, or we would be running for our lives spreading and taking cover :) .
bitnine 06-25-04, 01:30 AM	Well... The apprentice perhaps should be entitled to a surprise round, by virtue of the fact that he did pop out of nowhere, so I'm not entirely surprised that he acted (running out and grabbing the staff before initiative was even rolled) - but surprise rounds usually only allow for partial actions, that is, usually even given a surprise round the apprentice could only move to the fallen master, not run up to it and pick up the staff (another move action). It's possible that the DM slipped those acts in pre-initiative because he really wanted the apprentice to have the staff of power to give you a good scorching because the way you treated his BBEG rubbed him the wrong way, and if this is in fact the case, yeah, that's a reason to be a bit upset with the DM.
bitnine 06-25-04, 01:33 AM	Well... The apprentice perhaps should be entitled to a surprise round, by virtue of the fact that he did pop out of nowhere, so I'm not entirely surprised that he acted (running out and grabbing the staff before initiative was even rolled) - but surprise rounds usually only allow for partial actions, that is, usually even given a surprise round the apprentice could only move to the fallen master, not run up to it and pick up the staff (another move action). It's possible that the DM slipped those acts in pre-initiative because he really wanted the apprentice to have the staff of power to give you a good scorching because the way you treated his BBEG rubbed him the wrong way, and if this is in fact the case, yeah, that's a reason to be a bit upset with the DM.Now here is the funny thing...the DM says "Dude, the guy is entangled and prone!"Actually, reading this, it does indeed sound like the DM used his position particularly here to swing some character deaths. Using this OOC talk to sway the dwarf's action knowing full damn well that he's planning to nuke characters and cause some PKs with his next action... that's really not cool.
Astanphaeus 06-25-04, 02:02 AM	Originally posted by Aldor Cadarn Hope that helps! Yeah, it does. I'd say you got hosed. "Now, describe to me how this is different than useing a normal charge from a staff." You have to break the staff. "And what is the difference exactly?" Imagine someone pushing a button on a staff. Now imagine someone speaking a command word. Now imagine someone breaking a staff. ... It is not an instantaneous action. That's how it's different. The guy's on the floor. He's surrounded and prone. He has to manipulate the staff... grab it with both hands and break it. It's a staff... not a twig or a drinking straw. A staff. He's a normal sized man. He can't break it between his fingers. Several people are watching him, people who view him as a hostile enemy. Their intention is obviously for him to be subdued. There are going to be many indicators that he intends to break the staff before it's actually broken, strength check or no. It will become instantly obvious that he is not, in fact, subdued... that he is, in fact, intent on doing something... something which involves the staff. He is prone and is not focused on defending himself... he's focused on breaking the staff. This situation has Attack of Opportunity written all over it. ~ A.
Nick Soapdish 06-25-04, 02:15 AM	How is it different? Use a staff? Standard action. Break the staff? Standard action. He doesn't need to make a strength check at all. Even a twig would require a strength check (although it could be DC 0 or something). So why does he need to break it over his knee or anything? He says that he wants to break it and it breaks. End of story. Originally posted by bitnine: Actually, reading this, it does indeed sound like the DM used his position particularly here to swing some character deaths. Using this OOC talk to sway the dwarf's action knowing full damn well that he's planning to nuke characters and cause some PKs with his next action... that's really not cool. But what difference would it have made? He can still break the staff if he's grappled ... probably. Activate a magic item is listed as one of the actions that doesn't require a grapple check. He didn't have iterative attacks so he couldn't have pinned him. Remember, he charged so he only had that one attack. Heck, the apprentice might have even broken it. He's got -6 to his AoO thanks to being prone and entangled, but the dwarf has -2 to AC for charging and he could always get lucky. But yeah, it does sound suspicious. He should've allowed the grapple (and should've corrected the dwarf on putting the axe to the throat unless the dwarf meant it as just symbolic). And diplomacy takes 1 minute (10 full consecutive rounds) to change a reaction.
was_fired 06-25-04, 02:17 AM	Imagine someone walking towards you and swinging a sword at your friend. This takes about as much time as breaking the staff would. This does not provoke an AoO. It doesn't matter if you have a reach weapon so he can't hit you there is still no AoO. Grab a wand and use it no AoO same time required as breaking the staff. No where in the rules or any of the games precidents does it indicate that breaking the staff should provoke an AoO.
wdarkk 06-25-04, 02:26 AM	Why is breaking a staff any more difficult than trying to break some guy's head open with the staff? The fact that no strength check or roll is needed indicates that the retributive strike is a design feature and the staff is in fact _designed_ to broken in case of emergencies. "Break staff on dotted line."
Dunbar 06-25-04, 02:38 AM	I agree with bitnine as far as the DM trying to alter the situation by persuading the dwarf not to enter a grapple. It is completely unfair to try to manipulate a character's action with that kind of OOC banter. The player knows that the apprentice is entangled and tripped, but wants to grapple anyways. The DM is clearly trying to influence events unfairly IMHO. As far as breaking the staff goes, if it was just an ordinary quarterstaff, I'd agree completely that there is no way you are going to break it while prone, entagled, and with an axe at your neck. Not unless you have insane str. But this isn't an ordinary staff. This is a Staff of Power, designed to explode in a retributive strike in a desperate situation. A wizard polymorphed into a pixie and knocked down to 1 str could break it as a standard action with no chance of failure. So it isn't hard to break when you want it to. Likely, the apprentice was gripping it in two hands. So, even while prone and entangled, he wills for the staff to break and applies pressure, and it breaks. Think of it this way: what if it was balsa wood? Balsa wood you could easily break in two just with your two hands, applying very little effort. You don't need to break it over your knee or anything. When you want a staff of power to break in a retributive strike, you quite simply can break it. Now this action may or may not provoke AoOs. I'm not sure if this is specifically covered in the rules, and it doesn't mention anything one way or the other in the staff's description.
Astanphaeus 06-25-04, 10:25 AM	Breaking the Staff: First of all, I'm not sure what relevance a standard action is in this instance, other than the fact that it indicates that it takes time to do it. It isn't a free action. There are standard actions that provoke an AoO. I find it hard to believe that several characters are going to just stand there and watch as this guy spends 4+ seconds breaking a staff. As it's a standard action, that's about the time it should be taking, right? How is it different from swinging a sword? The difference is where the guy's focus is. That's what Attacks of Opportunity are all about: lack of focus on your opponents. Secondly, there are a lot of "what ifs" and embellishments going on here about the functionality of the staff and the finer points of the retributive strike. Does he have to will it to happen? Does it just crumble in his hands like so much balsa wood? Well, who knows. The fact of the matter is, it's not that specific in the book. All we have to go on is: standard action if declared, requires no strength check. So, ultimately, I think a reasonable argument can be made either way, and it could be ruled either way. Which leaves us with: 1. the specific situation. 2. the consequences of the action. In this specific situation, the apprentice has a serious problem. As far as I'm concerned, he shouldn't even get to blink funny without someone being able to react. It seems pretty obvious to me that that was the intent of the party, and the DM confirmed that status. If the NPC wasn't at the mercy of the PCs, then it shouldn't have been indicated that he was. He either was or he wasn't. I'd agree that the DM appeared to metagame. The consequences of the action: practically the entire party dies. That can cramp a group's style a bit. It might even kill the campaign. I'm not sure how any good comes out of the situation unless the DM is planning on running a Ghost Walk game. So whether or not you think the breaking of the staff should normally provoke an AoO... I think it definitely should've in this specific situation. The rules don't cover every possible scenario. That's part of what DMs are for. Given the situation, given the intent of the PCs, and given the consequence of the action, the PCs should've been able to react. So there. ~ A.
Scion of Coldshard 06-25-04, 10:51 AM	Originally posted by Astanphaeus Given the situation, given the intent of the PCs, and given the consequence of the action, the PCs should've been able to react. what if it had instead been some sort of spell, such as a charge of maximised horrid wilting or whatever. Just something that would normally be a spell in the staff but would have killed the whole party anyway. ::shrugs:: the retributive strike ability sucks, but since the pc's didnt know what the staff did and there is certainly no indication of whether or not it provokes an aoo and even if it did they wouldnt have known what to do in all likelyhood... lack of focus is all well and good, but nothing implies that it takes focus away anymore than any other staff activation.
Elemental 06-25-04, 02:58 PM	As for the staff, here's an experiment. Take a broom, hoe, rake, shovel or the same sort of object, lie on the ground, and try to break it. Now try to do so without moving your head, and while tangled up in rope. Gut reaction--the DM wanted you dead, and was just being sneaky to do so, so he could claim 'Guys, I followed the rules!'. Neither of the spellcasters use this ultra-weapon in the fight, and it's never mentioned (in this encounter or any previous one) until the apprentice makes it go boom? A Staff of Power that appears no different from a walking stick? Trap. Trap all the way.
Scion of Coldshard 06-25-04, 03:03 PM	Now try the same trick with something that a str 1 character cannot fail to break if he wishes to do so. Your analogy above just doesnt work. Why should the staff look different than any other masterwork staff?
Nick Soapdish 06-25-04, 04:24 PM	Originally posted by Astanphaeus Breaking the Staff: First of all, I'm not sure what relevance a standard action is in this instance, other than the fact that it indicates that it takes time to do it. It isn't a free action. There are standard actions that provoke an AoO. I find it hard to believe that several characters are going to just stand there and watch as this guy spends 4+ seconds breaking a staff. As it's a standard action, that's about the time it should be taking, right? How is it different from swinging a sword? The difference is where the guy's focus is. That's what Attacks of Opportunity are all about: lack of focus on your opponents. The relevance is that not all standard actions that do provoke an AoO. If you use a wand of cure light wounds on yourself, your attention is clearly more on yourself than the foes. It takes 4+ seconds (or whatever part of a round a standard action takes). It doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity. I agree that you can argue either way. I just don't agree that your arguments are conclusive. Under your method, would breaking the staff have incurred an attack of opportunity if only the wizard was there? After all, he's just 1 of the 6 party members so the party would endure. How about 2? Heck, what's wrong with 4? There's two parties of 6 characters each involved so you've still got 9 of 12 survivors. I also disagree that the apprentice shouldn't have been able to blink without provoking the party. No one in the party had a readied action. If you're going to start to rule that intent matters more than actual ability, I'll just start having my 1st level wizard cast Teleport. I agree that the way the DM said it was dodgy, but by the books, it wouldn't have made a difference anyway. (Or at least, it can be read that way which isn't precisely the same thing.)
Astanphaeus 06-25-04, 08:53 PM	Originally posted by Nick Soapdish The relevance is that not all standard actions that do provoke an AoO. And some do, so simply saying that it's a standard action proves nothing either way. If you use a wand of cure light wounds on yourself, your attention is clearly more on yourself than the foes. It takes 4+ seconds (or whatever part of a round a standard action takes). It doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity. Once again, instead of looking for some abstraction in the book that supports your view, look at the actual situation. Tell me it's reasonable that 4 characters stood there surrounding a hostile party (one with an axe to his throat), who was prone, for 4+ seconds, while he broke the staff. If you find that to be a reasonable scenario, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. Under your method, would breaking the staff have incurred an attack of opportunity if only the wizard was there? Again with the hypotheticals! My "method" is to arbitrate the game and handle situations as they arise in a reasonable, sensical, playable way. There are several more factors involved in this situation beyond just X number of characters standing around. Those factors are critical to this situation, and how I think it should've been handled. To answer your question: I don't know. Maybe. Not enough data. I also disagree that the apprentice shouldn't have been able to blink without provoking the party. No one in the party had a readied action. And key to that was that they were apparently given the impression that they didn't have to. If you're going to start to rule that intent matters more than actual ability, I'll just start having my 1st level wizard cast Teleport. Sorry, there's nothing reasonable, sensical, or playable about that. Intent matters here because it has a direct bearing on what the apprentice could have reasonably gotten away with. I agree that the way the DM said it was dodgy, but by the books, it wouldn't have made a difference anyway. (Or at least, it can be read that way which isn't precisely the same thing.) Right, it's not... which, again, is why there's a DM. The game doesn't run itself. The rules are there to facilitate the game, not the other way around. In this case it appears that the rules were interpreted in order to favor an outcome an annoyed DM wanted (on top of him being "dodgy"), rather than to favor playability, authenticity, and general enjoyment. What I see being argued here is that what the DM did was okay because it was by the book. Well, first of all, I must've read a different DMG, because my book doesn't say that verisimilitude, believability, and playability are at the mercy of the rules. Secondly, by the book, there's a lot of room for interpretation here, no matter how much the lawyers may rant and rail. Third, the players were misled by the DM's remarks. They changed their actions, because he downplayed the situation. The problem there is that the characters don't give a toss what the DM said. They're going to behave according to the situation, whatever it is, and they should've been allowed to do so. The players were painted an inaccurate picture, and so the characters behaved in a way they wouldn't have. Bottom line, disagreements about the particulars aside, the situation is not at all cut-and-dry. I think we can agree on that. And so, when it isn't cut-and-dry, it's the DM's job to interpret, arbitrate, and improvise. It seems to me that the majority opinion on this thread is that this DM failed to do that properly and appropriately. ~ A.
Scion of Coldshard 06-25-04, 09:06 PM	The axe was not at his throat, according to the first post. The character was moving up to put the axe at the apprentices throat, the apprentice knew that his master had been brutalized and killed, he had the staff in his hand. It is his turn. He uses his standard action (the 4+ seconds that is being touted is ludicrous btw, it has no meaning at all, at best I suppose someone could say 3 seconds.. as a standard + move + possibly a 5' = 6 seconds, two moves + possibly a 5' step = 6 seconds.. whatever.. for all we know a standard action takes as much time as whatever it is, but seemingly no more than 3) and broke the staff. It requires no strength check, it is a standard action which does not say whether or not it provokes an aoo, even if they someone had gotten an aoo they most likely would have merely attacked the apprentice which very likely would have changed the situation not one iota. So sure, you could say that the situation sucks, it does of course, but anyone stating that it was against the raw or out of character is obviously dreaming. It is well within the raw, it is incredibly in character, and the only problem here seems to be that the staff of power has a stupidly powerful ability.
wdarkk 06-25-04, 09:21 PM	I would argue that since the Retributive Strike is an ability of a magic item, the standard action used is "Activate a magic item other than a potion or oil" from p141, which does _not_ provoke an attack of opportunity. The method of activation is not relevant since nothing about its characteristics is stated, so the relevant rules are those for which actions provoke attacks of opportunity - on page 141. The only reasonable arguments at this point are: 1) That you can't do it while grappled. This is false. The apprentice is clearly activating a magic item. He is not using spell completion to do so. Check p156. 2) That the DM was out to get them. I can believe this one. Retributive strike is one of the 2e TPK and TPKesque holdovers, along with MDJ.
Frodo Lives 06-25-04, 11:18 PM	The Dwarf charges the enemy, tripping him instead of causing damage (so that we could talk to him, as it seemed he had something to say.). As he has the improved trip feat he has a free attack. He says he is going to use this attack to enter a grapple. Now here is the funny thing...the DM says "Dude, the guy is entangled and prone!", *shrugging* (giving the impression there was no need for such an excess). The dwarf says, ok I'll just put my axe to his throat (abdicating his free attack). This tells me that it WAS at his throat, and that the dwarf was doing so to prevent any funny business, the relavence of the fact that breaking the staff is a standard action is that it takes time to do. Time that the dwarf could have used to stop him, and from the sounds of it, whose intention was exactly that. It also appears that the DM was giving one impression of the scene and then playing it quite differently. He might have followed the rules (which is arguable), but he certianly didn't follow the spirit of the rules or the game. It sounds like he diliberately mislead the players into believing that the apprentice posed little threat and was disabled (OOG, not the apprentice bluffing or anything) and then killed them. Funny, that doesn't sound like good DMing to me.
Scion of Coldshard 06-26-04, 12:12 AM	Originally posted by Frodo Lives Time that the dwarf could have used to stop him, and from the sounds of it, whose intention was exactly that. Used the time to stop him? How would you suggest that? he had an extra attack which he forgo. Therefore, you would have to input things outside of the raw. In other words, you are advocating doing things against what the ruleset says. If you are going to go that way fine, but at least say so directly. Even if the dwarf had grappled the apprentice nothing would have happened any differently.
Eldermount 06-26-04, 12:31 PM	Now here is the funny thing...the DM says "Dude, the guy is entangled and prone!", *shrugging* (giving the impression there was no need for such an excess). The dwarf says, ok I'll just put my axe to his throat (abdicating his free attack). Seems likely that the DM was hoping the dwarf would take the staff away from the apprentice. Grappling would not have helped any. Disarming the apprentice would have. Think of it this way. When cops apprehend a criminal, do they stick a gun to the guys head and wait for backup? Or do they make sure that the criminal is disarmed first?
Elemental 06-26-04, 02:41 PM	Originally posted by Frodo Lives It also appears that the DM was giving one impression of the scene and then playing it quite differently. He might have followed the rules (which is arguable), but he certianly didn't follow the spirit of the rules or the game. It sounds like he diliberately mislead the players into believing that the apprentice posed little threat and was disabled (OOG, not the apprentice bluffing or anything) and then killed them. Funny, that doesn't sound like good DMing to me. I had a long post, but you said it better. The 'walking stick' remark kind of cracked me up, though. Sorcerers of 15'th level are very concerned with stealth--after all, that's why all the staves in the DMG look so mundane and ordinary, right? Originally posted by Eldermount Seems likely that the DM was hoping the dwarf would take the staff away from the apprentice. Grappling would not have helped any. Disarming the apprentice would have. Think of it this way. When cops apprehend a criminal, do they stick a gun to the guys head and wait for backup? Or do they make sure that the criminal is disarmed first? Only they had no reason to believe the apprentice might have a 'gun', because no attention had been drawn to the 200,000 GP magic item he was carrying, nor did anyone apparently cast a spell from it before it was self-destructed. Which stinks more than anything else about this to me.
cheesegrater 06-26-04, 03:46 PM	Originally posted by Elemental Only they had no reason to believe the apprentice might have a 'gun', because no attention had been drawn to the 200,000 GP magic item he was carrying, nor did anyone apparently cast a spell from it before it was self-destructed. Which stinks more than anything else about this to me. [/B] The mere fact that the apprentice took a detour to grab the thing off of his dead master should have been a /huge/ red flag. I mean, obviously the apprentice who is intimately familiar with his master's gear and skills is going to run over and grab a useless stick. Sure. :)
Eldermount 06-26-04, 06:24 PM	Originally posted by Elemental Only they had no reason to believe the apprentice might have a 'gun', because no attention had been drawn to the 200,000 GP magic item he was carrying, nor did anyone apparently cast a spell from it before it was self-destructed. Which stinks more than anything else about this to me. So, if a cop has no reason to suspect a criminal has a weapon, he just assumes the criminal has no weapons? No. That's why cops will search a suspect for weapons and disarm him of anything that can be potentially used as a weapon. Even if that wasn't a Staff of Power, what's to say that it couldn't have been one of several other types of magical staves that could have been potentially damaging. The fact that they let him hang on to the staff was the problem, and as far as I can see, the DM gave the dwarf an opening to disarm the apprentice of the staff.
wdarkk 06-26-04, 07:49 PM	As far as I can tell, Retributive Strike was invented by EGG to provide DMs with an auto-TPK campaign reset button, since players won't use it unless there's going to be a TPK anyway. The essential problem here is that the DM was using it to kill PCs and played down suspicions. Although the second part could be argued either way. That he picked up the staff might well have made my group paranoid enough to go for him.
Frodo Lives 06-26-04, 08:52 PM	While according to the rules, the dwarf might not get another attack, and breaking the staff might not provoke and AOO (which I still would have done) the rules do not cover every situation. He forgo a free attack to place the apprentice at his mercy (which is what I call having an axe blade to your throat). The rules don't always reflect what is realistic, after all you never see in a game a wizard who is magically invisible and silent able to sneak up on a gaurd and slit his throat. In a movie: Sneak up and slit the guards throat and sneak into the palace (bank, outpost, whatever) done effectively and quickly. In a D&D game: DM: The guard is completely unaware of your presence and you are able to sneak right up behind him. Player: Can I cut his throat? DM: Sure, you can try. Player: I slit his throat. DM: Roll to hit and for damage Player: does an 18 hit? DM: Yes Player: Great I slit his throat, (rolls) 3 points of damage. DM: OK, the guard has his throat slit and turns to face you with his longsword drawn. He attacks (rolls) and hits for 10 points of damage because your invisibility spell was negated by your attack. Player: Wait I just slit his throat! DM: Yeah, but according to the rules you did 3 points of damage, he's got plenty left and feels no ill effects until he's into negative hps. Too bad. Player: That's crap! DM: Sorry that's the rules. This is an example of what does work in movies and I guess real life but can't be worked with within the established rules. Same goes for the axe to the throat, in game terms there isn't a single advantage to doing so even though that is a good example of how to control a prisoner. I have a problem with the way the DM handled this because he didn't give the players any chance to stop the apprentice when they realized what he was doing. I believe that they deserved at least a chance seeing as they had him surrounded and he was entangled and had a blade to his neck. As for the players knowing (or should have known) what the staff was, that is a bit far fetched. I mean IF it was a staff of power at the beginning of combat (which I doubt) why didn't the BBEG use it? Especially if it was apparent that he could lose the fight, which seeing as he did he must have know at some point, he would have used everything at his disposal to win. The fact that it wasn't described or even mentioned in more than passing (if that) until the apprentice picked it up makes me think that the DM never really gave the players a chance to deduce that it was anything important other than the fact that he grabbed it in the first place. Add to the fact that the DM made another call to mess with the player by changing alignment immediately (I know that it's debateable) suggests to me that he was upset and wanted to mess with the player character, which is what leads me to believe that he might have changed the staff after that fight. Either way, I still call it bad DMing when you wipe out half the party using instant death without giving them a reasonable chance to defend themselves and using questionable methods to get the party in that position anyway.
Frodo Lives 06-26-04, 09:27 PM	I guess after re reading my last post I should clarify why I’m lead to believe that the DM was annoyed with the wizard and why I believe that he was deliberately trying to screw them over. Or at the very least guilty of very bad Dming which lead to the death of half the party. Please feel free to correct me if I misread anything. 1) The staff was not used in any manner during the fight, and was barely mentioned. A staff of power IMO would very rarely appear as an ordinary staff. Magic weapons, especially powerful ones, are usually quite distinctive. I can’t imagine that it is very common that a wizard would create one of the most powerful weapons in the game and it isn’t distinctive as a magic item in any way. It is the DMs job to describe things to the players that would be obvious to the characters, and the lack of any mention of the staff, or its previous use is a sticking point to me. 2) The paladin immediately detected evil from the PC wizard, which unless I’m mistaken a paladins DE is usable only at will. Why would the paladin be trying to detect evil at that time? It seems that the DM just volunteered this information to try to cause trouble to get back at the player. 3) The DM led the players to believe that the apprentice was disabled with his OOG comments. Why would he do this unless he wanted to make sure that the apprentice would have a chance to break the staff? 4) He didn’t take into account of any of the mitigating factors in which the apprentice was in. The entanglement, being prone, having a blade to your throat and being surrounded didn’t even factor into the situation, it’s as if he was on his feet and out of range of any player character and none of it mattered. 5) The apprentice didn’t give any thought to talking first; after all he could have broken the staff at any time, but did it before he tried to save himself in any way. If he knew about his masters weapons and possessions as well as he did (and we all know how generous evil overlords are with information about their powerful magic to their underlings) he also should have known something about his masters enemies. Which includes the paladin, who would be honor bound to adhere to his agreements. Why wouldn’t the apprentice try to bargain for his life, with information or even threats about using the staff of power in the first place? It’s not like the apprentice seemed to have an overabundance of love for his master, after all the first thing he said wasn’t remorse over the death of his master, rather it was about how much worse the situation will be now that he is dead. This doesn’t seem to be the comments of someone who is filled with grief over the death of a friend or a loved one. Evil NPCs are usually more concerned with their own well being and survival than getting revenge for the death of a superior. I think the DM made some very shaky decisions, and there is evidence to make me think that he was deliberately out to get the player for what he had done. I don’t know for sure because, of course, I wasn’t at the table. But that is what it seems like to me.
Nick Soapdish 06-27-04, 02:20 AM	Mucked up double-post.
Nick Soapdish 06-27-04, 02:35 AM	Originally posted by Astanphaeus And some do, so simply saying that it's a standard action proves nothing either way. Actually, that's the point that I was trying to make. You said that it's a standard action so that there's no way that they wouldn't be able to react. I'm saying that that isn't always the case. Originally posted by Astanphaeus Once again, instead of looking for some abstraction in the book that supports your view, look at the actual situation. Tell me it's reasonable that 4 characters stood there surrounding a hostile party (one with an axe to his throat), who was prone, for 4+ seconds, while he broke the staff. If you find that to be a reasonable scenario, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. First of all, can we forget the 4+ seconds unless you're maintaining that a command word for a wand takes more than 4 seconds to speak. Some words are harder than others, I'll admit. :D The action doesn't require any strength so all he does is twitch his wrists and say "Break". Bah-boom! Originally posted by Astanphaeus And key to that was that they were apparently given the impression that they didn't have to. I'll agree there. Like I said, it was dodgy. Originally posted by Astanphaeus Sorry, there's nothing reasonable, sensical, or playable about that. Intent matters here because it has a direct bearing on what the apprentice could have reasonably gotten away with. Right. You claim the dwarf intends to ready an action. He doesn't have one! An axe isn't necessarily the most convenient weapon to cut somebody's throat with at the drop of a hat. Even if the blade was there, maybe he's still having to re-balance himself after the charge and trip attack. Frankly, the DM probably screwed up there by not explaining to the dwarf about readied actions. Originally posted by Astanphaeus Right, it's not... which, again, is why there's a DM. The game doesn't run itself. The rules are there to facilitate the game, not the other way around. In this case it appears that the rules were interpreted in order to favor an outcome an annoyed DM wanted (on top of him being "dodgy"), rather than to favor playability, authenticity, and general enjoyment. What I see being argued here is that what the DM did was okay because it was by the book. Actually, with regard to the retributive strike, I'm just arguing that it was by the book (or could be). I personally disagree with a couple of his decisions. I would've played them differently simply because I do believe in giving extra chances to get out of life and death situations, even ones that are cut and dried. I just object to the argument that the DM was unjustifiably wrong.
Nick Soapdish 06-27-04, 02:42 AM	Originally posted by Frodo Lives This is an example of what does work in movies and I guess real life but can't be worked with within the established rules. Same goes for the axe to the throat, in game terms there isn't a single advantage to doing so even though that is a good example of how to control a prisoner. Yeah, but that works both ways. It's basically giving sneak attack damage (better, actually) to every adventuring class (although fighters, paladins, and clerics might have difficulty benefitting from it). And more importantly, it also gives it to all the NPCs.
Frodo Lives 06-27-04, 11:56 PM	Originally posted by Nick Soapdish Yeah, but that works both ways. It's basically giving sneak attack damage (better, actually) to every adventuring class (although fighters, paladins, and clerics might have difficulty benefitting from it). And more importantly, it also gives it to all the NPCs. I am not suggesting to changing the rules, that would be very unbalancing. Even to change the Coup De Gras (sp?) rules to include creatures who are totally unaware against melee attacks may dramatically change and unbalance the game. All I was trying to say (a little tounge in cheek) is that the rules do not always reflect what is realistic, and in this case things should have unfolded differently because of all the mitigating circumstances. Really, what in game purpose does holding a weapon to someones throat do? What advantage is there? I would think that holding a sword (or axe) against someones throat should provide them a little more of an advantage than having it resting on their shoulder.
trapspringer 06-28-04, 11:55 AM	It is rare for an chance to do extreme good to present it's slef, but you can creat your own chance to do extreme evil. If you had dove in front of a maximized, empowered, scorching ray from a 15 level caster, targeted at some peasant kid you have never seen before, you would likely become NG. As it was, you created an opportunity to inflict great cruelty. As for the staff. 'I was role-playing' is not a reason why you should live. You created an arrogant, stubborn character. Guess what, arrogant, stubborn people screw up a lot! Look around! In your profession, you WILL die if you are stubborn or arrogant, and you were both! Oh, in response to the above post, it is called a readie action. For example: PC: I put my axe to his throat! DM: Is that a readied action? PC: Umm... That sounds good, what is it DM: *explains breifly* PC: I ready an action to kill the guy if he moves, placing my axe at his throat. Tada! Advantage: angry dwarf
Scion of Coldshard 06-28-04, 12:47 PM	Originally posted by trapspringer PC: I put my axe to his throat! DM: Is that a readied action? PC: Umm... That sounds good, what is it DM: *explains breifly* PC: I ready an action to kill the guy if he moves, placing my axe at his throat. Tada! Advantage: angry dwarf Exactly, in the actions stated in the original post the guy was out of actions. As in, he was done for the round. He had nothing left, so his 'I put my axe to his throat' just doesnt do anything useful. It is effectively a noneffect, it didnt even really happen, or if it did then it just wasnt useful. The system is more fluid than that, the turn based nature makes things seem like they happen in an odd way. In this case the guy choose to slowly put his axe up towards the guys throat, in response the apprentice (who had every reason to believe he was going to be mutilated and killed, since there was already one body there) took the only out he had available.
Frodo Lives 06-28-04, 05:18 PM	PC: I put my axe to his throat! DM: Is that a readied action? PC: Umm... That sounds good, what is it DM: *explains breifly* PC: I ready an action to kill the guy if he moves, placing my axe at his throat. Tada! Advantage: angry dwarf And once again how is that an advantage in game terms to just having an action ready stating that you will attack him? Tada! Advantage: none, angry dwarf cause he wasted a free attack. In this case the guy choose to slowly put his axe up towards the guys throat, in response the apprentice (who had every reason to believe he was going to be mutilated and killed, since there was already one body there) took the only out he had available. Well I don't think it was slowly up to his throat, he spent his free attack to do so, which means it was ALREADY at his throat, not moving towards him, not getting there, it WAS there. The apprentice had other options other than commiting suicide, after all if he knew his bosses magical equipment that well, it stands to reason that he also knew about his masters enemies, which included the paladin. Bottom line is that there were enough mitigating circumstances to warrant the players a bit of a break.
Nick Soapdish 06-28-04, 05:32 PM	Originally posted by Frodo Lives Well I don't think it was slowly up to his throat, he spent his free attack to do so, which means it was ALREADY at his throat, not moving towards him, not getting there, it WAS there. It takes more effort to get the axe to the throat rather than just whack the guy. If you're taking a shot, you don't have to aim specifically for the throat; the gut, arm, or whatever would do just as well. (And the guy presumably doesn't want an axe at his throat so he's going to be squirming around.) Plus, it's going to require a more controlled strike. Usually, a bit harder just means that you got a couple more points of damage. In this case, it means that you already slit the guys throat and possibly decapitated him (at least when following the flavor text). Also, the axe seems like kind of a clumsy weapon to have at someone's throat. The axe relies more on having momentum. A knife would've been a lot better. Grab the guy's head with one hand and put the knife to his throat with the other. Originally posted by Frodo Lives Bottom line is that there were enough mitigating circumstances to warrant the players a bit of a break. Which gets back to the original complaint, IMO. If you're playing the good guys, I'll give breaks. If you're playing some psycho maniac that chops off somebody's fingers and then gloats about it, I'm inclined to be less charitable. I still disagree with a few of the DM's decisions and I wouldn't have played it the same way, but I see where he's coming from. Edited: Missed a rather important word.
Scion of Coldshard 06-28-04, 07:33 PM	Originally posted by Frodo Lives it stands to reason that he also knew about his masters enemies, which included the paladin. Who has already stood by and watched one person be flayed alive and then murdered, why would he stop anyone this time?
Frodo Lives 06-28-04, 11:04 PM	Which gets back to the original complaint, IMO. If you're playing the good guys, I'll give breaks. If you're playing some psycho maniac that chops off somebody's fingers and then gloats about it, I'm inclined to be charitable. I still disagree with a few of the DM's decisions and I wouldn't have played it the same way, but I see where he's coming from. Again that's where we may differ, what the player did could be classified (and probably so) as an evil act, but I don't think that it makes him evil. I call it good role playing, after all this is a character who was never played as lily white and he was taking revenge on a person who has repeatedly caused harm and suffering to both him and those that he cares about, it got personal and that's how he roleplayed it. If this was his standard procedure than I'd agree with you that the character was being played like a psycho maniac, but it has been made pretty clear that this was a rather large step away from his normal behaviour. Who has already stood by and watched one person be flayed alive and then murdered, why would he stop anyone this time? If he was watching then he would have seen that the paladin had nothing to do with that as he was about 150 feet away and didn't seem to notice as he was busy with something else. This was referenced in an earlier post when it was asked why did the paly let the wizard get away with this. If the paladin let torture and murder go on right in front of him and knew about it, I'd think that the wizards alignment change wouldn't be the only one. All told I have given a list of reasons why I think the DM was on shakey ground and even have gone as far as saying why I think the DM might have even been out to get the player. To me there are a lot of incosistencies and if it were me then I'd be annoyed. And if it were the DM it would never have got that far. IF it was a staff of power the whole time it would have been used in the fight, and if the enemy sorc was still brought down and dying THEN I might have had him break it. Not have a little red shirt run in after the encounter and nuke them all with no way out. P.S. I played last night and brought up this thread on the laptop and having the whole group read through most of the thread (and without voicing my opinion first, and none know my Forum name) I asked their opinion. It was unanimous, there wasn't a single person (player or DM) who thought what went down was fair or right. And one of these players had 13 party deaths in 9 sessions in his campaign! This may not mean much, but at least I know that in my group this type of DMing wouldn't happen.
Nick Soapdish 06-29-04, 12:19 AM	Originally posted by Frodo Lives Again that's where we may differ, what the player did could be classified (and probably so) as an evil act, but I don't think that it makes him evil. I call it good role playing, after all this is a character who was never played as lily white and he was taking revenge on a person who has repeatedly caused harm and suffering to both him and those that he cares about, it got personal and that's how he roleplayed it. If this was his standard procedure than I'd agree with you that the character was being played like a psycho maniac, but it has been made pretty clear that this was a rather large step away from his normal behaviour. Could be classified as evil? Could be?! I can see the argument that the character isn't evil based on the whole of his acts. I disagree with it, but I can still see it. But I don't see how it's even a consideration that the specific act isn't absolutely evil. I just don't see how chopping somebody's fingers and tongue off to impress upon them that they made a mistake can have any redeeming value. It wasn't that he was trying to do it to interrogate the guy and get information to save some innocent lives ... or even not so innocent. He was doing it because the sorcerer had done an injury to him and wanted to show him what it felt like, but in as brutal a manner as possible. (Casting Bestow Curse on the sorcerer would've been a much painless way to accomplish the same.) Then he healed the sorcerer (since frankly, the sorcerer isn't going to appreciate it very much when unconscious). And then he killed him. To me, chopping off fingers and tongues requires a pretty deep-seated psychosis. It's not like killing with a gun, where you just pull a trigger and somebody dies. You take a knife and have to saw the finger off. And then you do it again. And so on and so on. It's going to take some time. Charitably speaking, it'll take a round per finger (unless he borrowed the dwarf's axe and went for a bunch at once). I'll agree that the DM made some bad decisions and was on shaky ground. (One of which is that I wondered how the wizard managed to cut off the sorcerer's fingers without doing a single point of damage.) But calling that act evil isn't one of them. Out of curiosity, why do you feel that it would've been better for the sorcerer to use the staff with a retributive strike himself? After all, he was at -8. You aren't supposed to be able to do standard actions then (barring feats, which apparently the sorcerer didn't have). It would've worked great if he was right at 0. Or should he have done it after he had been healed when the wizard has already taken away the staff? He doesn't even have the staff and is in unimaginable pain (at least to me) since he's missing his fingers and tongue. How's he going to be get the staff and break it?
Scion of Coldshard 06-29-04, 12:37 AM	Originally posted by Frodo Lives If he was watching then he would have seen that the paladin had nothing to do with that as he was about 150 feet away and didn't seem to notice as he was busy with something else. But then paladins dont hang out with evil people, as a rule. So, knowing that what was done to his master was a blatantly evil act, perhaps he didnt actually think that the character was a paladin. Really, there are easy ways to explain and/or justify everything the character did. They are easier than your stretches to make them not justified. Originally posted by Frodo Lives It was unanimous, there wasn't a single person (player or DM) who thought what went down was fair or right. Which part? all of it? that is very doubtful. More likely is that people had issues with individual parts here and there, possibly discussed it, and then everyone agreed that the total situation was bad. However, this could easily be just because the staff has an ability that is probably too strong for most games, and that not every dm actually uses alignment in any real sense. Taking away those two things they probably wouldnt have any issue with what happened at all. Or if they do, I cant possibly see with what.
Frodo Lives 06-29-04, 08:43 PM	He doesn't even have the staff and is in unimaginable pain (at least to me) since he's missing his fingers and tongue. How's he going to be get the staff and break it I was talking about when it became obvious that he was going to lose the fight, not AFTER he lost it. He could have used the staff by using the magic spells in it, not only by breaking it. Although that might have been an option as well. Could be classified as evil? Well I did also say (and probably so) ;) . However revenge in itself isn't always an evil act unto itself as neither of the Gods of Revenge in both the PHB and FR (St. Cuthbert and Hoar) are evil dieties. And that is what the wizard was doing taking revenge, all be it in a gruesome and twisted way. But then paladins dont hang out with evil people, as a rule. So, knowing that what was done to his master was a blatantly evil act, perhaps he didnt actually think that the character was a paladin. Again if he was watching to know what exactly happened, as you seem to think, he would have seen what happened, which is that the paladin wasn't involved at all and didn't know what was going on. Unless of course you think that the paladin was still responsible just for being there and therefore should have fallen. :rolleyes: Really, there are easy ways to explain and/or justify everything the character did. They are easier than your stretches to make them not justified. As opposed to your easy ways to explain why a staff of power is not identifiable in any way as a powerful magic item. Why the sorc who died didn't even use that powerful item once in the entire battle Why the paladin detected evil automatically instead of concentraiting as the PHB describes As the apprentice automatically knows what and how to use the staff of power but not anything else about what is going on. That the apprentice didn't run away, or negotiate or try anything other than commiting suicide. Why the heck did he enter the room in the first place if he knew what was going on? Why didn't he run away BEFORE he was spotted? Was there a purpose for the apprentice at all other than killing some characters? If so what was it? The DM OOG comments leading the players to believe one thing, when in fact it was played out completely differently? Or any of the other incosistancies that make this whole encounter after the BBEG battle a joke. Yeah, very easy to explain it all away, and the DM did a great job. :rolleyes: I find it easier to believe that the DM was out to get the player because let's face it, the apprentice added nothing to the story or plot other than certian death for some of the characters. Great DMing. Which part? all of it? that is very doubtful. More likely is that people had issues with individual parts here and there, possibly discussed it, and then everyone agreed that the total situation was bad. No not everyone thought that EVERY part was played wrongly, but every member thought that as a whole it was done very badly. Not one person out of the other 4 thought that the whole staff of power was reasonable. Either the breaking it so easily when the apprentice was in that situation, or the fact that it was unidentifiable as a magic staff, and two other people (without any input from me) thought that it wasn't even a staff of power until after the fight because otherwise it would make no sense that it wasn't used. The point is that not one of them thought that the DM was in the right and the original question posed was "Am I wrong for being upset with my DM" and they all said no, you are not wrong.
bitnine 06-29-04, 09:42 PM	Originally posted by Frodo Lives Or any of the other incosistancies that make this whole encounter after the BBEG battle a joke.It does seem quite possible that the DM was steamed that a BBEG that he liked got not only killed but emasculated in such a manner by a player and developed a little hankering for players blood to show them what's what. So, enter in a Staff of Power lying on the ground. And then an apprentice who runs over to and then picks up that staff before any checks for a surprise round are even made. Followed by the some player reaction and the DM trying to convince folk that the apprentice is helpless looking. That's a quick route to a triple PK suicide bomb, and looks like it was pushed for extra hard. From the get-go, that apprentice should have at most been entitled to an automatic surprise round - and that only allows for a standard action. Moving over to and then picking up that staff are two seperate move actions. And that's if the apprentice pops out from unseenland within 30' feet of the corpse. And aside from any particular game rulings, that OOC chatter to dissuade the dwarf from stiking shows a naughty bit of drive in a-fixing for some certain events. Painting the apprentice as helpless while at the same time ruling that he's unhindered by his circumstances is uncool.
Astanphaeus 06-29-04, 11:23 PM	Originally posted by Nick Soapdish First of all, can we forget the 4+ seconds unless you're maintaining that a command word for a wand takes more than 4 seconds to speak. I'm maintaining that standard actions take time. More time than a move action and more time than a free action. That's why they're standard actions, and not move actions or free actions. Embellish it anyway you'd like... say he has to concentrate, whatever. The point is: it isn't instantaneous. The action doesn't require any strength so all he does is twitch his wrists and say "Break". Bah-boom! If it were that simple, it wouldn't be a standard action. Originally posted by Scion of Coldshard the 4+ seconds that is being touted is ludicrous btw, it has no meaning at all, at best I suppose someone could say 3 seconds.. as a standard + move + possibly a 5' = 6 seconds, two moves + possibly a 5' step = 6 seconds.. whatever.. for all we know a standard action takes as much time as whatever it is, but seemingly no more than 3 A round is 6 seconds. You cannot make 2 standard actions in a round. You can make 2 move actions in a round. You can make a standard action and a move action in a round. So, a standard action has to be more than 3 seconds. A move action has to, therefore, be less than 3 seconds... but more than 2 (otherwise you'd be able to get in 3 move actions in 6 seconds). So, a Standard is probably best defined as 3.5 seconds, and a move action as 2.5 seconds. Nitpicking goes both ways. Frodo Lives has already done a good job of illustrating how the rules were glossed over for the sake of having a certain (allegedly desired) circumstance come about. Once that situation was achieved, suddenly, it became all about the particulars of the rules. That just stinks, plain and simple. The DM handled this scenario poorly. He was all sorts of accommodating to the NPC, but, at best, didn't extend that same accommodation to the PCs and, at worst, deliberately mislead them. Selective application of nitpicking and rules lawyering doesn't change that. ~ A.
Scion of Coldshard 06-30-04, 01:01 PM	Originally posted by Frodo Lives I was talking about when it became obvious that he was going to lose the fight, not AFTER he lost it. He could have used the staff by using the magic spells in it, not only by breaking it. Although that might have been an option as well. As mages are pretty fragile it could be that he simply died too fast. Getting off a couple of your high level spells vs useing a coule of charges from a limited use item..hmm.. not a tough choice most of the time. Originally posted by Frodo Lives And that is what the wizard was doing taking revenge, all be it in a gruesome and twisted way. He could have taken revenge by simply cursing the guy. The 'gruesome and twisted way' is what makes it blatantly evil. Originally posted by Frodo Lives Again if he was watching to know what exactly happened, as you seem to think, he would have seen what happened, which is that the paladin wasn't involved at all and didn't know what was going on. Unless of course you think that the paladin was still responsible just for being there and therefore should have fallen. Unimportant, as the paladin is traveling with someone obviously evil, must not actually be a paladin. I said nothing at all to blame the paladin, simply useing in game explanations rather than your metagaming 'but there he is a paladin!'. If you see some guy strolling through a village slaughtering the people and then disentegrating their bodies, and then some guy who looks like a paladin strolls up, give him a hug, and they start chatting like the friends that they are then there are only a few options: A) powerful decietful magic at work B) not a paladin C) both Also, once the paladin saw what was done to the guy there should have been some major discussions going on, effectively with the paladin and said character no longer associating. Originally posted by Frodo Lives As opposed to your easy ways to explain why a staff of power is not identifiable in any way as a powerful magic item. You mean other than any other magical, masterwork staff? Probably because there is no reason for it to be. Perhaps the guy who made it didnt want it to stand out from the crowd, perhaps its power is so strong that its vessel needs to be simpler, or maybe it has to be made of something not too flashy in order to be easy to break. Who knows? There is no reason for it to be 'extra' flashy. Just like other magical items it simply has to be masterwork, beyond that is up to the creator. Originally posted by Frodo Lives Why the sorc who died didn't even use that powerful item once in the entire battle Lets see here.. the staff has the following spells in it: SRD: • Magic missile (1 charge) • Ray of enfeeblement (heightened to 5th level) (1 charge) • Continual flame (1 charge) • Levitate (1 charge) • Lightning bolt (heightened to 5th level) (1 charge) • Fireball (heightened to 5th level) (1 charge) • Cone of cold (2 charges) • Hold monster (2 charges) • Wall of force (in a 10-ft.-diameter hemisphere around the caster only) (2 charges) • Globe of invulnerability (2 charges) Oh, feel the power. Perhaps the sorc simply had 'better' spells on his spell list to use than burn charges for obviously weaker spells? Really, if the sorc didnt have something better to do than cone of cold or lightning bolt then he really wasnt much of a challenge anyway. Or maybe he was saving the charges in case things went bad and he had to retributive strike. But he was taken down too fast for him to respond to it (being taken from 50+ hp down to negatives in one round vs a pc party is easy, especially with a couple of good rolls). Originally posted by Frodo Lives As the apprentice automatically knows what and how to use the staff of power but not anything else about what is going on. The apprentice knows his master has a powerful item (more powerful than he is at least) and he knows that it can be destroyed to gain his revenge (hey! revenge again, what is good for the goose is good for the gander after all). So he runs up, hopeing to get a few good cones of cold in, when he gets entangled, tripped, and surrounded. He is in trouble, he knows what he has to do, so he does it. Having a knife at ones throat doesnt hinder this situation at all, especially since there was no readied action (and so the knife wasnt really at the guys throat, the character would have done so with his first action on his next round). Originally posted by Frodo Lives That the apprentice didn't run away, or negotiate or try anything other than commiting suicide. Revenge? all of them are right there, maybe he wont get another chance. Remember, there are dozens of reasons why it could've happened, and it only takes one. Originally posted by Frodo Lives Was there a purpose for the apprentice at all other than killing some characters? What was the purpose of flaying a guy alive and then killing him with your bare hands? Besides just becoming evil of course (which he did really well). Originally posted by Frodo Lives The DM OOG comments leading the players to believe one thing, when in fact it was played out completely differently? Perhaps he was hopeing the character would do something other than grapple? maybe disarm? Grapple wouldnt have helped at all, disarm would have. The pc said he wanted to grapple. Perhaps he meant that, maybe he didnt, who knows? Originally posted by Frodo Lives Or any of the other incosistancies that make this whole encounter after the BBEG battle a joke. So far, there are none. You are jumping to conclusions that could be otherwise easily explained away in game (as opposed to out of game as you wish to do). Originally posted by Frodo Lives No not everyone thought that EVERY part was played wrongly, but every member thought that as a whole it was done very badly. Not one person out of the other 4 thought that the whole staff of power was reasonable. Either the breaking it so easily when the apprentice was in that situation, or the fact that it was unidentifiable as a magic staff, and two other people (without any input from me) thought that it wasn't even a staff of power until after the fight because otherwise it would make no sense that it wasn't used. Staff of power reasonable? its ability? maybe not, but it being used as a standard action? completely by the raw, and very likely in character as well. Easily breaking? it is defined to be easily broken. That is what it does, if you want to break it, it is broken. It doesnt require leverage, it doesnt require any sort of long, messy incantation. It doesnt require you to cut off your limbs and sing your favorite song backwards while drinking your own blood. You just have to say, 'I am retributive striking'. Just like if he had wanted to use a cone of cold, no difference, no aoo, no readied action to help the party. Even if their had been a readied action, and the guy had attacked with his axe and dealt some damage, the retributive strike would have still gone off and killed everyone. Woo. Big change there. If you dont like the staff, fine, house rule it away. If you dont like how the combat system works, play a different game. Also, and again, all the staff has to be is masterwork. That is all. If you dont cast detect magic then it could just be any random masterwork staff. It isnt like it has a giant sign saying, 'I AM A STAFF OF XXXXX'. That is why the identify spell exists, and they certainly didnt have 8 hours right then and there to find out. Originally posted by Frodo Lives The point is that not one of them thought that the DM was in the right and the original question posed was "Am I wrong for being upset with my DM" and they all said no, you are not wrong. You could say no to being upset no matter what happened, for good or bad. I would have to say that the original poster is overreacting though. Obviously evil act of which the character is unrepentant? Depending on the history, that we dont know, this could easily be the breaking point to push someone to evil. Character breaking a staff of power with his standard action? completely within the rules, and nothing you have said disputes this. So, within the game he is fine, if you dont like what he did that is up to each individual person. Some would do it the same, others would change a piece here and there. Personally, I simply dont have retributive strikes in my game, the whole problem is solved right there.
Scion of Coldshard 06-30-04, 01:14 PM	Originally posted by Astanphaeus Embellish it anyway you'd like... say he has to concentrate, whatever. The point is: it isn't instantaneous. But since your point matters not one iota, why is it even mentioned? The character has a standard action to use, he used it. Done. Originally posted by Astanphaeus If it were that simple, it wouldn't be a standard action. It is as simple as useing a charge from the same staff. Possibly even simpler, as you dont even have to be a spellcaster to do it. Originally posted by Astanphaeus A round is 6 seconds. You cannot make 2 standard actions in a round. You can make 2 move actions in a round. You can make a standard action and a move action in a round. So, a standard action has to be more than 3 seconds. A move action has to, therefore, be less than 3 seconds... but more than 2 (otherwise you'd be able to get in 3 move actions in 6 seconds). So, a Standard is probably best defined as 3.5 seconds, and a move action as 2.5 seconds. Very faulty logic. We are given no time scales, probably on purpose. The only thing that we do know is that a round is 6 seconds long, and what combination of actions you can take in that 6 seconds. But, it could very well be that standard actions simply take a certain amount of energy to do that you only have enough of for one round, maybe they are actually the 'shortest' in time scale, but take the most out of you. Who knows? we arent given that information, therefore your entire basis of trying to find an amount of time just doesnt hold any water. Besides that however, it is unimportant to the discussion at hand. It doesnt matter how long it takes, simply that the character had an action to take, and used it. Originally posted by Astanphaeus Frodo Lives has already done a good job of illustrating how the rules were glossed over for the sake of having a certain (allegedly desired) circumstance come about. Once that situation was achieved, suddenly, it became all about the particulars of the rules. Strangely enough, the rules seem pretty much intact for this entire encounter. If you would like to point out something go right ahead, I have already debunked the issues frodo has brought up that mattered. After that it comes down to playstyle, which is outside of the rules. So we have a situation where the rules were pretty much followed, and the pc's dont like it. Fine, great, next time they will know to disarm someone who is potentially dangerous. Sortof like if the character had picked up a grenade. Say the grenade takes a standard action to activate and goes off immediately (like the tactical nuke grenades that didnt work out very well..lol). The characters should know better than to let a dangerous opponent simply carry whatever weapons they feel like. I suppose they felt comfortable behind their ac's and their hp walls. Which makes sense in some ways, and not so much in others. Like I said, it comes down to playstyles and reactions. The rules were followed well enough that those arent an issue, next comes the style of play you are running. If you dont like the style of play you will obviously have a problem. Personally, I dont care either way, it isnt my game, I am just here to say that the rules were followed closely enough that people shouldnt be pointing at them saying that they were not used properly.
Nick Soapdish 06-30-04, 02:25 PM	Hitting a mish-mash of points ... The reason that I'm objecting to breaking a round down second by second is that it totally screws up the initiative system. Character A has an initiative of 21. He attacks (and drops Character C - 3.5 seconds) and then moves to Character D. THEN Character B with an initiative of 19 acts. What the flip was he doing standing around for 6 seconds? Surely, he could've taken a simple 5 foot step to impede Character A's progress to D, right? Plus, if a move action is just 2.5 seconds, couldn't you do two move actions and a 5 foot step? If you want to be that picky, you really need to do something like the initiative system from 2E Players' Options: Combat & Tactics. Second, by assuming that they could have acted in that 4+ or 3.5 or however many seconds, you're pretty much automatically giving everyone attacks of opportunity in every situation or at the very least automatically readied actions. You're casting a spell defensively? So you're just standing there? Fine, I swipe at you. There are decent arguments against why the events shouldn't have gone down they way that they did - some of which I agree with in that I wouldn't have ruled in that way - but this isn't one of them. Most of, if not all of, the rulings in question went against the PCs. (I would've killed the sorcerer one round after he lost a finger - 1 point of damage so he bleeds the next round, which would've wrecked the PCs plan of torture.) Regarding magic items ... The DMG states that some magic items appear normal and others appear truly magnificent. 'Pends on how the DM wants them to look. Regarding the sorcerer making the retributive strike ... The sorcerer had been attempting to escape instead. Presumably, he liked his chances better with the Dimension Door than the 50% chance of survival from the retributive strike.
Astanphaeus 06-30-04, 02:49 PM	Originally posted by Scion of Coldshard But, it could very well be that standard actions simply take a certain amount of energy to do that you only have enough of for one round, maybe they are actually the 'shortest' in time scale, but take the most out of you. Besides that however, it is unimportant to the discussion at hand. It doesnt matter how long it takes, simply that the character had an action to take, and used it. An action's type essentially tells you how long the action takes to perform. It matters because it impacts how the situation should've been described. Especially considering that one character gave up an action, because the scenario was, at best, unclear, and at worst, deliberately misrepresented. Strangely enough, the rules seem pretty much intact for this entire encounter. I disagree. Regardless, the situation was handled poorly. If you would like to point out something go right ahead Multiple issues have already been pointed out. I have already debunked the issues frodo has brought up that mattered. I disagree. ~ A.
Scion of Coldshard 06-30-04, 04:01 PM	Originally posted by Astanphaeus An action's type essentially tells you how long the action takes to perform. It tells you no such thing in any real sense. Because we dont know how long the actions take, we only know how long a round is. But, even that doesnt matter. The character had an action, he used it. Originally posted by Astanphaeus It matters because it impacts how the situation should've been described. Especially considering that one character gave up an action, because the scenario was, at best, unclear, and at worst, deliberately misrepresented. 'you move up, trip the apprentice, and then forgo your attack.. as you move up slowly to place your weapon at his throat he clutches his masters staff with fear in his eyes, but then you see a sudden resolve in his eyes and his hands tighten around the staff' boom. Fits perfectly. Originally posted by Astanphaeus I disagree. Regardless, the situation was handled poorly. Because you would do it differently means nothing from the rules standpoint. The rules were followed pretty much whole cloth, your style of play may be different but that is immaterial. Originally posted by Astanphaeus Multiple issues have already been pointed out. Nick and I have both debunked the important issues. Anything left around is stylistic problems. Which can be debated until the world grows cold and nothing will be accomplished. Originally posted by Astanphaeus I disagree. That is ok, but it doesnt make you right. Come up with a few actual rules issues that were done improperly. Anything that is styleistic in nature I will simply ignore, because it isnt important.
eRaz0r 06-30-04, 04:09 PM	Originally posted by Scion of Coldshard Anything that is styleistic in nature I will simply ignore, because it isnt important. Actually - I'd have to say this is the most important thing. Rules be damned ! If the session ended unsatisfactorily for most of the people involved, then it can hardly be considered a triumph of gaming. It doesn't matter if the dwarf had an action left, or if the apprentice needed a knee free to break the staff over. The simple fact is, no one was happy with how it ended. The player felt cheated, the DM felt cheated, the other players felt like casualties of war. Sounds like time to take a breather and go outside and play catch or something. Maybe talk about the weather, cause This game is DONE, dude.
eRaz0r 06-30-04, 04:16 PM	Originally posted by Nick Soapdish Hitting a mish-mash of points ... The reason that I'm objecting to breaking a round down second by second is that it totally screws up the initiative system. Character A has an initiative of 21. He attacks (and drops Character C - 3.5 seconds) and then moves to Character D. THEN Character B with an initiative of 19 acts. What the flip was he doing standing around for 6 seconds? Surely, he could've taken a simple 5 foot step to impede Character A's progress to D, right? Actually, if B had a ready action from the previous round, then he could have interrupted A's attack on D or C if he could have reached him in time. But as you say, even if he were "surprised" , how was it that he couldn't do *anything at all* till his turn came up ? That's why 6 seconds is still too long. GURPS' turns are all 1 second long and you can either step 1 hex and take an action or you can move your MOVE in hexes (which is running). This improves the "simultaneity" of combat simulation, but can make the damn things take even longer to resolve if you're a stickler for the map with miniatures. Personally, I figure, WTH, it's just a game :)
Scion of Coldshard 06-30-04, 04:16 PM	Originally posted by eRaz0r Actually - I'd have to say this is the most important thing. Rules be damned ! If the session ended unsatisfactorily for most of the people involved, then it can hardly be considered a triumph of gaming. While I agree with the sentiment, I was talking about people claiming the dm cheated and went against the rules. It would have been much better to resolve it in a way that everyone was happey with, but going around and spouting that the rules were broken when they were not is not the way to go. Fix the problem, dont make up new ones to complain about.
eRaz0r 06-30-04, 04:20 PM	Originally posted by Scion of Coldshard While I agree with the sentiment, I was talking about people claiming the dm cheated and went against the rules. Agreed. Although he broke the unwritten Rule. The one before Rule 0. "Thou shalt not annihilate the party just because one whiny player pi$$ed you off." also known as "It's not your ball, and you *don't* get to take it home with you."
Scion of Coldshard 06-30-04, 04:25 PM	From what I see he didnt kill the whole party. Plus, there is another rule, 'if players do stupid things, then they deserve what they get' While this is on the edge of stupid/not stupid it could fall either way, and from behind the dm screen it is somehow hard to see how the pc's missed something so obvious as going for a very specific weapon of the master, maybe he expected them to disarm him. never know ;) there are several sides to every tree.
Astanphaeus 06-30-04, 07:20 PM	Originally posted by Scion of Coldshard It tells you no such thing in any real sense. Because we dont know how long the actions take, we only know how long a round is. We have a fair idea how long things take. DMs have to make judgments based on that idea all the time. An action's type essentially tells you how long the action takes to perform. Are you disagreeing with this statement? The rules are not designed to deal with every little nuance. That's why there are DMs. We are given enough of a sense to make judgments. Dealing with the rules requires interpretation, and if you're trying to assert that interpretation was not at any point required here... I'm sorry, we're just going to have agree to disagree. 'you move up, trip the apprentice, and then forgo your attack.. That's where one of the problems start, right there. While your presentation is very nice and neat, that's not how it was presented. It's very handy to be able to retroactively insert a tidy flow... but "it doesn't make you right". The rules were followed pretty much whole cloth, I disagree. Again, it looks all nice and neat with your embellishments and assumptions. But you weren't running it, and it doesn't appear that your tidy scenario fairly represents anything that actually happened at the table. From what I've read, it looks as though you've taken each moment, you've zeroed in on it (at the exclusion of all else), extended the DM the benefit of the doubt each time, and made each moment fit the rules with your embellishments and assumptions. That's my impression. The fact of the matter is, rarely does anything play out so neatly. Again, going back to what I stated several posts ago, the game doesn't run itself. Judgment calls have to be made. Judgment calls have to be made in practically every situation. That's what a DM is for. This situation, which was clearly a mess, despite your attempts to tidy it up, required judgment calls. The DM apparently made those judgment calls in favor of his plans for retribution. I'm sorry, Scion, the rules do not support that. That's not what they're there for. The DM was not playing by the rules, he was playing the rules to support the outcome he wanted. To see that, you have to look at the situation as a whole... which is what you consistently seem unwilling to do. your style of play may be different but that is immaterial. It has nothing to do with style of play. It has everything to do with what the game is, and what the DM's job is supposed to be. You cannot divorce the rules from that. It seems to me that's what you're trying to do. Nick and I have both debunked the important issues. I disagree. That is ok, but it doesnt make you right. Doesn't make me wrong either, which is rather the point. Come up with a few actual rules issues that were done improperly. I'm not saying your interpretations don't work. I'm saying that they're not the only valid interpretations, and many of them probably don't apply to this situation, because the IC and OOC dynamics were not so cut-and-dry as you've painted them to be, nor are the rules as thorough and precise. Your play-by-play explanations appear to rest heavily on assumptions and your own judgment calls. The problem with that is, you weren't there, and you weren't the DM... so your "debunking" isn't all that ironclad. This isn't a CCG we're talking about. Which brings me right back to where I started. This situation could've been handled in several different ways. I think it's safe to say it was handled poorly. The "rules" are not a defense for that, because the "rules" do not run the game. The DM does. The DM must apply, interpret, and define the particulars of rules in every situation. That's how it works. It's not a "style of play", it's the fundamental structure of the RPG, as presented in the core material. This is not a video game. DMs don't get to absolve themselves of responsibility by saying "it was by the rules". You choose to interpret the rules a certain way. That choice is the crux of the issue here, as I see it. ~ A.
Scion of Coldshard 06-30-04, 07:27 PM	I could go through point by point again, but I will simply say this: I think that you are way off base on nearly every point that you have stated, for the reasons I have put up before. You may claim whatever you like, and try to wiggle around and get the interpretation you want by whatever stretch of the imagination, but it isnt terribly important. It does come right down to style of play, because what I gave above is a perfectly reasonable way of stating what 'actually' happened. Whether or not it was what the player said or not doesnt matter. As a player I can say, 'I strike the opponent one thousand times, all criting, and sending the atoms of his body swinging out across the universe' but it doesnt matter, it isnt done (in most games at least). The guy gave up his attack, he tried to do something that wasnt allowed, fine. If you wish to break the rules that blatantly have fun, but I wont be a party to it. So we will simply disagree.
Frodo Lives 06-30-04, 08:49 PM	Nick and I have both debunked the important issues. Anything left around is stylistic problems. Which can be debated until the world grows cold and nothing will be accomplished. You have simply disagreed with the issues presented. You have yet to prove anything other than you don't agree. The apprentice of an evil master isn't usually going to commit suicide or even put himself at great risk for immediate "revenge", and from the sounds of his dialog he didn't even care for his master very much. If the apprentice knew about the paladin, and was watching what took place why would he assume something that the DM obviously didn't think was even an issue. The paladin wasn't even AWARE of what the wizard was doing, if he was then maybe your arguement might hold some truth, and it sounds like it was pretty obvious that what the wizard did, he did on his own without the others realizing it. The others weren't held accountable, so it's a bit of a strech to have the apprentice blame them as well. Plus, there is another rule, 'if players do stupid things, then they deserve what they get' Are you refering to the killing of the sorc as stupid things? I'd love to know how you equate killing the BBEG a stupid thing, no matter how you do it. How would the situation have changed any if the wizard just slit his throat when he was at negative hps instead of doing what he did? What all of a sudden the apprentice wouldn't have been there? He wouldn't have attacked? If the manner of death of the sorc changed the encounter at all then it becomes even clearer that it did indeed change because the DM was annoyed at the player. Besides, do you really think that it is a coincidence that the wizard broke fingers and cut out a tongue of a spellcaster? He did it so that he could revive him in relative safety, now I'm not saying that he may not have enjoyed it and that his intent is what makes this act evil, but it certainly isn't in the same realm of sadism as you seem to make it. You may have huge issues with what the wizard did, I call it good role playing. Do none of your PCs every have a dark edge to them? I think the DM messed up, he killed multiple members of the party for no other reason then he wanted to. You defend him using YOUR interpertation of the rules, I'm not saying that your interpertation of the rules is absolutely wrong, but then again neither are mine. Outside of the rules there are several glaring and (to me) obvious errors in judgement by the DM. I choose to believe the more likely of explainations, that he screwed up (intentionally or not) and it was very poorly run, then give him the benifit of the doubt on every issue. You believe the apprentice was justified and role played believably, I don't. He was merely the facilitator to the end that the DM wanted. Many of his actions and motivations seem quite implausible and make little sense. You believe that one of the most powerful magic items in the game should be as plain as a regular staff, I find that very hard to believe and find the more likely answer to be that either the DM forgot to describe it, or it wasn't even there at the beginning of the encounter. You think it is reasonable for the player to be told OOG one thing and have the IG situation be very different and you explain it that the DM "might have wanted to give him a chance to disarm the apprentice", I think that if the DM wanted to give his players a break and not have them die then he could have, he didn't. To expect a player to change his action to exactly what the DM is thinking is expecting a player to be a mind reader. The player obviously thought that they had the apprentice under control, and that theory was supported by the DMs OOG comments. If the DM didn't want to kill the players then the staff didn't have to be broken, and as a matter of fact (seeing as it was never used up until this point) it didn't have to be a staff of power. The only reason that the characters are dead is because the DM wanted them dead. He could have done many. many things to give them a break (and play out the situation in a more believable fashion). I am a big believer that you don't save characters from death just because. But I am also just as big a believer that you don't kill them just because either.
Scion of Coldshard 06-30-04, 09:38 PM	Debunked were your claims that things were against the rules, while the rules were followed pretty well. Also, doing stupid things is leaving an armed person with an unknown device. This is a world where dragons fly, magic is everywhere, and there are buttons that you simply do not push. In the real world you take away guns from people you wish to capture, in a magical world one would think people would take slightly better steps than were taken. They will know better in the future.
bitnine 06-30-04, 09:42 PM	Originally posted by Scion of Coldshard Also, doing stupid things is leaving an armed person with an unknown device.I don't know why they would have done anything else to the apprentice - dude, the guy was entagled and prone!
Scion of Coldshard 06-30-04, 09:44 PM	which doesnt do anything useful to a spellcaster or to someone with items to activate. Much like a guy with a gun doesnt care about being on the ground with his legs tied, at least as far as shooting the gun goes.
Astanphaeus 06-30-04, 09:51 PM	Originally posted by Scion of Coldshard I think that you are way off base on nearly every point that you have stated, for the reasons I have put up before. Well, "an action's type essentially tells you how long the action takes to perform," is right from the PHB. Most everything else I've mentioned can be backed up by the DMG's content. It does come right down to style of play, That's your opinion. I disagree. because what I gave above is a perfectly reasonable way of stating what 'actually' happened. Interpreting what happened. Key word: interpreting. If you wish to break the rules that blatantly have fun, but I wont be a party to it. Never did I say rules needed to be broken. So we will simply disagree. Yes, we do... and I'd appreciate it if it were left at that, rather than with you re-presenting my position with your own embellishments and hyperbole thrown in. ;) Thanks. ~ A.
bitnine 06-30-04, 09:51 PM	Originally posted by Scion of Coldshard which doesnt do anything useful to a spellcaster or to someone with items to activate.Oh, I know. It's just that that was the quote that the DM gave the PCs. ;)
Jolvar 06-30-04, 09:53 PM	About the staff, it's all the player's fault. They should have secured the evil wizard items in their treasure and nothing about the staff would have happened. And after the fight, someone should have been patrolling to secure the area, which was not done I think. Death for all of you incompetent and crying babies ! :smirk: This was a battle for your lives, not a supervised olympic sport. Perhaps you'll learn next time. The battle is not finished until everyone is at the tavern. Period.
Scion of Coldshard 06-30-04, 09:56 PM	Originally posted by bitnine Oh, I know. It's just that that was the quote that the DM gave the PCs. ;) which migh have been his way of trying to tell them that attacking him would solve nothing, but doing something else would be better ;) Just because the guy did a poor job doesnt mean he wasnt trying, we dont know what he had in mind. Maybe it was simply his way of trying to help, but he failed his inuendo check horribly.
Scion of Coldshard 06-30-04, 10:01 PM	Originally posted by Astanphaeus Well, "an action's type essentially tells you how long the action takes to perform," is right from the PHB. Most everything else I've mentioned can be backed up by the DMG's content. And, as I have stated repeatidly, it doesnt matter how long it took. It took one standard action of unspecified type from a staff, so the assumption is no aoo. He did it during his turn. If you dont like how the system works that is all well and good, but that doesnt help this discussion any. Also, everything I have said is backed up by the core as well, it is simply that most of the points you are making are more about personaly style issues, and so cant be debated in a useful way. Hence all of the hundreds of threads which try to do so, but fail miserably. Originally posted by Astanphaeus Interpreting what happened. Key word: interpreting. So the dm said things poorly and the players misinterpreted as well. Mistakes were made, but the rules seem pretty much intact. Originally posted by Astanphaeus Yes, we do... and I'd appreciate it if it were left at that, rather than with you re-presenting my position with your own embellishments and hyperbole thrown in. ;) Just putting what you are saying into the proper context is all ;)
Frodo Lives 06-30-04, 10:12 PM	Debunked were your claims that things were against the rules, while the rules were followed pretty well. Well, maybe your interpertation of the rules. As it has been stated, the rules to breaking a staff of power are not entirely clear. Yes it is a standard action, and it doesn't require a strength check, but it also doesn't say much else. What kind of movement is needed? Does it provoke an AOO as it isn't really activating a magic item as much as sundering a weapon? The rules say that the staff must be broken, which implies some form of movement, how would being entangled and prone effect this? According to you it doesn't, but again that is only YOUR interpertation, not mine. If no movement was necessary then it should explode with a command word. As for hard and fast rules, off the top of my head I can think of a couple that got broken. The apprentice starts off with a full action instead of a move equivilent before inititive is rolled, that again isn't according to what the rules states for surprise rounds. The paladin detecting evil automatically without willing it is definately against the rules, but it was done. Why? I believe to start trouble within the group for the wizard. There are also lots of issues with things outside of the rules. You seem to give the benifit of the doubt every time to the DM, I don't. There are far too many things done in this encounter that would be the exception to the rule instead of the norm. There are far too many ways that this could have gone down without killing half the party and it would have been much more believable. The OOG comments by the DM were totally unfair because again he implied that the apprentice was effectively disabled, which he wasn't. This tells me a lot about the situation, and it doesn't sound like the DM was trying to be helpful, if he was then he could have done things much better, in many ways To think that it is reasonable that the only way to aviod almost certain death (the apprentice breaking the staff) in a situation is to guess the exact course of action (disarming the staff) when you haven't been given enough information to reasonablely come to the conclusion that you are in serious danger (the staff was unremarkable in any way) and you are even given the impression that you have the situation under control (OOG comment by DM) is IMO very bad DMing. It is the combat equivilent to rail roading. If you as a player would have been happy about the way things went and how your character got killed, fine. Good for you. I, however see far to many questionable actions from the DM to think that this result was anything other than what HE wanted to see happen.
bitnine 06-30-04, 10:27 PM	Originally posted by Scion of Coldshard which migh have been his way of trying to tell them that attacking him would solve nothing, but doing something else would be better ;)Grappling would have actually been fine if you ruled breaking the staff a miscellaneous standard action that triggeres a magical effect, and not a method of activation - particularly since under where it talks about magic item activation it lists the four methods thereof (spell completion, spell trigger, command word, or use activated). That's definately what I'd lean towards given "it can be performed as a standard action that does not require the wielder to make a Strength check." Sure it allows you not to have to make a strength check to make the break DC, but it's still breaking an object - not one of the actions allowed by a grapple. And as I mentioned above, it's very questionable by the rules how the apprentice got his hands on the staff. Surprise round is a standard action only - moving over to and picking up the staff are at best two move actions. And that's if the apprentice is unseen up to 30' away from the corpse. He just shouldn't have been able to run over to the master and grab up the staff before anyone could react.
Astanphaeus 06-30-04, 11:12 PM	Hi, Scion. Look... really. Stop putting words into my mouth. I don't have a problem with the system. I'm not talking about "playing style". Now, if you don't want to accept that, that's fine. Your disagreement does not require your repeated attempts to reword, rephrase, and reinterpret what I've stated. So the dm said things poorly and the players misinterpreted as well. Mistakes were made, but the rules seem pretty much intact. Yeah, that's your opinion. Just putting what you are saying into the proper context is all ;) Cute, but it's getting annoying, so please stop. I've said what I have to say, it doesn't need to be placed in a context by you, and if you can't address what I've said without restructuring it, maybe you should re-examine your own arguments? Thanks again. ~ A.
Scion of Coldshard 06-30-04, 11:34 PM	Once again. SRD: Grapple: Activate a Magic Item: You can activate a magic item, as long as the item doesn’t require a spell completion trigger. You don’t need to make a grapple check to activate the item. No grapple check, no way to stop it with grapple. SRD: Staff of Power: A staff of power can be used for a retributive strike, requiring it to be broken by its wielder. (If this breaking of the staff is purposeful and declared by the wielder, it can be performed as a standard action that does not require the wielder to make a Strength check.) This is simply a standard action, no more, no less. It says nothing about an aoo so it could possibly go either way, but it seems much more likely that it does not provoke an aoo. Making up new rules to break the combat system to pieces (always having readied actions, being able to kill anyone by slitting their throat, or any number of the other faulty reasonings brought up in this thread) are just bad ways to go. If you wish to make a point within the rules go for it, but making things up is simply not useful. The combat system tries to make lots of things that happen simultaneously easy to manage for us poor humans. So, from that context, everything is fine. Stepping outside of it steps outside of the rules, at which point anything is game, but it isnt d&d any longer. And astanphaeus, you keep on talking about the length of time for this, or interpreting that, or playing this. Whatever. The way I have used your words seems to stay in the same context as what you used them for. If you wish to not be paraphrased then you are in trouble, especially as I have been doing it properly. Sorry if that offends your delicate sensibilities. Anyway though, this thread has pretty much degenerated into uselessness. Can he be mad at his dm? sure. Is the dm necissarily wrong in this situation? nope. Maybe the dm made some bad calls, maybe not, we are all only human. Sounds like the pc's made some bad calls as well. The final situation sucks, sure, but there is little that could be done about it. He could have described things better, yep, cant we all. He could have not used a staff of power, great, it is a horrible item anyway. He could have let the characters simply make up rules by allowing them to ready an action instead of useing it to attack, wonderful, that last has to be the most horrible suggestion so far though. Things could have played out differently but a few things are pretty clear. The first act of flaying the guy alive? horribly evil. enough to justify becoming evil on the sheet? possibly, we certainly dont have the whole story here. The retributive strike? apprentice has staff in hands, it is apprenticies turn. End of story. How he got it may be iffy (depends on the campaign, how it happened, when it happened, etc.. things that are outside of what we currently know), but looking past that the actual use was fine. Again, could the dm have explained things better? yep, he certainly could have. Does that make him instantly the symbol of hatred that people have been trying to make him out to be? nope, not even close.
bitnine 07-01-04, 12:02 AM	Originally posted by Scion of Coldshard Once again. SRD: Grapple: Activate a Magic Item: You can activate a magic item, as long as the item doesn’t require a spell completion trigger. You don’t need to make a grapple check to activate the item. No grapple check, no way to stop it with grapple.Here, check this out:The four ways to activate magic items are listed below: Spell Completion: [...] Spell Trigger: [...] Command Word: [...] Use Activated: [...]Breaking Items: When a character tries to break something with suddent force rather than by dealing damage, use a Strength check (rather than an attack roll and damage roll, as with the sunder special attack) to see whether or not he or she succeeds.A staff of power can be used for a retributive strike, requiring it to be broken by its wielder. (If this breaking of the staff is purposeful and declared by the wielder, it can be performed as a standard action that does not require the wielder to make a Strength check.)When you break a staff of power, you're exempted from making a strength check, but you are breaking an object - you not activating a magic item, not going through spell completion, spell trigger, or command word activation. That's even if the retribution is use-activated from taking the action to break the staff. The activate a magic item option of grapple allows you to take two of the four actions used to activate magic items - either spell trigger or command word. (Spell completion is specifically forbade in the grapple entry, and use activated isn't an action - it specifies the item takes effect when you take some other form of action, such as making an attack, putting on a hat, or the like.) Is it the clearest thing in the book? Hell naw. But, for example, if you have a use-activated greatsword, the activate a magic item doesn't allow you to attack with that sword while in a grapple just because it produces a magical effect.
Scion of Coldshard 07-01-04, 12:07 AM	of course, but it was the closest thing listed. But since it requires no strength to do it, then there is no reason to believe you couldnt do it with, say, one hand.
Frodo Lives 07-01-04, 12:18 AM	Making up new rules to break the combat system to pieces (always having readied actions, being able to kill anyone by slitting their throat, or any number of the other faulty reasonings brought up in this thread) are just bad ways to go. None of these things were seriously considered or thought of as viable options, as a matter of fact the whole slit throats example was tongue in check as clarified in the following post. No one is trying to make up rules or change rules or make up rules to fit this encounter. It's just that everyone's interpertation of the rules isn't the same as yours. You may be certain that you are 100% right, but that doesn't always mean you are. Can he be mad at his dm? sure. Is the dm necissarily wrong in this situation? nope. Maybe the dm made some bad calls, maybe not, we are all only human. Sounds like the pc's made some bad calls as well. The final situation sucks, sure, but there is little that could be done about it. There is lots that could have been done, and there is enough evidence that the DM as best, didn't well play this well or even realistically and killed half his party thoughtlessly, and at worse, did it on purpose because he was mad at a player. The retributive strike? apprentice has staff in hands, it is apprenticies turn. End of story. How he got it may be iffy (depends on the campaign, how it happened, when it happened, etc.. things that are outside of what we currently know), but looking past that the actual use was fine. Sure according to the rules he can do whatever he wants, but how he got it wasn't very iffy, he used 2 move equivelent actions when he only had one, which is against the rules in any campaign. Again, could the dm have explained things better? yep, he certainly could have. Does that make him instantly the symbol of hatred that people have been trying to make him out to be? nope, not even close. Symbol of hatred? I must have missed a lot of posts because no one has gotten personal in their attacks or even suggested dumping the DM. I fail to see how I or anyone else (and I must admit I seem to have been the hardest on the guy) have made him out to be a hated figure. Maybe not a competant DM, but certainly not a symbol of hatred. Simply said, I believe that there were a lot of very bad choices and decisions, you may choose to call it playing style, but "DM vs PCs" is a playing style as well. It doesn't mean it's a good one. I can't say for certain what the DMs intent was as I wasn't at the table and don't know anyone that is involved, but I've heard enough to feel confident in my opinion that this whole scene was a result of very bad DMing.
Astanphaeus 07-01-04, 12:26 AM	And astanphaeus, you keep on talking about the length of time for this, or interpreting that, or playing this. Whatever. The way I have used your words seems to stay in the same context as what you used them for. If you wish to not be paraphrased then you are in trouble, especially as I have been doing it properly. Sorry if that offends your delicate sensibilities. You weren't "paraphrasing". You were putting words into my mouth. You weren't using my words. You were using your own and attributing them to me. I never said I had a problem with the system, or anything remotely like that. I never said that any rules had to be broken, or anything of the sort. I never said anything about this being about "playing style". These were all your embellishments and misrepresentations. Sorry if asking you not to put words into my mouth (which is pretty much a common courtesy... you'll note I haven't been doing it to you) offends your delicate sensibilities... but it's not appropriate, particularly in anything resembling a debate, and, again, if you have to reword what I stated in order to address it, perhaps the flaw is in your argument, not mine. Now, I will ask again... please stop. I have stated my case. You have stated yours. We disagree. No, I am not going to let you restate and misrepresent my viewpoint, so kindly just stop doing it. Okay? Good gravy. ~ A.
bitnine 07-01-04, 12:33 AM	Originally posted by Scion of Coldshard But since it requires no strength to do it, then there is no reason to believe you couldnt do it with, say, one hand. Heh. It might be reasonable. After all, grapple doesn't have the option to break an item - but does it really seem plausable that you couldn't even, say, tear a sheet of paper or break a tiny little twig while grappling? Those are actions that require that standard action to make a strength check to meet a (in this case pitiful) break DC, yet it seems like a stretch to say that a grapple makes such strictly impossible. Breaking a staff, with the break DC entirely waived, sounds around the same lines if not easier. That being said, the only options available in a grapple are activate a magic item, attack your opponent, cast a spell, damage your opponent, draw a light weapon, escape from grapple, move, retrieve spell component, pin your opponent, break another's pin, and use opponent's weapon. Break an object or even take miscellaneous action are not options, even for snapping the tiniest weakest twig. That's if you wanted to get nitpicky about the rules as written, which I suppose I don't mind doing. ;) I suppose its a moot point, since the dwarf was dissuaded from entering a grapple (and on a side note, I don't suppose the unarmed damage you automatically deal when successfully entering a grapple would have stopped him). In any event, like I said, I'd be real suspicious since the the apprentice just appeared with the staff in hand before anyone could react.
Aldor Cadarn 07-01-04, 12:59 AM	Hey guys, It has been a while since I posted my last reply. Well, I have talked to my DM about the situation, and, as I bet some of you may be curious about the outcome I shall tell you. Just to remember people about some of the points: My two main points were: - Did I deserve an instant alignment change for murdering the Sorcerer ? As I had posted before, my character had previously made things like saving the paladin's sister, and thwoing myself in front of a Werewolf Lord, sword in hand, to divert a certainly lethal blow to the dwarf, and nothing had deserved an instant alignment change to Good. - If the job of the DM is to make a game where players have fun, does the whole staff incident contributes to the game and the way the players see it in a favorable way ? Is it good DMing ? Well the DM and I are like best friends and stuff, so we met and I talked to him of this. These are his views/explanations, etc. - About the alignment change: He sees my point, and would agree with me. BUT, he had decided when building the whole campaign that Good and Evil are Manicheist. This campaign does not support tones of grey, so that act lead me to evil. I asked then how I could play a neutral character in such a world, and he said that by doing small good and bad acts. Although I didn't agree that my good acts were small, I understood his point. The problem is my style of DMing is a bit different (I usually think in tones of grey about Alignment) - About the staff - my DM said he was sorry for what he did, saying that he was a bit nervous during the session (Mainly because it was BIG session with loads of players), specially with the Dwarf's player(see below). He admitted that he downplayed the staff so he could blow it during the fight, but he was never able to do it. After I did the murdering thing, he loosed the apprentice so that he would blow it near us. He said that he didn't plan to smash it so close to the characters. Here is (more or less) his description of what happened: He had asked the Dwarf's player two times that he sat and didn't look at his rolls behind the screen (with 12 players in this special session you can imagine the mayhem :) ). It seems that he planned to DM-cheat the initiative of the apprentice to make him go first, approach us and blow it from a "safe" distance, we would have some major wounds but nothing more. But the Dwarf guy saw it and shouted "HA! Rolled a 3!!" (A note: Although this guy is a great friend,DMing to him sometimes can be a pain...). Well this made the DM mad and he decided "Well I'll just blow it when I have the opportunity I don't care who goes." And so It went. Well, the DM apologized, he asked me to make another character (his campaign is near the end where the remnant players will fight the great villain and stuff) but I told him I wouldn't because the end was too near and I wouldn't have time to develop it the way I like it. I told him he could have DM-cheated, reducing the number of charges, and he said, yes I could but I didn't think of it. Well that was the end of it, but obviously the questions that ended up being raised are still relevant and I think we should continue the debate. How much evil is too evil, what's the job of the DM and stuff. Thank you all for your support (be it by actually supporting my views or challenging them)!
Jolvar 07-01-04, 01:17 AM	I understand your DM frustration and any player looking behind a DM screen should meet instant death and nothing less. But I agree he should have given you some chance but reagarding the situation, he could not save the good player and thus blasted everyone in the vicinity. Perhaps in his next campaign the DM should select more carefully the players and choose only the potentially good elements. This way, he won't be mad again and do things while losing control of his mind. Talk to him about this. Fewer but better players IS the winning situation for all. ciao
bitnine 07-01-04, 01:27 AM	Originally posted by Aldor Cadarn - About the staff - my DM said he was sorry for what he did, saying that he was a bit nervous during the session (Mainly because it was BIG session with loads of players), specially with the Dwarf's player(see below). He admitted that he downplayed the staff so he could blow it during the fight, but he was never able to do it. After I did the murdering thing, he loosed the apprentice so that he would blow it near us. He said that he didn't plan to smash it so close to the characters.So he had an idea for a neat and scary event where the BBEG would scorch the party with the staff of power unexpectedly, and when the BBEG didn't get a chance to enact it, he introduced the apprentice to do the same. But then the dwarf got him steamed (and I wouldn't rule out the torture emasculation adding to this) and he lost control a little bit. He said "nuts to it" and went all out. If it were just something minor to moderate like the scorchery that the DM wanted to add in for a nice climactic effect, the railroading and fudging wouldn't have been so bad. But when he lost his temper and let it be a real threat - and in fact, instadeath for three PCs, it suddenly became very seriously uncool. It's good that the DM can admit that he made a mistake - because he certainly did. Loosing your temper and taking it out on characters when one of the players gets under your skin is a failing, and something that he should probably work on. Hopefully in the future he'll be more mindful of the same.
jasper 07-01-04, 08:32 AM	is good dming to blow the pcs to little bits. Yes. Who every said the pcs always have to win. Is good dming to go with the roll since the dwarf player called out the dm's roll. Yes. The screen is there so we can fudge with out the players knowing it. Would rather play a Star Trek game where no one really dies, no really leaves, or a Band of brothers where good old Frodo can be crushed under a rolling boulder while the rest of party got away. Is fun never to be able to lose to the monster?
Camellan 07-01-04, 09:50 AM	Originally posted by Aldor Cadarn Well this made the DM mad and he decided "Well I'll just blow it when I have the opportunity I don't care who goes." And so It went. Anyone else find this situation Ironic? The Player is punished for his bloody minded revenge against the annoyance of the BBEG. The GM decides to get revenge against the party because he gets mad, and commits a bloody minded act of revenge against it. Is the GM Neutral Evil now?
Astanphaeus 07-01-04, 11:09 AM	Originally posted by Aldor Cadarn He had asked the Dwarf's player two times that he sat and didn't look at his rolls behind the screen (with 12 players in this special session you can imagine the mayhem :) ). It seems that he planned to DM-cheat the initiative of the apprentice to make him go first, approach us and blow it from a "safe" distance, we would have some major wounds but nothing more. But the Dwarf guy saw it and shouted "HA! Rolled a 3!!" This is where I would've stopped the game. Depending on how irked I was, I may not have continued with the session. I don't think it's a good idea to run something when you're ticked off... particularly if you're ticked off at one of the players. I may have decided to pick up at that point at the next game. At the very least, I would've told that player to leave the table and sit out the rest of the scene. The screen is there for a reason, and 2 warnings is enough. (A note: Although this guy is a great friend,DMing to him sometimes can be a pain...). This could be a serious problem. If he doesn't enjoy DMing, he shouldn't do it. If it's the number of players that's frazzling him, he should limit the number of people he has at his table in the future. A DM who doesn't like being a DM is a sure-fire way of ending up with a lackluster campaign for everyone involved. Well this made the DM mad and he decided "Well I'll just blow it when I have the opportunity I don't care who goes." And so It went. What I'd say to this would be nearly identical to bitnine's response. So I'll just say: well said, bitnine. Well, the DM apologized, he asked me to make another character (his campaign is near the end where the remnant players will fight the great villain and stuff) but I told him I wouldn't because the end was too near and I wouldn't have time to develop it the way I like it. I'd probably feel the same way. Here's a suggestion: If he's a good friend of yours, and if he feels overwhelmed... why not help him run the conclusion of the campaign as an assistant or Co-DM? what's the job of the DM To run a solid, rewarding game for everyone (including himself). ~ A.
Aldor Cadarn 07-01-04, 11:40 AM	Hey Astanphaeus, I liked this idea of Co-DMing. I have a campaign ready to start after this one ends, but I'd like to see how this one ends so I think I'll make the offer. About the dwarf player, I have DMed to him many times and he can be a bit of a nuisance, although his characters are usually cool. I think he is just too agitated. I understand why my DM got angry. :)
Aldor Cadarn 07-01-04, 11:42 AM	Oh, and maybe the wording of this sentence made it dubious: (Although this guy is a great friend, DMing to him sometimes can be a pain...) The guy I'm referring to is the Dwarf Player! Be a DM to him sometimes can be a pain. Sorry for the mess...
Kolo 07-01-04, 02:11 PM	I'd just like to interject a few points; srd; activating a use-activated magic item is either a standard action or not an action at all and does not provoke attacks of opportunity, unless the use involves performing an action that provokes an attack of opportunity in itself. If the use of the item takes time before a magical effect occurs, then use activation is a standard action. Now it boils down to wether it took time to break the staff. Since the description for the staff of power states that . (If this breaking of the staff is purposeful and declared by the wielder, it can be performed as a standard action that does not require the wielder to make a Strength check.) We can safely assume that it does, in fact, take time. Now, would the action of "declaring and breaking the staff, taking some time to do so (standard action)" count as an action that, in and of itself, falls under the heading of an action that provokes an attack of opportunity in itself? Let's check! SRD; Performing a Distracting Act: Some actions, when performed in a threatened square, provoke attacks of opportunity as you divert your attention from the battle. Table: Actions in Combat notes many of the actions that provoke attacks of opportunity. Remember that even actions that normally provoke attacks of opportunity may have exceptions to this rule. Now, usually activating a magic item that is not a potion or a scroll provokes no attack of opportunity, but keep in mind that this is because using potions and scrolls is not only distracting, but also implies movement. Wether you interpret this to mean that breaking something you're holding is the same as using a magic item to cast a spell becomes important. Is declaring and breaking the staff a distracting maneuver? and does it imply movement? (Even better, are you actually activating the staff? retributive strike doesn't fall into the normal activation rules because it's stated to be a standard action in the text, which carries the heavily implied meaning that it's an exception to the normal rules for both breaking items AND activation.) Your call. If it is, the party gets an AoO and can attempt to disarm the apprentice before completing his maneuver. If not (if it's merely a matter of saying "break" or whatever), then BOOM! party dies. I'd say that using retributive strike doesn't necessarily count as an "activation" of the item in the first place, since it is stated that it is, in fact, a standard action in the text, implying that it goes outside the normal rules for activation. Breaking an unattended object does not provoke an attack of opportunity normally, but I wouldn't call the object unattended in this case since the intent of the PC's is clear; to stop the apprentice from doing anything hostile. In any case, I hope this helps rules-wise, even if the situation is over and done with. Good luck and happy gaming!
Astanphaeus 07-01-04, 03:05 PM	Originally posted by Aldor Cadarn Oh, and maybe the wording of this sentence made it dubious: (Although this guy is a great friend, DMing to him sometimes can be a pain...) The guy I'm referring to is the Dwarf Player! Be a DM to him sometimes can be a pain. Sorry for the mess... Okay, no problem. Yeah, I misunderstood. A little pre-emptive strategy for dealing with the dwarf player: tell him he has to sit at the opposite end of the table from the DM. ;) ~ A.
eRaz0r 07-01-04, 03:06 PM	Addressing the issues of Retributive Strike : 1/ Not requiring a Str check != not requiring any movement. You can't just concentrate to break the staff. It's not a command word type action. 2/ There is lee-way in the rules for DM interpretation. If the rules don't say something specific, that doesn't rule that out in all cases. In the case where something isn't specifically stated, the DM should use some common sense. 3/ It seems unreasonable to me to expect that a person can break a staff (with or without a Str check) without needing to grasp the staff firmly and snap it in twain. You can't do this with one hand. The fact you need to explicitly state that you're breaking the staff for a retributive strike implies to me that you get the "no STR check required" as an exception to the normal rule only because you're taking everyone with you. Not because its so easy to break the staff that you don't need to make an action, but because the rules want to make it easy for you to accomplish your self-sacrifice when you so desire. Since the DM has to arbitrate the gaps where the rules are not explicit, I feel that the DM in this case exploited those rules out of pique, rather than used his own common sense. It is against common sense that anyone who was prone and entangled could break a staff (with or without a Str check) in a fashion that was so quick as to be uninterruptible.
wdarkk 07-01-04, 04:22 PM	That depends entirely on how much you have to bend it to break it. My view is that "declaring" you're going to break it is the activation, which makes it brittle enough to make it break if ANY force is applied. There are a lot of things you can break with your thumb and forefinger. If the staff does work this way (declare makes it brittle, then you can break it easily), then the apprentice could do this easily. If I was designing a suicide-bomb, I'd want it to be as easy to set off as possible - and since whoever designed the staff of power deliberately included ret strike, I'd assume they were intelligent enough to do so. None of which changes the fact that the DM was a jerk to use retributive strike at all in the first place.
eRaz0r 07-01-04, 04:44 PM	You know, that might be how you'd design a suicide bomb. So why not make the suicide version Command Word activated ? Hell, if that were the primary purpose of the thing, why not make it so you could command it to explode *from a distance* instead ? I'd much prefer that ! The fact is, ret.strike is the last ditch "If I'm gonna die, I'm taking you guys with me" thing. In the tradition of grand gestures everywhere, a snap of the fingers just doesn't cut it. We're talking, going down with the Balor "Thou Shalt Not Pass!" kinda stuff. Holding the staff over the head when surrounded by a thousand demons and screaming "Hell !? I'll show you HELL!" as you crack it in two. Not, "I'll just surreptitiously snap it with my thumb and forefinger so no one notices what I'm doing" This isn't a gun we're firing. It's not a wand with a command word. We're not even activating the staff to perform its primary functions (which are pretty nifty spells, I might add - he could have used the Wall of Force or Globe of Invulnerability to protect himself instead of taking everyone with him). A certain level of drama should be *required*. But that, most certainly, is a question of style, rather than simple rules. However, even in the rules, the staff actually has to be broken. This does require the wielder to break it, not just think really hard about breaking it. It just doesn't require a STR check - which is a game mechanicy way of saying that the DM can't steal your thunder if you happen to have STR 8. As usual, however, the DM should use his brain when adjudicating such an action. If you're encased in concrete with only one hand free - you really shouldn't be able to break anything. Some degree of movement is assumed. But, by all means, fly in the face of common sense if that floats your boat. After all, why else would we need Rules Lawyers ?
wdarkk 07-01-04, 06:10 PM	In an extreme note of irony, I purchased The Slayer's Guide to Rules Lawyers today. It put this in perspective. Sheesh. The DM wanted to kill the guy's characters. That's really the important part. That was bad DMing of him. Our interpretations of the Staff of Power differ greatly, but the DM wrongness is clearly determined without that.
eRaz0r 07-01-04, 06:31 PM	On that last note, we most emphatically agree !
Frodo Lives 07-01-04, 09:01 PM	He admitted that he downplayed the staff so he could blow it during the fight, but he was never able to do it. After I did the murdering thing, he loosed the apprentice so that he would blow it near us. After I did the murdering thing, he loosed the apprentice so that he would blow it near us. You know, that sounds an awful lot like what I was saying, and while I was wrong when I said that he changed it TO a staff of power, but he certainly hid details from his players just to ensure the end he wanted. So the apprentice made an appearance for the sole purpose of killing the characters. Again, sounds an awful lot like I was pretty close to the mark rather than a difference in "playing styles" It seems that he planned to DM-cheat the initiative of the apprentice to make him go first Well this made the DM mad and he decided "Well I'll just blow it when I have the opportunity I don't care who goes." And so It went. Certainly sounds like he was doing whatever he could to make sure that the result that HE wanted happened rules be damned, and while I don’t blame him for being mad at the dwarf’s player, but that doesn’t really excuse what he did. At least it seems that he realizes he was wrong. Sometimes it's nice to be right, :), after 5 + pages of debating "playing styles" and why the DM made the kind of decisions it looks like while I was off the mark a little, I was pretty damn close. Sorry, but I really like being vindicated. :D As for the other posters, a few comments.Kolo, well said. I must commend you on your research, it is most impressive. Jolvar, I totally agree with you. 12 players really are a lot and probably way to many even for an experienced DM. Jasper: Is fun never to be able to lose to the monster? It’s no fun if it is predetermined and you get killed just because the DM wants you to die. At least not fun for me. eRaz0r: But, by all means, fly in the face of common sense if that floats your boat. After all, why else would we need Rules Lawyers ? Funny line, can I sig it?
eRaz0r 07-02-04, 12:32 PM	Frodo : with correct attribution, by all means, my friend !
Nick Soapdish 07-02-04, 04:56 PM	Originally posted by eRaz0r Actually, if B had a ready action from the previous round, then he could have interrupted A's attack on D or C if he could have reached him in time. But as you say, even if he were "surprised" , how was it that he couldn't do *anything at all* till his turn came up ? That's why 6 seconds is still too long. GURPS' turns are all 1 second long and you can either step 1 hex and take an action or you can move your MOVE in hexes (which is running). This improves the "simultaneity" of combat simulation, but can make the damn things take even longer to resolve if you're a stickler for the map with miniatures. Personally, I figure, WTH, it's just a game :) But B (or the dwarf) doesn't have a ready action which makes the point moot. Anyway, I actually disagree with Scion in that we've thoroughly debunked the opposing points (or at least that I did). (Sorry, Scion.) I'm just trying to say that you can't say that the DM screwed up uncategorically on all points. You can say that you'd have made different rulings on a lot of it, but in most of the cases, the ruling was justifiable.
Scion of Coldshard 07-03-04, 01:32 AM	Which is the very reason why they were disbunked, because they were going for such a hardnosed all-or-nothing attitude which had, and has, in sufficient support. Luckily, with the dm speaking up I was proven correct. Always nice when that happens. In any event, it sounded like the dm had a good plan set up to help the story along with lots of good stuff, and a cheating player ruined the day. Pretty much end of story right there. Everything else that happened after that can be done and redone in any number of ways, but effectively the session was over once someone did something that stupid. Just like I said earlier, player does something stupid, he'll have to roll with the consequences.
bitnine 07-03-04, 01:56 AM	He admitted that he downplayed the staff so he could blow it during the fight, but he was never able to do it. After I did the murdering thing, he loosed the apprentice so that he would blow it near us.Well, to be fair, the cheating player didn't force the DM to downplay the staff in his description, or to insert the apprentice as a manner of triggering the neat event that he had in mind. But as I said above, fudging for a neat event isn't so bad - not like fudging for PKs. And I suppose the cheating player also didn't quite force the DM to get ticked off and said 'nuts to it', particularly in his dissuasion of the dwarf's action with OOC chatter. After all, I would hope that the DM had some sort of measure of self control and perhaps even the ability to stop and take the dwarf player aside if he's being disruptive. Particularly since he went ahead and toasted players who had no control over the dwarf player's cheating. Because having Master Shake as a DM isn't too spiffy. "I will ruin your PC with my anger! I proved it to the dwarf, and I proved it to the wizard, and I'll prove it to anything else - that's a fictional character."
Scion of Coldshard 07-03-04, 02:04 AM	Sure, mistakes were made, not everyone deals with anger properly. But, there were mitigating circumstances. Like I said from the beginning, it is very difficult to say who is in the wrong and by how much with such a serious lack of information. Hence why I was putting forth so many alternate possibilities. Any/all were 'possible', and just as likely as all of the others ;)
Skikka 07-03-04, 12:25 PM	I apologize if I am repeating what has already been said. The character: 1. Mutilated his enemy 2. Healed him 3. Killed him In that order. Mutilating his enemy, removing his spellcasting ability, might have been justified in self-defence, but given the fact that the character killed him afterwards, this was simply cruelty, trying to make his enemy experience more fear and pain before he died. Although the character was angry, I would still qualify this as an act of evil. The character was in controll of his actions and was still aware of the difference between right and wrong. He wanted revenge, which means he wanted his enemy to suffer. Mutilation in this case may not have been evil, and killing might not have been evil (either could, alone, be viewed as self-defence or preventing further evil). Revenge, however, is about causing suffring, and therefore is evil. This act was, IMO, a major evil act. I think it may have warrented an alignment change, although I can't be sure. I do believe that good is hard, so I would be far more willing to change an alignment towards evil for one major evil act than to change an alignment towards good for one good deed. As far as the staff goes, assuming the staff wasn't overpowered for the master, that was just playing the NPCs smart. The apprentice was able to get his master's gear because the party abandoned it (in this case, possibly for good roleplaying reasons) and used the staff in an in-character way. I think that ending was justified.
archcomponent 07-03-04, 05:58 PM	Originally posted by Skikka I think that ending was justified. Completely. We have here one player who's cheating and another who is evil. If I were the DM, I'd be ticked, too. Nevermind the nitpicking about how he may have put in the apprentice just to blow the staff, the bottom line is that the party deserved it. Sometimes putting in a few player deaths is the best way to curb a disruptive group. Who is everyone crying for here? The sadistic torturer wizard? The annoying, cheating dwarf? How about the DM that has to endure this nonsense? He was pushed to his wits end, and he probably realized that the game would be better off without either of this pair. Making sure that staff broke and nuked those characters is not only what they deserved, but in the end, it's what's best for the party, removing those negative influences who couldn't control their actions.
Frodo Lives 07-03-04, 08:16 PM	Luckily, with the dm speaking up I was proven correct. Always nice when that happens. Pardon me? The DM planned the encounter to happen a certain way, (the staff being broken) and even twisted events and was quite clear that it WAS going to happen no matter what. The DM used more than one method to railroad the players and the combat to the ending he desired. Railroading is even mentioned in the DMG as an example of bad DMing, and it can happen in either adventure wide, or just a single combat. These are direct quotes from the post of the player in the game: He admitted that he downplayed the staff so he could blow it during the fight, but he was never able to do it. Well this made the DM mad and he decided "Well I'll just blow it when I have the opportunity I don't care who goes." And so It went. It seems that he planned to DM-cheat the initiative of the apprentice to make him go first, Your whole position during the entire thread that everything was done above board, rule wise and role play wise and that what happened was the result of poor decision making by the players. You stated "role playing styles" and the closest thing you came to admitting that the DM was wrong was stating that he may have made some bad choices. When the situation was clarified it is apparent that the DM rigged the encounter so that a certian event (the breaking of the staff) would happen, it even effected how he presented the whole situation. He planned to cheat on roles, gave the apprentice an extra move equivilent action in a surprise round, and the apprentice probably was added at the last minute for the SOLE PURPOSE to blow the staff. AND he killed the characters because he was mad at a player. So let's see, he cheated (or at least wanted to), he changed the encounter on the fly so the ending that HE wanted happened, he used his descriptions of the encounter to diliberately mislead the players, used OOG comments to try to influence the players actions and he allowed his emotions determine how characters were handled. How exactly do you think that your position is anywhere close to being right? This is almost the exact opposite of your arguements defending the DM. :confused: If there is any doubt, reread your own posts. Your arguements regarding the staff of power and being able to break it while entangled or grappled have had (at the very least) been proven as only one way to interpert the rules, and you have consistantly ignored the fact that the apprentice should have never been able to get the staff legally in the first place! He would be near the staff if he only got the 1st move equivelent action and before he had his next action he was prone, entangled and surrounded! If even the basic rules were followed from the surprise round he wouldn't even have the staff to blow. The player who was caught peeking behind the DM screen was wrong, and deserved to be repremanded for what he did, but not at the expense of the other players or the game.
Frodo Lives 07-03-04, 08:42 PM	Who is everyone crying for here? The sadistic torturer wizard? The annoying, cheating dwarf? Do you find it a little hypocritical that you seem so annoyed about the dwarfs player cheating, but the DM cheating was fine? I'm not saying that what the player did was all right, but I'm not a big fan of the opinion that Rule 0 means the DM can do no wrong. He was planning to cheat to ensure that he got to do what he wanted in a combat. Maybe the dwarf player had reason to believe that and that's why he made a habit of looking behind the DM screen. The player wasn't right in what he did, but then again, niether was the DM.
Dire Celestial Bonobo 07-03-04, 09:20 PM	Originally posted by eRaz0r 3/ It seems unreasonable to me to expect that a person can break a staff (with or without a Str check) without needing to grasp the staff firmly and snap it in twain. Smash it on the ground. The no-check rule strongly suggests that breaking a Staff of Power bears little resemblance to breaking a mundane staff. Even were that not the case, it's much, much easier to break a staff by striking it against something than by trying to snap it over your knee - much better mechanical advantage. In fact, there's no indication that the staff needs to be forcibly broken at all. Suppose the situation went like this: Apprentice: Master! Maaasterrr!! PCs: awww, shaddap. Appr: Master! You will be avenged!! <glowing cracks appear in the staff, rapidly spreading and brightening> PCs: oh sh<boom> Personally, I'd consider that an entirely consistent and thematically interesting description of a Retributive Strike, even though the staff is not physically sundered by the wielder. I'd probably go more for: Apprentice: Master! Maaasterrr!! <flails his limbs helplessly, still clutching the staff> PCs: awww, shaddap. Appr: Master! You will be avenged!! <apprentice raises the staff one more time, this time bringing its far end down to strike sharply on the ground with an unnervingly deafening CRACK!> PCs: oh sh<boom> There is no thematic reason why a Retributive Strike needs to be done with two hands. Since the DM has to arbitrate the gaps where the rules are not explicit The rules are explicit in this case, though. Activating a magic item is something characters can explicitly do in almost every circumstance, even while prone, entangled, and grappled. Moreover, since a character can use a magical staff in one hand and a shield in the other, it's explicit that the staff can be activated with one hand. It is against common sense that anyone who was prone and entangled could break a staff (with or without a Str check) in a fashion that was so quick as to be uninterruptible. A Retributive Strike certainly would be interruptible...if someone had a Readied action prepared to interrupt it (which, now that I think of it, is probably good standard operating procedure for dealing with captives...). If nobody had a Readied action, well, a Retributive Strike is just as uninterruptible as a Full Attack, or spellcasting, or any of the other few dozen D&D actions. By the rules, the apprentice could have either activated the staff's normal powers or made a two-handed attack with the staff even while prone and entangled, and nobody would have had a chance to interrupt these actions. Why is activating another of the staff's powers so impossible when casting from the staff or breaking bones with the staff is so seemingly easy? (That being said, it was IMHO unfair for the DM to do this.)
Skikka 07-03-04, 11:14 PM	Also, the PCs could have picked up the staff after killing the master. Leaving it where the apprentice could find it (and not identifying the master's items in the first place after killing him) was a bad idea.
Frodo Lives 07-03-04, 11:16 PM	Apprentice: Master! Maaasterrr!! <flails his limbs helplessly, still clutching the staff> PCs: awww, shaddap. Appr: Master! You will be avenged!! <apprentice raises the staff one more time, this time bringing its far end down to strike sharply on the ground with an unnervingly deafening CRACK!> PCs: oh sh<boom> Fair enough, in this case however the apprentice did not show remorse over the death of his master, nor did his words portray any thrist for vengence. His words were more in line with being afriad of what will happen next, that the hierarchy has been broken. Now I understand that wasn't the point of your post but it should be made clear that the apprentice's own words did not give off the impression of greif or a need for revenge. Role play wise this does not fit what actually was portrayed as what happened. Activating a magic item is something characters can explicitly do in almost every circumstance, even while prone, entangled, and grappled. Again, this is true. However, the debate concerning this is that breaking the staff is not really activating a magic item, but rather a unique property of the staff of power. It is not mentioned as activating the retributive stike, it simply states that you must declare your intention and break the staff. One side of the debate is that it IS simply activating a magic item, while the other side believes that you use the rules for breaking an item. Which is something that you can't do when grappled. In fact, there's no indication that the staff needs to be forcibly broken at all. Other than the description in the DMG for the staff of power? It clearly states that the staff must be broken by its wielder. Also, the PCs could have picked up the staff after killing the master. Leaving it where the apprentice could find it (and not identifying the master's items in the first place after killing him) was a bad idea. Well seeing as Identify has a casting time of one hour, I doubt they could have done that before the apprentice showed up (even if the wizard had it memorized). Yes, I agree that they could have used detect magic on all the gear and gathered it up, but it still wouldn't have identified the staff as a staff of power, or given much of a clue as to what it was. It was specifically downplayed by the DM so I don't really blame the players for not immediatly stowing it away. Hindsight may be 20/20, but really who expects a suicidal apprentice to run in and have access to such a powerful item before anyone (and there were 12 characters!) could react?
Dire Celestial Bonobo 07-04-04, 01:01 AM	Originally posted by Frodo Lives Role play wise this does not fit what actually was portrayed as what happened. The apprentice could have been throat-singing the bass and soprano parts of the Smurf song for all the difference it would make to his ability to use or not use the staff - the question is under what circumstances a Retributive Strike can be unleashed. In particular, I believe the question (at least originally) was whether a prone and entangled character can unleash one. The answer to that, at least, appears to be an unequivocal yes, since neither condition prevents either activating magic items or breaking objects. One side of the debate is that it IS simply activating a magic item, while the other side believes that you use the rules for breaking an item. Which is something that you can't do when grappled. Rules cite? Note that the list of actions you can do while grappling is inclusive, not exclusive. To see this, note that speaking is not an action on that list, but there are rules for preventing someone you're pinning from speaking. Since such rules exist, speaking must be at least attemptable in a grapple. Since speaking is not on the list of actions you can do while grappling, it is possible to do actions not on that list while grappling. However, it seems reasonably clear that not all actions not on that list are permissible - such as using a sling - meaning that the question becomes what actions are reasonable to do while grappling. Since a Str 1 Pixie with one arm underwater under the effects of a Slow spell can easily and automatically produce enough force to unleash a Retributive Strike, it seems clear that the amount of force required is extremely minimal. Accordingly, it seems emminently reasonable to say that a grappling wizard could generate that trivial amount of force required by getting the staff tangled in the grapple and torquing, whacking the end of the staff against the ground, or any of a number of other ways. In fact, considering the nature of a grapple, it would probably be hard for a wizard keeping a dogged grip on his staff to avoid getting it kinda tangled up and subjecting it to a certain amount of force. Think of it this way: can a Str 40 Half-Orc being grappled by a Str 1 Gnome make a Str check to burst the rope his arms are tied with? Sure - how could the Gnome stop the Half-Orc from flexing his muscles? If you allow that, Break Object is at least possible in a grapple, meaning one that automatically succeeds - and unleashes a Retributive Strike - can likely also be done. Other than the description in the DMG for the staff of power? It clearly states that the staff must be broken by its wielder. It does not say that the wielder must use any particular amount of force, though, simply that they must use a standard action to break the staff. Such breaking could happen any number of ways, from it being an activated power of the staff (the first vignette I presented) to it being an incredibly easy actual, physical breaking (second vignette). Even in the second case, though, no Strength check is required, meaning that in any situation where the wielder is capable of some modest amount of motion, they'll be able to exert enough force on the staff to break it and unleash the Retributive Strike. If a Str 1 Pixie can automatically break the staff, slapping all kinds of conditions on a human breaking it is completely arbitrary.
Frodo Lives 07-04-04, 09:22 AM	The apprentice could have been throat-singing the bass and soprano parts of the Smurf song for all the difference it would make to his ability to use or not use the staff - the question is under what circumstances a Retributive Strike can be unleashed. Well the defense of the DM is that he did everything above board rules wise and role play wise. I did say in my post that while it might have nothing to do with your post rules wise, that it certianly wasn't the situation you were presenting wasn't reflecting what happened. That observation had nothing to do with the rules, and I said so. Fair enough, in this case however the apprentice did not show remorse over the death of his master, nor did his words portray any thrist for vengence. His words were more in line with being afriad of what will happen next, that the hierarchy has been broken. Now I understand that wasn't the point of your post but it should be made clear that the apprentice's own words did not give off the impression of greif or a need for revenge. Role play wise this does not fit what actually was portrayed as what happened. How was I unclear on this? I wasn't talking about rules at this point I was talking about role playing. Because the original defense of the DM is that he did everything above board rule and role play, I'm saying he didn't. However, it seems reasonably clear that not all actions not on that list are permissible - such as using a sling - meaning that the question becomes what actions are reasonable to do while grappling. First you say that it is clearly within the rules, and now you are asking what is reasonable to allow while grappling. Either it is clearly stated in the rules or it is not. Please decide which it is, then I can understand what point you are trying to make. Either way, it CLEARLY states in the description of the staff of power in the DMG that the staff MUST be BROKEN by it's weilder. That seems as clear as they can make it that the staff must be broken. You have said that it doesn't have to be forcibly broken, and while I agree that it wouldn't take much force (as it has no DC or STR check) to break anything there must be some force involved. It also implies that it requires some force or there would be no mention of needed a STR check or not. The rules ARE pretty clear on this point. I wouldn't count breaking the staff as simply activating a magic item, the rules do not give any indication that it is so. There are special rules to described and in the description and even a (slight) description of what type of action it is. I am not saying that it would be impossible to do when entangled (although I'm not sure if it would be possible), but I would rule that breaking an object provokes AOOs. If a Str 1 Pixie can automatically break the staff, slapping all kinds of conditions on a human breaking it is completely arbitrary. Who is adding conditions? If you can break a staff while entangled fine, I personally wouldn't allow it. However that is not a regular activiating a magic item and therefore is subject to AOOs. If a Str 1 Pixie was entangled and prone then the same rules would apply, I am not adding anything because he is human.