On this week's episode of "The Gamer Forge"...

Gamer Forger Listener Email:

Name
King In Need

Comment
I'm running a D&D 4e campaign. IN the game a player has worked very hard and somehow tricked me into becoming a king of an evil kingdom. Good for him he deserves it. However, how do I keep him from:

1.Going into his towns treasury and looting all the gold and buying everything in the D&D manual.

2.Rolling his army out to do quests for him.

Furthermore, how do I challenge a king intellectually and in battle. A personal army would be very annoying for me to maintain and or fight. Imagine rolling 20 times per turn.

Any thoughts at all would be appreciated.

Gamer Forge Response:

Confuscious says: "A king in need is a king who isn't very good at PR". When you hand the keys to the kingdom over to the player, DCR says...

1. Just because its listed in the book, doesn't mean the players have access to it. Take into account geographic, political, and economic boundaries when determining what players have access to from vendors. The new king may have enough money to buy a ballista that shoots whales, but if you're not near an ocean, then you can't have it.

2. The game of politics becomes a story in and of itself. This new king now has to deal with political coups, assassination attempts, bribery, and romantic triangles as a matter of course. If the player wishes to still have the keys to the kingdom, then make these the new "normal". If, after a while, the player doesn't like these story arcs, then make him relinquish control of the throne. Give him/her a fair chance to back down, because he/she may have bitten off more than they chew.

3. If it all seems like too much, then make the player also handle all the mundane tasks of managing his kingdom. It's kind of a dick move. No, it's actually a big dick move, but you do what you gotta do to keep the action of the game moving. Treat it as SimCity: Home Edition. If the player was smart enough to get the keys, then he should be smart enough to take care of the car. Turnabout is fair play.

Gamer Forger Listener Email:

Name

Maverick Johnsen

Comment
Right now, three of my party's members are afflicted with the paranoia insanity. One effect is that paranoid characters cannot willingly accept aid, including healing, without making a Will save against the insanity DC.

However, things don't play out as I expected, in-game:

1.the paranoid cleric will cast a cure spell on a paranoid PC.

2.The paranoid PC will attempt a will save to accept healing and fail, as per the insanity's effect.

3.the paranoid PC then argues that they should get a saving throw against it, because the cure spell is harmless. But by failing, the PC 'suffers' the effects of receive the cure spell.

My problem is that this approach seems to reward PCs who have low Will saves by having a failure on the spell's saving throw become a success for them. Is this just how it is, or are we handling this scenario wrong?

Gamer Forge Response:

The saving throw vs. a saving throw against another saving throw makes a saving throw? We spent more time figuring out the wording than we could find an answer. DCR says:

1. Too much dice rolling. Cut it down to one saving throw to keep things moving. This paranoia is making things much too complicated and stalling things out.

2. The easy way to answer this is to ask: "what are you saving against?" If you, the controlling player, wish to receive something like healing, then you must resist the influence of the mental state. This is one of those times where one must turn off the "meta-game".

3. Also, phrase your questions better, please. We have to be able to understand what it is you are asking so we can actually provide an effective answer. Otherwise, you are wasting your time, and ours. Thank you.

*Bonus XP: For a more in-depth look at what happens when politics become super convoluted and dramatic, take a look at any point in the television show, 24. Next, start moaning about the scene with the mountain lion. Then, play your game as the king of your evil kingdom, and worry about Jack Bauer coming for you, because that's what he does. Congratulations! You successfully became the villain of your own game!

Gamer Forge Listener Email:

Name
Richard Jacobs

Comment
I'm interested in when this constraint from vampire lore was first integrated into Dungeons and Dragons mechanics: has it been there since the first D&D vampire?

Vampires are... unable to cross running water, although they can be carried over it while resting in their coffins or aboard a ship.

The garlic legends I'm passingly familiar with, mirrors, crucifixes and inability to enter uninvited also. When was the first D&D vampire unable to cross running water? Is there some sort of explanation in any game-related material apart from "that's the way it is?"

This came up during a pre-made adventure. In this game a vampire was entombed in an underground complex. After failing to defeat the vampire in his own tomb (I know, my characters rocked) his next move as per the module was escape out the front. Unfortunately for the author they constructed the adventure so that we had to cross a stream before we even entered the complex. In the eyes of a 3.5 (possibly earlier?) vampire this means nigh-certain containment.

My characters destroyed his coffin and steal his grave dirt (leading to abuse of the phrase "I've got a jar of dirt") and the DM had him dominate people across the stream to dig him out from above the cavern, effectively sidestepping that quirky rule. After a few months, though, I haven't been able to puzzle out why that weakness even exists.

Is there any official discussion of the implications of vampire weaknesses in D&D and how to work with them?

Gamer Forge Response:

Because Role-Playing Game, that's why. DCR says:

1. Since always. Vampires were included in the original box set in 1974. The commonly held stories were used as part of the D&D mythos from the start. It's about commonality. The term "vampire" is so ubiquitous with our culture, the image so ingrained in the collective education of the last century, that "vampire" has a history book all it's own. If D&D were to suddenly change the definition for their game, nobody would want to play it. Part of the allure of fighting Dracula is the feeling of heroism that comes from defeating Dracula. If Dracula were to suddenly resemble Chewbacca, then the prospect of defeating him isn't cool anymore.

2. You have to quantify the challenge to put it in context with a game. Defeating or otherwise successfully navigating a vampire must be worth something, or worst case scenario, failing to defeat the challenge must be worth something as well.

3. The idea of vampires having limits isn't something invented for the game. The reason a vampire has weaknesses is so we can contain it within our own imaginations. If we envision an embodiment of pure evil and temptation and it has no weakness, it crosses the boundaries into a psychosis. It becomes something that in our own minds can't be stopped. We become terrified of our own idea. Not cool.

Gamer Forge Listener Email:

Name

Stanley Finnley

Comment
In just about every edition of D&D (save for 4e), Paladins are required to be Lawful Good. If they stray from that, they are completely stripped of their powers. This means that evil deities can't grant powers to paladins or if they do, they go into a new class (e.g. Anti-Paladin).

My question is: why? Why was it designed that paladins have to have such a strict alignment? It seems to me that it unnecessarily pigeonholes the character types and doesn't make sense in D&D world. After all, couldn't evil deities have holy warriors?

I also don't understand the mechanical decision about why was it designed that an evil Paladin has to be a different class. Wouldn't this create a problem if you wanted to redeem an evil Paladin into a good one? This never really made sense to me until 4e where they just dropped the Lawful Good restriction entirely and let you have a Paladin of Vecna (or have that Paladin of Vecna become a redeemed Paladin of Pelor without having to switch classes).

Gamer Forge Response:

Another Paladin question!?!?!?! Are you guys trying to stump us with this subject, or is it legit confusing? DCR mercifully says:

1. The alignment isn't strict. The tenants of the deity are. "Lawful" can (and does) indicate adherence to a code. "Good" indicates that the code is good in nature. This also should not have a bearing on the personality of the Paladin in question. Put the two together, and you shouldn't get "lawful stick-up-the-butt".

2. The Paladin becomes an "Anti-Paladin" or "Blackguard" prestige class if and when they deviate from the deity's tenants or in some way lose favor with their deity. Remember, a "paladin" is an exemplar of the deity's aspects or "domains". Part of the code of conduct should include advancement and perfection of those aspects. Similar to the aspects of a "monk".

3. But in 4th edition D&D, the "Blackguard" becomes a character class from 1st level. The "good" thing isn't really a factor. You can find it in Heroes of Shadow supplement book. In all honesty, it's not very good. Seriously, it's soooo not worth it.

Gamer Forge listener Email:

Name

Mystery Man

Comment
Can a sleeping character hide at all? If they do so, do they roll Hide when they go to sleep (for hiding their sleeping spot, etc.), or do they make an opposed roll every time someone attempts to spot them?

Gamer Forge Response:

When trying to grab a few extra winks, DCR says:

1. Finally, an easy one. You can attempt to hide yourself before you go to sleep. That's called camouflage. But you can't do it while you're sleeping, as it is something that you must concentrate on.



Bonus XP: The Paladin and Monk have a good deal in common. Indeed, the two could learn more than one thing from each other. The Monk follows an ideal along the lines of "pursue to perfection", hence the physical training regimen. Also, think of concepts like "mind over matter" and apply them to the Paladin. While you're at it, why not create your next character as a Monk, but call yourself a Paladin. Now you can see the similarities, we hope. Also, take a trip back in time by watching Enter the Dragon with Bruce Lee. A good guy following a code of  honor while fulfilling the tenants of his order and questing? Yep. That's a paladin, all right!

Gamer Forger Listener Email:

Name:
Sam Hutchinson

Comment:
I've got a character who needs more melee weapon damage. What kind of things can you do to increase the damage?

Gamer Forge Response:

When it comes to putting that extra force behind your swings, DCR says:

1. A nasty combination of getting a ridiculously high melee damage output would be combining the feats Improved Initiative, Death Blow, and Improved Trip, along with a weapon called a Ghost Head Broadsword, can raise your muscle to its upper limits. Improved Trip states that a successful trip attempt results in the character NOT having used the attack action for the trip attempt. Death Blow states you can make a coup de grace as an attack action, not a full-round action. The GHBS features a 1d10 damage with a times 3 critical multiplier and an 18-20 critical threat range. So, quick math reveals (1d10+STR+magic+feats) x 3 x (z) = OMG! Where z=number of attacks per round. A coup de grace is considered an automatic critical hit. Who says junior high math doesn't pay off?

Another option requires a significant purchase or, alternatively, a great deal of looting. The epic items, Gauntlets of Relentless Might, and Headband of Perfect Excellence should get you licking your chops. The Gauntlets give you a boost of +6 to STR and CON, while the Headband give you a whopping +6 to STR, CON, and WIS. Great for monks! Because, twinking your characters, that's why.

....and players wonder why some of this stuff didn't transfer from one edition to the next.

Gamer Forger Listener Email:

Name:

Louis Christie

Comment:
The Player's Handbook states that you can get "bonus spells" for certain ability scores, but does that mean more spell slots/spells per day, more spells known, or both?

Gamer Forge Response:

Can you spell slots? Get it? Spell? Slots? Yeah, us neither. DCR says:

1. Bonus spells gained through a high attribute do NOT grant additional spells known. Only spells per day. A "wizard" can know any number of spells that they have in their spell book, but only that many. They can't spontaneously know more. Conversely, a sorcerer has innate knowledge of spells, but cast via force of personality, not knowledge. Making a sorcerer smarter won't change anything. Also, bonus spells also doesn't grant you access to spells of levels you don't know yet. Example: a first level wizard who has bonus spells up to third level, doesn't start off knowing third level spells. Once they can cast a third level spell (at level 5, if memory serves), then they can utilize the bonus spells (per day) for their high intelligence score, thus casting more spells per day than the standard wizard.

...again, none of this grandfathered in to the fourth edition.



Gamer Forger Listener Email:

Name:

George Stevenson

Comment:
A lot of the time I find that my players are using their knowledge about the game to there characters advantage even when the character would have no way of knowing certain information.

Here is an example. Trolls do not regenerate when struck by acid or fire damage. A lot of times I find that my characters always carry around a vial of acid or a fire spell just in case they meet a troll. When they have never faced a troll ever in the life of their character.

Another example would be when the characters find a portal that is blood red, a player will say, "That portal will take us to the Abyss!!" and BAM the surprise is gone.

There's more but I'm not going to make a huge list of examples. I mean I'm really glad that my players take the time to read up on this stuff but sometimes it ruins the suspense and belief of the game, I mean how would a half Orc barbarian know that a certain marking on a wand means its a Wand of Burning Hands?

My question is this: How do you get players to use character knowledge instead of player knowledge?



Gamer Forge Response:

The ultimate thin red line between playing and cheating: metagaming. DCR says:

1. Describe monsters as if you don't know what it is. A very common (and very easy) pitfall of gaming is players like to spend time immersing themselves in the lore of the world in which they play. It isn't good or bad, it's just something everyone does. Counterbalance this by no longer assigning the common name for the enemy the first few times they encounter it. Don't call a "gnoll" a "gnoll". Getting the players in the spirit of the world starts with the Dungeon Master getting in the spirit of the world. However, once the characters have been around for a while and survived a good deal, it's cool to let them know aspects of creatures, especially commonly encountered creatures.
2. If you feel that the metagaming crosses the line into cheating, the next step is to not let the players assume the have the advantage. Remember the old adage about "assume"? It makes an "ass" out of "u" and "me". The moment someone makes the assumption they have the advantage, they will behave as if they do. Another easy pitfall. At the early stages of the game, players assume they know exactly how to entice the goblin king out of its cave? Put the kibosh on that by saying, "Roll me a (insert relevant lore check here), please." If they succeed reasonably at the check, then they can know some of the information on the goblin. Otherwise, they don't know, and can respond with something like, "Find another option, please." Certain aspects of logic are enforceable!
3. You will never fully be able to curb it. You can't make players forget what they learned about the game unless that player is Homer Simpson, or you have a fondness for causing head trauma. But we don't judge, either way.


*Bonus XP: Still feel like you're not doing enough melee damage? Try this little tidbit: the D&D 1st edition rules on an assassin sub-class allow for a special attack that can kill an enemy outright, regardless of how many hit points they have. The player has a percentage chance, based on level, of successfully using the attack. Even better, if the attack fails, he/she still deals normal sneak attack/backstab damage. A little house rule can transfer this into a more current rule system. The assassin starts with a small percent chance of killing the target, say 25 percent. Then every other level thereafter, that percentage goes up. So, around 10th level, they may have a 50 percent chance of assassinating the enemy. Now, if that doesn't whet your appetite for destruction, then maybe you start seeing a shrink. Just saying.

Gamer Forge Listener Email:


Name: Steven

Comments: I recently started DMing after playing 4th edition D&D around 10-15 times. While going over player and DM books I started to wonder if regeneration works while a PC is dying.
For example, a level 2 fighter by the name of Korgul is down to -2 hit points. In the previous round he used Boundless Endurance. Since his modifier for the skill gives +2, that is a regeneration of +4. This would mean that he would get to 2 hit points at the start of his round and become conscious? Or does the regeneration stop?
Well this turned into to 2 questions actually. First one is about regeneration and dying in general. Does dying count as bloodied in relation to Boundless Endurance.
To me, as a DM, if regeneration worked while dying it would seem overpowered.

Gamer Forge Response:

DCR says:

Regeneration does take effect after you fall below zero hit points. Most of the regeneration powers require you to spend an action of some kind to activate, so you must be conscious to use it. If the regeneration is in effect before the character falls, then it stays active while they are down. No need to deny what is rightfully won. BUT, keep in mind that death saving throws must still be taken when a character falls below zero hit points, as usual. In short, regeneration is fair game.

Gamer Forge Listener Email:

Name: Richard Besley

Comments: When I first started playing with a group of completely new players, one of the first things I did was to explain the alignments as best I could at the time. When describing Chaotic Neutral, my exact words were, "A chaotic neutral character will do whatever he wants to do, so long as there is a reason that is justifiable to at least him behind doing so."
Well, recently, I'm beginning to think that that explanation is not exactly accurate, or at least not perfectly clear.
To explain, through every game I have played with this group, I have regretted each and every time I allowed a player to play a chaotic neutral character. The exact same thing will happen, no matter how many times I explain why it shouldn't. Said character will, for no reason I can fathom other than because his player (and by extension the character itself) wants to. Anything from using a squirrel to test out a new spell, to burning down the local pub to stop the flow of polluted beer, to openly mocking authority figures until nothing short of character death is put on the table, and even then only because I made the desire for self-preservation a required character trait. This is not to say that they do this because they prefer to, or that it's simply a style of play that they find more fun. We've played campaigns where I banned chaotic-neutral alignment, and everyone enjoyed themselves without this being an issue. It's simply that, whenever this issue comes up, I'll point it out to them and they'll reply with some variant of, 'I'm a chaotic character, and I'm being chaotic. Why is that wrong?" I don't have an answer to that.
So, what's a better way to describe a chaotic neutral character? How do I explain to this group that, even if the alignment is 'chaotic,' that doesn't mean they have to play either chaotic-stupid, or insane?


Gamer Forge Response:

DCR says:

Your alignment isn't like the alignment on your car! These things can change and shift like the winds. When it comes to not making your character "Chaotic Stupid", DCR says:

1. What defines chaos and neutrality, and what happens when you combine the two? "Chaotic Neutral", as defined by Dungeons and Dragons, states that chaos must balance the scale between good and evil, without preference to either one. This is much easier than it sounds. Being unpredictable is only small part of the big picture. The end result should be something along the lines of everything balancing out, and neither side is ahead. That's the real problem. "Chaotic Neutral" involves nobody truly getting ahead in anything.

2. Motivation! Alignment is a motivation, not a justification. It's about the start of the action, not the end. Your character's alignment is never a reason to commit a good or evil act. If the character is already bent on burning down an orphanage, he/she is gonna do it. But this also means that the character is already evil. We say that an alignment can change as soon as your GM decides that your motivations are clear. If you are hell-bent on being "Chaotic Neutral", be aware that that can change just as easily as your actions do.

3. You are an outsider! As "Chaotic Neutral", you will be extremely hard to deal with, professionally and personally. Your shifting attitudes and actions will make you hard to pin down and even harder to rely on. That's just it: you will ultimately be unreliable! Nobody will want to count on you. So what's the point of even playing? You may as well be playing a computer game. Sadly, this is where being this alignment hits a dead end. We say that  it's best to just steer clear of "Chaotic Neutral". Alternately, just do away with alignments all together.

Bonus XP: Jeff "The Dude" Lebowski. That's the only real exemplar of "Chaotic Neutral" we can think of. Which absolutely proves the point that this alignment is unreliable. Funny? Yes. Adventure? Not at all. At best, he is motivated by laziness and keeping Walter off his back. Remember this the next time you decide to pop that movie into your DVD or Blu-Ray player.

Gamer Forger Listener Email:

Name: Javik

Comments: I apologize beforehand if this question has been asked before, I was not able to find one, except this, which may be related: Dealing with players who try to run from everything?. Also I'd like to note that english is not my native tongue, so please be gentle.

The problem

I have a player in my group which tends to approach local authorities (may it be guards or churches) when facing a threat. He thinks that, given his role (a bard in a medieval world, so, more or a less, a civilian), this is what one of his kind would do in such situations. The other characters, more powerful (knight, ranger, sorcerer, ...), are the passive kind of players and do not prevent him from doing that.

While this behavior is not unjustified, the whole point of playing the game is to solve problems on your own (IMHO), even if they seem to be overwhelming. Sometimes it is justified, but most of the time it makes things only more complicated in terms of:

•The storyline, like the one time they faced a single undead raised by a curse in a city at night, where he handed over the ring which has caused the curse to the local temple, instead of trying to find out about the origins of the curse and how to break it. As soon they have found out that the curse has not been broken and it only affects a certain party member, the required ring was out of reach ... ooops, now they are in trouble (including the storyline).
•The threat level, because the encounters have to be extended, so that they are a threat to a group of adventures AND a bunch of guardsmen. One time the same player in another group abandoned the whole group for a 14 days travel to contact a befriended inquisitor about a serious evil thread to get the support of a bunch of knights.
The examples above are presented in a more superficial way than they actually are. The true story behind is way more complicated, including aspects of personal motivation.

I could tell the player to stop doing that, but I'd prefer to solve the issue in the game, without overstretching means like:

•Authorities are too ignorant/busy/incompetent to care (which in the long run will seem like all authorities in the world are essentially only decoration)
•The adventure is happening in a "closed" environment like extreme wilderness, a ship on the ocean, an area locked because of a plague etc.
The question

What can I do ? How do you deal with such behavior ?


Gamer Forger Response:

This one was a long question, but we got your solution in one neat, tidy packet! Your party needs a spoony bard, and here's some good reasons why you should keep doing it. But being a bard ain't easy. When it comes to really confusing situations with your bardy-bard, DCR says:

1. Bards aren't really fighters, anyway. Not fighting is just as legit as getting your hands dirty. Indeed, the concept of "bard" was never intended to be a heavy damage dealer. They were meant to supplement the others in their duties and function as spokesman for the party. Playing a coward is just as valid as playing a fearless barbarian. There's no need to encounter the pressure of others to behave as they do. Other players should worry about how they play, not how others do.

2. You've encountered the consequences of your actions, now you get to deal with it. Not much else to say about that. Running away is just as good, but there's still consequences. No matter what you do, this will always be the case. Ain't no running away from your fate.

3. Talking is your job. If you're not feeling up to snuff keeping up with the "tanks" and "casters", maybe "bard" isn't the right choice for you. Nothing wrong with that. The classes were created to have distinct strengths and were meant to played to those strengths. Frankly, it's best and easiest to say that it's time to consider trying a different character class. There's no shame in realizing you may be wrong. Just remember to handle that gracefully, please. Firebird suggests that you ask "What do I want to play today?" Think of how you like to do things.

*Bonus XP: When running and/or playing any tabletop RPG: Everything is a variable. Never count on players behaving a certain way. Never count on a GM to behave a certain way. You may no always be comfortable being outclassed or overmatched, but you must be okay with the circle of life. Just because you see a mountain, doesn't necessarily mean you have to be the one who climbs it. Its just a mountain.

Remember to listen to the complete Gamer Forge segment each week during the "live" broadcast from Epic Puzzles and Games in West Valley City, Utah every Monday from 6-8 pm MST. If you have issues or questions in your game, contact DCR to help level up your game at [email protected]!