Hey guys, I need some advice on how to deal with a player in my group. He's a nice guy and all, and not a problematic player, its just he constantly tries to push the boundries of his class and I'm worried if I give him too much leeway he'll expect more and might lead to arguments. I'm running a homebrew campaign as well so im not against giving out new feats or bending the rules.
Because of an accident his character ended up in the Astral plane and is trying to find his way back. I thought it would be fun for him to encounter some Giff in the middle of a fight with some Githyanki in a ship battle. He is playing a UA Artificer character with the Alchemist archaetype. He wants to do stuff like filling up a can or hollowing out a canon ball with his alchemist formula to make big bombs and has it in his head that the Giff would surely trade their knowledge of gunpowder with him after the battle which I assume he'll want to make guns with. I just know he isn't going ot be happy if I tell him no and I'm sure he'll be equally dissatisfied if we roleplay it out.
From that one example, I don’t see the problem. Sure, the giff might not want to make that trade, but that doesn’t invalidate the idea of trading. If this action is in the character’s nature, then I really do not see the problem. I’d just think of what things they’d actually think was a worthwhile trade and make a counter-offer, or say, “the giff don’t seem interested in your product.”
Thats kind of what I had in mind. It can be other things to like constantly trying to take extra actions and stuff. I guess I'm trying to find that balance between wanting to be accommodating for my player for fun and stuff but I don't want to break the game or get into arguments. Hes a good guy but gets hung up on realism vs game mechanics.
In cases like these, "No, but..." is often a useful thing to say. Maybe the Giff won't teach him how to make weapons but they'd be happy to trade him a firearm. You might not be able to give the player what they want, but that doesn't preclude giving them something else they'd be happy with.
So... how is this metagaming? I mean, if the character came across a battle the giff are involved in, he's going to see their weapons in action. If he's an artificer, he's going to want to be taught how to build one or reverse engineer it. As an alchemist, he's particularly qualified to make the materials that make the gun go bang. He may even be able to deduce how the weapon works theoretically, and would only need a few pieces of information to construct one of his own.
Artificers artifice. They build, craft, create. "s what they do. This sound like a player who's playing what a person who holds an artificer job would actually do in the situation. If you didn't want guns and such in your players' hands, why did you introduce them to your campaign?
I would see this as a great way to have a player driven game. He gets a fun and some powder, which he will through his alchemy skill figure out how to make. But now he needs the ingredients to make it. This being the astral plane, and dungeons and dragons no rule says it has to be the real life equvilant to gun powder.
I agree with dam Sam Hain I don't see this as a meta game issue, just a artificer being a artificer
Edit: you could also instead of guns have the gift give him a ride out of the astral plane. They might know a portal to the prime were they mine sulfur or what have you.
Yeah I was intending the Giff to take him back to the Material plane once the battle was over. The problem is if he gains access to guns than that is metagaming because although he is an artificer, he choose the alchemist path, not the gunsmith path. Fighters cant be both a champion and a battle master for example. I'm not going to let him have any permanent firearms regardless. That's not really what I'm asking advice for. It's just one example. I probably did a terrible job at explaining my situation at the start of this thread. It was a little rushed.
I'm not sure what the issue is, and that may be because of a difference in understanding by the term metagaming. I understand metagaming to be when someone uses knowledge of things outside of the game to unfairly influence events within a game. Examples would be knowing all of a monster's weaknesses even though their character has no reasonable explanation why they would know that, or knowing exactly where the party should be because they acquired the campaign book and know all the 'answers'. Someone seeing any type of desirable weapon, artifact, or item and wanting to acquire it, whatever benefits or features it grants, is not metagaming. It's what practically all players would do. You might need to clarify the issues for us.
I'd let him try to make a gun, on the understanding that as a prototype it might misfire and explode costing him an eye and some fingers. It would also mean keeping the powder dry, and the fuse or percussion caps in working order. Loading it would take much longer than six seconds so during melee it would be one shot then basically an ornate club.
I can see your point on metagaming, the player is assuming the character would know the concepts of controlled explosions and rifling. The development of effective firearms took hundreds of years.
So, 1 thing that you need to remember is that an artificer's "bombs" are unstable. Once the materials are mixed, you've got 1 round to catalyze a reaction otherwise the compound becomes useless or "vanishes" depending on raw vs fluff. So if the character is trying to make a BIG bomb using a can or a ball, that's something I'd probably not allow frequently. MAYBE if they expended a spell slot I'd let them artifice some kind of large bomb because it's "what they do." But I wouldn't do it for free, and it would be situational.
The second thing is the ability to produce new alchemical formuals as a class feature, (eg gunpowder.) IMO you should allow this, however bear in mind that addl alchemical formulas will be just as fleeting as their other stuff if they just want to pull it out of their bag. Otherwise they'd use the crafting rules to generate ammunition (any character should be able to do this, not just an artificer, btw) and you can set the cost/scarcity of finding the various ingredients.
Yeah I was intending the Giff to take him back to the Material plane once the battle was over. The problem is if he gains access to guns than that is metagaming because although he is an artificer, he choose the alchemist path, not the gunsmith path. Fighters cant be both a champion and a battle master for example. I'm not going to let him have any permanent firearms regardless. That's not really what I'm asking advice for. It's just one example. I probably did a terrible job at explaining my situation at the start of this thread. It was a little rushed.
Giving him A GUN does not make him an artificer gunsmith, any more than giving a Fighter a crossbow makes him a Ranger.
A gun in D&D usually has a reload requirement and might do 2d10 max damage (more or less, it's up to you; or just take whatever it says in the giff stat block). Unlike the artificer's thundercannon, when using the gun he's going to spend rounds reloading (action to reload) which he can't get around without investing a feat or multiclassing. He's also not going to be able to use a special action to fire a magical shot that does tons of bonus damage. It's basically a fancy crossbow... He's also probably not even proficient with it, so +4 to hit? Maybe? So no, giving him a gun will not instantly allow him to multiclass into the gun-smith. That's completely not a thing. He probably just wants access to a weapon that isn't based on a the creature he's attacking making a dex save, and that is also thematic and plays well with his character.
I would STRONGLY advise you to reconsider not giving him a gun in this situation, because the artificer does have some holes in it, and this is one of them. If you aren't willing to bend on this sort of thing, it might be a good idea to ban unofficial content from your games entirely, because this is the sort of thing you WILL run into with UA content.
^ this ditto'd x 10. Guns in and of themselves are included as weapons in the basic rules. A weapon does not define a class, they are the basic way with which all classes deal damage. You have already introduced guns to your campaign. You cannot at this point forbid your players from obtaining them without a vaild reason.
Gunsmiths are gun-crafting experts, yes. They are not, however, the only one capable of making guns. Any blacksmith can build the components, any alchemist can get together the powder. There is no valid reason an alchemist can't build and wield a gun. The only valid issue here would be if the player were then trying to claim his character had access to gunsmith abilities.
You could offer to let him learn the secrets of gunpowder, but the Giff explain that these are arcane secrets from alien realms so would probably extract a mental cost to learn. That cost would be most all his knowledge of alchemy. This is to say that the player can take this opportunity to change subclass, but not to learn how to make bombs and firearms while retaining their other artificer skills. This is the only trade these Giff will accept - knowledge for knowledge.
If you don't want to let the players have access to something, don't let them see it. If you put anything on the table, anything, the players will have access to it. The bad guy has a wand that allows him to cast time stop, the players will want it after they kill him. The dragon has a rider on it...the players will want to ride a dragon. The gnome has an invention that allows him to tunnel from place to place, the players will want one.
---
If you feel that your players are going to gain access to something they shouldn't have, create obstacles, give them challenges to overcome. Make it part of their journey to become stronger heroes. You wiggle a carrot in front of their noses and yank it away every time they get close...you'll have a riot in no time. You have the perfect tool to create a fantastic story, and you're complaining. This isn't metagaming on the player's part, it's a mistake in DMing on yours, every interaction, every player choice, everything that happens in the game is an opportunity. Figure out a reason why learning about gunpowder is dangerous, what the cost is to learn how to use it, how long it'll take to learn to craft with it unassisted. The Giff can teach him...but how many weeks, month, years would it take to become as familiar with it as the Giff?
You hit a DM wall...rather than punish the player, learn from it and figure out how to compromise with the player's desire and your mishap.
As for him trying to much on his turn, you just have to remind him he's got six seconds. If he prefers realism to game mechanics remind him that in the real world things happen simultaneously so why he's swirling his magical juices in a cannon ball the gith are pissed and coming for him they will now take their turns to simulate this. I try to narrate the round at the end of it to get everybody on the same page.
Sent some low levels against a veteran. Fighter charges, attacks, and misses. Druid charges, attacks, and misses. Rogue charges, attacks, and misses. (wtf) Veteran multi attacks hitting druid and fighter, forgoes movement. Round ends. "You all rush the lone swordsman as he throws back his hood revealing his balding head. He catches the fighters swing, swiftly drawing his side arm (short sword) he catches the druid's strike as well. Rogue takes advantage of the apparent struggle to stab at him only to find empty air as the swordsman ducks low slashing his original attackers."
Why not let him gain enough knowledge to create a gun that lasts only 1 or 2 turns before it destroys itself and deals him damage equal to half his current life points. That way he can have his gun but he is going to be super careful about how he uses it and isn't going to run around the place firing at every low level character he sees.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A caffeinated nerd who has played TTRPGs or a number of years and is very much a fantasy adventure geek.
Why not let him gain enough knowledge to create a gun that lasts only 1 or 2 turns before it destroys itself and deals him damage equal to half his current life points. That way he can have his gun but he is going to be super careful about how he uses it and isn't going to run around the place firing at every low level character he sees.
Because that's the definition of a DM punishing a player for good roleplay?
Why not let him gain enough knowledge to create a gun that lasts only 1 or 2 turns before it destroys itself and deals him damage equal to half his current life points. That way he can have his gun but he is going to be super careful about how he uses it and isn't going to run around the place firing at every low level character he sees.
Because that's the definition of a DM punishing a player for good roleplay?
Reworked to be less painful, it could still be an applicable compromise.
There are limited uses, fine. There is a chance it can blow up, better than it will. Need for spending resources to maintain and use it, could work. Possible failure with nothing but a missed action, annoying but applicable.
Well its not really. He gets a very cursory amount of knowledge from the Giff and with his knowledge as an alchemist, is able to create an imitation of their weapons. This isn't a perfect weapon though and he needs time to gain more knowledge and refine it.
At this point, it lasts only one or two turns because he lack the knowledge and skills to make anything better.
That seems fair to me. He shouldn't just be able to make these weapons that are going to nerf the game. I mean very few creatures are going to withstand a bullet to the head, so this is like a super weapon and as such it needs to have some serious limitations so that it becomes a weapon of last resort and not something he reaches for automatically
edit - @swashbuckler has suggested a pretty good compromise between my idea and not having it at all. Though I still think youd have to reduce its stats so it doesn't just one or shot kill something.
Hey guys, I need some advice on how to deal with a player in my group. He's a nice guy and all, and not a problematic player, its just he constantly tries to push the boundries of his class and I'm worried if I give him too much leeway he'll expect more and might lead to arguments. I'm running a homebrew campaign as well so im not against giving out new feats or bending the rules.
What is it exactly that is causing a problem with the player? Pushing boundaries how?
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Because of an accident his character ended up in the Astral plane and is trying to find his way back. I thought it would be fun for him to encounter some Giff in the middle of a fight with some Githyanki in a ship battle. He is playing a UA Artificer character with the Alchemist archaetype. He wants to do stuff like filling up a can or hollowing out a canon ball with his alchemist formula to make big bombs and has it in his head that the Giff would surely trade their knowledge of gunpowder with him after the battle which I assume he'll want to make guns with. I just know he isn't going ot be happy if I tell him no and I'm sure he'll be equally dissatisfied if we roleplay it out.
Its stuff like that.
From that one example, I don’t see the problem. Sure, the giff might not want to make that trade, but that doesn’t invalidate the idea of trading. If this action is in the character’s nature, then I really do not see the problem. I’d just think of what things they’d actually think was a worthwhile trade and make a counter-offer, or say, “the giff don’t seem interested in your product.”
is there any other example you can give?
Thats kind of what I had in mind. It can be other things to like constantly trying to take extra actions and stuff. I guess I'm trying to find that balance between wanting to be accommodating for my player for fun and stuff but I don't want to break the game or get into arguments. Hes a good guy but gets hung up on realism vs game mechanics.
In cases like these, "No, but..." is often a useful thing to say. Maybe the Giff won't teach him how to make weapons but they'd be happy to trade him a firearm. You might not be able to give the player what they want, but that doesn't preclude giving them something else they'd be happy with.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
So... how is this metagaming? I mean, if the character came across a battle the giff are involved in, he's going to see their weapons in action. If he's an artificer, he's going to want to be taught how to build one or reverse engineer it. As an alchemist, he's particularly qualified to make the materials that make the gun go bang. He may even be able to deduce how the weapon works theoretically, and would only need a few pieces of information to construct one of his own.
Artificers artifice. They build, craft, create. "s what they do. This sound like a player who's playing what a person who holds an artificer job would actually do in the situation. If you didn't want guns and such in your players' hands, why did you introduce them to your campaign?
Ongoing Projects: The Mimic Book of Mimics :: SHARK WEEK
Completed Projects: The Trick-or-Treat Table
My Homebrews: Races :: Classes :: Spells :: Items :: Monsters
I would see this as a great way to have a player driven game. He gets a fun and some powder, which he will through his alchemy skill figure out how to make. But now he needs the ingredients to make it. This being the astral plane, and dungeons and dragons no rule says it has to be the real life equvilant to gun powder.
I agree with dam Sam Hain I don't see this as a meta game issue, just a artificer being a artificer
Edit: you could also instead of guns have the gift give him a ride out of the astral plane. They might know a portal to the prime were they mine sulfur or what have you.
Yeah I was intending the Giff to take him back to the Material plane once the battle was over. The problem is if he gains access to guns than that is metagaming because although he is an artificer, he choose the alchemist path, not the gunsmith path. Fighters cant be both a champion and a battle master for example. I'm not going to let him have any permanent firearms regardless. That's not really what I'm asking advice for. It's just one example. I probably did a terrible job at explaining my situation at the start of this thread. It was a little rushed.
I'm not sure what the issue is, and that may be because of a difference in understanding by the term metagaming. I understand metagaming to be when someone uses knowledge of things outside of the game to unfairly influence events within a game. Examples would be knowing all of a monster's weaknesses even though their character has no reasonable explanation why they would know that, or knowing exactly where the party should be because they acquired the campaign book and know all the 'answers'. Someone seeing any type of desirable weapon, artifact, or item and wanting to acquire it, whatever benefits or features it grants, is not metagaming. It's what practically all players would do. You might need to clarify the issues for us.
I'd let him try to make a gun, on the understanding that as a prototype it might misfire and explode costing him an eye and some fingers. It would also mean keeping the powder dry, and the fuse or percussion caps in working order. Loading it would take much longer than six seconds so during melee it would be one shot then basically an ornate club.
I can see your point on metagaming, the player is assuming the character would know the concepts of controlled explosions and rifling. The development of effective firearms took hundreds of years.
So, 1 thing that you need to remember is that an artificer's "bombs" are unstable. Once the materials are mixed, you've got 1 round to catalyze a reaction otherwise the compound becomes useless or "vanishes" depending on raw vs fluff. So if the character is trying to make a BIG bomb using a can or a ball, that's something I'd probably not allow frequently. MAYBE if they expended a spell slot I'd let them artifice some kind of large bomb because it's "what they do." But I wouldn't do it for free, and it would be situational.
The second thing is the ability to produce new alchemical formuals as a class feature, (eg gunpowder.) IMO you should allow this, however bear in mind that addl alchemical formulas will be just as fleeting as their other stuff if they just want to pull it out of their bag. Otherwise they'd use the crafting rules to generate ammunition (any character should be able to do this, not just an artificer, btw) and you can set the cost/scarcity of finding the various ingredients.
Giving him A GUN does not make him an artificer gunsmith, any more than giving a Fighter a crossbow makes him a Ranger.
A gun in D&D usually has a reload requirement and might do 2d10 max damage (more or less, it's up to you; or just take whatever it says in the giff stat block). Unlike the artificer's thundercannon, when using the gun he's going to spend rounds reloading (action to reload) which he can't get around without investing a feat or multiclassing. He's also not going to be able to use a special action to fire a magical shot that does tons of bonus damage. It's basically a fancy crossbow... He's also probably not even proficient with it, so +4 to hit? Maybe? So no, giving him a gun will not instantly allow him to multiclass into the gun-smith. That's completely not a thing. He probably just wants access to a weapon that isn't based on a the creature he's attacking making a dex save, and that is also thematic and plays well with his character.
I would STRONGLY advise you to reconsider not giving him a gun in this situation, because the artificer does have some holes in it, and this is one of them. If you aren't willing to bend on this sort of thing, it might be a good idea to ban unofficial content from your games entirely, because this is the sort of thing you WILL run into with UA content.
^ this ditto'd x 10. Guns in and of themselves are included as weapons in the basic rules. A weapon does not define a class, they are the basic way with which all classes deal damage. You have already introduced guns to your campaign. You cannot at this point forbid your players from obtaining them without a vaild reason.
Gunsmiths are gun-crafting experts, yes. They are not, however, the only one capable of making guns. Any blacksmith can build the components, any alchemist can get together the powder. There is no valid reason an alchemist can't build and wield a gun. The only valid issue here would be if the player were then trying to claim his character had access to gunsmith abilities.
Ongoing Projects: The Mimic Book of Mimics :: SHARK WEEK
Completed Projects: The Trick-or-Treat Table
My Homebrews: Races :: Classes :: Spells :: Items :: Monsters
You could offer to let him learn the secrets of gunpowder, but the Giff explain that these are arcane secrets from alien realms so would probably extract a mental cost to learn. That cost would be most all his knowledge of alchemy. This is to say that the player can take this opportunity to change subclass, but not to learn how to make bombs and firearms while retaining their other artificer skills. This is the only trade these Giff will accept - knowledge for knowledge.
If you don't want to let the players have access to something, don't let them see it. If you put anything on the table, anything, the players will have access to it. The bad guy has a wand that allows him to cast time stop, the players will want it after they kill him. The dragon has a rider on it...the players will want to ride a dragon. The gnome has an invention that allows him to tunnel from place to place, the players will want one.
---
If you feel that your players are going to gain access to something they shouldn't have, create obstacles, give them challenges to overcome. Make it part of their journey to become stronger heroes. You wiggle a carrot in front of their noses and yank it away every time they get close...you'll have a riot in no time. You have the perfect tool to create a fantastic story, and you're complaining. This isn't metagaming on the player's part, it's a mistake in DMing on yours, every interaction, every player choice, everything that happens in the game is an opportunity. Figure out a reason why learning about gunpowder is dangerous, what the cost is to learn how to use it, how long it'll take to learn to craft with it unassisted. The Giff can teach him...but how many weeks, month, years would it take to become as familiar with it as the Giff?
You hit a DM wall...rather than punish the player, learn from it and figure out how to compromise with the player's desire and your mishap.
As for him trying to much on his turn, you just have to remind him he's got six seconds. If he prefers realism to game mechanics remind him that in the real world things happen simultaneously so why he's swirling his magical juices in a cannon ball the gith are pissed and coming for him they will now take their turns to simulate this. I try to narrate the round at the end of it to get everybody on the same page.
Sent some low levels against a veteran. Fighter charges, attacks, and misses. Druid charges, attacks, and misses. Rogue charges, attacks, and misses. (wtf) Veteran multi attacks hitting druid and fighter, forgoes movement. Round ends. "You all rush the lone swordsman as he throws back his hood revealing his balding head. He catches the fighters swing, swiftly drawing his side arm (short sword) he catches the druid's strike as well. Rogue takes advantage of the apparent struggle to stab at him only to find empty air as the swordsman ducks low slashing his original attackers."
Why not let him gain enough knowledge to create a gun that lasts only 1 or 2 turns before it destroys itself and deals him damage equal to half his current life points. That way he can have his gun but he is going to be super careful about how he uses it and isn't going to run around the place firing at every low level character he sees.
A caffeinated nerd who has played TTRPGs or a number of years and is very much a fantasy adventure geek.
Because that's the definition of a DM punishing a player for good roleplay?
Please watch this public service announcement.
https://youtu.be/KVfGZPVqCNk
Reworked to be less painful, it could still be an applicable compromise.
There are limited uses, fine.
There is a chance it can blow up, better than it will.
Need for spending resources to maintain and use it, could work.
Possible failure with nothing but a missed action, annoying but applicable.
Well its not really. He gets a very cursory amount of knowledge from the Giff and with his knowledge as an alchemist, is able to create an imitation of their weapons. This isn't a perfect weapon though and he needs time to gain more knowledge and refine it.
At this point, it lasts only one or two turns because he lack the knowledge and skills to make anything better.
That seems fair to me. He shouldn't just be able to make these weapons that are going to nerf the game. I mean very few creatures are going to withstand a bullet to the head, so this is like a super weapon and as such it needs to have some serious limitations so that it becomes a weapon of last resort and not something he reaches for automatically
edit - @swashbuckler has suggested a pretty good compromise between my idea and not having it at all. Though I still think youd have to reduce its stats so it doesn't just one or shot kill something.
A caffeinated nerd who has played TTRPGs or a number of years and is very much a fantasy adventure geek.