Was just watching a Youtube video where it was referenced that a wizard with a Staff of Power (or Staff of the Magi) should be especially careful to never get mind controlled or dominated, because if they did, the smart play for the dominator would be to immediately break the staff.
When I heard that, it was a red flag -- stealing character's items without some kind of longterm reason to do so is pretty mean DMing. I would hope that most DM would not immediately use monsters to destroy their PCs' magic items on a whim, otherwise that would be quick to engender a "DM vs Players" mentality.
To me, it is an offshoot of the "Don't use 'That's what my character would do!' as an excuse to be mean" rule of thumb. Obviously it can't be 1-to-1, but to what degree do you think DMs should be given leeway to say "Well, that's what this monster would do"?
Other examples I could think of are attacking downed players while the fight is still going on, or specifically targeting a single PC with an NPC despite that resulting in an unfair fight.
Other examples I could think of are attacking downed players while the fight is still going on, or specifically targeting a single PC with an NPC despite that resulting in an unfair fight.
In particular, this depends on the type of creatures you are fighting, and what their motives are.
As one example, in a battle with several intelligence opponents, I could see any obvious healer being targeted by other casters or archers.
Magic items aren't necessarily easy to break, however.
There is nothing per se wrong with destroying PC magic items, the problem is that using retributive strike with a Staff of Power causes it to blow up for large quantities of damage.
As far as "That's what the monster would do", as a DM you should try to play the monsters in a way consistent with their personalities and goals, but you should give them personalities and goals that make a good game. You can have monsters that want to TPK the party, and monsters that have the ability to do so, but you're not advised to put both traits on the same monster.
Attacking downed players is a case-by-case basis. Some campaigns, it'll almost never happen, other campaigns, it's common, and I'll run both. Sometimes it's up to the monsters: if a monster is smart enough to realize that the group's healer can just pop the downed player back up, it makes sense to finish them. Similarly, intelligent monsters will target healers first or send some guys around back to deal with the squishy wizard.
That said, the staff-breaking play does seem like a jerk move. I wouldn't do it, and if I had to give an in-character reason, it's that the bad guy wouldn't engage the characters if they don't expect to win, so they'll want to keep the staff unbroken for themselves!
I very much play my monsters as real as possible. That said, I also think it’s unlikely to keep attacking a downed for when another one is shooting fireballs at you or trying to hit you with their giant axe. I’ve only done it once, and that was when the thieves guild hired an assassin to kill a specific party member. They had a backstory involving the thieves guild, and were silly enough to go back to that city thinking there would be no repercussions. So when the assassin got hold of them, they made sure he was good and dead.
as far as breaking the staff... how would the bad guy know it was breakable? Would they waste time telling them to break it in the hope that it was easily achieved?
I dunno, I think the smart play would be to say "Give that to me." Takes the weapon out of the party's hands and gives it to the Dominator (assuming he/she/it can use the thing).
As for "it's what the monster would do," I think that you are right, in one sense... I mean if the BBEG would just TPK the party while they are still level 1, you could have it do that, but then what is the point of having a campaign?
However, there is a huge difference between player and DM. The game of D&D is normally played with the understanding that the DM is responsible for playing all the forces arrayed against the party, and that these forces, ordinarily, have goals that work to the detriment of the party -- be it the PCs' deaths, imprisonment, betrayal, embarrassment, or what have you. On the other hand, the ordinary understanding at the D&D table is that players and their characters will typically work together, and that one player will not have his or her character undermine the rest of the party. The players know going in, that the enemy monsters will try to kill their characters, at least ICly, even if the DM doesn't *really* want this to happen. They expect the DM to play the monsters appropriately. They do not expect the other players to work against them - this is contrary to the spirit of typical D&D.
Furthermore, the "it's what my character would do" speech, aka "the wangrod defense," is ordinarily a lie. It is an excuse the player uses to be mean to or for lack of a better term "grief" the other players. When a player has his or her thief character pickpocket the cleric's holy symbol and then ransom it back to him or her, the thief's player is just being a wangrod -- trying to irritate the cleric player, and using "it's what my character would do" as a defense.
So the question here would be -- is the DM having the dominator character make the controlled mage break the Staff of Retributive Strikeyness because the DM wants to upset the players, kill their characters, and ruin their night? Or is the DM doing it because it has been clearly established in RP that this is a vicious, ruthless, merciless enemy who WILL, absolutely and without question, destroy the party if given the chance? In the former case, the DM is being a wangrod. I the latter case, the DM is playing the villain appropriately.
I have such a type of bad-guy in my campaign. The players know only his name, and have a vague description of him. They also know some other facts about him. That he was alive 1,700 years ago. That he was killed, but then raised by an evil goddess and became unkillable. That the Romans called upon their wizards who cast an Imprisonment spell and then sealed the globe of the spell up behind thick concrete with a sign to NEVER open it up. That some fools opened it up in the present day, and dispelled the Imprisonment thinking whoever was in there would be dead, and whoever or whatever it was, wiped out an entire Roman fort and then proceeded to defeat multiple Legions that were sent against him. They also know, because the witnessed it from a distance, that when the dozens of Yuan-Ti and Lizardfolk who now populated this abandoned fort somehow "failed" the villain in some way, he returned in the night and slaughtered them all.
At this point it should be abundantly clear to the party that this guy is (a) incredibly powerful, and (b) willing to slaughter anyone and everyone who crosses him. If they some day face him, which I don't know if they will ever get around to doing, they will do so at their own peril. If they face him, I will NOT help them with die rolls. I will NOT have him do sub-optimal things to save their skins. He is ruthless. He has unbelievable power. He has some amazing magic items. And he WILL destroy anyone who gets in his way. Period.
Now... he has some vulnerabilities. If the party learns these, I suspect they'll have him (as long as they are high enough level). But if they are impatient... if they are in a rush... if they do not take the time to learn these weaknesses... they're almost certainly all going to die. This is not me being a "wangrod." This is a villain from the lore of the world, and they have had plenty of warning how powerful he is. And... we have already agreed in session zero that death is possible, and they have all accepted this as a condition of the campaign.
My point here is... I have not said, "I want to TPK the party." I have designed a villain powerful enough to make the entire Roman Empire shiver in its boots. If you're going to take someone like that on, you'd better be prepared for what he can do.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I very much play my monsters as real as possible. That said, I also think it’s unlikely to keep attacking a downed for when another one is shooting fireballs at you or trying to hit you with their giant axe.
It doesn't take that many Healing Words for an NPC to decide to keep someone dead. Though ongoing damage is more commonly an issue (of course, if they're dying inside a Hunger of Hadar or similar, healing word is a nonfactor because it blocks vision).
For sure. I always use a balance of "That's what the NPC would do," with how I want my plot to develop. More often I'll make the decision based on the latter and adjust aspects of the NPC's character and backstory to retcon it to fit.
To some degree... if there is a concern that you don't want the NPC to kill the party then, it stands to reason, you don't make up an NPC who would want to kill the party.
In Champions, my favorite and most powerful (non-cosmic) villain, Overlord, grudgingly respected the heroes and had the psychological limitation of "Honorable." He wanted to beat them, but he wanted to have them live on, knowing who it was who had beaten them. He would not have been as satisfied to win, knowing they were dead and could not be made to wallow in his victory. So, he did not generally try to kill the PCs outright. He was ABLE to do it (one of the few villains I had who, stats-wise, could do it in combat, because it is very hard to kill PCs in Champions)... but he was not willing do to his personality.
Meanwhile, Executioner, who has the psych lim "homicidal maniac" and actually went legit berserk (as per the Disadvantage) if he had the chance to kill someone and was deprived doing it... he absolutely would have killed heroes, but although he was powerful, he was not powerful enough to outright kill a hero in a single blow. (He did in plenty of "normal" people though... and more than enough government agents.)
So... if the NPC wants to kill the PCs, maybe don't give him enough power to actually do it... and if the NPC is powerful enough to kill the PCs, maybe don't make him want to do it... and this would avoid "Well he would want to kill them so he does" problems.
Or else warn them -- with plenty of clues, hints, and OOC comments if necessary -- this NPC can, and WILL, kill you, if you get bad die rolls.
Was just watching a Youtube video where it was referenced that a wizard with a Staff of Power (or Staff of the Magi) should be especially careful to never get mind controlled or dominated, because if they did, the smart play for the dominator would be to immediately break the staff.
How would the dominator know that it was a staff of power or staff of the magi, in order to tell the mind-controlled character to destroy it? Are all magical items instantly recognisable - I thought Identify spells or similar were required to know what one is.
Was just watching a Youtube video where it was referenced that a wizard with a Staff of Power (or Staff of the Magi) should be especially careful to never get mind controlled or dominated, because if they did, the smart play for the dominator would be to immediately break the staff.
How would the dominator know that it was a staff of power or staff of the magi, in order to tell the mind-controlled character to destroy it? Are all magical items instantly recognisable - I thought Identify spells or similar were required to know what one is.
Well, if you have a high INT spellcaster villain (how else would they dominate), I think it is reasonable to assume they would know that the wizard casting spells directly from their staff might have one of those really powerful staffs they've heard of before.
Why wouldn't a high level, high INT wizard/sorcerer villain know about the powerful magical items of the realm? Even if they didn't know it was a staff of power/magi, they might see the wizard doing all kinds of damage with it and decide, "Nah, let's get rid of that thing" ... and then be pleasantly surprised when it explodes on destruction.
Also, you're discounting tons of games where Identify isn't necessary for finding out what a magic item is. I've played very few games where Identify was necessary to know what the magic item was, actually. In my experience DMs are generous with that information, or at the very least offer it as an Arcana check.
Was just watching a Youtube video where it was referenced that a wizard with a Staff of Power (or Staff of the Magi) should be especially careful to never get mind controlled or dominated, because if they did, the smart play for the dominator would be to immediately break the staff.
How would the dominator know that it was a staff of power or staff of the magi, in order to tell the mind-controlled character to destroy it? Are all magical items instantly recognisable - I thought Identify spells or similar were required to know what one is.
Agreed that if it was a random run in, the assailant may not know. But if this is BBEG or other nemesis type and this attack was planned, they may know a thing or two about the party's inventory. The wielder could even have a reputation for carrying it. There are characters in my game with certain items, usually weapons or offensive magic items who get "called out" precisely because their weapon of choice has garnered them a degree of infamy.
Maybe the Dominator already cast some sort of detect thoughts spell on the staff wielder? Honestly, a mind-mastering villain taking over a PC to trigger a retributive strike possibly blowing up the whole party is straight up out of the original XCom game in the 1990s, and that's playing on a trope that's been in psychic sci-fi at least of the military persuasion that's been around long enough to be a trope. But yeah, it wouldn't necessarily be a "go to" tactic for adversaries in my game, but it could be an occasional flare, so to speak, to regular combat.
Was just watching a Youtube video where it was referenced that a wizard with a Staff of Power (or Staff of the Magi) should be especially careful to never get mind controlled or dominated, because if they did, the smart play for the dominator would be to immediately break the staff.
When I heard that, it was a red flag -- stealing character's items without some kind of longterm reason to do so is pretty mean DMing. I would hope that most DM would not immediately use monsters to destroy their PCs' magic items on a whim, otherwise that would be quick to engender a "DM vs Players" mentality.
To me, it is an offshoot of the "Don't use 'That's what my character would do!' as an excuse to be mean" rule of thumb. Obviously it can't be 1-to-1, but to what degree do you think DMs should be given leeway to say "Well, that's what this monster would do"?
Other examples I could think of are attacking downed players while the fight is still going on, or specifically targeting a single PC with an NPC despite that resulting in an unfair fight.
Thoughts?
In particular, this depends on the type of creatures you are fighting, and what their motives are.
As one example, in a battle with several intelligence opponents, I could see any obvious healer being targeted by other casters or archers.
Magic items aren't necessarily easy to break, however.
There is nothing per se wrong with destroying PC magic items, the problem is that using retributive strike with a Staff of Power causes it to blow up for large quantities of damage.
As far as "That's what the monster would do", as a DM you should try to play the monsters in a way consistent with their personalities and goals, but you should give them personalities and goals that make a good game. You can have monsters that want to TPK the party, and monsters that have the ability to do so, but you're not advised to put both traits on the same monster.
Attacking downed players is a case-by-case basis. Some campaigns, it'll almost never happen, other campaigns, it's common, and I'll run both. Sometimes it's up to the monsters: if a monster is smart enough to realize that the group's healer can just pop the downed player back up, it makes sense to finish them. Similarly, intelligent monsters will target healers first or send some guys around back to deal with the squishy wizard.
That said, the staff-breaking play does seem like a jerk move. I wouldn't do it, and if I had to give an in-character reason, it's that the bad guy wouldn't engage the characters if they don't expect to win, so they'll want to keep the staff unbroken for themselves!
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
I very much play my monsters as real as possible. That said, I also think it’s unlikely to keep attacking a downed for when another one is shooting fireballs at you or trying to hit you with their giant axe. I’ve only done it once, and that was when the thieves guild hired an assassin to kill a specific party member. They had a backstory involving the thieves guild, and were silly enough to go back to that city thinking there would be no repercussions. So when the assassin got hold of them, they made sure he was good and dead.
as far as breaking the staff... how would the bad guy know it was breakable? Would they waste time telling them to break it in the hope that it was easily achieved?
I dunno, I think the smart play would be to say "Give that to me." Takes the weapon out of the party's hands and gives it to the Dominator (assuming he/she/it can use the thing).
As for "it's what the monster would do," I think that you are right, in one sense... I mean if the BBEG would just TPK the party while they are still level 1, you could have it do that, but then what is the point of having a campaign?
However, there is a huge difference between player and DM. The game of D&D is normally played with the understanding that the DM is responsible for playing all the forces arrayed against the party, and that these forces, ordinarily, have goals that work to the detriment of the party -- be it the PCs' deaths, imprisonment, betrayal, embarrassment, or what have you. On the other hand, the ordinary understanding at the D&D table is that players and their characters will typically work together, and that one player will not have his or her character undermine the rest of the party. The players know going in, that the enemy monsters will try to kill their characters, at least ICly, even if the DM doesn't *really* want this to happen. They expect the DM to play the monsters appropriately. They do not expect the other players to work against them - this is contrary to the spirit of typical D&D.
Furthermore, the "it's what my character would do" speech, aka "the wangrod defense," is ordinarily a lie. It is an excuse the player uses to be mean to or for lack of a better term "grief" the other players. When a player has his or her thief character pickpocket the cleric's holy symbol and then ransom it back to him or her, the thief's player is just being a wangrod -- trying to irritate the cleric player, and using "it's what my character would do" as a defense.
So the question here would be -- is the DM having the dominator character make the controlled mage break the Staff of Retributive Strikeyness because the DM wants to upset the players, kill their characters, and ruin their night? Or is the DM doing it because it has been clearly established in RP that this is a vicious, ruthless, merciless enemy who WILL, absolutely and without question, destroy the party if given the chance? In the former case, the DM is being a wangrod. I the latter case, the DM is playing the villain appropriately.
I have such a type of bad-guy in my campaign. The players know only his name, and have a vague description of him. They also know some other facts about him. That he was alive 1,700 years ago. That he was killed, but then raised by an evil goddess and became unkillable. That the Romans called upon their wizards who cast an Imprisonment spell and then sealed the globe of the spell up behind thick concrete with a sign to NEVER open it up. That some fools opened it up in the present day, and dispelled the Imprisonment thinking whoever was in there would be dead, and whoever or whatever it was, wiped out an entire Roman fort and then proceeded to defeat multiple Legions that were sent against him. They also know, because the witnessed it from a distance, that when the dozens of Yuan-Ti and Lizardfolk who now populated this abandoned fort somehow "failed" the villain in some way, he returned in the night and slaughtered them all.
At this point it should be abundantly clear to the party that this guy is (a) incredibly powerful, and (b) willing to slaughter anyone and everyone who crosses him. If they some day face him, which I don't know if they will ever get around to doing, they will do so at their own peril. If they face him, I will NOT help them with die rolls. I will NOT have him do sub-optimal things to save their skins. He is ruthless. He has unbelievable power. He has some amazing magic items. And he WILL destroy anyone who gets in his way. Period.
Now... he has some vulnerabilities. If the party learns these, I suspect they'll have him (as long as they are high enough level). But if they are impatient... if they are in a rush... if they do not take the time to learn these weaknesses... they're almost certainly all going to die. This is not me being a "wangrod." This is a villain from the lore of the world, and they have had plenty of warning how powerful he is. And... we have already agreed in session zero that death is possible, and they have all accepted this as a condition of the campaign.
My point here is... I have not said, "I want to TPK the party." I have designed a villain powerful enough to make the entire Roman Empire shiver in its boots. If you're going to take someone like that on, you'd better be prepared for what he can do.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
It doesn't take that many Healing Words for an NPC to decide to keep someone dead. Though ongoing damage is more commonly an issue (of course, if they're dying inside a Hunger of Hadar or similar, healing word is a nonfactor because it blocks vision).
For sure. I always use a balance of "That's what the NPC would do," with how I want my plot to develop. More often I'll make the decision based on the latter and adjust aspects of the NPC's character and backstory to retcon it to fit.
To some degree... if there is a concern that you don't want the NPC to kill the party then, it stands to reason, you don't make up an NPC who would want to kill the party.
In Champions, my favorite and most powerful (non-cosmic) villain, Overlord, grudgingly respected the heroes and had the psychological limitation of "Honorable." He wanted to beat them, but he wanted to have them live on, knowing who it was who had beaten them. He would not have been as satisfied to win, knowing they were dead and could not be made to wallow in his victory. So, he did not generally try to kill the PCs outright. He was ABLE to do it (one of the few villains I had who, stats-wise, could do it in combat, because it is very hard to kill PCs in Champions)... but he was not willing do to his personality.
Meanwhile, Executioner, who has the psych lim "homicidal maniac" and actually went legit berserk (as per the Disadvantage) if he had the chance to kill someone and was deprived doing it... he absolutely would have killed heroes, but although he was powerful, he was not powerful enough to outright kill a hero in a single blow. (He did in plenty of "normal" people though... and more than enough government agents.)
So... if the NPC wants to kill the PCs, maybe don't give him enough power to actually do it... and if the NPC is powerful enough to kill the PCs, maybe don't make him want to do it... and this would avoid "Well he would want to kill them so he does" problems.
Or else warn them -- with plenty of clues, hints, and OOC comments if necessary -- this NPC can, and WILL, kill you, if you get bad die rolls.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
How would the dominator know that it was a staff of power or staff of the magi, in order to tell the mind-controlled character to destroy it? Are all magical items instantly recognisable - I thought Identify spells or similar were required to know what one is.
Well, if you have a high INT spellcaster villain (how else would they dominate), I think it is reasonable to assume they would know that the wizard casting spells directly from their staff might have one of those really powerful staffs they've heard of before.
Why wouldn't a high level, high INT wizard/sorcerer villain know about the powerful magical items of the realm? Even if they didn't know it was a staff of power/magi, they might see the wizard doing all kinds of damage with it and decide, "Nah, let's get rid of that thing" ... and then be pleasantly surprised when it explodes on destruction.
Also, you're discounting tons of games where Identify isn't necessary for finding out what a magic item is. I've played very few games where Identify was necessary to know what the magic item was, actually. In my experience DMs are generous with that information, or at the very least offer it as an Arcana check.
Agreed that if it was a random run in, the assailant may not know. But if this is BBEG or other nemesis type and this attack was planned, they may know a thing or two about the party's inventory. The wielder could even have a reputation for carrying it. There are characters in my game with certain items, usually weapons or offensive magic items who get "called out" precisely because their weapon of choice has garnered them a degree of infamy.
Maybe the Dominator already cast some sort of detect thoughts spell on the staff wielder? Honestly, a mind-mastering villain taking over a PC to trigger a retributive strike possibly blowing up the whole party is straight up out of the original XCom game in the 1990s, and that's playing on a trope that's been in psychic sci-fi at least of the military persuasion that's been around long enough to be a trope. But yeah, it wouldn't necessarily be a "go to" tactic for adversaries in my game, but it could be an occasional flare, so to speak, to regular combat.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.