So, I'm DMing a campaign right now with a player who, honestly, is smarter than I am. He gets through combat encounters that were supposed to be a TPK by doing something like jumping down the green dragon's throat and trying to choke it because he's immune to poison damage. I've been trying to get him to roleplay, too, but he always plays super charismatic characters, and I can't just ignore high die rolls.
Another problem is that we always run good-aligned campaigns, and... let's just say his morals aren't always the best. He technically plays Chaotic Good characters, but the kinds of things he does are more like chaotic neutral. I don't even think it's an "it's what my character would do" situation, I think he honestly doesn't see that that's not the kind of thing a CG character would do. I've told him several times that we're trying to run a good-aligned campaign, but stuff like robbing a bank because he's so much more powerful than the guards or the police force keeps happening, even if it's an enemy city. Please help! Any ideas at all are appreciated!
That's not really a strategic player, that's an expert at snowing the DM. For example, in the green dragon case, for example:
Where did he get immunity to poison? It's possible (periapt of proof against poison) but should certainly not be a surprise.
Nothing about "jumping down the dragon's throat" is going to particularly choke the dragon. There aren't even any rules for it, but by default any attack like that is just going to be resolved as an unarmed combat attack doing 1 + Str Bonus damage, and even if it does cause choking, well, it takes 40 rounds to suffocate a Young green dragon, more for older dragons.
Nothing about "jumping down the dragon's throat" is going to prevent it from using a claw/claw/bite on the character.
While a DM should permit the PCs to attempt off the wall things, that doesn't mean those things should work or be appreciably more effective than normal activity.
Don't let him jump down a green dragon's throat. If you feel you have to for whatever reason, remember that being immune to poison doesn't mean being immune to bites. If the idea is that he himself is the obstruction blocking the dragon's airway, remember that throats have muscles. The dragon is essentially grappling him, trying to swallow him. Give him disadvantage on his own athletics or acrobatics check to resist the grapple. If he fails, he's swallowed. Start doing acid damage for digestive fluids.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean about trying to get him to roleplay, but don't let him just say "I roll persuasion" or whatever. Make him actually try to persuade whoever, in character, and THEN call for the roll, with advantage or disadvantage depending on how convincing an argument he made.
Robbing a bank is absolutely something a chaotic good character might do. Not enough information to judge that situation. But why are the other players going along with bank robbery if it runs counter to their morals? If he's the only character who wants to do a bank robbery, just say "okay, you go do that" and then run the actual game for the other players. If everyone wants to do a bank robbery, you need to address the whole group and explain that they kind of game they want to play isn't the kind of game you want to run and that you won't run that kind of game (if that's really how you feel).
So, I'm DMing a campaign right now with a player who, honestly, is smarter than I am. He gets through combat encounters that were supposed to be a TPK by doing something like jumping down the green dragon's throat and trying to choke it because he's immune to poison damage.
So my first question was, how the eff did he get into the dragon's throat in the first place? A character can't "just do stuff" because the player thinks it up. First he has to get close enough to the dragon to jump inside. Then he's going to have to time it so that he can get inside while the dragon's mouth is open. After all, the dragon is not going to just stand there with his maw gaping waiting for someone to jump in. If it's the player's turn and not the dragon's, I'd rule that the dragon's mouth is closed because why would he keep it open unless he is talking, biting, or breathing fire? Inhaling can be done through the nostrils. So if the dragon's mouth is only going to open on the dragon's either turn or on his reaction, the PC is going to have to do something like "ready" an action. That means he's going to have to position himself in a spot, and hope that, when the dragon opens its mouth, the mouth is facing the PC's location. If it's facing any other direction, it would not be possible to jump down the mouth since jumping can only occur in a straight line (you can't "steer" a jump, normally). There are just so many problems with this that just explaining it to the player would probably get him to stop. But failing that... good luck getting the dragon to open his mouth right at you, as you are holding your ready action. At best the chance is 1/N, where N is the party size.... maybe less if bucko is just standing there waiting instead of physically attacking the dragon.
I've been trying to get him to roleplay, too, but he always plays super charismatic characters, and I can't just ignore high die rolls
What gave you the idea that you can't ignore die rolls? What gave you the idea that you have to even allow die rolls? The player doesn't get to decide when to roll dice -- the DM does.
Let's say your character walks up to Octavian, emperor of Rome, and says, "I'm going to persuade him to give me his crown!" Are you telling me you'd allow it on a die roll? I'd say, you don't even get a roll here. Persuasion rolls are made to determine if something that might realistically succeed, does. There is no chance Caesar Augustus is going to freaking give his crown to some random dude on a persuasion check. It's utterly absurd. Absurd actions by players should not be dignified with a die roll. Just say "Octavian scoffs at you and then summons a legion of Praetorian guards to take you to be fed to the lions." No, you don't get to make rolls for something ridiculous.
Or would you let him, because of his high DEX, roll to see if his arrow shot at the surface of the moon hits? You telling me that on a nat 20 he hits the moon? Surely not. Same thing here. I don't care what he rolls - if it's absurd, it can't happen.
Another problem is that we always run good-aligned campaigns, and... let's just say his morals aren't always the best. He technically plays Chaotic Good characters, but the kinds of things he does are more like chaotic neutral.
Then take his character sheet away from him, and write "Chaotic Neutral" on it, and hand it back.
I've told him several times that we're trying to run a good-aligned campaign, but stuff like robbing a bank because he's so much more powerful than the guards or the police force keeps happening, even if it's an enemy city.
What the heck did you allow him to have that makes him "so much more powerful" than the police force of a town? How long has this been going on that he is this powerful?
I mean if you have allowed this to go on for 15 levels of game play then as a DM you need to take some responsibility for this. You should have stopped it before it got this bad.
For example, why aren't the enemy NPCs learning from the fact that level 2 guards are not enough to protect their banks? Why aren't they hiring wizards or purchasing Iron Golems or something?
As for CG characters robbing banks... Depends on the condition. CG characters should be willing to break laws/ignore authority for good and moral reasons. For example, a CG character might rob a bank owned by a heartless rich man to feed a bunch of starving children. But a CG character should not be robbing banks for his own gain. Good usually means sacrificing self for others. Sacrificing others for self is usually not even Neutral... it's Evil. So if he's robbing the bank for his own material gain, he's not even CN, he's CE.
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.
Kill the character, and most likely don’t offer to have the player roll up a new one. You can attempt to educate them, but it sounds like a lost cause.
1. Jumping into a Dragon’s throat is known as “snack” for said Dragon.
2. Robbing banks is “good” or “neutral”? Sure, to the Jesse James Gang or The Sopranos.
Poison Immunity doesn't make him immune to stomach acid, which dragons happen to have.
Jumping down creature's throats aren't allowed in the rules, but a DM can (but probably shouldn't) allow it.
High Charisma Die rolls don't make the words you're saying any better. Even if he says, "I'm going to kill you" to a random stranger, but rolls a natural 20 persuasion check, that won't make him any nicer.
He sounds Chaotic Neutral/Evil. If alignment is a problem in your games, talk to him.
Most important thing is to talk to him. If he doesn't agree to what you ask him to do, kick him out.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I'd have to agree with most of the rest of the posts. The DM has to take responsibility for what they let the players get away with. Just because a player says they do this, roll a die, get a good result, doesn't mean that whatever they suggested has even a snow ball's chance in a fiery place of ever happening.
1) Jumping down a dragon's throat? There are a lot of teeth between the character and the throat. Why would the character think this would choke a dragon? The dragon probably eats whole cows so they might just finish swallowing the character and let the stomach acid finish him off. Alternatively, the dragon might just regurgitate him 50' through the air ... they likely have some pretty strong neck muscles. Poison is the least of the problems or consequences. There are rules for various creatures that swallow their targets whole ... just use those if the character thinks it a good idea to get swallowed and if they manage to do damage then have the dragon expel them forcefully.
2) Encourage roleplaying but you can't force it. Some people are good at it. Some are just good at saying what they want their character to do but can't come up with the words. Try not to penalize the player if the character is very charismatic or intelligent but the player isn't irresistable or a genius ... most players can't match the character stats and shouldn't have to. However, they can't just say "I roll persuasion" ... they should suggest some things they might try to persuade the target about and then the DM can ask for a die roll to resolve it.
3) Chaotic/Lawful is related to following laws. Good/Evil has to do with the character's outlook and motivations. Many folks characterize Robin Hood as Chaotic Good and he went around the countryside robbing noblemen, poaching game, stealing from the rich. I am sure that the rich folks did not consider him Good :) but the character was motivated to help others. In your example, a chaotic good character might well decide to rob a bank, particularly one in an "enemy" town. Even a lawful good character might decide to do so since they probably don't follow the "enemy's" laws - again depending on the circumstances. On the other hand, if the character goes around robbing every bank they come across or are robbing the banks solely to enrich themselves then they may not be playing Chaotic Good - hard to tell without more detail.
On the other hand, robbing a bank, to enrich himself, in a friendly city, just because he is stronger than the guards, probably isn't chaotic good.
Finally, as the DM, you need to remind the players that every action they take has consequences. You also need to keep this in mind and apply it.
Consider this ... are the PCs the only high level characters in the world? The answer should be no. High levels may or may not be that common depending on your world but they can be expected to exist. This means that every institution in your world, banks, police forces, enforcement, MUST have mechanisms and procedures in place to deal with high level criminals. If they don't have something then they would always lose out when some tough guy walks into town and takes their stuff. Does that make sense? Not to me.
It is up to the DM to figure out what could happen in response to these sorts of character actions. So what could happpen when some random higher level character walks in and robs a bank? The local forces call in the team that they keep on retainer whose purpose is to deal with scum like this. If the PCs are level 10 then perhaps it is a group of level 15s or higher. They are well paid to make high level characters fear the town and never come back. Maybe this team hunts down and kills the bank robber giving the party the opportunity to recover the body for resurrection along with a warning never to come this way again. Maybe the team casts Imprisonment on the target removing them from the game or setting up a side quest to have the party try and recover them. The example is extreme :) and only usable if you really don't like the player. However, the point is that actions have consequences and someone issuing a bounty on the character is probably the least of the options.
Finally, I have to question the comment "He gets through combat encounters that were supposed to be a TPK" ... if you are designing combat encounters that are supposed to be a TPK then the game you are playing may not be the same as most of us. In my games, a TPK is an unfortunate side effect of either bad luck or some really bad character decisions, I've never intentionally designed a combat encounter that was supposed to be a TPK since there is no point to it if you actually want to keep playing the game. A DM can always kill off all the characters if that is what they want to do so I don't see the point in creating encounters "supposed to be a TPK."
What I mean by "it was supposed to be a TPK" is that he wasn't supposed to beat it, he was supposed to run away. (CR 16 at level 1, he got the party to get it to less than half its hit points)
What I mean by "it was supposed to be a TPK" is that he wasn't supposed to beat it, he was supposed to run away. (CR 16 at level 1, he got the party to get it to less than half its hit points)
Was he a Yuan-ti Pureblood? That's the only way to be immune to poison at level one, unless you're giving out way too many high level magic items.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I think that this player is not smarter than you, he just takes advantage of your DMing style. You seem lenient, and that is not a bad thing. I have DMed a few loose campaigns myself, but if your players are jumping down dragon throats thinking that poison resistance will save them, they are dead wrong. As in, DEAD wrong. If he continues to make these irrational decisions, just kill the character. And as far as the high charisma rolls, don't just ignore them. I saw some other people suggesting that, and if he gets high rolls he gets high rolls. A way that you can turn that around is a method I use all the time. They might get what they want, just not how they might of wanted it. Say that he is persuading someone. Maybe he's tricking someone into thinking that he is a guard somewhere. He might convince them, but make the person suspicious. Say the person takes it to the police. The police investigate, and find him to be a fraud. Now this whole town is on watch for him and a few small lies causes him to be on the run.
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past, I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone, there will be nothing. Only I will remain.
What I mean by "it was supposed to be a TPK" is that he wasn't supposed to beat it, he was supposed to run away. (CR 16 at level 1, he got the party to get it to less than half its hit points)
There's no realistic way for a level 1 party to do that. The result for an adult green at that level is "Dragon uses multiattack. Frightful presence scatters most of the party, bite probably kills the annoyance in its mouth (immunity to poison won't do anything about 2d10+6 piercing), if for some reason it misses (which is not likely, it probably has Advantage because of the situation) it has two more claw attacks to deal with the problem, and then it uses anything remaining to kill 1-2 other party members.
The situation here is that you're letting yourself be talked in to things that neither make sense nor follow the rules, and the solution is to just be willing to say "You fail".
I don't want to sound harsh, but it sounds like you're unprepared. There is so much built into the game to prevent the things you're talking about, but it seems like you don't have enough rules knowledge to prohibit things and are making rules up on the fly. Don't get me wrong, keeping the game moving by making judgement calls is a super good ability for a DM, but you're also leaving the door open for players to do ridiculous things. Like jumping down a dragons throat. At level 1. And how a level 1 PC is better than a town guard is beyond me, unless that was a separate campaign.
Tagging on what everyone else has said: 1: Don't let players do the impossible. "I want to push this mountain onto that army." No. 2: Persuasion can't persuade someone to do something inherently out of character. "Kill your family for me. " Nat 20. Done! Just no. YOU are empowered to run the game, not the dice. 3: Alignment. How does their alignment impact your game, with the exception of giving you the ability to say "I don't think a chaotic good character would do that". In which case.... who cares? Is it a question of morality? In that you feel uncomfortable with people robbing banks and the like? Cause that's a separate issue.
In summary, he's not necessarily smarter than you. You're just not prepared enough for a player who is going to make an endless stream of off the wall suggestions.
What I mean by "it was supposed to be a TPK" is that he wasn't supposed to beat it, he was supposed to run away. (CR 16 at level 1, he got the party to get it to less than half its hit points)
I'm confused. You said earlier that he can rob because he is "way more powerful than the guards." How can this be possible if he is only level 1? What level are the guards? 0-level incompetents with 3 in every stat? How the heck else could a level 1 character overpower *multiple* guards?
I do't know what they do now but in the old says, typical guards or "men at arms" were assumed to be level 2. Multiple level 2 guards should crush a level 1 character. One-hit-kill in most cases. How is he surviving this?
It sounds like as someone said above, he has snowed his DM into thinking that crazy rules-violating things should be allowed to happen. They should not be allowed.
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.
You know what, probably a big part of the problem is that the campaign is mostly rules as fun. Should I just start running it a bit more RAW? I'm not sure how well that would work, since we're using a LOT of homebrew content.
You know what, probably a big part of the problem is that the campaign is mostly rules as fun. Should I just start running it a bit more RAW? I'm not sure how well that would work, since we're using a LOT of homebrew content.
You’re clearly not having fun, so I’d say you’re NOT actually playing this as “rules as fun.” It’s gotta be fun for everyone for that to work.
Well you are going to have to make a choice. If you are going to just allow them to do whatever they want because "it's fun," that's a perfectly fine way to play, but then you can't complain when they pull things out of thin air and do them. You've set the precedent. If you want them to obey the laws of logic and consistency, then you need rules and you have to enforce them. RAW or Homebrew does not matter on this. Your issue is that the player is just doing whatever the eff he feels like and you have set the world up so that whatever they do is allowed. This is the consequence of that setup.
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.
So, I'm DMing a campaign right now with a player who, honestly, is smarter than I am. He gets through combat encounters that were supposed to be a TPK by doing something like jumping down the green dragon's throat and trying to choke it because he's immune to poison damage. I've been trying to get him to roleplay, too, but he always plays super charismatic characters, and I can't just ignore high die rolls.
So, you're getting started on DMing. Your player says they want to do something - so you let them roll for it, and then if they roll high (say, beat a 15 maybe? That seems high, right?) and if they succeed, they do what they want, and if they fail, they fail, right? Seems reasonable - this is how D&D is supposed to work, right? Players say what they do, roll for it, and then it happens?
No. That is wrong wrong wrong.
A player needs to roll ONLY IF the action they are describing has a chance of success AND a chance of failure, and the result depends on how good the character is at doing the action.
The first part of that - the player has to describe what they're doing in enough detail that you can judge what the possible outcomes are. So, they can't just say "I roll to Persuade!" and then mind-control an NPC on success - they have to say what they're trying to convince the NPC of and how, and you the DM should decide whether the player needs to roll anything, and the DC. It is perfectly reasonable if, say, two guards guarding an entrance can't be persuaded to let you through just by smooth-talking at them, no matter how well you roll! And quite reasonable if asking someone for directions does not require a roll at all.
The second part of that - just a reminder that you ONLY need to tell the player to roll for something if it actually has a chance of success. If a player says they want to get eaten by a dragon and choke them from the inside - that just doesn't have any chance of success. No roll needed or allowed.
(There's also the other side, where you don't need to make the players roll for something that they should clearly succeed. But that doesn't seem to be your issue.)
Before any dice are rolled - you have to use your DM judgement to determine whether it's even possible for the character to succeed at what they say they're trying to do. And if it's not, say so. You know the world and know what's possible and what isn't.
A player needs to roll ONLY IF the action they are describing has a chance of success AND a chance of failure, and the result depends on how good the character is at doing the action.
This sentence should be framed and hung on the wall of every DM in the world. I think one of the biggest DMing mistakes is to let players roll to do just about anything.
Now, at some tables, it is fun to do this. There is a particular D&D live stream that I will not name here to avoid any arguments, in which they do this a lot -- the DM lets the players roll in all kinds of outlandish circumstances and when they succeed, everyone cheers and the DM laughs and he lets them have it. But that DM knows what he is doing and his table clearly likes this type of play, as does he, so it's fine. I would not enjoy it myself but I am not at their table. (Though it did make me ultimately stop watching that particular stream out of sheer annoyance at the astronomical improbabilities that kept happening every session.)
So again, if you like this -- if your players like it -- and you are all having fun, more power to ya. Follow the rule of cool and let people roll dice and succeed on Nat 20s at doing insane crazy stuff like jumping into a dragon's throat and choking it to death. The OP seems to have a group like this.
However, the fact that the OP made the post also implies that the DM is maybe not so happy with it and maybe is starting to feel like things are out of control. If that is the case it's time to have a talk with everyone at the table, and figure out a way for everyone to have fun.
I'll also warn that, having set the precedent that you can "roll for anything" and letting people succeed at doing insanely impossible things "just for fun" in the past, it is going to be very hard to convince your table to play another way. You will need to explain why this is important and how they will all benefit in the future, and even then, you may find them all becoming frustrated by the imposition of a higher level of realism/rules in the game. You may get people quitting on you or arguing constantly. Be prepared for this to happen if you alter how the game is played mid-stream.
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.
There's a lot of good points posted here, so I'm not going to repeat them.
Instead I'll just offer two things:
1. If a group of level 1s were winning against a CR 16 critter, you were playing the critter wrong. Or your party is like 20 people. 2. If you allowed him to jump down the throat of an active and awake dragon (see other posts about how challenging this would be), he would suffocate LONG before the dragon did... then when he stopped struggling, it's swallow time.
Whatever the players can do, the enemies can, too. Use their tactics against them from time to time. :D
What I mean by "it was supposed to be a TPK" is that he wasn't supposed to beat it, he was supposed to run away. (CR 16 at level 1, he got the party to get it to less than half its hit points)
You know what, probably a big part of the problem is that the campaign is mostly rules as fun. Should I just start running it a bit more RAW? I'm not sure how well that would work, since we're using a LOT of homebrew content.
Hi! It sounds like you are running a campaign that is more like "rules? What rules! :)" rather than rules as fun. Which I want to add is ABSOLUTELY fine if you are all having fun with it. Super heroic actions strangling a dragon from the inside! It might be more like a super hero role playing game than D&D but again if you folks are having fun with it then no worries.
However, your original post seems to be along the lines of - "My party does crazy off the wall things that may not make much sense from a role playing or logic perspective but then I let them work anyway since they rolled a high number, what do I do?" - which kind of implies a bit of dissatisfaction with the super hero over the top actions.
In either case, as DM, you set the tone and should probably have a chat with the players to see what they think and how they want to play it. If you want them to be allowed to do crazy unrealistic, improbable things and get away with it for the point of story telling so be it. If you want some sanity checks and a bit more logic then bring it in slowly and make sure everyone is cool with the adjustment.
----
In one of my earlier campaigns, I was a bit "lenient" in that I didn't like to see the characters die. It was mostly not intentional and if a player came up with an off the wall idea that stood some remote chance of getting them out of a difficult situation then I'd give them a shot at it. However, as a result, one of the players seemed to either consciously or unconsciously realize that they could do stupid things and get away with it. The character was chaotic neutral and I think the character progression was a natural extension from the way the campaign was going. The problem was that the character pushed on to more and more ludicrous and risky decisions over several play sessions. This made me realize that (a) I had been too lenient early on letting characters get away with things and (b) that I didn't want to be running an illogical campaign driven by the actions of a chaotic stupid character. So I foreshadowed to the player and character in game that their luck could change. In the end, the character ended up retiring from the campaign a few sessions later after stealing an artifact that the party had just recovered and running off with it. The resolution made sense for the character that had developed through the campaign and also for the rest of the party (there was a lot of inter party tension between the gnome illusionist/thief [the risk taker] and the magic hating barbarian).
---
Finally, you mention and encounter between a CR16 and a party of level 1s in which they somehow get the CR16 down to half its hit points and apparently didn't die (which CR16 was it by the way?). This situation can only come up because the DM allowed it and chose to ignore the rules or allowed the characters to do something ludicrous that would never work. A level 1 character typically has only 8 to 15 hit points. Any CR16 creature will typically often kill a level 1 character with each hit. Multiattack, breath weapons, spell attacks, special attacks ... the level 1 party should not survive. If the CR16 has an 18 AC then a typical level 1 will need a 13 to hit. They can only hit it 35% of the time and that doesn't take into account damage resistance or immunity.
If there was an army of 100 level 1s then they might be a credible threat (this is 5e and bounded accuracy means that large numbers can actually threaten high level foes unlike previous editions of D&D) but a typical party? No.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So, I'm DMing a campaign right now with a player who, honestly, is smarter than I am. He gets through combat encounters that were supposed to be a TPK by doing something like jumping down the green dragon's throat and trying to choke it because he's immune to poison damage. I've been trying to get him to roleplay, too, but he always plays super charismatic characters, and I can't just ignore high die rolls.
Another problem is that we always run good-aligned campaigns, and... let's just say his morals aren't always the best. He technically plays Chaotic Good characters, but the kinds of things he does are more like chaotic neutral. I don't even think it's an "it's what my character would do" situation, I think he honestly doesn't see that that's not the kind of thing a CG character would do. I've told him several times that we're trying to run a good-aligned campaign, but stuff like robbing a bank because he's so much more powerful than the guards or the police force keeps happening, even if it's an enemy city. Please help! Any ideas at all are appreciated!
Let evil fall and Light prevail!
That's not really a strategic player, that's an expert at snowing the DM. For example, in the green dragon case, for example:
While a DM should permit the PCs to attempt off the wall things, that doesn't mean those things should work or be appreciably more effective than normal activity.
Don't let him jump down a green dragon's throat. If you feel you have to for whatever reason, remember that being immune to poison doesn't mean being immune to bites. If the idea is that he himself is the obstruction blocking the dragon's airway, remember that throats have muscles. The dragon is essentially grappling him, trying to swallow him. Give him disadvantage on his own athletics or acrobatics check to resist the grapple. If he fails, he's swallowed. Start doing acid damage for digestive fluids.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean about trying to get him to roleplay, but don't let him just say "I roll persuasion" or whatever. Make him actually try to persuade whoever, in character, and THEN call for the roll, with advantage or disadvantage depending on how convincing an argument he made.
Robbing a bank is absolutely something a chaotic good character might do. Not enough information to judge that situation. But why are the other players going along with bank robbery if it runs counter to their morals? If he's the only character who wants to do a bank robbery, just say "okay, you go do that" and then run the actual game for the other players. If everyone wants to do a bank robbery, you need to address the whole group and explain that they kind of game they want to play isn't the kind of game you want to run and that you won't run that kind of game (if that's really how you feel).
So my first question was, how the eff did he get into the dragon's throat in the first place? A character can't "just do stuff" because the player thinks it up. First he has to get close enough to the dragon to jump inside. Then he's going to have to time it so that he can get inside while the dragon's mouth is open. After all, the dragon is not going to just stand there with his maw gaping waiting for someone to jump in. If it's the player's turn and not the dragon's, I'd rule that the dragon's mouth is closed because why would he keep it open unless he is talking, biting, or breathing fire? Inhaling can be done through the nostrils. So if the dragon's mouth is only going to open on the dragon's either turn or on his reaction, the PC is going to have to do something like "ready" an action. That means he's going to have to position himself in a spot, and hope that, when the dragon opens its mouth, the mouth is facing the PC's location. If it's facing any other direction, it would not be possible to jump down the mouth since jumping can only occur in a straight line (you can't "steer" a jump, normally). There are just so many problems with this that just explaining it to the player would probably get him to stop. But failing that... good luck getting the dragon to open his mouth right at you, as you are holding your ready action. At best the chance is 1/N, where N is the party size.... maybe less if bucko is just standing there waiting instead of physically attacking the dragon.
What gave you the idea that you can't ignore die rolls? What gave you the idea that you have to even allow die rolls? The player doesn't get to decide when to roll dice -- the DM does.
Let's say your character walks up to Octavian, emperor of Rome, and says, "I'm going to persuade him to give me his crown!" Are you telling me you'd allow it on a die roll? I'd say, you don't even get a roll here. Persuasion rolls are made to determine if something that might realistically succeed, does. There is no chance Caesar Augustus is going to freaking give his crown to some random dude on a persuasion check. It's utterly absurd. Absurd actions by players should not be dignified with a die roll. Just say "Octavian scoffs at you and then summons a legion of Praetorian guards to take you to be fed to the lions." No, you don't get to make rolls for something ridiculous.
Or would you let him, because of his high DEX, roll to see if his arrow shot at the surface of the moon hits? You telling me that on a nat 20 he hits the moon? Surely not. Same thing here. I don't care what he rolls - if it's absurd, it can't happen.
Then take his character sheet away from him, and write "Chaotic Neutral" on it, and hand it back.
What the heck did you allow him to have that makes him "so much more powerful" than the police force of a town? How long has this been going on that he is this powerful?
I mean if you have allowed this to go on for 15 levels of game play then as a DM you need to take some responsibility for this. You should have stopped it before it got this bad.
For example, why aren't the enemy NPCs learning from the fact that level 2 guards are not enough to protect their banks? Why aren't they hiring wizards or purchasing Iron Golems or something?
As for CG characters robbing banks... Depends on the condition. CG characters should be willing to break laws/ignore authority for good and moral reasons. For example, a CG character might rob a bank owned by a heartless rich man to feed a bunch of starving children. But a CG character should not be robbing banks for his own gain. Good usually means sacrificing self for others. Sacrificing others for self is usually not even Neutral... it's Evil. So if he's robbing the bank for his own material gain, he's not even CN, he's CE.
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.
Kill the character, and most likely don’t offer to have the player roll up a new one. You can attempt to educate them, but it sounds like a lost cause.
1. Jumping into a Dragon’s throat is known as “snack” for said Dragon.
2. Robbing banks is “good” or “neutral”? Sure, to the Jesse James Gang or The Sopranos.
Poison Immunity doesn't make him immune to stomach acid, which dragons happen to have.
Jumping down creature's throats aren't allowed in the rules, but a DM can (but probably shouldn't) allow it.
High Charisma Die rolls don't make the words you're saying any better. Even if he says, "I'm going to kill you" to a random stranger, but rolls a natural 20 persuasion check, that won't make him any nicer.
He sounds Chaotic Neutral/Evil. If alignment is a problem in your games, talk to him.
Most important thing is to talk to him. If he doesn't agree to what you ask him to do, kick him out.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I'd have to agree with most of the rest of the posts. The DM has to take responsibility for what they let the players get away with. Just because a player says they do this, roll a die, get a good result, doesn't mean that whatever they suggested has even a snow ball's chance in a fiery place of ever happening.
1) Jumping down a dragon's throat? There are a lot of teeth between the character and the throat. Why would the character think this would choke a dragon? The dragon probably eats whole cows so they might just finish swallowing the character and let the stomach acid finish him off. Alternatively, the dragon might just regurgitate him 50' through the air ... they likely have some pretty strong neck muscles. Poison is the least of the problems or consequences. There are rules for various creatures that swallow their targets whole ... just use those if the character thinks it a good idea to get swallowed and if they manage to do damage then have the dragon expel them forcefully.
2) Encourage roleplaying but you can't force it. Some people are good at it. Some are just good at saying what they want their character to do but can't come up with the words. Try not to penalize the player if the character is very charismatic or intelligent but the player isn't irresistable or a genius ... most players can't match the character stats and shouldn't have to. However, they can't just say "I roll persuasion" ... they should suggest some things they might try to persuade the target about and then the DM can ask for a die roll to resolve it.
3) Chaotic/Lawful is related to following laws. Good/Evil has to do with the character's outlook and motivations. Many folks characterize Robin Hood as Chaotic Good and he went around the countryside robbing noblemen, poaching game, stealing from the rich. I am sure that the rich folks did not consider him Good :) but the character was motivated to help others. In your example, a chaotic good character might well decide to rob a bank, particularly one in an "enemy" town. Even a lawful good character might decide to do so since they probably don't follow the "enemy's" laws - again depending on the circumstances. On the other hand, if the character goes around robbing every bank they come across or are robbing the banks solely to enrich themselves then they may not be playing Chaotic Good - hard to tell without more detail.
On the other hand, robbing a bank, to enrich himself, in a friendly city, just because he is stronger than the guards, probably isn't chaotic good.
Finally, as the DM, you need to remind the players that every action they take has consequences. You also need to keep this in mind and apply it.
Consider this ... are the PCs the only high level characters in the world? The answer should be no. High levels may or may not be that common depending on your world but they can be expected to exist. This means that every institution in your world, banks, police forces, enforcement, MUST have mechanisms and procedures in place to deal with high level criminals. If they don't have something then they would always lose out when some tough guy walks into town and takes their stuff. Does that make sense? Not to me.
It is up to the DM to figure out what could happen in response to these sorts of character actions. So what could happpen when some random higher level character walks in and robs a bank? The local forces call in the team that they keep on retainer whose purpose is to deal with scum like this. If the PCs are level 10 then perhaps it is a group of level 15s or higher. They are well paid to make high level characters fear the town and never come back. Maybe this team hunts down and kills the bank robber giving the party the opportunity to recover the body for resurrection along with a warning never to come this way again. Maybe the team casts Imprisonment on the target removing them from the game or setting up a side quest to have the party try and recover them. The example is extreme :) and only usable if you really don't like the player. However, the point is that actions have consequences and someone issuing a bounty on the character is probably the least of the options.
Finally, I have to question the comment "He gets through combat encounters that were supposed to be a TPK" ... if you are designing combat encounters that are supposed to be a TPK then the game you are playing may not be the same as most of us. In my games, a TPK is an unfortunate side effect of either bad luck or some really bad character decisions, I've never intentionally designed a combat encounter that was supposed to be a TPK since there is no point to it if you actually want to keep playing the game. A DM can always kill off all the characters if that is what they want to do so I don't see the point in creating encounters "supposed to be a TPK."
What I mean by "it was supposed to be a TPK" is that he wasn't supposed to beat it, he was supposed to run away. (CR 16 at level 1, he got the party to get it to less than half its hit points)
Let evil fall and Light prevail!
Was he a Yuan-ti Pureblood? That's the only way to be immune to poison at level one, unless you're giving out way too many high level magic items.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I think that this player is not smarter than you, he just takes advantage of your DMing style. You seem lenient, and that is not a bad thing. I have DMed a few loose campaigns myself, but if your players are jumping down dragon throats thinking that poison resistance will save them, they are dead wrong. As in, DEAD wrong. If he continues to make these irrational decisions, just kill the character. And as far as the high charisma rolls, don't just ignore them. I saw some other people suggesting that, and if he gets high rolls he gets high rolls. A way that you can turn that around is a method I use all the time. They might get what they want, just not how they might of wanted it. Say that he is persuading someone. Maybe he's tricking someone into thinking that he is a guard somewhere. He might convince them, but make the person suspicious. Say the person takes it to the police. The police investigate, and find him to be a fraud. Now this whole town is on watch for him and a few small lies causes him to be on the run.
I hope this helps!
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past, I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone, there will be nothing. Only I will remain.
- Litany Against Fear, Frank Herbert
There's no realistic way for a level 1 party to do that. The result for an adult green at that level is "Dragon uses multiattack. Frightful presence scatters most of the party, bite probably kills the annoyance in its mouth (immunity to poison won't do anything about 2d10+6 piercing), if for some reason it misses (which is not likely, it probably has Advantage because of the situation) it has two more claw attacks to deal with the problem, and then it uses anything remaining to kill 1-2 other party members.
The situation here is that you're letting yourself be talked in to things that neither make sense nor follow the rules, and the solution is to just be willing to say "You fail".
I don't want to sound harsh, but it sounds like you're unprepared. There is so much built into the game to prevent the things you're talking about, but it seems like you don't have enough rules knowledge to prohibit things and are making rules up on the fly. Don't get me wrong, keeping the game moving by making judgement calls is a super good ability for a DM, but you're also leaving the door open for players to do ridiculous things. Like jumping down a dragons throat. At level 1. And how a level 1 PC is better than a town guard is beyond me, unless that was a separate campaign.
Tagging on what everyone else has said:
1: Don't let players do the impossible. "I want to push this mountain onto that army." No.
2: Persuasion can't persuade someone to do something inherently out of character. "Kill your family for me. " Nat 20. Done! Just no. YOU are empowered to run the game, not the dice.
3: Alignment. How does their alignment impact your game, with the exception of giving you the ability to say "I don't think a chaotic good character would do that". In which case.... who cares? Is it a question of morality? In that you feel uncomfortable with people robbing banks and the like? Cause that's a separate issue.
In summary, he's not necessarily smarter than you. You're just not prepared enough for a player who is going to make an endless stream of off the wall suggestions.
I'm confused. You said earlier that he can rob because he is "way more powerful than the guards." How can this be possible if he is only level 1? What level are the guards? 0-level incompetents with 3 in every stat? How the heck else could a level 1 character overpower *multiple* guards?
I do't know what they do now but in the old says, typical guards or "men at arms" were assumed to be level 2. Multiple level 2 guards should crush a level 1 character. One-hit-kill in most cases. How is he surviving this?
It sounds like as someone said above, he has snowed his DM into thinking that crazy rules-violating things should be allowed to happen. They should not be allowed.
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.
You know what, probably a big part of the problem is that the campaign is mostly rules as fun. Should I just start running it a bit more RAW? I'm not sure how well that would work, since we're using a LOT of homebrew content.
Let evil fall and Light prevail!
You’re clearly not having fun, so I’d say you’re NOT actually playing this as “rules as fun.” It’s gotta be fun for everyone for that to work.
Well you are going to have to make a choice. If you are going to just allow them to do whatever they want because "it's fun," that's a perfectly fine way to play, but then you can't complain when they pull things out of thin air and do them. You've set the precedent. If you want them to obey the laws of logic and consistency, then you need rules and you have to enforce them. RAW or Homebrew does not matter on this. Your issue is that the player is just doing whatever the eff he feels like and you have set the world up so that whatever they do is allowed. This is the consequence of that setup.
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'm starting to develop my personal soapbox, about a common mistake of new DMs that I think it is afflicting you too. It's this one line in your post:
So, you're getting started on DMing. Your player says they want to do something - so you let them roll for it, and then if they roll high (say, beat a 15 maybe? That seems high, right?) and if they succeed, they do what they want, and if they fail, they fail, right? Seems reasonable - this is how D&D is supposed to work, right? Players say what they do, roll for it, and then it happens?
No. That is wrong wrong wrong.
A player needs to roll ONLY IF the action they are describing has a chance of success AND a chance of failure, and the result depends on how good the character is at doing the action.
The first part of that - the player has to describe what they're doing in enough detail that you can judge what the possible outcomes are. So, they can't just say "I roll to Persuade!" and then mind-control an NPC on success - they have to say what they're trying to convince the NPC of and how, and you the DM should decide whether the player needs to roll anything, and the DC. It is perfectly reasonable if, say, two guards guarding an entrance can't be persuaded to let you through just by smooth-talking at them, no matter how well you roll! And quite reasonable if asking someone for directions does not require a roll at all.
The second part of that - just a reminder that you ONLY need to tell the player to roll for something if it actually has a chance of success. If a player says they want to get eaten by a dragon and choke them from the inside - that just doesn't have any chance of success. No roll needed or allowed.
(There's also the other side, where you don't need to make the players roll for something that they should clearly succeed. But that doesn't seem to be your issue.)
Before any dice are rolled - you have to use your DM judgement to determine whether it's even possible for the character to succeed at what they say they're trying to do. And if it's not, say so. You know the world and know what's possible and what isn't.
This sentence should be framed and hung on the wall of every DM in the world. I think one of the biggest DMing mistakes is to let players roll to do just about anything.
Now, at some tables, it is fun to do this. There is a particular D&D live stream that I will not name here to avoid any arguments, in which they do this a lot -- the DM lets the players roll in all kinds of outlandish circumstances and when they succeed, everyone cheers and the DM laughs and he lets them have it. But that DM knows what he is doing and his table clearly likes this type of play, as does he, so it's fine. I would not enjoy it myself but I am not at their table. (Though it did make me ultimately stop watching that particular stream out of sheer annoyance at the astronomical improbabilities that kept happening every session.)
So again, if you like this -- if your players like it -- and you are all having fun, more power to ya. Follow the rule of cool and let people roll dice and succeed on Nat 20s at doing insane crazy stuff like jumping into a dragon's throat and choking it to death. The OP seems to have a group like this.
However, the fact that the OP made the post also implies that the DM is maybe not so happy with it and maybe is starting to feel like things are out of control. If that is the case it's time to have a talk with everyone at the table, and figure out a way for everyone to have fun.
I'll also warn that, having set the precedent that you can "roll for anything" and letting people succeed at doing insanely impossible things "just for fun" in the past, it is going to be very hard to convince your table to play another way. You will need to explain why this is important and how they will all benefit in the future, and even then, you may find them all becoming frustrated by the imposition of a higher level of realism/rules in the game. You may get people quitting on you or arguing constantly. Be prepared for this to happen if you alter how the game is played mid-stream.
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.
There's a lot of good points posted here, so I'm not going to repeat them.
Instead I'll just offer two things:
1. If a group of level 1s were winning against a CR 16 critter, you were playing the critter wrong. Or your party is like 20 people.
2. If you allowed him to jump down the throat of an active and awake dragon (see other posts about how challenging this would be), he would suffocate LONG before the dragon did... then when he stopped struggling, it's swallow time.
Whatever the players can do, the enemies can, too. Use their tactics against them from time to time. :D
Hi! It sounds like you are running a campaign that is more like "rules? What rules! :)" rather than rules as fun. Which I want to add is ABSOLUTELY fine if you are all having fun with it. Super heroic actions strangling a dragon from the inside! It might be more like a super hero role playing game than D&D but again if you folks are having fun with it then no worries.
However, your original post seems to be along the lines of - "My party does crazy off the wall things that may not make much sense from a role playing or logic perspective but then I let them work anyway since they rolled a high number, what do I do?" - which kind of implies a bit of dissatisfaction with the super hero over the top actions.
In either case, as DM, you set the tone and should probably have a chat with the players to see what they think and how they want to play it. If you want them to be allowed to do crazy unrealistic, improbable things and get away with it for the point of story telling so be it. If you want some sanity checks and a bit more logic then bring it in slowly and make sure everyone is cool with the adjustment.
----
In one of my earlier campaigns, I was a bit "lenient" in that I didn't like to see the characters die. It was mostly not intentional and if a player came up with an off the wall idea that stood some remote chance of getting them out of a difficult situation then I'd give them a shot at it. However, as a result, one of the players seemed to either consciously or unconsciously realize that they could do stupid things and get away with it. The character was chaotic neutral and I think the character progression was a natural extension from the way the campaign was going. The problem was that the character pushed on to more and more ludicrous and risky decisions over several play sessions. This made me realize that (a) I had been too lenient early on letting characters get away with things and (b) that I didn't want to be running an illogical campaign driven by the actions of a chaotic stupid character. So I foreshadowed to the player and character in game that their luck could change. In the end, the character ended up retiring from the campaign a few sessions later after stealing an artifact that the party had just recovered and running off with it. The resolution made sense for the character that had developed through the campaign and also for the rest of the party (there was a lot of inter party tension between the gnome illusionist/thief [the risk taker] and the magic hating barbarian).
---
Finally, you mention and encounter between a CR16 and a party of level 1s in which they somehow get the CR16 down to half its hit points and apparently didn't die (which CR16 was it by the way?). This situation can only come up because the DM allowed it and chose to ignore the rules or allowed the characters to do something ludicrous that would never work. A level 1 character typically has only 8 to 15 hit points. Any CR16 creature will typically often kill a level 1 character with each hit. Multiattack, breath weapons, spell attacks, special attacks ... the level 1 party should not survive. If the CR16 has an 18 AC then a typical level 1 will need a 13 to hit. They can only hit it 35% of the time and that doesn't take into account damage resistance or immunity.
If there was an army of 100 level 1s then they might be a credible threat (this is 5e and bounded accuracy means that large numbers can actually threaten high level foes unlike previous editions of D&D) but a typical party? No.