Can you cheat at D&D?

[Red Fel]

Well, sure I can. A player of a cleric character can't ''just do whatever they want'', they have to follow the faith of their chosen god. And the DM is the one that creates the faith. It's not as hard as it sounds to follow the faith of a god, as long as your not acting like a problem player.

It's one thing to say a character "[has] to follow the faith of their chosen god." It's another to say that, when they fail to do so in your perspective, you will take the decision out of their hands. The latter is seizing agency away from the player. I am very disappointed that you can see it as anything else.

Well, we could do a whole thread or six on alignment. But I'll say my version of Corellon ''wants the worse for drow'' and is ''willing to turn a blind eye'', but that is just my view.

We can, and we have. But even when there is intractable debate, one thing we generally agree upon, based on the canonical material, is that the murder of a helpless prisoner, absent a suitable trial or other exigent circumstances, is Evil. Corellon is not Evil. He's not even Neutral. He's Good. Chaotic Good, but Good nonetheless.

The combination of these two positions you have described can be summarized as follows:

• Clerics must follow the code of conduct demanded by their gods.
• The gods are as I describe them, not as the books or canon or RAW describe them.
• Therefore, Clerics must follow the code of conduct demanded by me.
• Clerics do not fail to follow the code of conduct demanded by their gods; rather, the gods actively conform their behavior to prevent them from deviating.
• A Cleric whose actions deviate from their code of conduct will have those actions conformed.
• Because I define the gods, I define what actions are permitted or precluded by the code of conduct.
• Therefore, a Cleric who takes actions of which I do not approve will have those actions conformed to my expectations.

Player agency, at least with regard to Clerics, is rendered nonexistent by such a conclusion. You cannot prove otherwise. Saying "Clerics are free to do what they want, provided that I approve of it," is the definition of robbing them of agency.

If you don't like their conduct, give them an alignment penalty, strip them of their spells, but don't tell them, "Nope, what you actually did was this." That's the First Rule. The PCs belong to the players. You are the DM; you control every NPC and force of nature in the world. Let the players at least have the PCs.

Well, all clerics of Torm would never hurt an innocent for fun. So that makes them ''all the same''. But then there are, oh a billion ways each one is different and unique.

But you've already said that a god can - and does - explicitly state what a Cleric can and cannot do. If he has the same expectations of all Clerics, then they are all subject to the same restraints on their conduct. They will all behave the same way. All Clerics of Torm are subject to having their behavior conformed by Torm, until they are all little mini-Torms.

I think it's false. Sure it's a fancy name and it gets repeated at lot....but that does not make it true.

Really? That's... That's your whole argument? "Well, I think it's wrong?"

The Stormwind Fallacy says, very simply, that optimization and roleplaying are not mutually exclusive. You offer scant and anecdotal evidence, along with straw men in abundance, to contend that they are. The weight of evidence - and logic - is against you on this one. "I think it's false" is not a logical argument, nor a sufficient response.

True. But a cleric of a god should follow the faith and not just ''randomly act and do whatever they want with the divine power.'' And remember it's only the divine power.

Divine power is their primary class feature! You are telling a class that if they use their primary class feature in ways they don't like, you will take it away and use it how you like!

What's to stop a frustrated player from simply preparing random spells, and casting them on random targets, knowing that his deity/DM will simply alter the spells into what they're supposed to be upon casting?

And don't say he'll lose favor with his deity. Do not say that. If that were an option, you would have used it first, rather than robbing the players of agency by seizing control of their spells.

Oh lets try:

I cannot help but notice that, once again, you have equated "optimizer" and "cheater." There are cheaters who aren't optimizers, in your definitions, but no optimizers who aren't cheaters.

Do you honestly believe all optimizers are cheaters? Do you honestly believe that no optimizers are roleplayers?

And I ask you again, because I don't recall you answering: Are you honestly trolling? Because if you are, it's gone on quite long enough, and it's gone from mildly amusing-slash-infuriating to deeply disturbing.

[Necroticplague]

Well, sure it is always nice if a player can come up with a code and follow it. But a lot of players don't have the ability to do that. Not everyone can do that. And that is why it's nice when the DM steps up and helps out.

You've seem to use this logic almost constantly. You seem to have a very dim view of every other persons capabilities, especially when compared to your own. What if the slight violations of their old code is an intentional attempt at character developement?

Well, sure I can. A player of a cleric character can't ''just do whatever they want'', they have to follow the faith of their chosen god. And the DM is the one that creates the faith. It's not as hard as it sounds to follow the faith of a god, as long as your not acting like a problem player.

Or, you know, you act like a person who has some independent thoughts, questions whether they should be devoted, and is willing to get their hands dirty.

I think it's false. Sure it's a fancy name and it gets repeated at lot....but that does not make it true.

Care to explain why? Any reason why skill at one thing (role-playing) should have any relation to a seperate skill (ability to make competent character)? Arguably, since both should go up with experience, they should have some direct correlation, not inverse. Saying they are inversely related would be like saying "your ability to know the skills available and itemization are inversely related" to a dota2 player. To which any reasonable person would go "huh? Both of those go up as you play more". Except, being a moba, it would be a lot ruder, but thats a side point.

Brüntak looks like a fine character to me. If only more optimized your way, and not ''I made a list of all four level spellcaster classes so I can get powerful spells at lower levels for my artificer''.

So using a basic ability is horrifically overpowered? When it actually takes a fair bit of time to use properly? If they aren't supposed to look around, what should they use? They dont have their own list to use, so of course they have to ape off of others.

Oh lets try:

Good Role Player-A player that plays a well rounded and full fictional character to the fullest extent of their ability. They are not just ''Joe playing the character Snogn'', when the game starts, Joe is Snogn.
Problem Player: Someone who comes to the game just to make a problem. Examples are they want to steal from the group or ruin encounters by always attacking.
The Cheating Optimizer- a player who is cheating, exploiting a rule or such for gain. The artificer above is a good example.
Roll Player: Someone who just wants to roll. Not just hack and slash, but roll through all encounters too. They specifically want to avoid role playing. ''I talk to the NPC *roll* what did they tell me?''
Cheater: someone who exploits a rule, loop hole or unintended effect for the personal gain of having a great character. The first printing of OA has that weapon with a crit range of 11-20, they will say ''it's in the book so i use it''.

Responses in respective orders:

Um, wouldn't being a good roleplayer require optimization that you keep railing against in order to play to the fullest extent of their ability?

Eh basic greifers, every single game that ever existed has these. Of course, it doesn't seem logical that whether they want to cause issues with anyone else should correlate with any other thing. The earlier cleric actually sounded like he was being helpful to his party (trying to get more resources), and yet he was labeled as a problem player.

With this definition, their comes a significant problem: where is the line? I mean, just for playing the game, using the rules is required. Where, exactly, is the line between using and abusing? That's different for all groups, and you seem to have a ridiculously low bar. Most people would consider that basic artificer behaivor.

Eh, just like every game is gonna have its greifers, every game is gonna have some people who really suck. They'll either get better due to getting bored and leaving (if all you wanna do is roll dice, video games are way better), or getting more experienced (seeing how the good roleplayers react, and then following suit).

Again, this runs into the whole "where does the line lie" issue as earlier.

[Juntao112]

And I ask you again, because I don't recall you answering: Are you honestly trolling? Because if you are, it's gone on quite long enough, and it's gone from mildly amusing-slash-infuriating to deeply disturbing.

Allow me to remind you that one should never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by something else.

[Flickerdart]

Really? That's... That's your whole argument? "Well, I think it's wrong?"

That's what every single one of his posts boils down to, though. "I'm right, everyone else is wrong, everyone that doesn't do what I want them to do is dumb and a cheater."

[torrasque666]

I can offer you proof of the Stormwind Fallacy jedipotter. I have an optimized DMM Persist Cleric. I follow the Lord of Blades not only because he has decent domains for a beatstick cleric(War) but also because I'm a evil Warforged.

This cleric toned down his slightly Godwin's Law invoking tendencies to fit with the group, but at his heart he's still a bit of a Godwin's Law in regards to "fleshies". Am I a bad roleplayer? Nope. Am I optimized? Yep.

That's what every single one of his posts boils down to, though. "I'm right, everyone else is wrong, everyone that doesn't do what I want them to do is dumb and a cheater."

Well Doi.

[Amphetryon]

Do you honestly believe all optimizers are cheaters? Do you honestly believe that no optimizers are roleplayers?

If you'll recall, jedipotter has previously defined 'cheater' in such a. . . nonstandard way that it's functionally a unique word, unknown in any other dialect of English.

[Threadnaught]

You are wrong.

Actually if it's his own homebrew version of Corellon, then it's allowed to behave how he wants it to. In his case Corellon Larethian wants nothing less than the complete and utter genocide to all Drow everywhere, possibly regardless of alignment, relationship to other Elves, age and whether or not they actually worship Lolth.


jedipotter, if a Cleric grossly violates their god's Code of Conduct. You don't have to take control of their actions, you can just allow them the Spell or action at the time and then strip them of all Cleric Class Features, turning them into an Ex-Cleric.
I know for some people here, this seems like a horrible thing to say/idea to give, but at least the Player would be allowed to perform the actions they said they were performing. It's also a more lenient form of punishment than outright shredding the character sheet, or forcing the player to watch their character become an NPC.

It's a nice little "that thing you refuse to do as it's, a sign of weakness" jedi.
Also, unlike your own version, it's in the rules.


Clerics with Planning Domain just for the Feat? Nah.

Spoiler: How's this for roll playing?

Show

Lawful Neutral Cloistered Cleric with Magic and Planning Domain, and Knowledge because Cloistered. Wants to turn the world into a police state for the benefit of all whether they like it or not. Will crack down on most criminal activity with disproportionate force as crime is harmful for a lawful civilization. Always attempts to stay within the laws for whatever region he's in, unless they hinder his war on Chaos and disorder. Has little interest in material wealth, but recognizes it's value. For the most part, as long as he has enough for a few useful items, the rest can go to anything that'll help keep order.
Also he has a twin brother who is a Druid, they're at odds on their beliefs, but their relationship is good. And though his brother and the rest of his party may not be the paragons of Lawfulness he sets out to be, he recognizes that sometimes such things are necessary for creating order.

"Oh mighty gods of Law, grant me your magic that I might destroy those who are unlawful."

That character there has some optimization beyond the Domains, no the Druid brother has nothing to do with this character's own optimization, that's just part of his backstory/concept. The Druid has his own specific optimization. They're completely different characters.

[torrasque666]

B-b-b-b-but you picked a T1 class! That's being a dirty cheater/optimized!

[Grod_The_Giant]

Well, sure it is always nice if a player can come up with a code and follow it. But a lot of players don't have the ability to do that. Not everyone can do that. And that is why it's nice when the DM steps up and helps out.

How are they going to get better if you play their character for them?

And don't say "they'll learn from watching me." All they'll learn from you stealing their characters when they displease you is to only make characters that do what you think they should do. (Or learn to find another game. Or learn to hate the hobby you're trying to teach them, because you're snatching their toys and say "no, that's not how you play with that.")

[kardar233]

I have a hypothesis.

Were I to join Jedipotter's game, not knowing of his positions on roleplaying and optimization, I'd probably come in with a mid-powered character with reasonably general utility. In fact, I've been thinking a lot about him recently, so I'd probably bring in Arcolin, a LG Charging Smite/Mystic Fire Knight/Sword of the Arcane Order Paladin of Mystra. He was the third son of a noble family who needed to regain some prestige and so they shipped him off to a knightly order to make them look good. He had a knack for magic so they gave him some elementary arcane training (Magical Training) and he later learned to apply his arcane training to his granted divine magic. In combat, he prefers to intimidate opponents into surrender (Dreadful Wrath, Imperious Command) as it means he won't have to kill them, but if he does he makes it with a single clean cut (Power Attack, Leap Attack).

Now, Arcolin's somewhat optimized, but he's starting with a low-tier class and there's only so much I can do, and he's by no means unbeatable.

So I walk into Jedipotter's game and Arcolin dies messily in the first couple of sessions. I realize that this is a seriously hardcore campaign and so I need to play someone a bit more hardcore.

Maybe I bring in Lacion, a Snow Elf Warblade->Eternal Blade. He's fully formed too (I don't feel like writing up his backstory here) but he's considerably rougher and tougher than Arcolin, what with the save-replacement counters and Wall of Blades and such. Again, though, it's only so much time before Lacion kicks it, maybe from a no-save death of some kind or something.

So perhaps I haven't quite got the point. Perhaps I really want to play in this game and so I want to make a character who just won't die, so I can actually play them for some time. I start bringing in more powerful characters just in the hopes that they'll survive long enough to be properly played, and Jedipotter comes up with more ways to have them killed. Likely, a way is used that the character is immune to (maybe Cal, my Cleric/Bone Knight, gets hit with a death effect) and that's considered 'cheating'. If I happen to be particularly thick, I might even bring in some of the really big guns, like Cayemril, the Archivist/Spelldancer/Initiate of the Sevenfold Veils, who is functionally immune to anything.

Eventually I give up on the game and Jedipotter gets another cautionary tale about 'optimizers'. Does that sound plausible?

[Amphetryon]

I have a hypothesis.

Were I to join Jedipotter's game, not knowing of his positions on roleplaying and optimization, I'd probably come in with a mid-powered character with reasonably general utility. In fact, I've been thinking a lot about him recently, so I'd probably bring in Arcolin, a LG Charging Smite/Mystic Fire Knight/Sword of the Arcane Order Paladin of Mystra. He was the third son of a noble family who needed to regain some prestige and so they shipped him off to a knightly order to make them look good. He had a knack for magic so they gave him some elementary arcane training (Magical Training) and he later learned to apply his arcane training to his granted divine magic. In combat, he prefers to intimidate opponents into surrender (Dreadful Wrath, Imperious Command) as it means he won't have to kill them, but if he does he makes it with a single clean cut (Power Attack, Leap Attack).

Now, Arcolin's somewhat optimized, but he's starting with a low-tier class and there's only so much I can do, and he's by no means unbeatable.

So I walk into Jedipotter's game and Arcolin dies messily in the first couple of sessions. I realize that this is a seriously hardcore campaign and so I need to play someone a bit more hardcore.

Maybe I bring in Lacion, a Snow Elf Warblade->Eternal Blade. He's fully formed too (I don't feel like writing up his backstory here) but he's considerably rougher and tougher than Arcolin, what with the save-replacement counters and Wall of Blades and such. Again, though, it's only so much time before Lacion kicks it, maybe from a no-save death of some kind or something.

So perhaps I haven't quite got the point. Perhaps I really want to play in this game and so I want to make a character who just won't die, so I can actually play them for some time. I start bringing in more powerful characters just in the hopes that they'll survive long enough to be properly played, and Jedipotter comes up with more ways to have them killed. Likely, a way is used that the character is immune to (maybe Cal, my Cleric/Bone Knight, gets hit with a death effect) and that's considered 'cheating'. If I happen to be particularly thick, I might even bring in some of the really big guns, like Cayemril, the Archivist/Spelldancer/Initiate of the Sevenfold Veils, who is functionally immune to anything.

Eventually I give up on the game and Jedipotter gets another cautionary tale about 'optimizers'. Does that sound plausible?

The reason I'd say 'no' is that I believe jedipotter has a stated aversion to ToB, invalidating Lacion as a valid second option.

[Sir Chuckles]

He thinks ToB is silly and does not allow it.
...and has not provided reasoning for it.

[Kazudo]

As a DM, whenever I have an aversion to something even if the reason is silly I bring it up before the game. If I'd rather not, for example, have essentia, psionics, initiators, shadowmages, truenamers, etc. and the reason is because "it involves tracking another subsystem that I'd rather not have to deal with" then I tell my players even if I know they'd judge me for it because that's the honest truth, and as someone in the game even as the DM I would hope they'd respect me as much as if, say, as a player I was to say something like "Would you please not play a Duskblade since you'll completely overshadow my Warmage? My character was built first and I've put a lot of work into it." Yes, it'll hurt feelings, yes it'll step on toes, but it's best to have small confrontations early than big ones later.

And there have been times where I've done worse. "No, I don't want Wu Jen in my game because that gives it an Asian flavor and I'd prefer to keep it Nordic" or "Sorry, no Paladins. The alignment doesn't need to be THAT polarized in this cityscape game" and other things. But if you bring it up and LIST YOUR REASONING, no matter HOW asinine it might appear, it usually works out for the best.

That requires communication. That requires understanding. It requires, yes, compromise. It's not a sign of weakness, it's a sign of greatness.

So there are times when I list my aversion to Tome of Battle. It's not as bad as it used to be, since I've had players who ARE skilled at Tome of Battle and who have said "Actually, it's this way" and completely removed a fog cloud over it, but if I have to cut subsystems for the sake of game simplicity it's one of the first to go since it's not core. But at least I tell people that before they get to the table.

[jedipotter]

It's one thing to say a character "[has] to follow the faith of their chosen god." It's another to say that, when they fail to do so in your perspective, you will take the decision out of their hands. The latter is seizing agency away from the player. I am very disappointed that you can see it as anything else.

It's more like giving them guidelines to follow. Say Bob has a cleric of Tyr. By default Tyr wants his clerics to follow all laws that are not out right evil, even if the cleric does not like them. But Bob just has his character do whatever he feels like and ignores all local laws. So the next time his character uses searing light after the cities 10 pm quiet time law, he might find the spell twisted into silence. A subtle reminder from Tyr to ''follow the local laws''.

Is that taking control of the character? Really?

We can, and we have. But even when there is intractable debate, one thing we generally agree upon, based on the canonical material, is that the murder of a helpless prisoner, absent a suitable trial or other exigent circumstances, is Evil. Corellon is not Evil. He's not even Neutral. He's Good. Chaotic Good, but Good nonetheless.

Well I'm the 13th guy that does not agree with you.

[*]Therefore, a Cleric who takes actions of which I do not approve will have those actions conformed to my expectations.[/list]
Player agency, at least with regard to Clerics, is rendered nonexistent by such a conclusion. You cannot prove otherwise. Saying "Clerics are free to do what they want, provided that I approve of it," is the definition of robbing them of agency.

I'm not really sure were you going on the whole ''well the DM makes all that stuff up''. Well....yea? That is what DM's do. DM's create the setting, things like races, countries, NPC's and even gods. Most of the PbP games right here on the forums do it that way, so I can't be too far off. I'm not sure where you see the problem.

If you don't like their conduct, give them an alignment penalty, strip them of their spells, but don't tell them, "Nope, what you actually did was this." That's the First Rule. The PCs belong to the players. You are the DM; you control every NPC and force of nature in the world. Let the players at least have the PCs.

Well, I'd give lots of hints...plus maybe a vision or two to put the player on the right path. But in my game Tyr is simply not going to keep a cleric that just ''slaughters everything in sight''. Eventually Tyr will dump him, but note Malar would be quick to offer the cleric a spot.

But you've already said that a god can - and does - explicitly state what a Cleric can and cannot do. If he has the same expectations of all Clerics, then they are all subject to the same restraints on their conduct. They will all behave the same way. All Clerics of Torm are subject to having their behavior conformed by Torm, until they are all little mini-Torms.

Well, for the third or fourth time: the god does not care what the cleric does with his life in general. It's what the cleric does with the gods divine power that gets the spotlight.

But that is exaclty right: the cleric of Torm is the personal representative of Torm, a ''mini torm'' if you will.

What's to stop a frustrated player from simply preparing random spells, and casting them on random targets, knowing that his deity/DM will simply alter the spells into what they're supposed to be upon casting?

And don't say he'll lose favor with his deity. Do not say that. If that were an option, you would have used it first, rather than robbing the players of agency by seizing control of their spells.

I guess a player could do that, just for the two or three spells a day that might get twisted. But most actions for most gods fall under ''don't care too much.'' So the player of a cleric of Mystra can cast bless on a goblin bandit instead of magic stone and watch the bless spell effect the goblin normally, just as once or twice a day when he casts a cure spell on a wizard it heals one more extra point of damage.

All the spell twisting comes way before losing favor...

Do you honestly believe all optimizers are cheaters? Do you honestly believe that no optimizers are roleplayers?

And I ask you again, because I don't recall you answering: Are you honestly trolling? Because if you are, it's gone on quite long enough, and it's gone from mildly amusing-slash-infuriating to deeply disturbing.

No, and I never did. There are optimizers, I'd call myself one AND optimizer cheaters.

I'm not a troll (I'm a hobgoblin. see page, er, 4 or 5)

You've seem to use this logic almost constantly. You seem to have a very dim view of every other persons capabilities, especially when compared to your own. What if the slight violations of their old code is an intentional attempt at character developement?

Not ''every person'', but a lot of players and a lot of people for that matter are not creative. Some are, some are not. I don't see it as a big deal to say it, as it's true.

Um, wouldn't being a good roleplayer require optimization that you keep railing against in order to play to the fullest extent of their ability?

Guess I should make another thread ''hot air: the false stormwind''.

With this definition, their comes a significant problem: where is the line? I mean, just for playing the game, using the rules is required. Where, exactly, is the line between using and abusing? That's different for all groups, and you seem to have a ridiculously low bar. Most people would consider that basic artificer behaivor.

Sure lots of DM's just say ''ok'' and let the artificer do whatever they want. I don't. I even have a house rule just for this.

jedipotter, if a Cleric grossly violates their god's Code of Conduct. You don't have to take control of their actions, you can just allow them the Spell or action at the time and then strip them of all Cleric Class Features, turning them into an Ex-Cleric.

See if a cleric of Tyr slaughter some helpless innocents I would start by ''when you attempt to cast flame strike on the farmers that are in your way, the spell fizzles to no effect'', not ''Tyr casts you out''. I would not do that for just one action, unless it was a ''blow up the moon kind of action''.

That character there has some optimization beyond the Domains, no the Druid brother has nothing to do with this character's own optimization, that's just part of his backstory/concept. The Druid has his own specific optimization. They're completely different characters.

That character concept looks fine, he can play in my game any day. But I wonder what god he'd worship?

[Kish]

Of course you can cheat at D&D. For example you could--

fudging die rolls (while not being the DM) or using completely forbidden material and not telling anyone or giving yourself extra gold or moving your stuff around mid-game without telling the DM

--uh.

The quote in the OP strikes me as, "I don't understand how you can cheat at D&D; I suppose you could cheat, but if you're not cheating, you're not cheating."

Then we are left with the other stuff. ...It would seem that most people say ''if you use the rules your never cheating.'' This is a bit of an odd statment as it lets a person ignore, bend or even break rules, but everyone will just say how ''clever'' they were to do that...

Huh? How do you "ignore, bend, or even break rules" while...using the rules? If you do any of those things you aren't using the rules.

Now most of the world considers stacking the deck, that is ''following the rules'', but doing it in a way that makes the event unblanced in your favor to be cheating.

...huh? "Most of the world" seems to have an utterly arbitrary definition of "cheating" by this claim. Apparently, in any game more complicated than War, playing well is sometimes cheating.

Though it seems I'm the only one. Everyone else says ''anything goes''. You ''can't'' cheat at D&D. And all a poor DM can do is beg the players ''I know the rules are broken(all hail the rules), but can you pretty please with sugar on top not be a jerk?" and then the player, from up on his huge high horse can say, ''Ha ha, puny DM, why yes, sure I can play the game and not be a jerk...but just remember I do so at my whim....so we both know I'm so awesome I could break the game, but i'll agree not to do so for now.''

No, the DM can change the rules. What the DM shouldn't do, and is being neither fair nor coherent if s/he does do, is say, "Yes, Natural Spell exists in this game. No, there is nothing stopping your druid from taking it. If s/he does take it, you're cheating."

We can, and we have. But even when there is intractable debate, one thing we generally agree upon, based on the canonical material, is that the murder of a helpless prisoner, absent a suitable trial or other exigent circumstances, is Evil.

What's an exigent circumstance?

If you're saying no Good character slaughters innocent people for convenience, I'm with you. If you're saying every (or most...or quite possibly any...) Chaotic Good character believes justice is guaranteed by a formal legal trial, I'm very much not with you. I would expect the average Chaotic Good character who believes that execution is valid to take the view, "If you go to trial, you'll be convicted if you lack influence or acquitted if you have influence, regardless of whether you're actually guilty, so I'll decide whether I think you're guilty of a crime that I believe should get the death penalty, and if the answer is 'yes,' carry it out without hesitation."

If you're just saying that being genocidally racist ("wants the worse for drow," really?) is incompatible with Good, you're absolutely right.

[Ionbound]

I am so glad I didn't play that Planescape game. So, so glad. I'm sure you wouldn't have approved of a half-fiend wizard. But, personal past between us out of the way, you are using Rule 0 in a way that utterly defeats the point. Rule 0 exists to ensure that everyone has fun. Not just the DM, and not just the player. But you use it, along with your magic rewrite (to anyone interested, it's more of the same DM being able to kill a player at a moment's notice), to direct your player's actions, in a way that they likely don't appreciate. If you want to have a good time, sit down with whoever you play with, and have a nice, calm conversation about how they view the game. Come back once you've done that. Because, until you do, you will never be able to play D&D like it should be played; A fun, oft-silly, fantasy adventure.

[Kantolin]

So the next time his character uses searing light after the cities 10 pm quiet time law, he might find the spell twisted into silence. A subtle reminder from Tyr to ''follow the local laws''.

What was he searing light /at/? I mean, if the party was attacked by brigands at 10:30pm and he aimed a searing light to get rid of one of them, I certainly hope it doesn't randomly get turned to silence until Tyr is actively trying to get his cleric killed for Tyr's own personal enjoyment.

Also uh... does searing light make a ton of noise or something? Presumably clerics of Tyr in that city would still be able to cast spells at night for reasons, if none other than the spell light.

Or is this 'Tyr', which is a jedipotter expy, and not 'Tyr', the Forgotten realms deity?

Is that taking control of the character? Really?

"I walk up"
"Instead, you walk south"

So yes, that is taking control over the character.

Well I'm the 13th guy that does not agree with you.

Welp, you heard him folks: Murder of a helpless prisoner is not evil in jedipotter's setting.

With statements like that, I must presume it is very difficult to figure out how you /are/ supposed to act. I return to my 'Oh great Corellon, please direct me on what to do' stance, as that seems to be the only way to stick to a given alignment.

Unless Corellon, like Tyr above, decides to get his clerics killed at random so he can joke about it in the deific locker room.

But in my game Tyr is simply not going to keep a cleric that just ''slaughters everything in sight''.

In /most/ games, a cleric that 'just slaughters everything in sight' will no longer have an alignment that is compatible with Tyr's (Meaning, they'll become evil).

Although I find that a little suspect; so it's not evil to murder a helpless prisoner, but it /is/ evil to murder a not helpless farmer? What if 'everything in sight' is a drow?

But that is exaclty right: the cleric of Torm is the personal representative of Torm, a ''mini torm'' if you will.

Every cleric of Torm should not, in fact, be Torm. Otherwise we do have samey issues.

All the spell twisting comes way before losing favor...

Man, so your spells randomly change into other things when your deity isn't even mad at you? O-o

No, and I never did. There are optimizers, I'd call myself one

I see.

Sure lots of DM's just say ''ok'' and let the artificer do whatever they want. I don't. I even have a house rule just for this.

This isn't 'let the artificer do whatever they want'. This is 'the artificer looks for spells'. You seem absolutely terrified that people will walk all over you if you allow them to do things.

See if a cleric of Tyr slaughter some helpless innocents I would start by ''when you attempt to cast flame strike on the farmers that are in your way, the spell fizzles to no effect'', not ''Tyr casts you out''.

I dunno, murdering helpless innocents is in fact evil, so uh...
...actually, earlier 'murdering helpless' is expressly not evil...
...hm.

I once again stand by my 'Oh great Corellon, please essentially play my character for me' idea, as it seems to be the primary workable option.

[Necroticplague]

Guess I should make another thread ''hot air: the false stormwind''.


Sure lots of DM's just say ''ok'' and let the artificer do whatever they want. I don't. I even have a house rule just for this.

An excellent way to avoid answering the questions. You still haven't answered the main points, you merely re-made an assertion, and commented on a side note.

1.Why do you think that good roleplaying does not require optimization, despite good roleplaying involving playing "to the fullest extent of their ability"? What about roleplaying makes it inversely proportional to power of the character?

2.How do you draw the line between using the rules and abusing them?

[Jeff the Green]

See if a cleric of Tyr slaughter some helpless innocents I would start by ''when you attempt to cast flame strike on the farmers that are in your way, the spell fizzles to no effect'', not ''Tyr casts you out''. I would not do that for just one action, unless it was a ''blow up the moon kind of action''.

First, you're going reductio ad absurdum when its not justified. The proper response to this is to smack the player on the head and tell him to roleplay his character consistently (or, if new, remind him that he's not playing Fable or Skyrim); someone who is devoted enough to Tyr to join his clergy is not the sort of person who will murder helpless innocents except in extraordinary circumstances. Not without falling first.

Second, if he tries to do something that is reasonably within character but also grossly violates their god's code, you first remind him of that (because his character, having spent his life training for the clergy, should know it), and then let him fall. For Tyr, this would probably be something like trying to cheat justice. Say, their party member is on trial for a breaking a law that isn't itself unjust they did commit and they use a spell to get them out of prison and flee. The god's job is not to hold the hand of his cleric and remind him by perverting his spells. His job is to let the cleric make his mistake and then punish him by stripping him of powers until he atones (which would probably involve turning oneself in for aiding a prisoner's escape). Otherwise there would basically be no fallen clerics (so a good rule isn't being used) and the god has a bunch of clerics who wanted to violate their code but only didn't do so because their god held them back. There aren't any gods that would actually want that kind of servant doing works in his name.

(Honestly, it feels a bit bizarre. In some instances you're callous and brutal to your players, and in others you feel the need to hold their hands. But in ways that also take what little control they have away from them.)

[ryu]

First, you're going reductio ad absurdum when its not justified. The proper response to this is to smack the player on the head and tell him to roleplay his character consistently (or, if new, remind him that he's not playing Fable or Skyrim); someone who is devoted enough to Tyr to join his clergy is not the sort of person who will murder helpless innocents except in extraordinary circumstances. Not without falling first.

Second, if he tries to do something that is reasonably within character but also grossly violates their god's code, you first remind him of that (because his character, having spent his life training for the clergy, should know it), and then let him fall. For Tyr, this would probably be something like trying to cheat justice. Say, their party member is on trial for a breaking a law that isn't itself unjust they did commit and they use a spell to get them out of prison and flee. The god's job is not to hold the hand of his cleric and remind him by perverting his spells. His job is to let the cleric make his mistake and then punish him by stripping him of powers until he atones (which would probably involve turning oneself in for aiding a prisoner's escape). Otherwise there would basically be no fallen clerics (so a good rule isn't being used) and the god has a bunch of clerics who wanted to violate their code but only didn't do so because their god held them back. There aren't any gods that would actually want that kind of servant doing works in his name.

(Honestly, it feels a bit bizarre. In some instances you're callous and brutal to your players, and in others you feel the need to hold their hands. But in ways that also take what little control they have away from them.)

Or just let the guy switch deities if he legitimately doesn't regret what he did to fall. Clerics can do that. Not to mention it's good character development.

[jedipotter]

I am so glad I didn't play that Planescape game. So, so glad. I'm sure you wouldn't have approved of a half-fiend wizard. But, personal past between us out of the way, you are using Rule 0 in a way that utterly defeats the point. Rule 0 exists to ensure that everyone has fun. Not just the DM, and not just the player. But you use it, along with your magic rewrite (to anyone interested, it's more of the same DM being able to kill a player at a moment's notice), to direct your player's actions, in a way that they likely don't appreciate. If you want to have a good time, sit down with whoever you play with, and have a nice, calm conversation about how they view the game. Come back once you've done that. Because, until you do, you will never be able to play D&D like it should be played; A fun, oft-silly, fantasy adventure.

Personal stuff: You seem like a good player, we might of had a good game. Oh well...

To be fair, firedaemon did not like this Houserule of mine: A summoning spell has a 1% chance per spell level of summoning something other than what the caster intended that is not under the control of the caster. It could be anything from a celestial rabbit to a demon or elemental. Firedaemon was worried that by casting summon monster ! that Orcus might appear and kill everyone.

I rule zero so everyone has fun, not just me. Most players, as i have said, are fine with my house rules, or they don't effect them, so they don't care. Tony's character Tron the fighter does not care about the summoning mischance.

Unless Corellon, like Tyr above, decides to get his clerics killed at random so he can joke about it in the deific locker room.

I'd see Corellon as the ''never let them see you sweat'' pretty boy, who always changes clothing far away from other people. Tyr is the hair older guy who walks around naked. Lathander likes to show off his body and often walks around in a tiny towel. Tempus is always trying to pick a friendly fight. Gond always has some crazy gadget he invented and trys to show it off ''look the socker machine folds my socks for me!''. Helm keeps watch on the door. And poor Orcus sits outside my the sign ''deities only past this point'' and fusses.

[Ionbound]

Personal stuff: You seem like a good player, we might of had a good game. Oh well...

To be fair, firedaemon did not like this Houserule of mine: A summoning spell has a 1% chance per spell level of summoning something other than what the caster intended that is not under the control of the caster. It could be anything from a celestial rabbit to a demon or elemental. Firedaemon was worried that by casting summon monster ! that Orcus might appear and kill everyone.

I rule zero so everyone has fun, not just me. Most players, as i have said, are fine with my house rules, or they don't effect them, so they don't care. Tony's character Tron the fighter does not care about the summoning mischance.

Uh-huh. But this Tron character would be effected by the summoning mischance because I never saw a table of any kind about what might be summoned. A Summon Monster I summoning any kind of demon, ever, is unacceptable, as even a Dretch is far out of range of the average person who would be using a spell like Summon Monster I: Specifically, a party with access to only low-level spells. And so it becomes that if you don't like what the monster is being summoned for, *blam*, a sudden encounter which is likely far, far above the party's abilities.

[Necroticplague]

Personal stuff: You seem like a good player, we might of had a good game. Oh well...

To be fair, firedaemon did not like this Houserule of mine: A summoning spell has a 1% chance per spell level of summoning something other than what the caster intended that is not under the control of the caster. It could be anything from a celestial rabbit to a demon or elemental. Firedaemon was worried that by casting summon monster ! that Orcus might appear and kill everyone.

Most players, as i have said, are fine with my house rules, or they don't effect them, so they don't care. Tony's character Tron the fighter does not care about the summoning mischance.

I can't really blame her, if she planned on being a summoner. While a 1-9% chance is very small, the chances of something occurring over the course of a characters career eventually is pretty close to guaranteed. And without any knowledge of how appropriate the summons are to the spell, that could, from her point of view, be "if you want to play this classic archetype, you will, without warning, suffer severely for it.". And the summon rule will effect her teamates, that fighters gonna have to deal with whatever comes out as a result of the miscast.

[Threadnaught]

See if a cleric of Tyr slaughter some helpless innocents I would start by ''when you attempt to cast flame strike on the farmers that are in your way, the spell fizzles to no effect'', not ''Tyr casts you out''. I would not do that for just one action, unless it was a ''blow up the moon kind of action''.

Umm, slaughtering a bunch of helpless innocents as a LG/NG/CG Cleric of a LG/NG/CG deity should force them to seek atonement. As well as make them take a step closer to Stupid Evil. Or Chaotic Evil, most important aspect is Evil.
Murder is an Evil act, even if it's a Drow wandering around the Underdark.

That character concept looks fine, he can play in my game any day. But I wonder what god he'd worship?

Made for an Eberron Campaign, no God, just the Ideal that everyone in civilized society be Lawful. Doing it for the benefit of all is how I hope to keep him Lawful Neutral like a true knight templar.
I can think of no Good Ideal that would grant both Domains, only Neutral and Evil.

Oh yes, if I'm going to optimize a build, I'm going to at least try to fluff a reason for those abilities and play it just like that. If I'm going to fluff a character, I'm going to at least try to optimize a build to back it up mechanically.


I'm not actually the best player as I have several shades of munchkin in my makeup, from years of being the DM with no games to take out my frustrations on. Though I am the best (debatable) and most experienced DM of my group.

Spoiler: My players have already encountered three Dragons, kinda.

Show

A Pseudo Dragon that looked at one PC and kept at it's business, a Hullathoin claiming to be a Dragon surrounded by Vampires, they let it go and it agreed not to kill them, even giving them a free item in exchange for it's freedom. And Smug an Old Green Dragon, who they also freed and who promised them an army. Pseudo Dragon was a random encounter to kill one of them if they tried fighting, Hullathoin is my short term plan to screw them over and Smug is my long term plan to screw them over.
Completely avoidable if they'd just ignored the caged Dragons. They also released a Swarm Shifter Mummy and some Warforged with unusual anatomy.
At the end of the dungeon, they believe they'll find the Locate City Bomb.

[jedipotter]

An excellent way to avoid answering the questions. You still haven't answered the main points, you merely re-made an assertion, and commented on a side note.

1.Why do you think that good roleplaying does not require optimization, despite good roleplaying involving playing "to the fullest extent of their ability"? What about roleplaying makes it inversely proportional to power of the character?

2.How do you draw the line between using the rules and abusing them?

1.I don't see a connection. For most, he role play always takes a back seat to optimization. Few if they only had one feat to pick would pick ''skill focus:Farming'' even if their whole character was a farmer that got ''dragged into an adventure''. No, they will pick ''Improved Initiative'' as it makes sense that a character of a farmer being a Commoner level three would pick a feat that...um..let him go first in combat, and not farm.

Way to many builds need this feat or that feat....characters can't ''waste'' a feat slot for a feat not in their build plan. So the mechanics won't support the role play.


2.Well the line is different for everyone. My view of the line is all over the posts. For example it's abusing the rules for a stone age barbarian to have a steel greatsword, just as it does more damage then the 'primitive ' weapons.

[Boci]

2.Well the line is different for everyone. My view of the line is all over the posts. For example it's abusing the rules for a stone age barbarian to have a steel greatsword, just as it does more damage then the 'primitive ' weapons.

What if he killed a knight, picked up their sword and went "hey, this is a much better weapon than my stone club" and has loved the steel ever since?

[Juntao112]

1.I don't see a connection. For most, he role play always takes a back seat to optimization. Few if they only had one feat to pick would pick ''skill focus:Farming'' even if their whole character was a farmer that got ''dragged into an adventure''. No, they will pick ''Improved Initiative'' as it makes sense that a character of a farmer being a Commoner level three would pick a feat that...um..let him go first in combat, and not farm.

You know that farmers have to get up early in the morning, right?

[Amphetryon]

You know that farmers have to get up early in the morning, right?

To be fair, the mortality rates jedipotter says he shoots for in his campaigns would make picking Feats via dartboard as effective from an optimization standpoint as any other method.

[Flickerdart]

You know that farmers have to get up early in the morning, right?

Trying to think creatively about your character is cheating. Gods forbid that your farmer have any trait other than "he digs holes in the ground and puts plants into them."

[Svata]

I rule zero so everyone has fun, not just me. Most players, as i have said, are fine with my house rules, or they don't effect them, so they don't care. Tony's character Tron the fighter does not care about the summoning mischance.

Really? If I was the frontliner, I'd be worried. The caster has a(n admittedly small) chance of summoning a (potentially) hostile creature in behind me that I was expecting to be renforcements? Why wouldn't I be?