dkonen's page

dkonen wrote:

Roleplaying gets plot cookies. Rollplaying doesn't, because they're interested in stats.

It's not so much punishing Roll Play, but tailoring the experience to the player. A roleplayer will have a charcter who falls in lust/love, makes strong friendships and stumbles into awkward situations.

A roll player doesn't care as long as he hits stuff and does tons of damage. I don't, as a DM have much control over his choice of stats or feats, and s/he isn't interested in plot, so why throw cookies that only get ignored?

Because people offered cookies are more likely to try cookies. My brother was pretty distant from the roleplay aspects of my campaign I started months ago, because he hadn't figured out a lot about his Paladin other than he was a Paladin and had a bible and sword handed down from his parents. He was mostly blank beyond that.

I stuffed some cookies in his mouth and not long after he might as well been blue and furry.

This could be true, however, I have had only minor luck with people. I ended up running a game that ended up half ways revolving around the fact that a character with a specifically tailored plot refused to deal with it, and as a result, the rest of the party hated him and eventually tried to assassinate him.

Same player did the same thing to my husband. Was given a plot made just for him and spent two thirds of the campaign shoving it off onto us to work on, while he ignored it. He eventually died but not before he got full blasted about his neglecting to resolve all the issues he caused to the point where he was a walking natural disaster and noone wanted him anywhere around them.

I guess I just have stubborn players bytimes I haven`t run in a bit and that player isn`t in our group anymore, but I still hesitate. I put a lot of work into my games and I haven`t yet found a way to shake the habit.

I'm a cynic. I hear "old school gamer" and I think of someone who thinks 3.0 is ancient.

I hear "grognard" and I think grumpy edition defender (not necessarily an aggressive sort but will defend his favorite to the pain)

As a style.. There wasn't a defined one. Everyone took the rules and went with it. I didn't know many who ran direct published adventures. They all had their own worlds, ideas, kingdoms, and as things came out, different books were allowed, rules were used/abandoned, you name it. I guess it was the utter lack of a defined style in the game for me. All the style of the game was altered so signofocantly by the people who chose to run it.

Now everything rules wise is very standardized, granted, Paizo is putting out more and more optionals, but nothing compared to how it used to be. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, but I don't know if it's entirely a good thing either.

Thinking back however, I do not miss carting thirty pounds of books a couple miles up a hill in the summer to meet in the open commons of the university to play (some were students or children of staff so we could use the room as long as we didn`t bother anyone). That alone made gym class for wimps.

Roleplaying gets plot cookies. Rollplaying doesn't, because they're interested in stats.

It's not so much punishing Roll Play, but tailoring the experience to the player. A roleplayer will have a charcter who falls in lust/love, makes strong friendships and stumbles into awkward situations.

A roll player doesn't care as long as he hits stuff and does tons of damage. I don't, as a DM have much control over his choice of stats or feats, and s/he isn't interested in plot, so why throw cookies that only get ignored?

That being said, plot cookies can lead to things like the NPC giving something like an item to a player ot helping them out in a really bad situation. It can, also, however, lead to mortal enemies being made and the role player being targetted for assassination.

It utterly depends on how the player wants to play. Of course, this gets mitigated and adapted based on how many you have playing, so roll players can end up left out in the cold if the majority want RP.

It's like the difference between social characters who get extra dialog options in a video game as opposed to players who just cut swathes through content.

1 and 2? The DM is working with the players, but is supposed to contrive ways that players can enjoy themselves by overcoming things. Every problem has a solution but some will be more difficult than others, not to win/lose but to reflect an important conflict.

I hate the ideas that players work against DMs because I have found that it invariably leads to competitive bad feelings. Also, it's pointless, because the DM can "win" whenever they want. They have access to everything, whereas players just get their PCs and what the DM allows.

It'd be like a minimum wage slave competing in a bidding war against a billionaire.

Had a DM turned player who apparently complained about how his players necver engaged in RP. He came to play in our games and then complained about there being too much talking and how he wanted the action to speed up. -.-

Also our house rules that if you're playing at our table, your character is a group player.

On average? Sort of. I have played two characters who were extremely older in the last decade, whereas before that they were almost all teens equivalent. I actually played a grandma-through use of other material that allowed them to stay perceptibly young, if not chronologically so.

I think if anything, I've moved more into ageless as opposed to young characters.

I want to run a convention game where everyone is a member of an all male tribe of Blues who have a titan wizard terrorizing them with his displacer beast familiar. He believes that Blues carry the long lost secret of an ancient magic that upon discovery will win him the adulation of the mages who scorned him. Each tribe member is marked by his white phyrigian hat, save for one, who is the tribe leader who wears a red coloured hat.

Possibly followed by reincarnation as catfolk who are all synthesists who, upon combination of their eidolon powers create a super eidolon who eventually fight the king iof the blues, a half titan, half blue prince who is seeking the hand of a human princess who may or may not control the pink eidolon of the combination. Upon such combinatioon they will create an artifact sword and they will live upon an island that is an intelligent artifact that can fly.

:P

Confession:

My husband is my favorite DM and I find him giving threads to everyone else but me for fear of favoritism.

I hate running or playing in modules

As a DM I prefer high level than low level games.

I love running save the world games.

I can only ever successfully run evil games for some reason.

I prefer running PF as 3.x backwards compatible, more options means more individuality among the characters in my game.

I love it when players go off the rails.

I only use the errata I like

I like playing "unique" characters, but the more bonuses the character has, the more likely I am to have them indentured to another player to keep them low key and out of the centre of things.

I will find rules to support what I want to do, rather than rule 0 it.

I will never throw plot to an inactive or utterly passive player.

What Trekkie said. Typically I allow for certain things to permit a relatively safe amount of rest/renew. If they're not of sufficient level, a wand of stoneshape can work, or a message, half crumbled with a password to secret location to hide.

If you want to be cruel, certainly repopulate, perhaps even focus on the last location they were in if they weren't particularly quiet.

It all depend on what you want to be as a DM. It is very very easy to be harsh, and can be difficult to be more lenient without being obvious about the handwaving. How smart are your players? How lethal do you want to be? Decide that first and then seed methods along the way (or don't).

Edit:If you want a "fun fair way" to liven up resting, ou may need to houserule when casters get their spells back, depending again, on how harsh you want to be.

You could offer a variety of locations to rest in, from the least to the most secure, you could put them on a timer (you have three days to finish this dungeon or rocks fall, everyone dies), you could have an increasing chance for encounters based on how many times they've "rested", you could pop in fun random plot devices as you see fit.

Really, all in all, it depends on you and your table. You know them and what they'll find fun. Go with that.

I was born in the late seventies, however in early eighties the satanic panic was thriving here. My older brother saved for weeks to buy the box set in town for D&D.

After much pestering, he ran a short game for me. I remember it quite well. I loved my elf, and the golf pencils and the nylon dice.

Well...turns out it was a bad thing. My mother was curious about the fact that my brother and I (for once) had actually enjoyed playing together. She started asking questions and got the reason out.

That night, both me an my brother were dragged downstairs as she brought out the box and burned it all in front of us in the wood stove, ranting at us for being satanists and my brother for trying to make me worship the devil. We didn't even go to church at that point.

Later, she also cancelled internet for a year after watching "the Net" and stockpiled for y2k.

My home life was ...interesting.

When the guy who's been causing the problems gets all offended at being called out and huffs away in a flounce,

Or-

When one guy uses another to start venting by feeding him lines that don't match up and tries to pretend he's got nothing to do with it.

Our group is usually good but when they're not, they can be positively toxic.

no, no I don't appreciate rape jokes at the table, why do you ask?

-.-

Fair game, I'd say.

Provided the DM in charge actually reads the background.

I've had a dm who used the background well, and the same DM just browse through and completely mess it up because they missed some rather important points.

If the character is say-a noble knight type, kind and generous to a fault, for them to lose everything in a sudden political backstab.

It's not okay to have them suddenly realize that they actually are a wanted criminal for several muggings and murders unless you have a spell effect or some other mind control that made them forget it.

Going with a background is different than rewriting it.

DMs should also respect their players when they start to play with it.

If there's a nemesis, by all means throw them in.

Don't make the nemesis a comatose defenseless bunny to slam their ego.

The return of the eight hour gaming session that actually involves gaming not half filled with derailed OOC tangents that last a minimum of half an hour each.

The return of D and D Tools.

Many many pathfinder books.

dkonen wrote:

Half god-at least he knows how to party.

Would you rather play as Pun Pun's sidekick, or Pun Pun?

They're the same thing, essentially.

Pun Pun's ascension requires the feat assume supernatural ability, the ability to transform into a sarrukh, and a snake or other "scalykind" familiar. You transform into the sarrukh, give your familiar godlike powers, he transforms and does the same, et al infinitum.

They have essentially completely equal capabilities, and a familiar is about as "sidekick" as they can be. So, this one isn't really an either-or question.

So, I dunno, flip a coin, whichever comes up, I suppose. It's all the same.

Would you rather be a blind martial with blindsense or a deaf (non-oracle curse, so no actual benefit) caster?

I meant non familiar, but it's past.

(original was intended of would you rather not be pun pun but be his party member, or be punpun)

(personally I'd prefer the former. Punpun would be dreadfully boring)

Just for those who are still having issues-patch day tomorrow apparently.

Half god-at least he knows how to party.

Would you rather play as Pun Pun's sidekick, or Pun Pun?

When he starts talking about how hard it is to "challenge*" his players.

*"challenge" players has come to be shorthand-so far as I can see for TPK and make it not look like a "designed to TPK" encounter. -.- I hate that bloody word now.

Thanks, Usual. I'm actually more of geek for pen and paper and LARP, while the hubs likes his MMOs primary. I just find that programmed NPCs can't offer the same feeling a true RPG can.

And +1 for the one player who outclasses folks when he knows better. I won't elaborate further lest I start ranting about power scaling and such.

And also +1 for item creation feats still being good investments. I use it to give me something to do in between games, but it's good for making sure you get what you need, rather than say, an intelligent sea shanty singing collapsible boat (an actual item we got a campaign or two ago)-while entertaining, not so useful.

Boots of levitation + rope= towropes

+1 if used with wings of flying or flying mount.

+2 if used with decanter speedboats. :P

+1 to backseat DMing.

This is great. As someone who spent a month doing sigs for folks on another forum, I tip my (proverbial) hat to you for it :)

1st Azlanti. More character development.

Would you rather play with a DM who uses DMPCs but runs great abstract plot, or run with a by the books DM who runs only published APs?

Conversely, being the only girl at the table and having to sideline and backbench my characters so I don't get seen as being favorited. Having to purposefully nerf my characters because to do otherwise means I'm getting gf/wife privilege. >.<

I'm more of a gamer enthusiast than most folks at our table and would game seven days a week if I could (and have-though I think my record is nine). I do enjoy gaming thankyouverymuch-in fact, without gaming I tend to feel listless and disinterested. :P

-gotten rid of dmpc in the spotlight scenario-now it's dmpc as plot delivery item.

-been waaaay too lenient with players.

I finally snapped when one of them attempted to rape his cohort, and had him murdered off board by a known NPC assassin he had ticked off earlier that day.

Best part? Another PC hired the assassin to do the job when he found out about it.

I don't allow that kind of crap in my games. Not that I run much anymore.

While ill in Mexico some years ago, I realized (as did my husband) just how ticked I was about him killing characters offboard to "yard trash" in a campaign that, to this day, was probably one of the best he's ever run.

As in *screamed at him* angry. Apparently being delirious can let loose all sorts of random stuff you'd thought you'd buried.

On the upside, it was the start of our own persistent world storytelling style, leading to several campaigns that result from that one, and dealing with the aftermath of things that occurred from it.

I can only imagine what the upstairs neighbors thought I was ranting about at the top of my lungs nearing midnight. The free booze at dinner probably didn't help.

Incidentally: If you must go to an all inclusive, try the Dominican instead.

Yes, they could, but I think people are looking for a "by the book" rationale rather than DM fiat.

Typically published rules get valued more than DM individual rulings in/on public forums, and as such, there's no accurate way to guess at the formula-so some are opting that it simply doesn't exist (which is slightly more RAW* than "uh..I guess..X much? Does that sound right?")

*yesyes I am aware that the term refers to a mythological creature, that everyone knows but noone has ever seen :P

Actually, you could make a continuous item of shield-it would just cost the price of adding the brooch of shielding to bracers of armor +4, then maybe an equivalent enhancement bonus equivalent to ghost touch armor (I think it's a +1?).

It can be done*, but hella expensive.

*technically, it's not so much a continuous single spell effect as adding the cost of multiple items with single effects together (double cost for each beyond the first most expensive), but merely requiring shield as a spell for the creation isn't a long stretch, nor is renaming them to bracers of shield.

**to be even more accurate you'd need to price up a +4 for armor bonus (other), ghost touch(x2), and brooch of shielding(x2), and require it to have shield as a required spell for creation.

(remember ghost touch can be added to bracers of armor and amulet of mighty fists-so it gives a reasonable precedent)

Like I said: Expensive.

You could, at that point, reduce it to once a day from *that* price, or render it slotless (x2 cost again), but honestly, it`s not really worth it for the price.

So many magic items, so little wealth and time.

The point people are making is that the +3 may not be an actual "+3" as per weapon and armor enhancements.

The armor in question follows no known formula.

Therefore, we cannot know if it is merely the additional quirks (rather than the numerical) which are *insanely* cheap (not to mention unable to be duplicated without some heavy creativity of rules-fu), *OR* if the numerical bonus follows a seperate bonus chart-thus changing the cost of it.*

It could also be that the item works more like someone in another thread was arguing on pricing of an item of shield. It's multiple effects that were calculated as a single spell effect placed on armor.**

Or maybe there are modifiers that are not visable in the creation of said item.***

*which would mean that the difference between a +1/+2/+3/+4/+5 upgrade operates on an entirely different chart. Perhaps the numerical bonus is half cost? Then it would be 500gp for a +1 rather than 1k. (it is unlikely it follows a more expensive formula)

**I don't know of any spells off the top of my head that lower armor check penalties (rather than remove them) while enhancing dex bonus while wearing it- but it could be reasonable to assume it's a modified version of effortless armor (reduced for partial effect), cat's grace and magic vestment (both reduced for partial effect).

For example: check "amulet of euphoric healing" enthrall does not cause euphoria, nor do either it or cure light wounds have an addiction rating, but there it is.

*** like the example above-where amulet of euphoric healing has no included spell or effect in the formula to account for the additional addiction check, but there it is.

Without a way to figure out what each part costs, there is no way to check that the numerical bonus matches up-which means, there is no way to tell if the pricing for the enhancement portion is correct or if it's using something else-which means we don't know how much each +1 cost, so removing or adding enhancement bonus becomes the realm of guesswork at best.

A bag of holding usually works, though a portable hole has a much larger volume.

<snip>

Tell the undead not to move and tell observers that you're just taking all these coffins to a proper burial ground.

Bonus: ranks in bluff and profession: undertaker.

(though the first is a more practical investment-my necro currently has her skelly hand her things from the inside of the hole and is ordered to attack anyone besides her that opens it-not that it'd last long, but the shrieks from the would be thief would make it almost worth it.)

The problem is, without standard pricing of the celestial armor, there's no way to know if the enhancement bonus was implemented as per rules, or if some other formula was used. THerefore, even though the enhancement total is a +3, it might be an "effective" but not "by formula" +3.*

I've done my fair share of tinkering with items and upgrading the special items that don't follow standard rules is generally something I won't touch with a ten foot pole-mostly because I have no idea where to start breaking down what the pricing originally was, in order to know what goes where and for how much.

Without a baseline, the rest is useless.

* a "by formula" +3 would follow standard rules for increase, much like your example with the longsword. However, if the +3 isn't an actual by the book +3 -instead it's some weird odd little gleam in the designer's head, (given the underpricing of the item as a whole, and some of the effects that I'm not really sure where they were taken from)-then the increase from +3 to +4 may not be accurate as per armor rules. Heck maybe part of the +3 is an inherent natural +1 to the armor's enhancement bonus because it's celestial?

Command word is not a cost reducer as per rules.

5x per day is the same cost as a continuous, which is why "charges per day" is a "special" category modifying the "spell effect table". You could have a "command word" "continuous" but it would still cost actions to activate (thus the 1800 modifier as opposed to 2k).

However, this still place the shield bracers within the realm of armor bonus items that already exist, however requires additional cost as it also acts as a brooch of shielding. I'd let slide the ghost touch property-as that's a weapon/armor quality and thus, not priced for miscellaneous items (in this case).

The rules work that you-when creating magic items-use the most costly of formulas, as a way of mitigating the fact that the items will be custom created to your needs. It's acheck/balance system that is not meant to be abused and if it is being exploited for cheaper costs, it should be removed from play, as the abuses can get..well.. rather extreme.

As far as this goes, it's a mild abuse, but it's the intent that counts. In this case, it's an intentional abuse of rules that are already particularly lenient.

(truthfully, you want something cheap use the standard magic item reducers: item requires class/skill/alignment-that way it's all legal and takes some of the pressure off the already far too strained WBL. Still cheesy, but since it's rules legal, it ends up less "cheatery".)

Oven baked tortilla chips

buy a bag or two of whatever tortilla chips are on sale, with salsa of according flavor your table agrees on (mild if you don't know), one lb ground beef, cheese (one of the small bars should do it-and whatever flavors you feel like)

lay out tortillas on baking sheet in a single layer

brown 1 lb ground beef

Layer beef and cheese over chips, repeat until you have no more ground beef.

Bake until melty goodness

Pour half jar of salsa over top layer, last layer of cheese*

pop back in for about a minute and a half,

take back out, and either serve it up or hand plates around.

*if you bake the salsa into the layers, your chips will get soggy in the process and kind of gross wet cardboard like.

Bonus: takes about ten minutes tops

double bonus: you can use leftover chicken/turkey/you name it instead of buying ground beef.

TBH, if I make food for folks who come over it's more likely to be an actual meal (usually a turkey spread around the holidays, though I've done pot roast and others).

Even so, we typically pick up food before game and eat it as we try to remember where we left off last session, rather than bringing/making communal snacks.

Oh! you can also try mini shepherd's pies-effectively put mashed potato, browned ground beef, veg and top it off with either more mashed potatoes or cheese and portion it out into a muffin tin.

Seasoned ground beef meatballs?

Or, in true canadian tradition: poutine! (cheese and gravy over fries-yes adding meat is perfectly acceptable, even among traditionalists-though veg is just sacriledge to the gods of hardened arteries.)

I only use visual aids if I have to (as in PC making a map as they go with ranks: cartographer-or my language fails me) despite the fact I often spend time sketching.

I avoid battlemats and minis like the plague because I have found it adds far too much OOG banter about where to position, who's going to go help who and how, and generally slows combat down.

It's a lot easier and faster for a player to just say "how far away are they?" or "can I hit more than three of them with a fireball?" Than look at the map, get up, wander around looking over the various features, picking out which mini is yours (unless very distinctly painted and personal use), calculating (even math whizzes will compare number for the best benefit) chatting about "well I was thinking about going here-" "But if you do, then they might.." etc etc.

Yes, I have played miniature games, quite a few, and I have never seen it go the way of speed chess (move, act, next player) and I have without exception seen it degrade to out of game topics, while people wait for their turns (complaining about work, school, family, hobbies).

With all of that going on, combat ends up taking three times as long and people spend most of the session OOC.

Our other regular DM similarly avoids it, but he's been on a slump lately and not cutting back on some folks (who may be intentionally) sidetracking into OOC stuff, but he's got a pass for some health issues at this time. It would still make adding a battlemat and minis into a miniature game rather than a d&d role playing game.

Tactics are basic math. Miniature games basically turn an RPG into a basic math with toys-not that I won't go for more complicated miniature games now and then (been trying to put a warhammer fantasy army together for a year or so now), but for me, there is a very very strong demarcation between miniature games and Table top role playing games.

Besides with only one miniature to maneuver against the DM-it really just (for me) devolves the game into gi joes; with a side helping of basic math; liberally flavored with sideline "peanut gallery" gossip.

The determination of how many encounters happen per day is squarely in the hands of the DM.

If the DM has only one encounter per day and feels abused by the players as a result, they can quite easily insert more encounters until they feel that their game is more "balanced".

The rules exist as a standard of play, it is neither reasonable nor practical to expect to redo rules for every possible DMing style, nor to even have your table remember all of them. You're much better off simply saying you won't allowing crafting by PCs.

If you still feel that's inappropriate, then have your players submit their formulas before they make an item.

<spell> x <level it is acting as> x <modifier>= <price>

<description of what the item does>

Then you can compare and decide. A PC crafter has to do all of these steps regardless.

And I reiterate: never let players you don't trust get into custom crafting, unless you're looking to have fun with it and have confidence in your ability to adapt.

Most of the locals I know who make shears use heavy duty snips, 16or 14 guage steel wire and a dowel with a slit down it for easy cutting. Wrap around the dowle until you have a coil, snip the coil.

Can take a week to a month or so to make a full shirt (short sleeves).

I've done some lighter in silver, but I've had to hang up my tools since, but at least one lady I know made herself a sheathe dress of chain by hand recently for a con.

The hardest part is watching you keep your pattern (typically 4 in 4).

A familiar starts with an int score of 6-that's definitely good enough to realize that a-their master is sleeping and b-falling asleep during a combat encounter is bad for his/her health.

As for animals waking people up?

Get a cat. *Try* to sleep when the dish goes empty. I dare you.

If it's continuous shield item, then it should be more compared to the price of adding a brooch of shielding x 1.5 (as the cheaper item) folded into a pair of bracers of armor +4 (see rules for multiple effects-yes it's one spell, but both effects are reproduced by seperate pre existing items).

If it's once a day-that changes things significantly, more specifically, having a DM who has you have more than one encounter (or a long drawn out one) can pretty much overcome the bonus (why it's generally so cheap).

Wands are priced accordingly, allowing for the fact that you effectively have fifty uses of that, spaced out however you like. So if you do have multiple encounters you can expend enough charges to easily get yourself through a full day of encounters (most likely much much more), but eventually you *will* run out.

Pricing for custom items should always be relegated to players you can trust not to abuse the system, or DMs who have the time to cross reference to make sure someone isn't destroying the system with continuous items of truestrike and the like.

There's a reason most DMs without regular tables hate custom items and won't allow it.

OKay in addition to what everyone has said (you need to pay component costs and they cannot be reduced. he still has to craft all 50, and they are destroyed once used), there's also the "similar effect" clause that states that if an item reproduces a similar effect in previously published item (like a luckblade) then they are to use the established pricing.

So no, you can't duplicate a luckblade and make it cheaper. In his case, the only change in price would be for 50 masterwork shuriken as opposed to one masterwork shortsword. I *might* give a simple discount for the fact the ammo gets destroyed on use, and so is useless as a weapon, but not much, not any at all, knowing that he's not planning on using them.

Anything of mage armor would count as bracers of armor +4, and if it doesn't occupy a slot, it's twice the cost, because mage armor items duplicate the effects of +4 bracers of armor. Sam with an amulet of barkskin being identical to an amulet of natural armor.

Now if it's a luck bonus to armor, or insight, that gets a little strange and the costs start to vary, but again the guidelines established say that anyone making items sghould first check to see if there's an established item that dupllicates the effect and then price accordingly.

Specifically duplicating items at a cheaper cost is a straight out no. Your player's being a jerk with some very sticky rules, so either he hasn't read them or he's deliberately ignoring them. Reason enough to ban him from using rules he either a-doesn't understand or b-wants to abuse in his favor.

Sincerely,

someone who has used the custom item tables frequently.

Ah. I see the further issue then. Sorry didn't know about the low wis.

+1 to "these are not problems with a good DM"

also

+1 to "making and exception is not turning a game into a kitchen sink"

If we want something outside restrictions, our DM demands a good reason. However, some things are just not within reason for the campaigns we play. There is simply no way to justify it that fits with the setting.

Ex: steampunk. We do not run a steampunk game. We run high fantasy. So, no you can't have guns or robots or any of it because there is no way you could have one in the current game. They don't exist. Time travel doesn't exist.

Now if you want to stick some wands together and use it like a gun, go for it. If you want a golem that acts like a robot, sure thing, but that's on you, as a player, to figure out. You can't rationalize as a pc how something that doesn't exist suddenly exists in an established setting, that's why you're a player and not the DM. It's the DM's world.

There are exceptions, like dwarves as a race might not exist, but you could be a short stocky miner. Orcs may not exist, but you could be a savage, tribal sort who mutilates their teeth into tusk like protrusions. Your tribe could even be called "orc" so you call yourself an orc.

But if magic doesn't work, then you can't be a caster of magic. You can have sleight of hand ranks and alchemy, but you can't have fireball, because magic doesn't work.

Your DM can help you find work arounds for ideas, but in the end, if the game doesn't fit your preferences as a player, chances are, even getting an exception rule won't be fun for you or your DM.

At that point, you need to decide if you really might be better off just finding another game, or compromising and giving something new/different a try despite your hard won convictions.

I'd agree that in this case it is a player problem.

However, it may simply be a player not understanding that people have an issue OOG.

I have played with a "FITE MEE!" (he actually had it tattooed on him at one point) character.

He was hilarious, and yes, at times, problematic, but it was always identified as an IC thing.

There are many ways of still being "big dumb aggressive thug" without ruining the game for others.

Someone should talk to him. If you have and he still won't modify his behaviour, then something needs to be done about it.

Kick the character (as the party of PCs who are fed up with his behaviour) or let him die and refuse to res him.

If he's a good player, he'll reroll or admit it wasn't what he was looking for in a game. If he's a problem player, you can always point out you did warn him, and reiterate the complaints. If you need to, point out that he's a great player, but this character was over the line.

Good players can have bad days/weeks/months, it can happen, but if someone knows there's a problem and refuses to compromise (and there are ways to still thug it and not be a problem PC), then it's a player issue, not a PC issue.

TL;DR: standard advice: talk to him and if he doesn't change, kick him or let his character get killed.

I agree with moving things and telling the DM, but noone else. If he's determined to prove he's the best at opening locks and breaking in, why not just move everything and put locks on every single door. That means he gets to spend time fulfilling his "I am the best" challenge, but he still won't get to steal from the party.

You could set up a series of clues leading him around by the nose, leading to a potentially embarassing situation.

(say: a planned secret meeting to overthrow of the thieves' guild leader?)

Code word "I have always loved you, my darling" to the anger problem oriented bouncer type.

Or code word: "The constable's assassination is arranged" to the paladin.

Etc etc.

or get himself jailed so he can meet in secret with XXX npc (who stays in jail to protect themselves).

Has to seduce the most unattractive unpleasant NPC in town to get the "secret key" to unlock a mysterious chest under the floorboards (which is empty).

Really there's a ton of potential for horribly embarassing non lethal situations.

I'm not sure they'll fix your problem, but they might give a few giggles.

And if you're really thinking about being cruel, there's always plant a "mysterious magic item" (magic aura) made from a piece of a ruin, or some scrap of obscure arcanery. Bonus points if you can have someone else convince him not to tell the party about it, convinced it's something amazingly magical (ventriloquism?) while everyone else affirms it's just a rock.

So he carries around a magic rock for weeks trying to figure out what it does when it's in fact: just a rock.

Players aren't entitled to anything, but neither is the DM entitled to players.

You can either run a game your players enjoy, or have noone to run for.

Entitlement isn't part of the equation.

As a sidenote-we (at our table) have had two cases of psycho random evil.

One got his throat slit in the night by another evil character as a matter of pragmatism. (the pc then swore up and down that it was the paladin who offed him-though between lighting on of the npcs on fire, being a general jerk and trying to get us all killed, it really could have been any one of us)

The other was drugged and then given to some unseelie fey after the party had had enough.

Neither player returned, and our table is better for it.

Worst I had was by a loved one. I still cringe.

It was a bastions of "and then" s with things like being the master swordmaster of a country, world renowned, adopted into nobility and was the bestest best at everything.

Then got amnesia and forgot it all.

/facepalm

As an aside-it's not the worst character story I've heard...but the worst wasn't for a game.

It was a "short story" I was asked to look at and review, possibly offer editing help.

It was seven pages long.

The intro involved a guy sitting on a hill as a hermit who punches god, the runs down a mountain to a stable, where they breed monster horses. The guys sleeps with the girl who maintains the stable and then punches the horses when they try to bite him, and tucks one under either arm and runs into a city, where he beats up the big evil and marries the princess.

That's it.

He did not like my review.

It'd be good to hear your story, Neal.

I'm always interested in "successful" evil, as it, by some quirk, always ends up with my evil games being the most successful campaigns.

Apparently my goodly games are often only mediocre.

I wonder if that's a character flaw? :P

What was the question exactly?

Do you want an "inferiority complex", or a mechanically inferior character who resents it and takes it out on everyone else?

The two are not the same thing. At all.

High Priest of Asmodeus (started as a minion) travelling with the party as the helped out various clergies, acted as a healer and provided the plans and kept everyone on task. Cultured, pleasant and sophisticated. Got along very well with nearly everyone-so long as they were efficient.

Those who weren't .. well lets say at least one ended up "dissappearing" (bent over an altar).

Oh and his reason for "helping"?

.. gathering blackmail material to use against various clergies, and garnering favors from those who couldn't be blackmailed.

The characters who don't die, but instead make it to the end, become a part of our game world as NPCs who sometimes cameo and have plots of their own that they hire the new crop to take care of while they work on other things that require their personal attention.

Ex: A ruler of a city (ex PC) may ask PCs to go gather some things to set up wards to protect it (since ruling a city is pretty time intensive).

It gives a sense of continuity and a bit of a grin when someone's old PC shows up as the prominent NPC questgiver.

As for those who die, yes, I have a folder. So does my husband, and, I believe, all of our local table of players (minus one-maybe).

Also-just realized something. Humans (as a base creature) have no base weapon proficiencies, but the archer is proficient in longbow (maybe an elf?) and the base medium skeleton is given with a scimitar (with no penalties).