Killing your players.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 154 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

So I've decided to kill one of the characters in my ongoing game. The player in question über-munchkins and always pushes to go a little further, gain a few more advantages.

Now while I don't really mind munchkining, and a little power-gaming, this has started to ruin both my enjoyment of the game. Especially since he sulks and pouts whenever I make a ruling that he thinks has an adverse affect on him. To make matters worse its no use talking to him about it.

What I've decided to do then is to off his character and I've even got a pretty good plot reason to do it, something that really makes sense. Basically I'm going to send an assassin (I can't quite remember the name just now but it's a doppelganger organization led by an illithid in Northwest Fearun) to kill him and I need a sure fire way of doing it. The party is 9th lvl and the character in question has kick-ass saves so all death effects are troublesome.

I know this is extreme but it beats a confrontation that only going to end badly and I don't want to kick him out of the game.


It's bad form to kill your players. D&D doesn't need the bad press.

;)

Anyway, the best way to kill a munchkin player's character is via Orbital Bovine Launcher. AKA, "A cow falls on your head. You die."

Liberty's Edge

Well you see then it becomes a bit too obvious. I'm looking for something that fits with using the assassin. Though I confess, the Orbital Bovine Launcher isn't a bad idea :O.


It is never right to just kill his character off without any real chance to defend himself or avoid it. If you have a problem with the player, take it up with the player. This is a serious group issue, and passive-aggressively offing the PC will resolve nothing. At best, it will fester for a time to come and make the matter worse and worse. At worst, it will explode immediately.

Also, consider the possibility that he ain't the problem. There are many DMs who consider the mere act of playing the game to any sensible degree the height of min-maxy munchkining, when in reality it is they who are at fault. Just saying he's a munchkin ain't evidence. Put up his sheet, state some actions, say what's actually going on, or there ain't gonna be a whole lot of real help anyone can give you beyond knee-jerk bad advice.


Zurai wrote:

It's bad form to kill your players. D&D doesn't need the bad press.

;)

Anyway, the best way to kill a munchkin player's character is via Orbital Bovine Launcher. AKA, "A cow falls on your head. You die."

I always preferred the "Roving Flamestroke of God" myself. I mean, no arguments, the Orbital Bovine Launcher rocks, but I can't just copy someone else's work. And nothing says divine retribution quite like a flamestrike.

Jokes aside, is killing the character off really going to solve the problem? The player already thinks you make rulings against him.


Ghyl Tarvoke wrote:
Well you see then it becomes a bit too obvious. I'm looking for something that fits with using the assassin. Though I confess, the Orbital Bovine Launcher isn't a bad idea :O.

What VV says is quite valid, but if you simply must kill his character, doing it "by the rules" is just going to end up like the terrible "don't argue with an idiot" joke: the munchkin is dragging you down to his level and he WILL beat you with experience. You don't want to try to out-munchkin a munchkin, especially if he's the only munchkin in the group. The rest of the group tends to end up getting caught in the crossfire. It's a real good way to lose an entire group.

I recommend either just uninviting the player, or confronting him out of the game. In-game and at-table confrontations very, very rarely end well.


How about telling the guy his style of play is interupting your game and if he doesn't get in line he's no longer welcome. Actually had that conversation a couple weeks back. My game has no room for any kind of munchkin, min/max, power-gaming. Nor do welcome characters named after Nascar Racers or any kind of pop culture reference for that matter. If I enjoyed that kind of crap I'd turn on MTV. Wait, no I wouldn't.

At any rate it might be better to simply man up and give the guy an ultimatum other than planning to outright kill his character. One way might end bad, the other almost certainly will.


I agree with Viletta and Zurai. We had a problem player at the table long ago when we were all in high school. The decision was to vote on whether he stayed or left, the DM delivered the verdict. The other players (myself included) voted the guy out. Which also brings me to the point that you should also consult with the other players for their opinions. If they don't have a problem with him, then you may need to think a bit about getting rid of him.

Liberty's Edge

Viletta Vadim wrote:

It is never right to just kill his character off without any real chance to defend himself or avoid it. If you have a problem with the player, take it up with the player. This is a serious group issue, and passive-aggressively offing the PC will resolve nothing. At best, it will fester for a time to come and make the matter worse and worse. At worst, it will explode immediately.

Also, consider the possibility that he ain't the problem. There are many DMs who consider the mere act of playing the game to any sensible degree the height of min-maxy munchkining, when in reality it is they who are at fault. Just saying he's a munchkin ain't evidence. Put up his sheet, state some actions, say what's actually going on, or there ain't gonna be a whole lot of real help anyone can give you beyond knee-jerk bad advice.

Fair enough. We converted the campaign to the beta as soon as that became available. That meant a fair bit of re-organizing on the players behalf, though nothing like making a new 9th lvl character from scratch. Then when the core book came out I had them update their beta characters. Again, no biggie, since at most it required inserting a new class feature or fixing skills. The player decided that since he wasn't optimized he wanted to chuck his Favoured Soul levels and gain cleric levels instead so he could gain access to the domains. In all honesty I didn't mind since the core concept was left untouched.

Now trouble started when he realized that his class combo Paladin/Cleric/Divine Crusader wouldn't give him 8th lvl cleric domain powers. I told him that of course he couldn't stack Paladin/Cleric and Divine Crusader for domain powers. When he heard that he decided that he didn't want to play the character that way and wanted to make him again from scratch.

I let him do that, mainly because I don't really believe in making players play characters that they are unhappy with or don't want to play. But ever since that he's been irritated with me for forcing him to convert his character so many times (note that the last two times *he* decided to re-configure his character from scratch), and to make matters worse all he does is talk down to me.

Now I know this sounds like I'm whining and I should really just talk to him, but the problem is that it's not possible. He'll just explode and probably not want to play anymore. Killing off the character seems like the only solution that gives me some peace and quiet and more importantly keeps the peace in the group.

However, if anyone has a different solution then I'n all ears.

Dark Archive

Well... This wasn't nearly as interesting as the title of the thread would suggest.

As for killing player CHARACTERS, don't forget the DM can't cheat. Your rolls are only as good as you say they are. Perhaps the party has a very tough encounter in which all the rolls go against said player character and he gets critted to death. Shucks...


Incompatible gaming styles has long been grounds for being dismissed form my group. Both players and game masters.

I think the others are accurate about the issue being the player not the character. If this is simply how this person plays the game and enjoys playing the game then conversation about it are unlikely to work out well.

If this were a momentary occurance and not in their usual style I would say a conversation might work. SOmetimes characters get away from the player and they dont fully notice it.

If you haven't had a direct conversation (no hints, no hedging words...direct) about it I would say try it. If it doesnt work and they continue their gaming style then eject them form the game. And if you like the basics of his character then keep the character around as an NPC>

-Weylin

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Knowing nothing about the character makes it hard to come up with something they're guaranteed to die from, unless you go so stupidly above-level that it's obviously just GM fiat and you should default to the aforementioned O.B.L. :)

Class? Hit points? Actual ballpark saves?

(Of course, for the most part I agree with what others are saying. Problem player is a problem; address that, the character is irrelevant. But you did say you wanted to keep him in the group.)

Liberty's Edge

tejón wrote:

Knowing nothing about the character makes it hard to come up with something they're guaranteed to die from, unless you go so stupidly above-level that it's obviously just GM fiat and you should default to the aforementioned O.B.L. :)

Class? Hit points? Actual ballpark saves?

Well he recently re-did his character again so I haven't been able to see his character sheet but I'd say his saves are around 10-15, hit point per paladin/fighter/monk combo (which is his new thing) and full plate armor.


Dude,

Your game. Man up. Ultimatum. Your way or the highway. Best way to do it. If he gets mad and doesn't play anymore than haven't you pretty much accomplished what you set out to do? I doubt this problem will ever go away if the guy keeps playing anyway. Let him be a thorn in someone else's side.


Whoa, whoa, whoa. You're the GM. If you don't see his character sheet, he HAS no character sheet. That's one of the major rules of gaming - the GM always gets to see the character sheet.

And just to add on to that, you have the final approval for what makes it into the game. In front of the group, ask him how the concept comes together in the game world, not just "Well, I wanted this ability, so I took a level in this class" - if you feel he's playing a ridiculous character, make him explain it. If his explanation's good, then no problem. If it's just "Uh, I don't know, that's what I wanted" then tell him it won't fly.

Dark Archive

Ghyl Tarvoke wrote:

So I've decided to kill one of the characters in my ongoing game. The player in question über-munchkins and always pushes to go a little further, gain a few more advantages.

Now while I don't really mind munchkining, and a little power-gaming, this has started to ruin both my enjoyment of the game. Especially since he sulks and pouts whenever I make a ruling that he thinks has an adverse affect on him. To make matters worse its no use talking to him about it.

What I've decided to do then is to off his character and I've even got a pretty good plot reason to do it, something that really makes sense. Basically I'm going to send an assassin (I can't quite remember the name just now but it's a doppelganger organization led by an illithid in Northwest Fearun) to kill him and I need a sure fire way of doing it. The party is 9th lvl and the character in question has kick-ass saves so all death effects are troublesome.

I know this is extreme but it beats a confrontation that only going to end badly and I don't want to kick him out of the game.

This sounds like a Michael Scott solution to a problem. I'm sure he'll never figure out what really happened!

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Ghyl Tarvoke wrote:
Well he recently re-did his character again so I haven't been able to see his character sheet but I'd say his saves are around 10-15, hit point per paladin/fighter/monk combo (which is his new thing) and full plate armor.

Probably still just shy of 100hp, then... think that guild has a Staff of Power Word: Kill lying around in the armory?

If not, or if you want to keep it entirely level-appropriate: send a crack death squad of four flying invisible wizards. Three of them cast extended wall of force in a tetrahedron as a readied action immediately after the fourth casts cloudkill. The walls will trap the offending player in with the cloud, and 18 rounds (9th level casters) should finish him quite handily.


Ghyl Tarvoke wrote:
<Snipping the story for space.>

By your account, the story has absolutely zero to do with powergaming or min/maxing. Heck, the guy was running a Cleric/Paladin/Divine Crusader. The only way mechanics even come up in your account is that he rehashed a build that, by the looks of it, pretty much sucks unless he's cheating and fudging rules, or there's some edition transfer interaction I'm missing. There's nothing wrong with wanting to rebuild a character that doesn't work. Heck, he'd probably be better off mechanically just throwing the build out the window for pure Cleric and keeping the same character concept. And that new combination of Paladin/Monk/Fighter? In full plate, no less? Oi, this guy ain't munchkining, min/maxing, or powergaming. The builds are sounding like useless flailing trash with MAD out the ears.

The problem has nothing at all to do with the character. It has nothing to do with the mechanics. The problem, according to your account, is that the guy's a dick. Big difference. The problem (again, according to your account) ain't that his character's anything super godly. It's that he's a jerk, he blames you for his own mistakes, he talks down to people, and he's a generally nasty human being. And no amount of talking to him about his character and playstyle is going to address that fundamental issue.


Viletta Vadim wrote:

It is never right to just kill his character off without any real chance to defend himself or avoid it. If you have a problem with the player, take it up with the player. This is a serious group issue, and passive-aggressively offing the PC will resolve nothing. At best, it will fester for a time to come and make the matter worse and worse. At worst, it will explode immediately.

Also, consider the possibility that he ain't the problem. There are many DMs who consider the mere act of playing the game to any sensible degree the height of min-maxy munchkining, when in reality it is they who are at fault. Just saying he's a munchkin ain't evidence. Put up his sheet, state some actions, say what's actually going on, or there ain't gonna be a whole lot of real help anyone can give you beyond knee-jerk bad advice.

I disagree. In the end, the DM is running the game. If the DM has 4 people in the group, three are there to have fun and just play a game and one wants every possible advantage they can get, it disrupts the game for the group. Not that the one is breaking rules, but his style of play doesnt fit the world the DM has created. There for, his character IS the problem. If he wont listen to reason when approached about it, get rid of him. We had a situation like thata few years back. After a while, everybody at the table started to have issues with him and soon after the game fell apart because.

As the guy running the game, he doesnt have to defend the statement to any of us that he feels this guy's a munchkin. We may agree or disagree, but in the end, if he feels he is disrupting them game, then he is. His perception is his reality. I can say this, just killing the character wont fix the issue if its the guys gaming style at the root of the problem.


paul halcott wrote:
Viletta Vadim wrote:

It is never right to just kill his character off without any real chance to defend himself or avoid it. If you have a problem with the player, take it up with the player. This is a serious group issue, and passive-aggressively offing the PC will resolve nothing. At best, it will fester for a time to come and make the matter worse and worse. At worst, it will explode immediately.

Also, consider the possibility that he ain't the problem. There are many DMs who consider the mere act of playing the game to any sensible degree the height of min-maxy munchkining, when in reality it is they who are at fault. Just saying he's a munchkin ain't evidence. Put up his sheet, state some actions, say what's actually going on, or there ain't gonna be a whole lot of real help anyone can give you beyond knee-jerk bad advice.

I disagree. In the end, the DM is running the game. If the DM has 4 people in the group, three are there to have fun and just play a game and one wants every possible advantage they can get, it disrupts the game for the group. Not that the one is breaking rules, but his style of play doesnt fit the world the DM has created. There for, his character IS the problem. If he wont listen to reason when approached about it, get rid of him. We had a situation like thata few years back. After a while, everybody at the table started to have issues with him and soon after the game fell apart because.

As the guy running the game, he doesnt have to defend the statement to any of us that he feels this guy's a munchkin. We may agree or disagree, but in the end, if he feels he is disrupting them game, then he is. His perception is his reality. I can say this, just killing the character wont fix the issue if its the guys gaming style at the root of the problem.

Being the DM means you are in charge it does not mean you are always right. Anyone that has ever had a boss knows the being right and being in charge often sit at opposite ends of the table.

The guy does sound like a jerk however so if the group agrees he is more trouble than he is worth I say uninvite him until he learns some manners.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Off the top of my head, if I wanted to kill the PC (though the following may change based on party tactics at night) I would do the following.

A) Ranger with Favored Enemy of his race, and who has a Hideaway Scythe for the occasions that he's an assassin.
B) Potions of Invisibility/Silence.
C) Make certain to tweak the Stealth of the Ranger, using Cloak of Elvenkind or armor boosts, Skill Focus, possibly Stealthy, and then cap things off with Power Attack.

And with that, have the ranger sneak in and coup de grace the character. That x4 crit on the scythe is nasty.

EDIT: Though, this is if there's no way to talk to the player about it. I've got someone the exact opposite in my game. He refuses to try to learn the rules more than the absolute basics, doesn't bother trying to make his character survivable, and then whines when his character gets killed when he charges 3 stone giants on his own.


paul halcott wrote:

I disagree. In the end, the DM is running the game. If the DM has 4 people in the group, three are there to have fun and just play a game and one wants every possible advantage they can get, it disrupts the game for the group. Not that the one is breaking rules, but his style of play doesnt fit the world the DM has created. There for, his character IS the problem. If he wont listen to reason when approached about it, get rid of him. We had a situation like thata few years back. After a while, everybody at the table started to have issues with him and soon after the game fell apart because.

As the guy running the game, he doesnt have to defend the statement to any of us that he feels this guy's a munchkin. We may agree or disagree, but in the end, if he feels he is disrupting them game, then he is. His perception is his reality. I can say this, just killing the character wont fix the issue if its the guys gaming style at the root of the problem.

It's always of vital importance to know precisely where and what the problem is. If the DM and three players are absolute pricks, while one player is actually a decent human being, guess who's getting called the problem? If the DM is constantly making baseless decrees stemming from flat bad logic that are constantly screwing the player, rulings that are vindictive and senseless, the player has every right to speak up and object. If the other players are of the flat false, 'DM is God and the rules hold zero weight, do not look at the rules, the rules are EVIL, listen to DM always, DM cannot be wrong, we are not here to play a game, we are here to serve DM,' school? The problem is not with that player. The problem is that the DM is a complete control freak with no respect for the players and three out of four players are used to the abuse. That one player isn't the source of the problem. That one player ain't being argumentative; he's defending his rights.

It's entirely possible that the player in question is being a dick. It's also entirely possible that Ghyl is absolutely gutting the game the PiQ came to play, that his rulings are constantly in flat contradiction to the rules of the game PiQ came to play, and that it's cheating PiQ out of the entire experience. It's entirely possible that the entire table is made up of pricks with poor communications skills and what they need is a dose of honesty and a long talk. We don't know. Ghyl is the only one on this forum with the information required to assess what the actual problem is.

It is horrendously bad advice to take, "this player is evil," at face value. Whenever you have a problem with someone else, the first step is to identify, in no uncertain terms, what the problem is. That includes asking, "Am I the problem?" And then answer honestly, one way or the other.

And just killing the character off ain't gonna help one whit. He'll just bring another of the same breed, act the same way he did before (but now he's in a bad mood), and play the same way. It's at the point where ya gotta work it out or kick him out. No being wishy washy on that.

Sovereign Court

Now I want to be clear, the player isn't evil. He's actually a very good friend of mine. But at the moment he is a dick.

I consider myself a fairly liberal DM, as in players can always come to me and talk things over when the rules aren't clear or if they want to create characters that aren't strictly kosher. However, and I've made this clear to all of them, if I rule a certain way (and I usually consult the entire group -- as I did with the domain issue) then that stands.

However, that might indeed be the issue. That I've been a bit too liberal with the players.


This is a social contract problem. You address it by addressing the underlying social contract issue, not by nuking the character from orbit or putting an Ethereal death kanigget after him.

You tell the guy: "I put a lot of work into the game. It's my responsibility to make sure that everyone has the opportunity for fun. Your behavior is making the game less fun for me."

"We can do one of two things about this. You can not show up any more. You can follow these guidelines that will help me integrate your play with everyone else's and make for a fun time."

"Me personally, I'm weighing heavily for option one. However, I'm willing to consider option two."

The rules are:

1) You ask other players what your niche in the party is. If you're going to be the Kick Ass Fighter, let them say so. If you can't find a niche that they'll like, leave.

2) The object of the game is to play a coherent character in a make believe world. It is not to find the most uber effective character build allowed by the rules. If you want to have a multi-classed monk, fighter, paladin, please explain what they did to get this diverse background.

3) No whining. If I want whining, I'll work telephone tech support. You don't like the rules, you're able to leave.


So your problem is basically that he's remaking a character that he didn't feel worked, and somehow that is über-munchkin'ing and powergaming? It doesn't sound like that to me, but then I regularly play with a group of powergamers (nothing like nightstick-wielding Divine Metamagic Quicken clerics to make your DM-life ...interesting) :)

In all honesty, I don't see why you would want to kill off his new character without even having seen it in play. If that doesn't make him angry and want to quit, I don't know what will. It certainly would make me angry if my DM went out of his way to kill off one of my characters for no in-game reason.

If you want him to quit just tell him that you don't want to play with him anymore. That will lead to less frustration for the rest of the players you play with (as they won't have to deal with it around the gaming table).


Roac wrote:

Now I want to be clear, the player isn't evil. He's actually a very good friend of mine. But at the moment he is a dick.

I consider myself a fairly liberal DM, as in players can always come to me and talk things over when the rules aren't clear or if they want to create characters that aren't strictly kosher. However, and I've made this clear to all of them, if I rule a certain way (and I usually consult the entire group -- as I did with the domain issue) then that stands.

However, that might indeed be the issue. That I've been a bit too liberal with the players.

I tell my players if I make an incorrect ruling show me in the book how I am wrong. If I don't have a house rule against it. I don't have leg to stand on. I would suggest giving your player the same challenge. The other DM/players do the same thing. If you have a similar agreement, adn it sounds like you do he may just needs to learn to accept it or not play.

He is not here to defend himself but for now it sounds like you are being fair.

Scarab Sages

Ghyl Tarvoke wrote:

So I've decided to kill one of the characters in my ongoing game. The player in question über-munchkins and always pushes to go a little further, gain a few more advantages.

Now while I don't really mind munchkining, and a little power-gaming, this has started to ruin both my enjoyment of the game. Especially since he sulks and pouts whenever I make a ruling that he thinks has an adverse affect on him. To make matters worse its no use talking to him about it.

What I've decided to do then is to off his character and I've even got a pretty good plot reason to do it, something that really makes sense. Basically I'm going to send an assassin (I can't quite remember the name just now but it's a doppelganger organization led by an illithid in Northwest Fearun) to kill him and I need a sure fire way of doing it. The party is 9th lvl and the character in question has kick-ass saves so all death effects are troublesome.

I know this is extreme but it beats a confrontation that only going to end badly and I don't want to kick him out of the game.

Sounds like a great idea. Go for it. Players like that can ruin the game for everyone. I dealt with two players like the one you mentioned and our DM felt that it was wrong to kill him (yes, the DM was ball-less). In the end, everyone quit the game, most no longer interested in playing ever again seeing as how their first eperience was putting up with these two jackass players. So, again, kill him off for the betterment of the game, the players, and you as the DM.

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon


Thoth-Amon the Mindflayerian wrote:
Ghyl Tarvoke wrote:

So I've decided to kill one of the characters in my ongoing game. The player in question über-munchkins and always pushes to go a little further, gain a few more advantages.

Now while I don't really mind munchkining, and a little power-gaming, this has started to ruin both my enjoyment of the game. Especially since he sulks and pouts whenever I make a ruling that he thinks has an adverse affect on him. To make matters worse its no use talking to him about it.

What I've decided to do then is to off his character and I've even got a pretty good plot reason to do it, something that really makes sense. Basically I'm going to send an assassin (I can't quite remember the name just now but it's a doppelganger organization led by an illithid in Northwest Fearun) to kill him and I need a sure fire way of doing it. The party is 9th lvl and the character in question has kick-ass saves so all death effects are troublesome.

I know this is extreme but it beats a confrontation that only going to end badly and I don't want to kick him out of the game.

Sounds like a great idea. Go for it. Players like that can ruin the game for everyone. I dealt with two players like the one you mentioned and our DM felt that it was wrong to kill him (yes, the DM was ball-less). In the end, everyone quit the game, most no longer interested in playing ever again seeing as how their first eperience was putting up with these two jackass players. So, again, kill him off for the betterment of the game, the players, and you as the DM.

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon

He has no plans to kick him out of the group. He just said he will kill his character, so how does that solve anything?

PS: I dont know if the OP still plans to kill the guy. That was just the idea from the initial post. It seems as though alternate solutions may be attempted.

Sovereign Court

Ghyl Tarvoke wrote:
and to make matters worse all he does is talk down to me.

This statement right here is where I would have drawn the line as a GM. Players in sports get tossed out of the game for ticking off the Ref ... RPGs should be no different. Note there is a difference between voicing an issue with a ruling, but to talk down to the one who is making the rulings is never a good idea.

Best case, tell him to take a few sessions off to figure out if he really wants to play with your group. If he does, great, he should get his act back together. If not, it doesn't sound like your group will miss much from the loss.

Liberty's Edge

wraithstrike wrote:


He has no plans to kick him out of the group. He just said he will kill his character, so how does that solve anything?

PS: I dont know if the OP still plans to kill the guy. That was just the idea from the initial post. It seems as though alternate solutions may be attempted.

To be honest I think I'll talk to him first. You rascals convinced me ;) Failing that I might do it, though I doubt it.


That's the problem with munchkins who don't know how to do their job properly. They want superior abilities despite their obviously sub-par character build. A little bit of this and a little bit of that, but they want to be able to do it as well as a specialist in that area. And how to achieve it? Whining at the GM, begging for artefacts, trying to find the gear from their previous failed characters, invoking gods of their own making,... Don't remind me of these.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

It's rare that Viletta and I see eye-to-eye on matters such as this, but this is one such time. From my perspective, she's given you rock-solid advice.

Good luck making this work. There are indeed times when it works to tell someone he's being a rascal.

--Chris
who has been a rascal at times in his life, and has had to deal with rascals, too


Ghyl Tarvoke wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


He has no plans to kick him out of the group. He just said he will kill his character, so how does that solve anything?

PS: I dont know if the OP still plans to kill the guy. That was just the idea from the initial post. It seems as though alternate solutions may be attempted.

To be honest I think I'll talk to him first. You rascals convinced me ;) Failing that I might do it, though I doubt it.

Is he trying to justify getting around the rules because he does not understand the rules or is he trying to use fluff to justify breaking the rules?


Zmar wrote:
That's the problem with munchkins who don't know how to do their job properly. They want superior abilities despite their obviously sub-par character build. A little bit of this and a little bit of that, but they want to be able to do it as well as a specialist in that area. And how to achieve it? Whining at the GM, begging for artefacts, trying to find the gear from their previous failed characters, invoking gods of their own making,... Don't remind me of these.

i've known a few guys like that. they will take a race with a level adjustment and pick off 1 or 2 unwanted weak abilities and ask to get away with +0 ecl. such as the half giant's bonus power point. or they will ask the -4 from monkey grip be waived and that it stack with powerful build, or something like that. effectively you get a medium creature with a huge greatsword, a humongous strength score, 15-20 foot reach and no penalties.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
or they will ask the -4 from monkey grip be waived and that it stack with powerful build, or something like that.

The funny part there is that the -2 isn't from monkey grip, it's from wielding an oversized weapon. Monkey grip only allows you to do so without changing its weight category.

(That said, they actually should stack. Reach is a function of the wielder and not the weapon, though.)

...wait, thread about what now?


tejón wrote:
Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
or they will ask the -4 from monkey grip be waived and that it stack with powerful build, or something like that.

The funny part there is that the -2 isn't from monkey grip, it's from wielding an oversized weapon. Monkey grip only allows you to do so without changing its weight category.

(That said, they actually should stack. Reach is a function of the wielder and not the weapon, though.)

...wait, thread about what now?

i thought the total penalty was -4. but the -4 penalty doesn't matter if you can weild a huge greatsword. 4d6 + 1.5x (insert humnungous strength modifier here) before enchantments is pretty big. especially when combined with power attack. i consider the -4 penalty a cost. a goliath with thier +6ish strength and an 18 = 24 4d6+10 before power attack. 24 average damage a swing achievable normally at ecl 2. one hit kill most of your foes. without raging. yes it declines, but it's easy XP the first 5 or so levels.


Drow, Sorcerer, longsword and blaster spells, armour... wants to outdo whole gorup...

Does that need comments?


Zmar wrote:

Drow, Sorcerer, longsword and blaster spells, armour... wants to outdo whole gorup...

Does that need comments?

How do they plan to accomplish all this?

Dark Archive

Drow (LA), Sorcerer (focused on blasting spells, delayed spell acquisition), wearing armor (ASF)?

This guy sounds like the *worst* munchkin EVER. Let him lag a few levels behind everyone else, playing a class that's strictly worse than a wizard, using the least effective arcane combat option (blasting spells, subject to saves, Evasion, Energy Resistance *and* SR, as well as other crap like immunities, Fire/Cold subtypes, globes of invulnerability, spell turning, counterspelling, ad nauseum) *and* having to make Arcane Spell Failure checks to avoid losing spells because of his armor.

And he'll just get himself frustrated again, when yet *another* of his brilliant uber-builds sucks in actual play, and ask to try again.

It might even be fun to work his rotating character-design workshop failures into the story, and describe his character as some sort of variation on Michael Moorcocks Eternal Champion, constantly changing and transforming into different people with different ability, but always occupying the same space. "Reality warps and bends, and now Bob is an armored drow sorcerer, who looks a little bit like Bob around the eyes, and is wearing the same sort of designs on his new armor and robes! Bob 4.0 appears with full knowledge and memory of what he was doing as Bob 3.0, the Monk/Paladin/Fighter, so we can skip getting him up to speed."

Indeed, for when he does (inevitably, it seems) get frustrated at the results of his (based on the examples upthread) spectacularly bad design decisions, print up some basic characters for him to be able to switch to mid-game, so that he doesn't take up valuable game time asking to make a new character. "Fine, play one of these pre-gens for the rest of the session, you can show me your new character before the next game."
Provide a couple of choices. Fun, effective builds with cool toys like the new Pathfinder Cleave and Vital Strike on a single-class Paladin or Barbarian using a Core race. Allow him to shine with those *basic* classes (maybe even do the DM's prerogative thing and throw some evil foes at the Paladin, for instance, so that he gets to wallow in the sticky-sweet goodness that is Pathfinder Smite Evil).

But number one priority, IMO? Concentrate on making the game fun for the players who *aren't* being dicks. You get to design the encounters, and, like most DMs, you probably try to put something for everyone into every session, so that everyone gets a moment to shine (even if, best laid plans and all that, sometimes those moments get missed, no matter how many anvils we drop). Just keep focussing on giving the other players fun moments, both before the game in setting up encounters to play to their strengths (and occasionally challenge their weaknesses), and during the game descriptively. While Armored Drow Sorcerer boy is trying, and failing, to cast Scorching Ray, describe the effects of the wizard's successful higher level spell dramatically, whether it's a Fireball exploding with a dull roar that sends bits of flaming bad-guy everywhere, or even something less visual (but much more effective) like a Slow spell causing the enemies to appear to be struggling through rippling currents in the air, even their voices distorted and far away sounding, as if they are moving through molasses to get to the party, while the party members move and dance through them as if they were fighting against training dummies.

Don't punish the bad player, throw him a bone if he actually succeeds in accomplishing something, but make sure to focus on the enjoyment of the non-problem players who *are* enjoying the game.

Short, short version?
Let the squeaky wheel squeak.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Set wrote:
This guy sounds like the *worst* munchkin EVER.

Seriously, when did munchkin come to imply skill at optimization? Wanting power and knowing where to find it are unrelated!


Ghyl Tarvoke wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


He has no plans to kick him out of the group. He just said he will kill his character, so how does that solve anything?

PS: I dont know if the OP still plans to kill the guy. That was just the idea from the initial post. It seems as though alternate solutions may be attempted.

To be honest I think I'll talk to him first. You rascals convinced me ;) Failing that I might do it, though I doubt it.

By my book personal issues should not be dragged into the game ever (though it sometimes just happens).

Don't kill the player's character. It is easily done, but solves nothing!

Since the problem (IMO) is between you and your friend you have to solve it personally. But first off I think you should get some perspective on the problem. If you have not done so already I suggest you talk to the other players in the group (preferably in confidentiality). Tell each of them what is bugging you and that you want to know how they perceive the issue. You might find out the problem is an entirely different one than you thought, but may also find that you are 100% on target. Either way it will provide you with the information you need to solve the problem.

When you get to dealing with your friend I think it is important that you point out from the start that you have to have a serious talk. Make sure not to make any personal criticism. Explain to the player why you have all come together to play. That it is about all of you having fun, sharing a story and making memorable experiences; and that you (the GM) cannot win if the players lose - that you are not their adversary, but rather a facilitator of good times. You are all entitled to have fun. Then explain how his conduct affects you and the other players. Try to make him open up and tell you what his actual issues with the game are and I am sure that you will be able to pinpoint the exact problems that bring the two of you into conflict.
You might actually benefit from helping him build a solid character (in this situation I would recomend a single classed paladin or cleric).

Be positive and respectfull; but be firm as well. And under no circumstances allow him to talk down to you again - neither at the table or in RL. Friends should treat each other with respect or else their friendship is in serious trouble.

Whatever you do, do not kill the character, it will leave the other players with an uncertainty about your fairness and that it is entirely arbitrary whether their characters live or die.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------

On a different note, sometimes it is necesary to kill a PC to move the story forward, it might simply be part of the plot or the player might want to make a new character. In such situations you should always consult with the player first. Make sure you can agree on a cool way to retire the character and how the dead character is to be replaced. Make sure the death makes sense to the player, to the group and to the story. That way you can also ensure that the party will not just ressurect their dead comrade and leave you back at square one.


Ghyl Tarvoke wrote:

So I've decided to kill one of the characters in my ongoing game. The player in question über-munchkins and always pushes to go a little further, gain a few more advantages.

Now while I don't really mind munchkining, and a little power-gaming, this has started to ruin both my enjoyment of the game. Especially since he sulks and pouts whenever I make a ruling that he thinks has an adverse affect on him. To make matters worse its no use talking to him about it.

What I've decided to do then is to off his character and I've even got a pretty good plot reason to do it, something that really makes sense. Basically I'm going to send an assassin (I can't quite remember the name just now but it's a doppelganger organization led by an illithid in Northwest Fearun) to kill him and I need a sure fire way of doing it. The party is 9th lvl and the character in question has kick-ass saves so all death effects are troublesome.

I know this is extreme but it beats a confrontation that only going to end badly and I don't want to kick him out of the game.

If you outright kill his character, he's just going to come back with something even more munchikinized and irritate you farther. Also, if you outright kill him, and if he's half the power-gamer you say he is, he's going to demand to see the results of your rolls, stats, etc. He's going to audit your every action. I've been there.

You've got to talk to him. Like said above, Ultimatum.

Dark Archive

You'll need the following:

1. Hacksaw

2. Plastic Gloves

3. Lots of tarp

4. A nearby body of water (deep)

5. Bleach

After that it's all up to you ;)

EDIT:

New players, probably...unless you plan to take them to an ancient Indian burial ground.


Killing the character probably will not solve any problems. His replacement will be even more optimized since he can build it from scratch.

Another problem, unless the entire party hates him you would have to both kill him and make it impossible to Raise Dead the character. At 9th level the party cleric can easily bring the character back.

Finally you cannot be obvious. Why is this character being targetted. You need to attack the entire party and make sure the death does not seem too obvious.

If you absolutely have to kill the guy then ignore his high saves and hitpoints. A well built sorcerer with lots of focus on touch attacks an Enervation (expecially with a metamagic rod or two) can fry just about any character and its only a touch attack to succeed.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Jared Ouimette wrote:

You'll need the following:

1. Hacksaw
2. Plastic Gloves
3. Lots of tarp
4. A nearby body of water (deep)
5. Bleach

A friend of mine is fond of looking at customers who irritate her and saying:

"From the bottom up: lime, body, lime, dirt, glass shards, dirt, dead raccoon, dirt."

(The raccoon is to throw off folks using bloodhounds. The glass is to discourage the really persistent bloodhounds.)


*Sigh.*

The, "Yeah, do it, kill him, it's obviously all his fault, smite the heathen!" crowd is rather depressing.

GabrielMiller wrote:
Killing the character probably will not solve any problems. His replacement will be even more optimized since he can build it from scratch.

Optimized?! Please. The guy ran a Paladin/Cleric. He's statting out a Monk/Paladin/Fighter in full plate. That ain't optimization, chief. These messes are flat weaker than single-classed... very nearly anything.

tejón wrote:
(That said, they actually should stack. Reach is a function of the wielder and not the weapon, though.)

No, they don't. Officially, it doesn't work that way. In essence, the way each operates (possibly after errata) is that they each let you wield a weapon one size category larger than yourself. So a goliath with Monkey Grip and Strongarm Bracers? Powerful Build lets her wield a as if she were large (meaning large). Monkey Grip lets her wield a weapon one size larger than herself (meaning large), and Strongarm Bracers do the same (still meaning large). If you take all three, you don't have a huge or gargantuan weapon; you have three different ways of wielding the same large weapon.

Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
i thought the total penalty was -4. but the -4 penalty doesn't matter if you can weild a huge greatsword. 4d6 + 1.5x (insert humnungous strength modifier here) before enchantments is pretty big. especially when combined with power attack. i consider the -4 penalty a cost. a goliath with thier +6ish strength and an 18 = 24 4d6+10 before power attack. 24 average damage a swing achievable normally at ecl 2. one hit kill most of your foes. without raging. yes it declines, but it's easy XP the first 5 or so levels.

It's a -2 penalty, which only applies to Monkey Grip. And that -2 penalty is, in fact, why Monkey Grip isn't very good. If you have a human using Monkey Grip to get a large greatsword instead of a medium greatsword, they're going from 2d6 damage to 3d6 damage. In other words, they're gaining +1d6 damage for a -2 AB penalty. The same would hold true for a goliath going from large to huge, but that's not legal.

+1d6 damage averages out to +3.5 damage, at a -2 AB penalty. The standard accepted paradigm is that a point of AB is worth two points of damage (a la Power Attack, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization). By that paradigm, you're half a point of damage behind. You call that -2 AB a cost, yet the real cost you're paying is a feat slot that you're spending to ultimately become worse. That AB penalty matters, after all, especially at low levels. You say 4d6+1.5*strength is huge, and it is, but 3d6+1.5*strength or 2d6+1.5*strength+PA are also huge and likely capable of actually hitting the enemy in the first place (which you have to do in order to kill them).

The main (legal) cases where Monkey Grip can actually be pretty good are where you're adding more than 1d6 damage. A fullblade's basically a greatsword that deals d8's for damage instead of d6's. +1d8 averages to +4.5, which puts you a little ahead of the AB worth curve, making Monkey Grip a legitimate advantage. The other case is when you have a weapon big enough to take advantage of high-end scaling. When you get into really big weapons, you're adding two or four die of damage to 'em instead of a die step or a die. So, if you have a human Psychic Warrior with Monkey Grip and a large greatsword, who then uses Expansion to become a huge creature with a gargantuan greatsword, that greatsword's dealing 6d6 instead of 4d6, a +2d6 bonus, averaging out to +7, making it a powerful combination.

[/prettymucheverythingthatneedbesaidaboutMonkeyGrip]


Viletta Vadim wrote:
The main (legal) cases where Monkey Grip can actually be pretty good are where you're adding more than 1d6 damage. A fullblade's basically a greatsword that deals d8's for damage instead of d6's. +1d8 averages to +4.5, which puts you a little ahead of the AB worth curve, making Monkey Grip a legitimate advantage. The other case is when you have a weapon big enough to take advantage of high-end scaling. When you get into really big weapons, you're adding two or four die of damage to 'em instead of a die step or a die. So, if you have a human Psychic Warrior with Monkey Grip and a large greatsword, who then uses Expansion to become a huge creature with a gargantuan greatsword, that greatsword's dealing 6d6 instead of 4d6, a +2d6 bonus, averaging out to +7, making it a powerful combination.

Actually, the only time I've seen monkey grip used in a way that seemed to be effective (and it was honestly more of an effective fluff build) was a twin large katana wielding samurai. It took a lot of feats though. Oversized two-weapon fighting (use a one-handed weapon in off hand), Exotic-Weapon (Bastard sword) to use bastard sword as a one-handed weapon, and Monkey-grip.

Granted, it was more effective at 3rd to 8th level than beyond that, but it deffinately captured the flavor of the character concept. There were better ways to maximize damage, of course, but that wasn't the point.

Sovereign Court

Not that I think offing the character is a good way to handle this, but...

Monk grappling specialist with lots of ranks in Stealth and enough ranks in UMD to be able to read a scroll of Anti-Magic Field...


It seems to me the problem is more a mechanic of the interaction between player and DM then anything else. A paldin, fighter, monk to me seems like a poor way to munchkin anything. It seems like the player isnt particulary good and coming up with 'builds'(or possibly observant during?) and wants to rework his character every time, or whines about it. This will defiantely not be solved by killing the character. It also seems part of the dms unhappiness is having to convert 3.5 stuff. In my group if a player wants something 3.5 THEY have to do the conversion and then provide pathfinder precedant/justification as to why this is a legit conversion. The dm then approves the conversion, modifies it, or reject it. The dm has lots of work to do, adding to it is never fun for them.

Liberty's Edge

If there is disruption out of game, then he needs to be talked to.

Also, how has he explained his character in a role playing aspect? If he was just min/max'ing for saves I am guessing it is 2 Paladin/ 3 Fighter/ 4 Monk. The monk levels are near useless other than saves because of the armor. The fighter level lets his squeeze and extra dex bonus out, and the paladin level lets him add CHA to saves. Its kind of a silly build that would be odd to back story. His first one sounded like it had more substance to it.

Just talk to him and let him know he is disrupting the game. These games are first and foremost meant to be fun. Its hard to DM when it's not fun. It would be a different story if his character was a jerk and ended up being killed by his own party. (we had that happen in our game. Someone new to D&D who was role playing neutral evil very well in a party of mostly good and neutral. She still guilts me because my character was the one with the killing blow)

1 to 50 of 154 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Killing your players. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.