More or less in order:
You approach a group by daylight, or if at night you announce yourself with, "Halloo the camp", or similar greeting.
Under typical circumstances, I would agree. But I don’t think being “in a Necropolis ("city" that is nothing but burial sites) and has been attacked by undead” constitutes typical circumstances. “Halloo the camp that could be Heroes but seems more likely to be graverobbing murderhobos or a troupe of vile necromancers” seems less than brilliant. Scouting to verify whether this is, or is not, the group you are apparently looking for seems more prudent.
Now, even if he knows with certainty this is the right group, what else is stalking the night and would love to have that “Halloo” to track back to some delicious living souls?
I also make it a policy to note when it seems like a player is taking actions against the norms of the setting which his character would know, and suggest that to him so he can make a decision based on in-character knowledge that he is flying in the face of convention.
Yes, his tracking ability was convenient. He could have said, "I was out her, looking for a lost family member, and spotted your shelter.", then let the coincidence of him finding us play out.
After a fashion, he DID say he was out here looking for a lost family member, didn’t he? In the middle of a necropolis. When I spotted your shelter in the dark. What else can see your shelter from some distance off, if it’s that obvious?
Is it coincidence? Are you privy to the DM’s decisions on how and why the new character got here?
His lies will be apparent the first time he goes in water, or when we see his bare arms. Aventi (the old PC's race) have fins on their arms and legs that extend when they enter water. They also have a distinctive skin color. Aquatic humans have neither, so all this one takes is a simple Spot check.
I’m not clear on whether there is a relationship between the characters (not direct blood, clearly, but both are aquatic, so there may be a link – wasn’t she something of an outcast from her own race?). Do you have his backstory to know that answer? If there is no relationship, it seems pretty odd this guy would be out exploring a massive graveyard looking for a group of adventurers who have lost a member so he can claim to be related in the hopes they will hand him a big pile of treasure. “Beyond eye-rolling” odd.
Other new PCs get introduced at appropriate times, organically as part of the story. He didn't want to wait for that. (We've met other groups as we travel, and are about to meet another.) He was greeted as a suspicious stranger because he acted like one. (You don't approach a group hiding behind a Darkness spell, if you're a friendly.)
Well, if the group has a big glowing “We’re the other PC’s” neon sign over their heads, then I guess he would know he does not need to scout out the group camped in the City of the Dead, Walking and Otherwise. But then, shouldn’t he have a similar neon sign letting you know he can be trusted? You are criticizing him for not playing to the scene, and to the likely levels of trust for his character, but you want blind trust extended to the party, again not too realistic given the scene.
As to the timing, I don’t want to have a player sit out for extensive periods of time where it is avoidable. I also prefer some measure of reasonable PC introduction, and the two must be weighed against one another. However, if the DM has decided that it’s appropriate to intro the character now, I think the DM has some responsibility to make that intro plausible. Not just “PC might be here” but “PC would reasonably be accepted and integrated into the group”. I’d also say the other players also have some onus to play along, no different from not working to ignore adventure hooks.
As for having a Will: Our house rule is well known within the group, and has been abided by by every other player in the game. PC gear goes to the grave or to the family. It is never kept in the group. Further, his (late) 10th level character had about 50% more wealth than level guidelines called for. Giving all of that to his 8th level character, on top of the level-appropriate wealth the new character started with, would unbalance things to an insane degree.
Seems like a blend of in-story and metagame reasoning. Assuming there is some relationship, he is asking that the gear go to the family. It’s a breach of group social etiquette to set that up, though.
To the game balance issues, I thought the group as a whole was over equipped, with the expectation loot going forward would be pretty limited until it balanced out. Giving the below team level character some extra gear now will help him over the “below the curve” period and, if the team is not building up a lot of new gear as he catches up, he’ll grow into that gear, not stay over-equipped, won’t he? Practically, I think the “bring the new PC in lower level than the party” policy is more or less guaranteeing the gear won’t align properly, as the new L8 PC will be earning treasure from L10 encounters.
As for the Air Elemental: Darkvision? Within a Darkness spell? +11 stealth when flying with no cover, other than that same Darkness spell? In D&D, that spell blocks Darkvision. And you can't make a Hide check without something to hide behind, some sort of cover or concealment. Hide in Plain Sight allows for a limited exception, but the Elemental doesn't have it. Now, presuming that somehow it was able to see through the obscuring effect, all it could see would be the sandstone colored Tiny Hut spell thet he already spotted. It's opaque from the outside, transparent from the inside.
No, Darkvision outside the spell, which is why it would be sent out as a scout. You may, in your years of experience, have encountered the phrase “under cover of darkness”. An air elemental looks a lot like a cloud, and if it’s 40’ overhead, seems like it would have a pretty fair shot, especially at night, of being tough to differentiate. How does the character coming in know the protocols and spells of the camped party of PC’s? The fact that the scouting would not report back anything of great interest does not eliminate the common sense decision to engage in some reconnaissance. “Hmmm…a Tiny Hut spell…could be a bunch of encamped necromancers”. Someone was outside the Hut, or there would have been no one to consider attacking the Elemental.
So, better question: Why would he approach the camp at all, at night? Why not wait until morning, when he can see, and when he and his Familiar can actually take advantage of cover if they need to? In a Necropolis, night time is when you hide, dig a hole and pull it in after you.
Even better question: how did he even spot the hut in the middle of the night, and why was he out in the Necropolis? Questions that I as a player would expect the DM to consider before the Intro, and would have worked out with the new PC’s player as a DM before agreeing that he finds the party at night.
But you're right that I am a bit oversensitive regarding this player's behavior. As a Dm he piled on lots of loot so his character could be over-geared for the level. After the character's death he asked for his old character's gear for his new PC (2 levels lower) and was told no. The exact reason was also explained. Next he asked if he should start the new character with the same over-inflated wealth level as his old character had. Again, he was told no, and we repeated that new characters come in with wealth appropriate to the level, according to the table in the DMG.
Seems to me that ALL the PC’s are over-geared for their level, and you were earlier chuckling over the fact that this new PC would come in 2 levels lower than the norm of the party and not get any new gear commensurate with his growth in levels as the loot would be way lower until the average gear was appropriate for WBL again. So how does his character eventually get caught up to appropriate WBL when he’s 12th level (and likely the rest of the team is)? Or is it OK that he will be hugely under-geared for his level, just not that he should ever be over-geared for his level?
As I recall, your group had the choice of re-setting the gear back before the problem started, and chose not to. Apparently, a majority is OK with being over-geared.
I followed these rules when I lost a character, the current DM followed these rules when he changed characters; Hell, half the players in the game have lost or changed characters, and followed these rules. He's watched it happen, over and over again. But somehow they're unfair when it's his turn.
Here, I largely take your side in that group norms are not being respected. However, the situation has changed a bit with everyone being over-geared. When you, or anyone else, brought their new character in, I’m unclear whether they were also 2, rather than 1, level behind party average. I am clear that the expectation is that this character’s gear will not catch up with his level as he catches up with the party due to the XP mechanics. Has that also been the case in the past?
He whined and argued via email, and was again told no. He tried to have his character write a Will, after she was dead, and was again shut down.
Then his new character comes in, as the old character's brother, and tries to claim the old character's wealth yet again.
I don't know why anyone would get irritated at that. Maybe you can fill me in. Any insights?
The retcon would also bug me. If the standard is loot goes to family, and he`s family, it seems like the loot goes to him. On the one hand, he is loopholing. On the other, isn`t a relative of a deceased character a story-driven reason for a new character to arrive?
Without question, I am giving Problem Child every benefit of the doubt – I`m taking the other side of the "bash this player with me" approach to the thread.
At the same time, it seems to be a standard in your group that issues don’t actually get discussed at the table. Rather, they get discussed in smaller groups, email exchanges, enworld threads, etc. Every time these issues crop up, two common questions seem to be asked. Celebrim and Maxperson raise them below, again.
A mature, out of character group discussion about the fact that expectations of the game within the group are not consistent. I think it’s pretty clear that this “Problem Child” is the furthest outlier to the power gamer side, or at least the most vocal one. I’m speculating, but I also think you are the furthest outlier in opposition to his vision for the game.
It seems pretty common that you bring up votes which would clearly go one way if the majority of the group share your vision, but they don’t go your way. “Reverse the excessive loot” is a good example – while you won the “change DM’s” aspect of that vote, reversal of the excessive loot wasn’t a big enough deal to the majority of your group to vote for that.
Problem Child does not graciously accept “No” as an answer. Do you? You are still here complaining about that over-equipped party after the group voted to accept that state of affairs.
Second issue that always comes up: Typically with an implied “if it is as bad as you say”, the recommendation is to give the player the boot. Unlike most groups, your group has an actual mechanism for deciding whether to give a player the boot. Neither you nor anyone else in your group has pulled that trigger. That doesn’t have to be “he stays or is gone” – it could lead to “these things need to change”. But there is a risk that the consensus or vote comes back that this is not a big deal to most of the group, in which case you’re the one who’s out of step.
I’m not saying there is not plenty of blame to lay at Problem Child’s feet. I am questioning why, if it is as clear, obvious and consistent as these threads suggest, that the player is a significant problem to the group as a whole, no one has pulled the trigger. One answer is that this guy is not perceived as all that bad by the rest of the group.
You want him to accept the character death results accepted by the rest of the group. It seems like his presence as a player is also accepted by the rest of the group, but not so much by you. Every few weeks, you seem to be champing at the bit for a vote on his removal, but no one else calls that vote, and you refuse to.
You refer to the other DM’s having similar issues, but they aren’t pushing for his removal either, are they?
My simple question is why not put it on the table, call the vote and have a mature group discussion about the problem. It`s clearly diminishing your enjoyment of the game. I can`t imagine he feels he`s having as fun a game as he could be. It seems likely to impact the rest of the table, to varying degrees. So why not get it out in the open, have the discussion at least, and if need be call the vote?
