D&D 5E So Was That Z Fellow right?

[Parmandur]

Except that as DM you've decided to enforce your version of karma because you don't like the character build.

Setting up players to fail with little or no chance of survival is not karma, it's being a ****.

Some chance would probably be good: but best left to non-DPR means.

 

[Parmandur]

We get it, you can't handle well built characters, they threaten your ego, so you throw a DM tantrum and kill them.

Nah, I just don't allow feats: this is all highly theoretical. I also fail to see how using Mindflayer and Intellect Devourers as designed is a tantrum, they are in the books.

 

[Caliban]

Nah, I just don't allow feats: this is all highly theoretical. I also fail to see how using Mindflayer and Intellect Devourers as designed is a tantrum, they are in the books.

I hear you man, loud and clear. You have limited skills as DM and can't handle anything complicated.

It's OK, we all have to start somewhere. Preferably with less threats and DM tantrums, but whatever.

 

[Parmandur]

I hear you man, loud and clear. You have limited skills as DM and can't handle anything complicated.

It's OK, we all have to start somewhere. Preferably with less threats and DM tantrums, but whatever.

Okey-dokey. You won't have to worry about the situation coming up anytime soon, I assure you.

 

[Caliban]

Okey-dokey. You won't have to worry about the situation coming up anytime soon, I assure you.

Shh.... It's OK. The big bad DPR monster won't get you. You can stop fussing about it.

 

[Oofta]

Nah, I just don't allow feats: this is all highly theoretical. I also fail to see how using Mindflayer and Intellect Devourers as designed is a tantrum, they are in the books.

What does that even mean?

You've been stating that if someone builds a character you don't like you'll ensure that they get killed off. That rather than talk to the player and work out a compromise you'll just make an example out of any PC built in a way not to your liking by guaranteeing that they die.

No one is saying you shouldn't set up appropriate (even quite possibly deadly) challenges for PCs. But there's a line between "these particular monster target strength/dexterity/constitution/intelligence/wisdom/charisma saves which some party members are poor at" and "I will set up a no-win encounter for PC X because I don't like that PC".

 

[Parmandur]

Shh.... It's OK. The big bad DPR monster won't get you. You can stop fussing about it.

Same thing about the adversarial DM Boogeyman.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Whenever one of my players foils my plan, I throw a tarassque at them.

Hey, it's in the book, so not on me.

 

[Parmandur]

What does that even mean?

You've been stating that if someone builds a character you don't like you'll ensure that they get killed off. That rather than talk to the player and work out a compromise you'll just make an example out of any PC built in a way not to your liking by guaranteeing that they die.

No one is saying you shouldn't set up appropriate (even quite possibly deadly) challenges for PCs. But there's a line between "these particular monster target strength/dexterity/constitution/intelligence/wisdom/charisma saves which some party members are poor at" and "I will set up a no-win encounter for PC X because I don't like that PC".

I absolutely would talk to them, and the compromise I would propose is that they can go for it on the understanding that the PC would have a target on their back. All part of the mutually agreed upon fun.

 

[Caliban]

Same thing about the adversarial DM Boogeyman.

Someone sounds cranky.