Help me stop my Player!

[Storyteller01]

If the player had made the appropriate Knowledge: Religion check (that being the skill governing knowledge about undead), would you have informed him of such?

Not sure that knowledge would work (unless it is in the PHB 3.5). I'd use Knowledge (Occult) or soemthing similar.

Just because a cleric can kill something doesn't mean they've studied them well. Look at all the books published about witches in the 1600's!! Most of the authors (being heads of a church or sons of one) would have had high Knowledge (Religion) scores, but their knowledge about 'obvious enemies of the church' was a bit... flawed.



Anyway, I'd let him go for it (with some research in-game). The first and second villages would most likely be wiped without too much incident (unless the king of the land also has high lvel magic to track them). There is the fact that not everyone may be asleep in the village... someone may escape. Then again, there's a good plot hook: "You destroyed my village 15 years ago!!)

Another problem he may have; how is he going to move from place to place with all of these creatures? Moving only by night will be suspisious at best. Given the proliferation of evil magical beasties, most villages and towns may have closed their gates at night.

 

[Rkhet]

No, because part of playing a Paladin is living by the Paladin's code. This is an in-game thing.

No idea how that is relevant there, or even what your 'no' means in that context. Clarifications and answers that take more than two sentences would be nice.

Your example is misleading. Given those two missions, does the Paladin know which could yield greater "lewt"? Or did the GM just say that, "You have option A and option B. Option B gives more lewt."

You could easily imagine circumstances like this. For example, Ovinomancer's scenario:

The Evil Overlord has made his fortress on a well-defended cliff. Do you raise a righteous army and lay siege to it, potentially destroying all the phat lewt that you know the EO has gathered over the centuries? Or do you risk a covert operation sneaking into the back door, which is more dangerous but potentially more lewt-ful? (and better xp, if Ovinomancer is your DM.)

The Paladin would have reasons to do either. The first is more likely to succeed, but also more likely to have most of your army killed. But if you don't succeed, the EO might Destroy The World.

The player would want the second option, 'cause the lewt is phat. He declares this openly, but never have his paladin do so, RPer that he is.

Given this scenario, would the player be metagaming if he chose the second path?

 

[Aelryinth]

This is Ravenloft?

Azalin was the only character in Ravenloft who could make a level 9 scroll. Where exactly is the character getting his scroll from?

And if he's planning on doing this, he must be evil as heck already. Why isn't he a Domain Lord and the point moot?

==Aelryinth

 

[the Jester]

The main weakness with dude's approach here is that the town's clerics will put a hurtin' on him as a shadow. Remember that he becomes vulnerable to being turned (or destroyed!) while he's a shadow. Really, a sunburst is prolly all it will take.

 

[the Jester]

I'm pretty sure they eliminated most Rule 0 references in 3.5.

Wow, you're right. I hadn't realized, nor do I understand why.
[/hijack]

 

[RedShirtNo5]

Rule 0ing/Changing Monsters
Call me a crazy DM, but I'm pretty sure the answer to that question is yes. I'm pretty sure they eliminated most Rule 0 references in 3.5.

It's still in the PHB, but not as "Rule 0". See p. 6, "CHECK WITH YOUR DUNGEON MASTER".

Often the rules are balanced with the assumption that the PCs are not evil (or rather, the designers do not reliably consider actions that evil PCs might take). My reaction is that a permanent army of shadows is beyond the power of a 9th level spell, and I would have no qualms with imposing unintended consequences.

It's all about clear communication. Just be clear up front whether you run a game according to RAW or reserve the right to modify.

-RedShirt

 

[irdeggman]

Back to the shadows created by shadows created by the PC issue. The PC has at best some sort of tenative influence over the 2nd tier shadows. But I emphasize this part since he didn't create them he doesn't control them. So unless those he created give themspecific instructions (and you can bet they will read as much liberalness into those instructions as possible becasue that is what monsters do after all) the PC is at risk throughout, esoecially if he is surrounded by an entire village (or close to it) worth of shadows after he created a mere family's worth.

 

[irdeggman]

Rule 0ing/Changing Monsters



Call me a crazy DM, but I'm pretty sure the answer to that question is yes. I'm pretty sure they eliminated most Rule 0 references in 3.5.

While the term rule 0 has been eliminated the concept has not, in fact it has been incorporated throughout the DMG and other books. IMO the reason why the rule 0 terminology was changed is to fit with the way the material has been written, more descriptive and less proscriptive, more dynamic and less legalistic.

Pg 6 of the DMG (3.5) “Good players know always recognize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superceding something in a rulebook. Good DMs know not to change or overturn a published rule without a good, logical justification so that the players don’t rebel.”

Pg 14 “Changing the Rules
Beyond simply adjudicating, sometimes you are going to want to change things. That’s okay. However, changing the rules is a challenge for a DM with only a little experience.” It then goes into a bit more detail on changing the rules (about half a page of it).

 

[Rkhet]

Note how both sentences are followed up with qualifiers, however. Especially the first.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Note how both sentences are followed up with qualifiers, however. Especially the first.

OK. What's your point? Cause you seem to be implying something and I'm sure that is not the case.