Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 2128803" data-attributes="member: 2011">I wouldn't go that far.It is fairly obvious that a Ring of Sustenance is supposed to sustain you regardless of your nutritional needs:"This ring continually provides its wearer with life-sustaining nourishment"I think the DM made a bad ruling here, but I also think that his player is kind of forcing him down that path by roleplaying poorly.Only the biggest MORON in the universe would take an infant adventuring unless he WANTS the child to die or unless he has the infant under the care of thousands of retainers (e.g. in the middle of an army large enough to protect it and if he has that, he could easily have a wetnurse). All an enemy ("when you're the enemy of the most powerful evil force in the multiverse") has to do is wait until the infant in out in the open somehow (which has to happen at sometime, if not just to bath the infant). One fireball. Bye bye baby.If the PC has an Intelligence stat above 6, the player shouldn't be roleplaying THIS badly. IMO.Course, that often happens in RPG games. Players do the most ridiculous things under the most extreme rationale that they would never dream of doing if they were actually in that situation.</blockquote>