Most Impressive Character Deaths
Mike Hofer
players' characters. This is an admittedly rare occasion, since I have a
policy of not actively trying to kill of characters. At any rate, this guy
was a gnome, and he went out--in typical gnomish fashion--with nothing short
of a BANG.
In the spirit of the "Character One Liners" thread, what are some of the
great ways your characters (or players' characters) have died?
The Death of Zook Loopmottin
=====================
The party was wandering down a dungeon corridor, intrepidly seeking the exit
on the far side of the mountains. Now, this gnome wasn't particularly
bright. He was a wizard, but you could have sworn he was a spelljammed
Tinker Gnome from the Dragonlance setting. He kept everything, regardless of
how stupid or idiotic it might have seemed. Fortunately, he had his loyal
mount, a riding dog, who had the unfortunate task of being his mobile
quadrupedal carry-all.
So the party was going down a 10-foot wide corridor, when the point man--a
bumbling rogue if ever I saw one--set off a fire trap. The resulting
explosion scorched everyone in the party. The players took their damage and
everyone was reasonably okay. The damage was sufficient, however, to kill
off the gnome, who announced this with some consternation.
Then he pointed out that he was carrying some alchemists fire. He asked if
they would have exploded due to the heat of the fireball. I thought about it
and said, "Sure. How many do you have?"
"Eighteen," he responded.
With widened eyes, I had him roll primary and secondary damage for the
alchemists fire. In the end, the poor sap took a total of 103 hp of damage
(some from the initial fireball).
As the players were rolling on the floor laughing, I described the result as
a near-atomic blast that shook the walls and vaporized the gnome. Even his
mobile quadruped carry-all was destroyed. His cat familiar, on the other
hand, managed to escape (but died shortly thereafter).
We gave the player a posthumous XP award for Most Impressive Death by a
Low-Level Character.
Helge Moulding
> I described the result as a near-atomic blast that shook the
> walls and vaporized the gnome.
Well, if the alchemist's fire worked that way, then everyone
else in the group should have got burned, too. Luckily the
stuff burns only on contact with air. I see no reason why the
flasks should have burst on being exposed to heat. Maybe the
gnome fell on his stash? His dog tried to drop-and-roll to
put out the flames and crushed the baggage?
Maybe an impressive "whoomph!" No explosion, though.
--
Helge Moulding
mailto:hmou...@excite.com Just another guy
http://hmoulding.cjb.net/ with a weird name
Erendil
>> I described the result as a near-atomic blast that shook the
>> walls and vaporized the gnome.
>
>Well, if the alchemist's fire worked that way, then everyone
>else in the group should have got burned, too. Luckily the
>stuff burns only on contact with air. I see no reason why the
>flasks should have burst on being exposed to heat. Maybe the
>gnome fell on his stash? His dog tried to drop-and-roll to
>put out the flames and crushed the baggage?
>
>Maybe an impressive "whoomph!" No >explosion, though.
There could be an explosion!
1. The glass(or whatever) was slightly melted by the trap.
2. The gnome dies.
3. The gnome falls.
4. Glass breaks
5. Impressive explosion. It is explosive. Remeber, Alchemists Fire is
explosive, sticky, and flammable.
-----------------------------------------------------------
We, Who Are About To Die, Salute You
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hunter
<hmou...@excite.com> wrote:
>Mike Hofer wrote,
>> I described the result as a near-atomic blast that shook the
>> walls and vaporized the gnome.
>
>Well, if the alchemist's fire worked that way, then everyone
>else in the group should have got burned, too. Luckily the
>stuff burns only on contact with air. I see no reason why the
>flasks should have burst on being exposed to heat. Maybe the
>gnome fell on his stash? His dog tried to drop-and-roll to
>put out the flames and crushed the baggage?
>
>Maybe an impressive "whoomph!" No explosion, though.
A thermite grenade going off. Intense localized burn.
M. JJ Molina
"Mike Hofer" <mho...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:Uvj18.3228$Ln2.1...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
> Recently, I had the rare opportunity of adjudicating the death of one of
my
> players' characters. This is an admittedly rare occasion, since I have a
> policy of not actively trying to kill of characters. At any rate, this guy
> was a gnome, and he went out--in typical gnomish fashion--with nothing
short
> of a BANG.
> In the spirit of the "Character One Liners" thread, what are some of the
> great ways your characters (or players' characters) have died?
<snip>
One of the most impressive deaths I have had was when one of my PCs, a
level 6 half-elf specialty priest of Azuth was hit by a wand of aging. Ages
you 1d10 years if save vs. wands fails. This would not have been so bad if
for the fact that she was 2 weeks pregnant at the time. Her lover, also a
PC, were fighting back to back in a battle with a "level boss". All of a
sudden he sees a thin ray of bluish light emit from the wand of the bad guy
hit his girlfriend. She collapses to the ground and says her final words "Oh
boy!" The following round she exploded in a blast of gore and blood and
lying in the center of this mess was a young baby boy. Much to everyone's
surprise as no one knew she was pregnant or what had hit her.
Brandon Blackmoor
news:LDw18.58828$3x5.3...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com...
>
> One of the most impressive deaths I have had was when one of my
> PCs, a level 6 half-elf specialty priest of Azuth was hit by a wand of
> boy!" The following round she exploded in a blast of gore and blood
> and lying in the center of this mess was a young baby boy.
I am aghast. I'm not sure if that's more disgusting than it is stupid, or
more stupid than it is disgusting. It's defnitely both. Why would aging the
PC accelerate the pregnancy? I suppose your idiot GM would have had her
starve and dehydrate for being without food and water for 1d10 years, even
if she hadn't exploded in a gruesome and utterly unnecessary fashion.
Every time I think I've heard the worst "idiot GM" story possible, someone
comes along with a new one. I'm tempted to think you made it up; I have a
hard time believing a GM could be that moronically sadistic.
--
bblac...@blackgate.net
http://www.rpglibrary.org - free games & gaming aids & no banner ads, ever
Chris Clangador
>> PCs, a level 6 half-elf specialty priest of Azuth was hit by a wand of
>> aging.... She collapses to the ground and says her final words "Oh
>> boy!" The following round she exploded in a blast of gore and blood
>> and lying in the center of this mess was a young baby boy.
>
>I am aghast. I'm not sure if that's more disgusting than it is stupid, or
>more stupid than it is disgusting. It's defnitely both. Why would aging the
>PC accelerate the pregnancy? I suppose your idiot GM would have had her
>starve and dehydrate for being without food and water for 1d10 years, even
>if she hadn't exploded in a gruesome and utterly unnecessary fashion.
>
>Every time I think I've heard the worst "idiot GM" story possible, someone
>comes along with a new one. I'm tempted to think you made it up; I have a
>hard time believing a GM could be that moronically sadistic
Ewwwww. I agree. That seems like the wrong thing for the DM to do. It makes
sense.
~Clangador
-=[----------------------------=-
| Quote: "Never look a gift squid in the beak."
-=[----------------------------=-
iain wright
> bumbling rogue if ever I saw one--set off a fire trap. The resulting
> explosion scorched everyone in the party. The players took their damage and
> everyone was reasonably okay. The damage was sufficient, however, to kill
> off the gnome, who announced this with some consternation.
> Then he pointed out that he was carrying some alchemists fire. He asked if
> they would have exploded due to the heat of the fireball. I thought about it
> and said, "Sure. How many do you have?"
> "Eighteen," he responded.
> With widened eyes, I had him roll primary and secondary damage for the
> alchemists fire. In the end, the poor sap took a total of 103 hp of damage
> (some from the initial fireball).
Reminds me of a monk (1st edition dragon magazine) I played once,
except for a slight twist. The party comprised my monk and three other
characters, all of about 10 level or so. We came across a minor
encounter, a chimera. The dragon head breathed for a grand total of 3
damage. The monk failed his save. The necklace of missiles he was
wearing failed and exploded. The ensuing fireballs were enough to wipe
out the whole party, except the monk who, although he automatically
failed his save for the blast, had improved evasion and only took half
damage.
M. JJ Molina
"Chris Clangador" <clan...@aol.com.khan> wrote in message
news:20020117044205...@mb-mg.aol.com...
<snip>
> >Every time I think I've heard the worst "idiot GM" story possible,
someone
> >comes along with a new one. I'm tempted to think you made it up; I have a
> >hard time believing a GM could be that moronically sadistic
>
> Ewwwww. I agree. That seems like the wrong thing for the DM to do. It
makes
> sense.
<snip>
Perhaps it may sound like he was an idiot to you, or that it was unfair,
but who is to say that the child was not advanced by the aging? The baby may
or may not get his own saving throw depending on whether or not you consider
the kid an item or a person. If all of a sudden a small collection of cells
about the size of a quarter grew to a 25" 15 pound ball in your stomach, you
would blow up to. Personally I would have rolled a system shock check to see
if my body could handle the sudden increase of weight and mass. But if I
would have failed, I would have expected the same result.
Ben Sisson
that IS his real name) disgorged:
Okay explain to me how you can possible evade something already
wrapped around your neck.
---
Ben Sisson
"I was tested as a child...150 even...I think
that means I'm one and a half people."
- One of rsp-w's goons on his IQ
Andrew Tellez
Ben Sisson wrote:
>
> Okay explain to me how you can possible evade something already
> wrapped around your neck.
His Kung Fu was powerful. :)
Ben Sisson
that IS his real name) disgorged:
>
>
It must have been....
Helpful GM
Blackmoor" <bblac...@spamcop.net> wrote:
I'll give you that it's disgusting visuals, but I think the DM was going
with the "the fetus is a person, too, and also ages 10 yrs." No
food/water problems, just that "everyone hit by the ray" is aged 10 yrs,
and the DM ruled the fetus did, too.
I don't think I'd ever do this in my game, but it's not *too* hard to
see what was going on. I know people who would find that entertaining...
--
You have to remove stuff from my e-mail to reply, it's not difficult.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, ever purchase any product from
any company which gathers addresses from the usenet; period.
UncleFes
> great ways your characters (or players' characters) have died?
Our campaign uses the old style fumble rules, and we've had some
significant fun with them over the years. But the best was when our
Paladin of Heironymous, a notorious fumblethumbs (he'd roll 3-4 1's a
night, we actually modified our marching order to stay away from him,
and took away his crossbow because he kept accidently shooting fellow
party members), entered a melee sans helmet (it had gotten knocked off
and lost earlier in the game). He attacks a pair of bugbears that are
trying to flank him, and so he's flailing around with his broadsword
pretty good. Sure enough, he rolls a one, then follows it up with a 00
(at this point, the rest of the party is groaning, we figure he's let
go of the sword and flung it into someone for triple damage plus
bonuses, and we're all checking our hitpoints and healing potion
stocks). DM gets a funny look on his face, says "Roll percentile
again." And sure enough, the first and only time I've *ever* ever seen
this happen in 20 years of gaming, he rolls ANOTHER 00. I'd have never
believed it if I hadn't seen it along with the entire rest of my crew.
The rest of the party freaks out, we have NO IDEA what happens now,
we're serously wondering if Heironymous himself is going to come up
from Elysium and whack him on the head or something. DM says "helmet's
gone, right?" Right, says the Paladin... you see where I'm going with
this?
He DECAPITATED HIMSELF. The first 00 rendered something like "wound
self, head, maximum damage, plus roll on chart II" and the second one
rendered "sever body part" or something like that. And a legend was
born...
C. Baize
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2002 09:38:39 -0500, Andrew Tellez <no...@gwu.edu> (if
> that IS his real name) disgorged:
>
> >
> >
> >Ben Sisson wrote:
> >>
> >> Okay explain to me how you can possible evade something already
> >> wrapped around your neck.
> >
> >His Kung Fu was powerful. :)
>
> It must have been....
Yeah... he gave good chi.
C. Baize
Brandon Blackmoor
>
> Perhaps it may sound like he was an idiot to you, or that it was unfair,
> but who is to say that the child was not advanced by the aging?
I do. If your story is true, your GM is a moron who also needs counseling.
It was a bad call, game-wise, and a ghastly call, player-wise.
C. Baize
> > Perhaps it may sound like he was an idiot to you, or that it was unfair,
> > but who is to say that the child was not advanced by the aging?
>
> I do. If your story is true, your GM is a moron who also needs counseling.
> It was a bad call, game-wise, and a ghastly call, player-wise.
Quick questions...
Why would the GM be a moron for advancing the age of the (until then) fetus?
Why would said GM need COUNSELING??
I don't see it as a bad call either as a player or as a GM. It's a matter of
style and belief. That GM apparently is of the belief that a fetus is a person
(I'm NOT wanting to open this can of worms, please let's not debate THIS one).
Regardless of what the fact of the matter may be (not telling my beliefs, one
way or the other, here), it shows his/her belief, and a belief system is not
really up to debate in these sorts of forums.
Suffice it to say that it was the GM's call, and obviously nobody cared to
debate it too far with him/her, so it worked for THAT group. THEY had fun with
it, and THAT is all that matters.
C. Baize
Mike Schneider
iwr...@itronix.co.uk (iain wright) wrote:
That's ridiculous. If you're *wearing* the object that explodes, you
shouldn't be able to evade it.
--
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/American_Liberty/files/al.htm
There are three categories of those entitled to use 'We' in the
first person: Royalty, Editors, and People With Tapeworms. -- Mark Twain
Reply to mike1@@@usfamily.net sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.
Andrew Tellez
"C. Baize" wrote:
>
> Why would the GM be a moron for advancing the age of the (until then) fetus?
It wasn't targeted by the wand. Would a small animal on the character's
person have been affected? What about a tapeworm?
Aging effects weren't caused by rapid time passage, otherwise targets
would starve. Also, hair and fingernails don't grow, and active spells
don't wear off.
> Why would said GM need COUNSELING??
To remove his tendency to be a moron, apparently.
> I don't see it as a bad call either as a player or as a GM.
The GM is interpreting time effects inconsistently. At least, I assume
he's not having spell and effect durations run out, hair grow, or
starvation occur.
> It's a matter of style and belief.
The GM chose a messy and inconsistent effect interpretation, rather than
a simpler and less explosive one.
> Suffice it to say that it was the GM's call, and obviously nobody cared to
> debate it too far with him/her, so it worked for THAT group. THEY had fun
> with it, and THAT is all that matters.
And the GM was silly. Since no one chose to point this out, all we can
do is caution others about making a similar mistake.
M. JJ Molina
"Mike Schneider" <mi...@SPAMKILLERusfamily.net> wrote in message
news:mike1-17010...@msp-65-25-213-1.mn.rr.com...
<snip>
> >
> > Reminds me of a monk (1st edition dragon magazine) I played once,
> > except for a slight twist. The party comprised my monk and three other
> > characters, all of about 10 level or so. We came across a minor
> > encounter, a chimera. The dragon head breathed for a grand total of 3
> > damage. The monk failed his save. The necklace of missiles he was
> > wearing failed and exploded. The ensuing fireballs were enough to wipe
> > out the whole party, except the monk who, although he automatically
> > failed his save for the blast, had improved evasion and only took half
> > damage.
>
> That's ridiculous. If you're *wearing* the object that explodes, you
> shouldn't be able to evade it.
>
I'm almost 100% positive on this, but if you succeeded your saving
throw, your items are saved too. You don't need to roll a saving throw for
everything you own. Of course if you are saving for half and took some
damage from the attack I can see how the necklace may explode from that
damage, but typically if it is magical, it is protected against mundane
forms of destruction.
Brandon Blackmoor
news:mike1-17010...@msp-65-25-213-1.mn.rr.com...
> iwr...@itronix.co.uk (iain wright) wrote:
>> The ensuing fireballs were enough to wipe out the whole party,
>> except the monk who, although he automatically failed his save
>> for the blast, had improved evasion and only took half damage.
>
> That's ridiculous. If you're *wearing* the object that explodes, you
> shouldn't be able to evade it.
That's a Monk for you. Those guys are amazing.
Brandon Blackmoor
news:3C47162C...@netptc.net...
>
> Why would the GM be a moron for advancing the age of the (until then)
fetus?
Because it's painfully stupid: magically aging a character doesn't make them
live through the intervening time, it just makes them *older*. Otherwise
they'd die of dehydration and starvation, and their muscles would all be
atrophied and their joints would be frozen in place from not having been
moved for X years. And the ray hit the *mother*, not the foetus or the
thousands of microorganisms in her digestive tract that would have flooded
the earth if they'd been affected similarly.
> Why would said GM need COUNSELING??
Because it's unnecessarily gory and sadistic in a fashion that only a truly
disturbed person would think is clever.
It's wildly, improbably stupid and ridiculously grotesque. Which is why I
think the story is fake.
M. JJ Molina
"Andrew Tellez" <no...@gwu.edu> wrote in message
news:3C471AE1...@gwu.edu...
with the effect. All objects on me would have accelerated in their aging
too. If I had a loaf of bread on me I would not be surprised if that loaf of
bread became hard or moldy. That is what the spell does, it advances the
aging of the target and all of his possessions. I would imagine that if I
had tapeworms, they would die too. I guess my characters hair and
fingernails would have grown too, but few DMs even acknowledge such things
as hair growth. I believe he was right in the calling, and I didn't debate
him because of that. Perhaps he was little too explicit in the description
of the death, but that is the kind of guy he is.
I knew OOC that my character was pregnant and as soon as he told me that
I had aged one year I immediately thought of the small bundle in my belly
turning into an abdomen bomb. Either way, this DM is not in the habit of
killing off PCs, so if he allowed it to happen it was to progress the
storyline. Besides, I could have been raised from the dead. But I chose not
to. I felt that the death had a greater impact on the campaign that sort
of -sobered them. If you catch my drift.
C. Baize
> "C. Baize" wrote:
> >
> > Why would the GM be a moron for advancing the age of the (until then) fetus?
>
> It wasn't targeted by the wand. Would a small animal on the character's
> person have been affected? What about a tapeworm?
Small animal?
No.
Tapeworm?
Yes.
> Aging effects weren't caused by rapid time passage, otherwise targets
> would starve. Also, hair and fingernails don't grow, and active spells
> don't wear off.
I must be strange. Whenever I've had rapid aging as an effect of a spell, or spell
like ability, I've always paid attention to minutiae like that. The starvation
doesn't kill, but they are famished and weakened, and in my campaigns, the hair
and fingernails (and toenails, by the way) DO grow. I had an Elven Mage (2nd
edition, when I still allowed a wish in a spellbook) who used a Wish (in 2nd
edition Wishes aged the caster 5 years). He suddenly found that all the hair on
his body that grows with aging (and his nails, all 20) experienced 5 years worth
of growth, AND he was taken to Con = 1, temporarily... He regained one point of
con per day he spent eating and resting. I don't care for wishes, and I do pay
attention to minutiae...
> > Why would said GM need COUNSELING??
>
> To remove his tendency to be a moron, apparently.
Completely subjective.
> > I don't see it as a bad call either as a player or as a GM.
>
> The GM is interpreting time effects inconsistently.
How so? She aged, as did her bodily functions, she happened to be pregnant at the
time, and that was advanced as well.
> At least, I assume he's not having spell and effect durations run out, hair
> grow, or
> starvation occur.
Spell effect durations should not have been affected... Hair growth and starvation
however SHOULD have.
> > It's a matter of style and belief.
>
> The GM chose a messy and inconsistent effect interpretation, rather than
> a simpler and less explosive one.
Not necessarily.
> > Suffice it to say that it was the GM's call, and obviously nobody cared to
> > debate it too far with him/her, so it worked for THAT group. THEY had fun
> > with it, and THAT is all that matters.
>
> And the GM was silly. Since no one chose to point this out, all we can
> do is caution others about making a similar mistake.
It's only a mistake if you're inconsistent.
C. Baize
Andrew Tellez
"M. JJ Molina" wrote:
>
> Okay, maybe he is a silly guy, but the way the device works coincides
> with the effect. All objects on me would have accelerated in their aging
> too.
So spells wear off as well, and characters die of starvation? Magical
aging in 2E wasn't a simple matter of accelerated time for the target.
Physical stress (like haste) and life force drain (ghosts, rods of
withering) are more viable causes.
> bread became hard or moldy. That is what the spell does, it advances the
> aging of the target and all of his possessions.
Which spell? I'm not aware of any that actually cause accelerated time
passage for a creature and its possessions.
> I would imagine that if I had tapeworms, they would die too.
Or grow to bizarre size, or kill you.
> I guess my characters hair and fingernails would have grown too, but few
> DMs even acknowledge such things as hair growth.
Actually, the character would have starved first.
> I knew OOC that my character was pregnant and as soon as he told me
> that I had aged one year I immediately thought of the small bundle in my
> belly turning into an abdomen bomb.
Unlikely, since the lack of nutrients would kill it before it got that
big.
> Either way, this DM is not in the habit of killing off PCs, so if he
> allowed it to happen it was to progress the storyline.
I find this a lame reason.
C. Baize
> "C. Baize" <ba...@netptc.net> wrote in message
> news:3C47162C...@netptc.net...
> >
> > Why would the GM be a moron for advancing the age of the (until then)
> fetus?
>
> Because it's painfully stupid: magically aging a character doesn't make them
> live through the intervening time, it just makes them *older*.
It advances the functions of a body. At least it does, in MY campaign.
> Otherwise they'd die of dehydration and starvation, and their muscles would
> all be
> atrophied and their joints would be frozen in place from not having been
> moved for X years.
Hmmm.. Muscle atrophy... There's a bit of minutia I've been neglecting.... Thank
you.
> And the ray hit the *mother*, not the foetus or the thousands of
> microorganisms in her digestive tract that would have flooded the earth if
> they'd been affected similarly.
Who says? :)
> > Why would said GM need COUNSELING??
>
> Because it's unnecessarily gory and sadistic in a fashion that only a truly
> disturbed person would think is clever.
In your opinion, of course. In mine it was well done.
> It's wildly, improbably stupid and ridiculously grotesque. Which is why I
> think the story is fake.
It's the sort of sobering campaign twist that can give the PCs a whole new
perspective. Which is why *I* like it.
C. Baize
Glenn Dowdy
"Ben Sisson" <ilkhanik...@DIESPAMyahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:nudd4u0tejn46htfh...@4ax.com...
remainder flying in all directions (well, not all, towards the unluckly
companions) and the monk uses those Mysterious Monkly ways to survive.
Glenn D.
Andrew Tellez
"C. Baize" wrote:
>
> Andrew Tellez wrote:
>
> > Aging effects weren't caused by rapid time passage, otherwise targets
> > would starve. Also, hair and fingernails don't grow, and active spells
> > don't wear off.
>
> I must be strange. Whenever I've had rapid aging as an effect of a spell, or spell
> like ability, I've always paid attention to minutiae like that. The starvation
> doesn't kill, but they are famished and weakened, and in my campaigns, the hair
> and fingernails (and toenails, by the way) DO grow.
Years of starvation doesn't kill?
I've found it more consistent to interpret aging as the result of a
physical stress or life-drain attack, rather than as actual time
passage. Otherwise, it should be immediately fatal.
> > > Why would said GM need COUNSELING??
> >
> > To remove his tendency to be a moron, apparently.
>
> Completely subjective.
True, and I don't know if anti-moron counseling even works.
> > > I don't see it as a bad call either as a player or as a GM.
> >
> > The GM is interpreting time effects inconsistently.
>
> How so? She aged, as did her bodily functions, she happened to be pregnant at the
> time, and that was advanced as well.
Did spells expire? Why didn't she or the fetus starve? If time was
passing, wouldn't she go into a rapid labor at some point?
> > At least, I assume he's not having spell and effect durations run out, hair
> > grow, or
> > starvation occur.
>
> Spell effect durations should not have been affected... Hair growth and starvation
> however SHOULD have.
Why shouldn't spell durations be affected? If the character is being
passed rapidly through time, then spell effects are being passed with
the character.
> > > It's a matter of style and belief.
> >
> > The GM chose a messy and inconsistent effect interpretation, rather than
> > a simpler and less explosive one.
>
> Not necessarily.
His interpretation is inconsistent. His interpretation is messy. There
are simpler explanations; some of these simpler explanations don't
involve exploding PCs.
> > > Suffice it to say that it was the GM's call, and obviously nobody cared to
> > > debate it too far with him/her, so it worked for THAT group. THEY had fun
> > > with it, and THAT is all that matters.
> >
> > And the GM was silly. Since no one chose to point this out, all we can
> > do is caution others about making a similar mistake.
>
> It's only a mistake if you're inconsistent.
The interpretation was internally inconsistent.
Brandon Blackmoor
> Brandon Blackmoor wrote:
>> It's wildly, improbably stupid and ridiculously grotesque. Which is
>> why I think the story is fake.
>
> It's the sort of sobering campaign twist that can give the PCs a whole
> new perspective. Which is why *I* like it.
"Sobering"? In the sense of the GM pissing in your glass of Mountain Dew
being "sobering"? "Sobering" is not the world I would use. I *would* get a
new perspective, though. My new perspective would be from the door, then
from the street, then from my car as I'm driving away.
(And you aren't exactly batting 1000 on matters of taste, Baize. Still, you
are entitled to like or dislike whatever you want for whatever reason or
lack of reason thrills you, the same as everyone else.)
C. Baize
> "C. Baize" <ba...@netptc.net> wrote in message
> news:3C472C11...@netptc.net...
> > Brandon Blackmoor wrote:
> >> It's wildly, improbably stupid and ridiculously grotesque. Which is
> >> why I think the story is fake.
> >
> > It's the sort of sobering campaign twist that can give the PCs a whole
> > new perspective. Which is why *I* like it.
>
> "Sobering"? In the sense of the GM pissing in your glass of Mountain Dew
> being "sobering"? "Sobering" is not the world I would use. I *would* get a
> new perspective, though. My new perspective would be from the door, then
> from the street, then from my car as I'm driving away.
I think we had THIS same discussion about wishes...
> (And you aren't exactly batting 1000 on matters of taste, Baize. Still, you
> are entitled to like or dislike whatever you want for whatever reason or
> lack of reason thrills you, the same as everyone else.)
Again... completely subjective...
Hated Ice Pirates...
Liked Starship Troopers...
Love anything Monty Python...
And if you don't like the same stuff.... Who cares? Different strokes for
different folks.
C. Baize
Brandon Blackmoor
> Brandon Blackmoor wrote:
>> Still, you are entitled to like or dislike whatever you want for whatever
>> reason or lack of reason thrills you, the same as everyone else.
>
> Who cares? Different strokes for different folks.
After a certain point, that's what most of these threads boil down to.
Sir Bob
If you want an in-character rationalization, you could say he realized
the necklace was about to explode, tried to toss it away, and didn't
make it.
If you want a DM's-perspective rationalization, you could say "Hmmm...
the rest of the party is dead anyway, but playing it strictly
by-the-book, this doesn't have to be a total party kill. Is it really
wise to toss out house rules on the spot that enforce total party
kills? Gee, let me think..."
If you want a rules explanation, it's Because The Book Says So. ;)
- Sir Bob.
P.S. Nih!
Kershek
> > Why would the GM be a moron for advancing the age of the (until then) fetus?
>
> It wasn't targeted by the wand. Would a small animal on the character's
> person have been affected? What about a tapeworm?
It sounds to me like the whole thing was done as a plot device for the
storyline. The DM must have plans for the baby and this is a convenient
way to get the baby old enough very quickly.
Kershek
glenn...@agilent.com says...
> and the monk uses those Mysterious Monkly ways to survive.
The proper term is "Monkified"
Mike Schneider
<bblac...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> "Mike Schneider" <mi...@SPAMKILLERusfamily.net> wrote in message
> news:mike1-17010...@msp-65-25-213-1.mn.rr.com...
> > In article <4de5f58d.02011...@posting.google.com>,
> > iwr...@itronix.co.uk (iain wright) wrote:
> >> The ensuing fireballs were enough to wipe out the whole party,
> >> except the monk who, although he automatically failed his save
> >> for the blast, had improved evasion and only took half damage.
> >
> > That's ridiculous. If you're *wearing* the object that explodes, you
> > shouldn't be able to evade it.
>
> That's a Monk for you. Those guys are amazing.
No; he just had a GM who didn't penalizy him -10 for wearing the thing.
Mike Schneider
<bblac...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> > Why would said GM need COUNSELING??
>
> Because it's unnecessarily gory and sadistic in a fashion that only a truly
> disturbed person would think is clever.
>
> It's wildly, improbably stupid and ridiculously grotesque. Which is why I
> think the story is fake.
I'll bet sound money that every word of it was true.
I've heard worse.
Brandon Blackmoor
news:mike1-17010...@msp-65-25-213-1.mn.rr.com...
>> Which is why I think the story is fake.
>
> I'll bet sound money that every word of it was true.
I hope you're wrong... but I wouldn't take that bet. ;)
Sir Bob
> Brandon Blackmoor wrote:
>
> > "C. Baize" <ba...@netptc.net> wrote in message
> > news:3C47162C...@netptc.net...
> > >
> > > Why would the GM be a moron for advancing the age of the (until then)
> > fetus?
> >
> > Because it's painfully stupid: magically aging a character doesn't make them
> > live through the intervening time, it just makes them *older*.
>
> It advances the functions of a body. At least it does, in MY campaign.
>
> > Otherwise they'd die of dehydration and starvation, and their muscles would
> > all be
> > atrophied and their joints would be frozen in place from not having been
> > moved for X years.
>
> Hmmm.. Muscle atrophy... There's a bit of minutia I've been neglecting.... Thank
> you.
>
> > And the ray hit the *mother*, not the foetus or the thousands of
> > microorganisms in her digestive tract that would have flooded the earth if
> > they'd been affected similarly.
>
> Who says? :)
<snip>
If the cells of the fetus were allowed to multiply without
supplementary nutrition and whatnot, the microorganisms in her body
should have been extended the same benefit - so they should multiplied
to the tune of five years' worth of unchecked growth. :p
Gordon
news:87c94957.02011...@posting.google.com...
...and for years afterwards, the party members were known to mutter in
taverns,
"That Paladin gave the best head I've ever seen."
--
Gordon
"Thank you, I'll be here all week."
Gordon
>
>
> "M. JJ Molina" wrote:
> >
> > Okay, maybe he is a silly guy, but the way the device works
coincides
> > with the effect. All objects on me would have accelerated in their aging
> > too.
>
> So spells wear off as well, and characters die of starvation? Magical
> aging in 2E wasn't a simple matter of accelerated time for the target.
> Physical stress (like haste) and life force drain (ghosts, rods of
> withering) are more viable causes.
>
> > bread became hard or moldy. That is what the spell does, it advances the
> > aging of the target and all of his possessions.
>
> Which spell? I'm not aware of any that actually cause accelerated time
> passage for a creature and its possessions.
It shouldn't function in a scientific manner-- that was the DM's problem
(okay, one of his problems).
> > I would imagine that if I had tapeworms, they would die too.
>
> Or grow to bizarre size, or kill you.
Or eat you.
> > I guess my characters hair and fingernails would have grown too, but few
> > DMs even acknowledge such things as hair growth.
>
> Actually, the character would have starved first.
...and gone mad from lack of REM sleep.
> > I knew OOC that my character was pregnant and as soon as he told me
> > that I had aged one year I immediately thought of the small bundle in my
> > belly turning into an abdomen bomb.
>
> Unlikely, since the lack of nutrients would kill it before it got that
> big.
Then the character would pass out from the blood loss of having 100+ periods
in the space of a few seconds?
> > Either way, this DM is not in the habit of killing off PCs, so if he
> > allowed it to happen it was to progress the storyline.
>
> I find this a lame reason.
LOL ya *think*?
--
Gordon
"I have as much authority as the Pope.
I just don't have as many people who believe it."
Andras Otto Schneider
pregnancy's, don't have a "Cure Disease" cast on a pregnant character,
because it will end the pregnancy( Technically a parasitic infection)
AOS
"Those blast points are far too accurate
for Imperial Stormtroopers. Only Imperial
Special Effects Technicians are so precise"
Brandon Blackmoor
news:andrasotto.spamguard-...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> don't have a "Cure Disease" cast on a pregnant character,
> because it will end the pregnancy (Technically a parasitic
> infection)
Well that's just dumb.
Gordon
news:andrasotto.spamguard-...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> pregnancy's, don't have a "Cure Disease" cast on a pregnant character,
> because it will end the pregnancy( Technically a parasitic infection)
I'd say to one of my players who propossed such a thing, "You're thinking
like a scientist rather than a priest. Stop."
Seanette Blaylock
interesting things to say about Re: Most Impressive Character Deaths:
>In article <a265ct$uit8q$1...@ID-97660.news.dfncis.de>, "Brandon
>Blackmoor" <bblac...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>> "M. JJ Molina" <miggy...@hotoffthepressmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:LDw18.58828$3x5.3...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com...
>> > One of the most impressive deaths I have had was when one of my
>> > PCs, a level 6 half-elf specialty priest of Azuth was hit by a wand of
>> > aging.... She collapses to the ground and says her final words "Oh
>> > boy!" The following round she exploded in a blast of gore and blood
>> > and lying in the center of this mess was a young baby boy.
>> I am aghast. I'm not sure if that's more disgusting than it is stupid, or
>> more stupid than it is disgusting. It's defnitely both. Why would aging
>> the PC accelerate the pregnancy? I suppose your idiot GM would have had her
>> starve and dehydrate for being without food and water for 1d10 years,
>> even if she hadn't exploded in a gruesome and utterly unnecessary fashion.
>> Every time I think I've heard the worst "idiot GM" story possible, someone
>> comes along with a new one. I'm tempted to think you made it up; I have a
>> hard time believing a GM could be that moronically sadistic.
And people thought my *hypothetical* question was trollish, but I've
only seen one person comment negatively on this gruesomely cruel tale.
>I'll give you that it's disgusting visuals, but I think the DM was going
>with the "the fetus is a person, too, and also ages 10 yrs." No
>food/water problems, just that "everyone hit by the ray" is aged 10 yrs,
>and the DM ruled the fetus did, too.
OK, I can see *some* logic to that.
>I don't think I'd ever do this in my game, but it's not *too* hard to
>see what was going on. I know people who would find that entertaining...
You know some weird people, IMO. ;-)
--
Seanette Blaylock [make obvious address correction for e-mail]
"Either you're being sarcastic, or your post leaked over to me from a
parallel universe, or one or both of us is insane and/or stupid and/or
not paying attention and/or lying." Ben, ATSR
Brandon Blackmoor
message news:kkue4uo3bgecvhkmp...@4ax.com...
>
> And people thought my *hypothetical* question was trollish, but I've
> only seen one person comment negatively on this gruesomely cruel tale.
You'll note that although I though your question was silly, I never thought
it was a troll.
Seanette Blaylock
interesting things to say about Re: Most Impressive Character Deaths:
>While we seem to be on the subject of bad things happening to
>pregnancy's, don't have a "Cure Disease" cast on a pregnant character,
>because it will end the pregnancy( Technically a parasitic infection)
Since when is a pregnancy an infection? [I'll grant parasitic.]
Seanette Blaylock
things to say about Re: Most Impressive Character Deaths:
>message news:kkue4uo3bgecvhkmp...@4ax.com...
>> And people thought my *hypothetical* question was trollish, but I've
>> only seen one person comment negatively on this gruesomely cruel tale.
>You'll note that although I though your question was silly, I never thought
>it was a troll.
Fair enough. You'll note, however, that other posters in here did use
the word "troll" in referring to my hypothetical. :-)
Marc Q
demons. There was a big collar that went on the demon connected by a chain
to a little collar that went on your neck. We found out that a mine foreman
was really a polymorphed pitfiend. So, we snuck up on the pitfiend with the
intent that my mage would slap the collar on the pitfiend (IIRC it require
high int to be used correctly).
Unfortunately, the pitfiend somehow heard us coming. So we rushed it and I
slapped the collar on the closest thing I could find: his knee. So, there I
am, a 6th level wizard chained by the neck to a pit fiend's knee. He pretty
much ignored me while he killed 3 of the party since I was just flopping
about screaming and thrashing and trying not to get my neck broken. But
eventually he killed me too. Only 2 out of 6 PCs survived.
Not our finest moment.
Marc
M. JJ Molina
"Kershek" <ker...@somewhere.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.16b0f041c...@newshost.mot.com...
As a matter of fact, you are correct.
-M. JJ Molina
Don't let people drive you crazy...
When you know it is only a walking distance.
iain wright
> In article <a276dh$v9fln$1...@ID-97660.news.dfncis.de>, "Brandon Blackmoor"
> <bblac...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> > "Mike Schneider" <mi...@SPAMKILLERusfamily.net> wrote in message
> > news:mike1-17010...@msp-65-25-213-1.mn.rr.com...
> > > In article <4de5f58d.02011...@posting.google.com>,
> > > iwr...@itronix.co.uk (iain wright) wrote:
> > >> The ensuing fireballs were enough to wipe out the whole party,
> > >> except the monk who, although he automatically failed his save
> > >> for the blast, had improved evasion and only took half damage.
> > >
> > > That's ridiculous. If you're *wearing* the object that explodes, you
> > > shouldn't be able to evade it.
> >
> > That's a Monk for you. Those guys are amazing.
>
>
> No; he just had a GM who didn't penalizy him -10 for wearing the thing.
The penalty was that he automatically failed his save against the
fireballs, it being almost impossible to avoid them. However improved
evasion means that only 50% damage is suffered: almost impossible,
isn't impossible.
It's not just a matter of getting out of the way. Monks abilities are
partly physical, partly ki.
It all boils down to sometimes having to suspend common sense when
describing magic. It's the old nut of physics vs magic.
He may not have dished out as much damage as the fighters, but if
there was one thing he was good out, it was surviving.
Glenn Dowdy
>
>
> "C. Baize" wrote:
> >
> > Why would the GM be a moron for advancing the age of the (until then)
fetus?
>
> It wasn't targeted by the wand. Would a small animal on the character's
> person have been affected? What about a tapeworm?
>
down under your hauberk there?"
Glenn D.
Helge Moulding
strictly speaking, have to make sense...
Magical aging, as I've always envisioned it, is like a highly
specialized polymorph. If it were anything else (like having
the victim's body go through real aging) there'd be too many
complications. The aging affects only the target's body, not
its clothes, or its commensal fauna, or even a fetus that a
pregnant woman may be carrying. (Though a woman aged from 30
to 90 would probably have serious difficulties bringing a
pregnancy to term.)
In 2E I think that magical aging not only affected Con and Str
scores, but Wis scores, as well. Is that true for 3E? That's
different from polymorph, isn't it? I mean, if I polymorph a
120 pound wizard into an ogre he gets the ogre's Str, Con, and
Dex, but leaves the Cha, Wis, and Int scores unchanged.
--
Helge Moulding
mailto:hmou...@excite.com Just another guy
http://hmoulding.cjb.net/ with a weird name
Reginald Blue
news:a29rv1$6od$1...@si05.rsvl.unisys.com...
> In 2E I think that magical aging not only affected Con and Str
> scores, but Wis scores, as well. Is that true for 3E?
Thankfully they removed all forms of magical aging in 3E. My personal
opinion is that you can add them back in and not worry about it too much if
you have it cut years off your life (i.e. lower your lifespan) rather than
"move you forward in time". Regardless, it's a silly effect. How many
characters really live to "a ripe old age" anyway?
(BTW, you can "simulate" aging-type effects by CON and/or STR damage or,
worse, drain.)
Reginald Blue
interpretations of the rules.
I would like to point out that items do not need to make saves from this
kind of damage if they're worn by someone. In fact, even if you fail a
save, they don't have to save UNLESS you roll a 1 and EVEN THEN it's "pick
one item".
So...if you follow the rules by the book, how many of these count?
(A minor comment on the pregnancy/wand of aging thing: This is why they
took out "aging" as an effect in 3E. Too many wierd effects that are
inexplicable. My take on "aging" effects in 1e and 2e was that it did NOT
age you forward, but cut off years at the "back end".)
Joseph Oberlander
Wayne Shaw
<hmou...@excite.com> wrote:
>In 2E I think that magical aging not only affected Con and Str
>scores, but Wis scores, as well. Is that true for 3E? That's
With the exception of one monster (which I think is a cut and paste
error) 3e has studious avoided age modifying effects, either pro or
con. So I'd say it is trying to avoid the issue altogether.
M. JJ Molina
"Joseph Oberlander" <josephob...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3C489203...@earthlink.net...
> Wouldn't the baby get its own saving throw?
Well, that may be up for debate, really. If it were a familiar, for example,
the general rule of thumb is if the character saves, then the familiar
saves. However, most players will argue, if they failed, that the creature
should et its own. Some DMs will allow the familiar to survive if the
characters saves, and will let the familiar roll a saving throw if the
character had failed. Imagine if it were a fireball. How could the baby save
against it, if the mother was ground zero and took full damage. Perhaps,
because of the mothers body being around the baby, one could say that he
would only take half damage regardless of a saving throw. But we aren't
talking about fireballs. Magical Aging is a tough issue to deal with, I
guess that is why WotC wrote it out of 3rd Ed.
Loren Pechtel
<Regina...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>(A minor comment on the pregnancy/wand of aging thing: This is why they
>took out "aging" as an effect in 3E. Too many wierd effects that are
>inexplicable. My take on "aging" effects in 1e and 2e was that it did NOT
>age you forward, but cut off years at the "back end".)
No. I remember a line from somewhere offical about someone
casting a Gate spell and having streaks of grey appear in their hair.
Hong Ooi
<HelpfulGM@*NO-SPAM*PlayNaked.com> wrote:
>
>I don't think I'd ever do this in my game, but it's not *too* hard to
>see what was going on. I know people who would find that entertaining...
I did.
--
Hong Ooi | "Usually you're a funny guy Hong. Here
hong...@maths.anu.edu.au | you're just being petty and trollish."
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/ | -- BWS
Sydney, Australia |
Edmund E. Freeman
<glenn...@agilent.com> wrote:
>
>"Ben Sisson" <ilkhanik...@DIESPAMyahoo.ca> wrote in message
>news:nudd4u0tejn46htfh...@4ax.com...
>> On 17 Jan 2002 02:21:10 -0800, iwr...@itronix.co.uk (iain wright) (if
>> that IS his real name) disgorged:
>>
<snip>
>>
>How about the beads blow non-simultaneously, the first to detonate sends the
>remainder flying in all directions (well, not all, towards the unluckly
>companions) and the monk uses those Mysterious Monkly ways to survive.
>
>Glenn D.
>
As the flame breathe was coming at him, his powerful intuition
sensed the danger he was in, and slapped the necklace around the guy
standing next to him.
+---------------------------------------------------+
| Edmund E Freeman If there is no such thing|
| www.blarg.net/~efreeman as magic, why do we have |
| the word? |
+---------------------------------------------------+
Edmund E. Freeman
<bblac...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>"C. Baize" <ba...@netptc.net> wrote in message
>news:3C47162C...@netptc.net...
>>
>> Why would the GM be a moron for advancing the age of the (until then)
>fetus?
>
>Because it's painfully stupid: magically aging a character doesn't make them
>live through the intervening time, it just makes them *older*.
When kids get older they grow up. Just like when adults get
older they get gray hairs. Same principle.
Thornhammer
"Loren Pechtel" <lorenp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c48b831....@nntp.vegasnet.net...
I seem to remember a line from one of the Van Richten's Guides (probably the
Ghost book, but I'm not certain) about an elderly man who claimed to have
been young, but was aged by a spirit's touch in Har'Akir.
-Thornhammer
Andras Otto Schneider
<hmou...@excite.com> wrote:
> In 2E I think that magical aging not only affected Con and Str
> scores, but Wis scores, as well. Is that true for 3E?
magical aging did affect the physical stats, but a character would not
gain a Wis or Int bonus, because they have not 'learned' for x years
Joseph Oberlander
I would give the baby a save verus almost everything. Physical
trauma actually has to be extreme to kill a baby it is so well
protected. The mother could be burt and charred and a quick
intervention would have a good chnace of saving the baby.
What I was talking about was harmful non physical magic. I would
rule that since it has its own life-force, it would at least save
like a standard townie or child. It may not age or the mother
may save and the child would not. This is why adventuring and pregnancy
is often avoided in magical campaigns - its just too risky.
Ben Sisson
<seanette.spam...@impulse.net> (if that IS his real name)
disgorged:
>"Brandon Blackmoor" <bblac...@spamcop.net> had some very interesting
>things to say about Re: Most Impressive Character Deaths:
>>"Seanette Blaylock" <seanette.spam...@impulse.net> wrote in
>>message news:kkue4uo3bgecvhkmp...@4ax.com...
>>> And people thought my *hypothetical* question was trollish, but I've
>>> only seen one person comment negatively on this gruesomely cruel tale.
>>You'll note that although I though your question was silly, I never thought
>>it was a troll.
>
>Fair enough. You'll note, however, that other posters in here did use
>the word "troll" in referring to my hypothetical. :-)
We were giving you the benefit of the doubt by calling it a troll. The
alternative was calling you an idiot or a munchkin.. which is much
worse.
---
Ben Sisson
"I was tested as a child...150 even...I think
that means I'm one and a half people."
- One of rsp-w's goons on his IQ
Rob Bruce
"Ben Sisson" <ilkhanik...@DIESPAMyahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:nudd4u0tejn46htfh...@4ax.com...
> that IS his real name) disgorged:
>
man--a
> >> bumbling rogue if ever I saw one--set off a fire trap. The resulting
> >> explosion scorched everyone in the party. The players took their damage
and
> >> everyone was reasonably okay. The damage was sufficient, however, to
kill
> >> off the gnome, who announced this with some consternation.
> >> Then he pointed out that he was carrying some alchemists fire. He asked
if
> >> they would have exploded due to the heat of the fireball. I thought
about it
> >> and said, "Sure. How many do you have?"
> >> "Eighteen," he responded.
> >> With widened eyes, I had him roll primary and secondary damage for the
> >> alchemists fire. In the end, the poor sap took a total of 103 hp of
damage
> >> (some from the initial fireball).
> >
> >Reminds me of a monk (1st edition dragon magazine) I played once,
> >except for a slight twist. The party comprised my monk and three other
> >characters, all of about 10 level or so. We came across a minor
> >encounter, a chimera. The dragon head breathed for a grand total of 3
> >damage. The monk failed his save. The necklace of missiles he was
> >wearing failed and exploded. The ensuing fireballs were enough to wipe
> >out the whole party, except the monk who, although he automatically
> >failed his save for the blast, had improved evasion and only took half
> >damage.
>
> wrapped around your neck.
Initial blast blows the beads away from character thus allowing a save. Who
knows, it fits into one of those "it's magic" or "it's the rules" type of
things.
Rob
Joseph Oberlander
> > Okay explain to me how you can possible evade something already
> > wrapped around your neck.
>
> Initial blast blows the beads away from character thus allowing a save. Who
> knows, it fits into one of those "it's magic" or "it's the rules" type of
> things.
I like the idea of the beads clattering to the floor as they start
glowing ominously. Three seconds later(give the party SOME chance)
they explode.
Preston
Brandon Blackmoor wrote:
> Every time I think I've heard the worst "idiot GM" story possible,
Hey, this post wasn't about smartest or most logical character deaths, it was
about most impressive character deaths. What happened in the game was pretty
stupid, but it was pretty damn impressive.
Preston
Brandon Blackmoor
news:3C4A47F8...@udel.edu...
>> Every time I think I've heard the worst "idiot GM" story possible,
>
> was pretty damn impressive.
OK, I'll give you that. :)
Ed Hurtley
news:Uvj18.3228$Ln2.1...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
> Recently, I had the rare opportunity of adjudicating the death of one of
my
> players' characters. This is an admittedly rare occasion, since I have a
> policy of not actively trying to kill of characters. At any rate, this guy
> was a gnome, and he went out--in typical gnomish fashion--with nothing
short
> of a BANG.
> In the spirit of the "Character One Liners" thread, what are some of the
> great ways your characters (or players' characters) have died?
Well, it's not necessarily 'impressive', but it's funny. My 3E cleric had
the highest Fortitude save of any character in the group, at +13. I was the
only character to fail a DC15 fortutude save and die.
Different RPG, Rifts, had a character with the following situation:
He was a large race, with massive amounts of MDC (If you don't play
Palladium games, they have to 'classes' of damage, hp/SDC, and MDC. 1 MDC =
100SDC, but weapons that deal only SDC, even if it's in the hundreds range,
cannot damage MDC structures. Humans are hp/SDC creatures.) He was big,
strong, and dumb. He carried the big weapons (think shoulder mounted A-10
cannon.) Our GM had a rule that if you critically fumbled on a strike roll
(rolled a 1,) you rolled another d20 to find out what happens (from simply
having the weapon not fire, to dropping the weapon, to having all the
ammunition explode in the weapon.) This character rolled a 1. Fumble. For
the result table, he rolled another 1. His weapon blew up in a spectacular
cloud remeniscient of a small nuclear explosion. His shield spell was
drained. On the next round, he drew his backup weapon and fired. Rolled
another 1. Results table, another 1. All the missles in his missile
launcher exploded. Again, think small nuclear explosion. About half of his
MDC were drained, along with most of the armor on the rest of the party.
For his third action, he drew his final weapon, a plasma thrower (high
powered flamethrower) and.... You guessed it! Rolled a 1. Result? Again,
as you can probably guess, he rolled a 1. Plasma all over the place! He
was dropped to 5MDC, and we promptly retreated.
The GM gave him the special ability that he was 'unfazable'. For the rest
of the campaign, if a weapon ever blew up in his hands, he could draw and
fire a new weapon as a free action. It happened at least 3 more times in
the two years we played that campaign. And if he rolled a fumble, he
automatically got to drop the weapon and take one step away from it before
anything bad could happen.
For the curious, there were 7 people present to witness this miracle of dice
rolling, and after the third roll, he used different d20s for the other
three. Six 1s in a row on a d20, with a statistical chance of 1 in
64,000,000. The player promptly went out and bought a lottery ticket.
Didn't match a single number.
Seanette Blaylock
things to say about Re: Most Impressive Character Deaths:
>Well, it's not necessarily 'impressive', but it's funny. My 3E cleric had
>the highest Fortitude save of any character in the group, at +13. I was the
>only character to fail a DC15 fortutude save and die.
Ow.
Ow.
Bummer.
Del Rio
>Brandon Blackmoor wrote:
>> It's wildly, improbably stupid and ridiculously grotesque. Which is why I
>> think the story is fake.
>
>It's the sort of sobering campaign twist that can give the PCs a whole new
>perspective. Which is why *I* like it.
You think Peter Jackson's _Fellowship of the Ring_ is a
"shitburger".
But a baby detonating its mother's womb into a mass of blood
and gore when she gets hit with an aging ray is "sobering",
and "gives the PCs a whole new perpective".
You know, I feel like I'm getting stupider just from reading
your posts.
Kaos
wrote:
>I must be strange. Whenever I've had rapid aging as an effect of a spell, or spell
>like ability, I've always paid attention to minutiae like that. The starvation
>doesn't kill,
Then you're only paying half-ass attention to the minutiae...
>> At least, I assume he's not having spell and effect durations run out, hair
>> grow, or
>> starvation occur.
>
>Spell effect durations should not have been affected... Hair growth and starvation
>however SHOULD have.
Why one and not the other?
>> The GM chose a messy and inconsistent effect interpretation, rather than
>> a simpler and less explosive one.
>
>Not necessarily.
Um... absolutely.
Whether it was the right or wrong choice is a different matter; but
that it was messy and bore inconsistencies is non-debatable. The
character literally exploded.
>> And the GM was silly. Since no one chose to point this out, all we can
>> do is caution others about making a similar mistake.
>It's only a mistake if you're inconsistent.
5+ years of hunger-effects without death *is* inconsistant.
--
This is usenet.
Truth is secondary to Presentation.
Kaos
wrote:
>Brandon Blackmoor wrote:
>
>> "C. Baize" <ba...@netptc.net> wrote in message
>> news:3C47162C...@netptc.net...
>> >
>> > Why would the GM be a moron for advancing the age of the (until then)
>> fetus?
>>
>> Because it's painfully stupid: magically aging a character doesn't make them
>> live through the intervening time, it just makes them *older*.
>
>It advances the functions of a body. At least it does, in MY campaign.
Can we get into the precise amount of damage done to one's bowels,
then?
Let's see... violently emptied then subjected to X period of 'time' as
being functionally empty.
>> Otherwise they'd die of dehydration and starvation, and their muscles would
>> all be
>> atrophied and their joints would be frozen in place from not having been
>> moved for X years.
>
>Hmmm.. Muscle atrophy... There's a bit of minutia I've been neglecting.... Thank
>you.
You might as well just rule any aging-effect as "you die instantly,"
then. Between all the 'minutia,' they might as well have died; and in
fact, many of them *should* have killed them.
>> And the ray hit the *mother*, not the foetus or the thousands of
>> microorganisms in her digestive tract that would have flooded the earth if
>> they'd been affected similarly.
>
>Who says? :)
The law of Consistency. Which you actually brought up yourself.
David
> While we seem to be on the subject of bad things happening to
> pregnancy's, don't have a "Cure Disease" cast on a pregnant character,
> because it will end the pregnancy( Technically a parasitic infection)
>
> AOS
>
Nice try, but not quite:
http://www.academicpress.com/inscight/11211996/parasite.htm
parasite
Biology
* an animal or plant living in or on an organism of another species
(its host), obtaining from it part or all of its
organic nutriment, and commonly exhibiting some degree of adaptive
structural modification. The host is typically,
but not always, harmed by the presence of the parasite; it never
benefits from this presence. (c) 1995 by Academic
Press
key words here are "organism of another species"
GreatLich
"David" <davec...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3b0a6dae.02012...@posting.google.com...
But how do you know that clause wasn't added to the definition to
specifically exclude pregnancy? You're using circular reasoning, don't...
GreatLich
Søren Frey
also kill you as you die from starvation.....this is roleplaying, not
everything goes by the same logic as in the "real" world.....hence it's
called fantasy....
"Kaos" <ka...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:46fq4usso96pq7t8k...@4ax.com...
Kaos
<sf...@0dense.kollegienet.dk> wrote:
>Right, so using "Speed" (causing you to lose one year of your life) would
>also kill you as you die from starvation.....this is roleplaying, not
>everything goes by the same logic as in the "real" world.....hence it's
>called fantasy....
And thus you see why I dislike this ruling...
Course, one might also claim that there is a difference between
'magical aging' and 'losing one year of life.' One ages you now, the
other reduces one's maximum age...
Bradd W. Szonye
> One of the most impressive deaths I have had was when one of my PCs, a
> level 6 half-elf specialty priest of Azuth was hit by a wand of aging.
> Ages you 1d10 years if save vs. wands fails. This would not have been
> so bad if for the fact that she was 2 weeks pregnant at the time. Her
> lover, also a PC, were fighting back to back in a battle with a "level
> boss". All of a sudden he sees a thin ray of bluish light emit from
> the wand of the bad guy hit his girlfriend. She collapses to the
> ground and says her final words "Oh boy!" The following round she
> exploded in a blast of gore and blood and lying in the center of this
> mess was a young baby boy. Much to everyone's surprise as no one knew
> she was pregnant or what had hit her.
That simply doesn't make sense. If the baby grows to term, then the
mother should also grow to accommodate the baby. There are only two
reasons to apply the "aging" inconsistently in this way:
1. You're a sick bastard who likes gory scenes of exploding babies and
mothers dying horribly at childbirth. You probably get into rape
fantasies and like to play with poop too. Grow up or go to film
school.
2. You got caught up in the moment; a stray thought injected this
"what-if" scenario. Instead of recognizing it for the silly
inconsistency that it is, you were so shocked that you insisted on
playing it this way. I've seen many a player die foolishly because he
mistakenly thought he was doomed.
In either case, this isn't impressive, it's just shocking and obnoxious.
--
Bradd W. Szonye Work: br...@cup.hp.com
Software Design Engineer Home: bra...@concentric.net
Hewlett-Packard, Cupertino Phone: 408-447-4832
tussock
>
> I've seen many a player die foolishly because he
> mistakenly thought he was doomed.
Beware the steam tunnels. I've seen them loose PCs that way.
Conversely, I've seen many a PC survive nasty odds through what
appeared to be the dice responding to a positive player attitude.
--
tussock
Still need a new .sig
Eskil Lauritsen
> > I've seen many a player die foolishly because he
> > mistakenly thought he was doomed.
>
> Beware the steam tunnels. I've seen them loose PCs that way.
> Conversely, I've seen many a PC survive nasty odds through what
> appeared to be the dice responding to a positive player attitude.
>
> --
> tussock
A character I played in 2e FR had a kinda cool death. His name was Yoshi, a
shinobi fighter (ninja sourcebook).
We used the Combat and Tactics rules for critical hits and critical events
and so on, and it worked pretty well.
Yoshi had incredible prowess in battle but, having 5 INT and not speaking
common made him a bit of a comic relief character. I know, characters like
that grow old pretty fast, but he only lived to level 6.
Anyways, about the death:
The party was travelling in the Spine of the World mountains when they came
upon a raid on a caravan. The raiders were orcs and a few hill giants.
Yoshi, being the most capable figther in the group, ran to attack a hill
giant with is katana. He scored a few hits with his katana until it
happened; the hill giant scored a critical hit. The DM rolled in front of
everyone where the hit would land; Yoshi's torso. Then the DM rolled the
effect: torso destroyed, victim dead.
Yoshi was the first one in the whole campaign (and it had been going on for
quite some time) who died from a critical hit. Blast it. But it was a heroic
way of dying and everybody remembers Yoshi to this day, even though an ooze
was smarter than him. :)
In the words of Yoshi: choppa choppa drow! (He detested drow.:)
-Eskil Lauritsen
Mad Hamish
wrote:
> I've seen many a player die foolishly because he
> mistakenly thought he was doomed.
Chripes!
Where do you play and are the police after you yet?
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
h_l...@bigpond.com
Del Rio
> he mistakenly thought he was doomed.
Bradd, you're scaring me. ;-)
--
Del Rio - simulationist GM, incorrigible player
"I know I promised, Lord, never again. But I also know
that YOU know what a weak-willed person I am."
Bradd W. Szonye
>> he mistakenly thought he was doomed. [Emphasis added.]
Del Rio <del...@panix.com> wrote:
> Bradd, you're scaring me. ;-)
Muhahahaha! And you thought only MSB was evil! That my flame-spouting
"holy liberator" alter ego was chaotic good?! Heh heh heh.