So, one of my players opened the door on the Gentlemens' Agreement. . . .

[skydragonknight]

Besides, a Dragon couldn't hurt the hand with his natural weapons anyway, since it's incorporeal.

Most dragons' claws count as magic weapons if memory serves.

I had considered this much. But any dragon with DR/Magic has natural weapons counting as magic, so could hit 50% of the time, which is a good enough deterrent (don't want to use two spells for something that would fail 50% of the time - Dragons have no problem hitting the Hand's AC). I wasn't aware the hand "teleported" as there is nothing in the text that says it doesn't follow normal movement rules. If that's the case, then another counter could be used. I just used this as an example because it is literally zero investment on the dragon's side (unless the dragon is too young, then it might want something to make it able to bypass DR/magic).

[linklord231]

They're treated as magic for the purposes of overcoming damage reduction, but incorporeality is not damage reduction.  The breath weapon would still work fine though.  My point was that a dragon couldn't kill it with an AoO, even if it does provoke.
This is definitely a bit off topic though.

Edit:  odd, you think they'd have mentioned that under the condition summary that spectral hand links to, or under the Incorporeal special ability. 

[skydragonknight]

The incorporeal business:

(click to show/hide)

An incorporeal creature has no physical body. It can be harmed only by other incorporeal creatures, magic weapons or creatures that strike as magic weapons, and spells, spell-like abilities, or supernatural abilities. It is immune to all nonmagical attack forms. Even when hit by spells or magic weapons, it has a 50% chance to ignore any damage from a corporeal source (except for positive energy, negative energy, force effects such as magic missile, or attacks made with ghost touch weapons). Although it is not a magical attack, holy water can affect incorporeal undead, but a hit with holy water has a 50% chance of not affecting an incorporeal creature.

Yeah, back to topic

Veekie and some others pretty much said what I was going to say. It should be used against him when it makes sense within the story.  Don't make most enemies immune/resistant right away, but if he uses it bread and butter style it will be 'a signature spell' of his that enemies can make knowledge checks against and prepare appropriate defenses for. And even if it rocks now, eventually enemies will have the resources to counter it even without specifically thinking about it...a lot of the more dangerous spells require a melee/ranged touch attack and any enemy with Spellcraft and decent Int knows this.

[Kethrian]

If your dragon is in melee range of the PCs, you're not playing to its strengths.  You have a creature that flies faster than any of the PCs can move, can strafe attack with its breath, can use magic items or spells to snipe from a distance, can take flyby attack and what not to do hit-and-runs...  Plus, they are generally intelligent enough to recognize which PCs are the main spellcasters, and will target them first.  Dragons are way OP compared to their CR, and if played right their CR should be about equal to their HD.  And as for incorporealness, I'm sure a dragon can either cast or use a wand of Magic Missile.

And I agree that since you gave your player fair warning, and he went ahead with it anyway, you are well within your rights to use such tactics against him.  After one encounter where he's been on the receiving end of something from your list, talk to him after the session and ask if he's willing to keep getting hit like that, or if he'd like to change his spell.

[Complete4th]

Should I start using Shivering Touch in return?  None of them have appropriate defenses for it, so that will probably get messy, quickly.  Should I start having the bosses with the appropriate defenses against ability damage/drain?  That will probably reek of "gotcha gaming."  Should I ask the player to stop using a spell that wasn't *technically* banned?  No doubt that will seem like I'm picking on him for doing well.

I'm interested in how this has turned out.

You've probably already chosen a course of action, but for the record I say use it! You laid out the agreement at the beginning of the game, and he chose to violate it so all bets are off. I'd try to target his PC, but if another PC presents a juicier target don't hesitate. If someone gets pissed when their PC gets paralyzed for a fight, explain that you're sorry -- but it was the shivering touch guy who just had to press the big red nuclear button. And everything will go back to normal when everyone goes back to respecting the gentlemen's agreement.

[NiteCyper]

And everything will go back to normal when everyone goes back to respecting the gentlemen's agreement.

[veekie]

If someone gets pissed when their PC gets paralyzed for a fight, explain that you're sorry -- but it was the shivering touch guy who just had to press the big red nuclear button.

This isn't a good idea. If you are opening up on the agreement, then so be it. Don't assign blame like that, it only poisons the group dynamics. So Shivering Touch is on the table now, no biggie. You could Finger of Death/Medusaize a PC for similar effect anyway.

[Complete4th]

weird blurry pic

I don't know who this dude is, why he's holding what appears to be a zebra print brassiere, why he's waving at me, or why you posted him as a reply to my post. Sorry, I can be dense like that.

If someone gets pissed when their PC gets paralyzed for a fight, explain that you're sorry -- but it was the shivering touch guy who just had to press the big red nuclear button.

This isn't a good idea. If you are opening up on the agreement, then so be it. Don't assign blame like that, it only poisons the group dynamics. So Shivering Touch is on the table now, no biggie. You could Finger of Death/Medusaize a PC for similar effect anyway.

Sure, that works too.

I guess it's a potential choice between inciting the "Waaa! He's the one who broke the gentleman's agreement!" response or the "Waa! That's not the spell I'm using!" response. Both have their pitfalls, which is why I don't think the gentleman's agreement is the best idea to begin with, but following thru on it is better than not.

[veekie]

I guess it's a potential choice between inciting the "Waaa! He's the one who broke the gentleman's agreement!" response or the "Waa! That's not the spell I'm using!" response. Both have their pitfalls, which is why I don't think the gentleman's agreement is the best idea to begin with, but following thru on it is better than not.

Correct, but making it about Him rather than That Spell means its Personal.

When its personal, sense leaves the building in favor of a date with outrage.

[NiteCyper]

weird blurry pic

I don't know who this dude is, why he's holding what appears to be a zebra print brassiere, why he's waving at me, or why you posted him as a reply to my post. Sorry, I can be dense like that.

• You mean un-pop-cultured.
  
• The hot-link is now a hyper-link.
  
• I'll admit that it's too much to ask for this. Getting the plug-in makes it easier.
  

If someone gets pissed when their PC gets paralyzed for a fight, explain that you're sorry -- but it was the shivering touch guy who just had to press the big red nuclear button.

This isn't a good idea. If you are opening up on the agreement, then so be it. Don't assign blame like that, it only poisons the group dynamics.

"Poisons", or spices up? A deciding determinant is whether or not the consequences are explained in-game or metagame-ically (i.e., out-of-character).

[InnaBinder]

I guess it's a potential choice between inciting the "Waaa! He's the one who broke the gentleman's agreement!" response or the "Waa! That's not the spell I'm using!" response. Both have their pitfalls, which is why I don't think the gentleman's agreement is the best idea to begin with, but following thru on it is better than not.

If the Gentlemens' Agreement isn't a good idea, what's your (superior) alternative?

[McPoyo]

Ban lists or houseruling the spell into a similar power level to it's compatriots.

[Complete4th]

I guess it's a potential choice between inciting the "Waaa! He's the one who broke the gentleman's agreement!" response or the "Waa! That's not the spell I'm using!" response. Both have their pitfalls, which is why I don't think the gentleman's agreement is the best idea to begin with, but following thru on it is better than not.

If the Gentlemens' Agreement isn't a good idea, what's your (superior) alternative?

It's not that the gentleman's agreement is a bad idea, it's that a straight up nerf or ban would be more direct and of course wouldn't put you in the dilemma you currently face. I guess a lot of DMs feel like they have to allow everything, for whatever reason, but IMO it's more trouble than it's worth.

And because I suspect that "But C4, no DM can anticipate everything that might prove nerf-worthy or ban-worthy!" will be the next response to this post, I say this: the DM maintains the right to retroactively nerf or ban things that become problematic.

Now, if you don't mind me asking, has your dilemma been resolved?

weird blurry pic

I don't know who this dude is, why he's holding what appears to be a zebra print brassiere, why he's waving at me, or why you posted him as a reply to my post. Sorry, I can be dense like that.

• You mean un-pop-cultured.
  
• The hot-link is now a hyper-link.
  
• I'll admit that it's too much to ask for this. Getting the plug-in makes it easier.
  

Yes, I'm very deficient in certain pop cultural areas; particularly when it comes to viral vids. So thanks for the links, but I'm not motivated to take a crash course in interweb loling at the moment. But don't sweat it; not knowing about some crazy dude on the web isn't eating me up inside.

[InnaBinder]

I guess it's a potential choice between inciting the "Waaa! He's the one who broke the gentleman's agreement!" response or the "Waa! That's not the spell I'm using!" response. Both have their pitfalls, which is why I don't think the gentleman's agreement is the best idea to begin with, but following thru on it is better than not.

If the Gentlemens' Agreement isn't a good idea, what's your (superior) alternative?

It's not that the gentleman's agreement is a bad idea, it's that a straight up nerf or ban would be more direct and of course wouldn't put you in the dilemma you currently face. I guess a lot of DMs feel like they have to allow everything, for whatever reason, but IMO it's more trouble than it's worth.

And because I suspect that "But C4, no DM can anticipate everything that might prove nerf-worthy or ban-worthy!" will be the next response to this post, I say this: the DM maintains the right to retroactively nerf or ban things that become problematic.

Now, if you don't mind me asking, has your dilemma been resolved?

weird blurry pic

I don't know who this dude is, why he's holding what appears to be a zebra print brassiere, why he's waving at me, or why you posted him as a reply to my post. Sorry, I can be dense like that.

• You mean un-pop-cultured.
  
• The hot-link is now a hyper-link.
  
• I'll admit that it's too much to ask for this. Getting the plug-in makes it easier.
  

Yes, I'm very deficient in certain pop cultural areas; particularly when it comes to viral vids. So thanks for the links, but I'm not motivated to take a crash course in interweb loling at the moment. But don't sweat it; not knowing about some crazy dude on the web isn't eating me up inside.

Ban Lists and pre-start (or post-start) nerfs are part and parcel of what is generally called the "gentlemens' agreement", so that's not a distinction I grok.  Given that the BGs are explicitly on record as saying "Don't Kick Players Out of Your Game!", I'm not sure what the advocated remedy around these parts would be if Shivering Touch were explicitly on a Ban List that a player chose to ignore, for that matter.  Banning tactics that weren't outlawed at the start of the game screams of sour grapes, and has been considered poor sportsmanship around here in previous posts, incidentally.

Thus far, they've not faced another caster since Captain Shivering Touch pulled the pin on the grenade, so I can't say that the problem's been resolved.

[NiteCyper]

I guess it's a potential choice between inciting the "Waaa! He's the one who broke the gentleman's agreement!" response or the "Waa! That's not the spell I'm using!" response. Both have their pitfalls, which is why I don't think the gentleman's agreement is the best idea to begin with, but following thru on it is better than not.

If the Gentlemens' Agreement isn't a good idea, what's your (superior) alternative?

It's not that the gentleman's agreement is a bad idea, it's that a straight up nerf or ban would be more direct and of course wouldn't put you in the dilemma you currently face. I guess a lot of DMs feel like they have to allow everything, for whatever reason, but IMO it's more trouble than it's worth.

[...] "But C4, no DM can anticipate everything that might prove nerf-worthy or ban-worthy!"

That's what the Dirty Trick Handbook Fixes, JaronK's Tier list for classes, Tier system for templates, Tier System for PrCs - Reboot, the Tomes, and the like, are for. Really, if there's any DM that will attempt to "anticipate everything that might prove nerf-worthy or ban-worthy", I think that they'll (most successfully) come from this forum. It's sort-of the point of this, one of the most popular, sub-forum.

[Complete4th]

Ban Lists and pre-start (or post-start) nerfs are part and parcel of what is generally called the "gentlemens' agreement", so that's not a distinction I grok.  Given that the BGs are explicitly on record as saying "Don't Kick Players Out of Your Game!", I'm not sure what the advocated remedy around these parts would be if Shivering Touch were explicitly on a Ban List that a player chose to ignore, for that matter.  Banning tactics that weren't outlawed at the start of the game screams of sour grapes, and has been considered poor sportsmanship around here in previous posts, incidentally.

Maybe definitions are different here on BGs, but I was going by the def of 'gentlemens' agreement' that I'm familiar with, and that you yourself seem to be using in your OP:

At the start of our current campaign (with fairly low-op oriented players), I put forward a list of potentially problematic spells and abilities, with the promise that I wouldn't use any of them if none of the players did either.

This is the first time I'm hearing that the gentlemens' agreement has a hidden clause about nerfing or banning anything. And I've been frequenting gamer forums for quite a few years.

In any case, I of course wouldn't want to make a habit of retro-nerfing or retro-banning every little thing, but if it's a matter of "I just didn't see this problem coming, and it makes me want to bang my head repeatedly against a cinder block rather than DM this game," I'll go the nerf/ban route. If a player thinks it's a case of sour grapes, he can damn well take over DMing. And I mean that in the most sportsmanlike way possible.

And when it comes to violating outright bans, I know the BGs have strong feelings about booting players, but intentionally breaking the rules is a bootable offense in my book. And violating a ban is breaking the rules; it's no different from a player inventing some kokamaymie character option without his DM's consent and then dominating the game with it. If it's banned, it doesn't exist.

I guess it's a potential choice between inciting the "Waaa! He's the one who broke the gentleman's agreement!" response or the "Waa! That's not the spell I'm using!" response. Both have their pitfalls, which is why I don't think the gentleman's agreement is the best idea to begin with, but following thru on it is better than not.

If the Gentlemens' Agreement isn't a good idea, what's your (superior) alternative?

It's not that the gentleman's agreement is a bad idea, it's that a straight up nerf or ban would be more direct and of course wouldn't put you in the dilemma you currently face. I guess a lot of DMs feel like they have to allow everything, for whatever reason, but IMO it's more trouble than it's worth.

[...] "But C4, no DM can anticipate everything that might prove nerf-worthy or ban-worthy!"

That's what the Dirty Trick Handbook Fixes, JaronK's Tier list for classes, Tier system for templates, Tier System for PrCs - Reboot, the Tomes, and the like, are for. Really, if there's any DM that will attempt to "anticipate everything that might prove nerf-worthy or ban-worthy", I think that they'll (most successfully) come from this forum. It's sort-of the point of this, one of the most popular, sub-forum.

All very informative, but I'm sure you've heard the adage "Plans are like castles made in sand."

[InnaBinder]

C4, you specified you're not a fan of gentelmens' agreements in general (unless there was - to borrow a phrase - a hidden clause in your comment that made your distaste for them extend only as far as my specific example).  Gentlemens' agreements often include ban/nerf-lists, regardless of whether that was the case in this specific example.  That's why I asked what you suggested instead, and why I was surprised when your suggestion was, in fact, a ban/nerf-list.

What constitutes a 'bootable offense' in your book is, of course, duly noted, including how it differs from advice previously given by the BGs regarding whether it's appropriate.

[veekie]

"Poisons", or spices up? A big determiner is whether or not the consequences are explained in-game or metagame-ically (i.e., out-of-character).

Invariably poison, since it induces an antagonistic state between the players(most often the one impacted by the spell), between that player and the DM(for putting him on the spot like that with the group). Benefits? None to the approach, if it works out nobody cares, if it doesn't your players now have a budding enmity with each other.

You'd see less of a divisive impact if you just pointedly shower Shivering Touch on them every encounter since then. At least they'd hate the spell more than the player that way.

[Kethrian]

I still say the best way to handle it is to design an encounter around hitting that player's character with something from your list that is just as debilitating, let him experience the frustration first hand, then after the session take him aside and talk to him about it.  That way, he'll have a better understanding of what potential problems he's unwittingly trying to bring to the game, and can make a much more informed decision on whether to change his spell and go back to the way things were, or to keep going down this route and potentially subject all the players to a much nastier set of abilities from Team Monster.

[Unbeliever]

As I indicated in an earlier post, I think this escalation-style agreement isn't bound to work.  The idea is to just remove these things from the table.  The mechanism used to do so was some variation of Mutually-Assured Destruction.  But, there are innocent bystanders (the other PCs) involved. 

Ideally, the response would be to say something to the effect of "you know what, that really should have been banned, that was kind of the whole intention of that list, was that they'd be banned except under special circumstances.  But, I didn't want to come out and ban a whole bunch of things b/c I feel bad about doing it as a DM.  Sorry."  The player's response, taken out of context a few pages ago, did sound petulant.  But, maybe if things are made clearer -- that it's essentially an arm's race and that's not likely to be fun for everyone -- then maybe his response will be different.  Also, he may not recognize how outpowered or problematic Shivering Touch is. 

Personally, I'd advocate against kicking the players in the teeth to prove the point.  That'd be my last resort option, as it's bound to create more antagonism rather than defuse it, which I take it to be the goal. 

Finally, it depends just how much is riding on all this.  If he's going to memorize 1 Shivering Touch a day, that's probably something that won't swing too many encounters.  So, you could take this as a "teachable moment" for the group and revisit the approach to your particular gentleman's agreement and perhaps leave him with Shivering Touch anyway.