Satyrn
First Post
This is not a universal truth.
I intentionally do not use my players' cool tricks against them. They can do some of the wildest meanest most creative tricks without fear I'll do the same back at them.
'
D&D 5E HELP action automatic? Clarification and thoughts...
I intentionally do not use my players' cool tricks against them. They can do some of the wildest meanest most creative tricks without fear I'll do the same back at them.
'
Well, i will agree there certainly can be exceptions but if it has not been made clear, it is still a good assumption.
Cuz the question is how can a player know what is "original enough" to qualify for this "NPC will now never use" category?
If they first use web to restrain followed by fireball have they just "proofed" themselves?
In this case,, its already gotten sage specific question so they are not the first with some new unique thing.
Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app
Satyrn
First Post
I don't think my players have any way of knowing, and I don't care if they know or not.
I just know that I don't follow the "you better know this will be used against you and yours too" philosophy. A philosophy that seems meant to scare players out of trying stuff.
redrick
First Post
I would differentiate between "creative trick" and "simple exploit." If the players figure out a way to maximize their effectiveness within the rules system, they deserve to have that work both ways. But if it's a unique, one-off creative idea that is about maximizing the fiction, that deserves to be trademarked.
I dont get how its a question.
Your pc was not the first to wear plate armor or breast plate. Your wizard was not the first character to have a companion do Help action. Etc.
Good tactics are not patented not copyright etc and others use good tactics too.
So, when PC gets "use companion for HELP for advantage" irs just smart strategy to start thinking counters as you can likely hit it too.
I dont get the logic at all behind "we do it first now its ours nobody else can do it"?
The thing that ENCOURAGES using good tactics is they work... No copyrights needed.
Knowing others will use good tactics should encourage you to use them as players, not discourage ot. Passing on good ideas just means you do worse while rhe enemies use good tactics.
Right?
Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app
Your pc was not the first to wear plate armor or breast plate. Your wizard was not the first character to have a companion do Help action. Etc.
Good tactics are not patented not copyright etc and others use good tactics too.
So, when PC gets "use companion for HELP for advantage" irs just smart strategy to start thinking counters as you can likely hit it too.
I dont get the logic at all behind "we do it first now its ours nobody else can do it"?
The thing that ENCOURAGES using good tactics is they work... No copyrights needed.
Knowing others will use good tactics should encourage you to use them as players, not discourage ot. Passing on good ideas just means you do worse while rhe enemies use good tactics.
Right?
Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app
Li Shenron
Legend
No, it's a philosophy meant to scare the players out of trying to break the game to their advantage.
"Trying stuff" in general is not under question. Finding an alternative tactic that works just as well as regular tactics is fine. Thinking outside the box to handle a specific situation that is either one-time or at least rare is a good thing.
Finding a trick that is always convenient should be evaluated against the narrative and suspension of disbelief, and based on that the group should either:
- agree that nobody uses the trick (it doesn't pass the narrative test and breaks suspension of disbelief, presumably a rules artifact/loophole)
- agree that everybody uses the trick (it makes narrative sense, so why should only the PC in the whole world have figured it out?)
Why should not the PC be the first one to discover something? If my players come up with a trick/exploit/tactic that is supported by the rules, and I haven't already figured it out, I don't see why they could not be the inventors. Then depending on the PCs actions (i.e. they boast their cleverness, there are witnesses/survivors etc.) they may see other people slowly adopt the same style.
The Crimson Binome
Hero
It's a matter of statistics. There are many people of comparable ability to the PCs who could have figured something out, such that it is improbable for them to have not done so already.
That the players only think for their PCs, while the DM is left thinking for everyone else in the world, would otherwise skew the rate of discovery to favor this small group over everyone else in the world combined. You need to give your NPCs some benefit of the doubt, because some of them should have figured this stuff out by now.
Because unless you are int 20 and wis20 or have many years of fighting or magic there are quite a few npcs smarter, more experienced abd more savvy than you.
Did no god of war or arcana figure this out... Ever... And pass it to their prized followers?
Did the folks who invented those spells the player just learned not figure it out... Ever?
Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app
I agree that it's statistical improbable and requires some suspension of disbelief, but to me assuming that something was common knowledge but it was not used by anyone (PCs or NPCs) until one of the player figured it out, could be even more improbable depending on the context. It's in the end a matter of personal preferences and gaming styles.
Also, I feel the "There are many people of comparable ability to the PCs" argument is a double edged sword: use it too much and the players will start wondering why does it always fall to them to sort things out? Depending on the tone of the campaign, I don't see any issue with players coming up with "signature moves" or their characters.
Raw attitude and experience are not the only thing that matters in getting results. There are a lot of things that influence the final results. A smart person could solve a particular problem in a couple of months while a less gifted person could require 1 year to do so, but if the former has more pressing/interesting issues to work on there could be an opening for the latter. I've personally seen this happen quite a few times in my line of work, so I don't find it so outrageous.
Gods could be locked in a cold war state: direct intervention and passing of knowledge could lead to retaliation or disruption of the balance, etc.
There are several real life cases of people (even those widely accepted to be geniuses) inventing something and failing to understand the implications of their discovery.
Bottom line, I feel that you can find in-story reasons to both allow and prevent the PCs to be the inventors of something, and in the end the choice of one or the other is matter of playstyle, group preferences, settings.
Similar Threads
