Sacrificial Bunnies (Warlock curse question)

[cangrejoide]

I'm not a fan of the Dragonball Z paradigm, sorry.

Common sense says that a bunny isn't a threat, a victim in a cage isn't a threat, a person who is about to be killed by your swing isn't a threat either. In fact, based on the fact that encounters are pretty much designed for the PCs to win... very few mobs are a credible threat. Unless you stand there and let one beat on you for half a dozen rounds a minion sure as heck isn't a credible threat. I'd call the d8/10 feet from falling the ground does to you a more credible threat, can I attack the ground?

DnD is no longer a role-playing game. There is no in-game reason for a character to know a healing potion won't work on them because they've rested too much during the day. There is no in-game reason why a character would know that if they can get a fight in against some weak adversaries they will be STRONGER for the following fight because of AP and such from a milestone. There is no in-game reason why a deaf and unconscious character would benefit from a warlord's rousing cheers. There is no in-game reason for a character to know that he can use the once-a-day power on his shield, or the once-per-day power on his sword, but not both. There is no in-game reason for a character to know a peasant dressed as an evil villain but who isn't a threat won't cause targeted effects to trigger, but the evil villain, dressed as a harmless child would.

DnD is no longer rules to model a fantasy adventure, it's a cumbersome system of arbitrary rules meant to emulate World of Warcraft and be a balanced system from level 1 to 30, and it fails at it.

Okay I understand it, I get it.

You don't like 4E, heck I may dare say that you abhorr and loathe 4E.

What I can't understand, if you detest 4E so much why are you posting in a 4E rules forum?


Why?

 

[The Little Raven]

Common Sense

Hint: When you and a handful of others are arguing against the vast majority that something is common sense, it probably isn't.

 

[robertliguori]

robertliguori- The "credible threat" rule doesn't have to produce consistent results. It has to produce results appropriate for the gaming group and the context of the game.

Ah. For me, those two concepts are pretty much identical, barring specific special-case and special-purpose exceptions.

It seems like the larger disagreement between what I'm going to term "your side" and what I'm going to term "the side of sanity, sweetness, the light of reason, and the glorious Future ahead," is in whether DM discretion counts as a valid rule. I say yes.

Well, since we're defining terms; a rule is something that produces consistent results. A rule that requires the DM to constantly use his discretion is a bad rule, and should either be replaced with something that more closely approximates the goals of the group.

So, a group that has an existing, perfect shared understand about when it is and is not appropriate to use certain abilities does not need the Credible Threat rule. Likewise, a group that has a shared understanding of when to RP out interactions and when to say "I try to convince the guard to let us in without invitations due to the urgency of our quest. What's the Diplomacy DC?" can operate just fine with the 3.5 Diplomacy system. But when there is no such understanding (say, when someone from the the side that calls itself the side of sanity, sweetness, the light of reason, and the glorious Future ahead and the side that's actually correct game together), the rules are insufficent to resolve the dispute. The 3.5E Diplomacy rules are therefore bad rules, despite the fact that they can be used quite applicably by a group with the correct shared understanding; I make the same claim about the Credible Threat rule.

Moreover, I claim that in situations where the existing rules are not sufficient to resolve such situations, the proper response is not another rule that still fails to do so.

I see where my mistake is. I attempted to offer you a vaguely in character plausible justification. From now on, I'm just going to say 'the rules say so'. Which, you will then reply 'This is inconsistent with my paradigm!" to which I reply "but consistent with the design paradigm of 4E', and then you will reply 'But it is inconsistent with my paradigm!'
And then I will reply 'Perhaps you should seek a different mechanical framework on which to base your games of the imagination'.

OK. So, we're looking at a literal reading of the rules, right? That does mean that a party-on-single-minion fight triggers abilities, because there are plenty of core examples of abilities working on single minions (after other minions have been whittled down).

I'm quite fine with that. If we're enforcing the rules, then engineering a situation in which a minion presents a credible threat of HP loss means you can kill the minion and gain the benefit.

If we care about thematics, then we have questions about helpless peasants and alternate animal sacrifices, but we don't care about thematics. Why can we cast Terror on a Wall of Stone? Because the rules say so, just like you said.

I have a problem when people try to claim that the rules say something they don't. The rules are trying to say "Don't apply cleverness to the encounter paradigm; the rules aren't set up to support encounters outside of the defined encounter setups, and doing so means you're going out of spec and may experience wonky results." They are not actually saying this. They are instead saying not much at all, given the fact that you can use the tools given by the game world to apply cleverness and turn monsters into credible threats and in so doing go outside the defined encounter setup.

And if you view the books as "Here are a list of suggestions for how to run your game." that's fine. If you start with the assumption that mismatched expectations between player's interpretation of what's in the books and GM's desired way to run the world, then you're golden. But since there is obviously not consensus as to the cool and expected way for certain abilities to work, I question the argument that the rules as written are sufficient generally.

Hint: When you and a handful of others are arguing against the vast majority that something is common sense, it probably isn't.

My common sense tells me that this is a rather strained argumentum ad populum. My common sense also tells me that when side A asserts that something is common sense, side B disagrees, cites a reasonable example contradicting the thing, and A falls back on claiming that it's common sense despite being common neither to situations in general nor across the parties in the debates, side A needs to reexamine their definition of common sense.

My common sense also says that cutting out the majority of the text of someone's post while replying is a sign of weakness in one's argument. This is backed up by the aforementioned popular fallacy.

But if you'd like to actually explain why it isn't common-sensical to expect two identical giant rats in two identical slayage situations to grant two identical bonuses when slain, feel free. I'm perfectly comfortable with "The dark forces with which you have made a pact will only grant you your boon when you defeat a credible threat to your person." I'm less comfortable with "Yes, this exact same scenario came up last room of the dungeon, with you telling the party not to kill the last dire rat in the group so you could Curse and Boon it, but you can't this time because I wanted you to face that dire rat in that combat but not in this one."

My common sense tells me there will not be an explanation forthcoming of the uncomfortable example that does not violate common sense.

And that's actually fine. "Yes, that would work, and it's a logical thing for a character to try, but the game isn't designed for characters to optimize effort on that level, so please don't or it won't be as fun." is a fine explanation.

 

[FadedC]

And that's actually fine. "Yes, that would work, and it's a logical thing for a character to try, but the game isn't designed for characters to optimize effort on that level, so please don't or it won't be as fun." is a fine explanation.

Don't disagree with you there, and I think that is the heart of the rule. The main disagreement is that I and many others have no problem justifying completely in game the fact that killing the rat works fine in the middle of battle, but not when you save it to kill later. This is probably not something that will ever be resolved......there are always people who can wrap their mind around certain things and not others. Just like some people innately think the entire fantasy genre is incredibly silly.

 

[Saeviomagy]

If you ever get a chance to sit down and talk to Dave Arneson he will tell you how the first group he would run through would use hamsters to check for traps.

Carrying small creatures to detect things that hurt living creatures has always been a trick used in D&D.

Ever since I actually sat down and thought about it, I've always assumed that a set of thieves tools MUST contain several small, easily sustainable creatures kept in glass jars, with appropriate fixtures for attaching rods. How else would one search for stuff like symbol of death without exposing oneself?

 

[Makaze]

So a warlock with a devil pact can kill a whole village full of innocent civilians and recieve no benefit, but when he kills a giant rat he does (assuming its in his appropriate level range)?

For the purposes of a warlock pact boon yes, correct. For the purposes of a ritual that you as a DM design that hopefully does more than give you a few temporary hitpoints... the village things sounds better.

When I play, I like to know that my character can absolutely do certain things

There's your problem. You want a perfectly simulated world in a situation that can't deliver that and so uses DM judgement to fill in the gaps. Pen and paper RPGs do not seem like the best choice if that is of paramount importance to you.

But the bound giant rat (freed before its slaughter) is cool, and does work according to the rules, because whoever wrote the Credible Threat rule fundamentally misunderstood how to write rules that resist scrutiny.

It's not cool, it's also fairly dumb. Credible threat is not a hard and fast rule it's a guideline. Like much of the DMG it's there to help new DMs with advice. Including advice on classic situations, like the sack of rats, that throughout the years various jackasses at various tables like to pull. It's not there to resist scrutiny, it's there to lend weight and authority to the novice DM so that he can act on his feelings that something isn't right about that and tell that player where to shove that sack of bunnies.

 

[Lord Xtheth]

If it were an evil campaign.
If you replace "bunny" with "Innoscent child" or "baby in its mothers arms"
If the enemy was good alignment

then yes. Otherwise I'd tell my players to go fornicate with a cactus

 

[Makaze]

That does mean that a party-on-single-minion fight triggers abilities, because there are plenty of core examples of abilities working on single minions (after other minions have been whittled down).

The minion isn't the credible threat in those situations but rather the encounter taken as a whole.

"The dark forces with which you have made a pact will only grant you your boon when you defeat a credible threat to your person."

"Yes, that would work, and it's a logical thing for a character to try, but the game isn't designed for characters to optimize effort on that level, so please don't or it won't be as fun."

You seem to have quite a few explanations that you'd accept. Explanations that were also given earlier in this thread.

 

[the_redbeard]

Enjoy yourself, and if everyone else at the table thinks this is a fun way to play the game.... knock yourself out.

But not at my table, thank you.

 

[Cadfan]

Ah. For me, those two concepts are pretty much identical, barring specific special-case and special-purpose exceptions.

I'll just quote that much since we're all presumably reading each other's posts and I hate enormous quotations.

I understand your opinion. However, what you are asking for is unattainable. If you feel that rules are bad if they rely on shared understandings, subjective interpretation, and final declarations from appointed authority, then RPGs are not for you. I know badwrongfunism is against the official ENWorld religion, but an RPG that has rules which meet your criteria has never been invented, and by the nature of what makes a tabletop RPG, I am confident that it never will be.

D&D is based more on objective heuristics than most other RPGs out there, but it will never, ever reach the mark you have set for it. If your criteria for a good RPG rule is one that can never be met, then you need new criteria. Or else you will never be satisfied.