What would you have done?

[lgw]

Good point. But please remember, the above diagram is static. In the actual game the rats were all over the place (and are probably under-represented above). Any openings we had were shut down because we didn't prepare actions in time or weren't valid options (in one instance, my gnome could have bull rushed, but it would have failed against the large creature automatically). I very seriously doubt that 6 players at the table actively looking for bull rush opportunities would have missed an opening like that.

You did miss it, seriously, as I already explained in my first post. It goes by simple logic that three rats cannot block all six opportunities to Bull Rush the Oozes.

You likely forget two things:
1) You can attack diagonally, and as such also Bull Rush diagonally.
2) Push does not mean "away in a straight line" but "each step is further away than the previous".

Ignoring the rats for a moment, you had the following opportunities to Bull Rush:
1) PC @ E7 - Bull Rush attack Ooze Sr @ D6 - push one step to west
2) PCs @ E5-7 - Bull Rush attack Ooze Sr @ D5/6 - push one step to north-west
3) PCs @ E5-7 - Bull Rush attack Ooze Sr @ D5/6 - push one step to north
4) PCs @ E6-8 - Bull Rush attack Ooze Sr @ D7/8 - push one step to north
5) PCs @ E6-8 - Bull Rush attack Ooze Sr @ D7/8 - push one step to north-east
6) PC @ E6 - Bull Rush attack Ooze Sr @ D7 - push one step to east
Each two adjacent allies help via the Aid Attack action, timing is done by readying.

If you need, go back to the board and rules to validate that:
1) All above moves are legal.
2) You need four and not three rats to block all the above moves.

Beyond that there are many good suggestions about a creative solution, which a sane should have allowed in on or the other way. ("Say yes or roll the goddamn dice !")

What's wrong with polearm defenders and human TWF rangers? In any case, my gnome rogue was multiclassed into wizard for some blasting potential and we had a Gnoll Warlord for healing too. Sadly, our warlord got eaten by the Blue Ooze and so I didn't feel a need to mention her for this scenario. (I could still hear her death rattle upon closing the doors! )

1) You're almost exklusively melee. (Does not matter in this case)
2) You lacked any positioning powers.
3) Your defenders (two !) took worst of two worlds - low damage and no shield. Reach needs a bit beef-up before it is good for a defender (excepting a Polearm Gamble Fighter).

 

[ExploderWizard]

Do you care to point out where it says "You can't" in the game?

Because I'm not convinced.

"Your presence as the Dungeon Master is what makes D&D such a great game. You make it possible for the players to try anything they can imagine. That means it's your job to resolve unusual actions when the players try them."

DMG, pg 42.

The rules can never actually say "you can't" of course. The DM can always decide to let something cool work. My point is that RAW is very conflicted with itself. The DMG says hang loose and go with the flow but the PHB says: YOU CAN'T. Thats the problem. For experienced groups, we can read between the lines. What about newcomers?

For example, a new player gets the PHB, is not going to DM and never looks at a DMG. This player is faced with a wall-o-pages telling him what he can and can't do. After reading all these rules he makes decisions based on what what he knows is "possible". This will have a possible influence on what this player might even suggest.

The upshot of this is that the game is trying to be super simple and super complex at the same time.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The rules can never actually say "you can't" of course. The DM can always decide to let something cool work. My point is that RAW is very conflicted with itself. The DMG says hang loose and go with the flow but the PHB says: YOU CAN'T. Thats the problem. For experienced groups, we can read between the lines. What about newcomers?

I think the key is: the DMG is for the DM, the PHB for the players. The player shouldn't assume that he can change the rules. But the DM can have this power, and the responsibility. I suppose they should have stressed more that the DM and the players have to talk with each other.

 

[LostSoul]

The rules can never actually say "you can't" of course. The DM can always decide to let something cool work. My point is that RAW is very conflicted with itself. The DMG says hang loose and go with the flow but the PHB says: YOU CAN'T. Thats the problem. For experienced groups, we can read between the lines. What about newcomers?

For example, a new player gets the PHB, is not going to DM and never looks at a DMG. This player is faced with a wall-o-pages telling him what he can and can't do. After reading all these rules he makes decisions based on what what he knows is "possible". This will have a possible influence on what this player might even suggest.

The upshot of this is that the game is trying to be super simple and super complex at the same time.

I point you to page 180 in the PHB, Acrobatic Stunt.

Ah, but I'm getting ahead of myself. How about page 9, under How Do You Play?

"Your "piece" in the Dungeons & Dragons game is your character. He or she is your representation in the game world. Through your character, you can interact with the game world in any way you want. The only limit is your imagination - and, sometimes, how high you roll on the dice."

I think experienced gamers do read between the lines. They read between the lines and see YOU CAN'T in there.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I point you to page 180 in the PHB, Acrobatic Stunt.

Ah, but I'm getting ahead of myself. How about page 9, under How Do You Play?

"Your "piece" in the Dungeons & Dragons game is your character. He or she is your representation in the game world. Through your character, you can interact with the game world in any way you want. The only limit is your imagination - and, sometimes, how high you roll on the dice."

I think experienced gamers do read between the lines. They read between the lines and see YOU CAN'T in there.

That quote from page 9 is fantastic To make it have even more meaning just trim 250 (or more) pages of restrictions that contradict that statement from the rules and you are good to go.

 

[LostSoul]

That quote from page 9 is fantastic To make it have even more meaning just trim 250 (or more) pages of restrictions that contradict that statement from the rules and you are good to go.

Can you show me an example of a restriction?

 

[James McMurray]

I can't think of any specific restrictions, but it's human nature to look at a list of hundred of things that you're allowed to do and see it as restrictive. It's not the only way, but I'd bet it's the most common.

 

[DracoSuave]

Can you show me an example of a restriction?

When you have a series of options for stuff you are allowed to do, the more options there are, the less people can think outside the available list of options. They begin to believe, fallaciously, that whatever is not on that list of options is the entirety of what they can do. They feel they need to be told they have permission before they do it.

This is, of course, wrong thinking.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Can you show me an example of a restriction?

Don't have the books with me, so, off the top of my head:
Disarm /encounter
Trip 1/encounter
Tumble 1/encounter
Use healing items to regain hp (when out of surges) N/A
Use two magic rings before X level

..........and there are many more. A DM is free to ignore as many of these as he pleases of course but they are the RAW.

 

[LostSoul]

Don't have the books with me, so, off the top of my head:
Disarm /encounter
Trip 1/encounter
Tumble 1/encounter
Use healing items to regain hp (when out of surges) N/A
Use two magic rings before X level

..........and there are many more. A DM is free to ignore as many of these as he pleases of course but they are the RAW.

Assuming your objection isn't the "per encounter/per day" system:

Let's start off with the first one: disarm.

The only mention of a disarm in the PHB is the Fighter's level 17 attack power, Exorcism of Steel. Nowhere in the description of the power say anything about a restriction on other disarm attempts; the only limitation is that you can only use Exorcism of Steel once per encounter.

I'm not sure how that means YOU CAN'T.

Trip: there are a lot of "the target falls prone" powers. There's nothing in any of them that say you can't otherwise trip someone.

Tumble: This one is your best case, because normally you can Shift as a move action only, and then only one square. Tumble expands it to 3 squares, which is why it's a power. Likewise, normally you can't attack more than once with a Standard action, but some powers allow you to attack twice.

So yeah, I guess the Standard/Move/Minor actions by round is a restriction.

Use healing to regain hp when out of surges: It's a resource based game. What can I tell you?

Use two magic rings: I don't really know how rings work.

If your objection is with the "per encounter/per day" system - how do you feel like those offer restrictions? I can try to Tumble more than once per encounter - either as a Shift, or I can suck up OAs and hope they miss. I can try to attack twice with a Basic Attack - but I need to take two rounds to do it in.

edit: This is the RAW:

Round 1: I use Exorcism of Steel. I fail to hit.
Round 2: I attempt to disarm him again, using a Standard action this time, not a power. The DM comes up with some way to resolve it.