Stupidity or Genius?

[robertliguori]

Can someone answer my earlier question as to why the vrock even bothered with a CDG, despite the full attack action being superior in just about every way?

Add me to the 'genius' pile. As noted, it was a brilliant way to make tactical use of your last remaining hit point.

As for those of you who consider it metagamey: consider things from the character's perspective. The character has by now doubtless seen many pieces of evidence that the multiverse is run capriciously and malolevently, by what appears to be a being of limited intelligence that uses parts of the universe to actively thwart and harry beings that take actions the intelligence disapproves of. Knowingly taking such an action at the brink of death hoping to provoke such a response that one's party can take advantage of is a noble and heroic thing to do.

Yes, it doesn't match many of your opinions on what heroes should do. That's fine. You are welcome to complain to any players of yours that take such actions. ("No, you are not allowed to bombard the slum quarter with alchemist's fire in response to getting rolled by a hooker.") But metagamey? In order for something to be metagame, it needs to be based on information outside of the rules of the game. In this case, the rules specified the results and likely response of the vrock; it would be metagaming to assume anything else would happen. What happened here was a result of one person playing D&D as written, and others playing a version of D&D that exists inside their heads.

Now, a lot of us do that. However, if we're going to make a point of doing so, we should write up a list of the differences as house rules and present them ahead of time. If you don't like that characters can beat themselves to unconsciousness trivially, feel free to rewrite the rules so they can't; until you do so, 'metagamey' is not a meaninful criticism choosing to do so.

 

[That One Guy]

For just a moment, regardless of how he was portrayed previously, your character became a classic "cowardly buffoon" character, the kind that entertains everyone by doing really off-the-wall things during fits of pure panic in the middle of dangerous situations. This kind of character is stock trope of almost all human storytelling, so I applaud your introduction of such things into a game of D&D, even if it may have been unintentional. Actually, characters like that tend to be overly-analytical and genre-savvy, so it would be almost in character for such a character to use metagame knowledge.

This.

Also, it sounds like the game is more of a WoW-emulation, anyway. I know some people dig that style of game... but it isn't really much of my thing. But, I will defend it as a valid group play-style.

For the DM? I would start a new game. Really not my style to arms race PCs w/ loot and monsters w/ being over-powered.

 

[Rel]

• I don't think it's that funny

Yeah but it's at least kinda funny, right? I think that might meet our standard of proof for this sort of thing.

 

[Cryndo]

If you put food in front of a staving dog, obviously he will go at it. But does his hunger cause him to continue eating while you punch and kick him. I assume he would take the time to bite you before going back to his meal.

But the Vrock was a pit bull and you your party was a few chihuahua puppies. He can enjoy his meal and then deal with the nuisances.

As an aside, I can't stand metagaming like that at my table and the Vrock would have killed you at my table too. Actually, you wouldn't have fought a Vrock at my table so it's actually hard to say what I'd do. That's darn near an unwinnable battle for an average geared group of your level.

 

[Relique du Madde]

But the Vrock was a pit bull and you your party was a few chihuahua puppies. He can enjoy his meal and then deal with the nuisances.

A pit bull would maul chihuahuas if they tried to "steal" it's food or approach it while it's eating. I expect the Vrock to do the same.


Personally since your Moff was obviously going for silly, I would have made the Vrock resort to silly also, by ripping off Moff's pc's arm and beating the rest of the party to death with it.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Lot of interesting stuff.

If I was your DM, I would have killed you afterwards with a coup de grace, does that answer your question?

Damn, that's harsh! Have the vrock kill the PC, sure, maybe, but for the DM to kill the player? That is hardcore, Jack(99)!

First thing I thought when reading the OP's first post: It sounds as if the DM had a problem with you, the player, and was taking it out on your PC.

A vrock is a chaotic and evil creature, sure, so why so single-mindedly fixated on your character? If it enjoys causing pain and destruction (and I agree, it should), then why coup de grace a PC once he's no longer in pain? (I kinda envision a vrock in that situation as cat-like ... I'd imagine it'd want to keep its helpless prey alive and in agonizing pain and terror, not finish things off quickly and mercifully.) But I suppose DM-styles differ.

Still, if I were to judge solely based on your description of this singular event, I'd conclude that your DM sucks. Sending a vrock against fourth-level characters is tantamount to deliberately seeking a TPK. (Of course, one of the first WotC 3E adventures had fourth-level PCs encountering a roper, so ... )

I'd have ruled that attacking yourself unarmed, because deliberately knocking oneself unconscious is nearly impossible, provoked an AoO. So you wouldn't have wanted to do that anyway.

I am, however, generally okay with the tactic, just not with the means. I think your logic as presented is pretty sound, and thus the course of action pretty intelligent.

To be very clear, I do not consider your thought processes meta-gaming. The analogous thought process of the PC would be "Gods, if I don't do something, I'm going to die. My bow can't pierce its skin. It's waiting for me to run, and might chase me down anyway. Maybe if I'm completely helpless, it'll look somewhere else!" That's pretty much exactly what you, as a player, thought, so I just don't see the meta-gaming in it.

I am curious, though ... not a single rank of Tumble? For an archer? Personally, I would have attempted to tumble away, then Bluff playing dead (representing having been Disabled by the vrock's last attack. I think the DC 10 Bluff to play dead is reasonable. You could also do it as a more standard Bluff vs. Sense Motive, which is what I'd probably do. Maybe even Bluff vs. Heal.

Another possibility in this situation, BTW, would be abject surrender, although that would also be a Bluff check, unless your PC is either cowardly enough to really mean it, or Chaotic enough to really mean it "for now."

 

[Betote]

It's stupidity. Of the fun kind, but stupidity nevertheless. The vrock, as it's been said before, could just have spent one of its attacks killing you and, thanks to Cleave, still be able to full attack the rest of your party. I'd gone with the 5-feet step backwards + full defense.

As for motivations and CR comparisons, from the other things you've said about your games, you just don't need any.

 

[amethal]

This is the most ridiculous action I have ever heard of as a DM.

Then you have been very lucky.

Then .... I'd call you names from the aross the table for being such a ridiculous fool.

Personally, I find the idea of the DM calling the players names to be ridiculous.

 

[Jack99]

Damn, that's harsh! Have the vrock kill the PC, sure, maybe, but for the DM to kill the player? That is hardcore, Jack(99)!

Yeah, that's how I roll, baby!
Ups, I am sure you know what I meant

 

[Mallus]

I can't conceive (maybe only by my fault, and I'm usually an open-minded DM) a plausible reason for a character, faced with a dire foe and on the verge of death, to hit himself on the head with the hope of falling unconscious...

This is D&D. You don't need a plausible reason, any half-assed one will do.

It also helps if you stop looking at things from an in-character perspective and think of game as a film that features slapstick violence... say a Jacky Chan film. Most D&D campaigns I've played in resemble Jacky Chan films (with less kung-fu and more swords and elves but the same level of slapstick violence).

How could motivation come after the act? How could the cause come after the effect?

Because the player's motivation and the character's motivation aren't neccessarily the same thing.

The player's motivation needs to proceed the act. Statement of the character's motivation can come any time after, if and when the player feels the need to provide an in-character reason for said action.