You should try to think things through before responding. Creatures can be stabbed in the shoulder, legs, etc., so wounding and not killing is entirely an in game response by the character. Choosing to swing and strike with the flat of the blade is entirely an in game response by the character. Seeing a blow that is going to strike a creature through the chest and diverting it at the last second in order not to kill it is entirely an in game response by the character.
Think things through before making accusations that so obviously fail.
I think anyone who would swing a sword at someone's leg or shoulder in an attempt to be non-lethal would be a crazy person. This is a game mechanic that pretty much REQUIRES metagame thinking.
I don't think it would ever be reasonable to assume that hacking someones shoulder rather than their head would simply render them unconscious.
This is all a moot point, anyway. Who is is going to stick their hands into a fire and pull out a burning stick/log? If you've ever been to a campfire/bonfire, you know that fire burns the entire length of the wood. I seriously doubt anyone is going to take the time to locate a fresh stick/log, go get it, stick it into the fire long enough to catch fire solidly, then turn to the troll that just barreled into camp.
Well, you're switching words around a bit and slanting things in your favor as much as possible. And your assumptions about how campfires work are truly odd....I did not know campfires were so uniform in the portion of the wood that burns.
Someone who is near the fire tending to it, perhaps crouched down to do so, will very likely be able to pull a piece of wood from the fire and use it as a club. There is no reason for a character not to be able to do so. Or, no reasonable reason, I should say.
It may be illogical or not the best idea in the world....but people do illogical things all the time. People are saying to themselves all the time "wow, what was I thinking?" Requiring a character to only do the most logical thing as logic would be determined by game mechanics.....that's more metagame thinking than the other examples.
New players aren't going to randomly decide to stick their hands into a fire to grab a burning stick. I've never seen it done. I doubt I ever will see it done.
In my experience, new players are far more likely to do something not expected....more likely to not take an action that is clearly defined by the rules, or seen as the most optimal action.
A new player whose character is building a fire using that fact in an action? Not far fetched at all. I've seen many similar examples, if not that exact one.
Logic says it will be unwieldy and/or weak. It's a freaking BURNT STICK. It's weak. It's also not designed to be used as a weapon. It's not going to have a nice smooth tapered end for the player to grab onto well, with the weight balanced like a club is. It's going to be unwieldy. It's also pretty much guaranteed to be on fire from end to end, so the PC is going to take damage from sticking his hand into a fire and grabbing a burning stick, and then drop the thing.
Again...you are slanting things to favor you interpretation. Which is fine, of course....if you're teh DM you could decide that none of the wood on the fire was suitable for an attack. It woudl be a bit antagonistic in my opinion, but it would be within the DM's purview.
For me, I would think of a piece of firewood as a club. A club that also happen to be on fire. I'd let the PC make an attack with it....maybe say that they take 2 points of fire damage as a result, or some other minor consequence, and then let things play out. Perhaps the burnt end shatters upon striking its target, and then the club cannot be used again. Seems reasonable. There are lots of ways to go with it that could be decided on the spot.
The most restrictive in my mind would be "No, you cannot do that....you have to get your sword and attack." Restrictive and boring.
Um. The burning stick is not in hand. It would take more time and effort to stick his hand into a fire and grab a burning stick than to just yank the sword out of the sheath.
Not "in hand" but "at hand". Again, twisting the words. It would be more at hand than a weapon, which is the logic behind grabbing it in lieu of the weapon. PERFECTLY REASONABLE LOGIC from the character's perspective.
Cheating is not included in the choices available to characters of new players or experienced players. That is correct.
Come on, man. If a new player who had no idea about fire vulnerability of trolls decided that his character would grab a log out of a fire and swing it at the troll, there is no way even you would consider that cheating. So therefore, the experienced player is limited in the options available to him compared to those available to the new player.
I would explain to the new player how grabbing a burning stick out of the fire would cause the PC damage and result in a stick that is weaker than the sword and would do less damage. That would be explained whether it was a troll or an ogre.
Ah, so you would impose the game mechanics onto the situation.
In order to avoid metagaming.
I see.
A character tending to the campfire will have his weapon at hand.
He may or he may not. If he did, it would likely be sheathed or otherwise stowed. Which means something near to hand would be quicker to grab. So a character very well may reasonably do that....unless the player's knowledge of turns and initiative and weapon damage dice came into that decision.
Or in the lore. There is no mention of it, so they are not by RAW any more fearful of fire than any other creature.
The lore? Are you kidding? Do we need lore for animals that actually exist?
I play animals the way they would in nature as well. Wolves don't attack humans. Most animals don't. Would fire waved at a wolf in my game work? Yes, I'd probably house rule that in.
Wolves and other animals have indeed been known to attack humans at times. Usually there are extraordinary circumstances of some sort at play, but it's not always known what those may be. Very often, fire is employed to keep animals at bay, and very often it is very capable in that regard.
Having wolves be afraid of fire would not be a house rule....
Of course the character knows that. You can't cause an arrow in flight to turn aside from hitting the neck or heart the way you could a sword strike. That's why the rule is different for ranged weapons.
In my experience, a troll regaining consciousness is a non-issue. The PCs just hit it again and knock it back out, and then know about regeneration. At that point they just keep it down while they figure things out.
But an archer can shoot a shoulder rather than a heart. Or a leg.
The rule....which I have no real problem with....relies on metagaming to work. No person swinging a sword at another would ever be certain that he could land a non-lethal blow. There would always be the risk of killing the target outright, or in causing a wound that proved lethal over time.
Generally, a sword strike to the leg doesn't knock someone out so much as cause them to bleed massive amounts. Not unless you're playing a game. And generally, no one would expect it to, unless they were characters who knew the game rules.
It EXPANDED the definition to include any and all thinking of the game as a game. Metagaming as I define it involves thinking of the game as a game. What you suggested fits my definition of metagaming as the character was acting upon YOUR knowledge, not his.
Your interpretation of the bit on page 235 to me seems very off. It in no way implies any behavior at all as cheating. I think you have a conclusion you have already drawn, and you are then reading into the description and seeing it as justifying your conclusion.
Don't start with a conclusion. That's the end point.
