D&D General The child stealing food to survive scenario, for alignment

[Flamestrike]

I'm stating that my character knew he could do this without causing permanent damage. How did he know? He was a specialist in the use of his hammer.

You cant know that with certainty. It's impossible.

 

[Oofta]

You cant know that with certainty. It's impossible.

Okely Dokely.

 

[Flamestrike]

Okely Dokely.

You cant know it. I mean your player can (thanks to the meta-knowledge you have from your DM). Your character cant (and neither can any bystanders either).

Like; I could be the best knife thrower in the world IRL. But if I peg a knife at a child seeking to narrowly miss and frighten him, there is a possibility I could screw it up and hit the child, injuring or even killing him.

 

[Flamestrike]

So your argument is that characters should act like the world works like our real world does in terms of what they would think about damage and weapons and the like.

Of course they should!

So characters should be amazed when in every single combat they're in after a while they are either repeatedly hit by hammers and swords and the like that don't slow them down at all, or single swing apparently just grazes them even though they're surrounded?

They're not repeatedly hit with swords. They parry a blow causing a near miss (get hit and lose HP), block the blow with their shield (get hit and lose HP), , have the blow ricochet off armor (get hit and lose HP), have the blow barely nick them as they dodge at the last minute (get hit and lose HP), leap out of the way, winding themselves ((get hit and lose HP), and so forth.

Hit points are not meat. They're an abstract pool of [fighting ability, luck, experience, resolve, the will to live, health and luck].

Many attacks that score a 'hit' on the dice, dont in fact physcially strike and injure the PC at all.

 

[Oofta]

You cant know it. I mean your player can (thanks to the meta-knowledge you have from your DM). Your character cant (and neither can any bystanders either).

Like; I could be the best knife thrower in the world IRL. But if I peg a knife at a child seeking to narrowly miss and frighten him, there is a possibility I could screw it up and hit the child, injuring or even killing him.

Roger Dodger.

 

[FrogReaver]

You cant know it. I mean your player can (thanks to the meta-knowledge you have from your DM). Your character cant (and neither can any bystanders either).

Like; I could be the best knife thrower in the world IRL. But if I peg a knife at a child seeking to narrowly miss and frighten him, there is a possibility I could screw it up and hit the child, injuring or even killing him.

The scenario presented was one where the PC knew he couldn't harm the child. Why are you talking about scenarios where he didn't know that?

 

[Umbran]

That's a modern concept.

Sure.

So, I'm sure that you have all the spellcasters burned at the stake when caught using magic? Because them not being burned, stoned, or otherwise killed is a modern concept in Western civilization, too.

Drag out the, "But it is historical!" argument when you are playing a game that is intended to actually be historical. Until then, it comes out as rather egregious cherrypicking.

 

[Cadence]

They're not repeatedly hit with swords. They parry a blow causing a near miss (get hit and take damage), block the blow with their shield (getting hit and taking damage), have the blow ricochet off armor (getting hit and taking damage), have the blow barely nick them as they dodge at the last minute (getting hit and taking damage), leap out of the way, winding themselves (getting hit and taking damage) and so forth.

Hit points are not meat. They're an abstract pool of [fighting ability, luck, experience, resolve, the will to live, health and luck].

Certainly. The characters don't know about hit points.

Your argument seems to be that they should fill that lack of knowledge based on the real world. So they should know that a single sword blow or fall down a 20' cliff has a good chance of being crippling or lethal.

Should they ever expect to have that many near misses, parries, dodges, and etc... or should they immediately surrender when surrounded by several trained armed and armored foes (assuming capture isn't a death sentence anyway)?

Should they be considered suicidal for running into a room of kobolds, goblins, or bandits who all have swords? Is it crazy to even consider battling a dragon with a melee weapon given all the instantly lethal things a real carnivorous dinosaur like thing could do to a person? (Third asks the charm?)

Should they know that certain attacker/defender weapon combinations are very bad for them and avoid them, say always flanking the line of trained pike-men because a direct approach is death? Or similarly, never run across the open when there are a few bow-men waiting?

Should they expect that while they're sleeping that a single invisible goblin with a knife would likely be able to auto-kill one of the sleeping party members if only one or two other party members were on guard at night?

When the hp are getting low, do they know that? Do they sense their luck, experience, etc... running down? If so, unless they're role-playing wearing down, is there any way for the party's cleric to know?

Do you make the players keep how many death saves they've made/missed secret when it comes to stabilizing healing, or do all the players know but never act on that information?

Do they use real life combat insight into how using a long bow would work firing into melee or do they use what they know about the rules and/or channel Legalos from the movies?

Just curious how far the players acting on realistic assumptions and avoiding game knowledge can go and work well, beyond just the one hammer example.

 

[Flamestrike]

Your argument seems to be that they should fill that lack of knowledge based on the real world. So they should know that a single sword blow or fall down a 20' cliff has a good chance of being crippling or lethal.

Yes. They should know that swords and falling can kill them.

When the hp are getting low, do they know that? Do they sense their luck, experience, etc... running down? If so, unless they're role-playing wearing down, is there any way for the party's cleric to know?

Like a boxer in the ring, they know when they're not doing so good, or are ouclassed, or are running on empty. As their HP get low, they'll also start to show actual signs of minor injury and start to slow down accordingly.

Do you make the players keep how many death saves they've made/missed secret when it comes to stabilizing healing, or do all the players know but never act on that information?

Both. Sometimes secret rolls are better. Sometimes I'll let them roll.

Just curious how far the players acting on realistic assumptions and avoiding game knowledge can go and work well, beyond just the one hammer example.

They're playing a character. They go about it the same way an actor would, and avoid making decisions based on player knowledge that their character cannot have.

 

[Oofta]

Certainly. The characters don't know about hit points.

Your argument seems to be that they should fill that lack of knowledge based on the real world. So they should know that a single sword blow or fall down a 20' cliff has a good chance of being crippling or lethal.

Should they ever expect to have that many near misses, parries, dodges, and etc... or should they immediately surrender when surrounded by several trained armed and armored foes (assuming capture isn't a death sentence anyway)?

Should they be considered suicidal for running into a room of kobolds, goblins, or bandits who all have swords? Is it crazy to even consider battling a dragon with a melee weapon given all the instantly lethal things a real carnivorous dinosaur like thing could do to a person? (Third asks the charm?)

Should they know that certain attacker/defender weapon combinations are very bad for them and avoid them, say always flanking the line of trained pike-men because a direct approach is death? Or similarly, never run across the open when there are a few bow-men waiting?

Should they expect that while they're sleeping that a single invisible goblin with a knife would likely be able to auto-kill one of the sleeping party members if only one or two other party members were on guard at night?

When the hp are getting low, do they know that? Do they sense their luck, experience, etc... running down? If so, unless they're role-playing wearing down, is there any way for the party's cleric to know?

Do you make the players keep how many death saves they've made/missed secret when it comes to stabilizing healing, or do all the players know but never act on that information?

Do they use real life combat insight into how using a long bow would work firing into melee or do they use what they know about the rules and/or channel Legalos from the movies?

Just curious how far the players acting on realistic assumptions and avoiding game knowledge can go and work well, beyond just the one hammer example.

This is really off topic, but I'd say that it's up to the DM and players to determine what a player knows and what they can achieve. After all, the game world only exists in our imaginations.

If the DM and player establish that the PC knows something, they know it. Some things go unspoken because if the DM hasn't clarified something as a house rule players will rightly assume the rules apply. So a PC in plate armor knows they're less likely to be hit than a naked commoner. A player knows their PC can probably survive a few hits from the goblins because of how many HP they have. if you have to justify it in game the PC has the expertise to evaluate the risk. Just like I know that a puppy is not as dangerous as a full grown wolf.

When it comes to improvised actions that are outside of the rules, it's up to the player to describe what they want to do and the DM to decide if it is possible and communicate possible risks. That communication can be anything from "yeah, that will work" to "it will be difficult and potentially dangerous but you can try" to "you don't see any way that it would work because [fill in the blank]."

At least that's how I view it.