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

[Flamestrike]

At least that's how I view it.

I view the two as being separate. Your character doesn't realise 'Well the DM told the guy playing me I have no chance of missing this attack, so I cant miss' for example, and they dont realise 'the monster has lots of HP and hasnt been hit yet, so the 1d8 damage from my sword attack cant possibly kill it'.

Its expressly meta-game knowledge.

Put yourself in the shoes of your PC, as if he were a real person, and not in a game.

 

[Oofta]

I view the two as being separate. Your character doesn't realise 'Well the DM told the guy playing me I have no chance of missing this attack, so I cant miss' for example, and they dont realise 'the monster has lots of HP and hasnt been hit yet, so the 1d8 damage from my sword attack cant possibly kill it'.

Its expressly meta-game knowledge.

Put yourself in the shoes of your PC, as if he were a real person, and not in a game.

I explained how I run it and how I clarified the improvised action with my DM. Someone specialized in a throwing hammer would understand it's properties and limitations better than you or I. I don't necessarily disagree on the concept of using meta game knowledge as player knowledge, although I do think it's up to the group to decide how to handle it.

If you don't run things that way, so be it. But like the song says "let it go ... "

 

[5atbu]

Roger Dodger.

Bidger Badger?

Seriously. Isn't a key question "what are the laws of the city, how might you place them on the alignment grid?"

 

[Flamestrike]

I explained how I run it and how I clarified the improvised action with my DM.

And I am not being critical of you or your moral choices.

Im discussing your character and his.

 

[Oofta]

Bidger Badger?

It's a really, really old saying that I picked up somewhere from old late night 50's movies. It was a response when replying on a radio - "Roger" is acknowledgment and "Dodger" was thrown in because reception was frequently poor. Useless trivia, I know.

Fun side tidbit - Jimmy Stewart (one of those mid-century actors) was a pilot in WW II. He would always respond to his commanding officer with "Roger Dodger you old codger". Since he was already a well known actor he could get away with it.

Which, yes, is yet one more bit of useless trivia clogging up my brain cells.

 

[Oofta]

And I am not being critical of you or your moral choices.

Im discussing your character and his.

The wheels on the bus go round-and-round, round-and round.

And yes, I'm back to not giving you a serious response because apparently we are just going to disagree. I really, really don't know why it's such a big deal that a DM and a player agreed on how an improvised action would work or what risk was involved.

Have a good one.

 

[Flamestrike]

The wheels on the bus go round-and-round, round-and round.

And yes, I'm back to not giving you a serious response because apparently we are just going to disagree. I really, really don't know why it's such a big deal that a DM and a player agreed on how an improvised action would work or what risk was involved.

Have a good one.

I do find it interesting you keep going back to the 'improvised action and what you and the DM agreed' rather than seeing the action from the POV of people in the game world (including the child, yourself and onlookers).

 

[Coroc]

I explained how I run it and how I clarified the improvised action with my DM. Someone specialized in a throwing hammer would understand it's properties and limitations better than you or I. I don't necessarily disagree on the concept of using meta game knowledge as player knowledge, although I do think it's up to the group to decide how to handle it.

If you don't run things that way, so be it. But like the song says "let it go ... "

And next you say that you got a cleric with your party and some diamond dust, so it does not matter if the kid gets killed, you could raise it from the dead afterwards....

You can agree on your table that you could splat a fly on the kids forehead with your thrown warhammer without scratching the kid, but I guess most tables would not allow this without a very hefty skill check and failure would mean injury or death.
Which brings up the question: Does your character just declare he does this stunt or does he have to make a check?

Would be nice if 5e had as RAW my houserule that on a nat. 1 something can happen.. Not has to, but a nat. 1 gives the DM some freedom to improvise.
If at my table and you roll a nat. 1 on that check above, the consequences would be dire.

 

[Flamestrike]

And next you say that you got a cleric with your party and some diamond dust, so it does not matter if the kid gets killed, you could raise it from the dead afterwards....

You can agree on your table that you could splat a fly on the kids forehead with your thrown warhammer without scratching the kid, but I guess most tables would not allow this without a very hefty skill check and failure would mean injury or death.
Which brings up the question: Does your character just declare he does this stunt or does he have to make a check?

Would be nice if 5e had as RAW my houserule that on a nat. 1 something can happen.. Not has to, but a nat. 1 gives the DM some freedom to improvise.
If at my table and you roll a nat. 1 on that check above, the consequences would be dire.

I actually loathe such rules because they punish Fighters and Monks.

If I were ever to make such a rule for 'fumbles' it would read:

'If your first d20 roll on a turn is a natural 1 then the result is a fumble, and... [bad thing happens]. You cant fumble more than once per turn, and you can only fumble the first attack roll, saving throw or ability check you make during that turn.'

That way Fighters and Monks dont get clumsier as they advance in level.

 

[Coroc]

I actually loathe such rules because they punish Fighters and Monks.

If I were ever to make such a rule for 'fumbles' it would read:

'If your first d20 roll on a turn is a natural 1 then the result is a fumble, and... [bad thing happens]. You cant fumble more than once per turn, and you can only fumble the first attack roll, saving throw or ability check you make during that turn.'

That way Fighters and Monks dont get clumsier as they advance in level.

I use these mostly for comic relief, but your concerns are a bit to short when you think the fighter or monk is the most likely victim of that rule:

Think about this hypothetical situation:
DM: "Kane roll for attack. " Kane rolls a nat. 1.
DM :"Kane roll for damage."
Kane (rolls 1d12):"12, why would you need that didn't I miss?"
DM (rolls 1d4)"Ok that's 1 for you, 2 for Brother Pious, 3 for Merlin since both are standing next to you, and 4 your axe flies out of your hand and still hits the orc. and it is a 3: Oh its Merlin. You had how many HP left after that enemy fireball? 10? Oh that's unfortunate, you are going down."