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

Flamestrike said:

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).

Click to expand...

From some random person on the internet who wasn't there...

Oofta said:

From some random person on the internet who wasn't there...

Click to expand...

No mate, you keep talking about it from a a table perspective. Despite me repeatedly asking you from a character perspective.

Flamestrike said:

No mate, you keep talking about it from a a table perspective. Despite me repeatedly asking you from a character perspective.

Click to expand...

Otay.

Coroc said:

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."

Click to expand...

Is English your first language?

Serious question.

Oofta said:

Otay.

Click to expand...

You... dont know the difference do you?

How fascinating.

Flamestrike said:

You... dont know the difference do you?

How fascinating.

Click to expand...

He did give it to you from the character's perspective. His character was certain it would work. Period. Full stop. You might disagree that his character could think that, or have ruled he couldn't if you were the DM, but that doesn't mean his character couldn't think it in that game.

Cadence said:

He did give it to you from the character's perspective. His character was certain it would work.

Click to expand...

Thats impossible though.

Coroc said:

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.

Click to expand...

This of course leads to people with multiple attacks fumbling much more often despite being more skilled - a perverse incentive if ever there was one.

I tend to run "double or quits" rules for nat 1s; the player may choose to reroll a nat 1 and take a risk. If they succeed they actually succeed; if they fail muahahahaha. This makes fumbles a character choice (didn't have to take that reroll)

Flamestrike said:

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.

Click to expand...

One of the heartbreaker mechanics I've played with is that extra attack goes away.

Instead you start getting combat expertise, which gives you advantage-like d20 mechanics and extra [W] damage.

Heartbreaker Fighter (10 levels).
Expertise: Fighters are experts at combat. When making an attack, they roll 2d20 and take the better roll.
Weapon Master: Starting at 2nd level, a Fighter gains additional weapon damage dice equal to half of their Fighter level (rounded down). When they make an attack, they can distribute them over creatures they melee, using the same attack roll for all of them. Add your strength bonus and "on hit" effects of the weapon once per target, not once per die.
Athlete: Starting at 3rd level, the Fighter's training of their body has resulted in remarkable results. Increase the Fighter's Strength, Dexterity and Constitution scores by 2, and another 2 points at 10th level (max 20). If this would cause an ability to pass 20, the remining points can be assigned to a mental ability score (max 2 per score). In addition, the Fighter rolls 2d20 on all physical ability checks and saving throws and takes the better result; at level 10 this extends to all saving throws.
Champion: Starting at 5rd level, the Fighter is a champion who can inspire others to great deeds. The Fighter's loyal allies add 1d4 to their attack rolls, saving throws and skill checks while in the Fighter's presence or following her plans. At 9th level this increase to 1d6.
Loyal Allies: A creature is a loyal ally if the Fighter's accepts their allegiance, they respect the Fighter, follow her suggestions, and will not or cannot work against the Fighter's best interests. Fearful underlings can qualify as loyal allies. If the erstwhile ally betrays the Fighter, they lose this bonus.
Protector: At 7th level, once per round the Fighter can move her speed and protect a creature they move adjacent to. A spell, effect or attack on the creature is blocked by the fighter (possibly pushing the ally out of the way) if physically possible, with the ability redirected to the Fighter; any to-hit rolls or saves must be repeated on the Fighter.

A level 11 5e fighter with a greatsword and 20 strength deals 36 damage to a single target (6d6+15); the above fighter deals 40 (10d6+5). So it actually scales similar to 5e.

Flamestrike said:

Thats impossible though.

Click to expand...

You keep saying it's impossible for the character to think it could be done completely safely, and I don't see why that's the case. Some people think all kinds things are apparently perfectly safe all the time in spite of what evidence others might have (various illegal drugs, socializing during a pandemic, driving like a maniac, sparring without protective gear, ignoring warning signs about getting too close to animals or not climbing things, letting kids play with fireworks, etc...)

Perhaps more relevantly to playing a hero, it seems a standard thing in super-hero comics and movies that the the heroes assume they can do things with guaranteed success that us mere-mortals wouldn't attempt. Isn't going against that expectation what made Amazing Spider-Man 121-122 so poignant? In the example below, some kids throw a snowball at two of the heroes, and Captain America flings his indestructible metal shield off of some walls (with kids right in the area!) just so he doesn't get hit by the snow. Is Cap being being un-good by risking their lives? Or is there no risk?

,

If we did take your requirement of only being able to do things that a person in the real world would think are safe, did you mention earlier that merely catching the child would be ok? If so, what is your characters justification for thinking it could be done completely safely? Maybe you pull the kids arm out of the socket? Maybe they fall and land on something sharp, etc...? If it's real world crowd reaction that matters? What would someone in the real world think watching an armed grown adult running through the streets with a loaf of bread? Especially when the kid starts yelling, help, help he's trying to kidnap me.

*images from Avengers 194, Marvel Comics Group, found on Supermegamonkey.