3e, DMs, and Inferred Player Power

[Rasyr]

I think allowing the rules to work as written is a good thing.

Even when those rules go against common sense and setting consistency? Like having a 3' tall Gnome intimidate an 8' or 9' tall dragon (who was whupping the PCs collective butts)?

Dragon's Thoughts - "I am wiping the floor with them and this tiny thing is growling at me and expecting me to be scared of it? Cause it is waving a axe? ROFLMAO!!"

 

[Quasqueton]

Rasyr, you should read the list of "duties and responsibilities" you gave. Especially:

Know the rules - actually take a look at the Demoralize Opponent rule in the Intimidate skill description.

Don't change the rules in the middle of a session - especially in the middle of a battle.

Be flexible - Dragon thinks, "By Tiamat! That little thing nearly cut my forleg off!"

There is always a chance - Again, read the Intimidate rule.

Quasqueton

 

[Hussar]

Even when those rules go against common sense and setting consistency? Like having a 3' tall Gnome intimidate an 8' or 9' tall dragon (who was whupping the PCs collective butts)?

Dragon's Thoughts - "I am wiping the floor with them and this tiny thing is growling at me and expecting me to be scared of it? Cause it is waving a axe? ROFLMAO!!"

Sure, and, by the rules, it's virtually impossible anyway. But, then again, once in a million chances work 100% of the time.

However, there is no mechanical reason for changing the rules. There is only your opinion that a dragon cannot be intimidated. Does that mean that any CR 7 or better creature can no longer be intimidated? Does that mean that once my PC hits 7th level, I am immune as well? I'm somewhat curious as to how many DM's would rule in favour of the PC's in this way. "Well, the bad guy is doing something pretty off the wall, so, nope, it has no chance of success, screw the RAW." is an opinion I highly doubt many DM's would take.

Now, there are times when mechanics fail. I don't deny that. The "Hulking Hurler" is a perfect example of that. Another is a character I made in a pick up game recently. An 8th level halfling fighter with lots of mounted combat feats, power attack and a dog to ride. Small enough to go into dungeons. There's nothing in the RAW that prevents a lance from being used two handed which makes Spring attack plus power attack a devastating combo. I was pumping out well over 50 points of damage on a single attack minimum and easily topping 60. Tack on improved critical and there was a chance my damage would reach triple digits. After the game, we talked about it and came up with a restriction to nerf that in the future (power attack does not get included in spring attack damage - a 4 point power attack becomes 8 when used two handed then 24 with spring attack. That's a pretty big bonus for a -4 to hit.) . And that's no problem. There was a problem that existed, it was identified and we corrected it. I guess that would be one of the 1% issues that was brough up earlier.

However, as far as intimidating a dragon goes, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the RAW. The only problem is in people's preconceptions of dragons. I get very, very uptight when people start making exceptions to the rules that only go against the players. Since I would not make this exception in favour of a player, as a DM, I will not make the exception in favour of my critter.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

Even when those rules go against common sense and setting consistency? Like having a 3' tall Gnome intimidate an 8' or 9' tall dragon (who was whupping the PCs collective butts)?

I used to think exactly the same way. Until I realized that we're talking about a grey-skinned big-nosed creature the size of my kid who has the innate ability to cast magical illusions.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

OTOH, I don't see the problem with the DM deciding that there's a chance of hitting an allied character when you fire through areas occupied by four of them to hit another target. The rules, as written, may not support that decision, but common sense does. To some degree, the DM's job is to ensure that common sense trumps the rules (bucket of snails and great cleave?)....and also to ensure that the rules are used to support the integrity of the game/game world rather than to undermine it.

And this is my point. Each DM I've seen change the rules hasn't done it to try to kill the players or to exercize power over the game. They've done it for their OWN sense of "common sense".

In this case the rule in the book is that you add +4 to the enemies AC since you are aiming so far away from your friends (since you wouldn't dare risk hitting them) that it becomes very difficult to hit your foe. I can see using the optional rule in the book to increase the amount of AC the enemy gets due to the amount of cover. That's supported withing the spirit of the rules. The point is that the character is basically saying "I take the shot only at the moment I KNOW there is no chance of hitting my friends, even if it means missing my target".

Here's another secret about this rule. The chance to hit your friends was removed because it slowed down gameplay too much as you had to roll extra dice(or figure out a math equation) everytime you fire through them (which happens nearly EVERY combat for us). It is also no fun to hit your friends. I know that critical fumble rules nearly ruined our game as everytime someone would roll a fumble the game would become a role playing nightmare as the character who was hit would demand that the character who "tried to kill" him was kicked out of the party or worse, killed themselves.

But DMs who don't understand WHY the rules are the way they are could say "common sense says you should hit your friends, so I'm changing the rules to that". Each DM thought the original rule was "stupid" and rather than seek to understand WHY the rule was written as it was

PCs should not know everything. They should be surprised by new monsters, new feats, new spells, etc., etc. The DM should be designing new rules (i.e., "crunch"), and letting the players learn about it in character. It is not "unfair" that a group of NPCs has a feat option that the PCs didn't have (but maybe have now).

I agree completely. It's the "laws" of physics that should be standard and shouldn't change arbitrarily. There are always enemies you haven't heard of, spells someone else invented, new technique and fighting styles. On the other hand, I loathe to make these up due to the time it takes and the chance of introducing overpowered rules into the game. 3e D&D is a lot more complicated than people think it is. Changing "one small thing" that you figured would have no effect at all can ruin an entire game(like the time our DM removed flatfootedness from the game as it was "stupid").

The DM has information about the world that the players do not have. As a result, a decision that the DM makes may appear to be simple fiat when it is not. In a really good DM's campaign, seeming rules inconsistencies are actually clues as to the nature of the world, and/or what's going on in a particular circumstance.

I agree as well. I have had to tell my PCs a couple of times (that are used to my strict adherance to the rules) "don't worry, he can do it". When they said "he just moved, full attacked, then moved again...spring attack only lets you make one attack, you know?" Other times, it's me being forgetful and I say "you're right, he only hits you once then". I appreciate that my players can keep me fair as much as I keep them fair.

Anyone claiming that previous editions of D&D had as comprehensive and internally consistent of a ruleset as 3.X are simply blowing smoke. 3.X is a better ruleset than previous editions from a game design standpoint. Of course, anyone claiming that the current edition is without ruleset problems is doing likewise.

It HAS problems, but most of them are due to poor wording by the authors or people misinterpreting rules with what they THINK is common sense. It also has flaws in a couple of situations that don't come up very often unless you actually TRY to break it. I'm aware of most of them and have plugged all of them I'm aware of in my game.

 

[S'mon]

To me, the story of the gnome that pulled off intimidating a dragon is FAR cooler than the gnome who got splattered for the temerity of trying to intimidate a dragon.

I agree with this 100% and if it's what the player wants I will work to facilitate it.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Sure, and, by the rules, it's virtually impossible anyway. But, then again, once in a million chances work 100% of the time.

However, there is no mechanical reason for changing the rules. There is only your opinion that a dragon cannot be intimidated. Does that mean that any CR 7 or better creature can no longer be intimidated? Does that mean that once my PC hits 7th level, I am immune as well? I'm somewhat curious as to how many DM's would rule in favour of the PC's in this way. "Well, the bad guy is doing something pretty off the wall, so, nope, it has no chance of success, screw the RAW." is an opinion I highly doubt many DM's would take.

Now, there are times when mechanics fail. I don't deny that. The "Hulking Hurler" is a perfect example of that. Another is a character I made in a pick up game recently. An 8th level halfling fighter with lots of mounted combat feats, power attack and a dog to ride. Small enough to go into dungeons. There's nothing in the RAW that prevents a lance from being used two handed which makes Spring attack plus power attack a devastating combo. I was pumping out well over 50 points of damage on a single attack minimum and easily topping 60. Tack on improved critical and there was a chance my damage would reach triple digits. After the game, we talked about it and came up with a restriction to nerf that in the future (power attack does not get included in spring attack damage - a 4 point power attack becomes 8 when used two handed then 24 with spring attack. That's a pretty big bonus for a -4 to hit.) . And that's no problem. There was a problem that existed, it was identified and we corrected it. I guess that would be one of the 1% issues that was brough up earlier.

However, as far as intimidating a dragon goes, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the RAW. The only problem is in people's preconceptions of dragons. I get very, very uptight when people start making exceptions to the rules that only go against the players. Since I would not make this exception in favour of a player, as a DM, I will not make the exception in favour of my critter.

No, it doesn't mean that any CR7 creature from this moment cannot be intimidated anymore. It just means that some DMs adjudicate the chance of that gnome successfully intimidating this dragon, even a young one, while it's busy chomping on his comrades, as Zero without adding up the numbers and modifiers. To take up Quasqueton's example, in the case of a looming TPK by the dragon, that "DM's friend" would have been an easy +4 (in my game, of course), and the result would have been the same...no chance to Intimidate. It's about adjudicating the situation, not about rewriting the whole game.

As for the matter of Dragons being immune to Intimidation because they are "cool" critters...I don't know if they changed it in 3.5E, but in 3E all dragons are immune against the Frightful Presence of their own kindred...so why should a dragon all of a sudden be intimidated by a 3' tall axe-swinging gnome, if it won't be intimidated by even the eldest of its own race? As far as I know, a paladin who is immune against fear effects is also immune against Intimidation, is he not?

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

After the game, we talked about it and came up with a restriction to nerf that in the future (power attack does not get included in spring attack damage - a 4 point power attack becomes 8 when used two handed then 24 with spring attack. That's a pretty big bonus for a -4 to hit.) . And that's no problem. There was a problem that existed, it was identified and we corrected it.

A little off topic, but why does it become 24 due to spring attack? Unless you are referring to the extra damage in a charge? Yes, I have a player play a duplicate of this character in my game. When I pointed out to him that when he used rideby attack, he needed to move at least 10 feet before he attacked for it to count as a charge, that he had to move in a straight line (only forward) for the whole round, that lance was a reach weapon and had to attack in the first space he was able to, so he has to start 20 feet away from his enemy, move to 10 feet away, make his attack, and then still have room and movement to get to 20 feet on the other side of the enemy to be able to rideby attack next round. Also, if there was any uneven terrain or obstacles anywhere in that line, he could not do it as a charge.

He realized most dungeon rooms didn't have at least 40 feet of room to move back and forth in without his party members getting in the way (or columns or something else).

 

[S'mon]

& rem that PCs are immune to Intimidate, aren't they?

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

As for the matter of Dragons being immune to Intimidation because they are "cool" critters...I don't know if they changed it in 3.5E, but in 3E all dragons are immune against the Frightful Presence of their own kindred...so why should a dragon all of a sudden be intimidated by a 3' tall axe-swinging gnome, if it won't be intimidated by even the eldest of its own race? As far as I know, a paladin who is immune against fear effects is also immune against Intimidation, is he not?

Because it's not immune to fear entirely. There are still things dragons fear. In a world where a Gnome could be a god or just be a 20th level wizard, even a dragon has a right to fear them.

That's what the rules are for. They are for putting that exact right tone in your voice and look in your eye that the dragon isn't so sure that you AREN'T something so powerful that it couldn't beat you. It's not like if the gnome succeeds that it will prove all that much, the dragon gets a couple small minuses. The gnome wouldn't have that much chance to begin with anyways.