3e, DMs, and Inferred Player Power

[FireLance]

To me, this is a perfect example of when a DM should use common sense to overrule the RAW. A gnome intimidate a dragon? That's just silly.

As silly as a 20th-level gnome monk killing a Huge mature adult red dragon (CR 18) with a single blow? A 20th-level gnome monk has a BAB of +15. Assuming Str 18 and a +5 enhancement bonus, that's an attack bonus of +25 which will enable him to hit the dragon's AC of 32 on a roll of 7 or better (70% chance). Assuming a Wisdom of 22, the DC of the gnome monk's quivering palm attack is 26. An average mature adult red dragon has a Fortitude save of +20, which means he fails 25% of the time (5 or less on d20). So, I make that a 17.5% chance of silliness.

Now, before people start chiming with other reasons why a lower-level gnome that obviously isn't a monk can't intimidate a dragon when he and his party are on the losing end of a fight, think carefully about how you imagine an intimidated dragon would act. Do you see it cowering on the ground, pleading for its life? Is that the "impossible" situation you're trying to avoid? Guess what, the rules agree with you.

If the gnome was attempting to demoralize in combat (a standard action), and he succeeds, the dragon is shaken. It gets a -2 penalty on attack rolls, saving throws, ability checks and skill checks. For 1 round. Is it "impossible" for the gnome to do or shout something so surprising or threatening that the dragon loses a bit of confidence for a short while? Remember, it's not running. It's still in the fight and still doing its level best to rip the party into shreds, just with a bit less skill.

If the gnome was attempting to change the dragon's attitude, that takes a minute. If the gnome is still alive after a minute despite the dragon's best efforts, is it "impossible" for it to develop a bit of respect for the gnome? A successful Intimidate check merely makes the dragon act as if it was Friendly, i.e. chat, advise, offer limited help, advocate. It doesn't say anything about cowering, groveling or begging for its life.

Basically: please look at what the rules actually say before you decide that you don't like the way they work. You may find out that thay actually do what you want them to.

 

[The Shaman]

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".

And that's what GMs get to do. It even says so in the rule books.

If you consistently disagree with a GM's calls, then play with someone else.

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".

Is this an example a GM ruining your game, making a stupid call because s/he lacks the imagination to understand your perfectly valid idea?

I'm sorry, but I would have to agree with the unimaginative GM's stupid call on this one.

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).

What's true for you and your gaming groups may not be true for other gamers. Some gamers like this level of specificity and verisimilitude, so when the rules change, they might opt to stay with the older interpretation.

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.

As I read this, what you're describing is a social problem (e.g., playing with dweebs), not a rules problem.

I would say that this lies at the core of a lot of the problems discussed on this board: inexperienced or immature GMs and players.

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.

A GM who likes much of what a game has to offer, but finds that certain rules or even rules sections don't work to the GM's satisfaction in creating the experience s/he wants to offer, may not care why the rule was written. If a rule in the game takes away from exciting possibilities, then I tweak the rule - I don't dumb-down my game so that I can conform to someone else's idea of fun. What works for our group and our game is what's important to me, not what Ryan Dancey or Mike Mearls or Skip Williams tell me is important.

Henry made a trenchant observation earlier in the thread: the rules for D&D reflect a shift in the direction of games like HeroClix, closing the open-ended ruleset more and more. That style of play may work for some folks, but not for me - when I reach a point where the preponderance of the rules in a game system don't allow me to readily create the games I want to run or join a game where I would enjoy playing along, then I'm done with that rule-system.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

Henry made a trenchant observation earlier in the thread: the rules for D&D reflect a shift in the direction of games like HeroClix, closing the open-ended ruleset more and more. That style of play may work for some folks, but not for me - when I reach a point where the preponderance of the rules in a game system don't allow me to readily create the games I want to run or join a game where I would enjoy playing along, then I'm done with that rule-system.

I'm with you on this one, Shaman. The rules are neither complete (cover all situations) or realistic (in accord with how my common sense says the world should work) Since it's not entirely possible to remedy either of these by adding rules, it's my job as DM to make up for these deficiencies. WOTC has tried to fix these issues with rules by adding a whole lot more of them, but this has caused further problems, such as increasing the difficulty of learning the whole rule-set, increasing DM prep-time, increasing the difficulty of "winging it" when PCs go outside of your prepared material, empowering obnoxious rules-lawyers, and making the game more difficult to customize to how you want to play (Everything affects everything else, and Forgotten Realms D&D needs slightly different rules to support that style than, say, a Conan style D&D)

It sounds to me like those advocating a rules-slave approach to D&D have been burned by bad DMs playing fast and loose with the rules and think the solution is to make everything follow the rules precisely. Not so. Really good DMs also play fast and loose with the rules, but the difference is that they do so less visibly and for the fun of all.

The rules-slave approach also puts the game's emphasis somewhere that I don't want it to be. I would rather be thinking about what actions would make sense from my PC's point of view than what would give me another +1. That is i prefer a simulationist approach and insisting on precisely following the rules even when they don't make sense seems very gamist.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

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

No.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Firelance hit the hidden nail on the head...

Basically: please look at what the rules actually say before you decide that you don't like the way they work. You may find out that thay actually do what you want them to.

As a player, if I have a DM who houserules over RAW ... but that DM has chosen DM Fiat without even understanding the rules to begin with? Bah.
Increase frustration when the RAW would work just as well, if not better, than the houserule designed to 'fix' a problem..

Looking back over the years of posting in the House Rules forum, three quarters of my HR forays end up being nixed as I learn how the RAW addresses the issue.

But heaven forbid I ask a DM to follow the concepts listed in the HARP rulebook {thanks Rasyr for posting that..} I mean, really. Why learn the relatively consistant rules when you can make stuff up on the fly? I am sure this method of play does nothing to engender a player frustration when they design a character around the rules in the PHB, only to find out that things work different in your game.
I am sure that any fictional player who may be frustrated with your ad-hoc rulings wont start fighting back in a confrontational way by turning into a rules-lawyer, whipping out highlighted pages that show the RAW in support of thier actions.

DMing 3x does take alot more planning and preparation than earlier editions. In return for this, the game can be much more reliable and consistant, allowing those playing the game to stretch thier imaginations with a good idea of what the heroic actions chances of success are...without going with the old 'If the DM thinks its cool, then it will work.. otherwize I am screwed' line of thought.

My suggestions:
DM, know the rules. Bend them only slightly to match your style
Players, know your characters abilities
Both.. communicate desires and plans.. before commiting action in play.

And, given the chance.. players take a turn at the DM's side of the screen. The appreciation for how much work goes into a nights session can tone down alot of the confrontational stuff that happens at the tables.
DM, Understand that the world you create... belongs to the group. Your players will bend, tear, mutilate, and shred it to bits and pieces. Enjoy the results and see where the game takes you!

Anough rambling.. been doing that alot lately

 

[Geron Raveneye]

As silly as a 20th-level gnome monk killing a Huge mature adult red dragon (CR 18) with a single blow? A 20th-level gnome monk has a BAB of +15. Assuming Str 18 and a +5 enhancement bonus, that's an attack bonus of +25 which will enable him to hit the dragon's AC of 32 on a roll of 7 or better (70% chance). Assuming a Wisdom of 22, the DC of the gnome monk's quivering palm attack is 26. An average mature adult red dragon has a Fortitude save of +20, which means he fails 25% of the time (5 or less on d20). So, I make that a 17.5% chance of silliness.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to nitpick here maliciously or anything...I'm just taking your advice on reading the rules, and at least from my 3E point of view, it won't work, because...

The monk must be of higher level than the target (or have more levels than the target's number of Hit Dice).

A mature adult red dragon has 25 HD...which simply trumps the monk's 20 levels. So I guess I can say safely that this 20th level gnome monk won't be able to kill that dragon. It would work with a young adult dragon, if I read the MM correctly, though. But it also is a supernatural ability, not a mundane skill. No nerve strikes with Knowledge (Anatomy].

And to repeat what I said before...it isn't about rewriting the game, it's about adjudicating a specific situation. A situation in which a gnome barbarian (diminuitive foe) who is part of a group that gets its collective butt kicked by a dragon thrice his size tries to intimidate the same dragon. As a DM, I HAVE to ask myself (and the player in question) what reason there should be in that situation for an intimidation attempt to be an action that could be even remotely successful. If that barbarian flies into a rage and manages to hit the dragon for some nice damage, and tries the intimidation attempt the round after, sure, you have the "rat in a corner effect" or whatever you want to call it. Might even be good for a circumstance bonus. But out of the blue?

Comparing this specific situation to something general, or the supernatural Quivering Palm to the mundane Intimidate skill, does not really do this justice either, does it? And in the end, it should be a question from the player to the DM if he allows a skill check, not a demand that he should be allowed under all circumstances, just because the short skill description in the PHB only gives a few examples how it should work instead of a heap of exceptions when it shouldn't. That's what the DM is there for, even in 3E...to judge if a situation and a player idea warrant a check of any kind.

 

[The Shaman]

And in the end, it should be a question from the player to the DM if he allows a skill check, not a demand that he should be allowed under all circumstances, just because the short skill description in the PHB only gives a few examples how it should work instead of a heap of exceptions when it shouldn't. That's what the DM is there for, even in 3E...to judge if a situation and a player idea warrant a check of any kind.

Well-said.

 

[Hussar]

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).

Gack, typo. That should be Spirited Charge, not spring attack. Whoops. Heh. Umm.

However, while you do need a 20 foot run up, you do not HAVE to use ride by each round. It was the fact that my halfling was pumping out consistently 60+ points of damage per hit that had us a little boggled. You don't have to make a second attack. It's dead in the first one. Again, it was more because I only had to take a -4 to hit to get a +24 to damage that became the problem. In some campaigns I would see this as not becoming a problem, particularly if you do dungeon crawls in very tight spaces. The dungeons we were seeing were nice and roomy and it became obscene to see what this character was doing.

 

[Hussar]

To me, there is only three possible outcomes for the intimidating gnome story:

A) Gnome is allowed to try, fails and the party giggles about a rather spectacular and unique way to perish.

B) Gnome is allowed to try, pulls the rolls out of his vas deferens, and possibly causes the dragon to miss for one round, thus possibly saving a party member. Party giggles about a very spectacular success and tells the story for weeks to come.

C) DM flat out nixes the idea. Players talk about what a putz the DM is for ignoring the RAW in favour of his cool critter.

Personally, I'd MUCH rather be in party A or B. C just isn't all that interesting for me.

 

[The Shaman]

...pulls the rolls out of his vas deferens...

I feel violated just thinking about that...