A Leap over Boiling Lava onto a Flying Wyvern

[FireLance]

but... always allowing PCs to win, even when their dice say the opposite, leads to them doing insane impossible stuff all the time.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Yeah, yeah, YMMV, etc.

 

[coyote6]

Fridge Logic

Warning! TV Tropes link! May be hazardous to your productivity for the next, oh, how late are you going to be on the computer?

 

[FireLance]

I've never heard this term before, but I like it. It's evocative of guys gathered around the fridge rehashing what should have happened after the fact--after it's too late. Is that correct?

It's more like "things that don't bother you until after the show" (or in this case, game).

Further discussed at TV Tropes (obligatory TV Tropes warning: TV Tropes will ruin your life): here.

 

[Uder]

That's fudging? I thought fudging was changing something; he just gave him a roll to save his life, a roll supported by the written rules at least one edition of D&D.

Read again what Wolf1066 said regarding fudging in the favor of NPCs - that's what I'm quoting and talking about in the post you're responding to. I consider fudging in the favor of NPCs cheating and avoid it at all costs. YMMV

Anyway, if allowing an extra roll to avoid an expected outcome isn't fudging, what is? I take it there's been a recent thread on this from what others say, maybe I should take a peek.

I'm not against changing a result now and then to smooth play in the players' favor, especially if they've been playing well. I'm a firm proponent of not even rolling the dice if something is "cool" enough - I just say yes. In the OPs case it the fudge worked for his group and kept things moving. As long as it's not the norm, it probably won't detract from the game long term.

 

[Fifth Element]

Anyway, if allowing an extra roll to avoid an expected outcome isn't fudging, what is? I take it there's been a recent thread on this from what others say, maybe I should take a peek.

Since this was a 4E game, it's just an application of a 4E rule. If you're pushed or somehow moved in such a way as to cause you to fall over an edge, you get a save to fall prone at the edge rather than falling. The unusual thing is that the DM set a DC for the save, which means it wasn't a "save", per se.

 

[Wolf1066]

Read again what Wolf1066 said regarding fudging in the favor of NPCs - that's what I'm quoting and talking about in the post you're responding to. I consider fudging in the favor of NPCs cheating and avoid it at all costs. YMMV

Yet you don't believe that "fudging" in favour of the PCs is cheating and you advocate its use. My mileage certainly does vary.

I'm not against changing a result now and then to smooth play in the players' favor, especially if they've been playing well.

Perhaps you could read again what I wrote about "near misses" cf "way outta the ball park", how there has to be a "rational reason" for either to have the extra roll, the difference between a near miss on a called body location cf a near miss on the character and how the "rules" apply to both sides equally - PCs and NPCs alike.

Just like an NPC's pistol/shotgun/bow/sword does exactly the same amount of damage as a PC's pistol/shotgun/bow/sword.

Would you advocate fudging the damage done to an NPC to ensure a player win? Or fudging the damage done to a player to ensure his survival?

"Fudging" for the sake of Plot Armour (warning: that was another TV Tropes reference, do NOT look it up if you value your spare time) vs a considered "second chance" based on what would/is likely to happen in real life (e.g. mad scrabble for a hand-hold on something obviously within reach) and no second chance at all if the miss is too great - totally different flavour.

And yes, I've encountered a situation where I've avoided the jaws of a dragon and got clobbered by its claws - it all adds to the fun and makes it more "realistic".

Now, if the PC avoided being run over by a truck and the GM said "but it just so happens, this truck has a couple of metres of rusty metal jutting out from the side and that did hit you" - that'd be cheating.

 

[Saeviomagy]

The "catch hold" if you miss a jump by a single square rule was in 3.5

It's also present in 4e, but is only listed for climb checks.

It makes so much sense to me that it should also apply for jump checks that miss by a small amount (or alternately that only go a single square off an edge) that I had simply assumed that it did. I guess the DM in question made the same "mistake". You can hardly fault him, and I think his game was much better for it.

 

[darjr]

The 'catch hold' rule, good catch. Page 182 of the PHB1. I'll have to remember that.

The original post is very cool.

I'd like to add a few more possibilities.

The wyvern, in it's shock, could try and catch the player, like someone would do when a ball is tossed at them.

The PC could have smashed into the wyvern instead of landing in style, causing them both to fall together....

The wyvern could try and spear the PC with it's tail in defense, impaling the PC and leaving the PC severely injured.

Just brainstorming, I'd like to hope I would have thought of those things in the heat of the game, I sure would.

 

[davethegame]

Yeah, snapping a staff of power even moreso. D&D isn't quite as gonzo cool as Arduin Grimoire or Rifts, but it's not far off.

I remember my low-level merchant in 2e Dark Sun shoving a Portable Hole into a Bag of Holding as a last ditch effort to stop a big beastie. Blown to bits, but I got some rolls to TRY and pull it off with at least an arm intact, and damn was it cool either way.

 

[The Shaman]

Since this was a 4E game, it's just an application of a 4E rule. If you're pushed or somehow moved in such a way as to cause you to fall over an edge, you get a save to fall prone at the edge rather than falling. The unusual thing is that the DM set a DC for the save, which means it wasn't a "save", per se.

That actually doesn't sound like it has any bearing on the situation - the 3.5 rule quoted elsewhere sounds closer in spirit and letter.