D&D General D&D memes thread discussion…

[Oofta]

Coating weapons in substances to make them more deadly has been done since we had weapons, it's called poison. Fire is just a bit more exciting.

Poisoned weapons are extremely rare and have been primarily limited to very specific applications. Applied to a sword or similar? Basically unheard of, if you hit someone with a sword enough to transfer the poison to their bloodstream, they're already badly wounded and the poison isn't going to add much.

If the physics of a world allow flaming swords just by dipping? Flaming swords would be everywhere. It would be a common tactic.

It's the other way around, it was in the game because it's the sort of getting-creative-with-their-environment thing that players want to do. BG3 didn't invent it.

And don't try to deflect by getting caught up in a specific example. How does it profit you as a DM to shut down any attempt to get creative in play with either "well, that just straight-up wouldn't work" or "okay, but you realise I'll be having the enemy do that to you every encounter from now on"? Who is that fun for?

The rules and limitations are there for a reason. I gave examples of why I think it's a bad idea to allow anything and what kinds of things I do allow. If that means I'm not the DM for you, so be it. If you allow that kind of "creativity" you probably aren't the DM for me either.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I find the psychology behind threatening 'anything you can do, the monsters can do' as a means to shutting down player agency fascinating. Especially in the context of 'my world is real and breathing; your characters aren't special' when a stroke of inspiration for a PC is instantly communicated to every monster in the world through the power of the DM's spite.

 

[MarkB]

Poisoned weapons are extremely rare and have been primarily limited to very specific applications. Applied to a sword or similar? Basically unheard of, if you hit someone with a sword enough to transfer the poison to their bloodstream, they're already badly wounded and the poison isn't going to add much.

Which is where D&D rules differ. It can take a lot of sword strokes to take down any reasonably tough foe.

If the physics of a world allow flaming swords just by dipping? Flaming swords would be everywhere. It would be a common tactic.

And once it's everywhere it's no longer a creative tactic. But until then it is.

The rules and limitations are there for a reason. I gave examples of why I think it's a bad idea to allow anything and what kinds of things I do allow. If that means I'm not the DM for you, so be it. If you allow that kind of "creativity" you probably aren't the DM for me either.

And that's fine - you're not the DM who would tell the player to "be creative" in the first place. The meme that started this diversion was about the hypocrisy of DMs who pretend to encourage players of characters with a narrower range of rules-based actions to get over that by coming up with creative tactics, only to shoot down any such tactics when they try them. If you're not allowing such things in the first place, and are clear about that stance, then the meme doesn't apply to you.

 

[Oofta]

Which is where D&D rules differ. It can take a lot of sword strokes to take down any reasonably tough foe.

And once it's everywhere it's no longer a creative tactic. But until then it is.

If dipping swords into a fire worked, someone somewhere would have tried it shortly after swords were invented and it would be common practice.

And that's fine - you're not the DM who would tell the player to "be creative" in the first place. The meme that started this diversion was about the hypocrisy of DMs who pretend to encourage players of characters with a narrower range of rules-based actions to get over that by coming up with creative tactics, only to shoot down any such tactics when they try them. If you're not allowing such things in the first place, and are clear about that stance, then the meme doesn't apply to you.

I love creative play and I encourage it. There's a difference between creative and exploit. Knocking the bookshelf over? Creative and something that would allow. Targeting an eye? Hope you have a caster with regenerate handy because if it logically makes sense for a PC to do it, then it makes sense for an NPC as well.

I'm allowed to comment on memes I disagree with, aren't I?

P.S. don't make assumptions about how I run my games. Thanks.

 

[MarkB]

If dipping swords into a fire worked, someone somewhere would have tried it shortly after swords were invented and it would be common practice.



I love creative play and I encourage it. There's a difference between creative and exploit. Knocking the bookshelf over? Creative and something that would allow. Targeting an eye? Hope you have a caster with regenerate handy because if it logically makes sense for a PC to do it, then it makes sense for an NPC as well.

I'm allowed to comment on memes I disagree with, aren't I?

P.S. don't make assumptions about how I run my games. Thanks.

My apologies. I should never have been so rude as to assume a lack of hypocrisy on your part.

 

[CleverNickName]

To encourage creative play, I've implemented a couple of different rules that trigger on an attack roll of nat20 or nat1. They are:

Extra damage, or extra cool?
If a player (or monster) rolls a nat20 on an attack roll, they have the option to either deal extra damage as per the crit rules, or deal normal damage and also do "something cool," as defined by the player. Maybe they want to blind the enemy until the end of its next turn, maybe they want to end its concentration, maybe they want to knock it prone or switch places with it, I encourage them to get creative. Sure, I have to make sure it stays balanced-- but that's not hard.

Most of the time, the player wants the extra damage. But damage ain't all that... at least a couple times per gaming session, I get something cool (last game it was "... and I kick him backwards into the campfire!") And I try to do it at least once per gaming session with my monsters, if the dice cooperate.

Hit anyway, but with a cost.
If a player (or one of my monsters) rolls a nat1, I give them a choice. They can either take the miss, as normal, or they can turn that miss into a hit if they pay a consequence in return. They choose the consequence, and I make sure it's balanced and interesting... they hit, but they also fall prone. Or they hit, but they lost their concentration. They hit, but they got sand in their eyes and are blinded until the end of their next turn. That sort of thing. I trust my players to choose appropriate consequences, and they trust me to keep it fun and fair.

Most of the time, the players are content to just take the miss. But every now and then, they really needed that hit and the dice "blessed" them with a nat1. And like above, I try to do this with my own monsters at least once per session, if the dice cooperate.

Both of these house rules are absolutely loved at my table.

 

[Umbran]

My apologies. I should never have been so rude as to assume a lack of hypocrisy on your part.

Mod Note:
Last deal for cyber Monday! A cheap ticket out of a discussion!

 

[Voadam]

View attachment 387843

Setting themselves up for an instant death if they hit an anti magic zone or a dispel magic type of effect and the cannon balls in their ammo bag explode into real size on them.

Also the shot decelerates if the mass suddenly increases without an increase in force, depending on DM.

What I came up with in the 90s playing a high level AD&D wizard with polymorph any object was start off with a pebble, turn it into a permanent boulder, then back again so it is normally small. Anti magic means harmless pebble and not crushed to death by my own trick. Can throw it then dispel to create a big mass that can crush someone instantly.

Do the same with a normal javelin to x20 size javelin then again to normal that my fighter bodyguard can throw to impale someone then I dispel the reduce polymorph to make it an explosive charge harpoon.

Limited in can’t be done to magic items so many were immune to the attack, but a fun trick when it could work.

Also requires an interpretation of PAO that allows casting twice on the same target.

 

[Maxperson]

That’s exactly the problem with “get creative” summed up in a few posts.

No coz it’s dumb. No coz it’s an exploit. Only if you roll a check to see if fire exists.

The issue I have always had with creative combat maneuvers is as follows.

1. If you make it better than a normal ability, it will just get spammed since it's better than a normal ability.
2. If you make it the same as a normal ability, the player isn't going to bother getting creative since they could just use ability X and do something equally good.
3. If you include some sort of penalty to success to balance the increase in power of the creative idea, it will never get used because people are afraid of wasting their round.

It's super frustrating for me, because I want to reward the creativity by allowing something really cool to happen, but number 1 makes it exceptionally difficult to do without employing number 2 or number 3 to mitigate.

If you want players be be creative, you have to engage that “yes, and” collaboration part of your brain.

Encourage the behavior you want more of. Discourage the behavior you want to stop.

How do I discourage the spamming while encouraging the creativity?

 

[Voadam]

How do I discourage the spamming while encouraging the creativity

Make it situationally good but not universally good.

That way they look for what fits the moment and not tactics to spam.

Tough to balance and execute but I think a goal worth pursuing.

Pushing someone is usually minor. Pushing someone over the edge of a cliff is worth doing in that one fight on the cliff edge.