Dwarven Defender Abuse?

[UofMDude]

I was thinking about the dwarven defender and a possible abuse of the defensive stance ability. The defensive stance is pretty nice but you can't move while using it.

But what if you used the ability while standing on something that could move? Something like a flying carpet? Can you imagine a dwarven defender standing on the corner of a flying carpet in his defensive stance, being whisked about the battle to the trouble spots while "not moving"?

Does this sound legal? Is it too abusive? Would you allow it in your games?

UofMDude

 

[hong]

I would treat this situation as the dwarven defender pinning the flying carpet to the ground. Not much use for mobility, but great for keeping the bad guy from flying away!

 

[drnuncheon]

I would treat this situation as the dwarven defender pinning the flying carpet to the ground. Not much use for mobility, but great for keeping the bad guy from flying away!

What if he tried to use it on a ship?
How about a rowboat?

How big does a vehicle have to be before it becomes a place rather than an object?

J

 

[hong]

What if he tried to use it on a ship?
How about a rowboat?

If he's fighting people on board the ship, then sure, he stays with the ship.

How big does a vehicle have to be before it becomes a place rather than an object?

Thinking too hard about fantasy is bad.

 

[dcollins]

How big does a vehicle have to be before it becomes a place rather than an object?

I think that's an interesting question. My DM's intuition wants to say: rowboat no, ship yes.

Here's some possible suggested rulings:
- Nothing that requires a Balance check. (Probably standing upright in a small rowboat should require such a check.)
- Nothing that requires a Concentration check to cast a spell (similar to above).
- Nothing that's moving in relation to the ground under the opponent (i.e., can only be used against an opponent in the same boat/ship -- somewhat dicier ruling, it's abiguous against airborne creatures over the water).

 

[drnuncheon]

Thinking too hard about fantasy is bad.

Sure, but it's a situation that could easily come up if you're ever on a ship (or a boat).

dcollins said his DM's intuition would say ship yes, boat no - which my instincts agree with too. Now I'm trying to figure out why that's a good distinction, so it can be articulated to the players.

Here's some possible suggested rulings:
- Nothing that requires a Balance check. (Probably standing upright in a small rowboat should require such a check.)
- Nothing that requires a Concentration check to cast a spell (similar to above).
- Nothing that's moving in relation to the ground under the opponent (i.e., can only be used against an opponent in the same boat/ship -- somewhat dicier ruling, it's abiguous against airborne creatures over the water).

Hmm. The first one is OK, but then again I could see a dwarven defender deciding to plant himself on a narrow bridge or ledge as a defensive point - and that might require a Balance check. (On the other hand, while moving on it might, just standing on it might not. So there's a possibility it will still work.)

I'm not sure I like the second one as much. A spellcaster would certainly be making Concentration checks on the deck of a ship in a havy storm, but it doesn't seem to me like that would bother a dwarven defender.

The last one bugs me in that it brings the opponent into it, when this is really an interaction between the dwarven defender and the ground. (One could certainly activate the defensive stance even if there were no enemies, after all - just as a barbarian could rage out of combat.)

J

 

[UofMDude]

Wow. I just realised I brought relativity and an inertial frame of reference into a DnD discussion....

scaaaaaary

For the record, I think I would allow this as a DM (given an appropriate mode of transport). It's not super abusable but I wanted to hear other opinions.

UofMDude

 

[hong]

Sure, but it's a situation that could easily come up if you're ever on a ship (or a boat).

dcollins said his DM's intuition would say ship yes, boat no - which my instincts agree with too. Now I'm trying to figure out why that's a good distinction, so it can be articulated to the players.

I think the only answer that can be given for a question like that would be along the lines of St Augustine's answer to the guy who asked what God was doing before he created the world.

If you dig deep enough, you can always find a contradiction. It doesn't have to be that deep, even, in this case. Suppose the dwarven defender was on a normal carpet, and someone tried to yank it out from under him -- would his defensive stance help him? Or suppose his friends picked up the carpet and used it to move him around -- would that work? Suppose he was on a chariot, instead of a boat -- what then? Two planks of wood?

I'd pick a particular frame of reference, preferably the one with the most potential for dramatic effect and is most consistent with the underlying tone of the campaign, and stick with it. I'd also trust the players not to ask frivolous questions that undermine the shared delusion that is a fantasy reality.

 

[purple knight]

Think of the Dwarven Defender as the immovable object, as soon as he moves, he looses his strength. I would consider it as moving in relation to the enemy. So, if you have the dwarf on a device of some sort (flying carpet, chariot, etc) then the dwarf looses the benefits because he is not stationary. However, if the dwarf is fighting someone on that movable plain (facing off against Aladin on his carpet), then he is immobile to his enemy and thus gains the benefits.

Put simply, the defender gains the benefit when he is immobile in relation to his enemy.

Oh and by the way, for those attorneys looking for the loopholes, a dwarven defender who sits on a carpet, remains immobile for an encounter and then scoots to the next and remains immobile, etc, consider that the same as moving, period.

By the way, I am playing a DD now and think this PC rocks as is, why want more?

 

[Crothian]

Well, would a DD get bonuses for riding a horse? They are standing still but it's the mount that is moving.

I think the obvious answer is no. A flying carpet I'd put in the same catagory.