Excerpt: powers (merged)

[Majoru Oakheart]

KidSnide indeed! Getting +20/.../+20 against a demon isn't the same thing as wearing a coat hanger for pants at all! There's nothing stupid about finding a way to get +20/.../+20 against a demon, whereas a coat-hanger around your waist probably doesn't do much useful. So I don't see the comparison.

The idea is that if you are familiar with the rules there is NO way for a fighter to get 7 attacks against a creature at full BAB in one round. In fact, probably the closest you can get is 3 attacks at your full BAB. So, anyone assuming that the wording of a feat, power, spell, or ability could give you that much power is just being silly. Especially when there is another perfectly logical reading of the same ability that gives you a much more minor benefit.

Ok, so there's probably not a feat that says that specifically about rats, demons, et. al. What it might say is something like "if a demon is surrounded by creatures, then you get an attack at your max BAB for each creature" or something like that. Still, rats are creatures, and a bag full of rats is not a concept that boggles the mind, so if the game designer was thinking "medium-sized creatures", "allies", or something and just wrote "creature" then it's a bad design on his part. But that happens - and if the DM wants to make an on-the-fly ruling and say "medium-creatures only, not tiny rats, for example" then I think that's reasonable.

The thing is, it is rare in D&D to have the PCs fighting against things that aren't at least worthwhile opponents for them. They don't fight enemies who are 10 levels below them. So, there is a default assumption that says "enemy" has a 99% chance of being a creature that you are in combat with, is difficult to kill, and has a real danger of killing you.

So, that is the assumption when an author writes "enemy". When a player realizes that an ability is broken when you define enemies as creatures who die in one hit, you can carry with you, and have no chance of killing you, then it is not the rules that are the problem.

 

[Kraydak]

...
So, that is the assumption when an author writes "enemy". When a player realizes that an ability is broken when you define enemies as creatures who die in one hit, you can carry with you, and have no chance of killing you, then it is not the rules that are the problem.

*cough* 4e minions rules *cough*

 

[gizmo33]

You're right, he's not an idiot. He's a powergaming tweaker with no grasp on "reality" who's looking to rules lawyer any advantage he can out of the system by taking the most absurdist interpretation possible.

Since, in the example you give, you've already established exactly what the rules are regarding flanking, and established exactly why the rats don't qualify, then I don't see what the problem is. If a feat said "you get +3 to attack rolls with an axe" and someone tried to claim the bonus while using a sword then it's not anything like what I would call an "absurdist interpretation" - it's just simply wrong and not something I am threatened by as a DM.

 

[DandD]

We don't know how the minion rules work. On one hand, we have the puny kobold minions. On the other, we have vampire spawns with 10 hitpoints. And the kobold minions did quite much of a hurt. Also, the Vampire Minions are really brutal if they get to surround you. They might die easily, but they can dish out damage if you don't take care of them as soon as possible.

 

[gizmo33]

Giz, if you're looking at the rules as tools for creating a consensus imaginary space for adventure stories, the Bag of Rats is absurd. Because actively imagining King Conan emptying a sack full of rodents in the air in front of him as a preface to the mighty hewing of foes is an undeniably ridiculous picture. It's about as 'epic' as getting really, really stoned and watching Lazytown...

Aha! See now we're getting more into what I really think is the subtext here. JohnSnow's argument about the specifics of the flanking rules doesn't really do justice to the issue - exhibit A is your example regarding King Conan, which has nothing to do with an erroneous and illogical conclusion regarding rules. Well, depending on what you mean by "illogical". Because your opinions about what constitutes epic and heroic fantasy are important, but they're not, by definition, rational or logical and accusations of evilness, idiocy, etc, should not be leveled in the direction of someone who doesn't share those opinions.

All one really has to do to solve this problem is to figure out what the spirit of the flanking rules really intended, and be careful and thoughtful about defining the rules appropriately. The downside of the "guilt trip the player" approach to rules management is that the next time, the situation may not be so "ridiculous" as that of a bag of rats. It instead might be a blind kobold, trained badger, etc. If you, as a game designer even, haven't thought through the definitions sufficiently to cover these problems then IMO you've written a bad rule.

And besides, your choice of "King Conan" as the character archetype might not even be correct in terms of the way the PC sees their character. A story where Greymouser or Cudgel the Clever throws a bag of rats at his foe is much more reasonable I think. So rather than get into the (IMO bad) habit of calling players idiots and making unecessary assumptions about what you think heroic adventuring is all about, I think it's a lot easier to just do a good job with the rules.

 

[HeinorNY]

That's what the bag o' rats is about - not a badly-designed or even a badly-described rule, but a ridiculous interpretation of said rule.

Actually, bag o' rats is just about ridiculing a badly-designed rule. No sane player would ever consider using it in a game.

I find it funny that so many people don't understand that and really believes someone was seriously thinking about using a bag o' rats as a valid trick. Of course it's not a valid trick, but the fact that the rule allows something so ridiculous may indicate that the rule is badly-designed. At least, that's the point that the guy that calls the bag o' rats in a rules' discussion is trying to do.

Bag o' rats is not a minmaxing discussion. It's a game designing discussion.

 

[JohnSnow]

Since, in the example you give, you've already established exactly what the rules are regarding flanking, and established exactly why the rats don't qualify, then I don't see what the problem is. If a feat said "you get +3 to attack rolls with an axe" and someone tried to claim the bonus while using a sword then it's not anything like what I would call an "absurdist interpretation" - it's just simply wrong and not something I am threatened by as a DM.

The thing here gizmo, is that to my mind, those "rules for flanking" that I established shouldn't, in my mind, have to be written down anywhere. Flanking involves characters getting a bonus to their attacks because their enemy is being threatened by multiple attackers. As such, he's obviously distracted.

To me, this is the self-evident definition of how flanking works. Ergo, a creature that is incapable of threatening the creature being flanked, in a meaningful way, shouldn't be able to provide a flanking bonus. You don't get a benefit from a creature being surrounded by 20 rats unless they're actively attacking it (and capable of doing something to it). To me, this shouldn't have to be spelled out, and I'm frankly slightly offended to be losing space that could be devoted to other, more interesting things to specifically disallowing stupid crap like this.

Likewise, using a rat to get the benefit of cleave should restrict your future targets for cleave to creatures about the same size. Because it makes sense that you should be able to use cleave to kill a pair of pixies, or two spiders, or...

 

[Kraydak]

As a side note, the Bag-o-Rats scenario is largely (entirely?) equivalent to a Pit Fiend traveling with an entourage of lvl 15 demons to blow up. This is part reason of why I find the idea of a section in the DMG "solving" the BoR to be somewhat funny. BoR type strategies are already *enshrined* in the MM.

Oops?

 

[gizmo33]

So, anyone assuming that the wording of a feat, power, spell, or ability could give you that much power is just being silly. Especially when there is another perfectly logical reading of the same ability that gives you a much more minor benefit.

If one interpretation of a rule is as equally logical as another, then it's simply a matter of the DM establishing what he believes the correct interpretation is. It's not up to the DM to have options about the players intelligence who suggested an alternative interpretation. In the specifics you give, the problem I have is that feats *often* give the character an ability that exceeds the normal parameters - so your generalized advice doesn't really hold up at the boundaries. However, I agree with your basic notion that says that more extreme the results are, the more likely that there is a problem with the rule interpretation.

The thing is, it is rare in D&D to have the PCs fighting against things that aren't at least worthwhile opponents for them. They don't fight enemies who are 10 levels below them. So, there is a default assumption that says "enemy" has a 99% chance of being a creature that you are in combat with, is difficult to kill, and has a real danger of killing you.

I'd rather that the rules avoid making too many assumptions about what the word "enemy" means that aren't spelled out in the rules. There is a mind-boggling myriad of possible circumstances that can occur in a fantasy game with magic, I don't want 4E assuming it knows something about my game like that, especially when it's not necessary. There are plenty of game concepts, like CR, BAB, size, threatened square, etc. that the rules can use to define exactly who they mean by "enemy" in a way that excludes completely wacky results like rats.

So, that is the assumption when an author writes "enemy". When a player realizes that an ability is broken when you define enemies as creatures who die in one hit, you can carry with you, and have no chance of killing you, then it is not the rules that are the problem.

Yes, I believe the rules are actually the problem where and I ask you to consider the arbitrariness of your definitions here. First of all, the word "enemy" is extremely vague - probably the reason why the wand of enemy detection didn't survive into 3E. It greatly behooves the 4E designers to define "enemy" in the same rigorous way they define "fire subtype" if they're going to insist on using the concept in the rules.

Secondly, you think it's obvious that a creature who is killed in one hit is not an enemy. But how about 2 hits? What if it takes you 10 hits, but your armor class is 20 points better than their best attack roll? I can come up with bunches of ways that one character is not a threat to another, and then come up with gray areas along the entire spectrum of trivial to dangerous. "Enemy", as nebulously defined as above then, is extremely unhelpful as a game concept, and IMO a game designer really doesn't know as much about his job as he needs to if he's going to use such a term with such a weak definition.

 

[gizmo33]

The thing here gizmo, is that to my mind, those "rules for flanking" that I established shouldn't, in my mind, have to be written down anywhere.

As I've said before though, there are all sorts of things that exist "in your mind" and in any other DMs or game designers. But DnD is a shared experience and IMO the DM needs to respect the rules interpretations of polite players who have an honest difference of opinion. Ultimately, of course, the decision rests with the DM. But IMO, it's good communication, good DMing, and good game design to anticipate the game concepts that could be a problem and to clarify them in terms that everyone can understand - not to punish or ridicule people for not having the same initial impression of what a word means.

Flanking involves characters getting a bonus to their attacks because their enemy is being threatened by multiple attackers. As such, he's obviously distracted.

I'd be distracted if someone upended a bag of rats on my head.

To me, this shouldn't have to be spelled out, and I'm frankly slightly offended to be losing space that could be devoted to other, more interesting things to specifically disallowing stupid crap like this.

It seems to me paradoxical (and actually, wrong) that you would assume on one hand that a concept is "self-evident" and on the other hand describing this concept is then so onerous that doing so makes you angry. IME to the degree that something is difficult to define it is worth defining when you care about what other people think. Granted, you can always find extreme examples that make the process of defining what you're talking about seem ridiculous, but defining what it means to "threaten" or flank someone, as you did above, IMO is completely sensible.