D&D 5E How to deal with Metagaming as a player?

[Lanefan]

But as I said earlier in this thread, don't most players stock up on healing items before entering a dungeon?

Quite likely not, if it's their very first adventure/dungeon, for a number of reasons not least of which is cost.

That's players anticipating monsters. Their characters have no reason to assume an underground structure would be crawling with monsters, with probably a boss at the end.

Maybe not to this level of precision, but after* their first adventure/dungeon the characters will likely have found out - maybe the hard way - that dungeons are generally dangerous places and precautions are wise. Excellent. Carry on.

* - or maybe even during, if they go back to town to resupply at any point

Lanefan

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Were I running 5e I'd certainly rule that one out as it's written: way too generous for a 3rd-level...anything. To me that reads more like what a 6th or 7th level spell ought to be capable of. For 3rd level...maybe 1 target for a long time, or your level's worth of targets for a much shorter time (15 minutes? Half an hour?). But 10 targets for 24 hours...yeah, why wouldn't you cast that every single day even if you're in mid-desert.

As for ritual casting in general, I'd certainly take a very long hard look at it, with axe in hand, if this one spell is a typical example.

Lanefan

What exactly are you worried about? Water Breathing is a very binary spell; if it is available to the party they have the option to partake in underwater adventures, without it they don't.

It can make sneaking a bit easier in some situations by letting characters swim along the bottom of moats etc. but apart from that it's rare that the spell will actually make the PC's more powerful in any meaningful way.

 

[Imaculata]

What exactly are you worried about? Water Breathing is a very binary spell; if it is available to the party they have the option to partake in underwater adventures, without it they don't.

It can make sneaking a bit easier in some situations by letting characters swim along the bottom of moats etc. but apart from that it's rare that the spell will actually make the PC's more powerful in any meaningful way.

It is one of those spells that often sees very little use, and is very situational. So it makes sense to me to make it last longer, and affect more characters. But 10 people and 24 hours is a bit much in my opinion. I'm not a fan of spells that last all day.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

But 10 people and 24 hours is a bit much in my opinion. I'm not a fan of spells that last all day.

Why is that?

 

[Imaculata]

Why is that?

Because if a spell lasts the whole day, and it is renewed the next day, then you can basically keep the spell active permanently. One of the things that makes a spell caster interesting to play in my opinion, is having to decide when to use a spell, or when not to. I don't want spells to just become part of a daily routine, that seems boring to me.

Further more, I'm currently running an aquatic campaign, in which water is always an important obstacle. The players are allowed to use spells to overcome this obstacle, but I wouldn't want such an important campaign theme to be negated quite so easily and permanently for the rest of the campaign. If water breathing lasts an infinite amount of time, and can be cast on an amount of people equal to twice the average party size, that negates water entirely. It makes water a none issue. I consider water an interesting dungeon obstacle, that I like using in various creative ways. Fortunately I'm running a 3.5 campaign, so the water breathing spell does not negate water hazards completely.

 

[robus]

Er...sorry. You don't get to arbitrarily make those decisions. End of story.

Au contraire, mon ami - he outright didn't know it unless the dice happen to say that by some chance he did.

I guess the argument, then, is where are the boundaries of "general setting knowledge" going to be? And that one is probably a table-by-table decision.

Lanefan

This is where you lose many of us. You, not the player, are deciding the line between what their character knows and doesn't know. That seems a step too far. It's not your character!

 

[Caliburn101]

I have my character openly question the validity of the in-character information by asking "Where did you read or hear that!?".

When they make up, and I know we haven't been there as a party (if it was like the library at Candle Keep) I ask when they did, and if it is "In my character's background..." and it isn't - I pointedly ask the GM if I am allowed to make up about what my character knows on the fly whenever I want as well?

That last bit is done off to one side in private and that usually deals with the issue...

... but if the GM persists, I start having my character claim to know everything that I know about monsters and magical items etc. until I am called up on it and then point to the original metagame abuse as justification.

I've only done that once - but it was the bitter pill that solved the problem from that point onwards.

Metagaming is not as hard to spot, or as justifiable as many claim it is. It isn't really hard to spot and it IS an abuse. What is the point of a character having taken points in Knowledge Arcana who roles the dice when she's asking the GM from information on a spell when the half-orc barbarian player is spouting the range and burst radius of it "cos I got hit by wun wunce..."

I have as a GM (on one occasion at a club game with a metgaming player) made them pay an Inspiration Point for the unjustified in-character knowledge they 'just happened to have'. No-one thought that was a bad call at the time or since in that game.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

It is one of those spells that often sees very little use, and is very situational. So it makes sense to me to make it last longer, and affect more characters. But 10 people and 24 hours is a bit much in my opinion. I'm not a fan of spells that last all day.

I get where you are coming from, as I'm not a fan of the general idea of a spell that lasts 24 hours.

But this specific case, I'm absolutely in love with that it lasts 24 hours because of what that means for what I need to do as a DM in order to facilitate prolonged underwater adventuring.

In prior editions, I'd have to hand out satchels full of potions that provide water breathing because the spell just didn't last long enough or cover enough targets for anyone playing a spell caster to be entertained by the prospect of using spell slots to cast enough water breathing to facilitate the adventure - and often that meant also having to give the "Yeah... it's magic, just don't think about it too much" answer to players that questioned how they were managing to drink a potion while underwater without drinking enough sea water to have issues arise from it.

And yet now all I need to do is facilitate a ritual caster having the spell and everything - even resting while underwater - is taken care of, and the party can be off on adventures beneath the waves for as long as they want/need to be.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

This is where you lose many of us. You, not the player, are deciding the line between what their character knows and doesn't know. That seems a step too far. It's not your character!

Not just that, but it becomes unclear where the line is for what the player does get to arbitrate about what their character knows and what they don't.

I can't decide what my character knows about trolls - do I get to decide what my character knows about elves? Should I roll dice to see if my character has ever actually heard the name of the continent they live on?

I'm not going to be surprised if I get told that is being ridiculous, but I genuinely don't know where anyone besides me draws that line unless they tell me. Because we all think of things that seem obvious to us as "should be obvious" to everyone else, even though that's not even kind of the way things actually work.

 

[Maxperson]

What kind of players prepare for a lightning strike on a clear day?

The same kind that prepare water breathing where water is very unlikely to be.