I Hate Bards

[Iconik]

I had brought up the Line of Effect arguement but he and another player had said that it was things like bursts and blasts. While swallowed you are restrained and can only make basic attacks.

Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

There is the official wording of the daily. He said it's a teleport so it works differently. It's not a shift per se. I said...you can't teleport what you can't see.

 

[Ryujin]

A teleport needs line of sight, but not line of effect. He didn't have either.

 

[malraux]

Oh, if its a teleport, he's totally wrong then. To teleport someone, you have to be able to see their origin and destination. Since he didn't have line of sight, no teleport.

 

[Ryujin]

On the beetle issue, just one more thought. Did you allow him to 'deflect' the beetle encounter with a single, simple skill roll? In future, should that sort of thing come up, it's a perfect excuse to perform a free-form skill challenge of whatever level the combat encounter would have been. Figure out what skills apply and let the players know, then role-play it out. That way you can spread the encounter out among the other players, not just have the Bard derail the whole thing, and you have a mechanic for dealing out some experience for it.

 

[Iconik]

Why not talk to the player and compromise? For instance, you say you reward creativity but why didn't you give the party full XP for the beetle encounter? Why are you upset when the player gets lucky and rolls two 20s? Let this player shine when he does good / creative things within the rules, but also explain that you would appreciate it if he tones down his attempts at "creativity" that are really trying to take advantage of loopholes, etc.

I'm not upset. And I do reward creativity. I didn't give them xp because he just did it without talking with his party members. The Bard class has a lot of skills like this. I can't allow it once. THen I'd have to allow it almost every time. He's big on constitency.

 

[Riastlin]

Unfortunately can't open the link at work.

However, while teleport can get around the solid wall of the worm's stomach, it won't get around the line of sight/line of effect issue. I would still argue that he could not teleport the target (usually these powers also say "1 target in burst you can see"). Obviously I can't see the actual wording yet but I would think that he's out of luck on the swallowed PC.

As to the invisibility, again, I think you made the right call.

However, I also think that both you and the bard have issues that should be addressed. The bard gets lots of little tricks, but none of them are really game-breaking. You talk about the bard imitating a dragon call, but really, any character can try that, its just that the Bard was the one that thought of it. Additionally, on that note, I would also argue that the party defeated the encounter, they just did it in an unanticipated way. I would certainly give them credit, and XP for that. Think of it this way, if the fighter comes up with a scheme to collapse the ceiling over a room full of orcs, do the orcs not die, and more importantly, does the party not defeat the challenge? In both cases, I would award full XP and thank the heavens that my players are creative.

I'm not sure what your complaint with the double D-20 is. Do you have a house rule that grants an auto-kill on a double nat 20 roll like the optional rule in 3.x? If so, this is again, not a bard issue, but rather a rules issue that can affect anyone.

I think the bard's player is trying to get the most out of his powers, including to the point that he is trying to bend the rules more than just a bit. In the end, I would sit down and talk to him. Praise him for his creativity but also explain to him how the mechanics work -- according to your ruling. Ultimately, you as the DM are the official arbiter and the rules in the books are really just guidelines. At the same time, I would also tell him that if this affects his desire to take this particular power that he is free to change it out.

 

[captainspud]

The DMG clearly explains that the XP value for an encounter's worth of bad guys is for eliminating the problem, which does NOT necessarily mean "killing everything". Creating a clever diversion to make the problem go away is just as effective a solution as killing the bad guys, so it's worth full XP.

You have to think of the encounters and XP in a realistic manner: the heroes aren't actually accruing knowledge and experience in the form of discrete points in exchange for bad guys slain. Rather, the heroes have an objective (Duke Bigbaddinus at the top of the evil tower), and there are obstacles in their way (zombies, kobolds, and dragons). Those obstacles aren't the point of the excercise; the point is the Duke, and any action that gets the heroes closer to that objective is worth XP.

This is why I wouldn't award any XP if my heroes decided to "level grind" by walking into the woods and killing bears; that action doesn't accomplish a damned thing toward any meaningful goal.

So, yeah. Don't punish your players for nonviolent solutions. If their solution eliminates the problem, then they earned their XP. Simple as that.

 

[The Human Target]

I agree with all the replies in this thread.*

A lack of rules knowledge plus a forceful player equals bad tidings.

 

[Mengu]

I think a better understanding of rules would help both sides of the table.

The bard is not breaking the game per se. In part I believe the DM is at fault. Saying "yes" does not mean bending over backwards for the player. To give a couple examples based on the OP.

Double 20 shouldn't slay anything important. You get two crits, you do some damage, you move along. If there is some house rule going on, then perhaps it's not the bard or the game that's at fault but the house rule.

When the bard mimics sounds of a dragon to scare away some beetles, if the DM wanted to reward the creative thinking, the wise thing to do would be to either have a couple younger beetles hesitate (meaning they don't enter combat until the second round), or to have a younger beetle flee, making the encounter a bit easier. If there were a few minions, you could instead have the minions flee. But there is no reason to scratch out a whole encounter for one good idea. You can reward, without compromising the plan.

If you were fine with the encounter being avoided entirely (maybe it's an easy encounter, insignificant to the plot, but there for flavor to display the PC's are in a dangerous place), then you could quickly make some adjustments to turn it into a skill challenge. Perhaps the dragon noise just makes the beetles halt, Then with a nature check someone could discover how to really scare them off, with an intimidate check someone could try to scare off a few. Then an athletics check could be made to pick up a large rock and toss it their way as a display of superiority. And maybe a stealth check followed by another intimidate check could be made to scare them from another direction giving them the impression they are outmatched, and they might go running.

Either way, the PC's should get full XP for fighting the encounter if they went that route (regardless of if a youngling or a few minions fled at the beginning of the encounter), or they should get full XP for the skill challenge (assuming they succeed). If they fail the skill challenge and have to fight the beetles, you just reward them the XP for the fight.

DM has the power to dictate the environment, and events in the game. PC's interact with that environment, and have the power to influence the events. As DM you can reward good thinking and creativity. But the extent of those rewards should not halt the game or prevent other people's fun.

I think the topics of teleporting the target out of the belly, and invisibility have been pretty well covered by others.

 

[Iconik]

Hold on. Apparently I need to make something clear (clearer). I've NEVER been upset with my PCs. I reward creativity. I DON'T reward someone ruining an encounter that the rest of the party really wanted. Me not awarding XP for that was to be taken as a lesson to talk things out with your party before going Rambo.

Secondly, I never once said I was angry about the double 20 roll. We still laugh about it. Rules are...unless it's a total God, you can double 20 something and kill it outright. Those are house rules. Never was upset. Was just handing out a story of the kind of player he is. He rolls double 20's a lot. Thinks outside the box QUITE a bit. Again...I reward that. Quite a bit. I let them get away with A LOT. The Bard used a lvl 30 ritual at level 3. I allowed it. I said he had to roll a nat 20 for it to succeed. Guess what he rolled? Haha.

I'm all for non-violent solutions. AGAIN involving the bard. He was getting roughed up by a fellow he owed money to. He wanted to talk it out. I thought that was a neat idea. Getting headbutted to death but still keeping your resolve. The party members intervened and started a brawl. I thought it'd of been neat for a non-violent solution. The bard did too. So you can see that we aren't at odds at all. And I allow for all kinds of neat solutions. I probably say "yes" way too much. Even the PCs agree with that.

And the teleport ordeal wasn't about a lack of knowledge on the rules. It was more of a difference in interpretation. But, to be honest I didn't know that teleport requires them to see origin and destination. He DOES bend the rules A LOT because he is a treasure trove of knowledge. Whereas I like to push the story along further. DO NOT get me wrong...this is an insanely awesome group. No table talk. They come to game. They RP their butts off. They get in character from the beginning and don't stop once until the game is over. I love this group.