I Hate Bards

[Iconik]

So they defeated the encounter, though not the way you had planned, and you didn't give them XP for it?

The party was going to be going through a skill challenge heavy few adventures. They knew this a couple weeks before that portion of the story started. I decided to throw in a nice battle with these beetles not only to give them a good fight but to also introduce an NPC. The bard mimic'd sound without saying anything to anyone. They wanted the fight.

I decided not to give them XP in this particular situation to "punish" (I use that term very lightly) him and them for going Rambo. It's to keep it from happening again. Which it won't.

This is a GREAT topic. Some amazing answers and tons of evidence for both sides.

But, what does post count have to do with anything? I've only had a few topics that I've made here but most of them have been well recieved with 3+ pages of responses.

EDIT: OK. I read that Rule of Thumb topic and I'm calling BS. Major BS. That just comes off as EN World/D&D snobbery. Something that EN World is above in my opinion. It has NOTHING to do with right or wrong. The topic and problem I presented is obviously highly contested. No one is arguing. The solution isn't black and white. It's grey. Very grey. As evidenced by the fact that there's a lot of discussion going on in this topic. No one is mad. No one is trolling. No one is arguing. It's discussion.

Also...get that Rule of Thumb topic taken down. We're better than that.

 

[The Human Target]

That first post really makes it seem like everyone os not having a good time, even if they latter posts do.

A player using a skill check to skip an encounter the rest of the group really wanted to do does sound like a "dick" move to me.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Also, after looking it up, creatures do not block line of effect. Only blocking terrain blocks line of effect. And just because a creature has full cover or is invisible does not mean it is untargetable; it has to be hidden for that.

Well, the purple worm's swallow ability also explicitly blocks line of effect (and line of sight).

A player using a skill check to skip an encounter the rest of the group really wanted to do does sound like a "dick" move to me.

This is part of why I crave a D&D game that isn't about the fights. Seemed like a good idea, a solid plan, a great way to accomplish their goals without unnecessary risk, and it was punished by the DM and hated by the rest of the party.

This is how stuff like Instant Friends gets problematic. The player's all "My character would do this!" and the DM's all "But I wanted to have this cool battle! NO XP!" and the group is all "Fights are fun! We wanna fight!" and the player feels like a rube for having a creative idea.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I am not going to offer an interpertation of the rules, others have done that.
As to the first example, I personally wish more players showed that much imagination in avoiding fights and by passing challanges. I think you should have awarded xp for it, though perhaps not have succeeded on a single roll.
I also believe that if the other party members wanted to have to fight that is their business and they can settle it in character or after the session out of character and the DM has no business sticking their oar in except to keep it civil.
It is not for the DM to dictate how the players overcome challanges and that absence of a fight should not prevent the introduction of the NPC. Obi Wan Kenobi introduced himself to Luke after pulling a similar trick.

As for the latter thing with the purple worm, DM interpretation of the Rules is final in that session. As a DM I will listen to a short argument but no more and then I make a ruling. I am happy to discuss anything controversal after the game and perhaps come to a concensus outside play time. If the players and DM are still split then the DM makes the final ruling on what ever intrepretation the DM is most happy with.

 

[The Human Target]

This is part of why I crave a D&D game that isn't about the fights. Seemed like a good idea, a solid plan, a great way to accomplish their goals without unnecessary risk, and it was punished by the DM and hated by the rest of the party.

This is how stuff like Instant Friends gets problematic. The player's all "My character would do this!" and the DM's all "But I wanted to have this cool battle! NO XP!" and the group is all "Fights are fun! We wanna fight!" and the player feels like a rube for having a creative idea.

I think you're judging without context.

What if they had avoided several combats in a row and really wanted to spice up the session with a fight against beetles?

Plus- combats are fun.

Plus- the player could have made a dragon noise to drive the beetles into a trap laid by the PCs. And then both sides win.

I don't get why one player's idea should take precedent over the entire groups fun.

 

[I'm A Banana]

What if they had avoided several combats in a row and really wanted to spice up the session with a fight against beetles?

There's lots of ways to spice up a session that don't step over someone's imaginary fun.

Plus- combats are fun.

Lots of things are fun. Combats don't (or shouldn't) have a monopoly on it.

I don't get why one player's idea should take precedent over the entire groups fun.

I didn't say it should. I don't think the group's fun should run roughshod over a player's fun idea either, though.

It's not cool to "punish" someone for doing something that they think is cool.

 

[Ryujin]

I can't count how many I've been in the middle of a negotiation, with the support of the majority of the party, only to have one player screw us over by starting a battle. It doesn't matter which way it swings, to a fight or away from one, it's selfish when one person derails the situation for everyone else.

 

[Kralin Thornberry]

bovine's feces.

If the rules (both as written and as intended) clearly state that you need to see the origin and destination to target a creature with teleport effect, then no, you cannot ruin the DM's carefully prepared encounter with that cheese. This doubly applies when the text of the purple worm specifically states that there is no line of sight, nor line of effect to creatures swallowed.

I don't think I'm contradicting you here (I hope not, since I snipped the rest of your post!), but according to the Rules Compendium, the user of the teleportation power has to have LoS to the destination, not the recipient. It also states that Neither the user nor the target of the teleportation power has to have LoE to the destination.

So, since the power was "effects 1 or 2 allies within 5 squares of the target", and a swallowed character is most definitely within 5 squares of the target, as long as the bard could see where he wanted him to go, it sounds like a non-abuse of a power to me.

Now, if the power said "1 or 2 allies with 5 squares of the target that you can see", that'd be a different story altogether.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[TarionzCousin]

The real question here is: What kind of instrument would a purple worm bard play?

 

[DracoSuave]

I don't think I'm contradicting you here (I hope not, since I snipped the rest of your post!), but according to the Rules Compendium, the user of the teleportation power has to have LoS to the destination, not the recipient. It also states that Neither the user nor the target of the teleportation power has to have LoE to the destination.

This is true, but it does not cover the central point.

To use -any- power on someone, targetted or not, you have to have line of effect to them.

Teleportation effects are no exception to that general rule.