Is it wrong for Troll's to fight defensively?

[dcollins]

Technically speaking, the only ranged weapons you can CDG with are a bow and a crossbow, and you have to be adjacent. See the PHB, p.133... But to heck with the rules.

Certainly seems to be the concensus in this thread.

 

[hong]

Certainly seems to be the concensus in this thread.

You make it sound like it's a negative thing.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

I would also like to comment that "fearlessly fights to the death" seems to be a phrase way too common in the MM. It seems that every other monster the party is going to encounter is going to sit there and fight them to the death to guaruntee they get the XP for killing it.

I am sure that even a troll would figure out that being knocked unconscious from too much subdual damage is generally bad for its health. It doesn't matter that it may not have personally experienced this for itself. As far as I know I haven't been killed, and yet I have an idea that being killed tends to be bad for my health.

 

[Dr. Zoom]

You don't have to kill it to get the XP, just defeat it. This includes killing it, but if you fight it and it runs away, you still defeated the encounter and get the XP.

 

[Gromm]

You make it sound like it's a negative thing.

It is in a forum thats about rules questions.

There is a growing tendency for people to ask if something can be done, and then when told "no" and having the rules quoted the response is usually "Well I think it shouldn't be that way."

People are more than welcome to do what they want in thier own campaign as long as they realize they are at that point house ruling and not following the rules.

If you want to allow oil to be used as a CDG go for it, its your game. Just don't suggest that its in anyway actually in the rules.

As far as it making sense it doesn't really. Think about a human on the ground, pouring oil on them and lighting them on fire is bad, but not any worse than asy lighting them on fire while they are alive and kicking. You can't really pour burning oil down thier throat to "make it more effective" since it wont really burn very well down there due to lack of oxygen.

Consider this. Which is more likely to kill you?

1) Being knocked out and having a flammable liquid poured on you for an instant (since a CDG is an action that happens in ONE round, not over the course of several rounds), and then having it extinguished right away.

2)Being shot in the head.

Personally I'll go with shot in the head killing you instantly almost everytime.

The problem with flaming substances being used to CDG is that over the short term they don't do massive tissue damage (unlike a weapon smashing a skull, or cutting a throat). It takes time for the fire to burn the flesh and what have you. Even with a flaming liquid in say your lungs, you wouldn't instantly die from it. Odds are you would suffocate before the fire damage killed you, and even then it would take a while for that to happen. In other words you would not be killed THAT instant, as is the case with a CDG (which is the reason you must use melee or bow attacks).

 

[hong]

It is in a forum thats about rules questions.

And?

There is a growing tendency for people to ask if something can be done, and then when told "no" and having the rules quoted the response is usually "Well I think it shouldn't be that way."

And?

People are more than welcome to do what they want in thier own campaign as long as they realize they are at that point house ruling and not following the rules.

Exactly.

If you want to allow oil to be used as a CDG go for it, its your game. Just don't suggest that its in anyway actually in the rules.

Nonsense. If this is indeed the "Rules Forum", then arguing that it's in the rules is the ONLY way to go. Such an argument may be incorrect, but incorrect arguments have nothing to do with the topicality of the subject.

In any case, who, exactly, is arguing such a thing?

As far as it making sense it doesn't really.

Making sense also has nothing to do with it, one way or the other.