Knockout on a Ghost?

[Regicide]

Reading this. . .I'm not sure you have read Lord of the Rings.

Wow, you're RIGHT! I'd completely forgotten all about the bar scene where Frodo took out a ghost with a jug of wine, or the time Sam blinding barraged by bouncing his sword off the walls to hit 4 different enemy in one shot, or the time that Boramir got shot full of arrows and lay dying but Aragorn gave a peppy speech and brought him back to full health. Man, what was I thinking? Xena and Lord of the Rings are, like, EXACTLY THE SAME! Wow! *golf clap*

 

[Rechan]

Regardless of how much song and dance you go through, if the player hates 4e, they're going to hate 4e. They are going to whine and moan every time something is different than their preferred system.

You're better off not playing with them.

Seriously, they will be a constant drag on your enjoyment. A buzzkill that will effect your DMing.

But to answer the OP: If you can attack a ghost with a table leg, and it still takes half damage from the attack, then there's obviously something in there that can be damaged by your table leg. If you can HURT it with a table leg, then you can no doubt knock it down by shoving the table leg in there and heaving downwards, pulling the ghost with the blow. Or he hit it so hard, the ghost breaks into pieces, forcing it to spend a move action to "pull itself back together" (I use the same for knocking an ooze prone). Or it's hit so hard that it phases out completely, and has to summon enough strength just to be able to effect the material world.

You have to look at the Effect in broad terms (Moving X squares, being forced to spend a move action to recuperate), and ask, "What makes sense for this situation/monster?" For instance, the Rogue with the Positioning Strike - the rogue could hit the inside of a knee joint, causing the four legged monster to stumble during its movement. Or the rogue could have hit the monster on a sensitive spot like the nose, causing the monster to reactively JUMP AWAY in pain and surprise. Huge monsters use a lot of momentum when they attack - the rogue fakes one way, the monster attacks, the rogue darts back - forcing the monster's momentum to take him, as the rogue attacks him on the way out (like a bull fighter).

 

[Fanaelialae]

If the fighter had line of effect to the target, then the bonfire can't have been all that big. The target would most likely have been able to see him through it.

In which case there's no reason why the target might not have decided on a terminally heroic "leap through the bonfire".

In general I agree, but these circumstances were rather specific. All I'm saying is that, used sparingly, saying no is a viable option, especially if you aren't a jerk about it. Honestly, if a particular use of a power would reduce the fun around the table, I think it's perfectly okay to disallow it.

In the case I stated (yes, it wasn't technically a giant bonfire, merely a sizable one) we had a fighter who was mostly surrounded but had put his back to a 5' bonfire. The bonfire was very dangerous (something like 3d6+5 fire damage when entered and every round one remained), difficult terrain, and granted cover (but not total cover). The target in question was a bloodied troll leader who had just managed to disengage himself from the party fighter after taking quite a beating and had retreated to the other side of the fire. Due to the setup of the field, the only legal space that he could stand in if he moved adjacent to the fighter had one of his squares in the fire.

The fighter said he was using Come and Get It, and looking at the scenario I just couldn't see how he could taunt or trick a troll of all things to stand in the fire, despite that I could have probably used it as the basis for a halfway decent Warren Zevon pun (trolls are none too bright but fire is one of the only things they actually fear, which was why the party had made the bonfires in the first place). I asked him if he could think of some rationale for it and his response (to paraphrase) was, "Yeah, I hadn't really thought of it, but that would be kind of stupid; can I do something else instead?" to which I responded, "Of course".

CaGI isn't mind control or even an ultra-brilliant warlord stratagem; it's a trick/taunt. I wouldn't consider a pit a legal adjacent position, and this seemed pretty close to the same thing.

Well, using hazards and the terrain strategically is a part of smart playing the rules, if you try to rationalize the functioning of some powers, especialy those that make forced movement which the Warlord class has in abundance, and prevent them to work you will be crippling the players ability to make strategic decisions.

Btw, there is a rule for that exact situation. The creature would get a saving throw and drop prone as the bonfire qualifys precisely as being Hazardrous Terrain, its the same situation as if it were the edge of a cliff.

Actually, it's a bit of a grey area I think. CaGI isn't technically forced movement as defined by the game (push, pull, or slide) but rather a shift that must be performed in a particular manner.

The fighter has used it at least a dozen times, maybe even two dozen, over the course of many games to great effect. It's an amazing lock down power. This one time I ruled that one target (the troll who'd have to stand in a blazing inferno to get to him) would be immune to effect. The other targets were still viable, and I informed him of this before the action was resolved and allowed him to use a different power instead.

IMO, I'm not exactly some killer DM out to "cripple my players' ability to make strategic decisions". (I am an evil DM, but that's got everything to do with my tendency for making puns while behind the screen, rather than anything like trying to screw over my players.) I'm just doing the DM's job of making judgment calls and trying to maximize fun for everyone at the table. It's possible that I made a mistake and my players would have found a troll jumping into a bonfire to be totally awesome, but I think I know my players well enough to say that it's more likely that we'd all have noticed it was a bit stupid and been annoyed. In over a year of DMing, this was the first time (at least in my recollection) that I've said no in this respect.

While a good DM should strive to say yes (but), I don't think there's anything wrong with saying no once in a while. If neither you nor the players can think of a reasonable rationale for something, it might be time to consider saying no.

 

[Rechan]

In general I agree, but these circumstances were rather specific. All I'm saying is that, used sparingly, saying no is a viable option, especially if you aren't a jerk about it. Honestly, if a particular use of a power would reduce the fun around the table, I think it's perfectly okay to disallow it.

In the case I stated (yes, it wasn't technically a giant bonfire, merely a sizable one) we had a fighter who was mostly surrounded but had put his back to a 5' bonfire. The bonfire was very dangerous (something like 3d6+5 fire damage when entered and every round one remained), difficult terrain, and granted cover (but not total cover). The target in question was a bloodied troll leader who had just managed to disengage himself from the party fighter after taking quite a beating and had retreated to the other side of the fire. Due to the setup of the field, the only legal space that he could stand in if he moved adjacent to the fighter had one of his squares in the fire.

I would have had the Troll try to leap OVER the fire. Said troll's athletics score was likely through the roof, and it probably could clear the fire and jump over the Fighter while it was at it.

But, seeing as it was a TROLL of all things, I think you made a fair choice.

 

[Garthanos]

I do think imagination is king in rolegaming
Arragorn faught along side ghostly / spectral beings and a good guess that while they were effective ... they were not impervious to the orcs and other fairly mortal evils arrayed against them....

And most significantly what has been pointed out if your weapons CAN disrupt it even with half damage there is something there to disrupt

The old saying goes... if it bleeds it can be killed.... even if what it bleeds is a glowing otherworld goo which fades in to nothingness.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Wow, you're RIGHT! I'd completely forgotten all about the bar scene where Frodo took out a ghost with a jug of wine, or the time Sam blinding barraged by bouncing his sword off the walls to hit 4 different enemy in one shot, or the time that Boramir got shot full of arrows and lay dying but Aragorn gave a peppy speech and brought him back to full health. Man, what was I thinking? Xena and Lord of the Rings are, like, EXACTLY THE SAME! Wow! *golf clap*

Yeah, I think you are owed a golf clap for that. Also you misspelt Boromir.

Start by explaining how sneak attack works on skeletons, zombies, oozes, constructs, elementals, etc...

No, YOU explain why it doesn't.

Simply put, even an inanimate object like a bridge or a door has weak points. Why would the things you listed not?

 

[KKDragonLord]

No, YOU explain why it doesn't.

Simply put, even an inanimate object like a bridge or a door has weak points. Why would the things you listed not?

these beigns are all a lot different than a block of ice, a door, a bridge or a piece of wood.

Rogues aren't trained in karate, or engineering or an indeep knowledge of anatomy.

They cant do anything to a fire elemental other than whacking it on its amorphous body, just like a fighter would.

either way, i am quite sure you won't concede to my point since it looks so obviously absurd to you, but i am also sure that a lot of people would agree with with me, so i won't... Hey, folks. Piratecat here, breaking into the screed to point out an example of how not to reply to someone. This post manages to insult them even as it fumes "Fine, if I can't convince you, I'm insulting you, taking my toys and going home." Please don't do this. Now, on with the object lesson. ~ PCat

...even bother wasting my time on you as you are obviously choosing to be dense and ignore 20+ years of experience with rogues and their limitations for sneak attacking and backstabbing that the other incarnations of the game previously had. If that simple catch all "weak point" explanation of yours is enough for you and your group thats fine, but for some of us it just doesn't cut it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think I agree with the OP within limits. It seems perfectly reasonable to rule that a bonfire is not terrain a troll can enter in this particular case. Maybe most "ordinary" type natural monsters wouldn't. Letting the player cause some slightly different result in a very particular case is fine. OK, it isn't the letter of the RAW for that power, but so what? If the player cooks up some easily repeatable way of making one of their powers work better than its intended to, then the DM probably needs to consider play balance and work out something more reasonable. Just like with stunts though, page 42 can usually be applied. You want to have your power do something extra special that makes sense within the story? OK, fine, but its going to impose an extra skill or ability check.

Once in a great while you may run into situations where it could even be legitimate to simply rule something to be situationally impossible. The classic example would be a halfling moving through the space occupied by a gelatinous cube. Technically its legal by RAW. In the case of this one monster it really doesn't usually make a whole lot of sense. OTOH it isn't something that will come up often enough to constitute nerfing an ability the PC is relying on all the time.

Critics like to take a puritanical stand on 4e rules and make some of them look absurd, but I really seriously doubt the designers of the game intended anything like that. The standard mechanics for powers should work in the standard way, but the reason for this is to make the game reasonably balanced and playable, not to make it absurd or impossible to describe action in a believable way. Exactly how much extemporization is ideal will vary from one group to another of course. What's the worst case scenario? You're no worse off than you were with any other edition of D&D where the DM was still faced with exactly the same sort of questions.

 

[Mort_Q]

I thought we were supposed to be avoiding edition-wars?

 

[Chimerasame]

Come and Get It is a fundamentally weird power; it's one of the forerunners for "most implausible martial power" in a certain thread I remember from the Gleemax forum. (I wonder if she'll come out of her cocoon on schedule...)

A few people raised the point that, by RAW, if a slide or somesuch would put a creature in an instant death position, (like over a cliff), then at the DM's discretion it can make a saving throw to be prone at the edge of the cliff instead. I'd definitely say this applies to a troll passing through a bonfire; maybe even anyone passing through a bonfire. It's like, momentarily enraged, it begins lunging for the Fighter forgetting that fire -hurts-, but then as it takes a step towards the flame, it realizes, hey, that's maybe not a good idea, at the last minute, and falls to the ground as it tries to stop its movement. I wish I could provide a page reference for that rule; I think it's probably DMG?

Personally as a DM I'd probably allow forced movement to auto-kill minions and perhaps even standards (when it would logically do so), but elites and solos would get saves.