My @!@#! Player abusing Feather Fall

[Ridley's Cohort]

As a Balance Nazi, the only problem I see is that generally level 0 spells should not be Free Actions. My 11th level Wizard is, in fact, constantly wishing he had more 1st level spells. Every Feather Fall (or ScrewU) is a Protection from Evil or Enlarge Person he does not have for his buddies.

If this were a 11th+ level Wizard I would laugh in the face any DM who got irate over his archers failing to disrupt spells. If this is a lower level Wizard he is using very precious spell slots and delays to avoid disruptions. I call that good tactics.

The metagaming argument is based on arbitrary presumptions about what "should" work. These particular simple tactics only work at low and low-mid Wizards anyway. If the in question Wizard is paying reasonable in game costs (an appropriate spell slot, delaying his initiative, watching NPCs carefully, etc.) then the metagaming argument is just a lot of hot air.

Would it be metagaming if my 11th Wizard drops a Quickened Glitterdust or Quickened Stinking Cloud on the archers and then follows up with a Fireball without fear of disruption?

 

[entr0py]

Meta-gaming or not, the combat in the game is tactical and this tactic breaks no rules. I say its fine, and as DM your job is simple. What goes around - comes around. Use it against the players.

I personally feel all the combat maneuvers are too low risk, and too easy to do successfully. Trip especially -- you get to sweep someone's legs and knock them flat by merely making a touch attack and a strength roll? You mean armor and shield have nothing to do with making that tactic just a little bit harder to pull off? But it is RAW, and as such, ppl will design character builds to capitalize on a strong tactic. A good DM will give it right back to the players or find other ways to challenge them.

Tactically D&D is like a grandiose version of Rock - Paper - Scissors -- but the DM always knows what the players will throw

 

[drnuncheon]

Last I heard, Combat Casting does not make you immune to spell failure for taking damage. Guess you must be playing a different rule set than the rest of us.

It can make you immune to AoOs, though, for at least some of your spells. A 1 is not an automatic failure on a skill roll, so if you have a bonus of 15+your spell level, you'll never take an AoO for casting that spell. And if your concentration is high enough, it can make you immune to normal hits. Same rules as everyone else.

With regard to the "using Feather Fall" to get the same effect, I would rule as DM that you are using too many free actions "during another action" (free actions are taken during other actions, not outside of them). One free action to pull out the bat guano, one free action to drop it, and one swift action to cast Feather Fall on it. Limit it to two free actions per move or standard action and this tactic disappears since you cannot simultaneously cast Feather Fall while casting another spell and not have both possibly be disrupted by the readied arrows.

So, you'd think it was OK if he pulled out the bat guano as an action beforehand? Or if he dropped something he was already holding in his hand (like a staff, a dagger, or a lantern)? It kinda seems like a very specific ruling, and one that wouldn't really accomplish what you want.

J

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

With regard to the "using Feather Fall" to get the same effect, I would rule as DM that you are using too many free actions "during another action" (free actions are taken during other actions, not outside of them). One free action to pull out the bat guano, one free action to drop it, and one swift action to cast Feather Fall on it. Limit it to two free actions per move or standard action and this tactic disappears since you cannot simultaneously cast Feather Fall while casting another spell and not have both possibly be disrupted by the readied arrows.

That is not a "solution" at all. I can just carry a few copper pennies in my left hand and drop one as a Free action. Or drop my dagger.

 

[Diirk]

The difference between the game example and your example is that the Wizard GUARANTEES that he will still make his shot (shy of going below 1 hit point, but this tactic wouldn't be used if the Wizard was on low hit points), no matter WHO the defender is. The best archer in the world and the Wizard 100% all of the times makes sure that the spell is not interrupted.

It doesn't gaurantee it, though. The archer could ready an action to disrupt the second spell being cast, and disrupt the real spell just fine... or a multitude of other possibilities. The wizard might get away with it once per fight, but then the opponents will see what he's done and know better. The reason the basketball analogy falls apart so much here is that basketball isn't usually played to the death, so finding out the other teams tactics etc beforehand isn't as hard as it can be sometimes in DnD

 

[RigaMortus]

This, too, causes problems. The interrupts are resolved before the triggering action - that doesn't mean they begin before the triggering action. In other words, the triggering action is not atomic - it can be divided (in this case only).

Archer: "I ready an action to shoot him if he speaks a word"
Wizard: "Ab-"
Archer's bow: "p'toing!"
Wizard: "Ungh!"
Wizard: "-raxas..."

This is how I see it to, otherwise you get into paradoxes.

 

[Mistwell]

Thank you for proving the opposite of what you intended to prove.

In real life, even if you attempt to fake out the defender, sometimes he STILL blocks the shot.

And, if you played your monsters a bit more intelligently...by having some waiting until the SECOND spell cast, you too could still blovk the shot even with a fake-out.

That is the reason the archers get a to hit roll. That is the reason the Wizard gets a Concentration roll.

No, if you followed my example, the concentration check comes in when the defender's readied action goes off WITHOUT the fake-out. With the fake-out, the shot usually goes in. This is, in fact, the primary reason so many players get fouled near the basket...defenders tend to just foul them before the shot rather than making the attempt to decide whether they should block the first apparent shot, or wait for the fake and try to block the second apparent shot.

Of course, most Basketball players consider fouling under the basket, particularly against a person who is a poor free-thrower, to be gaming the system

Some of the to hit rolls miss sometimes. Some of the time, all of the to hit rolls miss. Some of the time, the Concentration roll gets made.

That all comes into play with an attempted block of an actual shot attempt...not the fake-out.

The difference between the game example and your example is that the Wizard GUARANTEES that he will still make his shot (shy of going below 1 hit point, but this tactic wouldn't be used if the Wizard was on low hit points), no matter WHO the defender is.

I totally 100% disagree. Your defenders are fully capable of readying an action to attempt to block the second attempt to cast a spell in the same round...which is exactly what many basketball defenders try to do. You just don't want them to ready the action that way, which is your own fault.

The best archer in the world and the Wizard 100% all of the times makes sure that the spell is not interrupted.

Unless, of course, you do the obvious thing and ready against the second spell, not the first.

Hence, the reason it is metagaming. Making yourself immune to a gaming possibility merely because of how the rules are written. It doesn't happen in basketball, it shouldn't happen in the game.

Thanks for your help. Our side of this position could not have done it without you.

Your sarcasm not withstanding, my analogy still stands, and still disproves your position. Some defenders do not react to the first apparent shot/spell attempt. Either it's because they can tell a fake-out (IE they make their spellcraft check), or their couch TOLD them to wait for the second one, or their experience tells them to wait for the second one (in which case their readied action goes off only for the second shot/spell attempt in the same round).

This is not metagaming. It's exactly what would happen in real life. If people are constantly having their offensive moves interupted by defenders readying an action to interupt them, they are going to come up with their own tactics to fake-out the defender. And, eventually, the defenders will come up with their own tactics to deal with that situation (such as readying only against the second apparent offensive move, or improving their skill in identifying an actual offensive move as it is happening).

You just don't personally like the tactic, and are using a nonapplicable general argument against it to try and explain your position. I think your position is not only flawed, but will come back to haunt you in the future. If you decide in your game that this is "metagaming", then it is only a matter of time before your players point out something in your own DM'ing tactics that lets the monsters "metagame" according to this precedent you are setting up for them. It will devolve into further arguments, and hurt your game in general. If you don't like the tactic, either work on tactics to deal with it, or rule that swift/immediate/free actions cannot be the subject of a readied action, and be done with it.

 

[Caliban]

Players are going to meta-game from time to time. Sometimes a lot of the time. That's a simple fact of life. Complaining about it or using DM fiat to force people to play the way you want them do doesn't make things any better. It just makes everyone annoyed and irritable.

If you feel they are meta-gaming to an unreasonable degree, adjust the bad guys tactics so that it no longer works. Have the bad guys meta-game just enough to counter his tactic, without telling the player. Let him figure it out.

Another thing to consider: The DMG, page 25, Adjudicating the Ready Action states "If a character specifies a readied action and then decides not to perform the action when the conditions are met, the standard rule is that the character can keep his action readied."
The DM has the option of forcing a DC 15 wisdom check to avoid taking the action, but it's not required.

So it could break down like this:

Bad guy readies an action for when the spell caster casts a spell.

Spellcaster casts a free action spell (thereby meeting the conditions for the ready action).

Bad guy decides not to take the readied action, since the spell is a free/swift action (which should be obvious).

Spellcaster now has to decide if he wants to risk casting a regular spell, or whip out a wand, move behind cover, or any of a dozen other things he could do instead.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Bad guy decides not to take the readied action, since the spell is a free/swift action (which should be obvious).

...as per the section in the DMG (early pages, can't remember exactly) where it suggests appropriate descriptive text for certain actions... including casting free action spells

Interestingly, it is difficult to remember a situation in any game I've played in or ran since 3e started that any archer has taken a readied action to attempt to disrupt a spellcaster. In every case the archers typically think "full attack, rapid shot, take the blighter down ASAP". They know that if they aim at the wizard the wizard is likely to take as his action "move out of line of sight to archers, cast spell", thus rendering the archers actions useless.

If there was an ambush situation where the spellcasters are likely to be unaware of the readying archers it might happen. If the party got initiative on a very powerful caster who was going to cast the Ultimate Doom (tm) spell then they might attempt to disrupt his spellcasting through a readied action.

But it hasn't happened yet. Just shooting has been the superior tactic to date!

Cheers

 

[Plane Sailing]

A PC dropped unconscious next to a Giant and next to the party Druid. The Druid, fearing that the PC might be close to dead, decided to heal him, but didn't want to risk losing the spell from an Attack of Opportunity from the Giant.

So, the player declared that the Druid would move and cast a spell. He moved away 5 feet, the Giant did an AoO against him and hit him, and then he moved back 5 feet and tried to heal the fallen PC.

I just have to ask... why didn't the druid consider casting defensively? I suppose he might have put no ranks at all into concentration (in which case it serves him right) but that would have been the best choice for healing the comerade - especially when facing the possibility of an AoO from a giant!

Cheers