My @!@#! Player abusing Feather Fall

[Elder-Basilisk]

Well, darn, I didn't realize that playing within the rules automatically made something metagaming. Let's look at a few more examples here:

"I disarm him." It only works because it's how the rules are written. In a different system--like first edition or basic D&D, for instance, it couldn't be done. Even so, it's bizarre to call it metagaming.

For another example:
"I ready an action to disrupt his spell with an arrow." It only works because it's how the rules are written. If there were any such rule in pre-3e editions, I never noticed it. If Rolemaster allowed spells to be disrupted at all, I never noticed it. However, just because the D&D rules allow for such an action doesn't make it metagaming.

So much for the broad assertion "If it works because the rules make it work, it's metagaming."

Now for the qualifier: (as opposed to a reasonable role-playing action). Purposefully drawing attacks IS a reasonable roleplaying action. When I used to compete in kickboxing, I would sometimes attempt to get an opponent to commit to an attack in order to gain an opportunity to do something that would otherwise be risky--not very often, but I would do it. When I was younger and got into fights with my brother, I would sometimes take similar risks. The calculation worked like this: I suspect that I can dodge the attack or that it won't do enough damage to seriously disadvantage me (ie--it'll usually just be a glancing blow), but I think I can get an advantage out of it that's worth the risk. It sounds to me like that is exactly what the characters in both your game and the original poster's game are doing: risking an injury they judge likely to be non-life threatening in order to gain an advantageous position. In your example as well, you highlight the danger of this: some enemies won't be faked out so easily--they have combat reflexes and will still be able to take advantage of the other risk you're taking.

Others have brought up cop movies, etc. (Which may not be entirely realistic but are certainly a part of the action film genre that D&D is pretty darn close to).

As for metagaming and the screw u spell, the metagaming sounds to be just as much on the part of the DM to me. If there are regularly archers readying actions to disrupt spells, that's a nonstandard environment that invites innovative tactics. If there are always archers readying attacks to disrupt spells, it means that "anti-ready" tactics will always be useful. As the DM, if you want to stop the tactic, there's no better way than to stop readying arrows to attack the pc. (I recommend switching it up with grapple, silence spells, etc).

And, as the player demonstrated by switching to Feather Fall, there are plenty of other spells that will make the trick work. (In fact, in a level or two, quickened spells, or right now, swift action spells (from CA, CV, and MiniHB, etc) would make the "fake" a reasonable attack in and of itself. At that point, foes would have to decide whether to interrupt the "fake" or let it go by and take the risk that, instead of casting another spell, the wizard will pull out a wand and fire it). The metamagic rod of quickening is another very good example for this point. With a metamagic rod of quickening, the PC could do this with a spell that's actually a threat.

The only reason it works is because that is how the rules are written (hence metagaming, doing an action that takes advantage of the rules as opposed to doing a reasonable roleplaying action). It is not reasonable to take damage in order to safely get a spell off. Would you in the real world take a knife wound to the chest, just in order pull out your own knife. No. You would back away to pull out a knife and do it at a point in time where you wouldn't get wounded attempting it. Just like to ensure a spell goes off, you duck behind cover. You don't play games with how the readied action works.

If it were a reasonable roleplaying action to create a Screw U spell, everyone would have been doing it for years and it would be part of the game already. Instead, the player found a loophole in the rules and created a spell to take advantage of it.

That is metagaming.

 

[KarinsDad]

Well, darn, I didn't realize that playing within the rules automatically made something metagaming.

If you cannot see the difference between creating a spell for the effect and creating a spell to take advantage of a loophole in the rules, I cannot help you.

Everyone here knows that he did not create the 0th level Screw U spell just to flip off his opponents. And, everyone here knows that most 0th level spells have almost no effect in combat expect in the most extreme circumstances. I applaud the DM for taking it away once he found out how potent of a 0th level spell it was. There is a difference between reasonableness and extremism when it comes to rules lawyering.

 

[Anax]

The only reason it works is because that is how the rules are written (hence metagaming, doing an action that takes advantage of the rules as opposed to doing a reasonable roleplaying action). It is not reasonable to take damage in order to safely get a spell off.

Just a note on this one, which I just noticed in the last reply: of course it is reasonable to take damage in order to safely get a spell off. Here, we have a situation where there's a high probability somebody is ready to attack you. If you try to cast the spell without using any tactics at all, then you *will* be shot at, and there is a (let's say) 50% chance that you will lose the spell. If you apply this tactic, you *will* be shot at (but you were going to be shot at anyway), and there's a 100% chance you'll get your spell off. (Although smarter tactics on the part of the attackers can reduce that--for example, if there are two attackers, one readies an action to attack the person who attempts to cast a spell first, and the other readies to attack the person who attempts to cast a spell second, etc.) So the choice is between taking x damage and having a 50% chance to do Y damage and taking X damage and having a 100% chance to do Y damage. I know which choice I would make.

In fact, it's a similar tradeoff that the archers in this case are making: they could choose to maneuver and attack normally, but instead they have chosen to remain motionless watching for a spell to be cast. They are quite vulnerable to melee attackers while they're doing this, and there's no guarantee that they'll actually disrupt a spell that's cast at them. Why do they do this? Because spells can hit them harder and more quickly than melee attackers generally can--the spellcaster is more dangerous, so they leave themselves open to other attacks in order to take the caster out of action.

To match this up with "stabbed in the chest in order to pull out your own knife", well, that's not exactly a good match for this situation. First, "stabbed in the chest" is sort of fatal sounding, whereas taking n points of damage is not. Second, pulling a knife is something you could ordinarily do without having to be attacked first. A better comparison would be allowing yourself to be wounded in order to exploit an opening in the attacker's defenses. Sure, it's better *not* to get hit, but if you notice that the attacker's swordplay has a flaw, and you can take a fairly light wound in exchange for decapitating him... well, that's not too bad. Of course, if you thought that there was only one opponent and there turn out to be more, you'll wish you'd just avoided taking damage. Same thing applies to the caster: this is a dangerous tactic compared to moving under cover to cast, but depending on the circumstances, it can be a good choice.

And that kind of situational choice is what tactics is all about.

Now, as far as this being metagaming... it is, somewhat. But not for the reasons that you suggest. This is metagaming because the player is using the rules of the game in an odd way to achieve a specific effect. It would be better to introduce a house rule and say "this is the right way to draw fire from enemies prepared to attack a person who is casting spells." I suspect that everybody would be happier with that, although if you intentionally choose a method that this character won't be able to use at all effectively, he would be justifiably grumpy. Bluff would probably work, though--since he has a high intelligence, he could probably afford to spend the skill points the next time he has a chance.

My suggestion would be:

BLUFF (CHA)

The following is a new use for the Bluff skill:

Magical Feint (Psionic Feint): When you suspect an enemy may have readied an action to attack spellcasters, you may make a Bluff check as a move action in order to convince the opponent that you are casting a spell. This allows you to later cast another spell as a standard action, avoiding the distraction of any attacks triggered by your feinted casting attempt. This special use for Bluff may not be attempted untrained.

Check: You must make Bluff check opposed by the opponents' Spellcraft (or Psicraft) checks. You make one roll and each opponent that fails to beat the roll is convinced that you are casting a spell. Your roll takes a -1 penalty per the level of spell you are attempting to feint casting. (i.e. if you attempt to feint casting Fireball, you take a -5 penalty to your check.) Opponents who cannot normally make Spellcraft (or Psicraft) checks because they are untrained are convinced by any such attempt. Opponents who fail their check ascertain that you are casting the spell you attempted to emulate if their Spellcraft check is high enough to identify a spell of that level, or are convinced that you are casting a spell that they could not identify, otherwise.

Action: Performing a Magical Feint (or Psionic Feint) requires a move action. See Special for special rules on the type of action required. This action does not provoke acts of opportunity, but instead appears as if the caster made his or her concentration check.

Special: If you have the Improved Feint feat, then you may perform a Magical Feint (or Psionic Feint) as either an immediate action or as a move action.

Try Again: You may make as many Magical Feint (or Psionic Feint) attempts in a round as you wish. However, each attempt in a single round is at a further -2 penalty. (Second attempt at -2, third attempt at -4, etc.)

Synergy: If you have five or more ranks in Spellcraft (or Psicraft), you gain a +2 synergy bonus when attempting to make a Magical Feint (or Psionic Feint).
​

(Hmm. Added some text to account for a few more cases--like, people who make Spellcraft checks should have some idea what spell is being cast, not just that a spell is being cast. Could use some tightening up, I'm sure.)

This model has a few benefits over the "use an immediate action spell" model:

It provides a way for enemies to avoid being hoodwinked. (Spellcraft ought to suffice for that in the case of actually using a spell, however.)

If you were already allowing the enemies to make Spellcraft checks, then it provides a way for the caster to improve their ability to feint casting a spell--so this is something that can be specialized in.

It is *not* normally an immediate action, but the already existing Improved Feint feat allows it to be used as an immediate action. This provides a further level of specialization that allows 1 round casting time spells to be cast efficiently when using the tactic.

It provides a way for non-casters to attempt to take the damage instead of the caster.

A caster can be expected to always be better at feinting casting than a non-caster, since they will gain the synergy bonus from Spellcraft.

A non-caster can be expected to have a decent chance at telling the difference, *if* he has specialized in fighting spellcasters. If he has not specialized in fighting spellcasters, then he will be at a disadvantage when making such an attempt. (Which is only reasonable: magical arts take training!) There is, however, no need to include something like BAB in the check (as for the normal feint in combat), since the impact of a Magical Feint is much less than that of a normal Feint in combat.


Anyway, I suspect that the caster in this specific case would be slightly irritated that he needs to use a move action now to draw fire. But he would be able to fix that if he chose (using Improved Feint), and even with just a single rank in Bluff, he can convince anyone with no ranks in Spellcraft that a spell is being cast. Even better, any comrade who has at least one rank in Bluff can draw fire instead, which is wonderful for the caster. (But the comrade, of course, has used up a move action to do so.)

Some ways to modify this:

It could be made so that this action is normally an immediate action rather than a move action. I feel this would be too powerful, since non-casters could then do it with no penalty--they don't normally use immediate actions anyway.

The penalty for higher level spells could be removed. (I added this so that at higher levels it's harder to convince the enemy that you're casting Planar Ally than that you're casting Magic Missile.)

This special use could be restricted to spellcasters, or to people who also have ranks in Spellcraft. (If casters: this would be because the feint actually includes drawing on magical energies in such a way as to confuse the issue.)

Opponents with 0 ranks in Spellcraft could be allowed to detect the feint if the bluffer gets a modified roll of less than 0. (This means that you *must* invest a reasonable number of points into Bluff to avoid being detected by untrained enemies.)

The check could be changed from an opposed check to a set DC--perhaps 10 + spell level. (This means that the enemy's skill doesn't matter, but simplifies things.)

Characters could use this technique (with a penalty) to disguise one spell as another--especially useful for Illusionists. (Perhaps one of the best parts of this technique that I've thought of yet--poor Illusionists.) (Hard question: What happens if somebody tries to counterspell using the wrong spell? What if they try to counterspell the wrong spell using Dispel Magic?)

 

[Epametheus]

If you cannot see the difference between creating a spell for the effect and creating a spell to take advantage of a loophole in the rules, I cannot help you.

Everyone here knows that he did not create the 0th level Screw U spell just to flip off his opponents. And, everyone here knows that most 0th level spells have almost no effect in combat expect in the most extreme circumstances. I applaud the DM for taking it away once he found out how potent of a 0th level spell it was. There is a difference between reasonableness and extremism when it comes to rules lawyering.

No, he created a spell to fake out his enemies. If enemies are waiting to attack him when he's casting, then he's got this "blank charge" spell that he developed just for the purpose of provoking enemy fire prematurely.

I'd say that cantrips are just too crappy to ever be castable as swift actions, but it's fine as a first level spell. He's still getting shot, for chrissake's.

Would you still have a problem with this if he was using a quickened Dancing Lights for the same result?

 

[KarinsDad]

No, he created a spell to fake out his enemies.

No, he created a spell to ensure that his next spell cannot get disrupted.

If enemies are waiting to attack him when he's casting, then he's got this "blank charge" spell that he developed just for the purpose of provoking enemy fire prematurely.

I'd say that cantrips are just too crappy to ever be castable as swift actions, but it's fine as a first level spell. He's still getting shot, for chrissake's.

Irrelevant. When combined with Protection From Arrows or Mirror Image (and even without them), this is a combo that basically negates a game mechanic and it does it against multiple opponents simultaneously. No different than a 0th level (or even 1st level) spell that negated Sunders or Trips or any other game mechanic.

Sorry, I am immune to spell disruption by Readied Actions because I found a loophole in the rules.

Sorry, I am immune to spell disruption by Attacks of Opportunities because I found a loophole in the rules.

Sorry, I am immune to spell disruption by Touch Attacks because I found a loophole in the rules.

None of this should be allowed in a game.

Would you still have a problem with this if he was using a quickened Dancing Lights for the same result?

I would have no problem with it being a 4th level spell, the earliest you can Quicken a 0th level spell.

He uses one medium level spell to ensure that another spell can be cast. Not a problem. Using a zero or first level spell to do this is imbalanced.

 

[Mistwell]

On behalf of the EnWorld Fantasy Basketball League ( http://basketball.fantasysports.yahoo.com/nba/3426 ) I feel compelled to defend this tactic as NOT meta-gaming.

Spell vs. Archer combat is a fairly typical encounter in the world of D&D. I'd say it is at least vaguely analogous to real world Basketball, layup vs. basket defender.

It is extremely typical for a player on offense, attempting to make a layup at the basket (that is, for non-basketball fans, taking a shot from close to the basket, rather than from far away, and "laying it up" to the basket), to face a defender who has literally readied an action to block any attempted shot by the offensive player. The defender stands near the basket, waiting to jump and try to block the shot. They look for the signs of a jump, a muscle twitch, a look, a spin of the ball, etc...and react when they think the shot is being attempted by the offensive player. If they are correct, there is a good chance they can block the shot, as it is very hard for an offensive player to "concentrate" enough to get the ball into the basket when they have some other guys hands on the ball, or in their face, right at the critical moment.

It is also a fairly standard tactic for the offensive player to bluff at the last moment, and either pass the ball to another offensive player near the basket, or move another way, or jump back and take a longer shot while falling away (called a fade-away shot), or simply (and this is the analogous move) to jump up looking like you are shooting, and then coming right back down again still holding the ball...triggering the defensive player's attempted block, and then sidestepping that defensive player as he comes back down and taking the easy shot.

It's pretty much the same situation (give or take, well, a lot). In real life, people will fake an offensive move, thus triggering an action to block that offensive move from the defender, and then take the REAL offensive move before the defending player can get back into position to defend again.

It's not metagaming at all to play this way, using tactics, expecting a readied action to block your attack, and fake that attack to trigger the readied defense before taking the real attack action.

If it can happen in real life, then it just isn't metagaming at all for it to happen in the game.

Okay...I have basketball on the brain...sorry

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Now you're being silly. Neither the spell nor the tactic makes the character immune to disruption by readied actions. (And it certainly doesn't need to be combined with mirror image and protection from arrows--if protection from arrows works at all, it's sufficient by itself, and combined with mirror image any kind of fakery would be superfluous).

What it does do is enable the character to fake out opponents without spellcraft and with basic readied actions. There's a big difference there. The wizard who is waiting to disrupt a spell "worth disrupting" with his magic missile spell will still disrupt the spell in the caster uses this tactic. If the archers figure out "hey, I don't know what he's casting, but that little spell thing he does doesn't seem to do anything and I'm not hitting him in time to disrupt it; I think I'll wait for a standard action or greater spell next time," it won't work.

Similarly, taking a movent or miscellaneous AoO in order to get a spell off without risk of disruption does not render a character immune to disruption by AoOs. (As the character will find out if he tries it on a foe with combat reflexes or a similar special ability).

For that matter, AoOs and readied actions to disrupt spells could just as easily be viewed as cheap loopholes in the rules that enable characters with "just a bow" or "just a club" to negate entire categories of mechanics: spells and spell like abilities.

Half of your rhetoric here seems to maintain that any strategy that gives the players a way to neutralize obvious tactics is a loophole in the rules. They're not and you know it. I say you know it because the other half of your rhetoric says "well, OK, it's actually fine as a tactic, but it should use a higher level spell slot." IME, OTOH, low-mid level wizards have few enough slots that using a first or second level spell for this purpose is just fine balance-wise. It's one fewer magic missile or ray of enfeeblement he'll be throwing. For high level wizards, using the quickened/swift spell action is a sufficient cost in itself. That's a round where he won't be casting a quickened ray of enfeeblement, assay resistance, quickened scorching ray, etc. or using a metamagic rod of quickening to unleash a quickened chain lightning.

No, he created a spell to ensure that his next spell cannot get disrupted.

Irrelevant. When combined with Protection From Arrows or Mirror Image (and even without them), this is a combo that basically negates a game mechanic and it does it against multiple opponents simultaneously. No different than a 0th level (or even 1st level) spell that negated Sunders or Trips or any other game mechanic.

Sorry, I am immune to spell disruption by Readied Actions because I found a loophole in the rules.

Sorry, I am immune to spell disruption by Attacks of Opportunities because I found a loophole in the rules.

Sorry, I am immune to spell disruption by Touch Attacks because I found a loophole in the rules.

None of this should be allowed in a game.

I would have no problem with it being a 4th level spell, the earliest you can Quicken a 0th level spell.

He uses one medium level spell to ensure that another spell can be cast. Not a problem. Using a zero or first level spell to do this is imbalanced.

 

[green slime]

Serious archers do not wait around for the wizard to get an action. They make certain the sieve/wizard springs all sorts of leaks, ASAP. With Rapid Shot, and given the low AC of the typical wizard, most arrows are going to hit. archers with rapid shot should always choose to shoot 2 (or more) arrows rather than waiting around to shoot only one. (and that could be claimed to be metagaming...) A dead or unconscious wizard will not be casting any spells at all.

Eldritch Knight Archers also have no problem discerning between feather fall and fireball.

I fail to see how this tactic is so game breaking. Firstly, he is using 1st level slot (which is limited in number to 4 or 5). IMO, the most effective spell in the game is magic missile. Every feather fall memorised is a boon, not a bane, for the DM.

In our experience, with defensive spells and Maxed out concentration, the concentration check is not such a big deal anyway after the wizard hits 10th level. So why waste a 1st level spell slot?

 

[RigaMortus]

Slightly off topic, but I am just curious... Those who feel this tactic is metagaming...

In a campaign I play in, I often purposely provoke AoOs (I have mobility so it is unlikely I will get hit) so that the large minotaur in our group can make grapple attempts w/o being provoked himself and thus negating the grapple attempt. The minotaur obviously has the size and strength for the grapple, but a low AC so will often get disrupted, which is why I "bait" the opponent and provoke for him. Am I metagaming? Bare in mind, the opponent may have Combat Reflexes and I would not be aware of that, so this tactic doesn't work 100% of the time. But still, would ya'll considering that metagaming?

I would think the spellcasting tactic is the same thing as what me and my minotaur partner do.

It went like this:

Retrieve a components (free action)
Drop it (free action)
Cast Feather Fall on dropping component (free action)
Get hit or missed by arrows or whatever.
Move and cast spell.

This doesn't work. You can only "retrieve a spell component" as a free action as part of casting a spell. Just like you are allowed to make a touch attack as part of casting a spell.

If he does not immediately cast a spell from retrieving the spell component (USING that spell component), then it is a move action.

 

[RigaMortus]

By the footnote on the Concentration skill table, it is my belief that it says that you cannot disrupt a spell that takes less than 1 action to cast.

Agreed - with the addition of "1 standard action to cast."

What if it was a Move Action to cast? Could it be disrupted then? Hey, it could happen...