My @!@#! Player abusing Feather Fall

[Piratecat]

Deep breaths, gang. I'm not surprised that Two needed to get that out and said, but let's continue the thread without an antagonistic tone.

Thanks.

 

[RigaMortus]

Where else can we really go with this? There are several very good ways to deal with this that people have suggested. You are the DM, so imploy them. I personally like the idea about having 1 archer ready his action for one spell, and the other archer ready for the second spell.

Then again, you ARE the DM. It's not like you have to accounce the NPC's thoughts. Whether they fire on the first or second spell being cast is irrelevant. You control that and do not need to explain why or how the NPC archers (that you control) readied their actions. Sure, hints like "the archers have their bows trained on you, but have no fired yet" are great hints and even add to the immersion.

At 200+ posts, what's the problem at this point?

 

[Pbartender]

I brought the issue up originally because of Player X's cantrip tactic and wanted opinions/comments.

Simply put then... He can't do it nearly as easily as either you or he seem to think. Both of you need to open up your Rulebooks and read the relevant rules a lot more carefully.

Reread this entire thread from the beginning, and you'll find that all the specific rules and how they work have been pointed out for you in detail several pages ago. If it makes you feel better, no one else seemed to have noticed either.

Really, there's no point in berating Two, here. He's got the answers he was looking for, even if none of us realize it yet.

 

[Shadowdweller]

Yeah, yeah...yet ANOTHER person's opinions.

Metagaming: Pretty much for the reasons others have expressed above with respect to feints and faking, I don't think any is going on here.

HOWEVER: Although this is a slippery slope for reasons I'll get into below, I think it's pretty undeniable that the caster in question IS/WAS trying to fake out the archers. Thus it might be reasoned that it already deserves a feint check or some such. I'd probably rule it differently than was suggested above, but that's largely immaterial. Assuming the spell was already put into effect, seems like allowing this to go off as a "free action feint" is entirely reasonable...thus the spell in question (or Feather Fall) could be used as a quicker sort of feint.

DRAWBACKS: The "slippery slope" is that Feinting in game terms is a specific action with a specific effect. Ruling otherwise creates problems since there are many other instances we IRL would probably classify as a type of feint, such as: A fighter with multiple attacks uses the first for something that provokes an AOO, an unarmed strike for instance (and to make it tactically sound, let's say this is an offhand). The second is used for a grapple check...something that might be more important ultimately and vulnerable to disruption. And there is the difficulty in ruling what exactly is the player's intent, such as a quickened magic missile before the higher-level nuking for instance.

INTERRUPTING QUICKENED ACTIONS: For similar reasons, it also seems dangerous to disallow readied responses ("I shoot as soon as he starts speaking") to free actions, regardless of whether that would technically stop the quickened spell.

Ultimately, I think the best way to handle it is, as someone previously suggested, to have (some) Archers ready in response to "The first spell cast that takes longer than a swift action". The more intelligent and wizard-experienced types might be prepared for such tactics. The less magic-experienced or intelligent (i.e. ogres) might be fooled by such feinting tricks.

 

[two]

confused again

Simply put then... He can't do it nearly as easily as either you or he seem to think. Both of you need to open up your Rulebooks and read the relevant rules a lot more carefully.

Reread this entire thread from the beginning, and you'll find that all the specific rules and how they work have been pointed out for you in detail several pages ago. If it makes you feel better, no one else seemed to have noticed either.

Really, there's no point in berating Two, here. He's got the answers he was looking for, even if none of us realize it yet.

I have read the entire thread. I now believe the rules are as follows. Please DO correct me if I'm (still) mistaken.

1) Casting a free action spell is casting a spell which will trigger mundane "attempt to interrupt if they cast a spell" readied actions.
2) Casting Feather Fall without a valid target causes the spell to fail, however, the spell was still cast (triggering the readied action) -- pace Hypersmurf.
3) A free action cantrip is either a bad idea (because it allows triggering of readied actions) or it's a good use of a custom cantrip (tactical spellcasting feint). It such a specialized use, that perhaps a cantrip is OK. I don't know.
4) Free action spells can't be interrupted, or maybe they can. I don't really care; this is beside the point. Free action spells ARE spells, they are cast, thus they trigger the readied action -- that's the point.

BY THE RULES, I believe Player X is strictly legit. When he had the cantrip and used it to get readied actions to trigger -- that was legal. When he now uses Feather Fall to get readied action to trigger -- that was and still is legal.

Are you saying that there is something Player X is doing that's directly going against an unambiguous rule?

Aside from the struct rules question, lots of suggestions have been made:

1) Let the player have his fun.
2) Take away the cantrip, let him use Feather Fall.
3) Stop being a dork and using so many readied actions.
4) Grapple, use nets, tanglefoot bags, etc. more and use readied actions less.
5) Use continual damage stuff more (fire, etc.) and readied actions less.
6) Stop ruining everyone's fun.
7) Use meta-gaming information with NPC's to get around the free action spell, i.e. "i ready an action on a non-free action spell" or "I ready an action to smack the wizard with my spear on the second spell he casts this round," etc.

I am implementing 2), 4), 5). Player X seems to be having 1) so I'm not worried about it. 6) is a non issue, as is 3). 7) I just can't justify. I just can't see typical mooks being able to distinguish between a free action spell and a "normal" spell, even if they had somebody inform them about the party's tactics (very, very uncommon). As a player, I'd be pretty annoyed if my GM pulled out a readied action such as "I shoot the wizard after he attempt to fake me out with a free action spell thus interrupting his second spell". That just stinks of gorilla-ish GM "me GM you PC me get around your tactic with brute force." I won't do that.

So, now that I beleive it's legal, and I've removed the cantrip, I'll allow Player X to burn his 1st level spells once in a while as "readied action" feints. My next project: stacking a few battles one-after-another in the same day, hopefully creating a serious consequence for depleting 1st level spells willy-nilly.

 

[Piratecat]

Sounds like an excellent way of handling it.

 

[KarinsDad]

Ultimately, I think the best way to handle it is, as someone previously suggested, to have (some) Archers ready in response to "The first spell cast that takes longer than a swift action". The more intelligent and wizard-experienced types might be prepared for such tactics. The less magic-experienced or intelligent (i.e. ogres) might be fooled by such feinting tricks.

Actually, I thought the concept of "more intelligent and wizard-experienced types might be prepared for such tactics" idea as pretty lame the first time I read it.

This is the first I have heard of this tactic. And from reading everyone else, I would suspect that this is the first time most (if not all) people here have heard of this tactic.

So if hundreds of people playing the game are unaware of this new tactic, why would the NPCs be aware of it?

Answer: They wouldn't be aware of it.

The main reason they wouldn't be aware of it is because it was an exploitation of the rules. The player came up with a clever idea of how to take advantage of a loophole in the rules. So, I do not think it is reasonable to have the NPCs "metagame" a solution to a problem caused by a player "metagaming" a solution. Instead, the loophole should just be removed in two's game.

At least, that is my suggestiion. Don't react to the loophole, get rid of it. IMO.

As two stated:

"7) I just can't justify. I just can't see typical mooks being able to distinguish between a free action spell and a "normal" spell, even if they had somebody inform them about the party's tactics (very, very uncommon)."

 

[robberbaron]

If the archers couldn't see the spellcaster doing anything except moving his lips (which could be anything) then how could that trigger their readied action?
A Free Action could easily be quick enough that they might not even notice his lips moving.

Give the archers (or whoever) something nasty to have readied. Taking a handful of dice damage every time might curb his enthusiasm for giving you the finger.

Smart role-play deserves reward though, sometimes, the reward is more pain.

 

[Shadowdweller]

Actually, I thought the concept of "more intelligent and wizard-experienced types might be prepared for such tactics" idea as pretty lame the first time I read it.

You must admit, however, that regardless of whatever experience you may have in roleplaying games YOU are NOT a person who has devoted YEARS of study to combat in a magical world. A warrior in a D&D has. And likely has hundreds (if not more) of years of background 'lore' to draw from in training to be a warrior. Yet you find it unpalatable that they (that is, such people were they to exist) might have developed tricks that you might not have heard of?

Or perhaps you are one of those people who claim they could come up with even half of the actual, real-life medieval siege and warfare tricks merely by pretending to be a knight in shining armor for a little while?

Meh, sorry if that came out a bit negative. In my opinion, if it's a successful tactic, chances are that someone will discover it at some point. Despite the fact that we seem to assume that adventurers are actually considerably less intelligent than ourselves. As for:

I just can't justify. I just can't see typical mooks being able to distinguish between a free action spell and a "normal" spell, even if they had somebody inform them about the party's tactics (very, very uncommon).

It doesn't actually have to be something that's that complicated in PRACTICE. A round is six seconds...that's a considerable amount of time for action and reaction. What's the actual difference in time between a free-action spell and a standard action spell, anyhow? Typical mook thinks "Count one-one thousand...if still casting let go."

We, as DMs and players, are trying to APPROXIMATE expertise and experience on the part of the characters and foes. I'm sorry, but I just can't see that as metagaming.

 

[two]

You must admit, however, that regardless of whatever experience you may have in roleplaying games YOU are NOT a person who has devoted YEARS of study to combat in a magical world. A warrior in a D&D has. And likely has hundreds (if not more) of years of background 'lore' to draw from in training to be a warrior. Yet you find it unpalatable that they (that is, such people were they to exist) might have developed tricks that you might not have heard of?

Or perhaps you are one of those people who claim they could come up with even half of the actual, real-life medieval siege and warfare tricks merely by pretending to be a knight in shining armor for a little while?

Meh, sorry if that came out a bit negative. In my opinion, if it's a successful tactic, chances are that someone will discover it at some point. Despite the fact that we seem to assume that adventurers are actually considerably less intelligent than ourselves. As for: It doesn't actually have to be something that's that complicated in PRACTICE. A round is six seconds...that's a considerable amount of time for action and reaction. What's the actual difference in time between a free-action spell and a standard action spell, anyhow? Typical mook thinks "Count one-one thousand...if still casting let go."

We, as DMs and players, are trying to APPROXIMATE expertise and experience on the part of the characters and foes. I'm sorry, but I just can't see that as metagaming.

Well, in D&D there isn't much explicit difference between Feather Fall and a vocal-only spell, or a spell that's been metamagiced to be vocal-only (at least, not by a sorcerer).

I don't like this sort of meta-thinking because it requires warriors to have more magical savvy that seems likely. Would a goblin dart-thrower know anything about human "magical feints?" What about that bandit over there, or the town guard? Possibly -- just barely possible. But it's such a stretch, I don't feel comfortable doing it.

Now, a re-occurring villain; yes. He will tell his mooks exactly what the party is capable of. That's fine. But that's only one battle out of 20, if that.

Plus, it's very tricky. If you start readying very specific actions "let loose on the 2nd spell" or "let loose on the non-verbal only spell" you are asking to lose your action entirely and not do anything that round. What if the wizard doesn't, in fact, feint? The 2nd spell readied action is lost. The second readied action construction might require a spot check to see the wizard fumbling around in his component bag, and woe is you if they are eschewing components. What if the wizard flaps his arms while casting Feather Fall? Won't that trigger the shot unless the archers realized the Wizard if faking a real spell and just is casting Feather Fall, etc. I just don't want to get into such horrible mindless what-if's.

For me, I'm just taking the easy way out. 99% of enemies don't know the party's tactics well enough (or have sufficient magical savvy if they do) to make a complex readied action worthwhile. Done.