My @!@#! Player abusing Feather Fall

[Shadowdweller]

Fair enough.

Just two minor notes/semi-reiterations/further plugs:
A) Completely campaign and setting-dependant, but I just think, once again, that it makes for poorly thought-out situations where you have dedicated warriors that are utterly oblivious and un-equipped to deal with the dangers of magic. Combat and combat styles EVOLVE. Over long periods of time. From an historical perspective, consider the relative number of cultures and people that came up with backbent swords (saber, scimitar, katana) versus the number that developed forward bent ones (khopesh, some other exotics). Even if an individual warrior is completely ignorant of the physics and effects of each, there ARE physical reasons and effects to each. I'd think combat styles and effects would evolve with respect to magic as well, even amongst goblins.

Chances are, too, if you've read a bit even in this day and age that you've heard of a famous tactic or two. "Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes."

B) Regarding:

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?

From a tactical perspective, I'd think that trying in advance to disrupt the non-swift spell, if any, will end up with the one you want being disrupted. Even where the "feint" isn't really a feint, returning to the quickened magic missile example.

Anyways, big kudos to you Two. You seem to have maintained well-reasoned and impartial opinions throughout this all.

 

[two]

beyond the pale?

Fair enough.

Just two minor notes/semi-reiterations/further plugs:
A) Completely campaign and setting-dependant, but I just think, once again, that it makes for poorly thought-out situations where you have dedicated warriors that are utterly oblivious and un-equipped to deal with the dangers of magic. Combat and combat styles EVOLVE. Over long periods of time. From an historical perspective, consider the relative number of cultures and people that came up with backbent swords (saber, scimitar, katana) versus the number that developed forward bent ones (khopesh, some other exotics). Even if an individual warrior is completely ignorant of the physics and effects of each, there ARE physical reasons and effects to each. I'd think combat styles and effects would evolve with respect to magic as well, even amongst goblins.

Chances are, too, if you've read a bit even in this day and age that you've heard of a famous tactic or two. "Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes."

B) Regarding:
From a tactical perspective, I'd think that trying in advance to disrupt the non-swift spell, if any, will end up with the one you want being disrupted. Even where the "feint" isn't really a feint, returning to the quickened magic missile example.

Anyways, big kudos to you Two. You seem to have maintained well-reasoned and impartial opinions throughout this all.

What's this? A compliment? Beyond the pale,dude. I'm reporting you.

In all seriousness, thanks.

We are in substantial agreement regarding evolving combat tactics in a world (D&D) where magic is an everyday occurance. Warriors and fighters would train to combat magic in effective ways; ditto archers and spear-chuckers and dart-dinkers and club-bashers and the rest of them.

It's part of why I feel comfortable using "readied" actions in the first place. It's one of the best low-level "anyone can do it" ways to stop a wizard in his tracks. Barring beating his brains out with a blunt object. I was a little surprised to learn that other GM's don't (seem to?) use readied actions as much. To each their own. Game on, people.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

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.

Another explanation is that I would not have bothered with this tactic even if I thought of it (and perhaps others are in this camp as well). If I am lowish level, the spell slot is too precious to waste. If I am higher level, I have plenty of other means to accomplish the same thing.

 

[KarinsDad]

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?

I think you misunderstood why I thought it was lame.

A player came up with a clever idea. He tricked his DM into letting him do it, probably because he knew he was exploiting the rules.

Another gamer states "Let him do it, but ready the archers on the SECOND spell".

Now, examine this statement closely. Not only is a normal readied action something that might not trigger, but now we are adding in a level of complexity where it is even MORE rare that a second spell will be cast and trigger the ready action.

So although on the surface this suggestion is also within the rules as doable, no real warrior (as you stated, that is, such people were they to exist) in their right mind would EVER do it just because it will have him not fire his arrow at all 99+% of the time.

Not only that, but the warrior would not know if the swift first spell was being used to protect a second spell or fireball quickly.


This opens up a big rock, paper, scissors can of worms between the DM and the player.

Does the DM play his warriors as knowledgeable of this obscure tactic? Does the player throw a Quickened Fireball every once in a while to fool the DM? Does the DM, knowing that it is a Quickened Fireball pretend that his archers did NOT ready on the second spell this time?

It becomes an arms race between the player and the DM (this is why I think this ready on the second spell suggestion is lame).


Better to just avoid these type of (relatively stupid) issues before they start.

We all know this tactic was legal. Some people think it was clever, others think it was an exploitation. Since the original poster thought it was an exploitation, my suggestion to him is to make this tactic illegal so that the rock, paper, scissors problem doesn't occur.

He is the DM, he should take charge whenever he views a tactic as abusive.

 

[Shadowdweller]

Ok, that's a fair argument as to how and why the player's actions might have been "lame." However, what I was responding to there was this statement (and subsequent follow-ups):

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.

Which is to say when I speak about "this tactic" -I- am referring to the cantrip's IC and in game use (as well as consider in relation to metagaming) as opposed to the player's tricking the DM to let it slide. Which, if intentional on the player's part -yes- is "lame". But let's not confuse the two definitions of "this tactic," shall we?

 

[Pbartender]

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

It all sounds good to me. An excellent solution all around.

Thinking about it, here's what I do when I run into an 'innovative' moment in game.

"Could somebody look up that rule for me, please? Thank you."
*THINK*
"For tonight, I'm ruling it this way... [INSERT IMPROMPTU RULING HERE] ...Don't let me forget to ask about it on the Message Boards this week."
The next week, before the game begins, I very clearly announce to everyone the final ruling on the previous scenario.

The important thing is to take the time to carefully muddle through the rules, before you make a final decision on the rule. Let the players know you need time to think about it. Make a fair ruling, but if all else is equal, rule in favor of the players having fun. Once you've made a decision, stick to it and be consistant.

It looks like you came up with just that solution in the end... Good Job!

Another thing I find helpful is... Whenever a player comes up with a kooky tactic or rules interpretation, I make it very clear to him, "Just remember, if you can do this, so can the BAd Guys. Are sure you wnat to do it this way?"

Half the time, that alone makes them think twice.

 

[CapnZapp]

I think the major problem in D&D 3E is the simplistic notion that spells take no time to actually cast, and therefore only if you ready an action to interrupt spellcasting do you have a chance of actually disrupting the spellcasting attempt.

Not only does it remind me more of Magic the Gathering and Baldur's Gate than other pen-and-paper rpgs (this shouldn't be read as a compliment), but:

If the rules worked more like other fantasy games in that spellcasters should fear getting shot at while casting spells, the game could avoid a lot of artificial situations, such as the one discussed in this thread.

Casting a spell does require a standard action already in the current rules, which is the better half of a round. Let's say this action consumes 3.5 seconds. But as combat is strictly sequential there is no room for normal natural enemy action from the time the spellcaster starts to cast the spell, and... wait... two... three... now! he's finished casting the spell and it actually goes off.

Any enemy fighters (or archers, or whatever) must use readied actions to hope to accomplish what they often have good reasons to hope for: avoiding being roasted to a crisp. This means two things, of which the second is central to this discussion:
1) they can't fight effectively: they need to sacrifice a normal round of combat, and risk looking very stupid indeed if the wizard decides to do something else. This is a choice most people find decidedly unfun (remember, it's not only the NPCs who find spell-disrupting very frustrating...)
2) specific knowledge about spellcasting is necessary to do something about spellcasters, and therefore such knowledge is encouraged, which doesn't fit very well with the notion magic is mysterious and largely unknown.

As regards to 2) I fully understand those DMs who think that even pretty primitive opponents should have come to respect and fear those adventuring wizards, and thus they use the means available to them to try to neutralize such a dangerous threat. If the enemies are led by a civilized leader with at least average intelligence, the chance of them setting up specific strategies to counter such a death-on-legs should be even greater.

The solution, I think, is to abandon the D&D notion of how spells are cast, and instead balance (read "boost") wizards with the fact it takes some small but measurable time to cast spells.

Yes, they become vulnerable to the normal behaviour of enemy brutes (i.e. trying to get in as many full attacks as possible before you go down), but that's exactly what's needed. Then and only then is the burden of magical knowledge lifted from the kobolds, orcs, and trolls out there; so they don't need to resort to sophisticated tactics just to harass the spellcasters.

Please note I'm not advocating making the life for spellcasters impossible: after all, the desired mechanisms is already in the game: the Concentration check and/or Quicken Spell.

Most spellcasters already max out their Concentration ranks, so no loss there.

And of course Quicken spell should work intuitively: that is, it's use should be non-interruptible. (If you play a Wizard, and you now think "Ok, then I'll prepare all my spells as Quickened", then I can only say: please, go ahead - you've effectively sacrificed eight class levels for the privilege of never having your spells interrupted, so I'm cool.)

Wizards and other primary spellcasters should probably get a moderate boost to compensate for the fact they now need to take the combat situation into account. (Yes, that means taking cover, avoiding melee monsters, withdrawing if suddenly exposed to enemy fire etc instead of as before just wading in with contemptous disregard of the fools who try to oppose him...)

But exactly what compensation to give is the subject for another thread than this, although I myself am leaning toward giving them more general survivability (i.e. better hit dice)

Zapp

Please note: this is purely opinion, and not a comment on specific rules and their interpretation. Specifically, I'm not saying anything about how the rules work as written (not in this post anyway), I'm only presenting what underlying causes to the thread's issues I've identified, and which solutions I would prefer myself.

 

[KarinsDad]

Which is to say when I speak about "this tactic" -I- am referring to the cantrip's IC and in game use (as well as consider in relation to metagaming) as opposed to the player's tricking the DM to let it slide. Which, if intentional on the player's part -yes- is "lame". But let's not confuse the two definitions of "this tactic," shall we?

How many times in your game have you readied an attack for "the second spell" from a caster?

Why didn't you do it?

Answer: Because you did not want to totally throw away your action. Same for "real fighters" (if they existed) in the game.

They would not want to waste their time. The counter tactic is totally lame because the trigger conditions for it would almost never come up in a game.


I tell you what. Let's set up a mock combat. You get 3 same level archers all readying their missiles for the second spell of my Wizard every single round, and my Wizard will either come over and stab each of them to death with his dagger (taking a boatload of rounds), or maybe just throw a fireball at them each round until they die.

 

[Aesmael]

That would be foolish. If the wizard must not be allowed to get off any spells, though, it would be less foolish for two to ready for one spell and one to ready the other. Still would not stop you stabbing them to death.

Will I regret posting to this thread? *shrug*

 

[Darmanicus]

I've read a load of this thread and I'm in agreeance with those who've stated "why bother with the readied action? Just use yer full round of attacks".

I've got one thing to add to that full round of attacks............poison!!!

Should be enough to ruin any wizards day.