Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Elder-Basilisk" data-source="post: 1985768" data-attributes="member: 3146">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.</blockquote>

Verification