Sacrificial Bunnies (Warlock curse question)

[proto128]

You have to wonder what the pact's patron has to say about killing rabbits. The hell use are rabbit souls? Rabbits don't do much while alive, let alone dead; what good are a cadre of rabbit souls?

Azathoth (while three of its mouths are munching on a rabbit haunch): "That's great, you slaughtering a bunch of defenseless woodland creatures and all, but you're still gonna have to make quota. Step it up a little and maybe I'll let you jaunt across the ether again." *dissolves into a mass of gibbering worms*

EDIT: To better contribute, I think 4E isn't living up to its detractor's complaints about it being "too video-gamey" or "too WoW-ish". How about defining a valid target being one "that grants honor or experience?" Rats and rabbits don't grant experience unless they're minions or monsters with a defined level, and such creatures would eventually not qualify since they'd stop giving experience if you're 10(?) levels above them. And since there's no honor system and Season 4 hasn't started for you to grind honor for your welfare epix....

 

[Cadfan]

Someone explain this Storm of Daggers thing to me. Or the Light spell thing from earlier in the thread. I'm not getting it.

 

[Stormtalon]

Which means storm of daggers can't hit innocents.

You say it should because it makes sense it should. I'd agree. For the same reasons that if you hit an innocent you should get a heal from it. Both are counter to the rules, in the same way.

*sigh* Does Storm of Daggers have a beneficial side effect? No. It simply does damage. For it, there are no innocents, merely collateral damage.

They are entirely different concepts, you know. One, you blast something, it gets hurt, end of story. The other, you do something with powers granted to you by some otherworldly power and if that source deems it worthy enough, you gain a benefit that's in addition to any damage dealt.

More simply put: damage is damage is damage is damage. Fringe benefits are conditional. There's no conflict there, save that projected into it by people who want contradictions to exist.

 

[Nine Hands]

It is up to the GM to say what a credible threat is. That is the most obvious choice for a game system to use instead of hard coding rules which cause the bag of rats problem or worse. The GM is supposed to arbitrate rules and make the game flow smoothly.

In the end it comes down to trust. Do you trust your GM? If you don't then its not a problem with D&D, its a problem with that person.

The whole bag of rats, whirlwind attack and great cleave was so friggin' lame that if anyone ever pulled it in my game, I would Rule 0 their behinds out the door.

 

[Nikolai II]

1) It's been a while since I stumbled into a good Derren thread. You, sir, are a master of your craft, and I respect your unparalleled ability to destroy rationality.

Is Derren and Regicide really different people?

 

[Obryn]

Someone explain this Storm of Daggers thing to me. Or the Light spell thing from earlier in the thread. I'm not getting it.

He's mixing a couple of things together and getting them confused.

You can cast light on a "target." You can cast Storm of Daggers on a square that a target is in. He's apparently claiming that the rule about credible threats should apply to any power that talks about a "target".

The DMG says, "When a power has an effect that occurs upon hitting a target - or reducing that target to 0 hit points - the power functions only when that target is a credible threat."

So, his argument is "Storm of Daggers has an effect that occurs upon hitting a target. It therefore can't be cast on commoners." He's overlooking the fact that the Storm of Daggers "effect" takes place regardless of hitting or missing a target, and that Light works the same way.

I mean, he's assuming that players and DMs can't use their own judgement and operate like computers. But there you have it.

-O

 

[Cadfan]

Ah, ok. Thanks.

 

[Wormwood]

I will never understand people who take something simple and easy and work so hard to make it come out stupid.

Some people enjoy building sandcastles. Others enjoy kicking them over.

 

[Stormtalon]

He's mixing a couple of things together and getting them confused.

You can cast light on a "target." You can cast Storm of Daggers on a square that a target is in. He's apparently claiming that the rule about credible threats should apply to any power that talks about a "target".

The DMG says, "When a power has an effect that occurs upon hitting a target - or reducing that target to 0 hit points - the power functions only when that target is a credible threat."

So, his argument is "Storm of Daggers has an effect that occurs upon hitting a target. It therefore can't be cast on commoners." He's overlooking the fact that the Storm of Daggers "effect" takes place regardless of hitting or missing a target, and that Light works the same way.

I mean, he's assuming that players and DMs can't use their own judgement and operate like computers. But there you have it.

-O

More specifically, he's conflating the concepts of "damage" and "effect" (plus in the case of Light ignoring specific power wording which allows it to be cast on inanimate objects).

The fact that all powers which do damage AND have additional effects lists them in separate sections of the power apparently isn't significant in his reasoning. The thing is, the fact that Damage and Effects are listed separately is significant, as it means Damage is explicitly not an Effect in regards to that DMG passage.

 

[Ian Demagi]

Bag of Bunnies

As a DM, they would get away with this for a while but would get increasing warnings from the DM, the player might be bitten by a bunny with lycanthropy (and no- the bunny would not have any cool attack powers or immunities-but plenty of vulnerabilties), next the guy might get a visit from the "Bunny God" who he curses but does not die-but the bunny gods curse works just fine. Finally if he didn't get the message he would have an encounter with Buggs Bunny-roles for init and Buggs looks !!!!!

What do you want use for your new character? Are you going to exploit this one or are you taking leave of the group?

Frankly-this is where the D & D group itself can help the DM-A simple uhm... we dont play that way-from group members should suffice...Ian.

Also: The guy with the bag of bunnies probably would not make it through our groups interview anyway-3 guys talk to the prospective new guy before he sits down with to the table with dice...