Sacrificial Bunnies (Warlock curse question)

[Derren]

Yeah it makes no sense at all that the dark powers that sent you to harvest the souls of worthy opponents would not reward you for stepping on ants. Or that a diety who rewards you for doing battle against his enemies would not also reward you for killing a chicken.

And what about for example Stirges? They are a credible threat to low level adventurers so all the warlocks powers activate when he kills one. So why does, after 10 more levels, killing Stirges not activate the effects anymore? Certainly not because of common sense but because of a arbitrary metagame decision of what poses a credible threat or not.
And if killing Stirges are not "Pleasing the Dark Powers enough" then take pixies and explain why killing sentient creatures is not good enough for the Dark Powers.

 

[hong]

There are stirges in Derren's pants!

 

[Contents May Vary]

It's Nerd Rage!

 

[Giryan]

And what about for example Stirges? They are a credible threat to low level adventurers so all the warlocks powers activate when he kills one. So why does, after 10 more levels, killing Stirges not activate the effects anymore? Certainly not because of common sense but because of a arbitrary metagame decision of what poses a credible threat or not.
And if killing Stirges are not "Pleasing the Dark Powers enough" then take pixies and explain why killing sentient creatures is not good enough for the Dark Powers.

Because they are beneath you, the darks power expect more from you now.
They're giving you more power, they expect more return.


*continues feeding the troll because it's fun*

 

[Cadfan]

Having a warlock get a neat little boost when his chosen foes die is cool.

If we followed the logic of certain people in this thread, we'd have to let the warlock get that boost every time he squashed a bug. This is because said persons do not believe it is possible to differentiate between the sort of kill that gets you a boost, and the sort that doesn't, because no hard line absolutist rule can be laid down between the two categories, and because they do not trust DM judgment in even the slightest degree.

Listening to people like that was the reason that in 3e we couldn't have nice things.

So I'm glad we're not listening anymore.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Because they are beneath you, the darks power expect more from you now.
They're giving you more power, they expect more return.


*continues feeding the troll because it's fun*

You know, you shouldn't accuse someone of trolling except by reporting his post to a moderator.

Nevertheless, this kind of mindless discussion can be fun!

Okay, here's my take.

As I often say, D&D is a role-playing game. Today, I'm gonna have to write, that D&D is also a role-playing game.

Do you consider it good role-playing if
- A Fighter opens a bag of rats to Whirlwind Attack them and Greater Cleave on his enemy. (3E)
- A Warlock opens his sack of bunnies and starts cursing and killing them to teleport around or do other stuff triggered by his cursed-killing.
If you do, continue with 1), else with 2)

1) If you don't care about the role-playing part, just follow the rules. In 4E, you can't do what you want to do, because the DMG prohibits it. Just follow the damn rules, and don't try to argue with them!

2) If you don't see this as good role-playing (except maybe in a humorous, OotS-like campaign), you have your fix right here. Don't do what doesn't fit the role-playing game concept.

 

[robertliguori]

Having a warlock get a neat little boost when his chosen foes die is cool.

If we followed the logic of certain people in this thread, we'd have to let the warlock get that boost every time he squashed a bug. This is because said persons do not believe it is possible to differentiate between the sort of kill that gets you a boost, and the sort that doesn't, because no hard line absolutist rule can be laid down between the two categories, and because they do not trust DM judgment in even the slightest degree.

Listening to people like that was the reason that in 3e we couldn't have nice things.

So I'm glad we're not listening anymore.

OK. Let us ponder the following scenarios:

1: A warlock is attacked by a group of four giant rats. He curses and kills them, one by one, gaining a bonus on each rat death.

2: A warlock is attacked by a group of eight giant rats. He curses and kills four, knocks four unconscious, ties them tightly, then, when he feels the need, releases the rats and throws them out onto the ground.


If the warlock got the bonuses in the first case, why not the second?

Plus, don't forget that pretty much any creature is a credible threat. A bunny is a credible threat to a baby carrot. After all, there's nothing in the description saying that the target has to be a credible threat to you.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

OK. Let us ponder the following scenarios:

1: A warlock is attacked by a group of four giant rats. He curses and kills them, one by one, gaining a bonus on each rat death.

2: A warlock is attacked by a group of eight giant rats. He curses and kills four, knocks four unconscious, ties them tightly, then, when he feels the need, releases the rats and throws them out onto the ground.

What will be the rats reaction now? Will they attack him, or just run away?

...

All this discussions are nice and dany, but has anyone ever tried to implement the bag of rats/bunnies in an actual game? Are you even convinced that, using any sort of mechanics resolving it, there is any benefit to gain?
Not that it matters, because no one will ever use it in an actual game session.

 

[VannATLC]

They are tied up. >.> They sit there mewling like small rats.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

Good point.

Plus, the book only says "sack of rats". If they really wanted to close the loophole, they'd have *listed* every sack of things that isn't considered a credible threat.

Sure, the extra 50 page list of bugs, vermin, squirrels, and voles and the like would have driven up the cost of the book, but I for one DEMAND THOROUGHNESS.