Sacrificial Bunnies (Warlock curse question)

[Vayden]

My discretion is that since PCs are intended to go through 6 fights in a day and the adventure is made for them to win, the majority of what they face is not a meaningful threat. Certainly not 1HP minions which die if you trip and stumble into them. By RAW, effects generally shouldn't go off.

The sack rule is so odious that you get some really stupid effects. The Light at-will for instance can only be used on objects which pose a "meaningful threat" to the caster, you can't cast light on a stone for instance. If you use Cloud of Daggers on a crowd of people, only the ones that are a threat will get hit by it, civilians, bunnies or other things in the area won't be hurt. I guess thats one way to get passed illusion spells and find dopplegangers, just cloud of daggers the person and if they aren't a threat it won't hurt them. Brilliant. Love rules that if you use them you get nonsense.

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

 

[Regicide]

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

Me either. I have no idea why WotC did it. It would have been so simple and easy to make sensible rules, but instead they came out with something stupid.

 

[hong]

My discretion is that since PCs are intended to go through 6 fights in a day, killing maybe 60 creatures in a day, and the adventure is made for them to win, the majority of what they face is not a meaningful threat. Certainly not 1HP minions which die if you trip and stumble into them. By RAW, effects generally shouldn't go off.

The sack rule is so odious that you get some really stupid effects.

It is true that the bag-o-rats rule relies on DM's judgement, and so, with a DM who exercises appalling judgement, it can lead to undesired outcomes. Luckily, you would never exercise appalling judgement, yes?

 

[Vayden]

Y'know . . . I was getting all set to go point by point on this, and then I realized I was tilting at windmills. You have fun playing in your game, I'll have fun playing in mine. I feel no need to put up with ***** behavior like arguing about a cloud of daggers not hitting innocent bystanders in my game; if you and your players like arguing about that crap, you have fun doing it. It doesn't hurt me any.

 

[Stormtalon]

Me either. I have no idea why WotC did it. It would have been so simple and easy to make sensible rules, but instead they came out with something stupid.

Thing is, it is a sensible, simple and elegant rule. It says exactly what needs to be said, no more, no less.

That being said, if you really need additional clarification, maybe this supplemental definition of credible threat might help:

"Any creature being carried around with intent to sacrifice is not a credible threat, regardless of its normal strength. Innocent bystanders are also never a credible threat."

 

[kclark]

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

You have apparently never attempted to tie up rats. We are also not talking about tiny pet lab rats, but more like the small sized New York city sewer rats. Heck even a normal pet rat would be virtually impossible to restrain for any length of time. Them buggers get out of anything and chew through darn near anything.

I see it as the curse pledging a portion of the life force of the creature to the pact being. As you level you pact being demand more life force per being killed. It just happens that the life force needed to satisfy the pact being conveniently coincides with the rules system's guide for suggested levels of monsters to use in an encounter that make for credible threats.

 

[Cadfan]

Alright, Regicide, obviously you are reading some other RPG than I am. Because I absolutely fail to see how the "if you get benefits from killing a foe, you don't get them from killing things which aren't meaningful threats" translates into "you can't cast Light on a rock."

 

[SweeneyTodd]

To be fair, I did learn something really useful in this thread: that ignore-listed posters don't show up at all any more unless they get quoted. That was confusing at first.

I'm sure there are people out there who'd rather have 5 pages of exceptions than a general rule of "Don't be stupid about it", I'm just really glad that none of them are in my gaming circle.

 

[Contents May Vary]

I suppose the DMs who are little more than a set of heuristics need some exact guidance...

How about this for them:

"Creatures that yield XPs less than 1/50th of the amount of XPs required to traverse the character's current level do not count as a credible threat."

 

[Regicide]

"Any creature being carried around with intent to sacrifice is not a credible threat, regardless of its normal strength. Innocent bystanders are also never a credible threat."

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.