Sacrificial Bunnies (Warlock curse question)

[Derren]

And after everyone agreed that this is a DM decision I am really curious to hear the explanations why the "Credible Threat" rule is based on common sense and is not a arbitrary decision based on metagame factors...

 

[Kishin]

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.

There aren't words to describe this patently ridiculous distortion/extrapolation/I don't even know what to call it. I'm just going to quote it to further draw attention to it, so that others know you are not at all serious in your arguments.

P.S. 7 pages. Only 3 more to go till my prediction comes true! Derren, my boy, you've still got the touch!

 

[Stormtalon]

And after everyone agreed that this is a DM decision I am really curious to hear the explanations why the "Credible Threat" rule is based on common sense and is not a arbitrary decision based on metagame factors...

See posts #83 & #89. I pretty much covered that already.

 

[Zaruthustran]

It *is* based on "metagame factors". 4E asks that you recognize that when you and your friends sit around a table and play a game, you are in fact sitting around a table and playing a game.

The "credible threat" rule is there as a way to formalize the general social contract of a roleplaying group: "we're all here to have fun, so let's play the game and not abuse rules loopholes."

As this thread has demonstrated, this bag of bunnies idea has caused a tremendous amount of people to roll their eyes in exasperation (that's putting it mildly). Try it at a table of reasonable gamers, and you'll get the same reaction.

So huzzah to 4E for going so far as to put "play nice with others and don't be a dork" in the rulebook.

 

[Stormtalon]

Even though I have provided a good reason why it doesn't *have* to be metagame to work, I think I like Zarathustran's response better.

Honestly, I think it's now upon Derren & co to come up with a rational explanation why it being proudly metagame is a BAD THING.

 

[FadedC]

And after everyone agreed that this is a DM decision I am really curious to hear the explanations why the "Credible Threat" rule is based on common sense and is not a arbitrary decision based on metagame factors...

I think your confusing 2 seperate points.

1) It's a DM decision if the target is a credible threat.

2) It's common sense that the the powers that be only reward you for smiting credible threats and not harmless animals or weak monsters you keep in a cage.

 

[eleran]

Why are you guys feeding these internet vermin?

They/he (because I am convinced they are the same person) are just being deliberately obtuse. Ignore them they will get bored and go back to running their own games with players that routinely carry bags of rats because it is obviously not just allowed but actively encouraged by people of their ilk.

 

[Praesul]

I'm with Eleran here, most people have made some very reasonable arguments here based in logic. Derren and co. just choose to see the world from a very different perspective than the rest of us. Try not to feel the need to beat them upside the head till they agree with your perspective, just be happy they can't force you to play with their system of beliefs. Sometimes you cannot reason with people because no matter what you say they hear something else and that's when you just need to walk away.

 

[lostpike]

double post

 

[Makaze]

But honey I can't go to bed, someone on the internet is wrong!