Sacrificial Bunnies (Warlock curse question)

[lostpike]

How would you carry the bunnies, I mean are you going to take a cart down into a dungeon? Seriously, that's gonna start weighing a ton, and make noise.
. On that note, how do you also keep them from taking damage as you take damage, how are they protected against AOE attacks?

The 4e seems to be aimed at Goodly people, it's not a very good option to sacrifice a brace of rabbits for combat bonuses.

Not fully, but in some bit it's metagame, you're just looking at the rules at base, not at how your character themselves might see it.

Metagame on the DM's part; we have no stat's for rabbits, I think that's the most stupid way to do it, but it works when you don't want to deal with it.

Those are pretty knee-jerk, but off the top of my head.

If you ever get a chance to sit down and talk to Dave Arneson he will tell you how the first group he would run through would use hamsters to check for traps.

Carrying small creatures to detect things that hurt living creatures has always been a trick used in D&D.

 

[LostSoul]

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...

It's a common sense decision based on metagame factors (i.e. the fun of the group). It's not arbitrary - the point is to make the game fun by keeping it from breaking.

If you want to make the decision to break your own game, more power to you. I imagine you'd do that because it will be more fun that way. Go for it. (I can see instances where sacrificing living beings for power would spice up the game.)

 

[Derren]

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.

Where have I said that it is a bad thing? (Although I do think that metagame factors affecting in game events in this way is bad as it breaks consistency)

What I dispute is that this is a "common sense" solution, at least from a "In Game" perspective (imo the more important perspective).

Your explanation of "greater power require greater sacrifices" explains why sacrificing bunnies etc. wouldn't work. But it does not explain things like the scenario in post #57. Why do the warlords power trigger when he fights a creature in the wild but do not trigger when he kills a captured creature of the same kind? When only the sould counts there isn't a difference between those two for whoever recieves the soul.

Is it really common sense that, as Oni did put it, grey creatures stop dropping soul shards? Imo no. Its a purely metagame decision made to keep such abilities in check, but it is not common sense.

Edit:

If you want to make the decision to break your own game, more power to you. I imagine you'd do that because it will be more fun that way. Go for it. (I can see instances where sacrificing living beings for power would spice up the game.)

Who says that this breaks the game? Like the 3E "problem" spells, it only breaks the game when the DM is oblivious to it and builds "plots" which are not build to handle such an ability.

 

[robertliguori]

It's a common sense decision based on metagame factors (i.e. the fun of the group). It's not arbitrary - the point is to make the game fun by keeping it from breaking.

If you want to make the decision to break your own game, more power to you. I imagine you'd do that because it will be more fun that way. Go for it. (I can see instances where sacrificing living beings for power would spice up the game.)

Well, yes, but the rules don't say that, is the problem. I'll cheerfully call Oberani here; the fact that the credible threat rule can be ignored when needed doesn't make it a good rule, and fact highlights its badness as a rule. I would much prefer the game developers acknowledge that the combat system occasionally creates perverse incentives (often, to face many weak encounters of many weak creatures), to acknowledge that the tactically sound and in-character-ly wise decision is to act upon said incentives, and offer a list of ways to remove the incentives. That actually would be a formalization of said social contract.

I'd personally much prefer the DM state that powers only worked in the context of encounters and only the DM could decide what was an encounter than the nonsense of the credible threat rule. It would be much more honest to acknowledge that yes, the rules of the game do support you getting power from domestic animal murder, but that the rules of the game also assume that you will only engage in said murder in the context of a DM-defined combat encounter.

 

[Obryn]

Your explanation of "greater power require greater sacrifices" explains why sacrificing bunnies etc. wouldn't work. But it does not explain things like the scenario in post #57. Why do the warlords power trigger when he fights a creature in the wild but do not trigger when he kills a captured creature of the same kind? When only the sould counts there isn't a difference between those two for whoever recieves the soul.

You've added the flavor text about "souls" and what souls are valuable.

That's not the basis of the power, though. That's one interpretation. You can't take a wrong example, and try and use it to support your wrong claim.

-O

 

[Skyscraper]

Wow. Fantastic thread guys. Keep it up.

Troll: gets fed by innocent bystanders.

Innocent bystanders: enworled members who reply to trolls in this thread. They are being eaten alive! Eek!

(In the improbable case where i'm wrong, i wouldn't lose anymore time trying to explain a complex game to a simplist mind incapable of grasping what common sense even means.)

Sky

 

[Cobblestone]

A Possibly Pertinent Question

Okay, I understand why Good or Lawful Good warlocks maybe shouldn't be able to kill captives to activate an ability, but why can't evil dastardly warlocks sacrifice a captive to fuel their arcane powers?

Could the credible threat posed by the captive takes the form of their sworn protector or avenging relative?

E.g.

"If you touch one hair on my daughter's head, I swear by the Seven Hells I will not rest until I have spilled the very last drop of your blood."

"Fair enough," the warlock replies, pushing the fair maid off the cliff and vanishing.​

Just a thought.

Peace,

C-Stone

 

[Makaze]

Why do the warlords power trigger when he fights a creature in the wild but do not trigger when he kills a captured creature of the same kind?

Because Warlords work by inspiration. It's inspiring to hear a Warlord shout "For Glory!" when charging a ravenous lion. Not so much as he clubs a hobbled and helpless beast over the head back home.

Course if said lion was captured and let loose into a pit with the Warlord as part of say some gladiatorial games where he really is in danger then it's a credible threat.

Is it really common sense that, as Oni did put it, grey creatures stop dropping soul shards? Imo no. Its a purely metagame decision made to keep such abilities in check, but it is not common sense.

Soulshards from weak souls can't fuel the power needed for powerful magic. Makes complete sense.

 

[Makaze]

I would much prefer the game developers acknowledge that the combat system occasionally creates perverse incentives (often, to face many weak encounters of many weak creatures), to acknowledge that the tactically sound and in-character-ly wise decision is to act upon said incentives, and offer a list of ways to remove the incentives.

They do and they have, we're talking about that rule right now. The incentive is removed by making it not work.

I'd personally much prefer the DM state that powers only worked in the context of encounters and only the DM could decide what was an encounter than the nonsense of the credible threat rule.

Instead it states that powers only work in the context of credible threats and only the DM can decide what is a credible threat.

It would be much more honest to acknowledge that yes, the rules of the game do support you getting power from domestic animal murder, but that the rules of the game also assume that you will only engage in said murder in the context of a DM-defined combat encounter.

I don't see how it would be more honest since no they don't support that due to the credible threat rule.

 

[Kishin]

Who says that this breaks the game? Like the 3E "problem" spells, it only breaks the game when the DM is oblivious to it and builds "plots" which are not build to handle such an ability.

I'm not building a plot that accounts for teleporting bunny genocide. No DM should be expected to account for patently ridiculous rulestwisting.

I do like how you strive for simulationism and consistency, but are willing to accept lagomorph pogrom as a valid method of transit.

What I dispute is that this is a "common sense" solution, at least from a "In Game" perspective (imo the more important perspective).

Well, you know that 4E holds a different perspective as being more important. Yet you continue to belabor the point....