Something, I think, Every GM/DM Should Read

[Raven Crowking]

does the mongoose punch the snake or use its 'quick flip power'

It uses it's "Rikki Tikki Takedown" power.



















(and I get no credit for that....I stole it from a PHB4 thread)

 

[Barastrondo]

BTW, you seem to be claiming above that if the DM doesn't think a snake can be knocked prone, that this is an issue in 4e. I'm not sure that I buy that. Surely, according to the 4e RAW, the DM can overrule powers in situations where he feels them inappropriate?

I think I see it arise as an issue not because it's a cut-and-dried thing, but because the design philosophy is generally "If you're going to take something away from the players, you should have a good reason why." And because "the target is knocked prone" powers are something that players have, the ability to use them is something the DM can take away from them, which is slightly different than a judgment call wherein the player is trying something ordinarily outside the character's power and the DM decides it wouldn't work.

Now, the whole issue of taking things away from the players is pretty controversial in itself, ranging from hardcore "Players should be ready to lose all their levels and all their items and start from scratch as naked 1st-level characters and like it" to "Just don't do it; if you can't find a way to challenge players with all the toys they have available, you're not really trying." 4e's closer to the latter side of the spectrum, but at least it makes up for it by incorporating this into challenge design: monsters are built with the intention that players will have access to their full suite of powers, instead of relying heavily on antimagic or disarm spam. A good, challenging 4e monster may hit you hard when you use your power, but your power does get to go off.

So if you prefer to add a little bit of denial to your DM repertoire, you have to be prepared for fights being potentially grindier than they would be ordinarily. Destroying the fighter's +3 sword at paragon tier isn't just a way to show him a setback: it will make fights longer as he misses more often. And enough people feel 4e combat is long enough/too long already that it's worth reiterating any warnings about tactics that could heighten the problem.

Actually, for the record, 2e and 3e also had rules that allowed the players to knock something prone. They were just not automatically successful.

Most 4e powers that knock prone aren't automatically successful, either. They are reduced to a simple roll to hit rather than a two-step "first you have to hit, then you have to go through the knock prone mechanic", but you can still lose your opportunity and not be able to do it next round.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Thanks, Barastrondo. I was pretty sure that it was wrong in that the DM couldn't say No in 4e, just as it was wrong that 4e is "the" edition that defines "prone" or makes knocking something prone a potential PC choice/action.


RC

 

[Hussar]

You and I game in two different worlds.

In the world I game in, I don't have to say that you can't knock a snake prone -- the players would be saying it.

(I would be saying that a snake which is coiled and ready to strike/spit can effectively be knocked prone....it could still potentially bite, but would lose reach.)


RC

What reach? Snakes have a 5 foot reach in 3e at least until they get to be Huge (presuming poisonous snakes for the moment here since we're talking about coiling and striking). Or are you saying that it would lose all reach completely and thus be incapable of attacking without entering an opponents square (thus drawing an AOO?)

So, in your game, if I knock a snake prone somehow, it completely losing the ability to attack?

And, how do you determine when it's coiled or not? Snakes do not always coil to strike after all. Does it have to move a certain distance? Stay still completely?

See, this is why I dislike monkeying with the rules in the name of "believability". All it does is open a huge can of worms for additional questions. Why mess with pacing like that?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Ah, except you're not taking into account that I have monkeyed around with ALL the rules. Or that, for some people at least, not taking believability into account when monkeying around with rules -- professionally or otherwise -- opens a much larger can of worms!

A snake (or similar creature) can coil as an Action, allowing it to attack with reach depending upon the size of the snake. Some snakes, such as spitting cobras, must be coiled to spit.

A snake can partially coil as an Action in order to gain half its coiled reach. This allows it to make an attack as a Reaction with a -2 penalty to the attack roll.

After attacking, a snake can resume the coiled or partially coiled position as a Free Reaction.

In RCFG, I would allow a power that knocked something prone to also knock a snake out of the coiled or partially coiled position. If the attack was a punch or open handed, the snake might also gain a free attack due to opportunity. EDIT: Forgot to mention that the snake could always make a bite attack against a target that was close enough to be touching, but would take a -4 penalty in most circumstances. There is a reason snakes coil and partially coil to strike.


RC

 

[Rel]

Can we just kill this damn snake already?!

 

[Raven Crowking]

Can we just kill this damn snake already?!

Thread too grindy for your tastes?

 

[Rel]

Thread too grindy for your tastes?

I say both reduce snake HP and increase snake damage.

To quote Jerry Clower, "One of us got to have some relief!"

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I say both reduce snake HP and increase snake damage.

To quote Jerry Clower, "One of us got to have some relief!"

Snake Handling Minister: "To you mean to tell me, Brother Jerry, that if the Lord told you to pick up that snake, you wouldn't do it?"

Jerry Clower: "If the Lord told me to pick up that snake, I'd do it. But he didn't, and I ain't."


Another vote for consistency (however you go about it). One of the really nice thing about consistency in rulings and system is that when apparent inconsistencies in the game world happen because of hidden information (the white dragon that was really a dwarf)--it stand out as inconsistent, and thus gives the players a reason to look deeper. If you are inconsistent enough, whether due to problems in the rules or fiat, then the players will rarely notice. The apparent but hidden game world inconsistencies become mere noise.

Generally speaking, the players at our table would be comfortable with a lot more fiat than I'm willing to enforce. I make them help make decisions, in part to get the comfortable asserting their own choices. See, when it is fiat, then they come to me for answers. And I don't want to be bothered with a lot of the questions. If I'm bothered with unnecessary questions, I get cranky, and the game suffers.

 

[Hussar]

Ah, except you're not taking into account that I have monkeyed around with ALL the rules. Or that, for some people at least, not taking believability into account when monkeying around with rules -- professionally or otherwise -- opens a much larger can of worms!

A snake (or similar creature) can coil as an Action, allowing it to attack with reach depending upon the size of the snake. Some snakes, such as spitting cobras, must be coiled to spit.

A snake can partially coil as an Action in order to gain half its coiled reach. This allows it to make an attack as a Reaction with a -2 penalty to the attack roll.

After attacking, a snake can resume the coiled or partially coiled position as a Free Reaction.

In RCFG, I would allow a power that knocked something prone to also knock a snake out of the coiled or partially coiled position. If the attack was a punch or open handed, the snake might also gain a free attack due to opportunity. EDIT: Forgot to mention that the snake could always make a bite attack against a target that was close enough to be touching, but would take a -4 penalty in most circumstances. There is a reason snakes coil and partially coil to strike.


RC

So, now we're not even talking about D&D at all? How's that for shifting the goalposts?

While I have every respect for the game you are designing RC, bringing it up in a conversation that's talking about how the rules work in a completely different system is just clouding the issue.

Or, to put it another way, in order for snakes to work the way you want them to, includes a massive rewrite of the rules to the point where it's a completely different game. How is that not a huge can of worms?

And, let's see you do that in the middle of a session.

Me, I'd rather just go with the rules and then, possibly, if I see a big hole in the mechanics, go back afterwards and tinker. And, I'd probably only go back and tinker with the mechanics if there was significant issue at the table. If I'm the only one this bothers, meh, I'm not going to do the work, it just isn't worth it.

Then again, one thing that 3e did that earlier editions never did, was present the rules as a functioning whole. Instead of simply shoveling whatever mechanics out the door and expecting those running the game to become amateur game designers, WOTC presented a functioning game that works most of the time.

Now, RC calls this Knife Edge Balance. As opposed to broad based balance which he says existed in earlier editions. Me, I call this a balanced system as opposed to a system which had very little balance and presumed that the DM in question would constantly work to keep the game functioning.

I'd rather play a game that works than one that presumes that I'm going to make it work. There's a reason I don't play a lot of OOP games because a lot of 80's games presumed that the DM would do a fair bit of game design during play.

No thank you. I don't buy a car just so it can sit in the garage every weekend while I endlessly tinker with the engine. I do appreciate that some people want that, and that's fine. I'd rather have a car that works because driving the car is where I get the enjoyment of car ownership, rather than being up to my elbows in engine grease on a Sunday afternoon. In the same way, I get enjoyment from an RPG by playing the game, not by rewriting mechanics.

YMMV obviously.