The Cascading Attack Against Large Creatures

[Markn]

The unarmed, naked man starts waving his arms and fiddling with some bat guano.

Is ducking behind something that gives cover cheese? It's not what I'd do normally, but it makes sense given the D&D mechanics.

If the rules and our universe don't gel, following our universe's version of common sense is silly. If a hundred high-level barbarians step off a cliff, and five of them die (failing the massive damage save on a natural 1), then high-level barbarians know from the empirical evidence that they have a 95% chance of surviving the fall. Should they, then, be afraid of cliffs because people die more often in our universe?

Isn't that using out-of-character knowledge, and therefore even more cheesy?

-Hyp.

Now, now Hyp. I only disagree to a point. D&D universe and our universe are certainly two separate things. However, D&D IS based on a certain sense of realism in how the basic person thinks and acts. You can't justify your actions based on the mechanics of a game, it's just...absurd. It sounds absurd, it looks absurd and its because it is absurd! I understand that most people play the odds for their characters and its not what I dispute. From a mechanic point of view it makes sense, that just the way it works. But if D&D were based on things as wacky as no gravity, elves were smurfs, dragons were made of 2 x 4's, and everything you stepped on swore at you because you walked all over them then D&D wouldn't be very popular (some of these things may exist now, but only in small quantities - I'm talking the whole picture here). It's because our sense of belief wouldn't exist. Many of the games elements have to make some sort of logical sense to us. When they start to lack that logistical sense for mechanic purposes it become cheese.

PS - I'd run away before Hyp smacks me but I think I will wait until 4 or 5 other people provoke his AoO's since thats the safest way to do it.

 

[Hypersmurf]

You can't justify your actions based on the mechanics of a game, it's just...absurd.

You must justify your actions based on the mechanics of the game.

If there's something that makes perfect logical reasonable sense in the real world, but the mechanics say will kill you, then you can't say that not-doing it is cheesy.

Where mechanics don't model our reality accurately, reality is different.

You can't then take actions based on our reality and expect it to work the same way. Indeed, the expectations the characters have must be based on their reality... and since their reality is based on mechanics, their expctations and hence their actions must be based on mechanics.

-Hyp.

 

[Markn]

You must justify your actions based on the mechanics of the game.

If there's something that makes perfect logical reasonable sense in the real world, but the mechanics say will kill you, then you can't say that not-doing it is cheesy.

Where mechanics don't model our reality accurately, reality is different.

You can't then take actions based on our reality and expect it to work the same way. Indeed, the expectations the characters have must be based on their reality... and since their reality is based on mechanics, their expctations and hence their actions must be based on mechanics.

-Hyp.

OK, now we're getting somewhere. I agree 100% with what you said. In world, in character, we rely on mechanics to survive. Can't live without them. But as players WE know those actions are inappropriate so therefore its the players, based on our real world physics view, that calls it cheese. Not our PC's, and its not cheese in the 'D&D world'. It's cheese because the perception is not one that matches our own view of how combat should be.

I hope you see my point.

PS - Hyp what did you ever think about the Shield Other spell? Just curious if you still view it the same way.

 

[Hypersmurf]

But as players WE know those actions are inappropriate so therefore its the players, based on our real world physics view, that calls it cheese.

So it's cheesy for us, as players, to have our characters take actions that make complete sense to them?

PS - Hyp what did you ever think about the Shield Other spell? Just curious if you still view it the same way.

Gosh, that thread was from three years ago. I can't even remember what my opinion at the time was!

-Hyp.

 

[Markn]

So it's cheesy for us, as players, to have our characters take actions that make complete sense to them?



Gosh, that thread was from three years ago. I can't even remember what my opinion at the time was!

-Hyp.

It's not cheesy FOR us, it's cheesy TO us.

That thread was from 3 years ago? I was just talking to someone about it (in that thread of course) about 3 or 4 days ago.

 

[Hypersmurf]

That thread was from 3 years ago? I was just talking to someone about it (in that thread of course) about 3 or 4 days ago.

Yup, but my last post in it was in 2002

-Hyp.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Now, real world common sense says that 5% is better odds of survival than stepping off a cliff. But the barbarian can take the falling damage in his sleep. In the D&D world, common sense tells him to step off the cliff, because the mechanics grant him a better chance of survival.

That's not cheese; it's observing the natural laws of one's universe, and acting accordingly.

This is, of course, true, except that the actual conclusion isn't "stepping off the cliff isn't cheesy" ... the actual conclusion is "wow, the way D&D handles falling damage is pretty damned stupid." It's very easy for people who mean the latter to conflate their actual objection with "so stepping off the cliff must be cheesy."

On the other hand, the action in the original post isn't at all cheesy, conflated logic or not, and nor is the action of provoking an AoO in order to perform a dangerous activity more safely. In the first case, I really don't understand the problem with using battelfield terrain for cover as one advances ... and combatants are battelfield cover. In the second case, the concept of taking damage in order to achieve another advantage is extraordinarily common. The opponent extends to seize the advantage offered, and while extended the hero does something that would otherwise get him creamed by his opponent.

If game mechanics can be reasonably (or, I'd argue, even somewhat unreasonably) envisioned, IMO there's just no issue (of cheese or of stupid rules). Someone dusting himself off after a 50 foot drop onto solid rock? Not reasonably envisioned. The other two examples? No problem.

 

[Hypersmurf]

This is, of course, true, except that the actual conclusion isn't "stepping off the cliff isn't cheesy" ... the actual conclusion is "wow, the way D&D handles falling damage is pretty damned stupid."

Oh, absolutely.

But that is the way D&D handles falling damage, so PCs' perception of natural laws should take that into account.

You're not exploiting a loophole in the rules; you're acting according to the principles by which the universe runs.

-Hyp.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

You're not exploiting a loophole in the rules; you're acting according to the principles by which the universe runs.

I agree. I suspect those folks calling "cheese" would also agree, but then they might seek to reframe things: "Okay, you're not exploiting a loophole in the rules, you're just exploiting a stupid rule."

There is some validity to that. (1) Examples like the falling dilemma are the sort of things that slaps some people out of willing suspension of disbelief. (I count myself here.) (2) Much, much more subtle "stupid rules" exist, rules with little or no "this is how the game world works" rationalization, and many folks have objections to those, too.

The ideal solution (if there must be a solution) isn't to complain about cheesiness (or even stupidity), but to change the rule. This isn't always possible, so folks complain about cheesiness and stupid rules. (And some folks change the rule but continue to complain about cheesiness and stupid rules. (Unfortunately, I tend to fall here, too.))

 

[KarinsDad]

You're not exploiting a loophole in the rules; you're acting according to the principles by which the universe runs.

You can call it anything you want, but exploiting a poorly written rule is exploiting a poorly written rule (i.e. cheese).

The universe only runs that way because the game designers did not anticipate the problem. It does not run that way because a universe should run that way, or that players should even play the game that way.

And, it does get old to hear players over and over again justifying poorly written or at least poorly anticipated rules with "Well, that's the way it works, hence, it's ok.". Maybe for their game, but not for mine.