The ethics of ... death

[Guest 85555]

I find it interesting that, in all the Great Snake Debate, no one has mentioned the change from 2e to 3e where poison stopped being SoD and went to the new Ability Damage mechanic. Clearly, someone decided that the SoD was excessive, whether for comparison to real world poisons or for game design reasons.

Look at the snake entries and the full poison entry in the 2E Monstrous Manual and DMG. There were different varieties of poison with different effects and only a couple of kinds of snake venom killed you on a failed save.

 

[Ahnehnois]

RAW is one factoid for success, and one more for every 5 you succeed by. About the only wiggle room is which one to reveal first.

I'm not sure about that. Here's the RAW:

In many cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s HD. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster.

The way I read this, a successful check identifies the monster and tells you a bit of useful information. For example, if a character made a successful knowledge check against the base DC for a Medusa, I would tell them that "this is a medusa, a foul and malicious creature with snakes for hair that hates other living things and surrounds herself with a menagerie of petrified creatures of all sorts and the snakes are poisonous and the poison drains the life out of you". i.e. you would get the basics about the monster, plus something (per the RAW) "special", meaning not obvious and not revealed as part of identifying the monster. Frankly, any other approach seems extremely harsh, given the basic DCs for other uses of the Knowledge skill:

Answering a question within your field of study has a DC of 10 (for really easy questions), 15 (for basic questions), or 20 to 30 (for really tough questions).

The scale only goes as high as 30. Knowing that a bodak has a death gaze is not a really tough question.

That being said, I base the Knowledge DC and results on context and don't use those rules, because they make no sense (how easy it is to know something about a creature has nothing to do with how tough it is, IMO, only how commonly known it is).

In any case, I think most parties should be able to tell that a Medusa can turn them to stone by the time they face one.

It seems like your "common sense" is more "all players and PC's have read the Monster Manual" than anything else.

No, it means that not all knowledge is covered by Knowledge skills. I think most anyone living in a D&D world knows that red dragons are evil and breathe fire, regardless of their Knowledge ranks. I also think that most anyone knows that you shouldn't touch a cockatrice, or that you need silver to kill a werewolf. It's on the same level as knowing that snakes are sometimes poisonous or that cats hunt mice and purr. Those creatures exist in this world. These sorts of things are either DC 10 Knowledge checks or simply assumed. The monster identification rules are a supplement, to tell you things that are not common knowledge like which monsters have SR or which elements a bodak is resistant to.

By your logic above, though, whenever our brave, bold L17 team sees a monster, we should all join hands and Teleport away (or we should all be fast enough to flee at better than 60', and should clearly do so). Then we should upate our entire repertoire of spells so we are specifically defended against this one entity, at which time we return. It, of course, will have done nothing in the interim. And we always have a full day to retreat, review and revise our repertoire - never any time pressure, of course.

Well, that's what they should do if they aren't already ready to kill the monster. More than likely they should have death ward on hand. Or maybe they can just sneak a cleric in and have him turn it. Or they could just leave and let it go, depending on the scenario. But yes, that's pretty much how high level D&D works: face things on your terms if at all. If the banshee is smart, it will have moved on.

I find it interesting that, in all the Great Snake Debate, no one has mentioned the change from 2e to 3e where poison stopped being SoD and went to the new Ability Damage mechanic. Clearly, someone decided that the SoD was excessive, whether for comparison to real world poisons or for game design reasons.

I think it was more a question of filling new design space. I would guess that they came up with the concept of ability damage first, and then asked "hey what are some things that should cause ability damage?" and then saw that poison was a candidate. In any case, it's not an SoD per se, but it can in some cases disable or kill the character independent of hp.

 

[Balesir]

They had divinations before 3e, didn't they? They had talking to people and finding out what the threats are in the area in advance?

Both of those get whatever information the DM feels like giving you. They fall into the "blag the DM" bucket.

But again, limitations of pre-3e rules are significant, but 3e gives us the important perception and stealth skills and a number of spells and special abilities that help you see what's coming.

All of which are by "DM discretion", again. In other words, you can try it, but whether that factors into your chances of getting hit by an SoD monster really depends on the DM far more than it depends on your decisions. The actual rules are silent on the subject.

Again, 3e has knowledge skills to explicitly deal with this, while 2e had some NWPs that were more limited, as I recall.

And, as [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] pointed out, they rely on DM discretion again. You're not paying for good bacon; you're buying a pig in a poke.

Well, I've covered surprise and anticipation enough, so there's rules for that, but yes there are also explicit rules for countering. What do you think Death Ward is? That predates 3e. There's also other spells and items that give you save bonuses or more qualified immunities. If it's a gaze attack (Medusa) there's also the whole averting your eyes business. With an enemy spellcaster, there's counterspelling and disruption. If we're including "save or suck" abilities, many of those are subject to dispel and break enchantment.

Yes, I'll grant you that there are some countermeasures against some specific effects, which are fine if you are going up against those specific effects and you know in advance that that's what you're going to do. To ensure that these are always the case, however, demands mindbendingly tedious (to me and those I game with) play such as [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] refers to.

Perhaps you missed the whole debate in some other thread recently (blanking on which one) about whether characters know how many hp they have and whether that counts as metagaming. But yes, that is a (very basic) application of skill.

As I recall I was part of the discussion, but I hardly think that is relevant, here. Any actual choices being made will necessarily come from the player, not the character, as they are the only one of the two with a real mind, ergo the "skill" we're talking about here must be the player's, not the character's.

Don't be silly. There's a cantrip specifically for opening and closing doors at a distance. There's summoning garbage monsters to go ahead for you. There's perception skills and clairvoyance and other such divinations to help you see what's waiting for you. Dungeons do present an unusual set of circumstances, but you still shouldn't be just barging into a room with no idea what's going on, and people who play in dungeons ought to know how to deal with threats in confined spaces. And if, for any reason, a powerful opponent gets within 30 ft. of you without you knowing anything about it, you're in deep trouble whether it has an SoD or not.

This just harks back to [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION]'s point; if getting within 30' of a monster without having it scoped and planned for is a problem, the characters never get past level 1, since their only "reasonable" option is to stay in town and get a job.

 

[N'raac]

I'm not sure about that. Here's the RAW:

Here's the complete RAW, which I posted a couple of pages back, again.

In many cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s HD. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster.

For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information.

The way I read this, a successful check identifies the monster and tells you a bit of useful information. For example, if a character made a successful knowledge check against the base DC for a Medusa, I would tell them that "this is a medusa, a foul and malicious creature with snakes for hair that hates other living things and surrounds herself with a menagerie of petrified creatures of all sorts and the snakes are poisonous and the poison drains the life out of you". i.e. you would get the basics about the monster, plus something (per the RAW) "special", meaning not obvious and not revealed as part of identifying the monster. Frankly, any other approach seems extremely harsh, given the basic DCs for other uses of the Knowledge skill:
The scale only goes as high as 30. Knowing that a bodak has a death gaze is not a really tough question.

I read it as it is written. A successful check gets you the identity of the monster, and one useful fact, not a complete descrption of the monster's abilities plus more. That is what the rules say.

That being said, I base the Knowledge DC and results on context and don't use those rules, because they make no sense (how easy it is to know something about a creature has nothing to do with how tough it is, IMO, only how commonly known it is).

So it works as long as we don't actually follow the rules. If Medusas are commonplace, then we should have a lot less towns and a lot more statues.

No, it means that not all knowledge is covered by Knowledge skills. I think most anyone living in a D&D world knows that red dragons are evil and breathe fire, regardless of their Knowledge ranks. I also think that most anyone knows that you shouldn't touch a cockatrice, or that you need silver to kill a werewolf. It's on the same level as knowing that snakes are sometimes poisonous or that cats hunt mice and purr. Those creatures exist in this world. These sorts of things are either DC 10 Knowledge checks or simply assumed. The monster identification rules are a supplement, to tell you things that are not common knowledge like which monsters have SR or which elements a bodak is resistant to.

So what makes these things "common knowledge"? Every peasant has a Monster Manual to read up on these things?

Well, that's what they should do if they aren't already ready to kill the monster. More than likely they should have death ward on hand. Or maybe they can just sneak a cleric in and have him turn it. Or they could just leave and let it go, depending on the scenario. But yes, that's pretty much how high level D&D works: face things on your terms if at all. If the banshee is smart, it will have moved on.

So "flee and come back loaded for this one specific monster, if it hasn't moved on" is heroic fantasy? My preference clearly is not similar to your own. I'm back to "the only prudent choice is to stay in town and earn a much safer living".

I think it was more a question of filling new design space. I would guess that they came up with the concept of ability damage first, and then asked "hey what are some things that should cause ability damage?" and then saw that poison was a candidate. In any case, it's not an SoD per se, but it can in some cases disable or kill the character independent of hp.

We can certainly speculate. I think it was more a case of "well, we have all these different poison suggestions, but everyone uses only 'save or drop dead'. We need a new mechanic."

 

[Ahnehnois]

Both of those get whatever information the DM feels like giving you. They fall into the "blag the DM" bucket.

All of which are by "DM discretion", again. In other words, you can try it, but whether that factors into your chances of getting hit by an SoD monster really depends on the DM far more than it depends on your decisions. The actual rules are silent on the subject.

So...circumstances outside of the character's control are decided by the DM? Okay. That's pretty much how this game works.

Yes, I'll grant you that there are some countermeasures against some specific effects, which are fine if you are going up against those specific effects and you know in advance that that's what you're going to do. To ensure that these are always the case, however, demands mindbendingly tedious (to me and those I game with) play such as @Umbran refers to.

Can't say I ever saw that happen, so clearly, it isn't "demanded". IME, players usually prepare their characters for combat before entering combat. We're not talking about some intricate series of highly specific abilities, we're talking about a couple of spells (Death Ward, Dispel, Break Enchantment) that are available to multiple classes and are common and rational choices when they become available and are available in scroll form. We're also talking about averting one's eyes (bodak, Medusa) or simply avoiding being touched (cockatrice), which does not exactly drag the game to a halt.

You can't get killed by a Medusa or a bodak or a basilisk unless you look at it and are within point blank range (30 ft.). That's a pretty easy counter. Given the overall weakness of those enemies of those enemies, simply fighting blind is potentially a viable option.

This just harks back to [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION]'s point; if getting within 30' of a monster without having it scoped and planned for is a problem, the characters never get past level 1, since their only "reasonable" option is to stay in town and get a job.

Given that (under the 3.5 DMG guidelines), an average of 13.3 characters or equivalent monsters must be defeated in combat for a group of four characters to gain a level (and most of those 13 are likely dead), I'd say that staying in town and getting a job is an entirely rational decision. Adventuring is not safe! It's a bloodbath out there! The point of the rules is not to make it seem that going on dangerous quests in a world full of monsters is a reasonable career choice.

 

[Jacob Marley]

They fall into the "blag the DM" bucket.

Can you drop this phrasing? Not all of us are from Yorkshire and know what "blag the DM" means. Is it really that difficult for you to just say divinations, etc. rely on DM fiat?

 

[Ahnehnois]

I read it as it is written. A successful check gets you the identity of the monster, and one useful fact, not a complete descrption of the monster's abilities plus more. That is what the rules say.

The identity of a werewolf includes shapeshifting. The identity of a magmin includes setting things on fire. The identity of a basilisk includes turning things to stone. Are you saying that the "identity" refers to a creature's name and tells you absolutely nothing else about it?

So it works as long as we don't actually follow the rules.

According to the rules, the highest DC is 30 for really tough questions. That means if I'm a player and I roll a 30 on a Knowledge check with the right skill for a monster, I expect to learn every piece of information that could be meaningful to me, even regarding the most unusual monster that I have no reason to know about.

If Medusas are commonplace, then we should have a lot less towns and a lot more statues.

Are you suggesting the converse? That in a world where "Medusa" is a race, not an individual (and is real, not a part of some mythology), that their identity is a mystery to anyone who can't make a DC 17 trained Knowledge check? And that someone who can only learns about the obvious petrification ability if the DM decides to let that be the "useful bit" of Knowledge?

Are you suggesting that a trained adventurer, having slain a hundred monsters or so to reach level 7 and traveled the world and had great adventures, could see a Medusa in the distance, clearly identify its scaly skin and snaky hair, rolls a 16 on the appropriate Knowledge check, and turns to his compatriots and says "Hey, what's that thing?" The implications of what you're suggesting are that everyone in a D&D world is astonishingly stupid.

In that case, the players aren't getting screwed by the SoD!

So what makes these things "common knowledge"? Every peasant has a Monster Manual to read up on these things?

They don't need one. The monsters in the MM exist when the players are not fighting them. They communicate (in some cases anyway). People interact with them, fight them. Then those people communicate. I should think that if, say, basilisks live in a particular area, a DC 10 to 15 Knowledge (Local) or Gather Info should tell you "hey, watch out for those lizards with the petrifying gaze!". Seeing a field of statues should allow a DC 15 or so Knowledge (Arcana) check to know that a monster with a petrifying ability is probably nearby. The monster identification rules are a backup in case that kind of stuff does not work.

So "flee and come back loaded for this one specific monster, if it hasn't moved on" is heroic fantasy? My preference clearly is not similar to your own. I'm back to "the only prudent choice is to stay in town and earn a much safer living".

That's kind of a natural consequence of high-level D&D play. If you want to avoid that dynamic, you have to create situations (teleport blocking, time limited goals, etc.) that force characters not to do that.

 

[Balesir]

So...circumstances outside of the character's control are decided by the DM? Okay. That's pretty much how this game works.

Well, I generally prefer it if most of the "character interface" ones are decided by the rules, because otherwise the "system" to be gamed becomes the GM.

You can't get killed by a Medusa or a bodak or a basilisk unless you look at it and are within point blank range (30 ft.). That's a pretty easy counter. Given the overall weakness of those enemies of those enemies, simply fighting blind is potentially a viable option.

Not in most games I've played. The medusa - sure, you need to look at it. The bodak and basilisk are different, though - they need to see you, not the other way around. This is what makes basilisks far more dangerous than medusae - especially if they get surprise.

Given that (under the 3.5 DMG guidelines), an average of 13.3 characters or equivalent monsters must be defeated in combat for a group of four characters to gain a level (and most of those 13 are likely dead), I'd say that staying in town and getting a job is an entirely rational decision. Adventuring is not safe! It's a bloodbath out there! The point of the rules is not to make it seem that going on dangerous quests in a world full of monsters is a reasonable career choice.

This now gets circular - yes, sure, it's dangerous, but there is a difference between "dangerous that good tactics and a modicum of forethought will overcome" and "dangerous that is down to dumb luck (absent some sort of obsessive planfest)".

Can you drop this phrasing? Not all of us are from Yorkshire and know what "blag the DM" means. Is it really that difficult for you to just say divinations, etc. rely on DM fiat?

Oh, sorry - though I'm pretty sure it's far from confined to Yorkshire - I'll explain and try to use a different word in future:

If I see a friend of mine in the pub and "blag" a beer off him, it means I used some technique - ranging from friendly persuasion and/or promises to outright confidence trickery - to get him to buy me a beer. Much the same sort of thing is often tried on GMs. Is the word really that unknown? I had no idea.

Are you suggesting the converse? That in a world where "Medusa" is a race, not an individual (and is real, not a part of some mythology), that their identity is a mystery to anyone who can't make a DC 17 trained Knowledge check? And that someone who can only learns about the obvious petrification ability if the DM decides to let that be the "useful bit" of Knowledge?

I think N'raac's point is that the rules of the game are actually suggesting that.

 

[Umbran]

The point of the rules is not to make it seem that going on dangerous quests in a world full of monsters is a reasonable career choice.

True. The point of the rules is to give the players an enjoyable play experience. This, of course, is subjective:

For some players, that may mean making going on dangerous quests in a world full of monsters into a reasonable career choice - at least for PCs.

For some players, it means the opposite. But, to be honest, it cannot be *too* unreasonable - there's a limit where death is too common to make the game fun.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Not in most games I've played. The medusa - sure, you need to look at it. The bodak and basilisk are different, though - they need to see you, not the other way around. This is what makes basilisks far more dangerous than medusae - especially if they get surprise.

That is not how gaze attacks work. Link. Anything that disrupts vision either provides a miss chance or avoids the effect, depending on how badly vision is compromised. Averting one's eyes, smoke clouds, darkness, etc. In pitch black you cannot be affected by a gaze (unless you have Darkvision). This is true for bodaks and basilisks, but is particularly important for the former as they are allergic to sunlight; a bodak is only dangerous given starlight or torchlight.

All of this is 3e; I suspect the answer is similar for earlier versions but don't know.