D&D 4E The (lack of a) Bag of Rats Problem in 4e

[Spenser]

Is the idea of a Warlock carrying around a (largish) rat in a cage to sacrifice for his pact really that odd? Some temp. hp. just before combat or a short range teleport are both nice.

It's a fine idea, assuming the cage is suitably rune-inscribed and magicked up such that it costs about as much as a minor magic item.

 

[Mirtek]

the minion *could* wake up and *could* hit and *could* deal damage. the rats, no matter their state, could not.

Aren't rats in the MM as an first level monster

I have 5 rats. The one time I've ever been bitten was annoying but hardly dangerous.

Have you killed them as retribution? IF so you might already be 2nd level

 

[Greatwyrm]

Personally, I find it sad that they had to bother to make such a statement.

A while back a friend of mine was flipping through (IIRC) the World of Darkness Combat book. He was surprised to find damage ratings for something like an industrial drill press and doing a burnout with a motorcycle on somebody's face. He couldn't figure out why they'd put that in a book. As I told him, it's only there because it happened in somebody's game and they asked.

 

[Mirtek]

I'm amazed at the ridiculousness that some players try. There is a thread on the official forums where people were arguing that you can use Cleave to pick your original target as the 2nd target, because it says "and an enemy adjacent to you", not "and *another* enemy adjacent to you...

Them: "But rule descriptions trump the flavor text that says 'cleave into another'!".

Apparently common sense and the meaning of the word 'and' get thrown out the window.

Well, from the RAW point of view they seem to be correct. I guess this is among the candidates for the first errata

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

A level 1 character can carry a giant rat in a cage in a burlap sack on my shoulder. Said rat being a lvl 1 minion worth 25 xp. Go ahead, tell me that a creature *I get significant xp for* isn't a meaningful threat.

Essentially, a meaningful threat is any creature that you'd be afraid to let out of a cage or sack because it might do some significant damage to you when you do.

I'd generally go with creatures within 5 or 10 levels below you would be fine, anything below that the books recommend as not using as enemies any longer. That's about when they aren't a threat anymore.

 

[Mirtek]

Yes.

Why? A warlock carrying an animal as blood sacrifice to his pact master sound much less ridiculous than a fighter carrying a rat to hit the rat for a free hit on the dragon.

I actually think sacrificing an animal prior to every battle has a lot of flair for a warlock

 

[robertliguori]

Sure thing.

As DM, I am telling you that a creature you have put into a sack to carry around for silly metagame reasons is not a meaningful threat. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.

Oh, OK. The Meaningful Threat rule has noticeable effects in the gameworld; characters are physically incapable of using maneuvers on non-meaningful threats. Characters can observe maneuvers and their results. Therefore, trying to generate a creature that triggers the meaningful threat rule while being less of a threat than it not being there (say, triggering a vampiric healing strike) is a valid, justified in-game action, and involves no metagaming at all; ergo, short of the GM providing helpful red circles around the feet of designated mobs, there's no reason to assume from the world as presented that you can't store meaningful threats in your pack.

Logic. It's like doubles, but better.

 

[Stogoe]

Robertligouri, the rules of the game are not the physics of the game world.

Well, from the RAW point of view they seem to be correct.

I stopped caring about RAW quite some time ago. Now I'm more concerned with finding players who would rather play a game of heroic fantasy action than the game called "find the hyperliteralist, contorted, exaggerated loopholes and try to bully the DM into letting me break his game".

 

[hong]

Why?

Because. Now shut up and roll the dice.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

The reason this stuff doesn't happen is because a good DM will stop it. If players had their way it would. Just this last Friday the group's Crusader was speculating whether he could punch the Monk for nonlethal damage outside of combat to trigger his healing maneuvers.

No. Now can we get back to the game?

Back on topic. I don't mind that they put this kind of advice in the DMG. Its there to help new DMs and to remind even experienced players (as mine are) that they should stop trying to exploit the rules and play in the heroic spirit of the game.