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

[The Little Raven]

I think that the problem here is that it seems self evident to Mourn (and dare I say, most of us) that the two are not logically identical, therefore we're having a hard time wrapping our heads around your contention that they are.

Word. To quote Zoolander... I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

 

[robertliguori]

Oh good. "It's not specifically disallowed, so it must be allowed." Really? A sack of rats is out, but several individual rats is in? Ridiculous.

First, I was specifically referring to a claim about what was 'explicitly' stated in the rules. Next, well, yes; it is generally assumed that if you have a list of rules that prohibit A - F and read as though the intent was to prohibit G but don't actually, then G isn't prohibited by the letter of the rules.

No, in KotS a swarm of rats is presented as a credible threat. A swarm of rats with 36 hit points. Individual rats are not a meaningful threat, despite the fact that the DMG does not expressly state that individual rats are not a meaningful threat.

Individual giant rats are; they're a size category larger than rats, but still manageable for the given example. However, yes, I was incorrect when I referred to indiviual rats instead of individual giant rats in my previous posts.

And here's one for you. Try cutting out the condescension. Many posters would be more apt to comprehend your myriad assertions if you were only to stop talking down to them.

Were I trying to win points on a debate team, I would certainly do so. As this is the internet, I can remain blissfully unconcerned with persuading anyone who cares more for my tone than my argument.

That being said, I do feel obliged to return point with counterpoint; I wish to avoid snarking at anyone who is arguing with me in good faith. However, when things reach the point of an argument being stated, me presenting a counterargument with points, and hearing the original argument repeated back, I pretty much give up on convincing my opponent and work instead on amusing myself.

 

[Otterscrubber]

One of my players is really into the "bag of Rats" problem. He sees all of the "hit a target and do X" powers and says "this proves 4e is stupid! They forgot about the bag of rats exploit!"

Page 40 of the DMG, you are my friend.

He carries a bag of rats to activate his powers (surely there is a name for this kinda player) and he was gonna say the designers of 4e were stupid! Oh my......

I think everyone should enjoy the game in the way that best suits them, but folks like this do try my patience.

 

[Otterscrubber]

Sigdel, 4e is closing some dodgy, literal interpretations of rules.

In 3.x a character with the Whirlwind Attack and Great Cleave feats, would (in some peoples games), drop a bag of rats on to the ground, WWAttack and use the free Cleave gained by killing each "foe" on the Big Monster that scared the PC into using this tactic.

Do you personally know any DMs who went along with this tactic? Did they continue to game with this person? Didn't the other members of the group think something was a bit wonky with this concept?

 

[Hussar]

The explicit text of the DMG prohibits sacks of rats; there is nothing in there about individually-wrapped rats.

This quote, right here, explains perfectly why we have the Bag-o-rats line in the DMG. Unfortunately.

 

[Otterscrubber]

Good grief. Are there players actually dense enough to, in all seriousness and hopes of the DM allowing it, attempt the bag of rats thing? And are there DMs who are at all puzzled by what they should do about it? If this is a problem that needs addressing, I weep for modern DMs. They don't deserve the title.

Perhaps some enterprising person here will begin a DM certification process. Now that's something I'd like to see hanging on someone's mantel next to their PhD

 

[robertliguori]

I'm perfectly fine with the DM applying his common sense.

OK. If a warforged is hit with poisonous sleep gas, what should happen? Common sense suggests that the warforged should remain conscious; warforged are not portrayed as requiring sleep, have no organs that could be affected by a sleep toxin, and are not only capable of holding their breath, but actually incapable of breathing the gas in the first place. The rules also say flat-out that warforged are not immune to poison and reacts no differently to any effects on account of its living construct status. This rule suggests that the common-sense adjudication above does not reach the correct conclusion. Given this, I am leery of suggesting that common sense is in fact common to the rules of 4E.

I think that the problem here is that it seems self evident to Mourn (and dare I say, most of us) that the two are not logically identical, therefore we're having a hard time wrapping our heads around your contention that they are.

I use computational and mathematical models in my work. The definition of a model is, "a simplified representation of reality". Because they are simplified, the model is never exactly the same as reality. There will always be cases where the model is inconsistent with the real world. When using a model, you have to be aware of when and how it might be inconsistent with the real world and make sure that those inconsistencies won't affect your results (or at least acknowledge that effect when you report those results).

A set of role-playing game rules is a model. In this case, since D&D is a fantasy game, it is a representation of an imaginary reality, rather than the real world. While this reality exists only in the minds of the players and the DM, the RPG rules still share the other characteristics of a model, including simplification. Because it is a simplification, it can never be entirely consistent with the imaginary world that it is modeling. Therefore, the rules of the game are not the physics of the game world. There will be cases where the game rules are inconsistent with the imaginary world that the players and the DM are creating, like the Bag of Rats. Much like the scientist who has to recognize and deal with inconsistencies between the model and real life, the DM has to recognize and deal with inconsistencies between the rules and the imaginary world that he and the players are creating. This is one of the major purposes of Rule 0.

Ah, I think I now see. What you are describing as 'physics of the gameworld' is the shared idea of what should happen in response to a given event. If it makes sense to the group that falling from a horse can on occasion be deadlier than an unremarkable blow with a light blade, for instance, then 3.5's rules for falling from horses were bad rules. Likewise, in 3.5, nothing actually prohibited a dead character from taking actions; by the rules, a slain PC could stand up and cheerfully go about his adventuring career (as long as he managed to acquire a few temporary HP to prevent unconsciousness); this is an example of the rules being so at odds with player expectations that in most cases, no formal correction was necessary.

My issue is that I have no term to recognize an unenforced rule. If the books have a rule that states X, but X does not happen in the game world, then to me, X is not a rule. Since we have an existing term to describe what is written (as opposed to what happens in actual play), I'd like to rephrase "Rules are not the physics of the gameworld." with "RAW does not necessarily describe the physics of the gameworld."

 

[The Little Raven]

This quote, right here, explains perfectly why we have the Bag-o-rats line in the DMG. Unfortunately.

Yeah, the "it explicitly forbids one ridiculous action, but doesn't explicitly forbid this nearly identical ridiculous action, so it must be okay!" mentality boggles me.

 

[Jon Wake]

STOPSTOPSTOP

This conversation is making me stupider for hearing it. I don't cotton to them there Forge nonsense (It's a *#&$*ing GAME, chode boys, not a history dissertation), but back in my day we had a word for people who did this kind of crap thinking.

MUNCHKIN. Obsessed with 'winning' munchkin. And we mocked them and discounted them and make funny books about their love of pointless rules exploitation.

 

[Otterscrubber]

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

Perhaps but that sounds more like a component type thing for a ritual rather than something that will activate a combat ability.