Transmutation Abuse

[moxcamel]

Hmm. You look at the power, consider how it would logically play out in the game world, and conclude that game world logic is in error.

Not true at all. The game world logic is just fine. If I want a game where the rules == game logic, then I'll play a war game. I play D&D because it's a game of imagination. Once you start insisting that the mechanic--whether it be powers or skills or whatever--has a 1:1 correlation with the in-game world, you aren't playing a role-playing game anymore, you're war gaming.

If the party wizard has just turned my enemy into a toad, and my PC has just successfully grabbed said toad, I want a solid in-game reason why I cannot pick it up and throw it in a bag of holding, or for that matter off a cliff. If the "grab" mechanic has mysteriously morphed into something that is not, in fact, physically grabbing the toad--then I'm not using the grab mechanic! I'm using whatever mechanic does in fact represent grabbing the damn toad, because that's what I want my character to do and it makes perfect sense that he could do it.

In this situation, my recommendation would be to use your imagination. If the grab fails, I would say that the toad managed to jump out of your hands or somehow evade you. Not unrealistic at all, considering he's now a tiny amphibian, and your character is likely dressed in armor, gauntlets, carrying a weapon and possibly a shield. Even if you're not encumbered by armor, there's likely a chaotic battle going on around you, and perhaps the toad has leapt in between your legs or something. These are all very plausible explanations that avoid the stricltly mechanical explanation simply failing a grab check.

 

[Dausuul]

Not true at all. The game world logic is just fine. If I want a game where the rules == game logic, then I'll play a war game. I play D&D because it's a game of imagination. Once you start insisting that the mechanic--whether it be powers or skills or whatever--has a 1:1 correlation with the in-game world, you aren't playing a role-playing game anymore, you're war gaming.

Actually, I'm playing a role-playing game the way they've been played for decades. In every RPG I've ever played, the rules correspond to specific in-game elements. (There are a tiny handful of exceptions, such as XP, which very seldom come up during actual play--XP is mostly used during chargen and between sessions, not at the table.)

Now, the way the rules represent those elements is abstracted--this is understood. A grab mechanic does not and cannot encompass every possibility of what might happen when you try to take hold of something, and the DM is expected to improvise as necessary to keep the rules in line with in-game reality. Nevertheless, it does represent a specific action, that of physically seizing a foe. When I as a player announce, "I am grabbing the toad," it is understood that I mean both the grab mechanic (Strength attack versus Fortitude) and the physical act of grabbing hold. If the Strength attack hits, then my PC has physically seized the toad.

In this situation, my recommendation would be to use your imagination. If the grab fails, I would say that the toad managed to jump out of your hands or somehow evade you. Not unrealistic at all, considering he's now a tiny amphibian, and your character is likely dressed in armor, gauntlets, carrying a weapon and possibly a shield. Even if you're not encumbered by armor, there's likely a chaotic battle going on around you, and perhaps the toad has leapt in between your legs or something. These are all very plausible explanations that avoid the stricltly mechanical explanation simply failing a grab check.

I said "successful grab." I attacked with Strength. I hit toad-monster's Fort. The toad is grabbed. I now wish to dispose of it, permanently, before it turns back into a big nasty monster.

I am using my imagination here. I am imagining that I have grabbed a toad. I am now imagining all the things I could do with a grabbed toad, and popping it in a bag of holding or tossing it off a cliff seems perfectly viable. But there's no rule for that, so the DM will have to improvise... and if the improvised mechanic is as easy as it logically ought to be, this trick would be a trivial, reliable way to dispose of a powerful foe.

If I am now expected to use my imagination to find ways to make sure these ideas don't work--all in service of preventing any action outside the scope of the rules--then I'm just playing a wargame with pretensions, and I could get the same result much more quickly by dispensing with the pretensions and treating the whole thing as the abstract tactical exercise it is.

 

[Dannager]

I am using my imagination here. I am imagining that I have grabbed a toad. I am now imagining all the things I could do with a grabbed toad, and popping it in a bag of holding or tossing it off a cliff seems perfectly viable. If I am now expected to use my imagination to find ways to make sure these ideas don't work--all in service of preventing any action outside the scope of the rules--then I'm just playing a wargame with pretensions, and I could get the same result much more quickly by dispensing with the pretensions and treating the whole thing as the abstract tactical exercise it is.

Let's forget the toad for a moment, and let's imagine that you were running a game in which you've included an encounter that involves a very powerful pixie - let's say, an elite or solo pixie, intended to be the primary threat of the encounter whether or not it includes other monsters. The party fighter successfully grabs said tiny pixie, and then announces to you, "I stuff it into the bag of holding and close it."

How do you, as the DM, adjudicate this?

Do you allow him to do it, removing the primary threat from the encounter in a single fairly easy grab check, and setting a precedent for the now-preferred way of disposing of tiny-sized threats (in essence removing tiny-sized monsters as viable challenges to your PCs going forward, unless you specifically design them to circumvent this tactic, which is cheap in its own way)?

Do you tell him he has to make another check to stuff the pixie in a bag, even though the pixie is already grabbed? How do you justify this additional check in the game world?

Do you announce that it simply cannot be done, in the interest of maintaining the intended level of challenge of the encounter?

And, to top it all off, what part of your choice and/or rationalization would be different if you were playing 3rd/2nd/1st edition as opposed to 4e?

 

[Azlith]

Hmm. You look at the power, consider how it would logically play out in the game world, and conclude that game world logic is in error. I look at the power, consider how it would logically play out in the game world, and conclude that the power is broken--not because it's overpowered within the scope of the rules, but because the designer forgot that the D&D rules are not a closed space. Players can and will go beyond what the rules cover, and being turned into a toad is a massive disadvantage by any reasonable standard.

If the party wizard has just turned my enemy into a toad, and my PC has just successfully grabbed said toad, I want a solid in-game reason why I cannot pick it up and throw it in a bag of holding, or for that matter off a cliff. If the "grab" mechanic has mysteriously morphed into something that is not, in fact, physically grabbing the toad--then I'm not using the grab mechanic! I'm using whatever mechanic does in fact represent grabbing the damn toad, because that's what I want my character to do and it makes perfect sense that he could do it.

Ok, so say you successfully grab the toad. To move a creature you have grabbed requires a strength check. You would also need a second hand free to open the bag. Also, because you are moving a creature into hindering terrain, he would get a save to avoid it. All basic rules stuff.

My interpretation on how to handle the effects. Let's say everything goes in your favor and the creature in question is in now in your bag and the original creature was:

A small or smaller creature: probably dead and can be removed from the bag

A medium creature: probably dead, fills the bag entirely (conservative estimate of 18 cubic feet in volume), can not be removed from the bag. Bag is now useless. Any items in the bag are a complete bloody mess. If the bag was already 25% or more filled, the bag explodes in a bloody mess and the creature emerges, losing hit points equal to twice his surge value.

Large or larger creature: fills the bag to bursting. The creature emerges, taking one surge value in Hit points. Any items in the bag are scattered.

Vecna: When you reach for Vecna or anything else in the bag, you lose your hand. The bag is now a bag of hand eating that only eats the hands of the adventurers who dared attack him. To recover your hand, go see Vecna, he has them all on a chain around his neck while he sits on top of a pile of treasure from bags of holding.

So, if losing a bag of holding (1000gp), is worth killing or just damaging a creature, go ahead. You're probably better off all surrounding the toad and when everyone is in place, attack him all at once before he gets a chance to attack back. Much easier and potentially less costly. Everyone assumed that a bag of holding equals instant death. Nowhere in the rules does it say that items are indestructible. They got rid of the single save or die mechanic for a reason.

 

[phoffman]

Just because you "Grab" something doesn't mean you get to automatically Move it. It technically takes 2 attacks to grab then move an enemy.

,snip... Yeah just read Azlith's post that he made 10 minutes before mine.

 

[Incenjucar]

Thanks to the OP for sparking such an interesting discussion. <3

--

Keeping the bag closed would, I would rule, act as a grapple check, with the bag acting basically like a bucket of water that you're trying to drown your enemy in. Personally I'd treat the interior of the bag much like being swallowed by a monster, so that the victim can just destroy it from the inside and pop back into the room, possibly dazed - players SHOULD be rewarded for such ingenuity and cost, just not so much that it destroys the game balance.

 

[moxcamel]

Actually, I'm playing a role-playing game the way they've been played for decades. In every RPG I've ever played, the rules correspond to specific in-game elements. (There are a tiny handful of exceptions, such as XP, which very seldom come up during actual play--XP is mostly used during chargen and between sessions, not at the table.)

So your in-game characters only literally ever perform a single action and move every 6 seconds? There's no parrying, fancy footwork, ducking, lunging, jockying for advantageous terrain? It's just swing your sword and then do nothing else for about 4 more seconds?

No I don't think you mean this at all. I'm willing to bet there's some lively abstraction going on at your table just like mine. But you can't say that one aspect of combat is abstract while the rest is letter of the law. D&D (and any other RPG I can think of) has always been about abstraction from top to bottom. In fact, before we had things like feats and powers, we had the DM. On one attack roll the DM might say, "you heft your mighty axe aloft and cleave through him from shoulder blade down to his navel." In another attack with the same exact mechanic the DM might have said "using the blunt end of your axe, you connect solidly with his head, caving in one full side of his skull. He drops to the ground, dead." And in yet another, "your axe slices cleanly between his ribs, and he drops with a thud. As you are about to engage your next foe, he seems to be trying to tell you something. You lean down to hear him whisper his last, dying words..."

It's the same mechanic, but in-game three very different things happened to achieve the same result.

XP is not an exception to the abstraction rule, it's yet another element. Just like hit points and stats and saving throws and every single number you write down on your character sheet that doesn't represent physical items like money or gear.

A grab mechanic does not and cannot encompass every possibility of what might happen when you try to take hold of something, and the DM is expected to improvise as necessary to keep the rules in line with in-game reality.

Now replace "grab" in this sentence with any other mechanic you can think of.

"An opportunity attack mechanic does not and cannot encompass every possibility of what might happen..."

"A bullrush mechanic does not and cannot encompass every possibility of what might happen..."

"A perception check mechanic does not and cannot encompass every possibility of what might happen..."

It's all abstraction based on a core idea. Grab doesn't have to be "grab," it just has to be sorta-kinda like a "grab."

Nevertheless, it does represent a specific action, that of physically seizing a foe. When I as a player announce, "I am grabbing the toad," it is understood that I mean both the grab mechanic (Strength attack versus Fortitude) and the physical act of grabbing hold. If the Strength attack hits, then my PC has physically seized the toad.

Sure. Player announces "I am grabbing," so you use the grab mechanic. Absolutely. But the success or failure outcome is not a pre-determined thing. That's where the abstraction comes in. On a fail, full-sized Vecna nearly breaks your wrist as he smacks away your futile attempt to grab him. On toad Vecna, toady leaps away from your grasp. Same mechanic, same outcome, different abstractions. On a success, full-sized Vecna is grabbed. You would do the same thing with toad Vecna. If you've grabbed toad Vecna, you can either say that he weighs the same as full-sized Vecna, or you can say that he's just so darned slippery that it's hard to keep hold of him, what with you wielding a weapon and wearing gauntlets and all...

I said "successful grab." I attacked with Strength. I hit toad-monster's Fort. The toad is grabbed. I now wish to dispose of it, permanently, before it turns back into a big nasty monster.

Apologies, I rail-roaded myself into one train of thought and forgot to address this. See Azlith's response, his is better than anything I'd have come up with anyway.

 

[HighTemplar]

About them Bag of holding or cliffs

I ruled in my game you cannot put any living thing in stuff like bags of holdings.

The only item that does something like this is a portable hole, because you don't "technically" change plane, anyhow I ruled that you must enter willingly in these devices.

As for throwing people off a cliff, with giant gloves, after it has been toaded, but it is still entitled a saving throw not to fall (can't remember where that is in the rules, but I know it's there)

Anyways it's a gay and annoying power, but there are already others just like it.

 

[moxcamel]

I ruled in my game you cannot put any living thing in stuff like bags of holdings.

Ah but Vecna's undead.

Anyways it's a gay and annoying power, but there are already others just like it.

Ehh, that's kinda not cool.

 

[Al'Kelhar]

...Maybe this is the key.. you turn the dragon into a frog, but its a 30 foot tall frog

Nope, IMC, it transforms the dragon into a frog...hemoth. Which then dismembers your buddies' corpses with its tentacles while swallowing you whole. BWAH HA HA HA.