You're doing what? Surprising the DM

[Greenfield]

I have a reputation for surprising my DMs with tactics or solutions for solving problems. Not all DMs appreciate the surprises.

So where do you,as a DM or player, draw the line between "being innovative" and "ambushing the DM"?

Example: Facing a Baselisk, I used Dust of Disappearance, on the Baselisk himself. His Gaze attack requires that you be able to see his eyes, after all. Thus began a debate about whether or not there was or should be a Save against that, when the target is unwilling.

Now for me, the downside has become that I have to warn the DMs, well in advance, of my intended tactics, and intended uses for any magic item my character wants to acquire.

My character recently tried to get the Alchemical recipe for Pixie Dust (Arms & Equipment Guide). He didn't have any specific use in mind though, so I couldn't give the advance warning. The DM, suspecting an ambush in the offing, declined to allow it.

So again, how do you handle this sort of thing as a DM, or as a player?

 

[dragonfriend7738]

Personally, as a DM, I like being 'ambushed.' At least, by creative things like what you are detailing here. It means that my players are being innovative about their purchases, and thinking on their feet in the combat situations that I throw at them. Sure, it throws me for a loop every now and again, but that's to be expected and I try to make the best of it.

I would only ban an item or ability from my games if it would imbalance the game, not because I'm expecting the player to pull an ace out of his sleeve with it.

Grant some bonus exp to the player thinking creatively and move on with the encounter.

P.S:
How did you go about defeating the now-invisible basilisk?

 

[innerdude]

I'll admit, as a GM, sometimes I have a hard time letting go of my preparations, especially when there's something "cool" I have in the works that an "ambush" neatly sidesteps.

But, once the initial resistance of "Oh no! There goes all my hard work!" wears off, usually I'm okay with the player presenting his or her side of the story, and what they think the result of their actions would be. I'll then typically try to negotiate something that doesn't just work for the player, but makes things interesting for the group too.

A lot of it has to do with the attitude of the player, too. In cases where the player really is just trying something different, or what they think would be fun and cool, I'm way more apt to work with it than with a player who I know is simply trying to "power game" into an automatic "I win! Hahah!"

 

[Evenglare]

Generally as a DM I enjoy this type of ambush because as a DM I often make things more complicated for them so it goes both ways. However, if the player is there just to cause problems then it starts escalating into a player VS DM thing and the player quickly learns they cant win in that sort of situation. But that only occurs with a particularly irritating player, which I have only encountered rarely.

 

[Dozen]

Hmm. Without precedent? No idea. My players never did the sor-.

Now seriously, I expect them to exploit the system when- and wherever they can as a DM. A day without the party's Artificer crafting an army of constructs made of chopsticks is downright dissapointing. And me? I'm the worst of the bunch. My favourite picks for abuse are Illusory Scripts and the Rods of Shadowblending, but I've made use of everything from bug corpses through a whole granary to liberal uses of signposts.

 

[Evenglare]

Also it seems that dust of Dissapearance is CL7th which, by the numbers would seem that the party SHOULD be higher level than the basilisk which is a CL5 if the party aquired it as a normal item. As such if the party has access to a wonderous item like DoD they should be able to take care of the Basilisk easily by other means. If the Dust was given to a lower level party then the DM should have expected it to be used on an enemy that should have been a challenge thus making the challenge easier. Either way using a higher level item on a lower level creature shouldn't have been a surprise on the DM.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I have a reputation for surprising my DMs with tactics or solutions for solving problems. Not all DMs appreciate the surprises.

So where do you,as a DM or player, draw the line between "being innovative" and "ambushing the DM"?

Players propose a solution, then step back and give the DM space. I've seen this work well, and poorly, often the latter due to a pushy player. Also, the DM should be able to "take back" after a while, if it seems a long term strategy (such as the fairy dust mentioned) turns out to be crazy or problematic.

Example: Facing a Baselisk, I used Dust of Disappearance, on the Baselisk himself. His Gaze attack requires that you be able to see his eyes, after all. Thus began a debate about whether or not there was or should be a Save against that, when the target is unwilling.

Invisibility and other such buff spells allow a save if you try to force them. So I'd allow a save, probably Will DC 13 though (minimum save DC, as is standard for items).

So again, how do you handle this sort of thing as a DM, or as a player?

Here's an example that should have worked. It was in 4e, and one player wanted to drop a stone arch on NPCs, who were moving about in mobs. The rules would have made that an AoE attack against Reflex, damage being a limited expression attack. It would have dealt extra damage to the mob. Unfortunately, I was against the idea at first, and the players ended up not going through with it. (Even DMs can have a bad day.)

And an example that didn't work. In Pathfinder, alchemists can make bombs, and presumably larger batches of explosives. We had chased a troll army into a cave system and wanted to make bombs to seal them in or drop rocks or fire on them if they came out the only entrance large enough for a troll. Alas, the alchemist class (as far as I can tell, it's not a core class) doesn't have any limit on explosives, basically having an at-will bomb attack. The alchemist player was really loud and demanding and bowled over the DM. So we didn't get to fight the trolls, which I was upset at, because the troll leader was actually a cool NPC and I wanted to see if he could fight and lead troops as well as he could talk. (Said troll made a total fool of us in an earlier social encounter, we of course presuming he was only barely smarter than the typical troll.)

It's hindsight, which is why I think the DM needs to be given time, but if I were the DM I would have let the alchemist make four bombs per day, each doing 2d6 damage x alchemist level, and the alchemist gets to choose whether the damage is fire or untyped. Untyped bombs could trap the trolls under rocks until they dig out (giving a big combat advantage) but fire against trolls... the smartest strategy would be two bombs of each type, I guess. I probably wouldn't let bomb damage overlap, but this means a smart alchemist could set one bomb to go off on round one, a second to go off on a round two, etc. This would cut back on an alpha strike though, so again, a choice.

The bombs would give the PCs an advantage, possibly a big one, but couldn't cancel an encounter by themselves.

(I'd also, again this is with hindsight, let the trolls dig a second path out so they could pull a flanking attack at some point.)

 

[Warbringer]

... Nice

Of course you get to make a save as you look at it and throw the dust, if you close you eyes, 50% misses.

Now you have an invisible basilisk to worry about you can become visible by attacking... And maybe, with surprise

 

[DancingSatyr]

At one point I seriously considered giving up being a DM for the exact opposite reason. No matter what I wrote, or how much time I took out of my life as a single father ( the kids living with me ), I couldn't get my players to even keep track of who's turn it was! Let alone, use any sort of tactics. As long as the player respects that the DM is simply trying to challenge them, not to "destroy" them, I say bring it on. The downside is...this just encourages most DM's to be that much more deadly

 

[Greenfield]

Invisibility and other such buff spells allow a save if you try to force them. So I'd allow a save, probably Will DC 13 though (minimum save DC, as is standard for items).

DoD is based on Greater Invisibility, so any Save would be higher (16, minimum). But items based on spells don't always work the same as the spells themselves, and there isn't a Save listed for DoD. The authors probably didn't consider that anyone would ever find an offensive use for it. And, by the 3.0 rules, you could toss it as an area of effect, so you didn't need to meet the critter's eyes to use it.

And an example that didn't work. In Pathfinder, alchemists can make bombs, and presumably larger batches of explosives. We had chased a troll army into a cave system and wanted to make bombs to seal them in or drop rocks or fire on them if they came out the only entrance large enough for a troll. Alas, the alchemist class (as far as I can tell, it's not a core class) doesn't have any limit on explosives, basically having an at-will bomb attack. The alchemist player was really loud and demanding and bowled over the DM. So we didn't get to fight the trolls, which I was upset at, because the troll leader was actually a cool NPC and I wanted to see if he could fight and lead troops as well as he could talk. (Said troll made a total fool of us in an earlier social encounter, we of course presuming he was only barely smarter than the typical troll.)

I'd argue that it shouldn't have worked. The Alchemist's "bombs" are the equivalent to a Warlock's blast. That is, it's a prepare-and-fire ability, a "formulation" that doesn't depend on the availability of raw materials, and has no appreciable preparation time. (The Alchemist can prepare a "bomb", affix it to a crossbow bolt, load and fire that bolt, all in one standard action, which is faster than a trained crossbowman can fire an normal bolt.) So I'd probably rule that you shouldn't be able to accumulate such attacks and lump them together into a mega-explosion, any more than a Warlock can accumulate Eldritch Blasts into one massive Phaser array.

The Alchemist is, by many accounts, a broken class, a glass cannon type who can put out far more in a single attack than he could possibly survive himself. Letting him take his ranged attacks and start using them as land mines or time bombs, without some feat or power to account for the special use, would just be adding to the "broken".

That is, of course, my opinion only.