Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Valk 07-11-07, 01:52 AM	First there was core, and I think complete series up until complete adventurer aswell. There the rules were good in that the following method did not give a creature an advantage: >>> Imaging or thinking something is that it's not. Sound stupid? - how far does this lie from an enchantment spell or most notably 'False Sensory Input' from the XPH or just an illusion spell. Step 1 there is a real creature, step 2 is a shadow conjured creature, step 3 is a figment of a creature, step 4 is the mind being tricked into thinking there is a creature, step 5 is the mind imagining there is one of it's own accord. Why is imagination a problem? Well because it introduces a new required command in programming. Old spells check the target hit dice, type or that kind of measurable in game things. New spells ask for a judgement, technically from the player but since he would exploit it it asks the DM for judgement. Say we take the spell 'Charm Person' and distill it into conceptual programming: Charm Person: IF( target is not immune to mind affection spells AND target type is humanoid ) THEN( demand willsave ) IF( (willsave < DC AND will_roll is not 20) OR will_roll is 1 ) THEN( target is charmed for (caster level) hours ) Now we take a Devoted Spirit strike, to function it requires two things that could previously be determined freely by the player. Rallying strike / Revitalising Strike / Strike of Righteous Vitality: IF( dm sais target is opponent AND dm sais target is immediate threat AND attack hits) THEN(do the healing thing) Before ToB and the likes there was no objection in the player choosing who were his friends and who were his foes when casting prayer for example. But now, doing that gives you access to free unlimited healing w00t! - so yes, it is no longer allowed. It also implies that you can detect mind affecting effects and illusions by trying to use these abilities. Say someone cast False Sensory Input on you and makes you think an ally is a great threat, now you use strike of righteous vitality on him... now what, if it functions then you should be able to make it function aswell by imagining a random target is viable, if it doesn't function you have a free escape from all illusions and many mind-affecting spells. I find rules that appeal to the DM for judgement bad rules because the DM should not exist as an in-game entity, and it gives more power to the DM to control mechanics and he shouldn't be allowed to. And why do they throw in the towel at this point, they are just lazy rules of poor quality. Up until the boots of 5 ft. stepping* during reflex save were introduced (cityscape I think) there were no abilities that could be exploited by imagining something, and no spells directly appealed to the DM. Offcourse divination spells ask the DM to tell something but technically a deity tells it, the DM controls the deity like all other NPC's. Editadd: I'd say Wizard of the Coast must errata these maneuvre descriptions to refer to hit die, attacks made or similar things instead of asking the DM for judgement of whether something works or not. *Not actual name, they allow you to make a 5 ft. step prior to reflex save. Now what if you are in shadow conjured fireball, or figment fireball, or imagined fireball - free infinite AoO free movement! actually no, DM will intervene, and will have to intervene every single time because the rules are poorly made. I'd further like to add that while I think that WotC gave up trying to balance the game and decided to make every viable class a caster (ToB classes are casters), I do not find ToB to be overpowered and I do like most of it, save for these crappy rules.
Nezkrul 07-11-07, 02:04 AM	uhm, what?
Salla 07-11-07, 02:25 AM	http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa279/LolaBonne/WhatsYourPoint.jpg
o_b_livion 07-11-07, 02:39 AM	Wow...simply, that was, simply wow. As in, wow that was a waste of trying to read a damn computer programming book. You must be the life of the party...:bored: :bored: But seriously,what's the point of this yak again of yours?
Jungingen 07-11-07, 03:44 AM	I find rules that appeal to the DM for judgement bad rules because the DM should not exist as an in-game entity, and it gives more power to the DM to control mechanics and he shouldn't be allowed to. How does this at all change the role of the DM in the game? What does the DM usually do in your games if not dictate and control whatever the devil is going on? Who dictates what's going on if he doesn't? Do the players just sort of talk it over and go with RAW? Throwing a Rallying Strike into a tree or a commoner or a party member is not asking the DM to make any unusual or weighty interpretations of the rules. The player attempts an action and the DM describes the results. If your DM doesn't know whether to allow Rallying Strike to be used successfully against allies/inanimate objects/defenseless targets or anything else inappropriate, you should be more concerned by his lack of imagination than any appeals to imagination which you find unreasonable. Beyond the mechanical objections to your concerns, there are obvious RP issues as well. If your esteemed traveling companion said he was going to briefly TAMPER WITH YOUR MIND such that you will think another of your allies is a dangerous maniac, I think you might demur. Your intended target might well be likewise outraged by the suggestion. Any party so absorbed by metagaming deserves a DM who would allow the whole affair to go forward, only to devolve into vicious party member vs. party member violence. Let your DM sort it out. If he's just as uncomfortable with the rules as you are, hopefully he'll just ban ToB. Otherwise I'm sure that the minor issues which might arise from abusive players can easily be tackled when they appear.
Lawkeeper 07-11-07, 03:45 AM	I find rules that appeal to the DM for judgement bad rules because the DM should not exist as an in-game entity, and it gives more power to the DM to control mechanics and he shouldn't be allowed to. Rule 0bis of D&D : the DM is the omnipotent god of the RPG. If you don't like having a DM making judgment calls and providing balance when you try to exploit mechanics (which is I presumed happened and made you write all this stuff), you'd better play wargames.;)
Nor'Morgwae 07-11-07, 04:36 AM	Player: "Okay, I'm using an Evil Outsider Bane longsword, but is a shadow mastif an evil outsider? It doesn't have the evil subtype..." DM: "That's a good question, unfortunately I'm not allowed to be an in game entity so I can't make that ruling." Later... Player: "I'm going to try to use this branch as a weapon, is that one or two handed and how much damage does it do?" DM: "Sorrry, still not allowed to be an in game entity." Later still... Player: "Okay, that's a 23, does it hit the orc?" DM: "..." Player: "Um, hello? Does that hit?" DM: "Sorry, I am not supposed to be an in game entity so a ruling as to whether or not that hit is beyone my perview." See how this can become absurd very, very quickly? Saying that the DM cannot make a ruling on something because a "DM should not exist as an in-game entity" is rediculous. Making a ruling on somethign does not make them a being in the game. Does making a ruling on how much damage an imporvised weapon does making them the god of fighting with sticks? Does telling the players when they hit something make him an entity in the game because he is ruling what circumstantial modifiers might be involved and thus whether the players hit or not? If not, then how does ruling if a creature is a threat to the player make a DM an entity? It's a safety measure put in so players don't say, "that tree is my opponent and out to get me!" and then use the ability. Even in your own example of charm person gives the target a +5 to it's save if the caster or his allies are threatening or attacking it. That means the DM has to rule on what constitutes a threat or an attack. So how is the core rule that makes the DM give a ruling good and simple and the non-core rule that makes the DM give a ruling poor design and bad? It's even ruling on the same thing, whether the creature is a threat.
Valk 07-11-07, 06:20 AM	I had forgotten my point: Wizards should errata these abilities to no longer directly appeal to DM judgement. Rule 0bis of D&D : the DM is the omnipotent god of the RPG. If you don't like having a DM making judgment calls and providing balance when you try to exploit mechanics (which is I presumed happened and made you write all this stuff), you'd better play wargames.;) My point is that prior to some new books you COULD NOT exploit the game by considering someone who is not a threat to be a threat or by considering an ally an enemy or a tree for that matter. Now you do have an exploit by such tampering, and my point is that the game should have rules that are not subject to this so the DM does not need to interfere to keep the game balanced, player intent should also not have an influence on game mechanics, game mechanics should be immune to player intent and just react on things actually being done. And actually, I am the DM in this game and I have not yet played a ToB class myself. Also, I would not support exploitation of this rule. However, as DM I like rules to work without opinions. If players and the DM have a disagreement over whether something will work or not the rules say who is right. Say it's 3.5 pre-errata and the party wizard casts hold person on an enemy druid, the DM sais he is immune and the player disagrees. The DM sighs, grabs the PHB, shows that the druid becomes an animal while wildshaping, the player reads it and admits that the druid is indeed immune and that the spell is wasted. However, now take a simple situation where a player with a player with rallying strike. I'll forgo the pure sploit situation and say that the level 14 party is attacked by 3 CR 8 thugs. However, the leader of the thugs had earlier bluffed about the strength of his thugs and the players think they have a serious fight on their hands. More-over, half the party is at 50% hp or less. The players think they are about to die and think there is certainly an immediate threat, the DM knows this will be a walkover even with their low hp. And now, yes, a players makes a rallying strike with his greatsword but rolls poorly for only 8 damage. Does it heal today?... Will the DM use omniscience or may the players use their perception (which at other times allows them to exploit it). See how this can become absurd very, very quickly? Saying that the DM cannot make a ruling on something because a "DM should not exist as an in-game entity" is rediculous. Making a ruling on somethign does not make them a being in the game. Does making a ruling on how much damage an imporvised weapon does making them the god of fighting with sticks? Does telling the players when they hit something make him an entity in the game because he is ruling what circumstantial modifiers might be involved and thus whether the players hit or not? If not, then how does ruling if a creature is a threat to the player make a DM an entity? It's a safety measure put in so players don't say, "that tree is my opponent and out to get me!" and then use the ability. No, the DM should interfere in the game by changing the rules and controlling PC's. That is the way he works. Like programming to a computer. If in a computer program something does not function as it should the program cannot consult the programmer, however, a user can tell the programmer what is wrong and the programmer adds some rules to the program, or changes some rules. The job of a DM. Your examples with some of mine added in: Player: "Okay, I'm using an Evil Outsider Bane longsword, but is a shadow mastif an evil outsider? It doesn't have the evil subtype..." DM: "No, the rules clearly state what an evil outsider is and what not, read the rules and know it doesn't work." k, this one isn't even an example. Player: "I'm going to try to use this branch as a weapon, is that one or two handed and how much damage does it do?" (DM: "Sorrry, still not allowed to be an in game entity.") Ingame entity solution: DM: "Just attack with it, I'll think up how much damage you deal each time." - in effect, the DM adds a rule that sais when an attack is made the attack consults the DM how much damage it's going to deal. In a computer program this would be impossible, the program cannot ask the programmer what it is supposed to do, the programmer should have done so in advance. DM that makes rulings solution: DM: "I'm going to make it an improvised 2-handed weapon, it is improvised so -4 to hit and it deals 1d8 damage with a critical range of 20/x2." - the DM adds a rule that requires no further DM judgement to make it work.[/quote] Even in your own example of charm person gives the target a +5 to it's save if the caster or his allies are threatening or attacking it. That means the DM has to rule on what constitutes a threat or an attack. So how is the core rule that makes the DM give a ruling good and simple and the non-core rule that makes the DM give a ruling poor design and bad? It's even ruling on the same thing, whether the creature is a threat. Another good example. Attacking... why do you even ask. Attacking means that the players are making attacks at him. You do not need a DM to tell you that, it's something everyone agrees about and something a computer program could recognise. Threatening: This is a good one. Because it is whether the NPC thinks that they would attack him or not. It appeals to the DM for information but not as an ingame entity but as the player controlling the NPC and this might be resolved using bluff and sense motive. If the players fully intend to kill him no matter what, but the NPC doesn't know that, he won't be threatened and won't get the bonus to his save. On the other hand, if the players history suggests they kill everyone of his kind and approached rather agressively but they fully intend to keep him alive but he doesn't know that, then he does not get the bonus to his save. Here it clearly depends on what is perceived to be true, which can be answered by the player playing a character or the DM playing an NPC. Whereas the bad rules I describe want to know the real truth as can only be determined by an entity in the game that can never be wrong, and that entity should not exist because if it did characters in the game would know that an entity called DM exists that determines whether their maneuvres work or not. Please note the difference in the DM playing an NPC (1), a DM creating the world (2), a DM making rules (3)... and a (4) DM being part of game mechanics. 3 steps: INPUT -> PROCESSING -> OUTPUT DM's 1, 2 and 3 alter the INPUT to determine the result.* DM 4 is no longer providing input but is processing the rule requests. If you don't get me yet you might ask 'but doesn't process the DM the entire world?'. He does, but others could. Given in a game of mine there is a dragon with AC 31 and 21 hp left, a fighter made an attack with 35 to hit and 28 damage with a weapon that is magical. The DM processes this but anyone here can determine what happens, so the DM is not an integral part of the processing. However, if someone makes a revitalising strike with a to hit bonus of 35, 28 damage at a creature with AC 25 and 82 hp you need to ask the DM 'is he an immediate threat?'. Making the DM an integral part of the processing. *If you have a formula that calculates a+b, and you want the result to be 7, then the INPUT way of doing it would be to make a+b total at 7, the ingame entity way would be to change the formula every time so that you get the desired output, the PROCESSING way of doing it. (which applies to many ill-conceived plots and cases of bad DM'ing aswell, maybe I should sig this) I wish you had tried to interpret me as having said something meaningfull. You had 2 choices, either think I'm stupid and conclude I mean that the DM should not do anything == not a workable game. Or you could have concluded you either don't get me or kept thinking until you did get it. Lastly, I know the game will work this way. But the quality of the rules is low, and this can result in vague situations where a Rallying Strike should allow you to pierce an illusion if the DM does not allow you to exploit it for free infinite healing; I doubt many DM's would let it pierce illusions, so you have a rule that applies when the DM uses it. If the DM tries to trick you then you can be tricked, if player A tries to tricks you then you can't be tricked.
NoldorForce 07-11-07, 06:42 AM	Quit with the smoke and mirrors. I don't know if they're intentional, but you're sure using them to obfuscate your real point. Which is thus: You believe Rallying Strike to be exploitable by creating synthetic encounters. This had been raised around when ToB came out. Similar problems came up with Crusader's Strike, Revitalizing Strike, Strike of Righteous Vitality, and Martial Spirit, that creating synthetic encounters* could allow you to heal indefinitely. My opinion? It's not a problem. There are a number of ways for the party to heal back to full hit points with few resources as long as they're not in combat. Wands of vigor, at-will SLAs, binding, etc. Is this much different? *That is, doing something that starts an artificial and often trivial encounter, such as having a caster use Summon Monster I and ordering it to attack you.
Lord_Zeb 07-11-07, 06:47 AM	You seem to put "equal opponent" or something into your definition of "threath". Your team lvl 13th and you face 3 thugs? Regardless if they are lvl 20 Rogues or lvl 1 Commoners, they could be a threat, and hence eligible for the effect. And that regardless if (Ever heard of Traps? Poison? Coup de Grace? Disguising yourself to seem weak or not a spellcaster?) Combat is always a matter of life or death, even if you expect to get out of it without greater trouble. Think that if the bastards have attacked you, then they are a threat. Good enough general rule for you? As for illusions and enchantments... well, it is holy energy that is being used by Crusaders, so if one really wants to make that ruling as a DM, then no false enemies grant the bonus as the Gods are not fooled, like that one cannot gain Smite Evil damage when hitting non-evil foes even if you think they are evil. DMs rules, so if they think something is broken they can fix it.;)
Lawkeeper 07-11-07, 07:13 AM	My point is that prior to some new books you COULD NOT exploit the game by considering someone who is not a threat to be a threat or by considering an ally an enemy or a tree for that matter. Now you do have an exploit by such tampering, and my point is that the game should have rules that are not subject to this so the DM does not need to interfere to keep the game balanced, player intent should also not have an influence on game mechanics, game mechanics should be immune to player intent and just react on things actually being done. And actually, I am the DM in this game and I have not yet played a ToB class myself. Also, I would not support exploitation of this rule. However, as DM I like rules to work without opinions. If players and the DM have a disagreement over whether something will work or not the rules say who is right. Say it's 3.5 pre-errata and the party wizard casts hold person on an enemy druid, the DM sais he is immune and the player disagrees. The DM sighs, grabs the PHB, shows that the druid becomes an animal while wildshaping, the player reads it and admits that the druid is indeed immune and that the spell is wasted. However, now take a simple situation where a player with a player with rallying strike. I'll forgo the pure sploit situation and say that the level 14 party is attacked by 3 CR 8 thugs. However, the leader of the thugs had earlier bluffed about the strength of his thugs and the players think they have a serious fight on their hands. More-over, half the party is at 50% hp or less. The players think they are about to die and think there is certainly an immediate threat, the DM knows this will be a walkover even with their low hp. And now, yes, a players makes a rallying strike with his greatsword but rolls poorly for only 8 damage. Does it heal today?... Will the DM use omniscience or may the players use their perception (which at other times allows them to exploit it). Well, sorry to disagree, but your interpretation is wrong. First, any encounter is an immediate threat, even if it takes a bunch of natural 1s on your part and natural 20s on the part of the foes for them to defeat you. The very fact of having bluffed the PCs in the first place is using their abilities as intended. The single, only meaning of the DM's interpretation is to avoid blatant exploit by the players - I mean, exploits where the players themselves mounted the situation (summoning and then attacking a fiendish dire rat, e.g.). But in this case, they think their PCs are in danger ? Fine, let them benefit from the effects - you brought them there. Like Caelic said in the CO boards, should WotC have written all the rules to the extent you seem to wish for, the rulebooks would be bigger than Encyclopedia Britannica and cost more than a Ferrari. It's a game. It's a Role-Playing Game. DMs are a necessary part of the RPG - so you'd better use them to adjudicate situations. Cutting their ability to apply common sense is nonsense. I wish you had tried to interpret me as having said something meaningfull. You had 2 choices, either think I'm stupid and conclude I mean that the DM should not do anything == not a workable game. Or you could have concluded you either don't get me or kept thinking until you did get it. Or third, as we did : understand your post as an unjustified rant against WotC's rules. This does not mean thinking you're stupid - just that you shouldn't play RPG. BTW, you are saying the DM shouldn't make judgment calls. Nor'Morgwae has been quite (delightfully) ironic, but the basis is still true : rules can't plan everything. They can't. The amount of Varied Diversity is such that it'd take six billion people their whole life to write a rulebook where every situation is examined. For no two situations are the same : you'll always find a difference. I'll tell you a bit of history. France's (my neighbour) history. At one time during the early XIXth century, people wished to prevent the judges from behaving arbitrarily. For them, the Law was supreme. They idealized it, to the point of seeing behind each human's intervention a potential for abuse and tyranny. This potential exists, off course, but they found an expedient to limit or even avoid it, at least in the criminal law : penalties and punishments would be fixed. For each wrong or offense, one and only one punishment would apply - the Judge would be only "reading the law" to "apply the punishment". When the ancient law imposed from 5 to 10 years of imprisonment for common theft, the new would impose a fixed 8 years of imprisonment. This is exactly what you ask, right ? that the DM should only read the rules and make no judgment calls, right ? Well, it didn't take time for the best minds to see all the pervasive perversion of those principles. What if one theft is made by using force and another is fully pacific, the victim only noticing the theft several days later, made by a desperate father to feed his child ? the exact same 8 years of imprisonment applied. You'd introduce a new rule, wouldn't you ? that theft with the use of force should be punished by, say, 12 years, while a theft made out of necessity is only punished by 6 years. Fine. What if the used force is lethal ? another specific case to plan for. What if a father desperate to feed his child commits a theft with lethal force use ? what if that same father was blackmailed into doing it ? What if that father is desperate because he lost all his money to a failed business venture ? what if the money was lost in a legal casino ? what about illegal casino ? what about the victim being responsible for the father being fired of his job ? I could go on, and on, and on, and on... All in all, the good citizens of France (or rather their elites) quickly found out that it was not practical to prohibit all judgment calls, and they reversed their changes. They found other ways around potential abuses : appeals, due process, lawyers, etc. In a sense, D&D also has those other abuse-preventing tools : appeal to the whole group after the session. If your DM is always ruling against you, nothing forces you to keep playing with him, you can walk away - and odds are high you're not the only one resenting his judgment. So, your current rant at the DM-judgment-prone rules of D&D is unfounded. Grow up a bit.
NoldorForce 07-11-07, 07:29 AM	Well, sorry to disagree, but your interpretation is wrong. First, any encounter is an immediate threat, even if it takes a bunch of natural 1s on your part and natural 20s on the part of the foes for them to defeat you. The very fact of having bluffed the PCs in the first place is using their abilities as intended.Nitpick here - some things are treated as encounters that aren't threats, such as situations with NPCs where you roleplay/use social skills or cases where the casters use divinations to find stuff out. All combat encounters are threats, but not all encounters in general are threats. (An encounter is generally defined by the party resources required to overcome it.)
Lawkeeper 07-11-07, 07:57 AM	Nitpick accepted : let's understand my previous post's use of "encounter" as "combat or trap encounter".:) However, it really depends on the meaning of the word "threat". Even a perfectly pacific social encounter presents a threat : the threat is that, should you blunder, you'll face consequences, such as inability to enter the town, get an information, purchase a necessary piece of equipment or receive healing.;)
Anguish2 07-11-07, 08:05 AM	Let us not forget that via the item creation guidelines in the DMG, a ring of truestrike is a viable creation. My point? The rules in D&D have ALWAYS had loopholes, areas requiring interpretation, and exploitable details. That's not to say that effort shouldn't be taken to keep the ambiguity to a minimum, but the ToB maneuvers referenced here are trivial in nature. The original poster brought up the idea of a caster being able to identify allies when casting prayer. Sorry, but the caster CAN'T. The caster can elect to include or exclude individuals he or she is aware of and believes to be allies. What about the enemy spy who has bluffed its way into the party? The cleric happily includes that person in their prayer effect despite the fact that the spy absolutely, incontrovertibly is NOT an ally. Despite the fact the spell uses the word "ally". So. If you as a DM interpret the rules as written, you can use prayer in conjunction with detect magic to manufacture a low-level do-it-yourself detect allies spell. I as a DM would never allow this. Why? Because I'm able to interpret what an ally is in this context as opposed to what a mindless machine that's processing the rules says it is. My suggestion... find something that's actually broken and worry about that, not this.
heretic888 07-11-07, 08:20 AM	I'd further like to add that while I think that WotC gave up trying to balance the game and decided to make every viable class a caster (ToB classes are casters), I do not find ToB to be overpowered and I do like most of it, save for these crappy rules. Martial Adepts are "casters" in the same way that Rage and Stunning Fist are "spells". As in, not at all.
Fabius Maximus 07-11-07, 09:35 AM	Martial Adepts are "casters" in the same way that Rage and Stunning Fist are "spells". As in, not at all. I don't think you understood what he meant. The ToB classes are casters in a mechanical sense. They essentially prepare and cast spells. The designers just described it differently.
Valk 07-11-07, 09:46 AM	The single, only meaning of the DM's interpretation is to avoid blatant exploit by the players - I mean, exploits where the players themselves mounted the situation (summoning and then attacking a fiendish dire rat, e.g.). But in this case, they think their PCs are in danger ? Fine, let them benefit from the effects - you brought them there. But how do you rule this from a mechanics point of view as all other rules have functioned up until this point? Vampiric Touch and summon monster allows you to heal, without scanning for intent. But I want to refocus this discussion a bit, see below. Like Caelic said in the CO boards, should WotC have written all the rules to the extent you seem to wish for, the rulebooks would be bigger than Encyclopedia Britannica and cost more than a Ferrari. It's a game. It's a Role-Playing Game. DMs are a necessary part of the RPG - so you'd better use them to adjudicate situations. Cutting their ability to apply common sense is nonsense. Well no, if they had written it to the extent that I wish for they would not have needed that. Almost all rules confirm to my wishes (in this regard), and these few that don't would require maybe 1 more alinea per ability. I'd probably work with CR's and demand sufficient lethality in the attack (thus preventing melee touches or 1 damage attacks from triggering it). Or third, as we did : understand your post as an unjustified rant against WotC's rules. This does not mean thinking you're stupid - just that you shouldn't play RPG. An acceptable interpretation, though obviously I disagree (for now at least - but discussion forums are not about not changing your opinion, they are about 'exchanging arguments to together gain a better understanding of the subject discussed', this is not foreshadowing me thinking I'm wrong btw). BTW, you are saying the DM shouldn't make judgment calls. Nor'Morgwae has been quite (delightfully) ironic, but the basis is still true : rules can't plan everything. They can't. The amount of Varied Diversity is such that it'd take six billion people their whole life to write a rulebook where every situation is examined. For no two situations are the same : you'll always find a difference. *snip* Not if you sufficiently generalise the situations or use a system of finite complexity such as D&D (the real world is also a system of finite complexity but we don't know all the rules yet so we can consider it an infinitely complex system for now, unless offcourse we generalise things into the known finitely complex domain) And on the french history thing, it could be done, you could create a system of laws that account for such complexity allthough the judges may not be up to spec for it. Enter the electronic judge... In a sense, D&D also has those other abuse-preventing tools : appeal to the whole group after the session. If your DM is always ruling against you, nothing forces you to keep playing with him, you can walk away - and odds are high you're not the only one resenting his judgment. A system should not 'give up' trying to be good, it should just rule adequately and a lot of trouble can be avoided. The problem with many disliked DM's or sometimes disliked groups is that they feel their judgement is more important than rules or common sense. With a few bad DM's I no longer play with anything not commonly done in D&D, but not overpowered, was bad somehow. Such as wildshaping into a giant squid and have the wizard cast fly on you, not commonly done but not broken and perfectly within the rules and common sense provided the druid wants to risk suffocating if he is knocked out for this encounter, which is totally a player's call. So, your current rant at the DM-judgment-prone rules of D&D is unfounded. Grow up a bit. Well, keep on scrolling down. Let us not forget that via the item creation guidelines in the DMG, a ring of truestrike is a viable creation. My point? The rules in D&D have ALWAYS had loopholes, areas requiring interpretation, and exploitable details. Actually it doesn't. True strike sais next attack if made before end of next turn, an extended true strike would be next attack if made before end of turn after next turn, a persistent true strike would be next attack if made before end of the day. So by the rules a continual true strike item would function once and then never again. That's not to say that effort shouldn't be taken to keep the ambiguity to a minimum, but the ToB maneuvers referenced here are trivial in nature. The original poster brought up the idea of a caster being able to identify allies when casting prayer. Sorry, but the caster CAN'T. The caster can elect to include or exclude individuals he or she is aware of and believes to be allies. What about the enemy spy who has bluffed its way into the party? The cleric happily includes that person in their prayer effect despite the fact that the spy absolutely, incontrovertibly is NOT an ally. Despite the fact the spell uses the word "ally". So. If you as a DM interpret the rules as written, you can use prayer in conjunction with detect magic to manufacture a low-level do-it-yourself detect allies spell. I as a DM would never allow this. Why? Because I'm able to interpret what an ally is in this context as opposed to what a mindless machine that's processing the rules says it is. I think you are illustrating what happens if you apply the requirements to not exploiting ToB to normal rules. Which was not your intent I think so I guess I'm saying I don't understand what you meant to say. I meant the prayer example as an example of how in the original rules you were not exploting them by choosing who you considered to be an ally for this casting and who you'd consider to be an enemy for this casting. And my thing finally. (please answer these true or false and if you feel it might be necessary give an example) "In the original rules you could not gain an overpowered* benefit by freely determining who your friends and foes are. You can in some new rules such as some healing maneuvres in ToB." - True or false? *When casting prayer when you want to catch someone alive and a partymember with a big axe sais he is going to kill him no matter what then you gain a benefit by labeling him enemy instead of friend, this is not considered an exploit but simply a fair use of friend or foe identification. "A rule mechanic that does not by default* require the Dungeon Masters judgement is superior to a rule mechanic that does by default require judgement by the Dungeon Master." - True or false? *Each pun-pun building block by itself does not need DM judgement, only when combined with all other building blocks is a DM judgement required. Whereas the named ToB maneuvres ALWAYS require DM judgement.
zorgling25 07-11-07, 10:08 AM	I think the OP needs to go a few threads over and look at the "Are Centaurs Mounted?" thread.... Ingame entity solution: DM: "Just attack with it, I'll think up how much damage you deal each time." - in effect, the DM adds a rule that sais when an attack is made the attack consults the DM how much damage it's going to deal. In a computer program this would be impossible, the program cannot ask the programmer what it is supposed to do, the programmer should have done so in advance. DM that makes rulings solution: DM: "I'm going to make it an improvised 2-handed weapon, it is improvised so -4 to hit and it deals 1d8 damage with a critical range of 20/x2." - the DM adds a rule that requires no further DM judgement to make it work. How is this any different than the DM ruling whether a situation is a "threat" or not? He still has to make a judgement call that isn't directly "supported by the rules." If anything, I would say the judgement of a threat is EASIER than this, because it calls for a yes or no answer. And for the record, I'd drop the branch damage to 1d6, because a quarterstaff does 1d6, and no crude branch is going to be doing more damage than a well-made quarterstaff. :)
Lawkeeper 07-11-07, 10:18 AM	Just for your information : it's not the judge who asked to change the system. They were perfectly fine with that way. Less work to do, no worry to have about doubting having been "just" et caetera. Well, no, they disliked it and criticized it, but not on the basis that they had too few power : just like many people, they recognized that laws can't plan every situation, and that judgment is the best way to be just. You say "just an extra alinea per ability" ? Well, my most-wise and enlightenned - and professional, as a matter of fact - point of view is that even with an extra ten pages for each ability, you'll still find loopholes and voids to be filled by DM's call. You will. Of if you don't, another rules-lawyer will. Just look at the number of questions that are answered by the Sage and custserv - and I don't even tell about the number of questions asked. Terrific and terrible, and it's still with the fact of counting on the DM's judgment. You say "finite system" ? RPG are nothing close to a finite system. Wargames are, usually. RPGs are not. They're nothing close to finite - in fact, they're even less finite than the real world, due to the supernatural, the planes, the epicness, etc. You say "sufficiently generalize" ? Yep, that was the french legislators' first error : a general rule that applied to different situations. This fact caused injustice, and the further legislationalizing was the answer they found that best suited their conception. I say "best", when in fact it's "only" - and even that was far from "just". There will always be a difference. Always. History told us (us = lawyers) that. There're always more differences to find. BTW, I rate both of your assumptions as false. And to allow you the chance of proving the second one true, let's play. You are making the claim that it only needs a little more precisions, just a little more, to make the abilities non-DM-dependant. Feel free to show an example, please ? We'll see how long it'll take for you to tire of making additions after each of my crushing, rule-breaking, discrimination-pointing interventions. You spoke of CR ? Please, go, write it down. My mind is already boiling, my day's work has been frustrating, I need to kick some asses.;)
RadicalTaoist 07-11-07, 10:46 AM	I don't think you understood what he meant. The ToB classes are casters in a mechanical sense. They essentially prepare and cast spells. The designers just described it differently. Then Warlocks are Fighters, with bonus feats only they can use. Seriously. The maneuvers/stances are closer to feats with limitations than anything.
heretic888 07-11-07, 11:04 AM	Ok, in all seriousness.... ToB maneuvers are somewhat like spells and ToB maneuvers are somewhat like feats. However, maneuvers have plenty of differences with both of these mechanics to justify making them into their own category. To claim that Martial Adepts are "casters" is just as nonsensical as claiming they are "warriors with a bunch of special bonus feats". Both characterizations are way off the mark because the mechanic is completely unique in D&D. Least, that's how I see it.
DocBeard 07-11-07, 11:35 AM	And my thing finally. (please answer these true or false and if you feel it might be necessary give an example) "In the original rules you could not gain an overpowered* benefit by freely determining who your friends and foes are. You can in some new rules such as some healing maneuvres in ToB." - True or false? *When casting prayer when you want to catch someone alive and a partymember with a big axe sais he is going to kill him no matter what then you gain a benefit by labeling him enemy instead of friend, this is not considered an exploit but simply a fair use of friend or foe identification. False. I direct to you a million stupid YOU SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO USE CLEAVE ON AN ATTACK OF OPPORTUNITY threads for evidence of exactly this sort of stupid exploit, using nothing but (a stupid interpretation of) the core rules. (Namely, you have Combat Reflexes and Great Cleave. You release a bag full of mice in the midst of combat, who are then your 'foes' and who will run away from you, provoking a lot of attacks of opportunity, which will generally result in the death of one mouse per attack because, dude, they're mice, your average D&D fighter can kill them by glaring in their general direction. Thus granting you several free cleave attempts against the enemy you're actually*trying* to kill.) "A rule mechanic that does not by default* require the Dungeon Masters judgement is superior to a rule mechanic that does by default require judgement by the Dungeon Master." - True or false? *Each pun-pun building block by itself does not need DM judgement, only when combined with all other building blocks is a DM judgement required. Whereas the named ToB maneuvres ALWAYS require DM judgement. True. Sort of. If the DM doesn't ever actually have to step in because the rules do his job for him, yeah, that's awesome. But your apparent actual argument, which is that, up until Tome of Battle, there were never any (ahem) ambiguous rules/combinations of rules that required the DM to step in and say, "No, shut up, that's stupid, you can't do that" is, bluntly, absurd. Are there exploits possible with Tome of Battle? Of course there are! Are such exploits unique to Tome of Battle? Of course they are not! Everything from that (I cannot say this strongly enough) UTTERLY STUPID thing with the bag of mice and Great Cleave to people who insist that the Sacred Fist gains full spellcasting regardless of what the level progression table says (because 'text trumps tables' and the writers of the class were a bit lazy) to, well, Pun-Pun (quibbling about when DM intervention is required aside).
Arcane Guyver 07-11-07, 11:51 AM	I think I understand what the point of this topic is. Rules that rely on DM adjudication are bad. I'll agree with you on that to a point. As far as the ToB maneuver, which so far is the only example you've put forth, I also foresee problems with exploitive players intentionally picking fights with commoners just so they can use strike abilities to recover health. Hey, even a commoner can roll a natural 20 and deal critical damage, making them an *authentic threat*.
Apocolypse_77 07-11-07, 11:59 AM	DnD is not suposed to be a computer game. And one of the main jobs of the dungeon master is to make judgement calls when the RAW get debated by players. 2 people can look at the same rule in a DnD book and interpret it differently while still both being technically correct by the RAW, this is where DM's are supposed to make judgement calls to keep things on track and not have a rule monger battle which takes up a significant portion of you play time. And for the TOM example i have no problem with DM's giving judgement calls. Personally i would implement a very easy house rule "If a players uses said abilities on a target who is not real, such as an illusion, they will use the ability as normal and will be under the impression that it worked as normal, however no real benfit (in this case healing) will be given to the player, and the use of the maneuver will be expended" I think that this would solve any problems of abuse, and it is what i would do in this situation.
Apocolypse_77 07-11-07, 12:32 PM	On a side note... (Namely, you have Combat Reflexes and Great Cleave. You release a bag full of mice in the midst of combat, who are then your 'foes' and who will run away from you, provoking a lot of attacks of opportunity, which will generally result in the death of one mouse per attack because, dude, they're mice, your average D&D fighter can kill them by glaring in their general direction. Thus granting you several free cleave attempts against the enemy you're actually*trying* to kill.) Technically all the mice would probably be useing full retreat, allowing them a double move action without provoking attacks of opertunity. So it wouldn't really work.
Eater_Of_Souls 07-11-07, 12:37 PM	If you don't like the book then don't use it in your games.
NoldorForce 07-11-07, 12:56 PM	Never mind.
Anguish2 07-11-07, 01:30 PM	Actually it doesn't. True strike sais next attack if made before end of next turn, an extended true strike would be next attack if made before end of turn after next turn, a persistent true strike would be next attack if made before end of the day. So by the rules a continual true strike item would function once and then never again. First things first; you're killing me. There's no "i" in says. You're otherwise fluent so it's jarring to encounter your repeated misspelling of that particular word. I bring this up not to be abrasive but to help refine your command of the language. Secondly, I'm baffled as to what you're trying to convey here. true strike says: You gain temporary, intuitive insight into the immediate future during your next attack. Your next single attack roll (if it is made before the end of the next round) gains a +20 insight bonus. Additionally, you are not affected by the miss chance that applies to attackers trying to strike a concealed target. Where you get a ruling that indicates a once-per-day effect from a continual-effect ring of true strike I don't know. If it's continual use, you're always granted +20 to your next hit prior to the end of the next round. At any time you're in combat, a continuous effect is active, and your next round is your next round, granting you +20 on your next attack. Period. If it's continuous, then it'd even apply to iterative attacks, flurries, two-weapon attacks, multiattacking monsters, or anything else involving attacks. If you make your ring a standard action to activate, you get a single +20 insight bonus every other round. I don't see either instance involving any sort of once-per-day limitation. Further, in all of the rather amusing arguments about broken magic item pricing rules I've read, never have I encountered the suggestion that such a ring isn't incredibly broken for the RAW price because it only works once per day. Free true strike items are iconic for being the obvious way to demonstrate pricing is an art, not a rule set. I think you are illustrating what happens if you apply the requirements to not exploiting ToB to normal rules. Which was not your intent I think so I guess I'm saying I don't understand what you meant to say. I meant the prayer example as an example of how in the original rules you were not exploting them by choosing who you considered to be an ally for this casting and who you'd consider to be an enemy for this casting. Regarding my example involving prayer I re-demonstrated one very simple thing; this game requires someone to interpret and adjudicate the rules. Regardless of what you may personally believe is true, and regardless of what you may personally believe SHOULD BE true, the role of a DM in D&D is, has always been, and very likely always shall be one who administers the rules. ToB is not meaningfully more -- or less -- exploitable than any other WotC release. That includes the PHB and DMG, as I've demonstrated. RAW, prayer and detect magic can be used to artificially gain in-game knowledge they aren't intended to grant. RAW, you can manufacture a very cheap, broken item. There is nothing even remotely more broken than those RAW interpretations than the idea that a DM has to determine "meaningful and credible threat". Wait. Let's revisit that last sentence. (ToB not being OGL, I can't paste the exact phraseology used, but we're all accepting the concept.) If the players are summoning bunnies to beat up on in order to heal up, it's absolutely clear that the players believe they will heal quicker than they take damage FROM the summoned bunnies. Ergo, the players clearly don't believe they are threatened. Thusly from the player's perspective, bunnies aren't a threat, so they don't qualify to grant ToB healing effects. From the DM's perspective, bunnies are again obviously not a threat, and again, the bunnies don't count. Same goes for punching trees. Pretty much anything the players voluntarily go after for the purpose of healing themselves up WON'T WORK. And my thing finally. (please answer these true or false and if you feel it might be necessary give an example) "In the original rules you could not gain an overpowered* benefit by freely determining who your friends and foes are. You can in some new rules such as some healing maneuvres in ToB." - True or false? *When casting prayer when you want to catch someone alive and a partymember with a big axe sais he is going to kill him no matter what then you gain a benefit by labeling him enemy instead of friend, this is not considered an exploit but simply a fair use of friend or foe identification. You're making assumptions again, which is exactly what you're arguing against. Both of these statements are false. 1} You CAN gain an overpowered benefit from the determination of friend/foe using prayer. If there's a spy in your midst and you cast prayer on your party and can't detect its aura coming and going on "the new guy", he's not an ally. Rules as written, it says it works on allies. Someone who's PRETENDING to be on your side so he can betray you later isn't an ally. That's a duplicitous enemy. What about the idea that you can freely move through squares occupied by friendlies? Do you honestly think that there isn't a valid scenario where it matters who's friendly? Letting the players decide might be the right choice. Letting the DM decide might the right choice. What? Because the players think the spy is friendly, they can pass through its square regardless of its wishes? Or is it up to the individual's intent? Ooooooh. DM interpretation. Scary. 2} You CANNOT gain an overpowered benefit from the ToB healing maneuvers because as demonstrated above, anyone you might deliberately use to buff yourself is automatically disqualified as a target, due to (your) intent. Please note: I believe that one of the Divine Spirit maneuvers (Crusader's Strike I think) actually omitted the wording requiring a credible threat be required. That, given the rest of the maneuvers, is pretty clearly an oversight, not an intent. Take a look at the Monster Manual and notice that of the true dragons that have statblocks, only one of them lists blindsense as an SQ, yet they all get it. It's called "a mistake". It's not even in the errata. Might be in the FAQ, but I got tired of looking all over the place and resorted to Draconomicon to find the evidence. "A rule mechanic that does not by default* require the Dungeon Masters judgement is superior to a rule mechanic that does by default require judgement by the Dungeon Master." - True or false? *Each pun-pun building block by itself does not need DM judgement, only when combined with all other building blocks is a DM judgement required. Whereas the named ToB maneuvres ALWAYS require DM judgement. I'm going to go ahead and declare this one false as well. You tell me... is magic missile superior to wish or lesser planar ally? Simpler, yes. More inherently obvious in terms of the results, yes. More trivial to adjudicate, yes. Superior? No. Why? Because the first spell gives the players nothing more than another (minor) variety of "I do damage" while the second gives the players "my imagination is my limit" and the third gives the players "some glorious outsider's imagination is my limit". I play. I DM. I'll tell you that if my job as a DM was reduced to doing nothing but running the bad guys because the rules were incontrovertibly unambiguous and were immune to exploit... I'd not do it. A DM world-builds and guides and melds and shapes the game he runs, for the benefit of everyone at the table. A DM that's a robot is a DM that has better things to do with his time. Pass.
unundindur 07-11-07, 02:09 PM	OP, you have my lending hand here ;) First I have to say I think most here missunderstnad, or at least overdramatice the point the OP is trying to make. The way I see it he doesn't argue that a DM shall never make judgement calls (we all agree that in an ideal world the GM would not). What he is trying to say is that a rare few of the new abilities in ToB rely on a character's perception of danger, not a player's perception of danger. This can thus lead to scenarios where the we, players (or meta-characters) and even the GM come to short as how the rules should work, because we have to understand how the character thinks. The example with a lot of lower level people attacking the party and the crusader triggering his ability was quite good in my oppinion. The player may rule that his character preceive the enemy as a threat, even though the GM know them not to be a threat. This leads to another interesting scenario (I hope you follow me :cool: ) A party wizard would be perfectly entitled to cast an illusion spell to scare the **** out of our good crusader, thus allowing him to use his powers. There is no meta-gaming in it because the wizard and the crusader both know that the power will trigger if they do this. Its not the players who know this, its actually the characters. Its the same as if we in the real world would gain benefit of getting scared (lets say we could sell adrenaline for a lot of money). Then the shrink could take the role of the wizard, and the person in need of money takes the role of the crusader. The shrink trigger the fear in the person, and the person gets rich. No meta-gaming in that (though in DnD it could be called munchkinism :rolleyes: ) The difference is that the Gm now either have to accept this, or he must actively say that "no, you don't get scared by your friends illusion", which is directly interveening in the world in a way I think is unfortunate. Was this at all comprehensible... :confused:
zorgling25 07-11-07, 02:16 PM	What he is trying to say is that a rare few of the new abilities in ToB rely on a character's perception of danger, not a player's perception of danger. This can thus lead to scenarios where the we, players (or meta-characters) and even the GM come to short as how the rules should work, because we have to understand how the character thinks. God forbid, we'd actually have to ROLEPLAY! :eek: The example with a lot of lower level people attacking the party and the crusader triggering his ability was quite good in my oppinion. The player may rule that his character preceive the enemy as a threat, even though the GM know them not to be a threat. This leads to another interesting scenario (I hope you follow me :cool: ) If the DM rules they are not a threat, they are not a threat, end of story. The DM is there to ground the players in reality. The same issue comes up with the "cleaving through rats on AoOs to get the enemy you're trying to kill" scenario. A party wizard would be perfectly entitled to cast an illusion spell to scare the **** out of our good crusader, thus allowing him to use his powers. There is no meta-gaming in it because the wizard and the crusader both know that the power will trigger if they do this. Its not the players who know this, its actually the characters. Its the same as if we in the real world would gain benefit of getting scared (lets say we could sell adrenaline for a lot of money). Then the shrink could take the role of the wizard, and the person in need of money takes the role of the crusader. The shrink trigger the fear in the person, and the person gets rich. No meta-gaming in that (though in DnD it could be called munchkinism :rolleyes: ) The difference is that the Gm now either have to accept this, or he must actively say that "no, you don't get scared by your friends illusion", which is directly interveening in the world in a way I think is unfortunate. Was this at all comprehensible... :confused: So the wizard used an illusion spell so that the crusader could heal, as opposed to the cleric using one to heal him. How is this game-breaking?
unundindur 07-11-07, 02:44 PM	God forbid, we'd actually have to ROLEPLAY! :eek: It was only an introduction and should be seen as part of the whole post. If the DM rules they are not a threat, they are not a threat, end of story. The DM is there to ground the players in reality. The same issue comes up with the "cleaving through rats on AoOs to get the enemy you're trying to kill" scenario. But as I outlined later in the post in this spesific case it should not be up to the GM becuase its not rules-interpretation, but rather whats going on within the characters head, which the player in 98% of all cases are the ultimate king of. So the wizard used an illusion spell so that the crusader could heal, as opposed to the cleric using one to heal him. How is this game-breaking? Its not game-breaking, just unneccesary.
zorgling25 07-11-07, 02:53 PM	It was only an introduction and should be seen as part of the whole post. Mine was sarcasm. But as I outlined later in the post in this spesific case it should not be up to the GM becuase its not rules-interpretation, but rather whats going on within the characters head, which the player in 98% of all cases are the ultimate king of. Suppose you have a player that says at every turn "I think the rest of the party is irredeemably evil and ought to be slain," and promptly would get killed trying to kill the rest of the party? Some player options have to be given up to the DM in the interest of keeping the game fun for everyone, and maintaining control of the situation. Its not game-breaking, just unneccesary. There are a lot more unnecessary things that aren't just in ToB, all over core.
AllisterH 07-11-07, 03:32 PM	Er, using Core there are "DM-calls" already quite similar to the crusader's questions. Take for example the term "allies" and spells/abilities that use the term. Say you cast BLESS and then midway during the battle, one of your allies decides to fight against you (betrayal, controlled by enemy, in a frenzy), does Bless end? Say you're a caster in a party with a frenzied berserker in the party and you've suffered the effects of a frenzy already so you're slightly hesistant around the rager, when you use an ability that refers to allies does it count the berserker?
unundindur 07-11-07, 04:13 PM	Er, using Core there are "DM-calls" already quite similar to the crusader's questions. Take for example the term "allies" and spells/abilities that use the term. Say you cast BLESS and then midway during the battle, one of your allies decides to fight against you (betrayal, controlled by enemy, in a frenzy), does Bless end? Say you're a caster in a party with a frenzied berserker in the party and you've suffered the effects of a frenzy already so you're slightly hesistant around the rager, when you use an ability that refers to allies does it count the berserker? Yes absolutely, the only thing that is different here is that in your examples its the rules that are unclear (ie. what is an "ally" and do effects end when the initial status ends) but in the case of the crusader, the rules are quite clear, its just that the clear rules are such that they encourage playing funny (see the psychology-example), and thus to prevent it GMs may feel encouraged to intervene in an area they really shouldn't (but which I encourage none the less).
Karzach 07-11-07, 04:45 PM	So far, the only thing I've gathered from this thread is the OP dislikes players directly consulting the DM. That's effectively what his stick example works out to. Instead of the DM telling the player how effective the stick is, the DM indirectly tells the character how effective the stick is (assuming said character goes to the effort to find out). The only real question I have for you Valk, is why is that a bad thing?
Fabius Maximus 07-11-07, 05:20 PM	Then Warlocks are Fighters, with bonus feats only they can use. Seriously. The maneuvers/stances are closer to feats with limitations than anything. Ok, in all seriousness.... ToB maneuvers are somewhat like spells and ToB maneuvers are somewhat like feats. However, maneuvers have plenty of differences with both of these mechanics to justify making them into their own category. To claim that Martial Adepts are "casters" is just as nonsensical as claiming they are "warriors with a bunch of special bonus feats". Both characterizations are way off the mark because the mechanic is completely unique in D&D. Least, that's how I see it. The mechanic comes right down to filling a limited number of slots to prepare desired effects for overcoming certain challenges. That's the vancian system. It works equally for wizards, clerics, druids, and archivists as for the ToB classes. With minor differencies like preparing time and preparing frequency. It has nothing to do with maneuvers being like spells, and it is in no way unique. But this has nothing to do with the thread, because it doesn't fulfill the prerequisites for bad rules. Just for bad style.
Jungingen 07-11-07, 06:18 PM	The way I see it [the OP] doesn't argue that a DM shall never make judgement calls (we all agree that in an ideal world the GM would not). What he is trying to say is that a rare few of the new abilities in ToB rely on a character's perception of danger, not a player's perception of danger. This can thus lead to scenarios where the we, players (or meta-characters) and even the GM come to short as how the rules should work, because we have to understand how the character thinks. My impression has been that the majority of us understand the OP rather well, in fact better than he suspects. However, most of us fundamentally disagree with his thesis. I, for one, don't agree that the ideal rule doesn't require the DM to make a judgement call. DMs make judgement calls. The OP himself pointed out Pun Pun as an example of rules which, taken individually, do not require DM intervention, but which, in their totality, behoove the DM to act. If the DM doesn't want a half-minotaur, half-anthropomorphic baleen whale dungeoncrashing, leap attacking monster PC in his campaign, he has every right to house rule it away. The whole point of having a DM and roleplaying is to create an interactive world which could not exist in a pre-programmed, completely reactive environment. Rules which ask the DM to make a judgement call are fine and they do not, as the OP suggests, provide any intrinsic metagame advantages to any party. There are rules to permit legions of exploits and abuses in D&D. Pun Pun is just the beginning. The reason that the game continues to function is that the use and intent of these rules has to pass by a DM before being executed in game. It's not a cop out, it's a fundamentally important aspect of the rules. And as zorgling25 said: "God forbid, we'd actually have to ROLEPLAY!" Show some imagination. We all metagame to some extent but the OP's nightmare scenarios are just pathetic, and any reasonable player realizes that the line has to be drawn by the DM somewhere. Also, keep in mind that these Devoted Spirit maneuvers are written as granted divine powers. If the divinity who grants said powers finds your cause wanting, he says "No." Too easy. All of the divine spellcasting classes have the same issue: do God/Mother Nature/whatever the devil you venerate dirty or ask for frivolous powers and you might find yourself cut off for a time. Roleplaying restrictions can be just as real and as onerous as lousy prerequisite feats like Toughness and Endurance, given an alert and engaged DM.
unundindur 07-11-07, 07:00 PM	Yes yes yes. But the god in question would as I see it be quite mean to disallow the crusader in the examples listed as the crusader (not the player) perceive danger, thus in his mind he is acting as best he can. Its quite similar to the question if a paladin falls from grace when he kills a child that a devil have magically disgused as a devil. I definantely say he doesn't fall from grace, as he have not willingly commited evil. Of course this would never be an actual problem in my games, I would just fix it (I jsut defend the point of the OP). This is just small things that unnecesarily lead to debates like this, and as I see it fundamental problems if looked upon instead of just smudged over by a GM (I would smudge it). Its not an actual problem, its just a problem of a tiny bit of text in a book :)
GhostStepper 07-11-07, 08:43 PM	Technically all the mice would probably be useing full retreat, allowing them a double move action without provoking attacks of opertunity. So it wouldn't really work. You drop them in your own space. They full retreat and dont provoke for leaving your space. They then all provoke for leaving the space adjacent to you. But this has nothing to do with the thread, because it doesn't fulfill the prerequisites for bad rules. Just for bad style. Actually, vancian casting is full of bad rules and bad style. ;)
kalstrand 07-11-07, 10:52 PM	A perfect example of requiring a DM judgement call in core is the Wish spell.
zorgling25 07-11-07, 10:56 PM	A perfect example of requiring a DM judgement call in core is the Wish spell. As mentioned several times now, the difference with that is that before, the DM only needed to improvise a judgment dealing with the world, whereas now, the DM needs to improvise a judgment dealing with whats inside a character's head (which is SUPPOSED to be a player's domain, but has to be relegated to DM for risk of abuse). IMO no offense, but I think the OP could have been a little more coherent with his statements. A lot of this is based on some pretty easy to clear up confusion.
Valk 07-12-07, 08:37 AM	You say "just an extra alinea per ability" ? Well, my most-wise and enlightenned - and professional, as a matter of fact - point of view is that even with an extra ten pages for each ability, you'll still find loopholes and voids to be filled by DM's call. Possibly, but please. Note the difference between a rule that very rarely needs DM judgement to function as intended and a rule that every time needs DM judgement to function as intended. You are making the claim that it only needs a little more precisions, just a little more, to make the abilities non-DM-dependant. Feel free to show an example, please ? I was asking for opinions, not proof, partly to determine at which point of my reasoning you disagree. I can quite easily rid the rule of requiring DM judgement every time, but I'll admit it will be quite hard to make it only sometimes require judgement to prevent exploits. - for now however, this thread is not about solutions but about agreeing we in fact have a problem, so to not go offtopic I will not attempt to fix it yet. False. I direct to you a million stupid YOU SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO USE CLEAVE ON AN ATTACK OF OPPORTUNITY threads for evidence of exactly this sort of stupid exploit, using nothing but (a stupid interpretation of) the core rules. But your apparent actual argument, which is that, up until Tome of Battle, there were never any (ahem) ambiguous rules/combinations of rules that required the DM to step in and say, "No, shut up, that's stupid, you can't do that" is, bluntly, absurd. I actually thought of this one today (also check out curling wave strike for even 'better' results in stormwrack) and indeed it is an example of a bad rule, though not necessarily as you describe it. Normally you'd gain no benefit from imagining there is an opponent you manage to strike down to get a cleave attack. A level 3 fighter imagines he strikes down a kobold and then cleaves at the real kobold - imagination failed to provide a benefit, in fact it tapped his cleave for the round. But if the fighter imagines a kobold runs past him outside his turn then he can cleave at the real kobold when otherwise he wouldn't be able to. So there, indeed, a core (and stormwrack) bad rule. But if you don't mind I won't rest my case but will group these with the other problematic abilities. If you don't like the book then don't use it in your games. I like the book, I don't like these few rules. First things first; you're killing me. There's no "i" in says. You're otherwise fluent so it's jarring to encounter your repeated misspelling of that particular word. I bring this up not to be abrasive but to help refine your command of the language. Thanks. - And I know the pain of reading bad spelling so my apologies. Regarding my example involving prayer I re-demonstrated one very simple thing; this game requires someone to interpret and adjudicate the rules. Regardless of what you may personally believe is true, and regardless of what you may personally believe SHOULD BE true, the role of a DM in D&D is, has always been, and very likely always shall be one who administers the rules. No no no, see below. Many people miss my point regarding prayer. ToB is not meaningfully more -- or less -- exploitable than any other WotC release. Nope, but it attains this unexploitability through bad rules, and that's my point. What about the idea that you can freely move through squares occupied by friendlies? Do you honestly think that there isn't a valid scenario where it matters who's friendly? Letting the players decide might be the right choice. Letting the DM decide might the right choice. What? Because the players think the spy is friendly, they can pass through its square regardless of its wishes? Or is it up to the individual's intent? Ooooooh. DM interpretation. Scary. I'll add these to the prayer example below. 2} You CANNOT gain an overpowered benefit from the ToB healing maneuvers because as demonstrated above, anyone you might deliberately use to buff yourself is automatically disqualified as a target, due to (your) intent. Part of the prayer thing that follows below focuses on the part "In the original rules you could not gain an overpowered* benefit by freely determining who your friends and foes are. You can in some new rules such as some healing maneuvres in ToB." you cannot gain an overpowered benefit from said ToB maneuvres according to how they are worded, however, if we allow the players to freely determine who their friends and foes are (and their threat) then they are overpowered. Whereas if we allow a player to do this with regular things like prayer they are not, in fact it prevents it but see below. Please note: I believe that one of the Divine Spirit maneuvers (Crusader's Strike I think) actually omitted the wording requiring a credible threat be required. I agree, which means that maneuvre also fits under my group of bad rules. wish Granted wish might require DM judgement, a bit weasly of me but not by default. There are several uses listed so by default it does not require DM judgement. My own solution is that I solve the wish problem outside the game by being very clear to the player what will work and what won't work and helping them find their desired effect within the spells listed limits. in fact, I'm not sure if I'd ever allow a wish that does not do one of the listed things Exit weasel mode; Wish used to be a bad rule as these discussed here, but at 3.0 or 3.5 WotC made it almost entirely a good rule. I play. I DM. I'll tell you that if my job as a DM was reduced to doing nothing but running the bad guys because the rules were incontrovertibly unambiguous and were immune to exploit... I'd not do it. A DM world-builds and guides and melds and shapes the game he runs, for the benefit of everyone at the table. A DM that's a robot is a DM that has better things to do with his time. Pass. What you may still do as DM: - run the badguys - change the rules or add rules - build the world What you may NOT do: - make yourself part of the rules You may freely alter the input of the formula or the workings of the formula, but you may not directly choose the result. So we have "result = a + b" you want the result to be 7 You may, given a is 12 and b is 5: - make a 3 and b 4, result = 7 - change the formula to 'result = a - b', 12 - 5 = 7 You may even do both: - change formula to 'result = a', and make a 7* You may NOT: - declare the result to be 7* *if you do not see the difference between these two consider the difference between 'calculate' (which will always be the same regardless who does it) and 'declare'. Er, using Core there are "DM-calls" already quite similar to the crusader's questions. Take for example the term "allies" and spells/abilities that use the term. Wrong kinda, see below. So far, the only thing I've gathered from this thread is the OP dislikes players directly consulting the DM. That's effectively what his stick example works out to. Instead of the DM telling the player how effective the stick is, the DM indirectly tells the character how effective the stick is (assuming said character goes to the effort to find out). Instead of each time saying 'the stick does uhh... say 5 damage', the player gets his d8 and adds strength. The only real question I have for you Valk, is why is that a bad thing? Predictability and stability. Predictability: With the DM saying stick does 1d8 the player with strength 13 knows the damage will on average be 5.5. Stability: Every time it will deal in between 2 and 9 damage and every time you roll a 6 you get 7 damage. IMO no offense, but I think the OP could have been a little more coherent with his statements. A lot of this is based on some pretty easy to clear up confusion. I'm affraid so, I'll keep trying. Statement repeated: "In the original rules you could not gain an overpowered benefit by freely determining who your friends and foes are. You can in some new rules such as some healing maneuvres in ToB." - The underlined section is very important to understanding what I mean. I am NOT saying "In the original rules you could not gain an overpowered benefit." Prayer and allies If the prayer spell bases itself on the universal truth then the named exploits with a spy in your midst and detect magic works. However, if you let the cleric casting it decide what everyone is it won't work. Allowing the cleric to at his whims decide who to treat as a friend and who to treat as a foe (only for this single casting) will not cause any problems and will prevent the problems with spies and detect magic. Beyond basing it on player perception as the player says it, you go one step further and let him just decide because it's really all the same. The same with letting allies move through your square. You decide whether to treat someone as an ally or friend the moment he tries to, which is pretty similar to overrun in fact. Overrun states that if you overrun someone and he avoids that you simply move through his square and retain your standard action. The rule that allies can move through your square is not a rule at all just a simplification. The reality is, each time you try to move through an allies square you do an overrun and he chooses to avoids you. It's also grounded in common sense. You are in a 5 ft. wide corridor and running towards you is a rabid dog being chased by a friend. The dog wants to run past you, and your friend aswell. It makes sense that you could let the dog pass (even though he is definitely not an ally) and that you could stop your friend (even though he is an ally).
Lawkeeper 07-12-07, 09:26 AM	Well, as the short answers are mostly the best ones, I'll take your oft-repeated catch-phrase-of-sort : "In the original rules you could not gain an overpowered benefit by freely determining who your friends and foes are. You can in some new rules such as some healing maneuvres in ToB." and go on by saying : you're wrong. Is that short enough ? ToB doesn't let you do that. All assumptions by players are always subject to DM's approval. That's what the game's rules say. If you fail to recognize that, it's not D&D that you're reading/playing. I see nothing wrong with house-rules, but in D&D the DM's approval is everywhere - even where the rules are supposedly clear. And in core, as has already been demonstrated by others, you could freely gain an overpowered benefit without a DM's judgment call. I refer to the Mice & Cleave trick, for example : the player himself is stating that the mice are his enemies. You really can't claim that in core common sense has to be applied, but that outside of core you can throw it overboard. Consistency is required if you wish to decently & reasonably argue. Oh, and please note that you first didn't asked that DM's call be limited, but fully prevented. So, there's no difference from that point of view whether the rule requires common or rare DM's meddling. Besides, once you have ruled on it, your players are expected to follow your rule - and not try ten times in a row to cleave through the mice if you denied them this exploit the first time. And, last but not least, and despite the risk of being perceived as rude : if you're not confortable having to make judgment calls as a DM, don't DM ! DMing requires confidence first and foremost, and confidence/improvisation is much, much more useful than knowing precise rules by heart. You really can't expect a DM to know all the rules, and checking in the books takes a lot of time - time that is taken away from the fun part.;) Too many rules automatically detract from the game. In fact, I believe I had as much fun playing basic D&D (whose rules could be reduced to a 20-page folder at most) as AD&D or D&D 3.5. It's a Role-Playing Game - not a Roll-Playing Game. Check the first pages of the PHB if you doubt it.
Anguish2 07-12-07, 11:26 AM	Sorry, but I'm going to have to continue to call bunk on the whole premise here. Players with core rules "can't" derive benefit from freely determining who is and isn't an ally? So, a player says to the DM, "okay, Grog moves through the bad guy's square because he thinks the bad guy's an ally at the moment, and grabs the talisman of ultimate power from the alter the bad guy's guarding." Players can't always be permitted to determine, define, or declare who is and isn't an ally. It's just not viable. Because in the example above, player determination is broken. Any sane DM will reply "the bad guy doesn't think Grog is an ally, and prevents your passage." Player retorts, "that's okay, that just means that HE can't pass through Grog's square because he doesn't think Grog's an ally. Problem solved." DM throws his hands up in the air in disgust, noting how broken the RAW are. No, no, no. DMs adjudicate the rules a lot more often than you think. I think players should be allowed to define who's an ally when casting a spell on friends and foes. prayer works on the spy in the party because the player says so. On the other hand, passing through occupied space DOESN'T because in that instance the DM defines who is and isn't an ally. If the DM is denied the ability to define "ally" in some contexts, and indeed 100% of the time with regards to moving through occupied spaces, the rules break. It's exactly the same thing as a DM assisting in clarifying if something presents a credible threat to a ToB Crusader. Sorry. The only way to answer "yes" to your supposition including underlined text is to permit for a very, very broken game. End of story.
Karzach 07-12-07, 11:50 AM	Instead of each time saying 'the stick does uhh... say 5 damage', the player gets his d8 and adds strength. Predictability and stability. Predictability: With the DM saying stick does 1d8 the player with strength 13 knows the damage will on average be 5.5. Stability: Every time it will deal in between 2 and 9 damage and every time you roll a 6 you get 7 damage. I used your stick example to illustrate how I came to that conclusion, I wasn't particularly confused on that point. Just for clarity... Predictability: Here I assume you mean that a player should, assuming they have an idea of what variables are in effect at the time, have something of an understanding of how effective a given tactic is. Stability: Merely a case of static rules. I'm running a guess that your conclusion is that any demand for a DM judgement call can (or possibly WILL) disrupt those two things. You said yourself that a DM can add or modify rules. So why not go to the effort to define what an enemy or an ally is? Or, to take advantage of modify, how would you rewrite Crusader's Strike to fit your definition of a good rule?
Valk 07-12-07, 11:51 AM	And in core, as has already been demonstrated by others, you could freely gain an overpowered benefit without a DM's judgment call. I refer to the Mice & Cleave trick, for example : the player himself is stating that the mice are his enemies. Yes AoO + Cleave (or AoO + curling wave strike) is an overpowered effect thus invalidating my statement (I like it more with the imaginary or illusion than the genuine mice btw). However, this is fixed with one judgement and one ruling. DM judges it to be overpowered, and rules that you cannot make follow-up attacks after AoO's on creatures that did not provoke AoO's. Oh, and please note that you first didn't asked that DM's call be limited, but fully prevented. So, there's no difference from that point of view whether the rule requires common or rare DM's meddling. Besides, once you have ruled on it, your players are expected to follow your rule - and not try ten times in a row to cleave through the mice if you denied them this exploit the first time. Yes, that is ruling, you add a rule and then you are done. However, the ToB maneuvres discussed require a new call every time. Each time the DM must judge whether there is a threat or not whereas in the cleave thing the DM only judges it to be too strong once, and after adding that rule the DM is no longer required to keep that combo balanced. And, last but not least, and despite the risk of being perceived as rude : if you're not confortable having to make judgment calls as a DM, don't DM ! DMing requires confidence first and foremost, and confidence/improvisation is much, much more useful than knowing precise rules by heart. You really can't expect a DM to know all the rules, and checking in the books takes a lot of time - time that is taken away from the fun part.;) I do make judgement calls, but their effect is always a change or addition to a rule and not constant intervention in play. When you constantly apply DM judgement (as required for ToB maneuvres) to what happens than it will happen from time to time that a player feels cheated and it's even worse when players die. Players feeling cheated leads to really bad moods at the table, just as DM's being forced or feeling pushed by 4 cheated-feeling players to change what happened. We have a combat that the players set up, and the DM suspects they did it because they wanted free healing from ToB maneuvres. Sure thing, players start out with the free healing maneuvres and the DM denies it. 4 rounds later 1 player died, 1 is KO and other 2 badly injured - apparantly the players were right and the enemy was indeed a threat. Player: "Why didn't you let that healing maneuvre connect..." DM: "Well, you had staged that fight for free healing, and it seemed easy." Player: "No we didn't, and even if we did, it was a pretty big threat right?" DM: "Well if you stage a fight for free healing things may go awry." Option A: It was not staged and from this point on player repeats 'no we didn't' and DM repeats 'yes you did'. Option B: It was staged and from this point on player repeats 'well it was a threat' and DM repeats 'but you staged it'. Had this been governed by rules or PC perception then there would not have been a problem. And player intent is not everything anyway, a player may fully well know that he is in a way exploiting mechanics but say that this time events have unfolded so he unintentionally reached this point, it is fully in line with his characters personality to proceed as he has so far but it will mean he will get a lot of free healing. Before reaching this point he didn't know it, but now he has reached it he deduces the benefit before actually doing it (and say he says it out loud at the table in surprise and excitement), he would have done it even without the benefit. But now, the DM knows the player intends to get free healing so decides he doesn't get it, while if the player did not know (had been dumber or had been lying) the DM would have allowed it. Despite the close relation to ToB healing maneuvres please consider this as a general example of how judgements may go awry, such as judging whether something was staged or not if some bad rule said it mattered, this part should be about the judgement conflict and not about the actual ToB rules Players with core rules "can't" derive benefit from freely determining who is and isn't an ally? So, a player says to the DM, "okay, Grog moves through the bad guy's square because he thinks the bad guy's an ally at the moment, and grabs the talisman of ultimate power from the alter the bad guy's guarding." Learn to read, my apologise to Lawkeeper for again repeating this phrase (this time I underline and discuss a different part): "In the original rules you could not gain an overpowered benefit by freely determining who your friends and foes are. You can in some new rules such as some healing maneuvres in ToB." You only determine who your friends are... not who the badguys friends are, the DM decides who the badguy considers to be his friends.
Nezkrul 07-12-07, 03:42 PM	Further, in all of the rather amusing arguments about broken magic item pricing rules I've read, never have I encountered the suggestion that such a ring isn't incredibly broken for the RAW price because it only works once per day. Free true strike items are iconic for being the obvious way to demonstrate pricing is an art, not a rule set. Check my sig, bro :D :D :D see the school of magic? As to the rules, my first post must have been done before you finished typing, sorry :D This is a Role Playing Game. All Role Playing Games need an arbitrator or a "rules set that is infallible" in order to move forward and be fun, because it is still a game. D&D has an arbitrator in the form of the Dungeon Master. He has rules to follow just like players, but his rules are infinitely more flexible than the players. Namely, Rule 0. But, he also needs to run a smooth, enjoyable game, or there won't be players. So, he must exercise game balance with his rulings, while maintaining fairness. Saying that the DM should not be able to make rulings on something, that is cut and clear in the rules already, is simply ludicrous. I mean, look at my sig, man. Gloves of Wraithstrike were created entirely by the rules in the back of the DMG. But no one(read DM) in their right mind would ever allow them in their game. This is an example of the DM being the arbitrator of the RPG. Just like him telling you that no, your synthetic encounter was not a threat so the maneuver doesn't heal you. He could've said that your deity decided not to heal you AFTER he let you go through with the whole debacle. My point is, there wouldn't be a game if there were no DM to keep it a game.
Anguish2 07-12-07, 05:15 PM	We have a combat that the players set up, and the DM suspects they did it because they wanted free healing from ToB maneuvres. I'm going to stop you right there. What does that MEAN? Why do you have a ""combat that the players set up"? Players don't set combats up. Players can instigate a fight, players can be deliberately rude so as to make enemies, and players can deliberately assault others, forcing them to defend themselves. But players can't "set up" a combat. Sure thing, players start out with the free healing maneuvres and the DM denies it. 4 rounds later 1 player died, 1 is KO and other 2 badly injured - apparantly the players were right and the enemy was indeed a threat. Player: "Why didn't you let that healing maneuvre connect..." DM: "Well, you had staged that fight for free healing, and it seemed easy." Player: "No we didn't, and even if we did, it was a pretty big threat right?" DM: "Well if you stage a fight for free healing things may go awry." Option A: It was not staged and from this point on player repeats 'no we didn't' and DM repeats 'yes you did'. Option B: It was staged and from this point on player repeats 'well it was a threat' and DM repeats 'but you staged it'. Had this been governed by rules or PC perception then there would not have been a problem. Doesn't matter. This is really a no-brainer. A party that's screwed up and in need of healing that goes out of their way to pick a fight deserves what comes their way. The Crusader being denied their divinely derived healing in such a battle is absolutely and utterly fitting. If the party gets their butts handed to them, that's a Good Thing. Does the DM make a decision? Yes. Does the DM have to make a decision on a case-by-case basis? Not really. The first time the players try Crusader's Strike on a bunny out of a grey bag of tricks and tries to play it off as a credible threat, the DM explains -- one time -- that such exploits aren't going to be permitted. If the player is expressly picking on someone because they think it's a good way to gain hitpoints, it just doesn't work. The RAW even supports that. Poof. No more case-by-case decisions. If the players start being rowdy and obnoxious, making it difficult to tell if they're simply roleplaying brash characters or trying to game the system... you impose a divine buttocks-whooping from the Crusader's deity. This really isn't about rules being vague, or improperly written, or as your original premise describes "bad". It's about player motivation. And player intent is not everything anyway, a player may fully well know that he is in a way exploiting mechanics but say that this time events have unfolded so he unintentionally reached this point, it is fully in line with his characters personality to proceed as he has so far but it will mean he will get a lot of free healing. Before reaching this point he didn't know it, but now he has reached it he deduces the benefit before actually doing it (and say he says it out loud at the table in surprise and excitement), he would have done it even without the benefit. But now, the DM knows the player intends to get free healing so decides he doesn't get it, while if the player did not know (had been dumber or had been lying) the DM would have allowed it. Despite the close relation to ToB healing maneuvres please consider this as a general example of how judgements may go awry, such as judging whether something was staged or not if some bad rule said it mattered, this part should be about the judgement conflict and not about the actual ToB rules I'm sorry. The above (full-size) paragraph didn't get through. I can't tell what you mean. I apologize. Learn to read, my apologise to Lawkeeper for again repeating this phrase (this time I underline and discuss a different part): "In the original rules you could not gain an overpowered benefit by freely determining who your friends and foes are. You can in some new rules such as some healing maneuvres in ToB." You only determine who your friends are... not who the badguys friends are, the DM decides who the badguy considers to be his friends. Huh? That's exactly what I pointed out. Character A is permitted to move through his allies' squares. If Player A tells the DM that Character A believes the Big Bad Evil Guy is his ally and a DM isn't permitted to make a case-by-case decision overriding this, then Character A is allowed to move through BBEG's square. Because as you're pointing out, Character A gets to decide who his allies are. Not who BBEG's allies are. You -- the player -- determine who YOUR friends are. If that's true, then your character can happily move through whatever creature-occupied square he pleases. I'm afraid there really is no getting out of this one; PHB itself DOES allow for players to gain benefits from determining who their allies are. Which is why no DM would ever play the game that way.
zorgling25 07-12-07, 05:54 PM	Huh? That's exactly what I pointed out. Character A is permitted to move through his allies' squares. If Player A tells the DM that Character A believes the Big Bad Evil Guy is his ally and a DM isn't permitted to make a case-by-case decision overriding this, then Character A is allowed to move through BBEG's square. Because as you're pointing out, Character A gets to decide who his allies are. Not who BBEG's allies are. You -- the player -- determine who YOUR friends are. If that's true, then your character can happily move through whatever creature-occupied square he pleases. While I agree with your point as a whole, I disagree about this one. Effectively, you can move through your allies' squares because they can choose not to block you. If they did, that's what bull rush is for. The fact that the BBEG will choose to block the character's path is what determines whether the character can move through, not whether the character considers him an ally.
Lawkeeper 07-13-07, 03:25 AM	While I agree with your point as a whole, I disagree about this one. Effectively, you can move through your allies' squares because they can choose not to block you. If they did, that's what bull rush is for. The fact that the BBEG will choose to block the character's path is what determines whether the character can move through, not whether the character considers him an ally. That's exactly what he means to say. No one in his right mind would agree that only the active player determines who his allies and opponents are. However, the rules say that you can "move through a square occupied by an ally" - so, denying DM-ruling, a character would be able to designate a foe as an "ally", even temporarily, get across his square, et voila. The rules do not say "you prevent your opponents from crossing your square", in which case it's the opponent making the determination, but instead "you can move through ally-occupied squares" ; in the latter, it's the active creature making the determination, and it's abuse-prone if you let it do unchecked.
WackyOne 07-13-07, 03:49 AM	There is just 1 thing I don't get, looking at the larger picture: why should a party abuse such loopholes, when for 750 gp, you can cure 275 hp (wand of CLW) or even regenerate 550, given a bit of time (wand of lesser vigor)? It makes me think that HP, as of now, are statted "per encounter" (as in, if the party has half a chance to, they'll walk into the next fight at full HPs - be it from a cleric or a wand), instead of being a per day resource as designed...
GhostStepper 07-13-07, 04:21 PM	That's exactly what he means to say. No one in his right mind would agree that only the active player determines who his allies and opponents are. However, the rules say that you can "move through a square occupied by an ally" - so, denying DM-ruling, a character would be able to designate a foe as an "ally", even temporarily, get across his square, et voila. The rules do not say "you prevent your opponents from crossing your square", in which case it's the opponent making the determination, but instead "you can move through ally-occupied squares" ; in the latter, it's the active creature making the determination, and it's abuse-prone if you let it do unchecked. A better example of exploiting a player's ability to decide who is an ally using only core is the flanking rules. If a player randomly decides to befriend one of the rogues on either side of him, they dont get their flanking bonuses or sneak attack.
Grey_Mage 07-13-07, 07:35 PM	I had forgotten my point: Wizards should errata these abilities to no longer directly appeal to DM judgement. My point is that prior to some new books you COULD NOT exploit the game by considering someone who is not a threat to be a threat or by considering an ally an enemy or a tree for that matter. Now you do have an exploit by such tampering, and my point is that the game should have rules that are not subject to this so the DM does not need to interfere to keep the game balanced, player intent should also not have an influence on game mechanics, game mechanics should be immune to player intent and just react on things actually being done. No, the DM should interfere in the game by changing the rules and controlling PC's. That is the way he works. Like programming to a computer. If in a computer program something does not function as it should the program cannot consult the programmer, however, a user can tell the programmer what is wrong and the programmer adds some rules to the program, or changes some rules. The job of a DM. Ingame entity solution: DM: "Just attack with it, I'll think up how much damage you deal each time." - in effect, the DM adds a rule that sais when an attack is made the attack consults the DM how much damage it's going to deal. In a computer program this would be impossible, the program cannot ask the programmer what it is supposed to do, the programmer should have done so in advance. I wish you had tried to interpret me as having said something meaningfull. You had 2 choices, either think I'm stupid and conclude I mean that the DM should not do anything == not a workable game. Or you could have concluded you either don't get me or kept thinking until you did get it. I wish you had tried to interpret my abilities as both a human being and a DM as something a little more complicated than a computer. I wish you understood that if I wanted to be in a world with no mutable laws, Id go play a computer game. I wish you understood that its not your job to roll over and give the players what they want even if its withing the rules as written to do so! Seriously... I havent been this offended over something someones said on these boards in a while. I dont want a DM whos computerised in how they do thing, nor would I ever under any circumstances want to be a DM that did that. How boring, how silly, and how unimaginative. It doesnt even work with the RAW for a DM to be that way. Look at the druid and cleric entries of your vaunted core books. Both of these classes have roleplaying restrictions put on them... and for good reason. Thats right, ever single action the cleric takes can be assessed by the DM, and he can decide wether or not its along the lines of what M'amdingodran the god of plucked flower petals would want or not. Please.... remember that as DM its your job to use your backbone to keep the game in one peice, and running smoothly and that if you cant, or the players arent willing to help you in that... youve got alot bigger problems than a few lines of type in an overly expensive book.
Valk 07-15-07, 09:50 AM	I'm going to stop you right there. What does that MEAN? Why do you have a ""combat that the players set up"? Players don't set combats up. Players can instigate a fight, players can be deliberately rude so as to make enemies, and players can deliberately assault others, forcing them to defend themselves. But players can't "set up" a combat. Players instigate a fight; either because they want to use healing maneuvres (as the DM in the example thinks) or because they just felt like picking a fight. Doesn't matter. This is really a no-brainer. A party that's screwed up and in need of healing that goes out of their way to pick a fight deserves what comes their way. The Crusader being denied their divinely derived healing in such a battle is absolutely and utterly fitting. If the party gets their butts handed to them, that's a Good Thing. First, why do they deserve to be deserted by their maneuvres? - Second, it might be an evil party. Crusader might be evil and using devoted spirit maneuvres. And the rules should not leave the party's side (if they are on their side) if they do something bad, if you as a DM feel you must discourage them then screw them some other way. Does the DM make a decision? Yes. Does the DM have to make a decision on a case-by-case basis? Not really. The first time the players try Crusader's Strike on a bunny out of a grey bag of tricks and tries to play it off as a credible threat, the DM explains -- one time -- that such exploits aren't going to be permitted. If the player is expressly picking on someone because they think it's a good way to gain hitpoints, it just doesn't work. The RAW even supports that. Poof. No more case-by-case decisions. If the players start being rowdy and obnoxious, making it difficult to tell if they're simply roleplaying brash characters or trying to game the system... you impose a divine buttocks-whooping from the Crusader's deity. Right, and the DM knows this how? - My point in the example was that the DM may think they did it for that reason while it was not the case thus screwing the players. This really isn't about rules being vague, or improperly written, or as your original premise describes "bad". It's about player motivation. Character actions should run the game, not player motivation. That's exactly what he means to say. No one in his right mind would agree that only the active player determines who his allies and opponents are. However, the rules say that you can "move through a square occupied by an ally" - so, denying DM-ruling, a character would be able to designate a foe as an "ally", even temporarily, get across his square, et voila. The rules do not say "you prevent your opponents from crossing your square", in which case it's the opponent making the determination, but instead "you can move through ally-occupied squares" ; in the latter, it's the active creature making the determination, and it's abuse-prone if you let it do unchecked. From SRD: Friend You can move through a square occupied by a friendly character, unless you are charging. When you move through a square occupied by a friendly character, that character doesn’t provide you with cover. Not through the square occupied by a friend but by a friendly character. Friendly is considering someone to be a friend (in this case: you) From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/friendly : friend·ly /ˈfrɛndli/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[frend-lee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation adjective, -li·er, -li·est, adverb, noun, plural -lies. –adjective 1. characteristic of or befitting a friend; showing friendship: a friendly greeting. 2. like a friend; kind; helpful: a little friendly advice. 3. favorably disposed; inclined to approve, help, or support: a friendly bank. 4. not hostile or at variance; amicable: a friendly warship; friendly natives. So, you can move through the square of someone who considers you to be a friend. A better example of exploiting a player's ability to decide who is an ally using only core is the flanking rules. If a player randomly decides to befriend one of the rogues on either side of him, they dont get their flanking bonuses or sneak attack. From the SRD: Flanking When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by a character or creature friendly to you on the opponent’s opposite border or opposite corner. Again the friendly thing, moreover, what the opponent itself thinks doesn't count. 2 partymembers could flank a third partymember if they all consider eachother to be allies. There is just 1 thing I don't get, looking at the larger picture: why should a party abuse such loopholes, when for 750 gp, you can cure 275 hp (wand of CLW) or even regenerate 550, given a bit of time (wand of lesser vigor)? It makes me think that HP, as of now, are statted "per encounter" (as in, if the party has half a chance to, they'll walk into the next fight at full HPs - be it from a cleric or a wand), instead of being a per day resource as designed... It's not specifically about healing. I earlier had a similar issue (though not here) about Boots of Sidestepping (Dungeonscape), they too use bad ruling and in general. It's what my critics are on a custom RPG system that some people I know make. I wish you had tried to interpret my abilities as both a human being and a DM as something a little more complicated than a computer. I wish you understood that if I wanted to be in a world with no mutable laws, Id go play a computer game. I wish you understood that its not your job to roll over and give the players what they want even if its withing the rules as written to do so! Build in a little delay, if it is in the rules after you as a DM possibly having changed them then you give them what they want (and possibly roll over if the rules require that aswell). Do as the rules say, even if it is what the players want. You as a DM should not ignore rules, instead, change them if it's required. Change so that the players know what to expect from every situation (so do not change them to 'whatever I say at that moment'). Please.... remember that as DM its your job to use your backbone to keep the game in one peice, and running smoothly and that if you cant, or the players arent willing to help you in that... youve got alot bigger problems than a few lines of type in an overly expensive book. I have seen 2 games lose players or collapse over the DM not sticking to the rules, I've seen one collapse over the DM not sticking to the rules and lacking backbone. I have occasionally annoyed the hell out of a few DM's (and often gotten my way (= the way of the rules)) without the game collapsing, in fact, most (3 or 4 of the 5, varied per issue) players agreed the game improved. Our current very good running game which you could call THE LAW has 3 DM's (using a system to prevent the characters of the inactive DM's from knowing more than the other players) (I'm also one of those 3) and all rule changes are discussed with the players. Further, the entire group frowns upon DM judgement calls and rule changes. For the latter an additional reason is that rule changes must be kept track of and made known to all players. DM's are in a sense powerless, they must do their stuff with the rules and that sometimes requires some creative thinking. I'm designing an underground harbor-adventure, it took quite some effort, calculations and spell combinations and tricks to pull it off but it functions entirely within the rules. Based on the cost to pull it off, I build the rest of the encounter - however, the latter is just because I was a bit at a loss for ideas. It's perfectly acceptable to just build something and then choose the badguys independently.