Post/Author/DateTime	Post
RavingDork 04-18-07, 12:46 PM	In a Dragonlance game I have been participating in, our party was attacked by a great red dragon. It attempted to toast the party with its horrific breath weapon, to which I responded with a scroll of [energy substituted: cold] fireball. My DM called foul--saying that I was metagaming (since none of the characters in the party had ever encounted a dragon before and at that particular point in the Dragonlance storyline, dragons were as much a myth as they are in real life). I calmly explained to the DM that my transmuter had a 19 Intelligence, that the big red dragon was breathing fire on the party, and that my character could transform into a hell hound (via shape of the hellspawned stalker from Complete Mage) which in turn gave my character a fiery breath weapon AND immunity to fire. I told him my character could logically deduce that my only other spell scroll (a normal fireball) would likely be wasted on the monster. He said he would let it slide "this time," but not to metagame again. The nerve! I didn't want to ruffle anyone's feathers though, so I shut up and we continued to have a great game (he did let me go through with it, after all). I might have walked for the evening had he told me to pick a different action though. So, in the end, who do YOU think was in the right on this one? :confused:
Olskool 04-18-07, 12:51 PM	The DM is always right. Adapt to their style or start your own game. Those are your only 2 options if you want to play.
Shade_Damara 04-18-07, 12:52 PM	Did you roll a knowledge check? No? Then you meta-gamed. Sure you can reason around with it however you want, but short of rolling the required checks (and yes, they are required) you have to assume your character doesn't know. Aside from that, the logic your character would have had to follow was a little stretched to begin with. The Dragon was red and was breathing fire and because your character could turn into something that breaths fire and is immune to fire (but is also from a plane with fire in it) he knew the Red Dragon would be immune to fire? A creature can breath fire and not be immune to it, a creature can't be from a plane involving fire without being immune to it. The DM should have called for a knowledge check to use it.
metamind 04-18-07, 12:52 PM	Your DM deserves to be hit it the head with the corner of a DMG.
Daydreamer 04-18-07, 12:54 PM	dm should have called for a knowledge check, you should have rolled a knowledge check.
Rowan_Whispercloak 04-18-07, 01:06 PM	Just from experience most DM hate being called wrong, however in not asking for a knowledge check then that can be a problem as well. I find that the player's logic is not much of a problem, I would have used that most things that "natural" produce fire are immune or at least resistant to fire. DND is game and should be about having fun with your friends, if you feel that the DM is not playing fairly, then you have the option to find a different group to play with. The DM may "always" be right, but without players he/she can be right all on his/her own.
Daydreamer 04-18-07, 01:18 PM	the dm is not always 'right', however the dm is always 'entitled' to make whatever call she finds appriopriate. IN a way, the dm is never 'wrong' either, sometimes the same call will work for some pcs and not for others.
Dawnshadow 04-18-07, 01:24 PM	I call BS. Nearly double the average intelligence score of a character, a specialty in magic, and personal experience with entities that breathe fire. His character deduced that, based on various traits, this dragon would be immune to fire. He had a SCROLL of coldball. He chose, rather then use a spell that he had good reason to believe the dragon was immune to the damage of, to use a scroll. Denying the person the ability to think? That's stupid, and bad DMing to the nth degree. Most bad DMs will at least let you use SOME measure of intelligence when fighting.
Archangel62 04-18-07, 01:26 PM	Actually a sub-cold spell is what I would use against something that wields fire as a natural ability. It isn't so much that I believe it wouldn't be hurt by fire but that it's reasonable that a creature who seems to have the element of fire as a key part of its body would likely be hurt by the opposed element of water. And since that sort of thing would be taught to wizards it isn't unreasonable to make that guess. Combie with that fact that you could point out, " My wizard is guessing this based on the fact that the creature seems to be fire based that fire likely wouldn't do as much to it as an ice based spell. Considering the danger that the group is currently in using fire spells might be an idea if I have nothing left but at this point it is better to avoid something that might not even work."
FWHGilby 04-18-07, 01:51 PM	My latest DM fixes stuff like this easily. Dragons are NOT color coded for your(player's) convenience. He actually likes the super-heated sand breath weapon, and no fire rez/immunity does not protect from it.
primemover003 04-18-07, 01:52 PM	I calmly explained to the DM that my transmuter had a 19 Intelligence, that the big red dragon was breathing fire on the party, and that my character could transform into a hell hound (via shape of the hellspawned stalker from Complete Mage) which in turn gave my character a fiery breath weapon AND immunity to fire. I told him my character could logically deduce that my only other spell scroll (a normal fireball) would likely be wasted on the monster. All the deduction that an intelligent Wizard would've known to use cold is called using your Knowledge (Arcana) skill... that represents what the Character knows, not the Player. You did metagame, plain and simple. You have skill points for a reason, use them. You're obviously at least 5th level so you should easily have a +12 modifier to your Knowledge check.
Daydreamer 04-18-07, 01:56 PM	aye this should have been an easy knowledge check. You should have asked for the check...however...if your dm doesnt really use knowledge checks and makes them worth bunk, then i am more sympathetic to you.
Dawnshadow 04-18-07, 02:22 PM	The deduction wasn't "Use Cold" -- the deduction was "Don't Use Fire". Cold just happened to be the only other scroll. And the fighter isn't allowed to take a glance at his opponent, make a rough mental calculation and set his power attack? He has to roll a check to figure out how good the opponents defenses are? The rogue isn't allowed to go 'No way, I've got no idea what that THING'S senses are like, I'm not sneaking into it's lair!'?
Hsien 04-18-07, 02:38 PM	This is a no harm no foul territory. You disagreed and it got settled, sweet. Metagaming can be an issue at times though. Generally, would a DM require knowledge check casting this spell... Fireball (sub: acid) = No; your just using spell/scroll that does damage. Because it is neither resisted nor possibly extra damage it doesn't matter. Fireball (fire) = No, or at least not likely and in general would be more likely to wonder why you are casting fire spells at fire type critters, imo. Therefore I can only conclude that using Fireball (cold) is a fair and legitimate response to the dragon. Note one of my favorite twists was a "white dragon" from Dungeon magazine that was actually an albino red...surprise!!!
Shade_Damara 04-18-07, 02:38 PM	Those are entirely different circumstances. In the case of the fighter it's fairly easy to say: "hm...I haven't been hitting this very often" and not use power attack, or see that the enemy is wearing Full Plate that seems to be glowing. A rogue that refuses to sneak through somewhere because something might have good senses is either a poor Rogue (because later on their abilities can surpass that sort of thing) or has poor allies who won't help out when neccesary. In this case however the Wizard is deducing something about the monster's stats that typically, according to the rules, requires a knowledge check to figure out. This is actually representing the Wizard looking at the monster and making the decision to use cold rather than fire and is designed to keep players from making a logical leap on the part of their characters because of what they know out of game. Also, if a DM really wanted to he could have the fighter make a knoweldge War check to decide if he should use power attack against a strange creature he has never seen before. Knowledge checks are there for a reason.
Puca 04-18-07, 02:48 PM	Firstly, you metagamed. It is impossible to have played for more than like 30 seconds without knowing that red dragons are going to be hurt by cold and not fire. You didnt reason it out. You knew. But, you could have reasoned it out. Talking what you presented at face value, you had only two damaging options: Fireball and a [cold] Fireball. You have a character with some experience with fire-breathing creatures and an Int of 19. If you use IQ as a guide, the difference between a 19 Int and average person is the same as the difference between an average person and a houseplant. With choices limited to cold or hot to hurt the dragon, I think we could trust that the super-dooper uber genius with fire-breathing experience would have gone with cold. Your DM wants knowledge checks, roll them. But he should let you play your stats.
Matthew77 04-18-07, 02:50 PM	Wow.. you guys require a knowledge check to decide to use cold against an opponent that breathed fire? I hope the DC on that check is 0 or less. Do you also require knowledge checks to figure out what end of the spear to grip, and what end to poke with? Two simple rules every character should know: 1) If it has a breath weapon of an element, use the opposing element to hurt it. 2) If it keeps getting back up after you slash it to bits, try burning it.
Zandolit 04-18-07, 02:51 PM	To me this one seems like common sense. Something that's producing fire probably isn't going to be able to be hurt by fire. I mean, heck, if you wanted to put out your campfire, would you use water or more fire? You use something that's opposed to what you want to fight. I'm not seeing the need for a Knowledge check, and I certainly don't think it's arcane knowledge. I think it's common sense, especially for a particularly intelligent character. For what it's worth, I would have used the same reasoning, and I've never seen a dragon in a campaign (DM doesn't like them, I guess?) and never read about them. I don't have any metagame knowledge about this, and I would have used the scroll. I'm glad it was resolved to everyone's satisfaction, but I see no problems with what the player did.
Radijs 04-18-07, 02:56 PM	Something like that is common sense. :D Which equals a DC10 knolwedge check! :D
Thiez 04-18-07, 02:58 PM	In a Dragonlance game I have been participating in, our party was attacked by a great red dragon. It attempted to toast the party with its horrific breath weapon, to which I responded with a scroll of [energy substituted: cold] fireball. My DM called foul--saying that I was metagaming (since none of the characters in the party had ever encounted a dragon before and at that particular point in the Dragonlance storyline, dragons were as much a myth as they are in real life). I calmly explained to the DM that my transmuter had a 19 Intelligence, that the big red dragon was breathing fire on the party, and that my character could transform into a hell hound (via shape of the hellspawned stalker from Complete Mage) which in turn gave my character a fiery breath weapon AND immunity to fire. I told him my character could logically deduce that my only other spell scroll (a normal fireball) would likely be wasted on the monster. He said he would let it slide "this time," but not to metagame again. The nerve! I didn't want to ruffle anyone's feathers though, so I shut up and we continued to have a great game (he did let me go through with it, after all). I might have walked for the evening had he told me to pick a different action though. So, in the end, who do YOU think was in the right on this one? :confused: Knowledge about dragons is Knowledge(Arcana) iirc. If you're a wizard, I assume you have some ranks in that skill. And +4 from your int. I doubt you could have failed that check.
Shade_Damara 04-18-07, 03:04 PM	See, here you guys are making assumptions. Who is to say the Red Dragon is not actually vulnerable to fire? It seems a little odd because it breaths fire, but you are never harmed by your own breath weapon. Assuming something is weak to the opposite element of what it uses as a breath weapon can be a rather dangerous assumption to make. Assuming this based on knowledge you have out of game about dragons however is easily construed as metagaming, as you can see by reviewing the thread. I would have required a knowledge check to assure metagaming was out of the picture, because there is that chance it was a decision made based on metagaming rather than a dangerous assumption by the Wizard. As for a DC, it would most certainly not be below 0, but you would probably be looking at a 15 and if a Wizard with a 19 intelligence can't make a Knowledge check DC of 15 something is horribly wrong. As for the spear comment, don't be a prick. No one requires knowledge checks for the use of a spear, nor does it quite compare with the above situation. I'm not saying the DM's decision to allow for it was wrong and I do believe the DM's decision to call the player out in front of the party like that was wrong. I would like to know why people are in an uproar for saying "just roll a knowledge check." Is it so hard for a Wizard to pass a low DC knowledge check? It's not as if we are saying: "Make a strength check" or something utterly irrelevent and difficult to do.
Zandolit 04-18-07, 03:10 PM	Something like that is common sense. :D Which equals a DC10 knolwedge check! :D But you don't have to roll a knowledge check for everything done in combat. It's common sense that I should use Heal on my teammates rather than Inflict, but I don't have to roll for that. I think there's a difference between common knowledge and common sense, and this is the latter. I'm not seeing the logic behind using the opposite choice. Should I use Inflict on my party, since it would be metagaming to know they won't be too pleased with that? Obviously not. In combat, we have to make decisions, and for casters that includes spell selection. We generally try to tailor that to our enemy's weakness as we perceive them. If something is making fire, fire probably isn't one of its weaknesses. I don't see this as any different than realizing you shouldn't cast an Area of Effect spell on where your party members are. Playing a spell caster assumes some level of common sense that doesn't require knowledge checks.
danielinthewolvesden 04-18-07, 03:20 PM	Many fire breathing creatures are resistand or immune to fire. RavingDork's wizard knows this as he uses a Hellhound form. Imso facto, when attacked by a firebreather you do not use fire, Knowledge check or no. OTOH, as several have said, RavingDork's wizard should have gotten a Ks Arcana check, and that would have confirmed fire resistance- and other cool things. I assume that a Wizard with a 19 Int has Ks Arcana maxed.
Bruunwald 04-18-07, 03:21 PM	I think you're both wrong for not thinking ahead enough to settle what is within the realm of character knowledge and what is not. Just another of a million crappy little table rules that are left taken for granted due to the setting itself, that players and DMs really need to discuss, else risk one trying to act like a bigger baby than the other.
Cartigan 04-18-07, 03:23 PM	Aside from that, the logic your character would have had to follow was a little stretched to begin with. The Dragon was red and was breathing fire and because your character could turn into something that breaths fire and is immune to fire (but is also from a plane with fire in it) he knew the Red Dragon would be immune to fire? Logical deduction != knowledge. Logical deduction is exactly what it says it is - a logically reasoned assumption based on relevant knowledge. Who is to say the Red Dragon is not actually vulnerable to fire? It seems a little odd because it breaths fire, but you are never harmed by your own breath weapon. Assuming something is weak to the opposite element of what it uses as a breath weapon can be a rather dangerous assumption to make. Why wouldn't it be immune to something that it can breath out it's mouth. Whatever magical species can be injured by the things that come out of their mouths are long extinct.
Zankue 04-18-07, 03:26 PM	I dunno about other people but my character knows that water puts out fire, so it only makes sense that a thing that breaths fire is damaged more by a water or ice type, I'd say it's meta gaming only if you started taking out the scrolls before it started using fire. You say that u have a fireball, and an ice scroll? how many uses on the fireball, just because it's a good spell doesnt mean that that's the only thing ur alowed to use now, I could see the DM's point of view, but I'd say ur choice is OK
Evil DM Mk3 04-18-07, 03:30 PM	This is a far FAR too hard line. I am an experianced DM. I would never had called as he did. If it hadn't have breathed fire, maybe, MAYBE. But the kind of logic that was applied here is the same logic that enyone who has ever played a zelda game would have used. Fire oposes Cold. It uses fire, ergo it probably doesn't like the cold. When I suspect metagaming I demand reasoning, if it is even half decent then I allow it. Especially since I often change the physical apperance of cretures, I don't think I have ever run a "normal" dragon anyway, the alst one was cyral and had the lingering and and clinglign breath feats, it was like a thick acidic mucus from four heads at once!!!
chava 04-18-07, 03:31 PM	I have no problem with the OP using the cold-version spell he has prepared because the thing is breathing fire - frankly I don't know if the cold will work, I don't know if fire will work but I think I'd rather not throw fire at the thing that can breathe it. BTW, notice in my thinking since I didn't roll my Knowledge (arcana) I don't actually know the thing breathing fire IS a dragon - because it doesn't matter for the purpose of what I'm doing which is trying to stay alive. For me when I'm DMing I have no problem that my players use common sense in their combat tactics - but I also do not name a monster, so in the case of the wizard the encounter probably would have been: 'Rising over the trees you spot a large, red scaled winged reptile. As the winds shift its head turns toward you and from its maw issues fire. (reflex save everyone)' Of course I also have a habit of using variant monsters with funky resistances, and a Knowledge (arcana) in the case of my dragon - assuming that he made the DC - probably would have gone: 'From the dusty tomes of your master you recognize the great beast as a dragon - given that it is breathing fire, it is probably immune to that element, however as you were hopping around trying to put out the flames you noticed that many of its scales have runes for winter, ice, and cold engraved - it's possible that this creature has overcome its race's vulnerability to cold.' (then when my newbie wizard gives me a WTF look - i would explain to her, since she really doesn't know anything about dnd that the cold spell will still damage it but won't do extra damage as it would to a 'normal' red dragon)
Matthew77 04-18-07, 03:40 PM	As for the spear comment, don't be a prick. No one requires knowledge checks for the use of a spear, nor does it quite compare with the above situation. Really? I think its exactly comparable. "You've never seen a dragon before, so you have to make a knowledge check to realize that if it breathes fire, using cold is a good idea." "You've never seen a spear before, so you have to make a knowledge check to realize that the pointy end goes into the bad guys." The point is, he's using cold damage because he saw the opponent breathe fire, not because he knows anything about its weaknesses or game statistics. If I see something covered with barbed spikes, I don't grapple it. If I see something breathe fire, I don't use fire spells against it. If I see a weapon with a pointy end, I keep the sharp parts facing my enemy. That's simple logic, not knowledge.
Toloran 04-18-07, 03:40 PM	It is a general trend in most D&D universes that a monster that attacks with one element is weak (or at least not resistant to) its opposite. Cold is basically the opposite of fire so it would make sense that a fire breathing dragon would be weak to cold. So, your reasoning was perfectly logical. Now, from the DM's Perspective: It is very hard to distinguish between character knowledge and player knowledge (metagaming). If the DM thinks you are metagaming, he should make you roll a knowledge check. If he thinks your character would reasonably think such a thing, then no roll is needed.
Ogrelee 04-18-07, 03:58 PM	IMO, the DM was probably looking for an easy kill. Who expects the wizard to use their Int like the Fighter uses his STR, or the rogue uses his/her DEX? God forbid- a smart wizard? A better question is why would a dragon go into battle with a wizard without resist cold spells in place? ("The Dumb Wizard won't know enough to use cold on me, practically my only weakness. Pshaw.") Let me ask all of you dm's who are clamoring for Knoledge checks in this circumstance- What is the Uber monster ALL ADVENTURERS fear? The mighty red dragon. Why? Because they are legendary in their power. What do you think the first monster a fighter learns about is? A cockatrice? A Sahaguin? Who do you think the rogue studies for treasure right from the get? Is included in the myths of Monks and religions everywhere? I might have called Metagaming if it had been a red dragon polymorphed into the form of a black, and the wizard had used a coldball on him. But every first level adventurer should know about two monsters: the red dragon and the green troll. If they don't they aren't smart enough to dress themselves. I also figure my players characters would know the most highly sought magic items applicable to their class, that heavy armors make it harder to cast spells and sneak, and I figure they know they shouldn't try to swim in it. JM2C.
Dawnshadow 04-18-07, 04:21 PM	Actually, the first monster the fighter learns about is the Rust Monster....
Prator_the_Legendary 04-18-07, 04:28 PM	Not really. The Red Dragon is something you'll hear legends about when you're a little kid. There are lots and lots of fairy tales with dragons in 'em. And the bulk of those fire-breathing dragons are, coincidentally, red. A rust monster is something you learn about in fighter college when Jimmy comes back from a field trip in his underwear, wielding a wooden club or nothing at all, and asks to borrow your roommate's hide armor for a couple days.
Dawnshadow 04-18-07, 04:45 PM	Not really. The Red Dragon is something you'll hear legends about when you're a little kid. There are lots and lots of fairy tales with dragons in 'em. And the bulk of those fire-breathing dragons are, coincidentally, red. A rust monster is something you learn about in fighter college when Jimmy comes back from a field trip in his underwear, wielding a wooden club or nothing at all, and asks to borrow your roommate's hide armor for a couple days. Somewhere, in fighter college, a new group of students are being settled into their first lecture, and Graybeard the Dwarf beings to talk... Now, listen lads, dere's something ye need t'know before ye get too settled in.. see, dere's dis beast that's gonna look on ye like yer a meal, and if it gets te ye, yer armour will fall apart, and yer weapons will vanish. Remember, let de wizard deal wit' de rust monster... ye worry about not lettin' de rust monster touch you.
tahngarth40 04-18-07, 05:04 PM	2) If it keeps getting back up after you slash it to bits, try burning it. I have no idea how that is not metagaming, if you haven't dealt with regeneration before, with out an appropriate knowledge how the hell do you have any idea that fire will stop it? The reason why I sympathise with the DM with this one is athough he may be acting as a hardass, its much easier just to use the knowledge check than to worry about metagaming, yes there are plenty of arguments why you should be able to do it w/out a check, but there's a reason for having those skill points so just use it. The reason why I'm a hardass with it is because I have a player who likes to play elves, and uses that as an excuse for metagaming. "I've been alive for a long time, read a lot of books and have had many different experiences" says the 100 yr old elf, even though he has 0 knowledges. Most checks like "Water hurts fire monster" would be relatively simple, if you have the appropriate ranks with a decent int, seeing as how you can't fail on a 1, shouldn't be an issue. Just makes the DMs life easier.
Matthew77 04-18-07, 05:10 PM	If weapons don't work, try fire. Why do you think the mobs of villagers always carried pitchforks and torches? I don't care if its regeneration, damage reduction, a puddle of ooze that keeps splitting into parts, SOP is that if whacking it doesn't work, try burning it. If that's metagaming, then so is "always carry an extra 50' of rope in your backpack." These are simple rules of survival, which have absolutely nothing to do with my character's knowledge or lack thereof of specific monsters or abilities.
Zandolit 04-18-07, 05:45 PM	I have no idea how that is not metagaming, if you haven't dealt with regeneration before, with out an appropriate knowledge how the hell do you have any idea that fire will stop it? Because something that has been reduced to a small pile of ashes is going to have a hard time attacking anyone even if it wants to? If something seems to be fixing itself, trying to get it into a state with minimal "itself" left to fix seems like a solid call. Note that in this example, the characters see the creature regenerating. They may not know about regeneration, but this is a crash course. I'd feel differently about the situation if the characters tried using fire before it had regenerated in front of them (unless fire is part of their typical mode of attack, in which case they'd be metagaming by not using it.) If they've seen it fix itself after they slashed it a good bit, naturally they're going to try something else, and fire is nice and... permanent, generally. ;)
Nathreet 04-18-07, 05:45 PM	Dude, it's red and it breathes fire. That's all any adventurer with half a brain needs to know. In fact, the red color is a bit excessive. Maybe you aren't 100% sure, but you're not gonna take your chances.
Hsien 04-18-07, 05:48 PM	Somewhere, in fighter college, a new group of students are being settled into their first lecture, and Graybeard the Dwarf beings to talk... Now, listen lads, dere's something ye need t'know before ye get too settled in.. see, dere's dis beast that's gonna look on ye like yer a meal, and if it gets te ye, yer armour will fall apart, and yer weapons will vanish. Remember, let de wizard deal wit' de rust monster... ye worry about not lettin' de rust monster touch you. There's a paladin I know who walked out of a dungeon in his heart shape print boxers and a broken wooden lance that wishes he had taken Misc Monsters 101 instead of Heroic Pose 215.
Khoran 04-18-07, 05:56 PM	There's a paladin I know who walked out of a dungeon in his heart shape print boxers and a broken wooden lance that wishes he had taken Misc Monsters 101 instead of Heroic Pose 215. Should have minored in Fighter, IMO. Anyways, it's a tough call. Hitting it with a spell that wasn't fire isn't metagaming. It's breathing fire naturally, so one could assume that the fire dosn't hurt it if it is able to spit it out. After that, it starts to get ugly. You had a scroll of Coldball on you already and your DM knew about it, correct? What other scrolls did you have that wern't fire that would have done more damage against something not cold vulnerable? If this was your best scroll for any situation involving fire immune creatures, then there was no meta-gaming here and your DM is being a jerk. If there is anything that would have worked better had the dragon not had cold vulnerability, then it was metagaming, even if it was subconcious.
Zemyla 04-18-07, 06:28 PM	As for the spear comment, don't be a prick. Even though I disagree, this made me laugh too hard.
OravennasBrother 04-18-07, 06:38 PM	Well Dragons are Mythical in OUR world. Right. But if I saw a Flying Dragon I might expect it to breathe fire. Unless it was an Oriental Dragon with no wings, then I'd expect it to make the rain fall. OR something like that. MY choice against either (IRL) would be to run and hide, but if I had a team of troops I would warn them against it breathing fire. DOn't know about the cold but it's not too far fetched for someone with a weaopn and a choice.
Solo_Phoenix 04-18-07, 06:57 PM	Really? I think its exactly comparable. "You've never seen a dragon before, so you have to make a knowledge check to realize that if it breathes fire, using cold is a good idea." "You've never seen a spear before, so you have to make a knowledge check to realize that the pointy end goes into the bad guys." Your argument has a fairly obvious flaw, no, a spear doesn't require a simple knowledge check for you to figure out which end goes in the enemy, it requires a whole feat. Simple Weapon Proficiency. Most adventurers get this as a class ability, knowledge of dragons however, they do not.
Evil DM Mk3 04-18-07, 07:04 PM	Well Dragons are Mythical in OUR world. Right. But if I saw a Flying Dragon I might expect it to breathe fire. Unless it was an Oriental Dragon with no wings, then I'd expect it to make the rain fall. OR something like that. MY choice against either (IRL) would be to run and hide, but if I had a team of troops I would warn them against it breathing fire. DOn't know about the cold but it's not too far fetched for someone with a weaopn and a choice. SO true, if such a creature attacked the uni where I study I would deffiantly run to the NMR labs and push teh canisters of liquid nitrogen out the windows at it. Is it worring that I thought of that instantanoisly???
WolfHati 04-18-07, 07:25 PM	Hmm, something is breathing fire out of its friggin' mouth, maybe I should try to hurt it with fire! Yeah that'll work... If someone played an intelligence 19 character like that, and did actually fireball a firebreathing monster, and I was DM, they would be banned from playing any sort of intelligent character in the future. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if something doesn't seem to hurt itself with its own fire, then your fire probably isn't going to be doing much either. If it did, that would be a bit of a surprise. And if your character has int 19, he is a friggin' genius.
LadyAlaria 04-18-07, 07:42 PM	To me the ironic part of the story is that I play DnD (instead of other games) specifically so the players will have this kind of information. In the real world everyone has reams of common knowledge to draw from - everyone knows not to anger the striped cat-like mammal. And when I'm playing a FRPG, I don't want to have to spend all my time as DM saying: "The striped creature is called a "skunk". When angered it can spray a pungent musk." (Except strike "skunk" and "pungent musk" and insert "dragon" and "hellacious fire".) So I play DnD, knowing that my players have browsed the MM and have a passing acquaintance with the common creatures in my campaign. I don't have to explain every detail of every monster. And if I want to throw them a curve, I simply change a few attributes of the less common monsters. And they may get a role to see if they have heard the tales of the "gray dragon of the smothering fog".
Archangel62 04-18-07, 07:47 PM	I have no idea how that is not metagaming, if you haven't dealt with regeneration before, with out an appropriate knowledge how the hell do you have any idea that fire will stop it? The reason why I sympathise with the DM with this one is athough he may be acting as a hardass, its much easier just to use the knowledge check than to worry about metagaming, yes there are plenty of arguments why you should be able to do it w/out a check, but there's a reason for having those skill points so just use it. The reason why I'm a hardass with it is because I have a player who likes to play elves, and uses that as an excuse for metagaming. "I've been alive for a long time, read a lot of books and have had many different experiences" says the 100 yr old elf, even though he has 0 knowledges. Most checks like "Water hurts fire monster" would be relatively simple, if you have the appropriate ranks with a decent int, seeing as how you can't fail on a 1, shouldn't be an issue. Just makes the DMs life easier. Except knowledge checks eat a round which is bad if the group is in trouble Not to mention, if something keeps healing it's wounds my new strategy is melt it or burn it down. Maybe it's medical knowledge that cauterizing a wound kills infection, or maybe it's me hoping that it won't rise up from ashes as a powerful beast again. I think that yes, you can argue metagaming on somet things but there is a difference between using fire spells on the ice beasts and aiming for the third blue head on the wollrop because you think that it might cause the creature to suddenly freeze for 6 rounds.
Matthew77 04-18-07, 07:53 PM	Your argument has a fairly obvious flaw, no, a spear doesn't require a simple knowledge check for you to figure out which end goes in the enemy, it requires a whole feat. Simple Weapon Proficiency. Most adventurers get this as a class ability, knowledge of dragons however, they do not. Unproficient weapon use is a -4 on the attack roll, not "slice open your hands and stab yourself in the belly, because you grabbed the sharp bits." This is exactly equivalent to a knowledge check being needed if you want to know the creature's habitat and preferred prey, but not if all you want to know is "fire monsters don't like cold spells". For the third time, using a cold spell on a creature that breathed fire is simple logic. It has absolutely nothing to do with "knowedge of dragons". The thing could be an eight-armed, rainbow-colored plant monster, I don't care. If it breathes fire, and I have a cold spell, I'm gonna throw ice at it.
Solo_Phoenix 04-18-07, 10:38 PM	The thing could be an eight-armed, rainbow-colored plant monster, I don't care. If it breathes fire, and I have a cold spell, I'm gonna throw ice at it. But immunity to one's breath weapon is often not the case, look at the Chimera (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/chimera.htm) for instance. It is just as vulnerable to the energy it breathes. This means that monsters can exist that breathe fire without being immune to it. Hence, the appropriate knowledge checks should be made before you just deduce a major weakness. A character who has not had contact with a red dragon before may very well know that they breathe fire, immunity to fire is another thing altogether though.
Illithid_Tentacles 04-18-07, 10:45 PM	All the deduction that an intelligent Wizard would've known to use cold is called using your Knowledge (Arcana) skill... that represents what the Character knows, not the Player. Where does it say that you have to make a Knowledge check in order to come to a conclusion based on evidence presented to your character?
danielinthewolvesden 04-18-07, 10:58 PM	Except knowledge checks eat a round which is bad if the group is in trouble No, they are generally a Free Action.
Matthew77 04-18-07, 11:12 PM	My argument is this: I have seen creature X breathe fire, therefore, I will make the logical conclusion that I am better off hitting it with cold than with flame. Sometimes my conclusion will be correct (red dragon). Sometimes my conclusion will be wrong (chimera). But I cannot be accused of metagaming, even when I happen to be correct, because my character is using simple logic, not any sort of player knowledge. Knowledge of Dragons has zero relevance to my choice of actions!
Solo_Phoenix 04-18-07, 11:13 PM	Where does it say that you have to make a Knowledge check in order to come to a conclusion based on evidence presented to your character? Without the knowledge, the evidence doesn't mean anything to you really.
Zandolit 04-18-07, 11:34 PM	But immunity to one's breath weapon is often not the case, look at the Chimera for instance. It is just as vulnerable to the energy it breathes. This means that monsters can exist that breathe fire without being immune to it. Hence, the appropriate knowledge checks should be made before you just deduce a major weakness. A character who has not had contact with a red dragon before may very well know that they breathe fire, immunity to fire is another thing altogether though. But the character doesn't have to know it has an immunity to fire. The character merely has to decide, "OK, I have Spell X and Spell Y. Which is better to use? Well, since it seems to be producing the same thing as Spell X and since Spell Y is the opposite of that, I'm probably better off with Spell Y, because it may be more effective (or it may not, but it's worth a try.)" It's not about actually knowing anything for sure. It's a logical guess based on which spell is more likely to have the desired effect. Since fire is coming out of its mouth, a cold spell would seem more likely to do it harm. If nothing else, Cold shouldn't be less effective, even if the effects were equal. It's sort of like, if a glass golem attacked a caster character, the character should use Shatter, not because the character knows it has resistance to some other spells and has a weakness to Shatter, but because it's made of glass. A character has to make reasonable guesses about what will harm an enemy. It's not about knowing anything for sure. It's a well-reasoned guess.
Cartigan 04-18-07, 11:34 PM	Without the knowledge, the evidence doesn't mean anything to you really. Knowledge checks are what you know about a given subject through education or folklore. Reasoning does not require a knowledge check. If you can morph yourself into a creature that breathes fire, would you later need a knowledge check to know that creature can breathe fire? If so, I would hate to play in your Amnesia World. And a Chimera is a Chimera, some weird mishmash creature, all bets are off on Chimera logic.
Dawnshadow 04-18-07, 11:44 PM	No. Without the knowledge check, you've got no background information. You can't know that the red dragon is vulnerable to cold. But you can guess that it's immune to fire. You can guess anything you want. Unless you can prove that someone ELSE'S CHARACTER didn't logically deduce that the dragon was immune to fire, and can prove that he had spells other than a scroll of (energy subsitution: cold)fireball, that would be equally damaging before the +50% from vulnerability kicked in, then you cannot accuse metagaming, because the accusation is unprovable.
Chalkboard_Sonata 04-19-07, 02:18 AM	A lot of advice here reeks of a bad playing experience I had a few years back. My first experience with DnD was DMing, so as could be expected, I knew my way fairly well around the Monster Manual. I once had the opportunity to play under a DM at the FLGS and, having never played before, jumped at the opportunity. I choose to be a 4th level sorcerer and joined a party. As we were adventuring, we came upon a bridge. The conversation, as near as I can recall, followed like this: DM: Alright everyone, up ahead you see a bridge. Uhh...everbody roll initiative, as suddenly, a gigantic troll runs out in front of you, blocking your passage. It's big, green and has monstrous claws. Me: Sweet, this should be fun! Uhh...halt creature, we seek no hostilities. DM: The troll grunts at you and charges. Since you got the highest initiative, go. Me: Alright, lets see. I cast scorching ray at... DM: No way! You can't do that. I've never seen a troll before. There's no way you could know its weak to fire. Me: Uhh...ok, I guess...I'll cast Lesser Orb of Acid... DM: WTH! Stop cheating. Your character can't know Trolls are weak to acid. You can't do that, and you know what, you don't get experience for today's session. Me: *Looks down at spell list...Spells Known: Scorching Ray, Lesser Orb of Acid, Identify, Charm Person.* Too many DMs here, it would seem, are suggesting that players should be punished for routine, or at worst, common sense tactics. Telling a player he can't take a course of action because it happens to be both the optimal choice and the most likely choice is utterly ludicrous. Forcing players to knowledgeably make poor decisions in the name of ill-construed logic is fun for very few. Making the player pretend he has no idea what the creature's weakness is all the while his character is getting pummeled really doesn't offer any benefit to the game. The player doesn't get any satisfaction for "solving" the puzzle (Since he already knows the answer), and any roleplaying discovery will be contrived at best. Honestly, most of the creatures DMs accuse players of metagaming against are so common, and so arch typical, that it is nearly guaranteed that I given player has already faced one in a campaign previously. Always forcing a player to relive that initial surprise gets tedious after the 4th or 5th occasion. In my opinion, the best course of action would be to take player knowledge in to account, quickly working out a justification between the DM and the player explaining why the PC knows about the weakness ("Sir Redford, you remember the tales your gran used to tell you as a boy. About the dragons of the north who breathed rivers of flame, and only the ice arrows of Inarre halted their rampage"), and then in future sessions, adjusting encounters to provide surprising, meaningful encounters (Say, by taking the base creature, altering its description and abilities a bit, and then creating a interesting reason for those changes). I'd much rather discover knew things, and have to repeatedly pretend to rediscover it.
j_gunder 04-19-07, 02:54 AM	I'm in with the camp that thinks the character's intelligence is enough to justify the use of the coldball versus the fireball. A survey of 100 commoners, aristocrats and adepts revealed that 99% would have done the same, given the same resources. The 1% that would not had a 3 intelligence due to shoddy rolls, and could barely comprehend Common enough to give a comprehensible response. This same commoner did, however, put out a campfire by urinating on it after stepping on it and burning his toe. As he did not make the proper knowledge check before doing so, however, I ruled that he was metagaming and didn't give him experience for the encounter. Seriously, though...a red dragon is pretty iconic, and if red dragons existed in my world and I had a 19 intelligence, I'd probably be able to figure out they're vulnerable to cold. Given the choice of trying to burn it or freeze it after it roasted my girlfriend with a fiery breath weapon, you bet your bottom I'd go with coldball first. Now, when my players start putting 45ft between themselves when they charge an enemy yuan-ti without making knowledge checks to know that they cast entangle, then I'll cry foul. As a DM, I'd have done the encounter differently to begin with--describe the scales as a dark purple, somewhere in between crimson and black, let the PCs tangle with it a few rounds before it reveals its breath weapon. The mage probably still would have coldballed it, but perhaps that would have given the impetus for a knowledge (arcana) check and some experimentation first.
Yokomohoyo 04-19-07, 03:20 AM	In a Dragonlance game I have been participating in, our party was attacked by a great red dragon. My DM called foul--saying that I was metagaming (since none of the characters in the party had ever encounted a dragon before and at that particular point in the Dragonlance storyline, dragons were as much a myth as they are in real life). I belive your DM was right this time. Since Dragons in your story are bassicly unheard of except in ledgend and in old wives tales. Yes your character has 19 int and is as smart as Albert Einstine and all that good stuff. But since he has never ever heard of such a real creature to rome of the earth or what ever world your playing on. I would have said that yes you could deduce that yes sinec you have mutated into a hellhound that gave you an innate fire attack and also made you immune to fire you would need another type of attack to harm a naturaly immune to fire creature. But at what time did you decided that? A knowladge check doesnt mean you need to take 6 seconds to think about it. But you still need to think and analize your deduction. Take your time to figure about that if the hellhound is immune to fire and does get hurt twice as bad as any other type with Ice. I belive that a skill check is required. Like for example your party gets to a door. This door is closed. Is it locked? You dont know unless you take your time to turn the knob, right? Yes that is a type of skill check. Now lets say that the door is locked. The rouge would take their time to pick the lock? Yes. Or you could try to bash the door down... That too would work. Sorry but if you would have said "I see the dragon breath fire. I now know that it breaths fire and will attack with a Iceball [could subsitution fire ball] and hope that it hurts the darn thing..." Then yeah it would not be meta gamming... It would have been a lucky guess. Or if you would have said "I see the dragon breath fire. I now know that it breaths fire and will use my knowladge arcana to see if this kind of creature a fireball will harm him." (Roll=10+K arcana success!!!) "mmmm Nope I dont think it would. But how about if I try to blast it with Iceball?" (Roll=9 +K arcana success!!!) "Yep! This will work better! I think..." Afterwards you blast away. Its all about role playing not roll playing.
Leilond 04-19-07, 03:36 AM	All this thread demostrate that I made the right things some month ago, making my Troll regenerate fire and not cold damage After the first fire damage regenerated, the druid called for a Knowledge (Nature) and he succeded in knowing the "cold issue"... they stopped to metagame that night and never tryed to use "players knowledge" in-game And now I think I will put a blue dragon that breath fire next time... yes, it will be fun
daggeroflath 04-19-07, 03:43 AM	I'm not overly worried either way. If you want the absolute high-ground in situations like that, then roll knowledge arcane. The DCs for exactly this kind of check are in the PHB. Page 78 in 3.5, (10 + Monster's HD)... Otherwise, yes. Your character jumped to an extremely obvious conclusion. Some call it meta-gaming, I call it playing your character like they have at least half a brain-cell and live in a world with more realism than an Anne Rice novel. Occasionally there are times when a creature looks frosty, but actually likes fire. (Bleakborn, page 86, Libris Mortis). But those are rare. If your character can cast an evocation spell, then your magic teacher would be fired from hogwarts if they weren't qualified to say "If you see a creature that draws its power from an element, yet don't recognize it, the most effective approach is to strike it with the opposing elemental force. It isn't wise to use that same element against them unless you have no other option."
Leilond 04-19-07, 03:54 AM	I'm not overly worried either way. If you want the absolute high-ground in situations like that, then roll knowledge arcane. The DCs for exactly this kind of check are in the PHB. Page 78 in 3.5, (10 + Monster's HD)... Otherwise, yes. Your character jumped to an extremely obvious conclusion. Some call it meta-gaming, I call it playing your character like they have at least half a brain-cell and live in a world with more realism than an Anne Rice novel. Occasionally there are times when a creature looks frosty, but actually likes fire. (Bleakborn, page 86, Libris Mortis). But those are rare. If your character can cast an evocation spell, then your magic teacher would be fired from hogwarts if they weren't qualified to say "If you see a creature that draws its power from an element, yet don't recognize it, the most effective approach is to strike it with the opposing elemental force. It isn't wise to use that same element against them unless you have no other option." And what if my red dragon was immune to cold instead fire? I make something like that very often, changing the powers of my monster to surprise my players. They know that sometimes I do that (trolls regenerate fire and not cold, blue dragon that breath like green ones, changing a DR/magin with DR/silver or other things like that). This prevent lot of metagame out there A player with intelligence 19 character have to act like this Player: "Hey, I've 19 intelligence, I'm able to transform in a monster that breath fire and is also immune to fire... does this give me any clue on the fire immunity?" Me (DM) rolling Knowledge (arcana) 1- Good result: "You hardly suspect that... you're pretty sure it is immune to fire 2- Bad result: "You suspect that but you really aren't sure at all wich attack type will do the best" Surely I won't answer "No, you're sure fire will damage it" because the players explained me a perfectly belivable and in-game reason for his suspect... but the player have to point me the fact before acting and not as a justification of his metagaming
IceFractal 04-19-07, 04:41 AM	You do not need Knowledge skills to use SoP (standard operating procedures). Knowledge skills, however, will tell you when not to use the standard tactics. Stuff Like: * If the creature can manipulate/create fire, use cold against it, and vice-versa. * If the creature is covered with spikes or unknown liquid, don't grapple it. * If the creature is huge, strong, and cannot speak, mental assaults (Will-save spells) are more likely to work than physical ones (Fort-save spells). * If the creature is skeletal, decaying, or has wounds that should be lethal, it's probably undead. Is SoP - no knowledge checks required. Knowledge checks are important for knowing the unexpected - like that Remorhaz are heat-generating creatures despite living in ice, or that a bone golem is not undead, or that a chimera has no immunity to it's own breath-weapon types, or that even the stupid-looking demons probably have good Will saves. So in this case, certain things are obvious: * The creature has a tough, scaly hide, and is probably hard to hurt. * The creature breathes fire - thus it may well be resistant to fire. * The creature can fly, but not with much agility. * The creature is probably quite strong, and has many natural weapons. Others, you wouldn't know unless you saw them or had the relevant Knowledge: * Dragons can cast spells. * Dragons have extraordinary senses, and are very hard to sneak up on. * Dragons are resistant to magic in general, and immune to several things. * Dragons are smarter than you might expect.
daggeroflath 04-19-07, 04:43 AM	And what if my red dragon was immune to cold instead fire? Does it still breathe fire? I make something like that very often, changing the powers of my monster to surprise my players. I thoroughly endorse such actions yet urge caution. D&D 3.5 is a finely balanced system, don't change things unless you know what you are doing or the game will get unbalanced. Also make sure that your new creation makes logical sense and is consistant with your gaming world (this advice applies to any house rule). This prevent lot of metagame out there It also prevents the DM from thinking an intelligent player is "metagaming" (imagine metagaming spoke in a parody of a evil voice). but the player have to point me the fact before acting and not as a justification of his metagaming Beware the Grorg. It's not your place to enforce "good roleplaying". Players, not DMs, control characters. If I told you certain stories about the brilliant and perfect things some of my players have done at times, the people on this thread (judging from previous posts) would think that they had been metagaming. Except that the stories I'm thinking of are about the first time players who I've taught to roleplay myself, who haven't seen a D&D book before they made their characters 20 minutes ago.
daggeroflath 04-19-07, 04:50 AM	You do not need Knowledge skills to use SoP (standard operating procedures). Knowledge skills, however, will tell you when not to use the standard tactics. Why do I bother posting on these boards when there are people like you here, who say what I'm thinking with clarity and wit? This may seem sudden, but IceFractal... will you marry me? :P Ahem, what I mean to say is. That was very nicely explained and I agree.
Leilond 04-19-07, 07:05 AM	Does it still breathe fire? I thoroughly endorse such actions yet urge caution. D&D 3.5 is a finely balanced system, don't change things unless you know what you are doing or the game will get unbalanced. Also make sure that your new creation makes logical sense and is consistant with your gaming world (this advice applies to any house rule). I DM 3.x since the very beginning... I can manage balance very well... thanks for the advice It also prevents the DM from thinking an intelligent player is "metagaming" (imagine metagaming spoke in a parody of a evil voice). Sorry, don't understand Beware the Grorg. It's not your place to enforce "good roleplaying". Players, not DMs, control characters. But DM control what the characters know and don't know. DM decides if they know "a troll regenerate" or "a vampire is vulnerable to silver/magic". If my players, without any appropriate knowledge check, immediately wield a magic/sivler weapon seeing a vampire, they're metagaming and I will point out it... fortunately my players know it and should surely ask "Did my character recognize it's a vampire? Wha does my character know about vampires?" If I told you certain stories about the brilliant and perfect things some of my players have done at times, the people on this thread (judging from previous posts) would think that they had been metagaming. Except that the stories I'm thinking of are about the first time players who I've taught to roleplay myself, who haven't seen a D&D book before they made their characters 20 minutes ago. That's a DM issue, that know his players and can easly understand if a player is metagaming or not. But if I, as DM, suspect the players is metagaming I've to ensure that it isn't or to point it out to the player
Yokomohoyo 04-19-07, 07:12 AM	Otherwise, yes. Your character jumped to an extremely obvious conclusion. Some call it meta-gaming, I call it playing your character like they have at least half a brain-cell and live in a world with more realism than an Anne Rice novel. Yes an obvious conclusion for a person who has read reports/seen a dragon in person/ live in a world were dragons roam freely. But I ask; how did his character automaticly know that it was fire immune and that cold could hurt it? His story of his playing world states that dragons are a myth and no one has ever seen one. All they know is that it flys/swims/breaths fire/acid/lightning/cold... But since no one has ever confirmed theese reports? Did he even know that it was a dragon? How? His character prolly heard the stories as a small child around the campfire of dragons with a vauge discription of a large reptillion that attacks with its breath. Wich dose what? Who knows? Im sorry but if you got a background story as a DM and the players have their background stories, why toss it all out the window because you know its a dragon from the MM? Im sorry I prefer role play over roll play.
daggeroflath 04-19-07, 08:02 AM	I DM 3.x since the very beginning... Very beginning of what? Huh? I can manage balance very well... thanks for the advice You're welcome, and never thought you couldn't. But it needed to be said. Sorry, don't understand A far worse problem than players "metagaming" is DMs thinking players are "metagaming". If you make it impossible for players to metagame then that problem is solved (well, both are really). But if I, as DM, suspect the players is metagaming I've to ensure that it isn't or to point it out to the player Why? Seriously, why?
Cartigan 04-19-07, 08:33 AM	I would have said that yes you could deduce that yes sinec you have mutated into a hellhound that gave you an innate fire attack and also made you immune to fire you would need another type of attack to harm a naturaly immune to fire creature. But at what time did you decided that? A knowladge check doesnt mean you need to take 6 seconds to think about it. But you still need to think and analize your deduction. Take your time to figure about that if the hellhound is immune to fire and does get hurt twice as bad as any other type with Ice. I belive that a skill check is required. So not only are we playing in Amnesia World, we are playing in the Idiot Realm of Amnesia World? I'd say figuring out that "Hey, it's breathing fire, I can turn into something that can breathe fire and is hurt by cold, maybe I shall use a cold attack!" is a free fracking action. Like for example your party gets to a door. This door is closed. Is it locked? You dont know unless you take your time to turn the knob, right? Yes that is a type of skill check. I'm sorry, I don't have "Check for Locks" as a class skill. Or if you would have said "I see the dragon breath fire. I now know that it breaths fire and will use my knowladge arcana to see if this kind of creature a fireball will harm him." (Roll=10+K arcana success!!!) You don't need a knowledge check. It was a deduction based on knowledge of a creature he can turn into, not a move based on knowledge about dragons. But DM control what the characters know and don't know. Then write a "make your own story" book. But I ask; how did his character automaticly know that it was fire immune and that cold could hurt it? I have some suggested reading for you. The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. The character didn't know anything until his theory was tested, after which point there is no need for a knowledge check, unless we are playing in the Idiot Realms of Amnesia World.
RavingDork 04-19-07, 09:44 AM	Yes an obvious conclusion for a person who has read reports/seen a dragon in person/ live in a world were dragons roam freely. But I ask; how did his character automaticly know that it was fire immune and that cold could hurt it? That's easy to answer. He didn't. It was merely an assumption on his part. My character had no idea that the creature was immune to fire nor did he know that cold was going to do "extra" damage. All he knew was the scaly monster in front of him was breathing fire, and he wasn't about to start a fight against a firebreathing creature with fireball. His story of his playing world states that dragons are a myth and no one has ever seen one. All they know is that it flys/swims/breaths fire/acid/lightning/cold... But since no one has ever confirmed theese reports? Did he even know that it was a dragon? How? The only thing my character knew about the creature aside from its immediate physical appearance was that it was there...in front of him...attempting to roast his friends with an innate fire breath. Im sorry but if you got a background story as a DM and the players have their background stories, why toss it all out the window because you know its a dragon from the MM? Im sorry I prefer role play over roll play.? Except I didn't do anything to halt the suspension of belief or to hurt the game's setting. The DM stopping the game in the middle of a dramatic moment to make accusations did all that. :rolleyes:
RavingDork 04-19-07, 09:49 AM	Just to note, had the DM asked for a knowledge check, I would have happily made one. Still, that would have made less sense to me than this "common sense" thing-a-ma-jig people on this thread keep talking about. If dragons were practically non-existent, how would my knowledge skill grant me any knowledge? Also, I can't assume that fireball was going to be a bad idea, but another player is allowd to choose Favored Enemy (Dragons) during character creation with his ranger and I am the one metagaming?
obrysii 04-19-07, 10:05 AM	His character deduced that, based on various traits, this dragon would be immune to fire. He had a SCROLL of coldball. He chose, rather then use a spell that he had good reason to believe the dragon was immune to the damage of, to use a scroll. I agree. This is, among other things, the more reasonable case of "metagaming" around. I mean: it's completely believable. If I, in real life, with Int ~14, Wis ~10, had a coldball scroll and a fireball memorized, and I encountered a fire-breathing monster ... I'd be sure to use the coldball.
celtredleg 04-19-07, 10:57 AM	I always wonder about DMs that worry about suspension of disbelief, and yet ever monster is ancient and unknown, and you hit 3-4 of those unknowns every day. Aperently, adventurers grow up in isolatyed caves and know nothing of the world around them. Never heard of anything. Make a good spell choice...metagame. Make a bad choice, you are a dummy. TPK because you wasted the first two rounds casting pointless things, all the players fualt, should not have cast those useless spells. For a DM like that, the players are helpless. What I dont understand is if you want something ancient and unkown, make it so, dont just use a stock RD because you are to lazy to make up something original.
Matthew77 04-19-07, 11:36 AM	Its all about role playing not roll playing. This statement seems a bit out of place, since it came at the end of a paragraph in which a player was forced to make two skill rolls to replace a simple bit of logical reasoning. All this thread demostrate that I made the right things some month ago, making my Troll regenerate fire and not cold damage After the first fire damage regenerated, the druid called for a Knowledge (Nature) and he succeded in knowing the "cold issue"... they stopped to metagame that night and never tryed to use "players knowledge" in-game And now I think I will put a blue dragon that breath fire next time... yes, it will be fun And this is what I call DM metagaming. If all regerating creatures in your world take permenant damage from cold, fine. But if you are just changing random encounters because you'd rather have your players flip coins to choose their actions instead of actually thinking and reasoning, then you are simply destroying the internal consistency of your world to penalize the players: metagaming.
holylink718 04-19-07, 02:10 PM	This statement seems a bit out of place, since it came at the end of a paragraph in which a player was forced to make two skill rolls to replace a simple bit of logical reasoning. And this is what I call DM metagaming. If all regerating creatures in your world take permenant damage from cold, fine. But if you are just changing random encounters because you'd rather have your players flip coins to choose their actions instead of actually thinking and reasoning, then you are simply destroying the internal consistency of your world to penalize the players: metagaming. I agree. I might like the challenge of thinking I know that a fire-breathing creature is immune to fire and weak against ice, and finding out (the hard way) that it's not. However, if every other time I fought a creature, it had random immunities, resistances, and weaknesses, it'd put a strain on the realism of the game.
Radiun 04-19-07, 02:34 PM	Umm... Don't you have to chose an element when you pick Energy Substitution? How do we know the Character didn't only have "Energy Substitution [Cold]"? Using Cold on a fire-breathing monster wouldn't be metagaming if it was his only other option.
Puca 04-19-07, 03:10 PM	Based on what he told us, he only had scrolls of Fireball and Fireball modified with Energy Substitution [cold]. It might seem odd to me that these were his only options, but taking his information at face value, it was fire or ice for the fire-breather. I think the "it was a rational choice" argument clearly makes more sense based on the facts we have, but considering the number of "it was metagaming" responses, this seems to be something one should discuss with his DM first. They might be wrong, but the DM is still the DM.
danielinthewolvesden 04-19-07, 03:31 PM	And what if my red dragon was immune to cold instead fire? I make something like that very often, changing the powers of my monster to surprise my players. They know that sometimes I do that (trolls regenerate fire and not cold, blue dragon that breath like green ones, changing a DR/magin with DR/silver or other things like that). This prevent lot of metagame out there] Well, that is OK (within limits), but what sort of info do you give a PC on a succesful Ks roll? I hope that if the PC makes the roll, you tell him that this type of dragon is immune to cold, right?:confused: But why are you saying it's a troll anyway? Why not say "It is a large humanoid giant-type, roll your KS Nature"? Why not say "It is a type of dragon, roll your KS Arcana."?
millerwc 04-19-07, 04:58 PM	It seems to me like the DM overreacted. Common sense says that if something can breathe fire and not scorch the heck out of it's mouth, then hitting it with more fire would be kinda silly. Your character doesn't need to know that the dragon has resistance or immunity to fire, your character made an educated guess well within an average human's cognative abilities. Knowing that a monster is immune to fire would be metagaming- not using a fireball on something breathing fire is just common sense. In real life, you see something is on fire, what do you do? You grab an extinguisher or some water and try to put it out. Most people don't need to be told that a flame thrower is likely the wrong tool in this situation. Why would D&D be any different in this regard?
Drachasor 04-19-07, 07:34 PM	If he encountered a strange 4-headed, 10 armed creature that jumps about, and it breathed fire and looked "fiery" (e.g. red or the like), then not casting a fire spell makes a heck of a lot of sense. Especially since he can turn into a Hell Hound which grants him a fire breath weapon AND fire immunity. It looks rather "fiery" too. Add to that the fact that the the Hell Hound has *cold vulnerability* and a Cold Ball seems like the best choice even if Acid and Lightning are also available. Now, he might be wrong in that reasoning. Heck, the Dragon might have compensated for its weakness by casting Energy Resistance (Cold) (or using an item, if it had one). He wasn't wrong and the Dragon wasn't careful (or wasn't able to be careful). I can imagine that if he was wrong, then no one would think he was metagaming. Apparently coming to the right conclusion is metagaming to some people. As a DM I have no trouble with my players using good reasoning to come up with solutions. Even more, if they accidentally metagame, but can back up their actions with in-game reasons, then I think that's just fine. Everyone metagames accidently now and then (and it can be knowing too much or having your character know too little). If he hadn't ever encountered a fire-breathing creature that was immune to fire before. If he didn't have a spell that turned him into one, then I'd start to have a small problem with his choice. Small only, and if he only had fire and cold, then that's no big problem. Certainly assuming he had any ranks in Knowledge (Arcana) or Knowledge (Nature), which he most certainly had. Creatures being immune to their own special attacks (e.g. poison) is pretty darn common, so playing it safe and avoiding fire makes sense. In this case the character had a lot of other features to go on too though. Seems just fine to me. -Drachasor
Sachiel 04-19-07, 08:39 PM	Did you roll a knowledge check? No? Then you meta-gamed. Sure you can reason around with it however you want, but short of rolling the required checks (and yes, they are required) you have to assume your character doesn't know. Aside from that, the logic your character would have had to follow was a little stretched to begin with. The Dragon was red and was breathing fire and because your character could turn into something that breaths fire and is immune to fire (but is also from a plane with fire in it) he knew the Red Dragon would be immune to fire? A creature can breath fire and not be immune to it, a creature can't be from a plane involving fire without being immune to it. The DM should have called for a knowledge check to use it. I doubt his character knew that it would be immune (or resistant) to fire, but he suspected that it would be. By your logic, one would need to use a knowledge check to be smart enough not to use burning hands on a fire elemental. I would say that in a fantasy world, it would be common knowledge that some creatures are resistant or immune to forms of energy. Even if it isn't, the wizard in question has personally become immune to fire while in a firebreathing form. So if you have only two choices of scroll to use on a red creature breathing fire from its mouth, would you use the fireball scroll or the [cold]ball scroll?
Magnus_the_Mad 04-19-07, 08:41 PM	Hmmm... I'd say that the OP and the DM need to be more clear on what they require for rolls at the table. While I understand the DMs point of view (dragon's do not wander around all day in the Dragonlance setting) I would suggest that he worry more about running the creature smarter and not try to gimp the players. The gods know they will need all the help they can get when fighting a dragon if the DM knows how to play the dragon properly. However, the OP does have a point as to what their very intelligent and learned wizard might know. However, there can be simple mistakes even amongst the most educated professionals in their field of study. The knowledge check will at least let you know how correct you may be in your deductions. Now, the debate that it is common sense to not use the element against a creature with a breath weapon of which the creature is using can be very dangerous indeed. Is it a wise rule of thumb? In most situations yes. One poster said that a Chimera was not immune to their breath weapon and they were right. What about a Hellfire Wyrm in the MMII? They breath unholy fire but have no fire resistance or immunity whatsoever. Is this the exception to the rule? You bet. Is it the only exception? No. My advice is make the knowledge check to be sure anyway. You do have the right to use what your character believes to be an intelligent deduction, just don't be surprised when the DM changes it up on you one day.
PwnageLlama 04-19-07, 09:21 PM	Very easy knowledge check. Has anything simalar happened in the past/ now?
Bertuccio 04-19-07, 09:53 PM	Now, the debate that it is common sense to not use the element against a creature with a breath weapon of which the creature is using can be very dangerous indeed. Is it a wise rule of thumb? In most situations yes. One poster said that a Chimera was not immune to their breath weapon and they were right. What about a Hellfire Wyrm in the MMII? They breath unholy fire but have no fire resistance or immunity whatsoever. Is this the exception to the rule? You bet. Is it the only exception? No. My advice is make the knowledge check to be sure anyway. This would be irrelevant unless the Hellfire Wrym is also immune to cold. I don't care if my fireball could have hurt it or not. The rule is that if something can use an elemental ability, then don't use the same element on it unless you have to.
tuffn00gies 04-19-07, 10:16 PM	I'd say in this case you were right. I suppose if you tried to torch a mummy he'd claim that was meta-gaming also? Some things are just intuitive, especially for someone with a 19 INT.
tuffn00gies 04-19-07, 10:17 PM	The DM is always right. Adapt to their style or start your own game. Those are your only 2 options if you want to play. What a load of garbage...
tuffn00gies 04-19-07, 10:25 PM	Wow.. you guys require a knowledge check to decide to use cold against an opponent that breathed fire? I hope the DC on that check is 0 or less. Do you also require knowledge checks to figure out what end of the spear to grip, and what end to poke with? Ditto.
darkneolink 04-19-07, 10:27 PM	this thread can go till the end of times unless the Op tells us if he had any other equipment, if it was just the 2 scrolls, well a lucky guess, but if he had some other spells that make damage, some other scrolls, etc... well we'll have the rants coming and coming and coming again
Perseus_Stoned 04-19-07, 10:37 PM	If someone is set on fire, does your DM require a knowledge check to know that either water or "stop, drop, and rolling" would put it out? If yes, than your DM is a bit of a stickler, but you metagamed (I'm not sure how happy most people would be playing in a game like that, however, so be careful). If no, then your DM had a right to call you out (calmly) and, after hearing your reasoning should have just as calmly let it slide.
Reyemile 04-19-07, 11:29 PM	You weren't metagaming, you just LOOKED like you were. Sometimes, simple is best.. Let's suppose that I was running a game and called a player in your situation out about metagaming (I wouldn't, but maybe I was having an off day.) Let's examine two responses: 1) "Sorry, I assumed that since it was spewing fire, hitting it with more fire would be a bad idea. Should I make a roll or something?" 2)"My character has a 19 intelligence, plus I've turned into a hell-hound before and hell-hounds are vulnerable to cold and breath fire, and besides, it's RED!" See the difference? One comes off as reasonable, the other--no mater how calmly you explained it to your DM--comes off as confrontational. Also, when you over explain, it sounds like you're stretching to justify something you know is sketchy; the nonsense about the dragon being red undermines the credibility of your claim about fire-breathing. In the end, you were in the right and your DM was overreacting. But you need to realize that you could have handled it better; hopefully, you can avoid this situation in the future.
Magnus_the_Mad 04-20-07, 12:04 AM	This would be irrelevant unless the Hellfire Wrym is also immune to cold. I don't care if my fireball could have hurt it or not. The rule is that if something can use an elemental ability, then don't use the same element on it unless you have to. That's not wholly what I was debating. This is what provoked my response about the breath weapon: Cartigan- Why wouldn't it be immune to something that it can breath out it's mouth. Whatever magical species can be injured by the things that come out of their mouths are long extinct. My response disproved this point. A Hellfire Wyrm is not immune to its own type of elemental breath weapon and is not extinct. And there are other forms of dragons out there that are not immune to what they breath either. Also, my other point is that to say that casting the opposite element on a creature is a good strategy is fine (I believe I even backed this up so why you are pointing this out to me is a little puzzling). I usually does work out that way. My point was that it is not always the case. If a DM homebrews a monster that breathes fire, you'd better be rolling knowledge checks to see if cold will be effective because it may not.
daggeroflath 04-20-07, 12:12 AM	DMG, page 16, some of paragraph 2 and 3 (Different topic but good advice): "...Who decides what the PC 'wouldn't ordinarily do'-you or the player?" "<snip for irrelevancy>...This is one of the times in the game when you should not make decisions on your own-confer briefly with the player of the PC, and, assuming both of you are reasonable about the scope of what the character would do, it shouldn't be difficult to adjudicate...<snip for irrelevancy>" DMG page 12, second paragraph: In short, when possible you should encourage the players to employ in game logic. Confronted with the situation given above, an appropriate response from a clever character is "...<irrelevant>...", In fact, this is wonderful-it shows smart thinking as well as respect for the verisimilitude of the game world." So what's the take of the DMG? In short, the DM shouldn't be the tyrant of what a character "would and wouldn't do" but should instead confer with the player to determine it. The DM should also encourage in character logical thought to find an answer to the problem.
Bertuccio 04-20-07, 01:53 AM	That's not wholly what I was debating. This is what provoked my response about the breath weapon: My response disproved this point. A Hellfire Wyrm is not immune to its own type of elemental breath weapon and is not extinct. And there are other forms of dragons out there that are not immune to what they breath either. Also, my other point is that to say that casting the opposite element on a creature is a good strategy is fine (I believe I even backed this up so why you are pointing this out to me is a little puzzling). I usually does work out that way. My point was that it is not always the case. If a DM homebrews a monster that breathes fire, you'd better be rolling knowledge checks to see if cold will be effective because it may not. I quoted you because it was the closest example of what I was trying to comment on. You also claimed it was a "dangerous" strategy, implying it could backfire in some way, followed by an example of the Hellfire Wyrm. This is not the plan backfiring, it makes the plan unnecessary, but not bad for the character. Specifically: If a DM homebrews a monster that breathes fire, you'd better be rolling knowledge checks to see if cold will be effective because it may not. Again, the call for a knowledge check is irrelevant. I don't care if it's weak to cold or not - my goal, and presumably the goal of the OP was that using anything but fire is the way to go (cold was just what he had on hand) and that doing so is such an obvious and common practice that no check should be required.
Yokomohoyo 04-20-07, 02:27 AM	this thread can go till the end of times unless the Op tells us if he had any other equipment, if it was just the 2 scrolls, well a lucky guess, but if he had some other spells that make damage, some other scrolls, etc... Well he is a wizard. I would seriously doubt that the DM would have attacked the party with a dragon and knowing that the wizard has spent up all his spells for that day and is running on 2 scrolls. Unless the DM wants to kkill off some players or has some sort of Deux Ex-Machina up his plot twist. Heck if the OP would have said that in the first round he casted anything and after that round he did the Coldball I would say that yes he took time to reason even without a skill check.
crinos43 04-20-07, 03:46 AM	You know, after reading every last one of these threads, one question was never asked. He used a scroll of coldball. Is it at all possible he used the scroll because it was the only damaging spell he had at the time?
Pie 04-20-07, 04:25 AM	Ok, I haven't read this entire thread because it is quite lengthy, but I have read the first page and skimmed the last. It appears as though we have a group of people who say that he "metagamed" and should have taken a knowledge check. Of course a number of people have agreed that this was not the case. My opinion? He did not metagame, further more I would like to suggest that a knowledge check is/was not required. So why did our player not metagame? Firstly he has specialised his character into somthing very familar with flame. As such his character realises that fighting fire with fire is not effective! Secondly I agree with an earlier poster that he did not say "oh this dragon is fire based, thus cold hurts it" he said "ah, this dragon is fire based, therefore fire will not hurt it". It just so happened that the spell he had on hand that wasnt fire based was cold based, half his luck. Anyone who has played a magic class for even a little bit would know that your character is going to have a vague understanding of opposing elements and know that fire doesnt fight fire, cold doesnt fight cold and so and so forth. Especially when it comes to the most basic of elements, fire and cold. My second point is that this does not need a knowledge check to realise. My proposition is that this does not just apply to this highly specialised character, but to all characters. I believe that is a player can reason his logic effectivly and has strong experiance behind him [whether because he has fought such an opponent before or because he himself has such qualities] there is no need to roll play because you are role playing! People are suggesting that if this character fought a dragon again he would have to roll a knowledge check to "remember" that fire doesnt hurt it, or that the azer character needs to take a check to realise that his azer opponent isnt going to be hurt by fire either! Thats just plain stupid! While yes, checks are needed in instances, in this particular situation I dont think a check is necessary because of the logic, roleplay and simplicity of the event. In a more complex situation or with more obscure elements then yes talk and dice will be needed but in this instance I do not think such a thing is necessary. My arguement is then that the players actions were not "metagaming" and because of the situation itself a dice roll was not needed. Further more I am proposing that rolling dice for such checks should be avoided as much as possible, a character should first reason as to why s/he knows a particular piece of information and then roll if necessary because of an unconvincing arguement.
Leilond 04-20-07, 04:39 AM	Ok, I haven't read this entire thread because it is quite lengthy, but I have read the first page and skimmed the last. It appears as though we have a group of people who say that he "metagamed" and should have taken a knowledge check. Of course a number of people have agreed that this was not the case. My opinion? He did not metagame, further more I would like to suggest that a knowledge check is/was not required. So why did our player not metagame? Firstly he has specialised his character into somthing very familar with flame. As such his character realises that fighting fire with fire is not effective! Secondly I agree with an earlier poster that he did not say "oh this dragon is fire based, thus cold hurts it" he said "ah, this dragon is fire based, therefore fire will not hurt it". It just so happened that the spell he had on hand that wasnt fire based was cold based, half his luck. Anyone who has played a magic class for even a little bit would know that your character is going to have a vague understanding of opposing elements and know that fire doesnt fight fire, cold doesnt fight cold and so and so forth. Especially when it comes to the most basic of elements, fire and cold. My second point is that this does not need a knowledge check to realise. My proposition is that this does not just apply to this highly specialised character, but to all characters. I believe that is a player can reason his logic effectivly and has strong experiance behind him [whether because he has fought such an opponent before or because he himself has such qualities] there is no need to roll play because you are role playing! People are suggesting that if this character fought a dragon again he would have to roll a knowledge check to "remember" that fire doesnt hurt it, or that the azer character needs to take a check to realise that his azer opponent isnt going to be hurt by fire either! Thats just plain stupid! While yes, checks are needed in instances, in this particular situation I dont think a check is necessary because of the logic, roleplay and simplicity of the event. In a more complex situation or with more obscure elements then yes talk and dice will be needed but in this instance I do not think such a thing is necessary. My arguement is then that the players actions were not "metagaming" and because of the situation itself a dice roll was not needed. Further more I am proposing that rolling dice for such checks should be avoided as much as possible, a character should first reason as to why s/he knows a particular piece of information and then roll if necessary because of an unconvincing arguement. I nearly agree with all the post Only one point It is the DM that decide when a roll is necessary or not. As a DM I expect something like: Player: "Hey friend" to the DM "I'm ehought confident with fire, is it right that I suppose fire will not probably hurt the red dragon" DM: "Yes... it it reasonable... Your character hardly suspect that... if you want to be sure I can roll a knowledge chek" Player: "No need, I use my scroll of frost ball" What I'm saying is that the player job is to play his character, but he cannot know for sure what his character knows about monster (if the char didn't fight before) and it is job to ask the DM about that
Stormbrand 04-20-07, 04:46 AM	Wow.. you guys require a knowledge check to decide to use cold against an opponent that breathed fire? I hope the DC on that check is 0 or less. Do you also require knowledge checks to figure out what end of the spear to grip, and what end to poke with? Two simple rules every character should know: 1) If it has a breath weapon of an element, use the opposing element to hurt it. 2) If it keeps getting back up after you slash it to bits, try burning it. If weapons don't work, try fire. Why do you think the mobs of villagers always carried pitchforks and torches? I don't care if its regeneration, damage reduction, a puddle of ooze that keeps splitting into parts, SOP is that if whacking it doesn't work, try burning it. If that's metagaming, then so is "always carry an extra 50' of rope in your backpack." These are simple rules of survival, which have absolutely nothing to do with my character's knowledge or lack thereof of specific monsters or abilities. Unproficient weapon use is a -4 on the attack roll, not "slice open your hands and stab yourself in the belly, because you grabbed the sharp bits." This is exactly equivalent to a knowledge check being needed if you want to know the creature's habitat and preferred prey, but not if all you want to know is "fire monsters don't like cold spells". For the third time, using a cold spell on a creature that breathed fire is simple logic. It has absolutely nothing to do with "knowedge of dragons". The thing could be an eight-armed, rainbow-colored plant monster, I don't care. If it breathes fire, and I have a cold spell, I'm gonna throw ice at it. Always well worth reading. :D
Yokomohoyo 04-20-07, 07:19 AM	You know, after reading every last one of these threads, one question was never asked. He used a scroll of coldball. Is it at all possible he used the scroll because it was the only damaging spell he had at the time? Really it was... this thread can go till the end of times unless the Op tells us if he had any other equipment, if it was just the 2 scrolls, well a lucky guess, but if he had some other spells that make damage, some other scrolls, etc...
daggeroflath 04-20-07, 07:53 AM	It is the DM that decide when a roll is necessary or not. Why is that? As a DM I expect something like: You do realise that such demands would constantly slow down the game to a crawl. Hey DM, can I make a knowledge: geography check to have a look at the world map? Hey DM, can I make a knowledge: religion check to know what the gods of the world are? And every time justifying why your character should know it... :eek: but he cannot know for sure what his character knows about monster Well certainly the DM can offer extra information, but the character knows what he can remember and what he can logically deduce from said memories and basic sensory information. This hardly requires a DMs assistance. Maybe a new player might need a bit of help for their first session or two, but most people can figure out how to play a character properly after a week or two of gaming.
Leilond 04-20-07, 08:02 AM	Why is that? You do realise that such demands would constantly slow down the game to a crawl. No... it doesn't... at least not in my games, because my players never "argue" with me, they quick ask, quick recive an answer, quick accept it Hey DM, can I make a knowledge: geography check to have a look at the world map? Hey DM, can I make a knowledge: religion check to know what the gods of the world are? After the first time I tell you that you don't need it you don't need to ask anymore Well certainly the DM can offer extra information, but the character knows what he can remember and what he can logically deduce from said memories and basic sensory information. This hardly requires a DMs assistance. Remember means "you already encountered a vampire" (as example). If you fight a vampire for the first time, I will not accept that you take your "silver +1 mace" instead of using your preferred "+2 long sword" without the proper knowledge check If you don't ask you're going to accept my judgement call on the issue
Pie 04-20-07, 08:32 AM	Why is that? Sorry gotta back Leil up on this one, that was my point. DM decides if it is necessary as he runs the game ultimately, but whenever possibly avoid rolling and do more roleing ;) .
Leilond 04-20-07, 09:12 AM	Sorry gotta back Leil up on this one, that was my point. DM decides if it is necessary as he runs the game ultimately, but whenever possibly avoid rolling and do more roleing ;) . And that's sure... If a DM don't agree with this it's poor DM But sometimes rolls are required. In my previous example if you meet a vampire for the first time you need to roll if you want to use your "silver +1 heavy mace" instead of your beloved "+2 long sword" In the situation presented (red dragon) I would probably accept that "a fire breathing moster can be immune to fire... I'm not sure, but it is better to use a cold spell", but generally speaking sometimes players think that something is "obvious" but DM "doesn't agree"... a roll is needed
Magnus_the_Mad 04-20-07, 05:59 PM	I quoted you because it was the closest example of what I was trying to comment on. You also claimed it was a "dangerous" strategy, implying it could backfire in some way, followed by an example of the Hellfire Wyrm. This is not the plan backfiring, it makes the plan unnecessary, but not bad for the character. So what if the wizard had nothing but fire spells left in memory for the day? I'd say it's pretty dangerous to just sit back and not hit the Hellfire Wyrm with your spells seeing as how the wizard can probably be pretty effective damage wise if he can bypass the creatures spell resistance. Sounds like a back fired strategy to me because you'd rather assume that fire won't hurt it based on it's breath weapon and you'd rather just do something else than make a very simple knowledge check and determine that fire could indeed hurt it. It could wind up bad for some other character because the wizard dropped the ball. Again, the call for a knowledge check is irrelevant. I don't care if it's weak to cold or not - my goal, and presumably the goal of the OP was that using anything but fire is the way to go (cold was just what he had on hand) and that doing so is such an obvious and common practice that no check should be required. And it can be wrong, wrong wrong which is what I gave the example of the drake for. Just make a check to find out, what's so hard about that? Using that logic as a rule of thumb is going to be right quite a few times but not always and yes, it can hurt the party if the wizard (or whoever with the right skill) drops the ball. OK, so it may not be mandatory, but you would rather go ahead and cast that cold spell, waste it because it did nothing and sit there scratching your head instead of saying to the DM "I'd like to try a knowledge arcana check to see what this thing is probably weak to if anything." Why gimp yourself? And the original point made by other posters was not to just throw anything at it, it was to hit the creature with the opposite of whatever it breaths. The point may not have been yours specifically, but it has been made by others nonetheless and that is what I am talking about. Making that assumption can be detrimental to the party. Simply put, feel free to throw whatever you wish at what you are fighting, but if you want to be accurate about what you are doing and not play roulette with your spell selection, just make the damn check. Like it's that friggin hard! Players roll dice all night long anyway, so what's the big deal?
Pie 04-20-07, 06:46 PM	Why gimp yourself? And the original point made by other posters was not to just throw anything at it, it was to hit the creature with the opposite of whatever it breaths. The point may not have been yours specifically, but it has been made by others nonetheless and that is what I am talking about. Making that assumption can be detrimental to the party. I couldn't disagree more. Making assumptions and guessing your way through a situation is a course of action that I a) much prefer to take and b) much prefer to see as a DM. Going through each of your spells, testing the water to find what its not resistant against is great fun and very entertaining on both the players and the DMs part. Example: I had three players fighting a formian, two had gone down already and it was up to the gnome warmage, it took him four guess to use the right lesser orb of [X] spell before he found an element it didnt partially resist! It was really funny! [esp because on the third guess he went "oh mabye X.... nah i'll go Y" when X was the spell it wasn't resistant too ^^]. Sure you can put yourself in sevre danger, but I think its alot better than going "pfft I can't be bothered, knowledge check me!".
Zandolit 04-20-07, 11:39 PM	So what if the wizard had nothing but fire spells left in memory for the day? Then hit it with fire. No one is saying he shouldn't use fire. What we're saying is that a caster character with multiple available spells has to choose what will likely be best for an encounter... any encounter. It doesn't mean there's nothing else on the planet that might work. It doesn't mean that if you don't have exactly the ideal spell you do nothing. He has a logical reason for thinking Cold will work best, and he has Cold prepared. So yeah, I think he should use it. You have to have some way to pick, and it's better to have a reason rather than just flip a coin. And it can be wrong, wrong wrong which is what I gave the example of the drake for. Just make a check to find out, what's so hard about that? Using that logic as a rule of thumb is going to be right quite a few times but not always and yes, it can hurt the party if the wizard (or whoever with the right skill) drops the ball. But that's why it's fun. If you just roll for the answer, pick the right spell, and it's guaranteed to work... what's the point? If you can't choose your own strategy but the DM has to tell it to you, you may as well be an NPC. There's no risk of failing. There's no feeling clever if you're right. You'd just ask, roll the dice, move on. Me, I'd rather risk my plan failing than never get to make up my own plans at all. I'd rather fail on a bad idea than a bad roll. But maybe that's just me.
High Octane 04-20-07, 11:49 PM	Although I agree that there was some slight metagaming going on, deductive reasoning WOULD have you using cold. Simply put, if its breathing fire, its probably got SOME resistance to fire. Now thats when you would decide to use another element to substitute. Now picking of any of them, you would deduce cold. Why? Although you dont KNOW that they would have a vulnerability to cold, you could easily deduce the possibility, and since cold is the same on a non vulnerable creature in damage as acid or electricity, why not choose the one that has a CHANCE of causing extra damage at no cost to the damage if they arent? A knowledge (arcana) check would solve this flat out of course, but I would make the check VERY low given the campaign setting is NAMED Dragonlance and is obviously dragon heavy. Assuming you, like many arcanists, had maximum ranks in that knowledge, the lowest check you could make would be a 17 (12 ranks + 4 int + natural 1) and natural 1s arent botches on skill checks, that would pretty much be automatic knowledge. No WAY knowing that a red dragon is vulnerable to cold is higher than a DC 15 in THAT campaign setting unless your DM is a douche. COLOR CODED FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE!
darkneolink 04-21-07, 12:42 AM	well actually the time of play he is playing is prior of the second war of the lance... ending the times of troubles... before the 9 great saved the world and the gods seemed to be forgotten by all. In that time the dragons weren't active as they were taking the "great sleep" (altough some warriors met some dragons prior the war i.e.: Riverwind in"the mision of riverwind") So there were not dragons but that only makes the point more valid on the theory "hey I can turn into a fire breathing creature that is resistant to fire... therefore any fire breathing creatures are resistant to fire... because so far as I know there are not any fire breathing creatures that are not inmune to fire" n_n
Azar 04-21-07, 01:24 AM	Now, having read the thread I'm really conflicted. Plenty of things in this game aren't immune to the special attacks they use - Carrion Crawlers aren't immune to their own Paralysing tentacles, Purple Worms aren't immune to their own Poisonous stingers, and even the Cockatrice is susceptible to its own Petrifying bite (:D). The problem is that many iconic monsters are immune to whatever trick they have up their sleeves - and the color coded dragon is a great example of this. The problem arises with the setting - with the flavor of the dragon. If dragons are known far and wide, by every man, woman, and child, then it would be common sense to know that a dragon is immune to the element of its breath weapon. But, were talking about Dragonlance, a setting where (depending on the Age) dragons are little more then bedtime stories used to scare kids. And I highly doubt that in these stories it would articulate their specific immunity. Should a knowledge check have been rolled? For this specific instance, I'd say yes. We're talking about a living legend throwing itself at your group with ancient fury - truly, any adventurer would have been in awe of this beast, especially when you consider the reverence that dragons have in the Dragonlance setting. A Knowledge check would be the safest way to handle this situation because it would be difficult to know just exactly what your character would feel because this situation is so extraordinary (IMHO, this would be similar to seeing a T-Rex barreling down your street and charging you). On the other hand, your DM breaking the flow of the game over this was a little heavy-handed - at the most he should have brought it up with you after the game. This wouldn't even be unforgivable metagaming either - I mean, are you expected to hack away at a skeleton with your longsword everytime your new characters run through a mausoleum? How many attacks do you have to throw at a troll before you can pull out the Wands of Scorching Ray and Alchemist Fire? Sadly, I don't think theres an answer for this - it depends on your group. So, in closing, or rather "to recap," I'd like to say that the Knowledge check is always the safest route to take (Disregarding fumbles and the like) but you should really talk with your DM and see just how much your characters really know. Good Luck and Great Gaming!
Cartigan 04-21-07, 09:36 AM	Should a knowledge check have been rolled? For this specific instance, I'd say yes. We're talking about a living legend throwing itself at your group with ancient fury - truly, any adventurer would have been in awe of this beast, especially when you consider the reverence that dragons have in the Dragonlance setting. To say it again, so? He wasn't making an action based on intimate knowledge of dragons. He was making a deduction based on intimate knowledge of a totally different creature and what he saw the dragon do. Can deductions be wrong? Yes, but in this case it wasn't and there is no reason to harass people for making educated guesses that are correct.
celtredleg 04-21-07, 10:54 AM	I would always prefer a PC to think, as opposed to rolling. Does that mean they will use a bit more knowledge than they should?? Perhaps, but then again perhaps not. Many old fairy tales have very specific knowledge about how different monsters where taken out.
Magnus_the_Mad 04-21-07, 01:05 PM	OK, I can appreciate a player who chooses to use their own brain instead of the dice doing all the work. I do have a question for you folks who are against knowledge rolls for monsters: "Do you even allow the knowledge arcana, planes, nature and religion in you game?" I am aware that there are other uses for the skill, but a big part of the skills as outlined in the PHB is to identify monsters given the appropriate skill. Do the folks who are against making knowledge rolls not utilize this at all? Or do you believe that only when you truly have no idea what you are facing do you use the rolls to save your character? I guess the point I am trying to make is that in my games I let my players know that unless a creature (or group of creatures) has a role in their character history somehow, then they are not omnipotent and do not know the things that they as players would about the monsters that they face in the game. That's what I use the knowledge skill for, so that they can get a chance to identify and combat monsters based on the knowledge that their character has and not what they as a player knows. Don't get me wrong, I don't let the RAW and the dice do the RPing for me in my games. My players just really are not that experienced (but they do know what dragons can do) and often rely upon the knowledge skills that they have to identify monsters. I feel that how much experience you have as a player should not have too much of an effect on what your character knows.
Magnus_the_Mad 04-21-07, 01:15 PM	I mean, are you expected to hack away at a skeleton with your longsword everytime your new characters run through a mausoleum? How many attacks do you have to throw at a troll before you can pull out the Wands of Scorching Ray and Alchemist Fire? Sadly, I don't think theres an answer for this - it depends on your group. You shouldn't be waiting that long. All it takes is for the players to roll their respective checks to see what the creature is and what they are weak (if anything) to. The cleric or anyone with knowledge religion can make a check to identify it the skellys as undead and that they are more susceptible to strikes from bludgeoning weapons than slashing ones. The same goes for the troll. Any character who makes a high enough roll in the appropriate knowledge can tell you that fire is it's weakness. If your character has knowledge in the specific area of monsters we are discussing, then the roll is the relevant knowledge that they can remember off the top of their head about the monster. and So, in closing, or rather "to recap," I'd like to say that the Knowledge check is always the safest route to take (Disregarding fumbles and the like) but you should really talk with your DM and see just how much your characters really know. Good Luck and Great Gaming! agreed! I realize that every table is different. I'm just trying to understand why some folks are totally against skills that I see as a boon to players of the game because before they were created the players really were at the mercy of DMs as to what their characters would or would not know about monsters.
RavingDork 04-21-07, 02:04 PM	Just had another game with my DM in which our characters were fighting skeletons for the first time. Not wanting a repeat of last time, I asked my DM if I could make a knoweldge (religion) check to identify the skeleton's weaknesses. He said sure. A moment later, my transmuter turns to the other heros and yells "Use bludgeoning weapons on them!" to which the party's dwarf simply response "No sh1t!" The DM didn't seem to complain despite the fact the dwarf pulle dout his warhammer over his more common dwarven waraxe as soon as the skellies arrived. I didn't say anything about it cause having a fun game for all comes before being right in my book. Still, I just don't get this group sometimes. :rolleyes:
Radiun 04-21-07, 03:15 PM	BBEGs/Dragons are dearer to the DM's hearts than piddily skeletons perhaps?
celtredleg 04-21-07, 04:27 PM	Magnus, yes I allow skill/K checks. Particularly about things they really dont know anything about. As far as monsters, if it is common, then no sweat, they can use thier knowledge. And by common, I mean well known. There are no sitcoms or reality TV for them to sit around and watch as kids, so most entertainment is going to be from storys and songs. Many, if not most of those are going to be about things where monsters are a part of it. And many of those will have accurate info. Its just that I dont freak out when a player does something that seems logical. Fire useing creature hit with cold is right up there with open door before going through. The PCs live in the setting every single day. They know tons of stuff we dont. There doesnt seem to be a good reson to deny them what they should have a clue about. Never seen before is OK, but gets overused. I have never seen a dragon, but it does seem I have heard about them. I know weak points and how to blow up a great many RW armored vehicles I have never fought yet. I have seen DMs that use the you know nothing approach 4-5 encounters in a row. And this is a starting party just out from the home village. Its like every monster has just been waiting around for just this group to start. KC is great when needed, but if a player can sub in real RP, I would much rather have that. I just have a hard time with the argument that you increase role over roll, by increasing the number of die rolls.
calronmoonflower 04-21-07, 05:20 PM	If I ran into an unknown type of monster that was red and breathed fire I'd try a different energy type than fire, most likely cold. Trying a cold attack on the dragon wasn't meta-gaming, it was using your brain. Just because that the same tactic wouldn't work on other creatures that weld something that they are not immune to doesn't make it meta-gaming. If the DM played the dragon like it had a lick of sense it would have erected some form of protection from cold attacks. If you chose another spell besides cold and fire that would normally deal a bit less damage because you think the dragon would have covered its only real weakness that would be meta-gaming.
ravenshrike 04-21-07, 05:33 PM	Did you roll a knowledge check? No? Then you meta-gamed. Sure you can reason around with it however you want, but short of rolling the required checks (and yes, they are required) you have to assume your character doesn't know. Aside from that, the logic your character would have had to follow was a little stretched to begin with. The Dragon was red and was breathing fire and because your character could turn into something that breaths fire and is immune to fire (but is also from a plane with fire in it) he knew the Red Dragon would be immune to fire? A creature can breath fire and not be immune to it, a creature can't be from a plane involving fire without being immune to it. The DM should have called for a knowledge check to use it. Alright, I call shenanigans. The ****ing thing can breath fire. Unless it risks getting itself caught on fire every damned time it does so, I'm thinking at the least that it's immune to fire, and probably doesn't like the cold very well.
ravenshrike 04-21-07, 05:36 PM	All the deduction that an intelligent Wizard would've known to use cold is called using your Knowledge (Arcana) skill... that represents what the Character knows, not the Player. You did metagame, plain and simple. You have skill points for a reason, use them. You're obviously at least 5th level so you should easily have a +12 modifier to your Knowledge check. No it's not, logical deductions are not covered by knowledge checks. Knowledge checks are the direct knowledge you know, either from experience, books, pictures, or word of mouth. Has NOTHING to do with logical reasoning.
ravenshrike 04-21-07, 05:53 PM	And what if my red dragon was immune to cold instead fire? Then it takes damage from its own breath weapon? You've also managed to up the CR by at least 2 by eliminating it's vulnerability and then making it immune.
Drachasor 04-21-07, 05:55 PM	Alright, I call shenanigans. The ****ing thing can breath fire. Unless it risks getting itself caught on fire every damned time it does so, I'm thinking at the least that it's immune to fire, and probably doesn't like the cold very well. I would also add that even though such a conclusion CAN be wrong, that doesn't make it a bad rule of thumb. Knowledge checks are for figuring out exceptions to these rules of thumb or other inferences. They aren't about figuring out basic information. For instance, I don't need a Knowledge(Architecture & Engineering) to open a door. I might need it to figure out that opening a door in an unstable cave could cause the ceiling to collapse (e.g. the door is providing critical support). I'd certainly need to be sure of whether opening the door would collapse the ceiling or not (as opposed to just guessing or being wary). -Drachasor
Comus 04-21-07, 05:57 PM	Alright, I call shenanigans. The ****ing thing can breath fire. Unless it risks getting itself caught on fire every damned time it does so, I'm thinking at the least that it's immune to fire, and probably doesn't like the cold very well. Yeah. Even on a failed knowledge check, or the off-chance that the character had zero ranks in the needed skill, any character above a 10 INT should be thinking to himself "I probably shouldn't try to burn fire." A failed knowledge check should not mean the character is forced to do something that is obviously a bad decision according to common sense.
Stafir Ortnev 04-21-07, 10:10 PM	Just gotta put in my two cents. Number one...with the way this is represented this is NOT a knowledge arcana check. In no way whatsoever did he ever call upon his knowledge of the arcane. Unless you wish to note the fact he called upon what else he himself has changed into..and what that new form was not weak to. Of course I'd make that just a stock int check..its not any kind of knowledge, its memory...memory of what he's done himself. No this check is about reasoning. He took information he knew (this other creature that breathes fire is OK with fire and hates ice) And deduced what another creature would like from this information (so this other creature that breathes fire probably likes fire too!). That isn't knowledge...thats wisdom! So you need to make a wisdom based roll instead! :P Otherwise..for all of those who are talking about dragons being so rare...only in myths and legends.. So uh...guys..if you all, right now, saw a red dragon..breathing fire. Would you try to hit it with cold and ignore all fire weapons? Or would you immediately go for the fire weapons? Most if not all of you would keep away from fire weapons? Well imagine that...but...arn't dragons only myth and legend here? As a 7 year old..even I knew dragons liked fire and some would even live in fire (from legends and myths I heard), I knew fire would be useless. I would decidedly NOT use fire on the thing. As for using cold...I think freezing the thing out was in a story I heard when I was about 10..till then I'd always assume you need to find a weak point in their scales (which deflect most damage amazingly)..horray for stabbing it up the bum!
Templetroll 04-21-07, 11:04 PM	This is a no harm no foul territory. You disagreed and it got settled, sweet. Metagaming can be an issue at times though. Generally, would a DM require knowledge check casting this spell... Fireball (sub: acid) = No; your just using spell/scroll that does damage. Because it is neither resisted nor possibly extra damage it doesn't matter. Fireball (fire) = No, or at least not likely and in general would be more likely to wonder why you are casting fire spells at fire type critters, imo. Therefore I can only conclude that using Fireball (cold) is a fair and legitimate response to the dragon. Note one of my favorite twists was a "white dragon" from Dungeon magazine that was actually an albino red...surprise!!! I once used a 'white dragon' that was actually a wight dragon. The person who attracted its attention by dropping a flaming sphere on it was able to hand over his father's corpse (he had been a wight the party had to kill, and had tried to warn them). I figured a fight later on would be more fun than a TPK. They would have a chance to gain power and prep while the dragon would have the same amount of time. Unfortunately, I never got to run that as a change in work location moved me several states away from that group. The dragon's goal was to get as many, really powerful minions instead of a bunch of relatively weak ones. I'll run it eventually. :)
daggeroflath 04-22-07, 12:12 AM	The DM didn't seem to complain despite the fact the dwarf pulle dout his warhammer over his more common dwarven waraxe as soon as the skellies arrived. Okay, so we're looking at a creature whose body consists of brittle interlaced support structure with massive holes in it and we're going to attack it with what, a rapier? And do what? The skeleton resistance to anything except bludgeoning has nothing to do with crazy magical powers (other than the fact that such a creature is walking around) and everything to do with the logical obvious fact that a non-bludgeoning weapon doesn't do much to a skeleton. (And the fact that a dwarven waraxe doesn't count as bludgeoning is in my opinion an oversight).
Magnus_the_Mad 04-22-07, 01:52 AM	Just gotta put in my two cents. Number one...with the way this is represented this is NOT a knowledge arcana check. In no way whatsoever did he ever call upon his knowledge of the arcane. Unless you wish to note the fact he called upon what else he himself has changed into..and what that new form was not weak to. Of course I'd make that just a stock int check..its not any kind of knowledge, its memory...memory of what he's done himself. Ok, don't take this the wrong way but you really need to read your skills in the PHB. Pg 78 of the 3.5 PHB specifically states that Knowledge Arcana is the knowledge of (ancient mysteries, magic traditions, arcane symbols, cryptic phrases, constructs, dragons, magical beasts). Whether a person agrees or disagrees that a knowledge check might be needed for the OPs situation, you are wrong in saying that knowledge arcana is not what this encompases. No this check is about reasoning. He took information he knew (this other creature that breathes fire is OK with fire and hates ice) And deduced what another creature would like from this information (so this other creature that breathes fire probably likes fire too!). That isn't knowledge...thats wisdom! So you need to make a wisdom based roll instead! :P sorry, without rolling that knowledge check you aren't 100% sure that the dragon (or any other fire breathing creature for that matter) is vulnerable to ice. You can assume all you want but it might not be so always. No, it isn't a wisdom check. Wisdom checks are based off of how keen your senses are and what life experiences you have had. It has nothing to do with how solid your facts are about the biology and physiology of a creature. Otherwise..for all of those who are talking about dragons being so rare...only in myths and legends.. Got news for you. In Dragonlance (at least the time the said DM is running this game) dragons ARE myths. They aren't flying throughout the skies terrorizing the countryside. So uh...guys..if you all, right now, saw a red dragon..breathing fire. Would you try to hit it with cold and ignore all fire weapons? Or would you immediately go for the fire weapons? Neither, I'd try to identify what sort of protections it has before throwing something at it that might not work. Gee, that would really suck if the dragon had pro cold on and your knee jerk reaction netted no positive results. Most if not all of you would keep away from fire weapons? Well imagine that...but...arn't dragons only myth and legend here? Well, it depends on what the DM has going on in their game I guess.
calronmoonflower 04-22-07, 03:36 AM	Ok, don't take this the wrong way but you really need to read your skills in the PHB. Pg 78 of the 3.5 PHB specifically states that Knowledge Arcana is the knowledge of (ancient mysteries, magic traditions, arcane symbols, cryptic phrases, constructs, dragons, magical beasts). Whether a person agrees or disagrees that a knowledge check might be needed for the OPs situation, you are wrong in saying that knowledge arcana is not what this encompases. A knowledge check is not necessary for something that you have experienced, like the hell hound that breathed fire didn't like cold attacks. sorry, without rolling that knowledge check you aren't 100% sure that the dragon (or any other fire breathing creature for that matter) is vulnerable to ice. You can assume all you want but it might not be so always. No, it isn't a wisdom check. Wisdom checks are based off of how keen your senses are and what life experiences you have had. It has nothing to do with how solid your facts are about the biology and physiology of a creature. Wisdom check for previous experience like the mentioned hell hound. Also trail and error is an excellent way to find if this scaly fire breathing creature can be damaged by cold. Got news for you. In Dragonlance (at least the time the said DM is running this game) dragons ARE myths. They aren't flying throughout the skies terrorizing the countryside. Then it musty not been a dragon right? Still the fire breathing monster doesn't like cold attack logic would still apply. Neither, I'd try to identify what sort of protections it has before throwing something at it that might not work. Gee, that would really suck if the dragon had pro cold on and your knee jerk reaction netted no positive results. Yes it would be bad if your assumption didn't work, but if it didn't I really doubt the DM would have pulled out the metagaming card. Well, it depends on what the DM has going on in their game I guess. Sure does. If the dragons level was high enough it should have obtained some type of protection from cold attacks, like maybe a Ring of Energy Protection: Cold. After all dragons are not dumb animals, they are born smarter than most people.
Enigmous 04-22-07, 04:08 AM	Well, judging from the fact that your guy is a friggin genius, I'd judge that no knowledge check is necessary. It's common knowledge that if a fire burns you, you should not throw fire at it to try and put it out.
turalisj 04-22-07, 10:47 AM	I call BS. Nearly double the average intelligence score of a character, a specialty in magic, and personal experience with entities that breathe fire. That would entitle his character to maybe a +10 on his know check. There happen to be things that geniuses do not know..... However, I wouldn't have called metagame on that, but ask that he make the appropriate checks from now on. Okay, so we're looking at a creature whose body consists of brittle interlaced support structure with massive holes in it and we're going to attack it with what, a rapier? And do what? The skeleton resistance to anything except bludgeoning has nothing to do with crazy magical powers (other than the fact that such a creature is walking around) and everything to do with the logical obvious fact that a non-bludgeoning weapon doesn't do much to a skeleton. (And the fact that a dwarven waraxe doesn't count as bludgeoning is in my opinion an oversight). This I would call for metagaming. Of course, I have pulled out my warhammer on several occassions, but meh.
Neutronium_Dragon 04-22-07, 02:57 PM	> That would entitle his character to maybe a +10 on his know check. There > happen to be things that geniuses do not know..... That doesn't prevent the genius from making an educated guess, especially when he already has several data points to extrapolate from, and that's what happened in this situation. As it happened, his educated guess was correct. With some other fire-breathing creatures it wouldn't have been. (Although even if a fire-breathing creature isn't resistant to fire, it's a rare one that breathes fire and doesn't resist fire but does resist cold.)
danielinthewolvesden 04-22-07, 03:19 PM	This I would call for metagaming. Of course, I have pulled out my warhammer on several occassions, but meh. Why? Any moron knows that knives do not cut bones very well, and that hammers smash dry brittle things.
NordicBirch 04-22-07, 03:36 PM	I told him my character could logically deduce that my only other spell scroll (a normal fireball) would likely be wasted on the monster. Funny how most people on this thread are carefully not reading the OP... "only other" and "likely" are points that totally negate most of the posts in this thread. :mad: Come on, he says fire might not work and you accuse him of saying cold will certainly work? He said he would let it slide "this time," but not to metagame again. The nerve! So the DM basically said "I can't prove I'm right but you're still wrong!" How old is he, 10? Oh well, Metagamehysteria is one of those things that some people cling to with religious fervor. Go figure.
Mellowship Slinky 04-22-07, 04:24 PM	The DM didn't want his precious dragon getting wasted by a cold spell. I doubt seriously that he really thought the player was metagaming (unless he constantly harps on metagaming by players) and more wanted an excuse to say "you can't use that".
Euclid 04-22-07, 04:40 PM	sorry, without rolling that knowledge check you aren't 100% sure that the dragon (or any other fire breathing creature for that matter) is vulnerable to ice.When a huge firebreathing monster is charging at you, you don't wait to be 100% sure.
Magnus_the_Mad 04-22-07, 05:55 PM	When a huge firebreathing monster is charging at you, you don't wait to be 100% sure. It's a free check..... not like you are wasting an action or anything. So you'd rather not get a free action to try and be 100% on the money and instead just guess and roll the dice? All this talk of logic has been filling this thread but this statement seems pretty illogical to me.
Magnus_the_Mad 04-22-07, 06:12 PM	A knowledge check is not necessary for something that you have experienced, like the hell hound that breathed fire didn't like cold attacks. ok, maybe in your games this holds true. Where is the line drawn as to what a character has experienced? I'm not disagreeing with you at all, but what I want to know is who and how is common knowledge decided in peoples games? Just because a player has read the MM does that entitle them to say that they have common knowledge about everything in the book? Where's the challenge and the fun in that? Wisdom check for previous experience like the mentioned hell hound. Also trail and error is an excellent way to find if this scaly fire breathing creature can be damaged by cold. Yes, I agree that trial and error are good ways to have a fun game as well. Nothing wrong with that at all. Then it musty not been a dragon right? Still the fire breathing monster doesn't like cold attack logic would still apply. Not sure what you mean by this. Depending on what timeline you might be playing a Dragonlance game in, dragons are not common knowledge at all. The are spoken of only in obscure stories that probably don't get the facts right most of the time. Legends may bare some truth, but they also hold a lot of untruths so they can't be relied upon for accurate knowledge of the creatures. Yes it would be bad if your assumption didn't work, but if it didn't I really doubt the DM would have pulled out the metagaming card. True enough. Sure does. If the dragons level was high enough it should have obtained some type of protection from cold attacks, like maybe a Ring of Energy Protection: Cold. After all dragons are not dumb animals, they are born smarter than most people. Man, I hope so hehe.
DrMorganes 04-22-07, 06:17 PM	I'm not reading all 5 pages of this before posting. Forgive me if this has been brought up: At issue here is that fact that the game is set in Krynn, likely prior to the events in the original 3 novels. As noted by the OP, dragons have to this point been considered MYTH. He'd need a Knowledge (Arcana) check (Say DC 15) just to know this large lizard WAS a dragon. A second Knowledge (Arcana) check would be in order to see if he knew anything at all about dragons. At this point in the game world - where 99.9999999999999999999% of the population believe dragons don't really exist as anything other than stories told to frighten children - that's a very high DC. I'd put it no less than 25 to know that there are different KINDS of dragons. DC 30+ to know stuff about a specific type. Setting makes a huge difference here. Playing in the Forgotten Realms - a setting where you can't swing a dead rat on a 5' rope and not hit a dragon of some sort - the same check could be covered under DC 10 Knowledge (Dungeoneering) or Knowledge (Arcana), or a straight DC 15 INT Check!
Magnus_the_Mad 04-22-07, 06:22 PM	I'm not reading all 5 pages of this before posting. Forgive me if this has been brought up: At issue here is that fact that the game is set in Krynn, likely prior to the events in the original 3 novels. As noted by the OP, dragons have to this point been considered MYTH. He'd need a Knowledge (Arcana) check (Say DC 15) just to know this large lizard WAS a dragon. A second Knowledge (Arcana) check would be in order to see if he knew anything at all about dragons. At this point in the game world - where 99.9999999999999999999% of the population believe dragons don't really exist as anything other than stories told to frighten children - that's a very high DC. I'd put it no less than 25 to know that there are different KINDS of dragons. DC 30+ to know stuff about a specific type. Setting makes a huge difference here. Playing in the Forgotten Realms - a setting where you can't swing a dead rat on a 5' rope and not hit a dragon of some sort - the same check could be covered under DC 10 Knowledge (Dungeoneering) or Knowledge (Arcana), or a straight DC 15 INT Check! That's exactly my thoughts on the dragon issue regarding the knowledge check in the OPs situation. I'm not saying that it should hold fast and true in every campaign but in Dragonlance (depending on the timeline) dragons are not common knowledge.
Euclid 04-22-07, 06:30 PM	But the fact that this thing is breathing fire is certainately known to the adventurers.
Drachasor 04-22-07, 06:39 PM	That's exactly my thoughts on the dragon issue regarding the knowledge check in the OPs situation. I'm not saying that it should hold fast and true in every campaign but in Dragonlance (depending on the timeline) dragons are not common knowledge. Funny, dragons are considered myths on Earth, and I think I'd recognize one if I saw it flying and breathing fire. Guess what else? I've heard of different colored dragons too. There's a WORLD of a difference between KNOWING something exists, and recognize something that is attacking you. Dragons are considered myths during much of Krynn's history, but that doesn't mean that people didn't immediately recognize them when they came back. No knowledge check needed, you just need to know common stories told by everyone. Knowing the specifics of dragons might be a bit harder, that's really up to the DM (who knows what the stories say?). Knowing that it breathed fire at you is simple (it did). Knowing that fire is usually an awful weapon against fire breathers is simple (caster can TURN into a fire breathing monster). Knowing that cold can potentially hurt fire creatures more is simple (cold puts out fires, caster can turn into fire breathing creature with vulnerability to cold). Are such conclusions certain? No, of course not, but they don't have to be because they are reasonable inferences. -Drachasor
calronmoonflower 04-22-07, 08:59 PM	Not sure what you mean by this. Depending on what timeline you might be playing a Dragonlance game in, dragons are not common knowledge at all. The are spoken of only in obscure stories that probably don't get the facts right most of the time. Legends may bare some truth, but they also hold a lot of untruths so they can't be relied upon for accurate knowledge of the creatures. I was referring to the post I quoted where it said that dragon where only myth in that campaign setting. They are only myth= not really a dragon.
Cael 04-22-07, 09:01 PM	I'm not reading all 5 pages of this before posting. Forgive me if this has been brought up: At issue here is that fact that the game is set in Krynn, likely prior to the events in the original 3 novels. As noted by the OP, dragons have to this point been considered MYTH. He'd need a Knowledge (Arcana) check (Say DC 15) just to know this large lizard WAS a dragon. A second Knowledge (Arcana) check would be in order to see if he knew anything at all about dragons. At this point in the game world - where 99.9999999999999999999% of the population believe dragons don't really exist as anything other than stories told to frighten children - that's a very high DC. I'd put it no less than 25 to know that there are different KINDS of dragons. DC 30+ to know stuff about a specific type. Setting makes a huge difference here. Playing in the Forgotten Realms - a setting where you can't swing a dead rat on a 5' rope and not hit a dragon of some sort - the same check could be covered under DC 10 Knowledge (Dungeoneering) or Knowledge (Arcana), or a straight DC 15 INT Check! I disagree with your assessment. It is the Dragonlance setting where you get to swing a rat and hit a dragon. In FR, dragons are fairly rare. Heck, even Drz'zt and co only ever ran into 2/3 dragons and they have how many books dedicated to them? Compare that to the *armies* of dragons Tanis and co ran into (and that is not even including the draconians). Now, in the old Ages, it is a lot rarer, but even then, people knew about the fire-breathing lizards called dragons. After all, if you followed it properly, the legendary Huma fought against them. All types of them, and he waxed Tahkisis herself. Those tales are the fireside legends that many grew up listening to, and if the basic fact that the dragons breathed all sorts of nasties didn't make it into those tales, then I'd call foul on the DM. The breath weapons were central to the dragon theme in Dragonlance. It is what made them so deadly and thus why vanquishing one is such a notable deal. To me, it seems that the OP's DM is a reactionist primadonna drama queen freak of some description (all bad to nasty to inutterable) that hated the fact that the PC ruined his uber-mensch bad guy. In other words, a typical DM vs PC type of character. Also, what half the posts in this thread did not address (and downright ignored because it would spoil their primadonna notions of roleplaying) is the fact that the OP has two choices of attacks: Fire and Cold. He chose Cold not because he knew it would be extremely deadly vs the dragon, but because he knew that fire-breathing stuff are very likely to be highly-resistant, if not downright immune, to fire. Thus, the answer to the question of whether he matagamed the dragon's stats or not is a solid "No!" That is all there is. Any further reading into it is a crock of crap. And not any old crap, but fossiled dinosaur crap at that.
Sachiel 04-22-07, 09:26 PM	The fact that it's a dragon doesn't really matter at all in this case. The wizard himself has personally turned into a hell hound before. He was one...he learned that he could breathe fire. He also learned that fire didn't hurt him. Now, who cares if it's a freaking dragon? Let's say a giant, red, flying llama with snakes coming out of its eyes attacks you. Uh-oh...giant, red, flying llamas with snakes for eyes are mythological; no one's seen one before! This creature breathes fire at you. Now you have two scrolls. A scroll of fireball and a scroll of coldball. You don't have to make a knowledge check DC 15 to realize, "Ah, this is the dreaded Aeri-flammo-llama-ophid! I thought they were only legends! Well, be sure to not use fire on it, use cold." That check isn't neccessary, you can choose to make the obvious choice. And you know...maybe you're wrong. See, it turns out that the Aeriflammollamaophids are highly resistant to both fire and cold, but acid tears them apart. But at least you didn't do something stupid by casting a fire spell at something the equivalent of a fire elemental.
Magnus_the_Mad 04-23-07, 12:01 AM	Funny, dragons are considered myths on Earth, and I think I'd recognize one if I saw it flying and breathing fire. Guess what else? I've heard of different colored dragons too. There's a WORLD of a difference between KNOWING something exists, and recognize something that is attacking you. Dragons are considered myths during much of Krynn's history, but that doesn't mean that people didn't immediately recognize them when they came back. No knowledge check needed, you just need to know common stories told by everyone. Knowing the specifics of dragons might be a bit harder, that's really up to the DM (who knows what the stories say?). Knowing that it breathed fire at you is simple (it did). Knowing that fire is usually an awful weapon against fire breathers is simple (caster can TURN into a fire breathing monster). Knowing that cold can potentially hurt fire creatures more is simple (cold puts out fires, caster can turn into fire breathing creature with vulnerability to cold). Are such conclusions certain? No, of course not, but they don't have to be because they are reasonable inferences. -Drachasor Ok, so I agree with you for the most part. Let me ask you this then, if your party encounters a Tarrasque will you let them just use their own personal knowledge of how to defeat it based on what they might have read in the MM or will you make them roll knowledge checks? The reason I ask is that a unique creature such as a this one is not common at all (yes, this is the other end of the spectrum of which I have been debating) and has a very specific way of being defeated. How would you handle this encounter if you were a DM running it for your players? Or vice versa, how would you as a player try to combat this creature without metagaming? Of course, by you I mean anyone in general who has an interest in this question.
Cael 04-23-07, 12:04 AM	Ok, so I agree with you for the most part. Let me ask you this then, if your party encounters a Tarrasque will you let them just use their own personal knowledge of how to defeat it based on what they might have read in the MM or will you make them roll knowledge checks? The reason I ask is that a unique creature such as a this one is not common at all (yes, this is the other end of the spectrum of which I have been debating) and has a very specific way of being defeated. How would you handle this encounter if you were a DM running it for your players? Or vice versa, how would you as a player try to combat this creature without metagaming? Of course, by you I mean anyone in general who has an interest in this question. Stop moving the goalposts. Stick to the OP's scenario. The Tarrasque is a totally different beast to a creature of legend that most children grow up with. It is also different in the sense that the Tarrasque would not be breathing fire at you in the combat. Stop trying to compare apples with oranges in an attempt to prove that you are right when you are not.
Magnus_the_Mad 04-23-07, 12:10 AM	Stop moving the goalposts. Stick to the OP's scenario. The Tarrasque is a totally different beast to a creature of legend that most children grow up with. It is also different in the sense that the Tarrasque would not be breathing fire at you in the combat. Stop trying to compare apples with oranges in an attempt to prove that you are right when you are not. Oh whatever! The argument can be made. The point is still the same. If you have no interest in trying to answer it then butt out. We've been hopping around different creatures all post long in this and just because one happens to pop up that is very rare you call it changing the argument. Come up with a good counter point or don't but the fact of the matter is still the same: Will a DM allow the players to not require knowledge check to fight a Tarrasque? Why not? Where is the line drawn that separates common knowledge from very obscure knowledge? Using the Tarrasque as an example is not changing the goal posts, it's just focusing more intensely on what I am trying to get at and that is "why do we even have knowledge checks that specifically state that they encompass knowledge of specific fields if DMs do not require them?" Oh, and prove I'm not right. While other DMs may do things differently, I am in no way wrong. You just don't like my point of view
Drachasor 04-23-07, 12:11 AM	Ok, so I agree with you for the most part. Let me ask you this then, if your party encounters a Tarrasque will you let them just use their own personal knowledge of how to defeat it based on what they might have read in the MM or will you make them roll knowledge checks? The reason I ask is that a unique creature such as a this one is not common at all (yes, this is the other end of the spectrum of which I have been debating) and has a very specific way of being defeated. How would you handle this encounter if you were a DM running it for your players? Or vice versa, how would you as a player try to combat this creature without metagaming? Of course, by you I mean anyone in general who has an interest in this question. A Tarrasque would need knowledge checks, most certainly. Perhaps research as well (probably some sort of epic challenge if I am throwing it at them). You've already acknowledged that the Tarrasque is a completely different situation though, being an extremely rare, in some cases obscure, creature. Entirely unlike the dragon. Also unlike the dragon, the Tarrasque has few similarities to other creatures, save swallowing people and nasty claw attacks. That said, if they tried overcoming its damage reduction by pulling out different weapons to attack it, I'd certainly think that was fine (no knowledge check). If it radiated evil (custom Tarrasque, perhaps), and they first tried a good aligned weapon, then that would just make sense. If they had fought demons or devils (or could turn into them through polymorph subschool spells), and it had the appropriate alignment for one of those, so they tried a good-aligned silver/cold iron weapon first, then that would be fine too. The Tarrasque is a particular bad example though, since it has few similarities to other creatures in the game. At least as far as weaknesses go. Given that, I wouldn't be so cool if the party changed their usual tactics to good tarrasque-hunting tactics without research. Well, aside from the obvious tactics such as avoiding getting close to those claws and bite attacks-- that's a general tactic against big nasties. If they noticed how it kept regenerating back and tried, fire, acid, sonic, cold, electricity, force, etc, etc to kill it. If they kept going at it, and eventually resorted to a wish (without research), then I'd be fine with that. Not fine if they had wish prepared for no particular reason already (though a cleric might have miracle prepared for general purposes, so there's an out there). -Drachasor
Drachasor 04-23-07, 12:15 AM	it's just focusing more intensely on what I am trying to get at and that is "why do we even have knowledge checks that specifically state that they encompass knowledge of specific fields if DMs do not require them?" Knowledge checks are for when the characters wouldn't know something. They aren't for when the players are reasoning things out based on character knowledge. Basic knowledge stuff (say dc 5) can be hand-waved away a lot of the time (why force checks for that beyond being a jerk?--ignoring the rare exceptional circumstance) In the OP example he had more than enough reason to NOT use fire. There was no need for a knowledge check. A check would have granted certainty, and a good result would have revealed that a dragon might cast spells to defend itself against its weakness. It would have revealed other things as well, of course. -Drachasor
Magnus_the_Mad 04-23-07, 12:15 AM	A Tarrasque would need knowledge checks, most certainly. Perhaps research as well (probably some sort of epic challenge if I am throwing it at them). You've already acknowledged that the Tarrasque is a completely different situation though, being an extremely rare, in some cases obscure, creature. Entirely unlike the dragon. Also unlike the dragon, the Tarrasque has few similarities to other creatures, save swallowing people and nasty claw attacks. That said, if they tried overcoming its damage reduction by pulling out different weapons to attack it, I'd certainly think that was fine (no knowledge check). If it radiated evil (custom Tarrasque, perhaps), and they first tried a good aligned weapon, then that would just make sense. If they had fought demons or devils (or could turn into them through polymorph subschool spells), and it had the appropriate alignment for one of those, so they tried a good-aligned silver/cold iron weapon first, then that would be fine too. The Tarrasque is a particular bad example though, since it has few similarities to other creatures in the game. At least as far as weaknesses go. Given that, I wouldn't be so cool if the party changed their usual tactics to good tarrasque-hunting tactics without research. Well, aside from the obvious tactics such as avoiding getting close to those claws and bite attacks-- that's a general tactic against big nasties. If they noticed how it kept regenerating back and tried, fire, acid, sonic, cold, electricity, force, etc, etc to kill it. If they kept going at it, and eventually resorted to a wish (without research), then I'd be fine with that. Not fine if they had wish prepared for no particular reason already (though a cleric might have miracle prepared for general purposes, so there's an out there). -Drachasor Good points all around! A fine example of how to deal with it I suppose. Where would you say that common knowledge ends and specific knowledge begins then (with any creature, not just the unique ones)?
Cael 04-23-07, 12:32 AM	Oh whatever! The argument can be made. The point is still the same. If you have no interest in trying to answer it then butt out. We've been hopping around different creatures all post long in this and just because one happens to pop up that is very rare you call it changing the argument. Come up with a good counter point or don't but the fact of the matter is still the same: Will a DM allow the players to not require knowledge check to fight a Tarrasque? Why not? Where is the line drawn that separates common knowledge from very obscure knowledge? Using the Tarrasque as an example is not changing the goal posts, it's just focusing more intensely on what I am trying to get at and that is "why do we even have knowledge checks that specifically state that they encompass knowledge of specific fields if DMs do not require them?" Oh, and prove I'm not right. While other DMs may do things differently, I am in no way wrong. You just don't like my point of view Not using fire against a fire-breathing monster is not a rare thing. Deal.
green_yawgmoth 04-23-07, 01:01 AM	with my meager 14 int, I can tell you that if something was breathing freaking fire on me I would not start trying to burn it. If something started bleeding acid on me, my first action would not be to go for the 18 mol HCl solution. Just the way I do not try to drown a goldfish, or strangle a tree, or anything else that would warrant a beating from Obvious Man. Hell, I'd say that a 9 int barbarian that knows "fire hot" and "fire red" would be able to deduce that the dragon is going to be not-so-bothered by fire. :rolleyes: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
Vaelan 04-23-07, 01:03 AM	Comments like this are not needed and are unjustified. I disagree. They are both needed and justified. You have no proof of either of these statements. I'm going to cite behavior that exhibits both stupidity and a lack of trust as evidence. I will grant you that I cannot make a case for the person's general behavior, so I will revise my statement to read that the DM was, in this case, acting in a manner consistent with one who is both mentally deficient and does not trust others. Oh, and prove I'm not right. It doesn't matter if you're right or not. You're arguing a different point. If you cannot understand that, I have but one thing to say... Helium is a noble gas, so I'm right and you're wrong. Nanner.
Drachasor 04-23-07, 01:04 AM	Good points all around! A fine example of how to deal with it I suppose. Where would you say that common knowledge ends and specific knowledge begins then (with any creature, not just the unique ones)? Depends on the campaign, I suppose. I'd generally assume knowing that Trolls are weak against fire and acid would probably be a DC 10 check. Unless Trolls are rare, then it is probably DC 15 or 20. Anything DC 10 or below is common knowledge, since anyone can know it. Of course, for the players, things they have experienced in the past can play a big part in what is common for them. If they've fought demons and devils and learned their weaknesses, then no knowledge checks are needed if they apply that elsewhere. Same with the fire breathing things are not weak against fire. Specific information about specific monsters really depends on the campaign. Probably the OP's campaign, a DC 5 check would reveal different dragons breath different things (history knowledge). A DC 10 might tell you what the different things were. Assuming you didn't know what the Red Dragon breathed, but your choices were fire, cold, electricity, acid, and poison, then I'd find it perfectly reasonable if the players assumed it was fire. (green and black dragons are harder to call obviously). Let's say a dragon used magic to appear red though, but it was really blue. I'd probably call for a knowledge arcana/history check. A high check (especially high for the OP's Krynn game, say DC 30), would reveal the dragon didn't physically look like a red, a higher check would say what it did look like. The checks would be a lot easier if set 10 years after the War of the Lance, of course. Maybe DC 20 for noticing the dragon didn't look right. The context of the campaign and what is common plays a big role. That said, if the creature is not obscure, then knowing its weaknesses shouldn't be too much harder than simply recognizing it. Even in the OP's game, I don't think it would be hard to know what a Red is weak against (cold). DC 20 at most, imho, and either arcana or history would do. 25 or higher would tell you it can probably cast spells (so maybe it can defend itself against the cold). 30 or higher would tell you that only the largest of dragons (and some sense of scale would be given here) are accomplished casters. Something like that, eye-balling it, anyhow. -Drachasor
Magnus_the_Mad 04-23-07, 01:42 AM	Not using fire against a fire-breathing monster is not a rare thing. Deal. No one said it was. Read the other posts. Deal.
Magnus_the_Mad 04-23-07, 01:44 AM	Depends on the campaign, I suppose. I'd generally assume knowing that Trolls are weak against fire and acid would probably be a DC 10 check. Unless Trolls are rare, then it is probably DC 15 or 20. Anything DC 10 or below is common knowledge, since anyone can know it. Of course, for the players, things they have experienced in the past can play a big part in what is common for them. If they've fought demons and devils and learned their weaknesses, then no knowledge checks are needed if they apply that elsewhere. Same with the fire breathing things are not weak against fire. Specific information about specific monsters really depends on the campaign. Probably the OP's campaign, a DC 5 check would reveal different dragons breath different things (history knowledge). A DC 10 might tell you what the different things were. Assuming you didn't know what the Red Dragon breathed, but your choices were fire, cold, electricity, acid, and poison, then I'd find it perfectly reasonable if the players assumed it was fire. (green and black dragons are harder to call obviously). Let's say a dragon used magic to appear red though, but it was really blue. I'd probably call for a knowledge arcana/history check. A high check (especially high for the OP's Krynn game, say DC 30), would reveal the dragon didn't physically look like a red, a higher check would say what it did look like. The checks would be a lot easier if set 10 years after the War of the Lance, of course. Maybe DC 20 for noticing the dragon didn't look right. The context of the campaign and what is common plays a big role. That said, if the creature is not obscure, then knowing its weaknesses shouldn't be too much harder than simply recognizing it. Even in the OP's game, I don't think it would be hard to know what a Red is weak against (cold). DC 20 at most, imho, and either arcana or history would do. 25 or higher would tell you it can probably cast spells (so maybe it can defend itself against the cold). 30 or higher would tell you that only the largest of dragons (and some sense of scale would be given here) are accomplished casters. Something like that, eye-balling it, anyhow. -Drachasor Right, but the rules clearly give guidelines for all of this. To discern knowledge about a creature, the relevant knowledge skill is to be applied (Kreligion for undead, KArcana for dragons, etc.). The DC is 10+ the hit die of the creature. This is used to discern information about a monster that a character happens to want to know anything about.
Magnus_the_Mad 04-23-07, 01:53 AM	It doesn't matter if you're right or not. You're arguing a different point. Dude, read the post to which I was responding for the love of god. If you are going to take it out of context then of course it seems like I'm complaining about being wrong but the etire statement I made was: "Oh, and prove I'm not right. While other DMs may do things differently, I am in no way wrong. You just don't like my point of view" My response was directed at a previous post telling me I was wrong simply because the poster disagreed with me. That does not make me wrong, just of a different mind set. I swear, people who take a different point of view against the majority are black listed as stupid and incorrect so much on these boards it makes ones head spin!!