Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Reyemile 08-07-07, 11:15 PM	The other day, an animal attacked our priestess, even though it shouldn't have had the intelligence. There are two possibilities: 1) it wasn't a random encounter but a summoned attack, with a hidden summoner instructing the animals, or 2) the GM was thinking about other things and didn't play the monsters the way he should have. This type of situation seems to happen to me a lot. There is SOMETHING not right with the situation, but I don't want my character to act on it, because if it was just a DM oversight I'd either embarrass or **** off the guy running the campaign. How do you handle it when you aren't sure if something is a clue or a screwup?
Mock26 08-07-07, 11:18 PM	What makes you think that the animal shouldn't have been able to attack the priestess? Can you describe the situation in great detail, including the positions of everyone in your group and the location of the animal?
shadzar 08-07-07, 11:53 PM	don't forget what the PCs were doing just prior to the attack. are you saying your party gets attacked by animals often? usually a DM can decide for himself how his animals work. maybe there is an epidemic going on, or maybe someone in your party has a cursed item that PO's animals around them. what is to say the DM is doing these animals wrong? as asked already. how about some specifics on the situatin to determine if it seems like a faux pas, or something else.
Comus 08-07-07, 11:56 PM	Maybe the DM just rolled a random encounter. Maybe there's absolutely nothing sinister about it. Maybe he even rolled the target randomly. Why not just ask him?
Reyemile 08-08-07, 01:10 AM	Here is the situation: the animals are about 60 feet away from us. I charge and melee one to death. The priestess casts Flame Strike, calling fire to rain from the heavens. One of the animals then runs past me, provoking an AoO, to get to the caster--something that with Animal intelligence, it should not be capable of doing. And if I ask what's going on, I'm basically saying "hey, is this significant, or did you drop the ball?" Generally, I'm hesitant to point out GM screwups. Or should I not be?
LadyAlaria 08-08-07, 01:10 AM	Here's what you should do . . . (and I'm being serious). The next time an unintelligent monster shows some uncanny tactical ability, roleplay your amazement WITHOUT complaint or sarcasm. Your character simply starts trying to puzzle out how these creatures got so smart. The ranger starts looking for the tracks of whoever must have been controlling the creature. The wizard casts Detect Magic trying to discover the spell that was used to communicate with it. The cleric mutters that tomorrow he'll prepare some divination spells so he'll be ready next time. But play it perfectly straight. Don't say, "Oh come on - how did the Dire Rat know to do that?", but instead say, "This is one dangerous opponent we're facing. That's the second time he's been able to use ordinary animals to bypass our best defenses. We've got to figure out how he's doing it . . . and why!" Now, if it is just a DM oversight or he's picking on your party unfairly, he'll probably respond with, "The animal wasn't all that smart. He was just . . . lucky. That's it. He just sort of lucked into making that attack - it really didn't seem like he planned it. Really." And he'll probably stop doing it. If he really is a clever and subtle DM, he'll appreciate that you are on to his plot. Bonus XPs for everyone! And it may be that he says to himself, "That's not a bad idea. I'll just change my BBEG into a druid and pretend that I meant to do this all along." He probably won't give you bonus XP, but that's OK. (More than once I got an idea from one of my players misinterpreting a clue, and I've changed my plotline. Sometimes the mystery the players are solving is more interesting than the one I devised!) Regardless, it beats starting an argument.
shadzar 08-08-07, 01:52 AM	Here is the situation: the animals are about 60 feet away from us. I charge and melee one to death. The priestess casts Flame Strike, calling fire to rain from the heavens. One of the animals then runs past me, provoking an AoO, to get to the caster--something that with Animal intelligence, it should not be capable of doing. And if I ask what's going on, I'm basically saying "hey, is this significant, or did you drop the ball?" Generally, I'm hesitant to point out GM screwups. Or should I not be? ok so this dumb animal just attacked the PC who did damge. but since this animal is dumb it shouldn't have had the reasoning ability in order to know the caster was the reason fire fell from the sky. is that correct? i am wondering what type of animals and why you charged into melee with them. :confused: it seems not enough information style to judge what was going on at the time. were the animals just standing around mind their own business and you attacked them? was it only one type of animal or a group of various type of animals? did the animal that attacked your caster die? is there anything special about the location where you are/were when you saw these animals that may be of any significange? or you could just do like the other psot and say something like "OMG that animal just used spellcraft to find out when fire fell from the sky." during the game and see what happens after you say it WITH YOUR CHARACTER.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-08-07, 01:54 AM	Here's what you should do . . . (and I'm being serious). The next time an unintelligent monster shows some uncanny tactical ability, roleplay your amazement WITHOUT complaint or sarcasm. Your character simply starts trying to puzzle out how these creatures got so smart. The ranger starts looking for the tracks of whoever must have been controlling the creature. The wizard casts Detect Magic trying to discover the spell that was used to communicate with it. The cleric mutters that tomorrow he'll prepare some divination spells so he'll be ready next time. But play it perfectly straight. Don't say, "Oh come on - how did the Dire Rat know to do that?", but instead say, "This is one dangerous opponent we're facing. That's the second time he's been able to use ordinary animals to bypass our best defenses. We've got to figure out how he's doing it . . . and why!" Now, if it is just a DM oversight or he's picking on your party unfairly, he'll probably respond with, "The animal wasn't all that smart. He was just . . . lucky. That's it. He just sort of lucked into making that attack - it really didn't seem like he planned it. Really." And he'll probably stop doing it. If he really is a clever and subtle DM, he'll appreciate that you are on to his plot. Bonus XPs for everyone! And it may be that he says to himself, "That's not a bad idea. I'll just change my BBEG into a druid and pretend that I meant to do this all along." He probably won't give you bonus XP, but that's OK. (More than once I got an idea from one of my players misinterpreting a clue, and I've changed my plotline. Sometimes the mystery the players are solving is more interesting than the one I devised!) Regardless, it beats starting an argument. Do this.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-08-07, 02:04 AM	ok so this dumb animal just attacked the PC who did damge. Sure seems that way huh? but since this animal is dumb it shouldn't have had the reasoning ability in order to know the caster was the reason fire fell from the sky. I would reasonable assume that spellcraft is beyond the mental capacity of nonsentient animals. For the same reason why sparrows can not reaosn out physics problems. i am wondering what type of animals and why you charged into melee with them. :confused: Does this matter? Or are you confirming that they were not magical beasts with intelligence scores above 2? And if they are magic beasts, why is the Op calling them animals? it seems not enough information style to judge what was going on at the time. Huh? were the animals just standing around mind their own business and you attacked them? Does this matter? If he attacked them, does it change the fact that a non-intelegent animal charged past the closest target, and singled out the spell caster from 60 feat away? was it only one type of animal or a group of various type of animals? Would this make a difference? There was more then one if that helps. did the animal that attacked your caster die? Well he is not complaining about a total party whipe, or the death of the caster, so probably. is there anything special about the location where you are/were when you saw these animals that may be of any significange? Like the land of intelligent animals, perhaps? Thats about the only thing I can think of that the player wouldn't immediately know, awakened animals. But thats probably a plot point. or you could just do like the other psot and say something like "OMG that animal just used spellcraft to find out when fire fell from the sky." during the game and see what happens after you say it WITH YOUR CHARACTER. This is good advice follow it. If it is plot point your DM will like it because your biting at his hooks. If it isn't it may become one, and at worst its a subtly and polite way of letting the DM know s/he's metagaming his/her monsters.
Salla 08-08-07, 02:07 AM	Here's what you should do . . . (and I'm being serious). The next time an unintelligent monster shows some uncanny tactical ability, roleplay your amazement WITHOUT complaint or sarcasm. Your character simply starts trying to puzzle out how these creatures got so smart. The ranger starts looking for the tracks of whoever must have been controlling the creature. The wizard casts Detect Magic trying to discover the spell that was used to communicate with it. The cleric mutters that tomorrow he'll prepare some divination spells so he'll be ready next time. But play it perfectly straight. Don't say, "Oh come on - how did the Dire Rat know to do that?", but instead say, "This is one dangerous opponent we're facing. That's the second time he's been able to use ordinary animals to bypass our best defenses. We've got to figure out how he's doing it . . . and why!" Now, if it is just a DM oversight or he's picking on your party unfairly, he'll probably respond with, "The animal wasn't all that smart. He was just . . . lucky. That's it. He just sort of lucked into making that attack - it really didn't seem like he planned it. Really." And he'll probably stop doing it. If he really is a clever and subtle DM, he'll appreciate that you are on to his plot. Bonus XPs for everyone! And it may be that he says to himself, "That's not a bad idea. I'll just change my BBEG into a druid and pretend that I meant to do this all along." He probably won't give you bonus XP, but that's OK. (More than once I got an idea from one of my players misinterpreting a clue, and I've changed my plotline. Sometimes the mystery the players are solving is more interesting than the one I devised!) Regardless, it beats starting an argument. As someone who's been told he's quite skilled at finding (and stepping in) plot holes, I agree with this idea. Assume the DM knows what he's doing and there's a reason for everything ... if there isn't one, you may just give him one, and milking your players for ideas is a time-honored DM tradition. :)
Candin 08-08-07, 02:16 AM	I have this problem too. We were going through a poorly designed ogre fort (I say that because every hallway was booby trapped, but the ogres never had any problems). We got to a point with four doors, and we had to split up to solve a riddle. We had six people in the party, which meant two groups of two, one group of one. I went with a ranger. We enter a room that's 10x30. Two trolls are in there (being 10x10, they didn't have a lot of room to maneuver). Ranger managed to get into the doorway and five feet into the room before the troll hurtled toward him. He cleaved it pretty easily, and I contributed my share with a couple of acid spells. The second troll ran forward, and attacked me. Mind you, I wasn't standing in the room. I was standing outside, in the hallway, using the doorway as partial cover when I wasn't casting spells. DM had the troll reach over the ranger's head, attack me (while I was getting partial cover) and punch me in the face. Course I died, I'm a flabby girly man, and already had two rooftops collapse on me. I think the best thing you can do is bring up your complaint with the DM after the session is over. That's what I did, and it worked out silghtly. I was able to convince him to cut the cost of the resurrection in half because, according to the MM, the troll would have ran flailing at the closest thing (which was, besides the other troll, my ranger tank), and I never would have died to begin with.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-08-07, 02:27 AM	I have this problem too. We were going through a poorly designed ogre fort (I say that because every hallway was booby trapped, but the ogres never had any problems). We got to a point with four doors, and we had to split up to solve a riddle. We had six people in the party, which meant two groups of two, one group of one. Presumably they put the traps there, and thus know where they are, and how to avoid them. I went with a ranger. We enter a room that's 10x30. Two trolls are in there (being 10x10, they didn't have a lot of room to maneuver). Ranger managed to get into the doorway and five feet into the room before the troll hurtled toward him. He cleaved it pretty easily, and I contributed my share with a couple of acid spells. The second troll ran forward, and attacked me. Mind you, I wasn't standing in the room. I was standing outside, in the hallway, using the doorway as partial cover when I wasn't casting spells. DM had the troll reach over the ranger's head, attack me (while I was getting partial cover) and punch me in the face. Course I died, I'm a flabby girly man, and already had two rooftops collapse on me. It wouldn't be hard to see that you were the one throwing acid at them. And being a troll it would have known that acid hurts it. Thus your the bigger threat, by far. Just because its stupid doesn't mean its suicidal as well. I think the best thing you can do is bring up your complaint with the DM after the session is over. That's what I did, and it worked out silghtly. I was able to convince him to cut the cost of the resurrection in half because, according to the MM, the troll would have ran flailing at the closest thing (which was, besides the other troll, my ranger tank), and I never would have died to begin with. well that was really nice of him. I'd have told you to get over it.
UltimateReality 08-08-07, 02:43 AM	And it may be that he says to himself, "That's not a bad idea. I'll just change my BBEG into a druid and pretend that I meant to do this all along."I love when my players do this. In a crime-solving mission, one player was absolutely convinced that an incidental NPC was the culprit. So I made it so she was the perpetrator...it was great fun.
CCS 08-08-07, 03:28 AM	Here's what you should do . . . (and I'm being serious). The next time an unintelligent monster shows some uncanny tactical ability, roleplay your amazement WITHOUT complaint or sarcasm. Your character simply starts trying to puzzle out how these creatures got so smart. The ranger starts looking for the tracks of whoever must have been controlling the creature. The wizard casts Detect Magic trying to discover the spell that was used to communicate with it. The cleric mutters that tomorrow he'll prepare some divination spells so he'll be ready next time. But play it perfectly straight. Don't say, "Oh come on - how did the Dire Rat know to do that?", but instead say, "This is one dangerous opponent we're facing. That's the second time he's been able to use ordinary animals to bypass our best defenses. We've got to figure out how he's doing it . . . and why!" Now, if it is just a DM oversight or he's picking on your party unfairly, he'll probably respond with, "The animal wasn't all that smart. He was just . . . lucky. That's it. He just sort of lucked into making that attack - it really didn't seem like he planned it. Really." And he'll probably stop doing it. If he really is a clever and subtle DM, he'll appreciate that you are on to his plot. Bonus XPs for everyone! And it may be that he says to himself, "That's not a bad idea. I'll just change my BBEG into a druid and pretend that I meant to do this all along." He probably won't give you bonus XP, but that's OK. (More than once I got an idea from one of my players misinterpreting a clue, and I've changed my plotline. Sometimes the mystery the players are solving is more interesting than the one I devised!) Regardless, it beats starting an argument. I think that summs it up perfectly. I know that in our own game we players have read more into some events/NPCs than's there. And we've totaly missed other stuff. I think the best example came very early on in the campaign. One player was insistant that there was some plot afoot vrs the local baron. One of us simply didn't see it - and still doesn't. Their of the firm belief that player #1 is mistaken. (and vise versa) And the other two players? They didn't know one way or the other. So we compromised. As whatever was/wasn't going on in the political circles held no interest for any of our characters we decided to just go explore random ruin x on the map - several hundered miles away. To this day we don't know (IC or OC) what the DM had in mind.....
shadzar 08-08-07, 04:11 AM	Sure seems that way huh? I would reasonable assume that spellcraft is beyond the mental capacity of nonsentient animals. For the same reason why sparrows can not reaosn out physics problems. Does this matter? Or are you confirming that they were not magical beasts with intelligence scores above 2? And if they are magic beasts, why is the Op calling them animals? Huh? Does this matter? If he attacked them, does it change the fact that a non-intelegent animal charged past the closest target, and singled out the spell caster from 60 feat away? Would this make a difference? There was more then one if that helps. Well he is not complaining about a total party whipe, or the death of the caster, so probably. Like the land of intelligent animals, perhaps? Thats about the only thing I can think of that the player wouldn't immediately know, awakened animals. But thats probably a plot point. This is good advice follow it. If it is plot point your DM will like it because your biting at his hooks. If it isn't it may become one, and at worst its a subtly and polite way of letting the DM know s/he's metagaming his/her monsters. i was thinking that you were following me around when i saw you respond to my post....then a few answers led me to think you were the DM in question....but the last statement makes it hard to think you have anything to do directly with the thread creators games. why are you answering the questions i asked of him then? i can make any number of instant judgments why a seemingly docile or dumb animal would attack a spellcaster specifically. none will have any direct bearing on the situation at hand without knowing more specifics to figure out what was going on. the questions i ask are dual purpose. the person responding gets to think about them to see if they maybe have a purpose other than a DM screw up, and they help me figure out possible things other than a DM screw up that will related directly to the situation. if you want some random ideas why a creature that should barely know its butt from a hole in the ground would specifically attack a spellcaster after fire starts raining fromt he sky then wait until the actual questions have been answered so the thread creator can have a chance to think about them while answering them instead of seeing why i asked first. ;) you should know why i asked some of those specific quesionts and what relation they would have to the situation. if you wish to take the thing to your thread where it wouldn't give anything away so he can contemplate why the quesitons were asked, then take it over there and i will answer what those questions have to do with anything. just please remember to include my quesionts with your responses so i don't forget WTF was being talked about here. :P
Infernostrider 08-08-07, 06:28 AM	Here is the situation: the animals are about 60 feet away from us. I charge and melee one to death. The priestess casts Flame Strike, calling fire to rain from the heavens. One of the animals then runs past me, provoking an AoO, to get to the caster--something that with Animal intelligence, it should not be capable of doing. And if I ask what's going on, I'm basically saying "hey, is this significant, or did you drop the ball?" Generally, I'm hesitant to point out GM screwups. Or should I not be? actually, even animals recognise danger. 1 or 2 int is enough to target a caster instead of a fighter. It wouldn't target a healer over a fighter, as they don't pose a threat in such a simple mind, but if an animal watches a flamestrike or fireball send by a caster, it would likely try and attack that one first. The question is: why did it attack you, what provoked the animal?
Aucturos 08-08-07, 10:13 AM	Here is the situation: the animals are about 60 feet away from us. I charge and melee one to death. The priestess casts Flame Strike, calling fire to rain from the heavens. One of the animals then runs past me, provoking an AoO, to get to the caster--something that with Animal intelligence, it should not be capable of doing. And if I ask what's going on, I'm basically saying "hey, is this significant, or did you drop the ball?" Generally, I'm hesitant to point out GM screwups. Or should I not be? What type of animal was it? Like.. a bear? A wolf? A dire something? Was it a pack of wolves? You say there were multiple animals, but only one darted out to get her? There isn't any "aggro" in D&D. You can't run into a pack of wild dogs and taunt them into attacking you. If you did have a pack, it's very possible that one or more of the animals would dart off to dispatch other threats while the bulk of their companions handle the immediate target (ie You). Not uncommon at all. Basically, I think you're underestimating the intelligence and capability of most animals, particularly pack animals. I'd still follow the other advice in this threat, it's good stuff, but just because their intelligent score is 2 doesn't mean that their instincts are stupid either. :)
_Jayne_Cobb_ 08-08-07, 10:35 AM	Could be worse. We were walking down a path once when a flock of striges simultaenously popped up into the air surrounding us in a perfect circle, including on the path we had just walked down! :rofl:
DrMorganes 08-08-07, 11:18 AM	Animals - and particularly social animals like wolves and lions - are frighteningly effective in their ability to work together. Not knowing what sort of animals you encountered (and it DOES matter), one can only assume they were a group of social predators. Acting on that assumption, predators generally do not aim for the strongest target in a group. They actively avoid strong and healthy targets that are likely to cause harm, and favor weaker or sickly prey they can take down without much risk. Most sentient beings would consider a wizard the stronger (i.e., most dangerous) member of a given group, and attack him first to reduce the risk of death by fireball. Wolves and lions will see a wizard as the weakest (no obvious armor, no spikey shield, no sword) and take him out first because attacking the fighter with the spikey shield and sword is likely to cause harm. This is doubly true if said fighter has already taken down one of the animals on his own. Animals are not sentient. They are also neither foolish nor suicidal. Unless driven by hunger or the desire to protect their young, most animals played realistically will flee after a few rounds of combat going against them. In short: suck it up and go with the flow. :D If your DM wasn't planning on something, tossing him a plot hook may well end up with a rewarding gaming session!
zorgling25 08-08-07, 11:24 AM	Basically, I think you're underestimating the intelligence and capability of most animals, particularly pack animals. I'd still follow the other advice in this threat, it's good stuff, but just because their intelligent score is 2 doesn't mean that their instincts are stupid either. :) Especially since IMO instinct falls more under Wisdom than Intelligence.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 08-08-07, 12:06 PM	Deciding to put one's life at risk by taking an AoO in order to attack the priest when there is no obvious causal link between the priest casting and the spell effect is not only not instinctive it is counter-instinctive. It flies in the face of survival instinct and is reliant about making a connective leap of logic that is not only impossible for a non-sentient creature but also for sentient and intelligent beings who are unfamiliar with magic. In short, unless the DM had a very specific unknown reason for the animal to attack the priest then on the face of it the decision was flawed.
Mindolin 08-08-07, 01:06 PM	Deciding to put one's life at risk by taking an AoO in order to attack the priest when there is no obvious causal link between the priest casting and the spell effect is not only not instinctive it is counter-instinctive. It flies in the face of survival instinct and is reliant about making a connective leap of logic that is not only impossible for a non-sentient creature but also for sentient and intelligent beings who are unfamiliar with magic. In short, unless the DM had a very specific unknown reason for the animal to attack the priest then on the face of it the decision was flawed. Except that, as a mostly unthinking beast, the animal has no idea of attacks of opportunities. And also, the caster may have seemed to be an easier target, because most animals can learn that the thing in shiny clothes is not very tasty, at least at first.
Salla 08-08-07, 01:36 PM	Except that, as a mostly unthinking beast, the animal has no idea of attacks of opportunities. And also, the caster may have seemed to be an easier target, because most animals can learn that the thing in shiny clothes is not very tasty, at least at first. Wouldn't the animal, however, be thinking something more like 'Fire?! OH F**K!!' and run for its life? I would still be suspecting that the animals were either controlled or possibly lycanthropes.
Candin 08-08-07, 02:31 PM	Presumably they put the traps there, and thus know where they are, and how to avoid them. It wouldn't be hard to see that you were the one throwing acid at them. And being a troll it would have known that acid hurts it. Thus your the bigger threat, by far. Just because its stupid doesn't mean its suicidal as well. well that was really nice of him. I'd have told you to get over it. You think so? According to the Monster Manual: "Trolls have no fear of death. They launch themselves into combat without hesitation, flailing wildly at the closest opponent. Even when confronted with fire, they try to get around the flames and attack." So, you're right. They aren't suicidal enough to run through fire. But, I daresay, according to wizards, they attack their closest opponent, no? Besides, it was simple metagaming. The troll never rolled a spellcraft check. In fact, when the first troll went down and enabled the second troll to move forward, I wasn't even in it's vision. But you're right. We can totally expect a 6 intelligence monster who will "flail widly" at the nearest opponent to ignore the elf with sharp pointy things that just killed his buddy to chance finding squishy guy who's outside the room. *Edit* I don't really care about the fort itself. It turned into a pretty big joke, how every corridor was trapped with pit traps, collapsing walls, poison darts, magic spells, magical acid fog, etc.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 08-08-07, 03:17 PM	Except that, as a mostly unthinking beast, the animal has no idea of attacks of opportunities. And also, the caster may have seemed to be an easier target, because most animals can learn that the thing in shiny clothes is not very tasty, at least at first. Any creature with fighting experience knows all about attack of opportunity: running away from or past enemy = get hit. No creature will break away from a fight to pick off an "easy target." That requires an informed intelligent choice, again the opposite of instinct.
Aucturos 08-08-07, 04:17 PM	Any creature with fighting experience knows all about attack of opportunity: running away from or past enemy = get hit. No creature will break away from a fight to pick off an "easy target." That requires an informed intelligent choice, again the opposite of instinct. Except this is a pack of creatures. If there were, say, 5 of them... I don't see any particular reason why one or two wouldn't break off from the harder target to take down another target who was interfering or threatening to interfere. Wolvs do it, lions do it, even ants and bees do it, and their "Int" score is considerably less than the former two. Now, if the creature had broken off from the pack and directly targeted her Holy symbol or hands to prevent material components from being used, then ran back to the Op, I'd completely agree with you. But as I see it, you have 5 pack-mentality beasts, at least 3 targets. One charges in to attack the pack, three of the 5 handle the first bit of prey, two would break off to attack each of the two lesser threats. If anything, I might say the DM under-played the encounter... but this all hinges on a single question: What type of beasts, and how many?
Caelic 08-08-07, 05:06 PM	Deciding to put one's life at risk by taking an AoO in order to attack the priest when there is no obvious causal link between the priest casting and the spell effect is not only not instinctive it is counter-instinctive. It flies in the face of survival instinct and is reliant about making a connective leap of logic that is not only impossible for a non-sentient creature but also for sentient and intelligent beings who are unfamiliar with magic. I'm curious: would you also argue that unintelligent animals would also not understand how to effectively position themselves to get flanking bonuses? How about distracting an opponent so that one of their allies could get in a clear shot? Would those things be beyond unintelligent animals?
Mock26 08-08-07, 05:10 PM	Who is to say that an animal won't charge past someone who might attack them just so they could attack someone else? Just because they might not do it in the real world doesn't mean that they couldn't or wouldn't do it in a fantasy world.
Caelic 08-08-07, 05:57 PM	Who is to say that an animal won't charge past someone who might attack them just so they could attack someone else? Just because they might not do it in the real world doesn't mean that they couldn't or wouldn't do it in a fantasy world. Actually, they do it in the real world on a fairly regular basis; watch footage of a wolf pack trying to cull a weak specimen from a herd sometime. Heck, they don't just run PAST other members of the herd, they run UNDER them in some cases.
Mock26 08-08-07, 06:03 PM	Actually, they do it in the real world on a fairly regular basis; watch footage of a wolf pack trying to cull a weak specimen from a herd sometime. Heck, they don't just run PAST other members of the herd, they run UNDER them in some cases. That is very true, but I was loathe to delve too deep into using a real world example. I didn't want to get attacked by a ton of "this is a fantasy game" rebuttals.
shadzar 08-08-07, 06:24 PM	That is very true, but I was loathe to delve too deep into using a real world example. I didn't want to get attacked by a ton of "this is a fantasy game" rebuttals. in a different sense or maybe what you were fearing...it is a fantasy game. which could mean that you would possibly see normal real world animals act in fantastical ways. but that is what you were already saying. i think it would come down to the nature of the animals.... are they naturally aggressive or timid? were they choosing a target or just charging forward in a straight line hoping to incite fear? i really want to know what kind of critters these were now.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 08-09-07, 10:20 AM	I'm curious: would you also argue that unintelligent animals would also not understand how to effectively position themselves to get flanking bonuses? How about distracting an opponent so that one of their allies could get in a clear shot? I'm curious why you think I feel that way?
_Jayne_Cobb_ 08-09-07, 10:23 AM	Except this is a pack of creatures. Doesn't matter. If the flames spurted out of the priest's fingers then fine, an animal can make the connection, but they simply cannot make the leap of logic required to connect the monkey jumping around and shouting and fire raining from the sky.
Aucturos 08-09-07, 11:20 AM	Doesn't matter. If the flames spurted out of the priest's fingers then fine, an animal can make the connection, but they simply cannot make the leap of logic required to connect the monkey jumping around and shouting and fire raining from the sky. Yes, it does matter, because if it's a pack of creatures, it doesn't matter whether or not they make that leap of logic. They could've easily done it anyways. If there's more than 1 creature, then attacking multiple targets is perfectly natural, regardless of whether or not the other target is fully understood or not, they merely have to present a possible threat. I'll take ants, as an example. Ants would not be high on the Int list. They're ants. But, if they encounter some termites, they don't all focus on one until it's dead. They'll spread out their numbers, attacking other targets which might become or are a threat. Lions do the same thing. If they're attacked by Hyenas, they will not all focus on a single Hyena. You'll have the males chasing down single Hyenas and the females will gang up on others. They will spread out their numbers. Wolves do the same thing. When defending their territory or attacking a herd, they will split their group up and will not all focus on a single target. Again, we don't know what the creatures actually are. It certainly sounds suspicious from the Op's point of view, but there's still a lack of information regarding some particular facts which I think leave enough leeway to say that the DM hasn't acted poorly yet.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 08-09-07, 12:26 PM	Yes, it does matter, because if it's a pack of creatures, it doesn't matter whether or not they make that leap of logic. They could've easily done it anyways. If there's more than 1 creature, then attacking multiple targets is perfectly natural, regardless of whether or not the other target is fully understood or not, they merely have to present a possible threat. … Again, we don't know what the creatures actually are. It certainly sounds suspicious from the Op's point of view, but there's still a lack of information regarding some particular facts which I think leave enough leeway to say that the DM hasn't acted poorly yet. And without any more information we can only base our conclusions on what has been given so far. The creature in question ignored a direct threat, and opened itself up to an attack, to attack the caster even though it had no means of determining a causal link between said attack and caster.
wolf_man007 08-09-07, 12:55 PM	Wouldn't the animal, however, be thinking something more like 'Fire?! OH F**K!!' and run for its life? Ha-hah! Yes!
OGS-Remix 08-09-07, 01:05 PM	My old DM used to do this sort of thing too. Back in 3.0, anytime I would cast a darkness spell, the enemy creatures would move out of the effect in the fastest route possible. This would happen even if I postioned the spell such that the fastest way out would be completely different from the way they were going. And remember that in 3.0 darkness is absolute so once it magically appears you have no idea where the edge is. Once incident where your DM uses meta-game tactics isn't too bad. If they make a habit of it, just keep track and call them out on it. Meta-gaming is bad for both players and DMs.
High Octane 08-09-07, 01:15 PM	Did your rogue hide bacon on the priestess?
Aucturos 08-09-07, 02:24 PM	And without any more information we can only base our conclusions on what has been given so far. The creature in question ignored a direct threat, and opened itself up to an attack, to attack the caster even though it had no means of determining a causal link between said attack and caster. Or... It saw that the rest of the pack was already on the immediate threat, and feeling it wouldn't contribute much, sprang for the next juiciest target. It happens all the time. It could be completely coincidental that the Priestess was firing off a spell at the time (like she'd have much else to do?). But I don't see the DM playing the part of the pack incorrectly so far. After all, if the creatures truly had made the leap of logic between magic's use and pain, the moment they heard her starting to chant they would've gone after her, instead of letting her get off a full attack and start on another. Or maybe it's not even that complicated. Maybe the creature got burned, turned around, and the Priestess was the target of its ire as the rest of its kin dealt with the sharp, hard, pointy thing. It's not unreasonable to assume that the creature, particularly if it's not an "intelligent" creature, doesn't need a reason to attack anything beyond "I'm angry, and I see you." The Op has been mysteriously silent, and seems to me that they probably posted here out of frustration rather than genuine curiosity. Frustration creates bias, bias creates embellishment and omission of facts. All we know, is that there is a group of adventurers, at least 3 (but maybe more), who encountered a pack of creatures (at least 3, but maybe more, and of unknown species, intelligence, ability, etc.). The Op charged into the fray as these creatures attacked back, the Priestess got a spell off, and then a single creature decided to attack her. I find it specious that the Op assumes the creature should be smart enough to avoid AoO's, but dumb enough to focus on a single target with other threats in the area whilst in a pack. :P Hence, my apprehension at passing judgment just yet.;) It just doesn't make sense.
shadzar 08-09-07, 02:38 PM	Did your rogue hide bacon on the priestess? or maybe donuts? Homer the wolverine: Mmmmm. donuts. dhgfearuivmnukhgfifhggfjghdfvjfgdjxf (weird wolverine chattering noises before attacking)
_Jayne_Cobb_ 08-09-07, 02:52 PM	It saw that the rest of the pack was already on the immediate threat, and feeling it wouldn't contribute much, sprang for the next juiciest target. A level of logic and cognitive reasoning beyond a non-sentient creature.
shadzar 08-09-07, 02:56 PM	A level of logic and cognitive reasoning beyond a non-sentient creature. how about pack mentality. creatures that group in packs, travel in packs, and hunt in packs....usually attack in packs as well. they go after multiple targets to kill a threat. they know space limitations exist that mean everyone can fight the same enemy. they just get in the way when too many try to attack the same one, so they spread their numebrs to attack multiple targets. that is why lion, wolf, dog etc cubs "play" when younger to train this ability and learn how to attack. it is instinctive behavior.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 08-09-07, 04:22 PM	they go after multiple targets to kill a threat. And in this instance the threat was the melee fighter who had just killed one of their own, not the ape jumping around and making funny noises at the back. The problem here seems to be that people are trying to justify the act with a hodge-podge mess of pack mentality, hive-mind, hunting strategy, common sense, logic, and instinct, none of which works together or makes sense in this scenario. There is not harm in admitting that this makes no sense rather than trying to make sense of it when none exists.
shadzar 08-09-07, 04:30 PM	And in this instance the threat was the melee fighter who had just killed one of their own, not the ape jumping around and making funny noises at the back. The problem here seems to be that people are trying to justify the act with a hodge-podge mess of pack mentality, hive-mind, hunting strategy, common sense, logic, and instinct, none of which works together or makes sense in this scenario. how the F'ing H do you know it doesn't make sense in this scenario? it makes perfect sense as we still don't know what the dadgum flabergasting critter was that was involed. nor do we know if it was only a single type or multiple types of critters. :rant:
_Jayne_Cobb_ 08-09-07, 05:23 PM	how the F'ing H do you know it doesn't make sense in this scenario? it makes perfect sense as we still don't know what the dadgum flabergasting critter was that was involed. nor do we know if it was only a single type or multiple types of critters. :rant: Precisely. All we can go on is the info we've been given. It may turn out that these creatures, animal though they are, have an innate ability to sense magic and instinctively attack casters. I am more than willing to change my take on this as more info becomes available. I am talking about what makes sense in terms of verisimilar animal behaviour, the ostensible justification being touted by some for this very scenario. You really need to calm down, man. Getting that upset over something so monumentally inconsequential as this is not a good thing.
Caelic 08-09-07, 05:37 PM	And in this instance the threat was the melee fighter who had just killed one of their own, not the ape jumping around and making funny noises at the back. The problem here seems to be that people are trying to justify the act with a hodge-podge mess of pack mentality, hive-mind, hunting strategy, common sense, logic, and instinct, none of which works together or makes sense in this scenario. There is not harm in admitting that this makes no sense rather than trying to make sense of it when none exists. You seem to be applying a rather large double standard here. On the one hand, you say that we don't have all the information here, and therefore can't say for sure what was involved with this behavior. On the other hand, despite not having all the information, you disallow plausible possibilities for why this happened, claiming that they "don't make sense." Nobody's saying that any of these scenarios are definitely the explanation, but they're plausible. The fact that you don't believe an animal would engage in behavior that would draw an attack of opportunity is strictly an opinion on your part; the DM in this case may well have had a different opinion. As has been pointed out, this sort of behavior is not uncommon in reality, and there's no reason to think it would be uncommon in a game setting...your notion that all creatures are aware of and think in terms of the AoO rules notwithstanding.
Allarian 08-09-07, 06:17 PM	"Trolls have no fear of death. They launch themselves into combat without hesitation, flailing wildly at the closest opponent. Even when confronted with fire, they try to get around the flames and attack." So, you're right. They aren't suicidal enough to run through fire. But, I daresay, according to wizards, they attack their closest opponent, no? Besides, it was simple metagaming. The troll never rolled a spellcraft check. In fact, when the first troll went down and enabled the second troll to move forward, I wasn't even in it's vision. But you're right. We can totally expect a 6 intelligence monster who will "flail widly" at the nearest opponent to ignore the elf with sharp pointy things that just killed his buddy to chance finding squishy guy who's outside the room. Magic is flashy, when you twist the fabric of reality until it flings around highpowered acid with little respect for the laws of gravity it's noticable. When I see some guy in robes pop out from around the corner chanting, glowing, and waving his arms and my buddy's skin starts to melt off his flesh I will notice. When he then ducks back around the corner to hide like a cowardly newborn from my fists I will notice, the little elf with his pointy weapons I don't care about THOSE wounds will heal fast, I'm going to hit that coward with the melty stuff who keeps poping up like a wack-a-mole target. I don't need to be a Gustav Adolf to prioritize threats. When a caster starts a spell, everyone will see it and if they have seen magic before understand a spell is being cast, they won't know if it is a cantrip or a wish, a fireball or a cure moderate wounds, or even if it is going to effect them at all, but they will know that something is being cast. In the game I'm playing the wizard player can't seem to understand that he has d4 hitdice and he went into a room filled with badguys (goblins, hobgoblins,kobolds, and bugbears but my character had through diplomatic roleplay gotten the goblins and kobolds to back off. the party was running on fumes, having fought our way through fifty monsters with class levels while bypassing hundereds more, without one single rest. we began the dungeon at 5th level and ended at 7th-9th, oh and the wizards player's first char. had already died) he had taken hits and went down, not dead but close, as the cleric I needed to heal him but as the tank (Go DMM) I had to stop the enemies before they entered the room so I tossed the bard a wand of cure light wounds and moved to stop them, however the enemies were already in the room, something I didn't understand (no map) and they saw the wand being used and sundered it. Magic is visible and not easy to hide. Don't screem for spellcraft checks so the enemy can figure out that you're a caster.
DarkNick 08-09-07, 06:19 PM	I think this is neither oversight or DM subtlety. I think the DM was simply using these creatures like chess pieces and made them go where he wanted. This is both unsubtle and conciously directed. The actual animal behaviour probably did not figure in his thinking. They were not animals, they were DM controlled drones. Now I don't mind a bit of this if it makes things more interesting and challenging. But I would worry if this sort of behaviour from the DM was common. If he is constantly breaking behavioural 'rules' to try to stiff the party this is not much fun for the players and suggests a DM vs Player attitude.
Aucturos 08-10-07, 11:22 AM	And in this instance the threat was the melee fighter who had just killed one of their own, not the ape jumping around and making funny noises at the back. The problem here seems to be that people are trying to justify the act with a hodge-podge mess of pack mentality, hive-mind, hunting strategy, common sense, logic, and instinct, none of which works together or makes sense in this scenario. There is not harm in admitting that this makes no sense rather than trying to make sense of it when none exists. Not going to get too far into it. It actually makes less sense for any creature with an Int score greater than 1 to do what some seemingly expect this pack of creatures to do (that is; attack a single target). Wolves, which have an Intelligence score of 2, would actually use better tactics than what the Op's DM used. If it was a pack of wolves, they'd have baited the Op away from the group and attacked the Priestess (and any other squishies) from flanking positions, going for throats and arteries to kill and disable the Op's companions as a handful (1 to 3) dealt with the hard, spiky thing in front. In other words: If anyone can come up with an example of a species that travels in packs and isn't smart enough to do what the Op said, I will utter an immediate and grand apology. :) Though, I suppose, I should clarify: I've never thought the DM is completely justified. It does beget a bit of "chess-playing" in its actions, but I give the DM the benefit of the doubt, as I'd say the vast number of creatures are underplayed by most DM's. I simply take contest with those saying that the creatures shouldn't have acted as they did, when there's every precident that they could have... Whether the DM is consisent in doing so or not... Well, I don't believe the DM in the situation would be, but this is an opinion based on insufficient facts, which is why I have been defending the DM thus far.
Myers 08-10-07, 12:13 PM	Even animals can learn basic sounds and start attributing the meanings of them. If you yell NO, BAD DOG! then hit a dog with a newspaper. The next time you yell NO, the dog will duck and brace for the hit. The dog may not have a clear understanding of the English language, but if he hears a loud sound, then gets whacked, he puts the 2 together. A less behaved dog, may bite your hand the 2nd time you yell NO! to stop you from hitting him with the paper. As the wizard yells out some magic word or chant, and the dog gets burned, It's not unbelievable that he would piece that together, and this largely does depend on if we are talking a single animal or a group here. A large pack would spread out if it's goal is to protect it's territory, now if it were hunting for food, probably go for whoever looked the slowest and try and drag it out of the "herd".
Thegans 08-10-07, 04:35 PM	Deciding to put one's life at risk by taking an AoO in order to attack the priest when there is no obvious causal link between the priest casting and the spell effect is not only not instinctive it is counter-instinctive. It flies in the face of survival instinct and is reliant about making a connective leap of logic that is not only impossible for a non-sentient creature but also for sentient and intelligent beings who are unfamiliar with magic. In short, unless the DM had a very specific unknown reason for the animal to attack the priest then on the face of it the decision was flawed. Doesn't matter. If the flames spurted out of the priest's fingers then fine, an animal can make the connection, but they simply cannot make the leap of logic required to connect the monkey jumping around and shouting and fire raining from the sky. And without any more information we can only base our conclusions on what has been given so far. The creature in question ignored a direct threat, and opened itself up to an attack, to attack the caster even though it had no means of determining a causal link between said attack and caster. And in this instance the threat was the melee fighter who had just killed one of their own, not the ape jumping around and making funny noises at the back. The problem here seems to be that people are trying to justify the act with a hodge-podge mess of pack mentality, hive-mind, hunting strategy, common sense, logic, and instinct, none of which works together or makes sense in this scenario. There is not harm in admitting that this makes no sense rather than trying to make sense of it when none exists. In nature weak animals die first and animals have no way of knowing that humans are not animals unless domesticated. Pack animals are often 'loyal' to each other because of a desire to preserve there species. As said before the fighter is an obvious threat but the priestess is not. That's why the priestess was attacked. They didn't know that it was a threat but to something with no grasp of magic a magic user of any kind would seem weaker and easier to kill. Sentient beings get rid of the threats first. Animals get rid of the quick kills first. We see a mage as a threat. They see it as a creature with easily penetratable flesh.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 08-10-07, 04:52 PM	In nature weak animals die first and animals have no way of knowing that humans are not animals unless domesticated. Pack animals are often 'loyal' to each other because of a desire to preserve there species. As said before the fighter is an obvious threat but the priestess is not. That's why the priestess was attacked. They didn't know that it was a threat but to something with no grasp of magic a magic user of any kind would seem weaker and easier to kill. Sentient beings get rid of the threats first. Animals get rid of the quick kills first. We see a mage as a threat. They see it as a creature with easily penetratable flesh. Pack animals pick out the weak as a hunting strategy. When faced with a viable threat they face that threat directly. If the threat is too dire they run. Deciding to pick off a weaker non-threatening opponent in lieu of a directly threatening one flies directly in the face of instinct and is a logical decision beyond the cognitive powers of a sub-INT 3 animal.
Caelic 08-10-07, 04:57 PM	Ah, gamerdom: where everyone is an expert on any topic that comes up, be it animal behavior or nuclear fusion.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 08-10-07, 05:00 PM	Ah, the internet: where everyone is an expert on any topic that comes up, be it animal behavior or nuclear fusion. Fixed. ;) Having knowledge ≠ claiming to be an expert. I never claimed to be an expert on animal behavior. I studied it a bit at university but only out of interest. As to nuclear fusion I know some small bit about it but physics is not my thing at all; could never wrap my head around all the maths.
Thegans 08-10-07, 05:35 PM	Pack animals pick out the weak as a hunting strategy. When faced with a viable threat they face that threat directly. If the threat is too dire they run. Deciding to pick off a weaker non-threatening opponent in lieu of a directly threatening one flies directly in the face of instinct and is a logical decision beyond the cognitive powers of a sub-INT 3 animal. Instincts are tricky but animals are actually more intelligent then given credit for. Tkaing the real world as an example there was onec a tital wave and from what I heard all the animals left before it hit. Also there are other factors such as hunger. Also your assuming that they know it a viable threat and not just another predator that the others can take care of. Still as you said earlier we don't have enough information. In theory the animal could think that the person in armor was a rock.
shadzar 08-10-07, 08:36 PM	Ah, the internet: where _Jayne_Cobb_ is an expert on any topic that comes up, be it animal behavior or nuclear fusion. fixed agian. ;)
Thegans 08-10-07, 09:41 PM	Ah, the internet: where everyone trys to fix something that no one else noticed a problem with, be it animal behavior or nuclear fusion. Fixed again.
TheDarkLord 08-10-07, 10:05 PM	Hmm, I could see the animal singling out a "Typical Spellcaster". Animals, especially in packs, work to single out the weakest in a group, and usually that Is a spellcaster. After all, they have no idea what magic is. Now, as far as the set up is concerned, I doubt that an animal is going to intentionally provoke an attack of opportunity by charging right past an obvious physical threat. Also, your DM just may be trying to hard to challenge you. It's part of the reason I don't play "Dumb" monster's anymore. If it has an 8 intelligence, it's as smart as anyone on the Internet as far as I'm concerned :D.
shadzar 08-10-07, 10:24 PM	Also, your DM just may be trying to hard to challenge you. It's part of the reason I don't play "Dumb" monster's anymore. If it has an 8 intelligence, it's as smart as anyone on the Internet as far as I'm concerned :D. also that monster may be smarter than many on the internet. i wonder if we will ever get to know what kind of critter this was or if i missed it somehwere yet?
TheDarkLord 08-10-07, 10:38 PM	also that monster may be smarter than many on the internet. I was trying to be nice.. perhaps I should have said 5 int? i wonder if we will ever get to know what kind of critter this was or if i missed it somehwere yet? Eh, didn't miss it, I was looking for it as well. Some animals, especially dogs, have been known to use extremely advanced pack tactics against larger animals. Going as far as taking down male lions (The Basenji), Mountain Lions (Carolina Yeller Dog), Bear, Moose, Bison, and buffalo.
Aucturos 08-10-07, 11:51 PM	I was trying to be nice.. perhaps I should have said 5 int? I think 5 is a bit generous, I mean.. look at these comments off of Youtube: (Concerning the Animaniacs' Countries of the World Song): "ahh man n/m they mantion the soviet union that consisted of 15 countries (as i last remember) as just russia thats purely gay" "thats purely gay"... Brilliant. (Concerning a Music Video): i mean she'd luk a hell of alot more stupid if she was a 23 year old skater gurl It's like one giant fist to the gut of syntax and grammar. (Concerning a Dance Video): LIES, this is not funny. He is sooooooooooo popped. No offense meant though. I'm not sure how to comment on this one. It's like acid sitting on the surface of my intelligence, seeping down and destroying neurons producing logical thought. I am quite sure what made this is not human. Five? Oh no, my friend... Epileptic deaf pigeons watching Anime could randomly hit the keyboard to make more sense than some of these supposedly logical creatures. I believe if you took 1,000 Youtube comments, given an infinity, Shakespeare would still roll over in his grave. Maybe if we started discussing negative Int scores... Or maybe I'm just a tad cynical. Who knows?
Marcotic 08-12-07, 03:23 AM	another thing the OP did was use metegame knowlege wolves have an int of 2. his char (i assume) wouldn't know that. Further, the wolves must have had some "combat" experiance, they know of AoO's because they've problably been hooved in the side on more then one occasion trying to flee.
MrCustomer 08-12-07, 12:55 PM	other possibilities are: -The animal attacked a random party member. -The DM decided that something about the Cleric, possibly a unique feature, would have attracted the animals particular hostility. Extra Shiny armor, the smell of incence candles from prayer, what he ate for breakfast etc. -The Positioning of the Cleric in the group, animal attacked the rearmost person, the front most or the middle position depending on how it was stalking the party, where the Cleric was standing in the group made it the target. -Animal instinctfully attacks the weakest member. Remember the Wolf doesn't attack the healthy cariboo, it jumps the weak. The Cleric standing behind doing nothing looks like an easier fight then the fighter with the sharp sword. The animal expects the others to flee and for the Win: -The DM decided to mix up the encounters so that they aren't the exact same, boring, expected routine repeated over and over again with no chalenge whatsoever. Fighters in front, rogue flank and sneak attack, Ranger provides cover fire, casters behind the wall of melee fighters to cast unhindered, yawn and roll die. The DM provided a desperate situation, your Healer is in danger and cannot cast, the group is now reacting to the encounter instead of the other way around. Be thankful he isn't predictable.
Reyemile 08-13-07, 02:06 PM	The animals in question were Velociraptors. I never denied that as pack animals they should be able to use intelligent tactics; I denied that they should have been able to identify a spell caster, since there was no indication aside from her chanting that she was doing anything. Anyway, I mentioned my concerns in character; nothing happened with them, so I presume that whatever was happening was unimportant. Ultimately, the cleric didn't even take any damage, so no harm, no foul.
Thegans 08-13-07, 02:48 PM	The animals in question were Velociraptors. I never denied that as pack animals they should be able to use intelligent tactics; I denied that they should have been able to identify a spell caster, since there was no indication aside from her chanting that she was doing anything. Anyway, I mentioned my concerns in character; nothing happened with them, so I presume that whatever was happening was unimportant. Ultimately, the cleric didn't even take any damage, so no harm, no foul. Velociraptor + no knowledge of magic + seemingly weak character according to what the velociraptor can tell = dinner. It didn't identify a spell caster it identified what it thought would be a snack.
Lyinginbedmon 08-13-07, 03:27 PM	At present, the leading force of evil for my players is an Epic-level Lich Gish. In their first encounter, said Gish tried to kill the character with his bare hands, without any spells, and was promptly dusted. Now, understandably, it would have been seen as a real mess-up, especially when I posted a thread about the "unforeseen" victory in the CharOp boards and was promptly laughed the heck at (I think at least one person still has that thread in their signature somewhere). However, the Gish came back (Lich and all) in the next campaign, and he's in the present one, and he'll be in the one after that. And each time, he's going to lose. Why? Why would I keep bringing back a villain that does nothing but loses? Oh well, I could be an absolutely horrible DM with no sense of realism for my characters, OR: He could be building a reputation amongst the populace as a horrible manipulative person who they should hope never gets into power, and has therefore set about plans in motion to this effect in order to benefit from it unscrupulously. Sometimes, it's necessary to seem incompetent as a DM to throw your players off their feet. I don't think this DM was being especially incompetent or oversighted, there may be (As you insinuate in post 1) a force at work behind the scenes or it may just be a random encounter, but if it seems within the character's reasoning to be suspicious then by all means: play it mysterious.
Imreallyagreatredwyrm 08-13-07, 03:52 PM	I think 5 is a bit generous, I mean.. look at these comments off of Youtube: (Concerning the Animaniacs' Countries of the World Song): "thats purely gay"... Brilliant. (Concerning a Music Video): It's like one giant fist to the gut of syntax and grammar. (Concerning a Dance Video): I'm not sure how to comment on this one. It's like acid sitting on the surface of my intelligence, seeping down and destroying neurons producing logical thought. I am quite sure what made this is not human. Five? Oh no, my friend... Epileptic deaf pigeons watching Anime could randomly hit the keyboard to make more sense than some of these supposedly logical creatures. I believe if you took 1,000 Youtube comments, given an infinity, Shakespeare would still roll over in his grave. Maybe if we started discussing negative Int scores... Or maybe I'm just a tad cynical. Who knows?Your assessment is of human intellect in general.
Imreallyagreatredwyrm 08-13-07, 04:17 PM	Oh, and, by the way, I heavily researched dinosaurs (particularly Velociraptor) for 4+ years of my life (5 to 9 years of age). Scientists generally agree that dromeosaurs such as Velociraptor Mongolensis were very intelligent social predators. So, in other words, OP's DM was playing them correctly.
Nephlite 08-13-07, 09:08 PM	Oh, and, by the way, I heavily researched dinosaurs (particularly Velociraptor) for 4+ years of my life (5 to 9 years of age). Scientists generally agree that dromeosaurs such as Velociraptor Mongolensis were very intelligent social predators. So, in other words, OP's DM was playing them correctly. Yes, and my dog understands human language, but in D&D we know animals only have 2 Int and can't understand human language (except tricks). You don't use real life for D&D.
shadzar 08-13-07, 09:39 PM	Yes, and my dog understands human language, but in D&D we know animals only have 2 Int and can't understand human language (except tricks). You don't use real life for D&D. who says animals only have INT 2? is this creature written in a book somewhere? is so please present the material on this dinosaur where it gives its intelligence. then remember than the DM is fully capable of chaning any stat of any creature for his own world. maybe this world itself has smarter animals to make them more realistic. either the DM choose to do that to make them more realsitci or actually can't understand why this dinosaur would be utterly dumb thanks to real world "data". i find it hard to think that ALL animals in D&D have INT 2. this creature in particular that as being asked about will work the way it did. acutally more than one should have attacked the cleric, once (s)he was dead they should have ripped it apart enough to run away with it fighting over the pieces as they go in order to get away from the further threat of the player part while they had their prey.
Caelic 08-13-07, 10:25 PM	who says animals only have INT 2? is this creature written in a book somewhere? is so please present the material on this dinosaur where it gives its intelligence. That would be in the Monster Manual...the one from the edition you don't like. then remember than the DM is fully capable of chaning any stat of any creature for his own world. Certainly, but that's in the same basket as "Maybe the animals were controlled by an outside force." We don't have that information, and as such, any speculation we do is so much guesswork. maybe this world itself has smarter animals to make them more realistic. either the DM choose to do that to make them more realsitci or actually can't understand why this dinosaur would be utterly dumb thanks to real world "data". He really wouldn't have to; there's firm precedent in third edition that tracking, hunting, and similar skills are based on Wisdom, not Intelligence. An animal doesn't need a high intelligence to be a skilled and canny hunter. i find it hard to think that ALL animals in D&D have INT 2. In the edition you don't like, they do; that's one of the defining characteristics of an animal (as opposed to a magical beast.) this creature in particular that as being asked about will work the way it did. acutally more than one should have attacked the cleric, once (s)he was dead they should have ripped it apart enough to run away with it fighting over the pieces as they go in order to get away from the further threat of the player part while they had their prey. It does seem logical that pack hunters would go after a highly vulnerable target.
Max Octavious Xavier 08-14-07, 12:43 AM	who says animals only have INT 2? Ok, hows this; Animal Traits: An animal possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry). —Intelligence score of 1 or 2 (no creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher can be an animal). I did see your reply Caelic, but I thought he needed a direct quote.
shadzar 08-14-07, 12:57 AM	Ok, hows this; I did see your reply Caelic, but I thought he needed a direct quote. ok so they are using animal in a non-normal way. to me and many people i talk to animals are living things capable of locomotion as opposed to plants. while some plants are plants capable of locomotion i consider all other thing to be animals of some type. so is it meaning mammals, reptile, amphibians, quadrapeds, bipeds, heptapeds, what? also i like the part about "unless otherwise noted in the creatures entry" what does the entry for velocirapture(sp) say for its intelligence? let alone being the improper ability to use to determine hunting skills. i find it extremely hard to believe in worlds of fantasy we would just have common everyday "animals" portrayed as the only type when we easily have a range that explains the intelligence levels in numbers and their corresponding meaning compared to human standards. one more reason where the "rules" should not be seen as concrete and lacking common sense. :rolleyes:
Caelic 08-14-07, 01:53 AM	Shadzar, Look. If you don't want to learn third edition, that's fine, but please don't take it as a given that we're then required to provide you with the relevant rules. You're more than capable of referencing the SRD yourself; if you choose not to, that's your decision. It's not reasonable to say "I have no desire to learn third edition" and then spend a good chunk of every thread demanding third edition rules information. Animal is a distinct category of creature in the third edition rules, with specific characteristics. Humanoids are not considered animals; creatures with an intelligence of above 2 are not considered animals. This is a reasonable and logical rules distinction, since it means that it's clear which creatures an Animal Growth or Speak With Animals will work on. If you want to know the specific stats for the raptor, or why Survival and related skills are based on Wisdom, or what the various creature types are and how they're differentiated, please: read the rules. You don't have to buy anything, the SRD is right there. If you're not willing to do that, then just accept that you're going to be ignorant of quite a lot of game-specific terms and concepts which are routinely used here. As has been pointed out to you, this is a forum for the discussion of third edition D&D, and the default assumption is always going to be that third edition is what we're discussing. i find it extremely hard to believe in worlds of fantasy we would just have common everyday "animals" portrayed as the only type when we easily have a range that explains the intelligence levels in numbers and their corresponding meaning compared to human standards. If you would actually take the time to read the rules, you'd understand that this is, in fact, the case...but animals with exceptional intelligence are considered "Magical Beasts." one more reason where the "rules" should not be seen as concrete and lacking common sense. ...but no excuse for not knowing the rules, since it's impossible to make sound decisions from a position of ignorance.
shadzar 08-14-07, 02:22 AM	Shadzar, Look. If you don't want to learn third edition, that's fine, but please don't take it as a given that we're then required to provide you with the relevant rules. You're more than capable of referencing the SRD yourself; if you choose not to, that's your decision. It's not reasonable to say "I have no desire to learn third edition" and then spend a good chunk of every thread demanding third edition rules information. Animal is a distinct category of creature in the third edition rules, with specific characteristics. Humanoids are not considered animals; creatures with an intelligence of above 2 are not considered animals. This is a reasonable and logical rules distinction, since it means that it's clear which creatures an Animal Growth or Speak With Animals will work on. If you want to know the specific stats for the raptor, or why Survival and related skills are based on Wisdom, or what the various creature types are and how they're differentiated, please: read the rules. You don't have to buy anything, the SRD is right there. If you're not willing to do that, then just accept that you're going to be ignorant of quite a lot of game-specific terms and concepts which are routinely used here. As has been pointed out to you, this is a forum for the discussion of third edition D&D, and the default assumption is always going to be that third edition is what we're discussing. If you would actually take the time to read the rules, you'd understand that this is, in fact, the case...but animals with exceptional intelligence are considered "Magical Beasts." ...but no excuse for not knowing the rules, since it's impossible to make sound decisions from a position of ignorance. :fight!: dodge parry reposte
_Jayne_Cobb_ 08-14-07, 09:11 AM	It does seem logical that pack hunters would go after a highly vulnerable target. And herein lies the problem, people are confusing hunting strategies with a combat behaviour. Pack hunters pick out weaker members of a herd specifically cos doing so exposes them to less danger. Also, logic ≠ instinct. Indeed by definition logic necessitates reasoned thinking, the precise opposite of instinct. From the SRD: "Animals are not capable of detailed reasoning" ok so they are using animal in a non-normal way. Nope. to me and many people i talk to animals are living things capable of locomotion as opposed to plants. If these "people you talk to" think that is the only defining characteristic of an animal then they are all wrong. while some plants are plants capable of locomotion i consider all other thing to be animals of some type. And some people consider tinfoil hats to be protection against alien mind control. What is you point? so is it meaning mammals, reptile, amphibians, quadrapeds, bipeds, heptapeds, what? The term “animal,” as it pertains to D&D, is defined in the 3e core rules. also i like the part about "unless otherwise noted in the creatures entry" Me too. It means that the designers can trump general rules with specific instances in order to create more unique options. Why do you like it? i find it extremely hard to believe in worlds of fantasy we would just have common everyday "animals" portrayed as the only type when we easily have a range that explains the intelligence levels in numbers and their corresponding meaning compared to human standards. Why? Just cos it is a fantasy setting does not mean everything must be fantastical. Common animals exist in abundance, but so do magical beasts of all sorts. one more reason where the "rules" should not be seen as concrete and lacking common sense. :rolleyes: You're right, the rules should not be seen as lacking common sense. Common sense dictates that, since in D&D animals are considered to be identical to their real-world counterparts, that in the absence of specific game-related information regarding their behaviour that the behaviour of real-world animals should be assumed.
Puggins 08-14-07, 10:03 AM	I'm afraid I don't get the tizzy about wolves attacking spellcasters. You're talking about a world that is fundamentally different than our own because one of the central forces at work in its reality- magic- doesn't exist in ours. How in the world do you know that wolves wouldn't have some evolutionarily inborn reaction to magic? Don't you think that at some point wolves might have been seleced according to "which one is not stupid enough to ignore magic?" Now, it would've been completely different if the priestess had just stood there, not appeared to have cast a spell, and still been attacked. But I doubt that the flame strike she cast was silent and still. How are you able to predict what survival traits would be bred into animals living in such a radically different environment?
_Jayne_Cobb_ 08-14-07, 11:04 AM	I'm afraid I don't get the tizzy about wolves attacking spellcasters. You're talking about a world that is fundamentally different than our own because one of the central forces at work in its reality- magic- doesn't exist in ours. Yes, and that has little bearing on this scenario ATM. How in the world do you know that wolves wouldn't have some evolutionarily inborn reaction to magic? Don't you think that at some point wolves might have been seleced according to "which one is not stupid enough to ignore magic?" We don't, so until something arises that makes that a factor in this scenario it is just supposition. "Animal" means a creature like it real-world basis and so it is on that assumption we must base responses. Now, it would've been completely different if the priestess had just stood there, not appeared to have cast a spell, and still been attacked. But I doubt that the flame strike she cast was silent and still. How are you able to predict what survival traits would be bred into animals living in such a radically different environment? Cos attacking anything that waves a limb and makes a noise is a non-survival technique.
Caelic 08-14-07, 11:26 AM	And herein lies the problem, people are confusing hunting strategies with a combat behaviour. Pack hunters pick out weaker members of a herd specifically cos doing so exposes them to less danger. Also, logic ≠ instinct. Indeed by definition logic necessitates reasoned thinking, the precise opposite of instinct. From the SRD: "Animals are not capable of detailed reasoning" I think you're missing the point. I didn't mean that logic should govern the behavior of the animals; I meant that we, as logical, reasoning beings, can examine their behavior and determine it to be logically consistent with what we know of pack animals. I maintain that it is so. You keep offering up the distinction between "hunting" and "combat" as being of some significance, but I see no evidence to suggest that this is the case. To an animal, "hunting" and "combat" are not going to be two distinct categories; fighting can and does come about as a result of hunting. About the only other reason an animal is likely to attack is if its territory is threatened. The scenario presented by the OP could easily have been either; we don't have enough information to say for certain one way or the other. Additionally, the notion that pack animals will not voluntarily draw attacks in combat is not borne out by the facts. If you have the opportunity, watch footage of a pack of wolves defending their territory against a much larger threat at some point. The wolves in front of the enemy snarl, bare their teeth, and do everything they can to hold its attention, so that the wolves behind it can attack the undefended flanks. I maintain that no exceptional explanation is needed here. The behavior of the animals was within the boundaries of possibility and feasibility.
Puggins 08-14-07, 12:16 PM	Yes, and that has little bearing on this scenario ATM. I'm afraid I disagree. You are trying to apply animal behavior in our world to an environment so foreign that any suppositions you make are invalid from the get-go. Take a quick survey around the natural world and you can spot absolutely massive variance in behavior based on environment. The Inland Taipan is quite possibly the most venemous snake on the planet, and yet is so timid that no recorded case of a human death to a bite exists. The Saw-Scaled viper, on the other hand, is not quite as venomous but is responsible for over 20,000 deaths a years because it is so ornery. So you have two snakes, both deadly, both inhabiting the same climate (arid) with radically different behaviors, and that's WITHOUT such a basic difference as magic. We don't, so until something arises that makes that a factor in this scenario it is just supposition. "Animal" means a creature like it real-world basis and so it is on that assumption we must base responses. You must base response on real world bahavior.... okay, sure, show me how they react to magic in the real world. Unless one of the Netherese Cities just materialized over the Atlantic, I'm afraid you're making assumptions rather than basing everything on behavior. Cos attacking anything that waves a limb and makes a noise is a non-survival technique. We're not talking about waving a limb. We're talking about casting a spell- how do you know that wolves in a world filled with magic wouldn't have some sort of perception that would allow them to know that somebody is casting a spell. That sounds like an awfully handy trait to have to me. I'm not saying that they WOULD, mind you... I'm saying that it's possible, and that a DM who assumes they would is not necessarily metagaming. Claiming that the DM is playing animals improperly because of knowledge abotu what they would do in a radically different environment (ie- one without magic) is faulty.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 08-14-07, 12:18 PM	I'm afraid I disagree. You are trying to apply animal behavior in our world to an environment so foreign that any suppositions you make are invalid from the get-go. The assumption implicit in the rules is that D&D animals are identical to their real-world counterparts.
Puggins 08-14-07, 02:24 PM	The assumption implicit in the rules is that D&D animals are identical to their real-world counterparts. With all due respect, that's your implicit assumption, not the rules'. Nowhere in the SRD does it state that animals are identical to their real-world counterparts. Here's the sum total of the description of the Ape: These powerful omnivores resemble gorillas but are far more aggressive; they kill and eat anything they can catch. An adult male ape is 5½ to 6 feet tall and weighs 300 to 400 pounds. Now, this could fit a real world ape just fine. Of course, it could fit a two-mouthed, blue skinned, red-eyed creature that sorta resembles the gorillas of that world. That it could recognize a spell being cast is nowhere near as radical a departure as what some DMs could do. As for the rules... well, nowhere does it state that it requires a minimum intelligence to recognize a spell being cast. In fact, as far as the rules are concerned, every sentient creature on this earth knows when a spell is being cast, since it's a usage of a standard action that has to be announced if it's at all observable (thus, a silent/still spell is a different... err... animal). You only need to roll if you want to know which spell is being cast. A wolf is not very intelligent, but it's more wily than a human (wis 12). If it recognizes that a spell is being cast (and it will), it has a good chance to reason out that the most dangerous creature it is facing is the woman who just scorched its pals. Of course, this is all up to GM interpretation. If the GM thinks that wolves or raptors or lemurs evolved exactly according to our world and have no sense of magic whatsoever, then they are perfectly within their right to play them dumb. Of course, I'd dock their CR in that case...
_Jayne_Cobb_ 08-14-07, 03:09 PM	With all due respect, that's your implicit assumption, not the rules'. Nowhere in the SRD does it state that animals are identical to their real-world counterparts. It may not be in the SRD but it is in the core rules. Remember, the SRD does not cover everything. If it recognizes that a spell is being cast (and it will), See, this is the part that doesn't work. There is no causal link between someone jumping around and waving their arms and fire coming from the sky, particularly in a combat situation where everyone is moving about and shouting. Without a high intelligence one simply cannot construct abstract links between cause and effect when there is no obvious visible connection between. An animal that can recognize or sense magic and/or has the intelligence for abstract reasoning is not an animal, it is a magical beast: An animal is a living, nonhuman creature, usually a vertebrate with no magical abilities and no innate capacity for language or culture. … • Intelligence score of 1 or 2 (no creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher can be an animal). Magical beasts are similar to animals but can have Intelligence scores higher than 2. Magical beasts usually have supernatural or extraordinary abilities, but sometimes are merely bizarre in appearance or habits.
Caelic 08-14-07, 03:20 PM	The assumption implicit in the rules is that D&D animals are identical to their real-world counterparts. So how precisely would a real-world animal react to magic? Do you know? As for the rules quotes you listed, I see nothing in them establishing sensitivity to magic as a defining characteristic of magical beasts or a disqualifying characteristic for animals...but that's neither here nor there. The point that animal behavior is dependent on a large number of factors, some of them subtle beyond our perception...and that the D&D world has a different set of physical laws than our own, and therefore animal behavior could reasonably be expected to differ based on that variance...is a solid one. In other words: it's a game. Don't worry about who the wolf attacked; the wolf is a plastic figure on a board, and the DM's more worried about giving you a fun and challenging encounter than perfectly replicating real life animal behavior patterns.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 08-14-07, 03:23 PM	So how precisely would a real-world animal react to magic? Do you know? They same way they react to everything else. As for the rules quotes you listed, I see nothing in them establishing sensitivity to magic as a defining characteristic of magical beasts or a disqualifying characteristic for animals...but that's neither here nor there. No, but they do establish both the intelligence limits of animals and that special senses - such as the extrasensory perception required to sense magic - would qualify the creature as a magical beast. The point that animal behavior is dependent on a large number of factors, some of them subtle beyond our perception...and that the D&D world has a different set of physical laws than our own, and therefore animal behavior could reasonably be expected to differ based on that variance...is a solid one. And one of those factors in behaviour is intelligence. An animal is no more capable of the kind of abstract conceptualization required to connect caster and spell-effect with no visible causal link than it is of doing the New York Times crossword. In other words: it's a game. Don't worry about who the wolf attacked; the wolf is a plastic figure on a board, and the DM's more worried about giving you a fun and challenging encounter than perfectly replicating real life animal behavior patterns. Pretty much, yes.
Caelic 08-14-07, 03:32 PM	They same way they react to everything else. Interesting. I didn't know animals typically had one universal reaction to everything. I confess to being curious. Since animal behaviors are apparently uniformly consistent and easy to predict, what would those behaviors be? How, for instance, would a bear react to being threatened by a creature much smaller than the bear? And one of those factors in behaviour is intelligence. An animal is no more capable of the kind of abstract conceptualization required to connect caster and spell-effect with no visible causal link than it is of doing the New York Times crossword. One could say that predicting the weather requires the same kind of abstract conceptualization...and yet animals frequently connect a drop in air pressure with oncoming dangerous weather and seek shelter. One could say that flying in a tight formation requires sophisticated spatial awareness skills and knowledge, but birds do it all the time. Building a structurally-sound honeycomb dwelling requires engineering skills and knowledge of stresses that I don't have...but the bees in my backyard apparently do. Assuming that because we perform a certain task by drawing on certain skills, an animal will need those same skills to perform the task is anthropomorphizing the animal. Clearly, animals can perform tasks that would take sophisticated cognitive skills in a human; if they lack those cognitive skills, then equally clearly they are capable of performing the task in another fashion.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 08-14-07, 03:37 PM	Interesting. I didn't know animals typically had one universal reaction to everything. They don't. To think otherwise would be folly. Magic is just another stimulus and their response will be appropriate to the situation and specific magical effect being used. I confess to being curious. Since animal behaviors are apparently uniformly consistent and easy to predict, what would those behaviors be? How, for instance, would a bear react to being threatened by a creature much smaller than the bear? No idea. Luckily, I said nothing of the sort. You, however, did when you suggested that magic is a single stimulus when you asked "how precisely would a real-world animal react to magic," a question as broadly nonsensical and hyperbolic as "how precisely would a real-world animal react to water?"
Caelic 08-14-07, 04:10 PM	They don't. To think otherwise would be folly. Magic is just another stimulus and their response will be appropriate to the situation and specific magical effect being used. In your opinion. And yet, animals react differently to different sources of bright light, to different sources of temperature change...the list goes on and on. You presume that in a universe where magic exists, the presence of magic would have no effect on the behavior of animals; that is an unsupported and unsupportable supposition. No idea. Luckily, I said nothing of the sort. You, however, did when you suggested that magic is a single stimulus when you asked "how precisely would a real-world animal react to magic," a question as broadly nonsensical and hyperbolic as "how precisely would a real-world animal react to water?" I cry shenanigans. I didn't say that animals would react to all things magical in the same fashion; I asked you to clarify how they would react to all things magical, since you had pretty strongly implied uniformity of reaction. (It's hard to read "the same" as anything other than an assertion of uniformity.)
Puggins 08-15-07, 12:07 AM	It may not be in the SRD but it is in the core rules. Remember, the SRD does not cover everything. Reference, please? I don't see it. I waited to reply to this until I could actually look at my monster manual. See, this is the part that doesn't work. There is no causal link between someone jumping around and waving their arms and fire coming from the sky, particularly in a combat situation where everyone is moving about and shouting. Without a high intelligence one simply cannot construct abstract links between cause and effect when there is no obvious visible connection between. Come on, just admit that this is your interpretation. Nothing in the rules says that anyone would not be able to recognize that a spell is being cast if they can sense the caster going through his motions. Even if there is such a reference, it would have to reference some reliance on intelligence, and there's no link in the discussion of intelligence to any such recognition. Your dichotomy between an animal and a magical beast is perfectly valid and completely your opinion in terms of what each can recognize. Frankly, even if I agreed with your opinion (and I don't), I'd probably ignore it anyway- casters simply don't need any more advantages than they already have. That flame striking cleric is already enough of a b$%a** that a few animals coming to nip at her heels isn't going to keep me up at night.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 08-15-07, 11:35 AM	You presume that in a universe where magic exists, the presence of magic would have no effect on the behavior of animals; that is an unsupported and unsupportable supposition. No, you just assume I do. I cry shenanigans. I didn't say that animals would react to all things magical in the same fashion; I asked you to clarify how they would react to all things magical, since you had pretty strongly implied uniformity of reaction. (It's hard to read "the same" as anything other than an assertion of uniformity.) I implied nothing of the sort.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 08-15-07, 11:38 AM	Your dichotomy between an animal and a magical beast is perfectly valid and completely your opinion in terms of what each can recognize. I know it is. Everything I post here is my opinion. That is why I have "that's just my opinion, I could be wrong" as the first line of my sig. In your opinion. Seriously, people, it's right there. It's the first damned line. Everything I post is my opinion, just as I take everything you (the general "you," not any specific one person) as your opinion. You're not catching me out or mitigating my contribution by saying "that's just your opinion," your just being as pedantically redundant as telling a swimmer "you're wet."
Darkmatter20 08-16-07, 08:58 AM	Here's what you should do . . . (and I'm being serious). The next time an unintelligent monster shows some uncanny tactical ability, roleplay your amazement WITHOUT complaint or sarcasm. Your character simply starts trying to puzzle out how these creatures got so smart. The ranger starts looking for the tracks of whoever must have been controlling the creature. The wizard casts Detect Magic trying to discover the spell that was used to communicate with it. The cleric mutters that tomorrow he'll prepare some divination spells so he'll be ready next time. But play it perfectly straight. Don't say, "Oh come on - how did the Dire Rat know to do that?", but instead say, "This is one dangerous opponent we're facing. That's the second time he's been able to use ordinary animals to bypass our best defenses. We've got to figure out how he's doing it . . . and why!" Now, if it is just a DM oversight or he's picking on your party unfairly, he'll probably respond with, "The animal wasn't all that smart. He was just . . . lucky. That's it. He just sort of lucked into making that attack - it really didn't seem like he planned it. Really." And he'll probably stop doing it. If he really is a clever and subtle DM, he'll appreciate that you are on to his plot. Bonus XPs for everyone! And it may be that he says to himself, "That's not a bad idea. I'll just change my BBEG into a druid and pretend that I meant to do this all along." He probably won't give you bonus XP, but that's OK. (More than once I got an idea from one of my players misinterpreting a clue, and I've changed my plotline. Sometimes the mystery the players are solving is more interesting than the one I devised!) Regardless, it beats starting an argument. Seconded do this
Puggins 08-16-07, 10:23 AM	I know it is. Everything I post here is my opinion. That is why I have "that's just my opinion, I could be wrong" as the first line of my sig. No, everything you post is not "your opinion". When you write "Animals should be behave as their real world counterparts," then that's an opinion. But when you write "the Monster Manual states that animals should behave as their real world counterparts," then that's not opinion- it's either fact or a mistaken statement. I have no problem at all with your opinion- I think it's perfectly informed and reasonable. But when you mix that opinion with the assertion that the rules support them, then cite the rules (you haven't) or stop doing it. Don't fall back on "of COURSE it's only my opinion" after telling us that it's a rule and not an opinion. You're not catching me out or mitigating my contribution by saying "that's just your opinion," your just being as pedantically redundant as telling a swimmer "you're wet." I started posting because I disagreed with your assertions about rules content, not because of your opinion.