There is this Dragon that is attacking nearby settlements and we have to find out why. We think it is ticked that its egg has been stolen. Long story short, we find what we think is the Dragon's egg- the egg hatches. Inside is a blue hatchling. Various party members immediately think it is cute and start feeding it ect-it is still hungry even as they empty their rations in its mouth. The big, bad minotaur warden in the group decides its time to tie the hatchling up before its hunger turns into aggression, but the hatchling bolts, making a run for it! Quick thinking, I attempt to knock the dragon out using subduel damage. I explain this to the DM and he says thats fine. I deal some damage, but the little bugger is still up. Now he is ticked. He hits the party with his breath attack and bloodies several of us instantly! On my next turn I explain that I am using subduel again, using the flat of my ax if you will, to knock the little guy out. After all, he's going to drop people next turn if he gets a chance to do that again. And if we can knock him out maybe he'll be safe to travel with. I hit, I deal damage- the DM says that I kill the dragon.
I am really upset and so is my character. This man who does not wish to kill unless he must has just beaten a baby animal to death. Other party members are disgusted with his cruelty. The Cleric of Bahamut is outright furious. And the quest may be ruined now that we've killed the attacking Dragons offspring. The DM explains that it is unrealistic to hit a baby and not expect to kill it and that for the sake of RPing I should accept it. I do accept the decision, and I love RPing and the plot hooks that come with it, but isn't completely altering a rule wrong without some kind of notice? Isn't punishing a player by sullying his character's alignment, background and personality kind of messed up when that player was using a defined and simple rule and was given the consequences of that rules exact opposite results? Honestly, I'm still pondering this and wondering what the rest of the game has in store. Needless to say, my character is afraid to ever attempt to knock someone out now because he may splatter their brains out instead.
I'm curious as to what you guys think. As a DM or a PC, how would you react to this and what are your opinions on a situation like this or similar to this?
If I'm right, your DM is wrong here on a straight yes/no basis though he could have tried to get the dragon to fail a death save first or something if he wanted an RP reason for you to kill him.
EDIT:
Neldar is correct. That rule does exist. Check "Death and Dying" in the PHB, as well as "Knocking Creatures Unconscious"
Your DM altered the mechanics of what you were trying to without telling you and for no good reason.
From a player perspective, I'd be annoyed that the DM is rewriting the rules just to stop the players from having something they want.
From a DM perspective, if my PCs tried to knock something out, I'd let them. Unless it was something that wouldn't get knocked out (golems, etc).
From a consistency perspective, he can't pull the "it's just a baby" argument if it's powerful enough to bloody half the group and take more than one hit to take down. If it's weak enough to get killed instead of knocked out, it's too weak to pose the challenge it did.
From a narrative perspective, there are so many more possibilities for having a live baby dragon than a dead baby dragon. Care and feeding, training, and taming are all interesting rp opportunities. With a dead dragon, you just get an "aw shucks" moment, or a Big Dumb Brute characterization you might not have wanted.
See, if he was a good DM this is what he'd say, "You're worried that the thing look frail, and even trying to do subdual damage you might end up killing it"
Your DM altered the mechanics of what you were trying to without telling you and for no good reason.
this
See, if he was a good DM this is what he'd say, "You're worried that the thing look frail, and even trying to do subdual damage you might end up killing it"
Your DM altered the mechanics of what you were trying to without telling you and for no good reason.
Double this. Changing the rules in the middle of the game without prior warning is poor, poor DM'ing indeed.
But honestly, I'm not even sure how to play my character anymore or what actions to take- what if I miss with an attack while raging and the DM thinks that due to my anger I hit a party member in the face and kill them too? What if I reach out to save someone from falling and end up breaking their neck from the sudden lack of momentum? At what point does D&D hold true to its mechanics or does it move about to allow RPing, realism and improvisation to set in? Is 4E just a giant game of D&D minis or is it a true addition to the role playing genre?
See, around here we mechanical changes like those houserules. Goods DM will present their houserules to his players prior the game, or in the case of mid-game ruling, before the character takes series actions that the new rule affects. Exceptions exist, but in any case a DM should, whenever possible, avoid arbitrarily screwing his players over.
From a consistency perspective, he can't pull the "it's just a baby" argument if it's powerful enough to bloody half the group and take more than one hit to take down. If it's weak enough to get killed instead of knocked out, it's too weak to pose the challenge it did.
Even more than what other people are saying, I say this. The thing bloodied everyone in the party with one attack? And already took a hit? That is one tough bugger.
That is not frail.
Now we don't have all the facts, but I'm guessing it is low level party, if not level 1 at this point. I don't know if your group has the Draconomicon: Chromatic Dragons. If they do, and the DM didn't just decide to house rule what was happening (which I agree with others, without warning the way he did it was wrong), the weakest dragons (white), the wyrmling has 76 hit points! This is within a day of hatching.
The DM seems to have set this up for total fail (he wanted the hatchling to escape?), or for very specific actions for success.
Talk to your DM, tell him how insanely unfair this is, that it completely is out of character for the personality you were trying to establish. He should work with his players, not actively against them!
Failing that... I don't know, honestly. I'd say find a new group but that's a bit too harsh. Still... if you can't roleplay properly in a roleplaying game...
Double this. Changing the rules in the middle of the game without prior warning is poor, poor DM'ing indeed.
See, around here we mechanical changes like those houserules. Goods DM will present their houserules to his players prior the game, or in the case of mid-game ruling, before the character takes series actions that the new rule affects. Exceptions exist, but in any case a DM should, whenever possible, avoid arbitrarily screwing his players over.
The most civil exception to mid combat houseruling is: "I let it slide this time but from now on it works like this".
The knockdown rules in 4e are one of my favored things. You are no longer penalized for not bieng murderous. And that gives huge space of RP for PC's AND Huge amount of freedon to DM. What i have yet to decide is should one mask the knock out fackt with death saving rolls (result is cheesy) or one can go about open and hope PC will roleplay properly.
From another perspective, perhaps this is the story he wants to tell and you'll just have to play along to see where it goes. Its a little ham-fisted, but I wouldn't flip out yet.
Going off this, you might want to try to talk with him before the next session, to discuss your character concept, and ask if that's how he wants the story to develop, or if he just felt you handled it wrong. There is obviously something wrong, whether it is you not having enough information (where the DM is taking the story), the DM not having enough information (your non-killing PC concept), or the DM just making arbitrary rulings that screw you over, you and the DM need to discuss these differences between character concept and story, I think.
Yeah, it's a baby, but it's a baby DRAGON.
Your character is a professional adventurer. He knows his stuff, he knows how to bring someone down without killing them.
And it sounds like you were screwed to screw with you, not the character, which I think is even worse. I applaud a little messing with the heads/plans of characters but not to the point of punishment to the player's original vision of their character. That's just messed up.
The most civil exception to mid combat houseruling is: "I let it slide this time but from now on it works like this".
Agreed.
GM can simply give a creature a feature:
Newborn fragility:
If baby dragon goes to negative hp, it is instantly killed even if tried to be subdued.
Did you try a lore check on it?
On a metagame perspective; maybe your GM needed the baby to die for campaign reasons. Unfortunate the killing blow was your character's. It is clear however that your character did not intend to kill it. Maybe he shoud try to convince the rest of the party of that.
So, you have a railroading DM who wants to tell his story the way he wants, with no concern for what you and the other players want to do. Now, I don't hold with the view that a good DM never railroads. Sometimes it's necessary in order to have any sort of story at all. But changing the rules without warning in order to deny the players a very obvious alternative resolution is truly awful DMing. In the worst case, it means he never even imagined you might try to resolve the situation without killing.
If I were you, I'd have a word with the DM and ask him straight if my suspicions were correct. If he's committed to having the storyline play out in one specific way regardless of what the players (try to) do, then I would not continue playing in his campaign.
What happened here is pretty obvious, IMO. The DM had already decided ahead of time that you (as in the party, not necessarily your character) were going to end up killing the baby dragon. Which probably means he's also decided the only way to resolve the issue with its mother is going to be to kill her too.
So, you have a railroading DM who wants to tell his story the way he wants, with no concern for what you and the other players want to do. Now, I don't hold with the view that a good DM never railroads. Sometimes it's necessary in order to have any sort of story at all. But changing the rules without warning in order to deny the players a very obvious alternative resolution is truly awful DMing. In the worst case, it means he never even imagined you might try to resolve the situation without killing.
It's not like limited amount of railroad is bad thing. Its only bad thing if its too much of railroad.
It would lead to same situation if the baby would be sucessfuly subdued and died due to hunger within hour. The difference is in this case you don't spoil fun of your PC.
But then again sayngs like "bad/evil DM did it again" arent realy helping. I had quite a few situations where cought in situation made dubiuos choises at best (and downright bad at worst), speack to your DM about this. The situation can be salvaged by little rollback (if you havent adwanced too far storywise from that point) or at the very least prevent from such nasty surprises in the future.
Still your char is not worse because of the incident. Sieze the chance to gain personality quirk of emotionaly wounded nature loving barbarian who will become doubly consciuos about value and fragility of life. Even of such might biengs as dragons. There you got personal adventure hook: "redemption" (or disiliusonment if you will
)As many others have said so, your DM has changed a game mechanic midsession to get his desired result. The worst part: He has done so after you have taken a action that wouls use that rule and has neither informed you nor given you the chance to change your action.
That is really bad DMing right there.
Oh, and if a baby dragon can bloody the group with one breath you better not be thinking about fighting the adult... I would just run away from the town and leave them with their own problems...
The most civil exception to mid combat houseruling is: "I let it slide this time but from now on it works like this".
On my group we do it either this way or "It works like this: ... Do you want to change your action?"
The second one is being used quite a bit as we have a new player
for simplicity's sake i followed along but it also happened when we ran into a wyrmling, i wanted to subdue it and i did get the last hit on it, but yet again the DM (different DM this time) also said it just died.
Its a common thing i believe. Even when i DM i kind of dread having to make up new material on the fly for prisoners, but it still take it in stride. I think that since subdual is clearly spelled out in the PHB it should be as good of rule as any.
Do you remember your first time DM'ing and the aspirations you had about the game.
Give him some time and he should flow into a DM, but yes he did read the rules wrong, you deal subdue damage "IF" the damage would reduce it to 0.
You did get railroaded but that sounds like what he is doing, he is drawing the story how he wants, he probably wants the dragon hunting for you guys because it knows you killed its baby.
Just by saying you're doing subdual damage instead of "regular" damage should have been good enough (and would have been at my table).
Even though the dragon was a "baby", by you saying you were hitting to subdue rather than kill, automatically means (to me) that you will not hit it with the same force you would to, say, subdue a man. Also, I might have even allowed some kind of auto-KO chance...(you know, since you spent some thought and effort in a background you are trying to roleplay)
Irregardless, my opinion is your DM is being ****. There are better games that simulate and model "realistic" role play better, some of which I play because that's what I prefer. But D&D isn't really made to work that way, it's more "heroic". Seems your DM totally ignored you and did what he wanted done, probably to keep your party from having a dragon. But you are correct to be angry with the DM and I definitely would talk to him, and maybe even the group, about it.
Fixed that for you.
Would have really sucked if I was a Paladin of Good trying to rescue a possessed princess or something and was forced to knock her out so that I could bring her to the temple to be cleansed.
"My Lady, I am here to help!"
"Your Princess is inside yes, but I control her now!"
"Then I will subdue the flesh so that my God can cleanse her spirit!"
Paladin attempts to use the butt of his sword to knock the princess out. He instead splatters her brains out along the stone walkway.
"Oh...man...I uhm...hrm...wow...really?..ahem.."
The Paladin walks away and speaks nothing of the Princess in the tower. Ever.
I vicariously share your displeasure. I've had DMs pull this kind of nonsense on me beforeā¦*just that they usually give you at least a little warning first. The best-case possibility is that he/she has a realllllllly good story reason for not allowing the knockout. It just sucks that A) it was one of the first encounters he/she ran (not a good precedent) and B) your character was morally opposed to the action he was forced to take.
The DM's chair does not carry with it a license to ignore game rules. The collaborative storytelling engendered by D&D requires trust between the DM and his/her players, and the rules of the game are the fundamental basis of that trust. Violating them jeopardizes the story's integrity, and makes for a less enjoyable and satisfying experience.
Maybe the DM was unaware of the knockout rule and thought he had to make one up. If this is the case then talk to the DM after the session to point the rule out would be a constructive way to handle this.
Maybe the DM intentionally changed the rule because he didn't like the official one. If this is the case I would again talk to him after the session and let him know how you feel about having a rule changed without warning and ask that he inform the group when he is changing something.
Maybe is was a situational ruling for story reasons. If that is the case he should have given you some warning that subduing the dragon could kill it. Again talking to him about this could help future misunderstandings/mistakes.
On the bright side this situation has given you and the party a great RP moment. Your character has to explain to the others that the death us unintentional and depending Conn's relationship with the other characters they may or may not believe him. maybe your character can ask the cleric to give you a task to attone for your action (eventhough it was not done on purpose).
So my advice is talk to the DM and make the best of the situation RP-wise.
So tonight we are playing, my regular gaming group and I, and we've just started a fresh campaign. One of the players who normally PCs has decided to try his hand at DMing some 4E. We've all made our characters- I am Conn, an easy going but proud Barbarian that respects life and only takes it when he must. In fact, it is the bulk of his character build that taking life is a last resort. It was my intention to simply state that my damage on certain creatures/people would be subduel. Some of the DMs in our circle think this rule is cheesy and unrealistic so they have made house rules to make it harder to hit ect. (Tonights DM did not specify a house rule on this) Personally, I think punishing the players for not just hack n' slashing their way through enemies is wrong- but thats not exactly what this is about.
There is this Dragon that is attacking nearby settlements and we have to find out why. We think it is ticked that its egg has been stolen. Long story short, we find what we think is the Dragon's egg- the egg hatches. Inside is a blue hatchling. Various party members immediately think it is cute and start feeding it ect-it is still hungry even as they empty their rations in its mouth. The big, bad minotaur warden in the group decides its time to tie the hatchling up before its hunger turns into aggression, but the hatchling bolts, making a run for it! Quick thinking, I attempt to knock the dragon out using subduel damage. I explain this to the DM and he says thats fine. I deal some damage, but the little bugger is still up. Now he is ticked. He hits the party with his breath attack and bloodies several of us instantly! On my next turn I explain that I am using subduel again, using the flat of my ax if you will, to knock the little guy out. After all, he's going to drop people next turn if he gets a chance to do that again. And if we can knock him out maybe he'll be safe to travel with. I hit, I deal damage- the DM says that I kill the dragon.
I am really upset and so is my character. This man who does not wish to kill unless he must has just beaten a baby animal to death. Other party members are disgusted with his cruelty. The Cleric of Bahamut is outright furious. And the quest may be ruined now that we've killed the attacking Dragons offspring. The DM explains that it is unrealistic to hit a baby and not expect to kill it and that for the sake of RPing I should accept it. I do accept the decision, and I love RPing and the plot hooks that come with it, but isn't completely altering a rule wrong without some kind of notice? Isn't punishing a player by sullying his character's alignment, background and personality kind of messed up when that player was using a defined and simple rule and was given the consequences of that rules exact opposite results? Honestly, I'm still pondering this and wondering what the rest of the game has in store. Needless to say, my character is afraid to ever attempt to knock someone out now because he may splatter their brains out instead.
I'm curious as to what you guys think. As a DM or a PC, how would you react to this and what are your opinions on a situation like this or similar to this?
By the rules whenever you would deal a killing blow you can instead state it is only knocking the enemy out.
That said, you insist on adding a non lethal story element to your character and by extension your game. If you wish to use a role playing trope which effects game mechanics (possible to the detriment of the groups fun, though this will vary from group to group), you can hardly be irritated with the DM doing the same.
At its core D&D is about action and usually the role playing of non violence gets in the way of that, but if you want more role playing depth (ie non violence or non lethal) you must be prepared for more unexpected role playing based consequences to your actions.
A. We are a lvl 1 party so it wouldn't take TOO much to bloody us. Took 17 dmg to bloody my Barbarian and he has the most out of the group. The Dragons breath hit us for 18 dmg.
B. The DM isn't new to DMing, he has run various games in the past including quite a bit of 3E and Star Wars 3E and Saga. He is an experienced PC as well and is very in tune to the 4E rules, spirit and the group he was Dming for.
C. He made no hint at a house rule, in fact, we were discussing another DMs house rule on subduel dmg (he gives a -2 to hit) while dealing with the egg/hatchling encounter, before I crushed its head in that is. So, he was certainly given the opportunity to say SOMETHING on the matter. It just truly felt like he was waiting for one of us to drop the thing so he could tell us we killed it outright, despite our intentions. I understand curve balls make for interesting hooks in an RPG, but I was stunned.
It seems unlikely to me that the DM was trying to railroad the OP. I think it's more likely that the DM made the mental decision that whacking a newly hatched reptile with an axe (even the flat side) is likely to kill it, and applied that decision to the game. Being a new DM, he forgot to make Delrevan aware of that decision. I would remind the DM that he is the primary source of sensory interpretation for the game world and that if he leaves out important information it's difficult to make reasonable decisions. Explain your character's motives and outlook and ask him to make you aware of any situational difficulties for non-lethal combat.
Beyond that, I think you can safely move on. I wouldn't expect the DM to 'take it back', it ruins the progression of the game and it might be embarrassing enough to make him resent it. Using the situation as an RP opportunity is probably the best lemonade you can make, and I'd make a request that the DM include opportunity(s) in the plot for your character to redeem himself since he's obviously remorseful about the hatchling. Perhaps you could even provide some suggestions on ways to do so. A couple ideas off the top of my head; you could help the adult dragon attract a mate, agree to indenture a length of time to guard future offspring when the dragon lays again, or even *gulp* present the dragon with your own first-born to raise as it's own.
I attempt to knock the dragon out using subduel damage. I explain this to the DM and he says thats fine.
You ASKED THE DM IF THIS WAS REASONABLE, and he said YES.
So: The book says, explicitly, that you can do this any time you want. It's right in the PHB, in black and white, absolutely no ambiguity, that the person who drops an enemy to 0 decides if it's dead or just out cold.
You asked your DM if he was going to change that rule for this special circumstance, and he said no.
He then changed the rule on you, after the fact, for no apparent reason other than shafting you for *believing him when he tells you something*.
The part that really bugs me is this:
You ASKED THE DM IF THIS WAS REASONABLE, and he said YES.
So: The book says, explicitly, that you can do this any time you want. It's right in the PHB, in black and white, absolutely no ambiguity, that the person who drops an enemy to 0 decides if it's dead or just out cold.
You asked your DM if he was going to change that rule for this special circumstance, and he said no.
He then changed the rule on you, after the fact, for no apparent reason other than shafting you for *believing him when he tells you something*.
The DM is Loki, the god of lies. Haven't you listened to the PA D&D podcasts? ;)
Seriously though, he really was shafted. But I think what happened here was a communication breakdown.
I also have to wonder, by the way, how a dragon baby fresh out of it's eggshell can immediately bloody half the party with a single breath weapon... seems a bit... well, odd. Especially that - after getting outta its shell - it can immediately blast a powerful breathweapon but can't handle a blunt side of a axe bumped to the head.
This is... weird.
"By the book", hatchling dragons are born as Elites with their full powers, knowing how to speak, and with a detailed understanding of the world and their place in it. Within a *very* short time of leaving the egg.
(This case might actually be shorter than the listed book time. But, y'know, I don't recall, beyond that it's EXTREMELY short.)
I also think this is silly. So I don't do that.
About walking out or quitting: No, I don't think that's a good solution. But talking to the DM, pointin out that this was a dick move where he *told* you he wasn't using a house rule to change what the book says (and the book says what you're doing is totally legal), he *told* you that your plan was a workable one, and then, after that, he plays the "Whoops, I lied, I AM changing the rules after you use them!" card?
Dick move. Not cool. Not worth quitting over, maybe, but absolutely worth pointing out so he understands why you think that wasn't fun or cool.
Regarding the possiblity of an inexperienced DM, I think that it's safe to say the DM knew what he was doing in terms of the rules. The description of the DM details very clearly that he is an experienced 4.0 player who is just taking his first crack at DMing. Now, he wants to make this campain worthwhile, but given that it's his first campain, he probably doesn't think things through too well.
For example, the reason the dragon is rampaging is because it's egg has been stolen. There are a number of other perfectly good reasons the dragon could have been upset, and plenty that would label it as a pure evil, "smite me, oh mighty PCs!" villan. Instead, he justifies the dragon's actions. This is good. He allows you to track down the egg. This also is good. Then when you have the egg, the DM starts to realize that things are getting a little out of hand.
It seems obvious to me that the DM would have known that allowing the PCs to befriend a dragon as an ally would drastically overbalance the game, but he doesn't quite know how to deal with it. Perhaps a better way would have been to allow you to befriend the dragon and lead it back to its parent, but along the way you must protect the dragon from those who would wish to harm it (it's a newly-hatched blue dragon, people who want to capture/kill it ought to be pretty easy to find). In this way, the DM can make the solution just as difficult for the PCs as it would be by killing the dragon itself. To boot, the PCs now have a little friend that, in a few years, might come back to play a part as an important NPC.
I understand where your DM was coming from when he made the change he did, and given the circumstances, he may or may not have known better. But I think the conclusion that this thread has come is that, whether or not the DM was justified in "railroading" you, you do have the right to be upset about it. As others have suggested, I would not take drastic action, but I would make it clear, as you have, that you did not appreciate the ruling. If asked why, you can lay out your reasoning from these forums; your case is solid. Otherwise, go on with the game as though nothing had happened. Hopefully, your DM will realize his mistake, or at least he will conceed not to do likewise again, and there won't be obvious tention at the gaming table. If the pattern repeats itself, though, well, you can either decide to live with it, or find a new DM.
So tonight we are playing, my regular gaming group and I, and we've just started a fresh campaign. One of the players who normally PCs has decided to try his hand at DMing some 4E. We've all made our characters- I am Conn, an easy going but proud Barbarian that respects life and only takes it when he must. In fact, it is the bulk of his character build that taking life is a last resort. It was my intention to simply state that my damage on certain creatures/people would be subduel. Some of the DMs in our circle think this rule is cheesy and unrealistic so they have made house rules to make it harder to hit ect. (Tonights DM did not specify a house rule on this) Personally, I think punishing the players for not just hack n' slashing their way through enemies is wrong- but thats not exactly what this is about.
There is this Dragon that is attacking nearby settlements and we have to find out why. We think it is ticked that its egg has been stolen. Long story short, we find what we think is the Dragon's egg- the egg hatches. Inside is a blue hatchling. Various party members immediately think it is cute and start feeding it ect-it is still hungry even as they empty their rations in its mouth. The big, bad minotaur warden in the group decides its time to tie the hatchling up before its hunger turns into aggression, but the hatchling bolts, making a run for it! Quick thinking, I attempt to knock the dragon out using subduel damage. I explain this to the DM and he says thats fine. I deal some damage, but the little bugger is still up. Now he is ticked. He hits the party with his breath attack and bloodies several of us instantly! On my next turn I explain that I am using subduel again, using the flat of my ax if you will, to knock the little guy out. After all, he's going to drop people next turn if he gets a chance to do that again. And if we can knock him out maybe he'll be safe to travel with. I hit, I deal damage- the DM says that I kill the dragon.
I am really upset and so is my character. This man who does not wish to kill unless he must has just beaten a baby animal to death. Other party members are disgusted with his cruelty. The Cleric of Bahamut is outright furious. And the quest may be ruined now that we've killed the attacking Dragons offspring. The DM explains that it is unrealistic to hit a baby and not expect to kill it and that for the sake of RPing I should accept it. I do accept the decision, and I love RPing and the plot hooks that come with it, but isn't completely altering a rule wrong without some kind of notice? Isn't punishing a player by sullying his character's alignment, background and personality kind of messed up when that player was using a defined and simple rule and was given the consequences of that rules exact opposite results? Honestly, I'm still pondering this and wondering what the rest of the game has in store. Needless to say, my character is afraid to ever attempt to knock someone out now because he may splatter their brains out instead.
I'm curious as to what you guys think. As a DM or a PC, how would you react to this and what are your opinions on a situation like this or similar to this?
In our 3ed game, we had a rogue break into a house to rob it. He came across a 80+ year old servant and used a sap on the back of her head. He rolled a natural 20, which in our game is a critical hit, but didn't bother to try and tell the DM he wasn't trying to hit her that hard. In fact, not only was he eager to roll the critical damage, but he asked if he could add in his sneak attack since she was flat footed. Despite the sap being a subdual weapon, the DM ruled that the back of her skull was broken by the strike.
No one complained about it. In fact, we all had a great laugh and ribbed the player of the rogue for hitting her so hard. The death added in troubles later in the campaign, but that's part of the game.
In your case, what he did was reasonable. A newly hatched dragon would very likely be weak enough to be killed by a subdual strike by a steel weapon. Things like this happen all the time in RL. Boxers die to gloved hits. People end up in prison for manslaughter for punches that shouldn't have killed the person.
The DM has total control of the game, and as players, you need to trust his judgment. You say that this might ruin the campaign, but then again, it might not. For now, go with it and see how it plays out. If it turns out that he's just a horrible DM, switch, but do it nicely. There's no reason to hurt feelings over a game.
Since when did people care about realism? This is D&D. Realism takes a back seat here.
It actually doesn't. Realism =/= realistic to the point that people seem to want to take it. Realism = sensible. If it makes sense, then go with it, and it does make sense that a newly hatched dragon could die from being beaten by a metal object.
Even more than what other people are saying, I say this. The thing bloodied everyone in the party with one attack? And already took a hit? That is one tough bugger.
That is not frail.
It could be frail, actually. Breath weapons don't have any meaning when it comes to frail or not, and neither do hit points. Hit points are not totally physical. The first hit may or may not have even contacted the thing physically, or might have been a glancing blow.
The DM seems to have set this up for total fail (he wanted the hatchling to escape?), or for very specific actions for success.
Or maybe the story was based on it dying. We don't know.
Or maybe the story was based on it dying. We don't know.
Which would mean you have a major railroad incoming. Better forget any plans you had for your character. Your DM knows better what he would do than you anyway.
Which would mean you have a major railroad incoming. Better forget any plans you had for your character. Your DM knows better what he would do than you anyway.
What are you talking about? It's perfectly reasonable for beating a hatchling dragon with a metal weapon to kill it, even if that wasn't the intent. That's not at all railroading OR knowing the OP's character better than the OP.
What are you talking about? It's perfectly reasonable for beating a hatchling dragon with a metal weapon to kill it, even if that wasn't the intent. That's not at all railroading OR knowing the OP's character better than the OP.
Or it could have suffered a heart attack.
Or it could have had a brain aneuyrysm from blunt force trauma.
Or it could have died from a bloody allergic reaction to steel for all we know.
I really don't get why GM can't decide that an npc dies.
I'd get, if someone was ticked off if his filantropist character tries to carefully subdue a cute critter and the GM says 'Yeah, you sever it's head with a murderous glee and drink it's blood and eat it's liver with a side dish of mushrooms'.
But if a GM tells that a creature mysteriously drops dead for some reason when you try to whack it unconscious with heavy metallic objects and you try to throw the rulebook at the GM? *shock* *horror* Fire the GM! He can't circumvent the rules! Nothing outside the rules can hapen, unless the GM specifically makes an application to the players in three copies each a week beforehand! Now we must all sit down, hold hands and have a serious discussion about GM authority on what hapens in his campaign.
Well I guess it's just the difference between the 4e crowd and me...
What are you talking about? It's perfectly reasonable for beating a hatchling dragon with a metal weapon to kill it.
Although others may argue the case, I'm going to agree with you on this point. However, the problem that I, and many people, have with this is that, in real life, you know that such a thing is always a risk. Boxers who get in the ring know that they could die; it happens. Realistically speaking, if dragons really existed, and if they really matched the biological ideal that we place on them in this fictional world, then yes, whacking it with an axe might just kill it.
However, Dungeons and Dragons is not reality. The rules are meant to mimic reality; the rules outline the situations in which players can affect the game, and they try to keep these as close to actual reality as possible. There is no rule for accidentally killing someone. It's flat. You can choose. This is something the rules are very clear about. If the DM thinks otherwise, then that's fine. My DM had roughly half of all elder ladies/gentlemen packing heat, but we knew that was coming ahead of time, because it's a wacky "house rule" of his. This came out of the blue (no pun intended) with no prior explanation. Furthermore, even assuming such a house rule, you ought to base it on chance. This blue dragon hatchling died because the DM said it did, not because the DM rolled a 95 on his percentile dice; if this logic were extended to all young children in a DnD setting, there'd be a lot more dead children who fell on their heads when they were young. :P
Or it could have suffered a heart attack.
Or it could have had a brain aneuyrysm from blunt force trauma.
Or it could have died from a bloody allergic reaction to steel for all we know.
I really don't get why GM can't decide that an npc dies.
Yep. Or choked to death on the food they were feeding it for that matter.
I'd get, if someone was ticked off if his filantropist character tries to carefully subdue a cute critter and the GM says 'Yeah, you sever it's head with a murderous glee and drink it's blood and eat it's liver with a side dish of mushrooms'.
But if a GM tells that a creature mysteriously drops dead for some reason when you try to whack it unconscious with heavy metallic objects and you try to throw the rulebook at the GM? *shock* *horror* Fire the GM! He can't circumvent the rules! Nothing outside the rules can hapen, unless the GM specifically makes an application to the players in three copies each a week beforehand! Now we must all sit down, hold hands and have a serious discussion about GM authority on what hapens in his campaign.
Bingo!
Well I guess it's just the difference between the 4e crowd and me...
I honestly don't think this is an edition problem. It's more of an authority problem. People are brainwashed from birth to follow the rules and when someone steps outside the "rules" in D&D, it causes all kinds of angst.
EDIT: I understand that what the DM says, goes, but if I didn't want to play a rules-based game, why would I buy DnD? Would I not be better just roleplaying freely with a group of friends?
If my barbarian should randomly choke on his breakfast and die for plot purposes, I'd imagine I would put the ol' D&D books up for awhile and go play outside or something. :D
:D
I would probably put the books up, take a quick walk, and then come back to the rulebooks and see if I can't get my charecter immune to suffocation :P
I insist on dying by spontaneous combusion, if anything! :D
And, after further thought, if the DM did indeed need for the dragon to die, there are many other ways to do it instead of completely disregarding a player specifically stating his PC's intent, which seems a major part of the PC's background.
Pretty much. My objection isn't to the dragon dying. It's to the DM telling the player that the rules in the book were in force, that no house rule was being used, and that his plan was a workable one - and then having the plan fail, outright, with a sudden houseruled rule change that the player had no warning about.
It's like if you have an effect that causes Immobilised (but no damage), and the DM says "Okay, you hit the guy you were trying to capture with that. He's dead now. Why? Well, you Immobilised him! He couldn't move his chest so he couldn't breathe! And his heart couldn't move to blood couldn't pump through his body! That kind of thing is *fatal*, man!"
And, after further thought, if the DM did indeed need for the dragon to die, there are many other ways to do it instead of completely disregarding a player specifically stating his PC's intent, which seems a major part of the PC's background.
The DM shouldn't "need" something to happen. If he does he is railroading.
This, this is not a good example of the species.
With respect to you both, a PC could just as likely choke on his own breakfast as the dragon. Likewise with a heart attack, stroke, etc., but I'm willing to bet that if the DM turned to either of you one day and said "your charecter suffers a heart attack, you are dead" you'd likely be upset. The only difference between such a case and this one is that it happened to an NPC instead of a PC.
And what's your point? It WAS an NPC, which means the DM has full control over them and uses them to further the story.
EDIT: I understand that what the DM says, goes, but if I didn't want to play a rules-based game, why would I buy DnD? Would I not be better just roleplaying freely with a group of friends?
This is worthless argument. The DM altering a rule when it makes sense to do so does not invalidate the other rules, or change the game from being a rules based game into freeform.
And, after further thought, if the DM did indeed need for the dragon to die, there are many other ways to do it instead of completely disregarding a player specifically stating his PC's intent, which seems a major part of the PC's background.
It isn't even just background too. By doing this he is quite literally dictating the PCs actions. That I think is even worse, a DM can cause conflict with a background, but to do so by taking control of the PCs actions is ugh.
Well I guess it's just the difference between the 4e crowd and me...
Yeah, we generally expect to be treated fairly.
The DM said that there were no houserules, then introduced a houserule without telling the players ahead of time, when it would have an obvious and dramatic effect on their decisions and actions.
Pure unadulterated bull****.
The DM altering a rule when it makes sense to do so does not invalidate the other rules, or change the game from being a rules based game into freeform.
How do you feel about the fact that the players were making their decisions based on the DM's explicit statement that the rules *weren't* being altered, and that their plan had a chance of success?
With respect to you both, a PC could just as likely choke on his own breakfast as the dragon. Likewise with a heart attack, stroke, etc., but I'm willing to bet that if the DM turned to either of you one day and said "your charecter suffers a heart attack, you are dead" you'd likely be upset. The only difference between such a case and this one is that it happened to an NPC instead of a PC.
EDIT: I understand that what the DM says, goes, but if I didn't want to play a rules-based game, why would I buy DnD? Would I not be better just roleplaying freely with a group of friends?
Have you ever heard of the urban legend of a lightning striking a PC dead when he was trying to break the game/campaign/make GM miserable?
GM could have a PC die of a heart attack, but what purpose would that serve? You should be upset then. You shouldn't be upset however if that hapens to an NPC. NPCs are in the total control of the GM. As is the rest of the world for that matter.
You see that's the problem. 4th even has the, what's the page, that has rules for the situations that don't have rules. If you like to play D&D as an abstracted boardgame, as 4th is frankly written, where everything is clear cut abstracted and governed by rules and dice... Well... You can ofcourse.
But there is a different philosophy. The original philosophy I believe. Where the world is conducted by the GM. Where rules are there to assist the players and the GM, not bind. You can't force a living, breathing world totally in to tables and dice rolls and expect it not to suffer. There will never be a rule set able to model a world to rival that of the creation of the human imagination. The GMs.
Smooth hu? :D
The DM shouldn't "need" something to happen. If he does he is railroading.
So if the DM has a story that depends on something happening, when that thing happens he's railroading? I don't think so. He didn't force the PC into killing the dragon. He simply ruled reasonably that the dragon was killed by what happened.
Then how does the DM tell a story? If he can't make things happen to progress the story, then he is playing a "free form" game. Not everybody likes to play, or DM, those kinds of games.
I wouldn't call it "railroading"...
The DM creates a story by letting the world react to the actions of the player.
In this case the DM didn't let the world react to the actions of the PCs, he took control of them to get the action he wants. That is not creating a story, thats railroading.
So if the DM has a story that depends on something happening, when that thing happens he's railroading? I don't think so. He didn't force the PC into killing the dragon. He simply ruled reasonably that the dragon was killed by what happened.
If the DM has a story that depends on the PCs doing a certain thing then yes it is railroading, especially when he forces the PCs do what he wants them to do. And no, he didn't rule reasonably as the rules are clerly against him and he confirmed both that there are no house rules and that this action the PC was attempting was valid.
How do you feel about the fact that the players were making their decisions based on the DM's explicit statement that the rules *weren't* being altered, and that their plan had a chance of success?
Do you know that the DM didn't roll that chance for success in secret and the plan failed based on that roll? I don't, and I didn't see where OP knows either. It wasn't as if he stopped OP from doing subdual damage. The DM simply made the call that the dragon couldn't survive ANY sort of damage, and that sort of story call is up to the DM.
Do you know that the DM didn't roll that chance for success in secret and the plan failed based on that roll? I don't, and I didn't see where OP knows either. It wasn't as if he stopped OP from doing subdual damage. The DM simply made the call that the dragon couldn't survive ANY sort of damage, and that sort of story call is up to the DM.
Thats not how 4E works. When you drop a monster the PC can decide if it is killed or subdued. I don't like it but thats the rule.
How do you feel about the fact that the players were making their decisions based on the DM's explicit statement that the rules *weren't* being altered, and that their plan had a chance of success?
Did the GM state that the Baby Dragon was an exact exerpt from Monster Manual?
Can a GM, when creating a monster, set abilities for that monster?
Is GM required to reveal said abilities to players?
Could an ability be written by GM such as: If this creature falls to 0 HP it is killed despite attempted to being subdued?
Thats not how 4E works. When you drop a monster the PC can decide if it is killed or subdued. I don't like it but thats the rule.
And you too. See my post above.
The DM creates a story by letting the world react to the actions of the player.
In this case the DM didn't let the world react to the actions of the PCs, he took control of them to get the action he wants. That is not creating a story, thats railroading.
Quote me the part where the DM took control of the PCs actions. I seemed to have missed it.
If the DM has a story that depends on the PCs doing a certain thing then yes it is railroading, especially when he forces the PCs do what he wants them to do.
1) Nothing indicated that it depended on the PCs doing a certain thing. They might have killed it, and it might have died a different way.
2) He didn't force the PCs to do anything.
And no, he didn't rule reasonably as the rules are clerly against him and he confirmed both that there are no house rules and that this action the PC was attempting was valid.
1) There are rules for DMs changing the rules, so the rules weren't against him.
2) OP never said that the DM confirmed no house rules, only that the DM didn't specify if there was one or not ahead of time.
3) Valid =/= successful.
Could an ability be written by GM such as: If this creature falls to 0 HP it is killed despite ateempted to being subdued?
Which is just another way of saying that it is a house rule, which the DM specifically said would not exist.
Quote me the part where the DM took control of the PCs actions. I seemed to have missed it.
The decision of subduing or killing an enemy in 4E is in the hands of the players. By taking that decision away he took control of the PCs.
1) Nothing indicated that it depended on the PCs doing a certain thing. They might have killed it, and it might have died a different way.
2) He didn't force the PCs to do anything.
1) Do you really believe that? Yeah, I guess the baby died of old age.....
2) Oh yes, he did. He forced teh PC to kill the dragon instead of subduing it.
1) There are rules for DMs changing the rules, so the rules weren't against him.
2) OP never said that the DM confirmed no house rules, only that the DM didn't specify if there was one or not ahead of time.
3) Valid =/= successful.
1) Called House Rules
2)A houserule not announced to the players does not exist. Thats common curtsey.
3)By confirming it as valid he also confirmed that it is possible, and in 4E it would automatically succeed.
Thats not how 4E works. When you drop a monster the PC can decide if it is killed or subdued. I don't like it but thats the rule.
What do you mean that's not how 4ed works? The DM can decide that despite subdual damage, there's a 35% chance that the dragon will die anyway, and then roll that behind the screen.
Which is just another way of saying that it is a house rule, which the DM specifically said would not exist.
So every monster written by GM is a house rule?
Which is just another way of saying that it is a house rule, which the DM specifically said would not exist.
No, he didn't. This is what was said.
(Tonights DM did not specify a house rule on this)
That's very different from the DM saying no house rule exists.
It wasn't as if he stopped OP from doing subdual damage. The DM simply made the call that the dragon couldn't survive ANY sort of damage,
...which would be a HOUSE RULE, which would be a CHANGE FROM THE BOOK, which would mean that the DM was LYING when he said he WASN'T CHANGING THE BOOK.
Come on, man, this is not complicated. He told the PC he was running by the book, he told the PC that his plan would work, and then, without any warning or hint or other indication that something wasn't right, he said "okay, now that you've done that, I'm retroactively changing the rules so your character did something you explicitly weren't trying to do".
What do you mean that's not how 4ed works? The DM can decide that despite subdual damage, there's a 35% chance that the dragon will die anyway, and then roll that behind the screen.
He can do this, yes.
But that is a change from the book.
Which, when asked in advance of trying it by the player, he said he wasn't doing.
Come on, man, this is not complicated. He told the PC he was running by the book, he told the PC that his plan would work, and then, without any warning or hint or other indication that something wasn't right, he said "okay, now that you've done that, I'm retroactively changing the rules so your character did something you explicitly weren't trying to do".
You come on. GM can freely write abilities for his monsters, they've never been considered 'house rules'.
...which would be a HOUSE RULE, which would be a CHANGE FROM THE BOOK, which would mean that the DM was LYING when he said he WASN'T CHANGING THE BOOK.
You, too? Goodness. Don't you guys bother to even read the posts you comment on. The DM didn't say he wasn't changing the book.
What do you mean that's not how 4ed works? The DM can decide that despite subdual damage, there's a 35% chance that the dragon will die anyway, and then roll that behind the screen.
See Neldars and Rumeks posts on page 1
You, too? Goodness. Don't you guys bother to even read the posts you comment on. Not only did the DM not say that he wasn't changing the book, OP later posted this. So CLEARLY not only does he houserule, but OP knew that he houseruled things.
A house rule not announced to the players does not exist.
See Neldars post on page 1
Irrelevant. The DM is allowed to change the rules as he sees fit. That is also a rule.
A house rule not announced to the players does not exist.
Er, wrong. Sometimes something that the DM didn't consider ahead of time comes to light as something he feels needs to be changed. The DM is not obligated not to change it simply because it's an on the spot decision. If the DM feels that the best call is to house rule something on the spot, then *poof* a house rule happens.
W
3)By confirming it as valid he also confirmed that it is possible, and in 4E it would automatically succeed.
Aand no. Example.
A character is standing infront of a wall. Player asks, would climbing that wall be a dc 15 athletics check as per standard rules? GM says: yes. No rule alterations for climbing at current.
Character starts to climb, player rolls 18 and GM informs the player that his character falls because the wall was lubricated with grease.
Retroactive house rule? No.
A situation that the player nor the character was aware of resulting in an unexpected event.
A monster can die from being subdued even if subdual rules are not changed. Monsters often have abilities that contradict and supercede the general rules. These are not house rules, simply abilities.
Irrelevant. The DM is allowed to change the rules as he sees fit. That is also a rule.
Er, wrong. Sometimes something that the DM didn't consider ahead of time comes to light as something he feels needs to be changed. The DM is not obligated not to change it simply because it's an on the spot decision. If the DM feels that the best call is to house rule something on the spot, then *poof* a house rule happens.
And we are back to railroading.
"No, I don't like the result. Thus, I change this rule so what I want happens".
A textbook example of railroading.
And we are back to railroading.
"No, I don't like the result. Thus, I change this rule so what I want happens"."
A textbook example of railroading.
To quote the Princess Bride, "I don't think that word means what you think it means."
To quote the Princess Bride, "I don't think that word means what you think it means."
Already running out of arguments so that you have to post empty phrases?
And don't forget that the DM didn't felt the need to inform the player that he is houseruling the death rules on the spot after the first attempt to subdue the dragon, no he happily let the player continue to try to subdue the dragon and only informing him of his "house rule" after it was too late.
Give it up Max... he doesn't want to see it so he isn't going to...
So care to "enlighten" me how the DM is not railroading when he apparently makes up a house rule on the spot because he doesn't like the result of the players action?
Don't forget we are talking about a specific example here and not the general application of house rules.
Already running out of arguments so that you have to post empty phrases?
When you learn what "railroaded" means, get back to me.
And don't forget that the DM didn't felt the need to inform the player that he is houseruling the death rules on the spot after the first attempt to subdue the dragon, no he happily let the player continue to try to subdue the dragon and only informing him of his "house rule" after it was too late.
1) He may not have considered it until after the second strike.
2) The character would not have known whether his subdual strike would kill the dragon or not, so informing the player at that time would only have served to allow him to metagame his way out of swinging the second time. And metagaming is worse than a house rule.
3) It technically isn't a house rule, since the DM didn't say that subdual damage is going to kill things from now on. It was a one time ruling based on a very rare set of circumstances.
And don't forget that the DM didn't felt the need to inform the player that he is houseruling the death rules on the spot after the first attempt to subdue the dragon, no he happily let the player continue to try to subdue the dragon and only informing him of his "house rule" after it was too late.
But like I said (and you keep ignoring) a GM is not obligated to inform players about the special abilities or properties of specific monsters. Therefore a specific monster with such a property can die of subdual without players knowing beforehand. This is not a 'house rule'. But a creature property the characters were not aware of beforehand.
So care to "enlighten" me how the DM is not railroading when he apparently makes up a house rule on the spot because he doesn't like the result of the players action?
You and OP both assume that it was because of a dislike of the players actions. This is not a proven fact. I can see where the DMs call on that was a very reasonable and neutral ruling on those circumstances.
When you learn what "railroaded" means, get back to me.
Then inform me, oh great linguistic mastermind.
1) He may not have considered it until after the second strike.
2) The character would not have known whether his subdual strike would kill the dragon or not, so informing the player at that time would only have served to allow him to metagame his way out of swinging the second time. And metagaming is worse than a house rule.
3) It technically isn't a house rule, since the DM didn't say that subdual damage is going to kill things from now on. It was a one time ruling based on a very rare set of circumstances.
1) Yeah right.
Round 1: "He he, the guy tries to subdue the dragon. Okay"
Round 2: "What, he tries to subdue the dragon? But it must die! Houserule!!!"
Not very plausible
2) So using any rules knowledge in the game now is metagaming? Knowing what your powers do is metagaming (heck, knowing that you even have powers is metagaming). ANd of course the PCs can't tell a +1 sword apart from a +2 sword, so ditching the +1 sword in favour of the +2 one is also metagaming....
3) There is no subdual damage in 4E as far as I understand. When you reduce a enemy to 0 HP you decide if it is killed or subdued. Ruling anything else is a houserule.
He didn't force the PC into killing the dragon.
In this instance, the DM did force the PC into killing the dragon. The PC specifically stated he was hitting the dragon in order to subdue. Which follows specific rules in the player's handbook. The DM ignored those rules and forced the PC to kill the dragon.
That's not reasonable at all.
You and OP both assume that it was because of a dislike of the players actions. This is not a proven fact. I can see where the DMs call on that was a very reasonable and neutral ruling on those circumstances.
What other reason could he have for making a house rule on the spot (as you are arguing it) if not wanting the dragon to die?
Well, I was talking about the conversation you were having with me.
I stated that the DM causing things to happen to progress/tell a story is OK... you said it was railroading. I said I didn't think it was. You replied that you believed it was. I again disagreed with you. You again disagreed with me...
You see?
There is a difference between
1: "Having an assassin kill the king when the players are not present"
2: "Having an assassin kill the king while the players are present, win initiative, hit the assassin with a immobilizing power but houseruling on the spot that the assassin is not affected by the power so that the king still dies"
1 is storytelling. 2 is railroading.
The players action always take precedence over whatever the DM has planed for his story, even if only temporarily.
In this instance, the DM did force the PC into killing the dragon. The PC specifically stated he was hitting the dragon in order to subdue. Which follows specific rules in the player's handbook. The DM ignored those rules and forced the PC to kill the dragon.
That's not reasonable at all.
GM can give his monsters abilities such as:
newborn fragility If this baby would become subdued, he becomes dead instead.
This would not be a house rule but a property of the monster that the characters might not be aware of beforehand. Did they try a heal or nature check to determine if knocking the baby unconscious could be potentially lethal?
And characters doing something by accident is not GM 'forcing' them to.
It has nothing to do with metagaming. It sounds to me like if the character himself knew that he would potentially crush the dragon's head, he wouldn't have made the attack.
I'm off to bed.
GM can give his monsters abilities such as:
newborn fragility If this baby would become subdued, he becomes dead instead.
This would not be a house rule but a property of the monster that the characters might not be aware of beforehand. Did they try a heal or nature check to determine if knocking the baby unconscious could be potentially lethal?
And characters doing something by accident is not GM 'forcing' them to.
Unless the DM informed the players that such an ability exists its just a houserule in disguise the same way creating a special property which says that you must roll a save before using an item and giving every magic item in the game this property (without telling the PCs that this ability even exists) would de facto be a houserule of magical items.
Then how does the DM tell a story? If he can't make things happen to progress the story, then he is playing a "free form" game. Not everybody likes to play, or DM, those kinds of games.
I wouldn't call it "railroading"...
Derren seems to be using a very strict form of the term "railroading". I mean, say the DM wants Vampires to appear. Should he not do that because doing so would be "railroading"? Of course not!
The DM should put whatever he wants into his game. If he wants the dragon to die, just make sure it dies in a cool, flashy way.
(I'm agreeing with you here, by the way HATER, just to let you know
).Fixed that for you!
You didn't actually. The problem you posted is a problem with D&D overall, and not with 4th edition in particular. D&D is heroic, not just 4th edition. D&D isn't built to run as a reality sim, not just 4th edition.
Wha... wha...wha...WHAT?!?!?
*HATER passes out from shock*
I suppose if you're going to apply the term "railroading" as strictly as possible, then telling a story at all actually is railroading, but then that's like saying because I can put wheels on my coat it turns it into a road worthy vehicle.
Certain things are railroading, but I draw the line when players feel they have no control over a game world. Simply saying "And there's an assassin trying to kill the king", or "Vampires appear and attempt to touch your lady bits", or whatever isn't railroading. You're a DM. You have a story to tell. How do you do that without following a plot, however loose it might be?
(Another agreement
)This is what I would do:
Horrified at this aggregious miscalculation, Cronn enters into a deep, dark depression that lasts several days. He is stuck in a dilemna, where his entire moral system is thrown into disarray. Through his own fault, he caused the death of a baby animal...an animal that could have been raised as a kind hearted and gentle creature. Stricken with grief and regret, Cronn disappears one night.
In an effort to atone for his actions and find inner peace, Cronn spends several days within the untamed wilds. There he starves, whips himself, and consumes dangerous herbal remedies designed to unravel the confines of his mind and soul.
After several days of this, Cronn enters a state of heightened awareness. In a ritualistic manner, he removes his Great Axe and shatters the metal, cleaving blade against some stones. He then purifies the shards of steel, and buries them deep within the earth.
Left with just the handle to his Great Axe, he then spends a great deal of time ritualistic wrapping the end of his Great Axe with a variety of hemp, rope, cloth, and animal fur (slain by his own hand after an honorable hunt). He christens this new weapon by calling upon his primal ancestors, and vows to never let his eagerness unintentionally cause another to die.
...
You are now left with a "padded" Great Club, and an excellent in-character reason to ALWAYS inflict subdual damage. In fact, you could work out a penalty to hit for inflict lethal damage if you wish.
There. You've turned a DM buttflop decision into a serious character building opportunity, and as a simulationist the DM cannot fault your ability to inflict subdual damage from now on.
Irrelevant. The DM is allowed to change the rules as he sees fit. That is also a rule.
Er, wrong. Sometimes something that the DM didn't consider ahead of time comes to light as something he feels needs to be changed. The DM is not obligated not to change it simply because it's an on the spot decision. If the DM feels that the best call is to house rule something on the spot, then *poof* a house rule happens.
While you are correct on both points (that the DM can change the rules as see fits and that he can do it whenever he wants) a good and considerate DM does not do so without at least letting the players know beforehand that he is going to change the rules.
While you are correct on both points (that the DM can change the rules as see fits and that he can do it whenever he wants) a good and considerate DM does not do so without at least letting the players know beforehand that he is going to change the rules.
Agreed. This is the point I was trying to make: the DM's word is law, but there ought to be mutual respect on both sides of the screen; this usually involves a friendly heads-up when the DM strays from established material. For example, a DM with a houserule on the battlerager figher (quite understandable) would do well to tell his players this before they rolled a battlerager.
Lazzo: People are making the same arguements quite a lot on this thread. I've been thinking about what you've been saying about a new monster ability. To me, this counts as a houserule. The wyrmling already had a stat block, and changing that stat block is the DM houseruling in a monster power.
You do have a point, though, that players do not necessarily need to know this information. Although most players have taken a gander through the monster manual, their charecters have no right to know what the player knows, so they have no right to be outrageously angry when a DM tampers with those abilities. All the same, he has introduced an ability that runs counter to generally established rules in the PHB that are found nowhere else; this does not seem right to me.
If a DM is going to add something like this, I think that it ought to be prudent to allow charecters a knowledge check to identify this new ability. With the new errata, easy knowledge checks are 10DC, and moderate are 15DC. Something to the effect of what you are proposing should be a moderate DC at best. It seems to me (perhaps I'm the only one though) that the tendancy of newborns to be frail would be common knowledge; a typical charecter's passive knowledge check ought to cover something like that (assuming they're trained in arcana).
Either that, or he could sell the dragon meat. These are just ideas, I'm being serious.
I like the idea, but taking a minus to hit because I want to not kill my foes seems unreasonable to me. 4E is decently balanced as far as combat goes and sitting under the effects of an, oh say, -2 to hit vs AC would make my character considerably less potent in combat. All for the sake of not slaying my foes? It seems a little unfair.
I do, however, like the redemptive concept and I will be spending some time on it. But I really never wanted a dark, brooding hero. Not in the least. I also liked one of the before mentioned ideas of later on down the line offering my first born child to settle the debt.
And for some additional clarification, the DM did not roll anything to see if there was a chance the dragon lived or died. In fact, he paused- I could almost see the moment the thought entered his mind after I had dealt the last subduel strike to the dragon- then hastily told me my character had crushed the thing to death.
Really, Delveran, it sounds like the DM doesn't like your character concept and is being a total dick about it. Houseruling to make you less effective and forcing you to kill things. While trying to talk it out should always come first, I wouldn't be feeling a whole lot of motivation for staying with the game.
It is possible that he didn't fully grasp just how important some of my concept was. I had, the fight before, destroyed several creatures made of pure ice (some kind of elementals or something)- but my character did not think they were living, breathing entities. He has always lived on a mountain and has never seen such magical beings before. Honestly, concept aside, even if I was a ruthless, back stabbing cutthroat- my problem lies in the fact that I was using a specific rule that is clearly defined in the book, and without forewarning or any hint as to what the new found outcome would be, that rule was altered and I was dealt the exact opposite results. Its just salt in the wound that my character actually cares about murdering a baby animal. I don't mind DMs houseruling, there are some very creative (and sometimes almost needed) house rules out there that help fulfill the spirit of D&D. I would just like a little heads up next time is all. :D
Then inform me, oh great linguistic mastermind.
1) Yeah right.
Round 1: "He he, the guy tries to subdue the dragon. Okay"
Round 2: "What, he tries to subdue the dragon? But it must die! Houserule!!!"
Not very plausible
2) So using any rules knowledge in the game now is metagaming? Knowing what your powers do is metagaming (heck, knowing that you even have powers is metagaming). ANd of course the PCs can't tell a +1 sword apart from a +2 sword, so ditching the +1 sword in favour of the +2 one is also metagaming....
Do you even look at what you say before you say it?
3) There is no subdual damage in 4E as far as I understand. When you reduce a enemy to 0 HP you decide if it is killed or subdued. Ruling anything else is a houserule.
Not if it isn't a new RULE. If it's a one time RULING on a specific and rare set of circumstances that almost definately won't ever happen again, it's hardly a "rule"
In this instance, the DM did force the PC into killing the dragon. The PC specifically stated he was hitting the dragon in order to subdue. Which follows specific rules in the player's handbook. The DM ignored those rules and forced the PC to kill the dragon.
That's not reasonable at all.
That's not forcing the player to kill the dragon. That's ruling that an accidental death occurred.
That's not forcing the player to kill the dragon. That's ruling that an accidental death occurred.
The two are not mutually opposed. Both can be true at the same time.
While you are correct on both points (that the DM can change the rules as see fits and that he can do it whenever he wants) a good and considerate DM does not do so without at least letting the players know beforehand that he is going to change the rules.
Most of the time, yes.
What folks aren't even considering here, is that maybe the dragon didn't even die because of the weapon. When a DM creates the adventure, he is privy to all kinds of plots and information that is not available to the players. For example, suppose Sven the Borked hated the town for abuses long past. Sven knows the situation and injected the egg with a poison to kill the dragon. PCs arrive, dragon hatches and will die soon. PCs attack and on the second round dies from the poison as the second subdual strike hits. PC doesn't know anything about the poison and believes that his strike killed it.
You MUST trust your DM until it is proven that he is not trustworthy. To force him to explain the hidden things he has prepared only ruins the story for both sides and creates animosity.
On the other hand, swatting an infantile animal isn't precisely the nicest thing to do.
DM is heavy handed, OP maybe needs to consider his actions more carefully. Hence, DM and OP need to talk about how they see the character and come to some consensus or understanding.
Simply responding to being rules lawyer-ed by rules lawyer-ing isn't going to enhance the game.
Most of the time, yes.
What folks aren't even considering here, is that maybe the dragon didn't even die because of the weapon. When a DM creates the adventure, he is privy to all kinds of plots and information that is not available to the players. For example, suppose Sven the Borked hated the town for abuses long past. Sven knows the situation and injected the egg with a poison to kill the dragon. PCs arrive, dragon hatches and will die soon. PCs attack and on the second round dies from the poison as the second subdual strike hits. PC doesn't know anything about the poison and believes that his strike killed it.
Occam's Razor and other information provided by Delrevan make it pretty clear that this is not the case here. Yes, it is possible for a DM to sometimes have in-game reasons to do things, but this is not one of them. Even then if it were, the DM would generally only have to say "I have a reason for this, trust me" and everything would be okay.
You MUST trust your DM until it is proven that he is not trustworthy. To force him to explain the hidden things he has prepared only ruins the story for both sides and creates animosity.
Arbitrarily changing rules about the results of actions after those actions have already been taken can also ruin a player's story (or even character concept, in this case) and create animosity.
What folks aren't even considering here, is that maybe the dragon didn't even die because of the weapon.
The fact that the DM described it as bashing the things brains out with the weapon might have something to do with that.
Keep a watch on the DM to see if that was a one time thing or if the railroad continues.
Read Delrevan report of how the DM decided to houserule on the spot.
Do you even look at what you say before you say it?
Yes, do you look at what you post? When its so horrible for characters to use metagaming and metagaming is defined (by you) as knowing rules like "You can decide to kill or subdue an enemy when reducing it to 0 HP" then every use of rules in the game, be it using powers, using magic weapons, etc. is metagaming and bad.
Oh, I forgot, empty phrases again....
Not if it isn't a new RULE. If it's a one time RULING on a specific and rare set of circumstances that almost definately won't ever happen again, it's hardly a "rule"
It doesn't matter if he only uses the house rule once or always. Both is bad. If he rules that this happens just once then it is a clear attempt at metagaming. If he always rules like that then the OPs character concept is ruined.
Derren seems to be using a very strict form of the term "railroading". I mean, say the DM wants Vampires to appear. Should he not do that because doing so would be "railroading"? Of course not!
The DM should put whatever he wants into his game. If he wants the dragon to die, just make sure it dies in a cool, flashy way.
(I'm agreeing with you here, by the way HATER, just to let you know
See my post here: http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=18404672&postcount=94
When the "Story" supersede the actions of the players/PCs then it is railroading.
And it does not matter how "cool" the dragon dies when by the rules the PCs would only subdue it.
Lazzo: People are making the same arguements quite a lot on this thread. I've been thinking about what you've been saying about a new monster ability. To me, this counts as a houserule. The wyrmling already had a stat block, and changing that stat block is the DM houseruling in a monster power.
Did the GM say the monster was directly from monster manual?
Is GM required to tell wheather he is using a monster straight from the book or his own/modified version?
Is GM required to reveal what kind of abilities his monsters can and will have?
Really?
Reallly?!?!?
This conversation is borderlining absurd. A singular property of a singular monster is not 'house rule'. GM is not obliged to reveal info to players that their characters do not have.
If a characters actions lead to unforeseen results due to unknown factors, GM is not forcing the character to do anything Accidents hapen and sometimes actions have unforeseen undesireable results. Be they of random rules based or GM ordaned story based origin.
Say a paladin slays an evil lich. GM has wrote that the lich taps in to the life force of the innocent villagers and simply destroying it will cause the death of the villagers. Did the GM 'force' the paladin to 'kill the villagers'? Did the GM make a 'house rule' that killing monsters kill innocent people? Should GM have just informed the players of this property on beforehand without any effort of the players trying to find out?
Like so many others I will suggest that you talk to your DM. As many has stated you clearly can choose to knock unconscious or kill the dragon. Your DM might have been railroading and I think he should have told you of any special rules. But just talk to him and tell him about the problems it opens up for. He might not have thought about it.
You also asked how others would have reacted to the DMs ruling. Personally I wouldn't have been that upset. My DM forgets to tell us things all the time as he has a lot to think about. We talk about it and reach an agreement. However I would have questioned why the other players had their characters beeing that upset. It was clearly an accident from your characters side regardless of their beliefs and alignment. But thats not really what the discussion is about. Anyways, good luck with it.
But it may not. Or, in years to come, there might be 2 dragons to ravage the settlements! Most likely the little guy won't be too keen on preserving life considering his first few waking moments consisted of having that newfound spark beaten brutally from him with the flat of an ax!
And I have spoken with the DM after taking in all of your sage advice! He does not wish to retcon the incident and has no explanation for why it happened, he has explained that everything happens for a reason and I should go with the flow. So I will.
Did the GM say the monster was directly from monster manual?
Is GM required to tell wheather he is using a monster straight from the book or his own/modified version?
Is GM required to reveal what kind of abilities his monsters can and will have?
Really?
Reallly?!?!?
This conversation is borderlining absurd. A singular property of a singular monster is not 'house rule'. GM is not obliged to reveal info to players that their characters do not have.
If a characters actions lead to unforeseen results due to unknown factors, GM is not forcing the character to do anything Accidents hapen and sometimes actions have unforeseen undesireable results. Be they of random rules based or GM ordaned story based origin.
Say a paladin slays an evil lich. GM has wrote that the lich taps in to the life force of the innocent villagers and simply destroying it will cause the death of the villagers. Did the GM 'force' the paladin to 'kill the villagers'? Did the GM make a 'house rule' that killing monsters kill innocent people? Should GM have just informed the players of this property on beforehand without any effort of the players trying to find out?
Yes DM is absolute authority in game. Then again he has obligation to provide fun for his players. And screwing them up is not providing fun.
Yes all you say is true. There are multitude ways to justify the situation. Nothing changes the fact that DM took controll of PC's actions. If there is chance of accident PC should be aware of the risk (or situation is not story critcal). As it stands this was just bad case of "I shoot you" "nah you didn't".
Even minor change in description of the action could have spared OP bad feelings of the incident, but DM didn't bother to take it into account. Therefore OP got screwed.
P.S. Derren railroading happens in every game, what you call "storytelling" is also railroading most of the time. The difference is if players feel strings on thier limbs. If thie feel em its bad if not its good. Still doesn't change the fact that the strings are there.
Nothing changes the fact that DM took controll of PC's actions. If there is chance of accident PC should be aware of the risk (or situation is not story critcal). As it stands this was just bad case of "I shoot you" "nah you didn't".
No, no, no and no.
DM did not take control of the character's actions. By OP the GM particularily allowed the character to subdue the monster. GM did however rule that for some reason, obviously unknown to the characters and therefore players, the creature died from being subdued.
Rules say nothing about creatures dying when breathing air. However should a character bring a creature from another dimension or even from water with him, the creature could die from trying to breathe air. House rule? No, a creature property.
Even minor change in description of the action could have spared OP bad feelings of the incident, but DM didn't bother to take it into account. Therefore OP got screwed.
This I can give. Maybe a clarification in description or clarifying that the dragon died despite the characters best efforts? Screwed, no.
For me, this comes down to Rule #1 of DMing: "Make sure your players are having fun."
As a DM, I should be regularly asking myself "are my players enjoying themselves, or are they getting frustrated and annoyed?" If whatever I'm doing is making my players frustrated and annoyed, then I'm doing it wrong.
Now, what exactly the OP's DM "did wrong" here, and how the situation can be resolved, is really up to him and the OP to discuss, but the fact that the OP is very obviously "frustrated and annoyed" with how things played out means the DM was certainly doing something wrong.
Trying to argue that the DM didn't actually do anything wrong is rather insulting to the OP and, more importantly, isn't helping to resolve the situation at all.
I'm curious as to what you guys think.
I think your DM is a douche.
Did the GM say the monster was directly from monster manual?
Is GM required to tell wheather he is using a monster straight from the book or his own/modified version?
Is GM required to reveal what kind of abilities his monsters can and will have?
Really?
Reallly?!?!?
This conversation is borderlining absurd. A singular property of a singular monster is not 'house rule'. GM is not obliged to reveal info to players that their characters do not have.
Lazzo, take a deep breath and calm down. Never in my post did I assert that the DM was using the MM template. All I said was that, for the monster he was running (a blue dragon wyrmling) a template already pre-existed. I agreed with you that the players do not have a right to know that the DM is not strictly using the MM template.
However, you completely missed the part about passive knowledge checks. I am curious to know what you think about this? Do you really believe that such a check would be so difficult to make it wouldn't be covered by passive information checks (i.e. taking "10" at the begining of a battle)?
I am not trying to offend you, but did you really read the entire post before replying?
regarding the specific Lich example
Regarding the lich situation, I will agree with you that if the lich has bound the villager's lifeforce to him by some houseruled ritual (which for story purposes is not as uncommon as you may think) then the DM will most definately not have railroaded the players. However, if the players were not allowed a chance to identify this, then I would consider that a fault; they don't have to succeed, just be given a chance.
For example, the Ashenport adventure [spoiler alert: this following paragraph] by Dungeon Magazine is a good example of this. The villiagers are all in on the "demonic" rituals of the town, but the PCs are allowed insight checks on meeting the really suspicious charecters, and are thereon allowed to make to attempt gather information checks to decipher the truth. On success, it would make the PCs jobs much easier.
Likewise with the lich situation, somebody must know something about the situation. If the lich can bind his life force to an entire town without anyone knowing (i.e., from a distance so nobody can see hit, with a good enough ritual that nobody can "feel" their life force being bound to an undead monstrosity, etc.) then I would say that the players are being railroaded, albeit in a roundabout way. It was the lich's fault, per se, that the villiagers die, but the rest of the world might just see "reckless PC's" whose unthinking actions cost the death of hundreds. This has removed choice from the PCs. Instead of the story having two possible endings where either:
1) The players free the villagers from the ritual and slay the lich, making them heroes
2) The players just kill the lich, which brings all sorts of ramifications
The DM has forced the players into a situation more like this:
1) The players just kill the lich, which brings all sorts of ramifications
2) The players walk away and don't kill the lich, which brings all sorts of ramifications.
The DM still provides the players with a choice, but you will note that both choices are horrendous. Besides, what player actually runs away from a quest the DM introduces without even trying it (exept, of course, for my players...)? That would be an insult to the DM :P Plus, you know, the DM might not be preped for the PCs to "keep walking to the next village." There may not be a next village in the DM's mind. Now, you can always make things up on the fly, but many DMs frown on this.
For example, the Ashenport adventure [spoiler alert: this following paragraph] by Dungeon Magazine is a good example of this. The villiagers are all in on the "demonic" rituals of the town, but the PCs are allowed insight checks on meeting the really suspicious charecters, and are thereon allowed to make to attempt gather information checks to decipher the truth. On success, it would make the PCs jobs much easier.
Likewise with the lich situation, somebody must know something about the situation. If the lich can bind his life force to an entire town without anyone knowing (i.e., from a distance so nobody can see hit, with a good enough ritual that nobody can "feel" their life force being bound to an undead monstrosity, etc.) then I would say that the players are being railroaded, albeit in a roundabout way. It was the lich's fault, per se, that the villiagers die, but the rest of the world might just see "reckless PC's" whose unthinking actions cost the death of hundreds. This has removed choice from the PCs. Instead of the story having two possible endings where either:
1) The players free the villagers from the ritual and slay the lich, making them heroes
2) The players just kill the lich, which brings all sorts of ramifications
The DM has forced the players into a situation more like this:
1) The players just kill the lich, which brings all sorts of ramifications
2) The players walk away and don't kill the lich, which brings all sorts of ramifications.
The DM still provides the players with a choice, but you will note that both choices are horrendous. Besides, what player actually runs away from a quest the DM introduces without even trying it (exept, of course, for my players...)? That would be an insult to the DM :P Plus, you know, the DM might not be preped for the PCs to "keep walking to the next village." There may not be a next village in the DM's mind. Now, you can always make things up on the fly, but many DMs frown on this.
Most of the time, yes.
What folks aren't even considering here, is that maybe the dragon didn't even die because of the weapon. When a DM creates the adventure, he is privy to all kinds of plots and information that is not available to the players. For example, suppose Sven the Borked hated the town for abuses long past. Sven knows the situation and injected the egg with a poison to kill the dragon. PCs arrive, dragon hatches and will die soon. PCs attack and on the second round dies from the poison as the second subdual strike hits. PC doesn't know anything about the poison and believes that his strike killed it.
You MUST trust your DM until it is proven that he is not trustworthy. To force him to explain the hidden things he has prepared only ruins the story for both sides and creates animosity.
DM (made up by me): "Despite your best efforts to cause subdual damage the baby dragon still dies."
or
DM (quoted from original post): "The DM explains that it is unrealistic to hit a baby and not expect to kill it and that for the sake of RPing I should accept it."
To me a statement like the one I made up would make me trust the DM. The explanation give by the DM as stated by the original poster would not make me trust the DM. To me it sounds like the DM never considered the possibility of the baby dragon being captured and arbitrarily decided that he did not want the baby dragon captured so he instead rules it killed in combat. Granted, the DM is a noob in the DM chair, but that really should not be an excuse. If he has played enough he should pick up some DM tricks from having heard them from DMs.
And I have spoken with the DM after taking in all of your sage advice! He does not wish to retcon the incident and has no explanation for why it happened, he has explained that everything happens for a reason and I should go with the flow. So I will.
The classic railroad response.
"Don't worry, my story required that to happen. It will be interesting, trust me"
Your DM basically admitted that his story is more important than your character.
P.S. Derren railroading happens in every game, what you call "storytelling" is also railroading most of the time. The difference is if players feel strings on thier limbs. If thie feel em its bad if not its good. Still doesn't change the fact that the strings are there.
Yes, "storytelling" is very often railroading. I never said that all railroading is bad by the way. As long it is subtile and, more importantly, doesn't restrict the actions of the players.
Your DM basically admitted that his story is more important than your character.
Sometimes the DM's story is more important than that of a character or characters in the group.
Sometimes the DM's story is more important than that of a character or characters in the group.
I don't think so.
I would only kill the dragon if I felt it made sense plotwise. I would only allow subdued creatures to die occasionally, (or, likewise, ones which were "killed" to be only subdued), and would never base it on die rolls. (None of this "you crited on subdual damage, so it does lethal", at least not in 4th edition. In 3rd edition this was a house rule.)
Also, as a DM, if a player had explicitly asked the questions about subdual, I would have answered that usually, normally, the rules as written allow for choosing what happens. I would have left myself wiggle room.
Sometimes the DM's story is more important than that of a character or characters in the group.
No, it's not. The DM is there to facilitate the telling of the group's collective story, not to have an audience act out his novel for him.
I was running a game where the PCs were walking through a field. Just to shake things up a bit, I tossed in a random encounter.
I rolled a 1d8 and had one player make a Reflex Save. I then described a bee flying past his face. He succeeded. Up ahead, I said, you see a beehive hanging from a tree.
He then rolled initiative and charged the beehive with his axe.
The bees got mad. His friends turned and ran like hell as he started taking lots of damage from the swarm and nearly died due to a bunch of bad rolls, and trying to fight a swarm of bees with an axe.
In my mind, this is what happened:
It is a lovely day, and you are walking through the fields. A bee flies past your face: woah, that was a close one! Up ahead you see a beehive. Might not be a good idea to annoy them.
In his mind, however, this is what happened:
It is a lovely day, and you are walking through the fields. . . SUDDENLY, A KILLER DEATH BEE ATTACKS YOU! YOU BARELY DODGE OUT OF THE WAY! UP AHEAD, YOU CAN SEE THE SOURCE OF THE SCOURGE! QUICKLY! KILL THEM BEFORE THEY KILL YOU!
The situation is similar, in a way: the expectations of the DM and player were different. In the OP's post, the player's expectations were that the dragon, being tough enough to bloody the entire party, was tough enough to survive the flat of an axe upside the head. In my post, the player's expectations were that any time the DM asks for a reflex save, there is something actively trying to harm you.
Thoughts?
"I try and use diplomacy on the Prince to allow us in to his castle."
"Little do you know the prince HATES diplomacy of all kinds. You and your allies are quickly captured, thrown in to shackles and tortured. Your character is beheaded the following morning to the sounds of an angry mob. That'll teach you to use diplomacy at the wrong times!"
Sometimes the DM's story is more important than that of a character or characters in the group.
Please note that I used the word "sometimes." The DM is there to enjoy the game just as much as the players, and sometimes the DM puts a lot of time into his adventure/campaign (just as the players put a lot of time into into their characters) and sometimes something comes up for which he is not prepared and for which he cannot adapt for. Not every DM can alter events on the fly. But, I still stand by my statement that SOMETIMES the DM's story is more important than that of the character or characters in a group. If this baby dragon's death was integral to the campaign then what harm is there in the DM doing a tiny bit of railroading (though in this case I think that it was done poorly!)? If the DM has put a lot of work into his campaign then why does his enjoyment of the game always have to take a back seat to the enjoyment of the players? To me this is a symbiotic game. The DM and the Players have the same "right" to enjoy the game, and while the DM should mostly cater to the needs of the players the DM still has needs of his own.
Again, the operative word is SOMETIMES.
And I have spoken with the DM after taking in all of your sage advice! He does not wish to retcon the incident and has no explanation for why it happened, he has explained that everything happens for a reason and I should go with the flow. So I will.
Well if your DM just doesn't explain I'm likely to agree with some of the people here that think he's a bad DM when it comes to this. But it's nice to see that you're still willing to give it a try. But ofcourse, now that you're wiser, and hopefully you're DM to, you will notice it pretty quickly if he will continue on his "rulbending, not telling his players" path.
If this baby dragon's death was integral to the campaign then what harm is there in the DM doing a tiny bit of railroading
The harm it did seems pretty apparent to me.
The harm it did seems pretty apparent to me.
And I have said that in the situation presented by the original poster that I think the DM (and the other players!) handled this situation very poorly. But, the topic had kind of drifted into a general discussion of railroading/DM fiat/etc. So my most recent comments were in response to that, and not specifically the the original post.
Please note that I used the word "sometimes." The DM is there to enjoy the game just as much as the players, and sometimes the DM puts a lot of time into his adventure/campaign (just as the players put a lot of time into into their characters) and sometimes something comes up for which he is not prepared and for which he cannot adapt for. Not every DM can alter events on the fly. But, I still stand by my statement that SOMETIMES the DM's story is more important than that of the character or characters in a group. If this baby dragon's death was integral to the campaign then what harm is there in the DM doing a tiny bit of railroading (though in this case I think that it was done poorly!)? If the DM has put a lot of work into his campaign then why does his enjoyment of the game always have to take a back seat to the enjoyment of the players? To me this is a symbiotic game. The DM and the Players have the same "right" to enjoy the game, and while the DM should mostly cater to the needs of the players the DM still has needs of his own.
Again, the operative word is SOMETIMES.
No, the operative word is "never", you just forgot to put in in your post.
A D&D is not a chance for would-be Tolkiens to inflict their novels on people. The story created by the DM exists to facilitate, contextualize, and enhance the game play experience of the players, not replace it. Yes the DM is there to enjoy the game as well, but if his enjoyment necessitates having the story he has written take precedence over the one the group is creating together then he is, in no uncertain terms,
ing up royally.Lazzo, take a deep breath and calm down. Never in my post did I assert that the DM was using the MM template. All I said was that, for the monster he was running (a blue dragon wyrmling) a template already pre-existed. I agreed with you that the players do not have a right to know that the DM is not strictly using the MM template.
*huuuuufff* (a deep breath)
Ok, seems we agree on that then.
However, you completely missed the part about passive knowledge checks. I am curious to know what you think about this? Do you really believe that such a check would be so difficult to make it wouldn't be covered by passive information checks (i.e. taking "10" at the begining of a battle)?
I am not trying to offend you, but did you really read the entire post before replying?
Oh no offence, dont worry.
However I already asked about did they try knowledge checks in, I think, two of my previous posts. I agree special properties should be able to be determined somehow. In most cases.
I usually wouldn't give them checks automatically though, but I think that's a matter of taste. I'm usually playing in more experienced rpg goups so they don't need that much slack.
Oh and knowledge check on resistances and vulnerabilities is DC 25. I doubt they would have had passive check that high? (don't know their lvls though)
--edit--
Oh and I don't really care that much about this topic but anyone who thinks that there is some 'higer rule' that rpgs should not include 'railroading' are plain old wrong. I'd go as far as to claim that never in the existence of of man has there been a session that didn't contain some railroading.
'The story begins as our heroes are saitting in a tavern...' Wait what a tavern? My character would never go in to such an establishment!
The very information that GM volunteers about the world will push the campaign in to a certain direction. The characters can't go out and rescue the princess until GM provides them info that she has been kidnapped in the first place.
The characters can't go inspecting the great ruins to the east until GM provides info that they exist.
In addition any big campaign requires a lot of work to build. No one can truly build a world detailed and full of activities in which characters can go whereever they wish. If the campaign has been built to fight the great evil in the west, and the players just go; meh, well head east instead, it's not going to be very interesting game is it?
Please note that I used the word "sometimes." The DM is there to enjoy the game just as much as the players, and sometimes the DM puts a lot of time into his adventure/campaign (just as the players put a lot of time into into their characters) and sometimes something comes up for which he is not prepared and for which he cannot adapt for. Not every DM can alter events on the fly. But, I still stand by my statement that SOMETIMES the DM's story is more important than that of the character or characters in a group. If this baby dragon's death was integral to the campaign then what harm is there in the DM doing a tiny bit of railroading (though in this case I think that it was done poorly!)? If the DM has put a lot of work into his campaign then why does his enjoyment of the game always have to take a back seat to the enjoyment of the players? To me this is a symbiotic game. The DM and the Players have the same "right" to enjoy the game, and while the DM should mostly cater to the needs of the players the DM still has needs of his own.
Again, the operative word is SOMETIMES.
And I still disagree. The story is NEVER more important than the characters. What happened here is that the players aren't playing anymore, they are watching. If a DM really only gets enjoyment out of telling other people his story then he shouldn't DM, he should write a book.
If this baby dragon's death was integral to the campaign then it just means that it will be a railroad. And if not then the DM is simply bad.
And whats worse is, that the DM forced a PC to act completely against its personality, damaging it, and with it the enjoyment of the player, by a large amount.
Well if your DM just doesn't explain I'm likely to agree with some of the people here that think he's a bad DM when it comes to this. But it's nice to see that you're still willing to give it a try. But ofcourse, now that you're wiser, and hopefully you're DM to, you will notice it pretty quickly if he will continue on his "rulbending, not telling his players" path.
Its unlikely that the DM will change on his own. The campaign has a story and he already violated a players character for it. He won't suddenly stop and drop his story.
And I still disagree. The story is NEVER more important than the characters. What happened here is that the players aren't playing anymore, they are watching. If a DM really only gets enjoyment out of telling other people his story then he shouldn't DM, he should write a book.
If an entire story starts with the king being assassinated, and the players kill the assassin, it'd be "Oh ok, you guys get a huge reward and retire."
That's not fun.
If an entire story starts with the king being assassinated, and the players kill the assassin, it'd be "Oh ok, you guys get a huge reward and retire."
That's not fun.
Thats also really uncreative.
Someone who can't do better should not DM.
If an entire story starts with the king being assassinated, and the players kill the assassin, it'd be "Oh ok, you guys get a huge reward and retire."
That's not fun.
Wait, what?
How the hell would you let it rest there? SOMEONE JUST TRIED TO ASSASSINATE THE KING! Do you think they're not gonna try again? Do you really think they were acting alone? Do you think the King is just going to go and live out their life thinking, "oh well, another day, another brush with death?" Maybe the guy who hired the assassin decides to send a second one to take out the guys who foiled his nefarious plan. Maybe the King becomes paranoid and starts to enact martial law and cracks down on "dissidents." Seriously, man, even if you foil the assassination, there are still all sorts of things left unresolved.
If your story is so rigid that you can't ad lib a change when your PCs do something you don't expect, you have no imagination and you SUCK as a DM. Yes, I am saying this, you SUCK as a DM because a DM's job is to facilitate his players' stories, not rigidly tell his own. You'd do much better as a theatre director where everything is written down already and you know exactly what is coming up. If you want to be a DM, practice improv, where you need to think on your feet. I find I work best when I have material ready to go, but I don't try to plot where one thing leads to another.
If an entire story starts with the king being assassinated, and the players kill the assassin, it'd be "Oh ok, you guys get a huge reward and retire."
That's not fun.
Are you purposely misrepresenting the point or do you actually not understand it?
The whole point of D&D is to create a collective story together. Sure, with some groups that story could be written on a gum wrapper an equates to "we killed a bunch of monsters and took their stuff" but that is the story they, as a group, created together and so long as they are happy with it then more power to 'em.
The second the DM tries to force the players to follow the story he wants to tell rather than using the framework of that story to so that he and the players create a story together he has failed.
I wish Wizards had the popcorn icon. This thread is fantastic.
In other news, I hope the guy settles his issue with his railroading DM. It's never fun to be involved in a story that's supposedly bigger than you. I remember a 3rd edition campaign where my then-DM would read from one of the Cormyr novels about some big bad dragon killing King Azoun IV. BOOOORRRRIIIINNNNGGGG!!!!
She finally realized we were losing interest, and she stopped. After that, our characters were able to make their own epic stories, and we did. I was very pleased with the outcome of the group, before I had to move.
As a DM, I think what annoyed me is that the OP's DM described the blow as bashing the dragon's brains out. If I wanted an enemy to be killed even if the PCs wanted to subdue it (and, BTW, I usually ask the PCs when they drop an opponent whether they want it to be dead or knocked out), I would make it clear that something unusual happened. Something like "despite your carefully aimed blow, you notice that the dragons neck is bent at an unusual angle", or "even though you tried to just subdue it, something must have gone wrong", or "when you examine the unconcious dragon, you realize that it has stopped breathing." I'd also allow a heal check to get an idea of why the dragon died (weak heart, sheer bad luck etc.)
I would only kill the dragon if I felt it made sense plotwise. I would only allow subdued creatures to die occasionally, (or, likewise, ones which were "killed" to be only subdued), and would never base it on die rolls. (None of this "you crited on subdual damage, so it does lethal", at least not in 4th edition. In 3rd edition this was a house rule.)
Also, as a DM, if a player had explicitly asked the questions about subdual, I would have answered that usually, normally, the rules as written allow for choosing what happens. I would have left myself wiggle room.
I agree with all of this. I think what the DM did was reasonable, but how he did it was not the best way for him to accomplish it. The DM has said that there was a reason for it, so I have no reason to doubt that. Nor is what he did railroading, since he never forced the characters into an action. There was simply an unintended consequence of those their actions. Without knowing the DMs story arc, I really don't think that there's much more to say.
I don't see how a player should ever be denied the chance to NOT kill something. I can't fathom how it would exploit the game or unbalance anything to allow some enemies to live as a character sees fit.
Because sometimes, $%^#% happens. People get into fist fights at a bar, and then serve years in prison for manslaughter. There's nothing wrong with things like this happening occasionally in the game, if it furthers the story.
I know that on rare occasions the DM simply wants a villain to escape or to die, taking his secrets along with him, and I am cool with that if that is clearly expressed. But this notion that dealing subduel damage is somehow wrong just doesn't sit well with me. I prefer heroes that don't dice everything their encounter into pieces, honestly.
This notion of subdual damage is identical to that. In 99.9% of your encounters, your DM will allow you to decide death or not, but sometimes circumstances will be present in a combination that results in something you didn't expect and/or want.
Nor is what he did railroading, since he never forced the characters into an action. There was simply an unintended consequence of those their actions.
No, he did. WHen the question of "Kill or subdue" came up as described by the rules he forced the character to pick "kill" instead of "subdue" what the player wanted his character to do. It was not an unintended consequence of an action, the DM actually altered the action the character performed.
To use your example
Because sometimes, $%^#% happens. People get into fist fights at a bar, and then serve years in prison for manslaughter. There's nothing wrong with things like this happening occasionally in the game, if it furthers the story.
The DM didn't make sure that this guy was imprisoned (consequence), the DM forced this guy to start a fist fight with lethal outcome (action)
This notion of subdual damage is identical to that. In 99.9% of your encounters, your DM will allow you to decide death or not, but sometimes circumstances will be present in a combination that results in something you didn't expect and/or want.
Which means that he railroads.
Now what if the group wants to do a campaign but something goes wrong? What if the players miss a major clue or the DM messes up some aspect of an adventure? Not every DM is perfect. Not every DM can DM by the seat of his pants and come up with corrections on the spot. Maybe the baby dragon was supposed to die to jumpstart the campaign? So what? If it sounds like a very poorly thought out start then so what? As I have said before not every DM is perfect. He made a poor start of it. Overly criticizing it serves no purpose. Should the DM scrap everything and start over? Or should he try to fix things? It sounds to me like the DM tried to fixed it on the fly and mucked it up. Again, so what? It is not the end of the world or the end of the campaign.
Frankly I really do not see any problem with a little bit of railroading if it facilitates moving the campaign along. Sometimes it is done very poorly. Sometimes it is done very subtlty and is not noticed.
Many people make it sound like that if a DM does any bit of railroading that he is somehow a demagogue who is forcing the players and their characters to walk lock-stepped through the adventure and that every single action of the characters is controlled by the DM. While that might happen to some groups I seriously doubt if it happens all that often. Regardless of how often it may happen it is not the only situation. Not every case of railroading is a worse case scenario.
The players in the original post obviously want to follow the DM's story. If not they would not have gone off on the adventure that the DM had planned. It seems to me that the DM made a mistake in planning out his adventure and that he reacted poorly to the situation. The campaign is not ruined, nor is the DM automatically an evil ogre dictator. One mistake does not a bad DM make. While the way he handled it does not give his players confidence he is a new DM after all. They should all sit down and talk the issue over and get the game back on track. With a few exceptions (such as rolling hit points) players control every aspect of their characters. They can alter how their characters feel about this event and get the game back on track. Is it an ideal solution? Of course not. In an ideal world every DM would be perfect. But setting this behind them and getting the game back on track is a good solution.
No, it's not. The DM is there to facilitate the telling of the group's collective story, not to have an audience act out his novel for him.
I think what he meant was....sometimes parts of the DMs story absolutely must happen or the story ends on the spot. Either the DM has this thing happen, or he turns to the players and says "Sorry guys, you just ended the story. Come back in 3 weeks when I've gotten a new one made." In such a situation, it's better for the DM to cause the event to happen in some manner that is reasonable(such as accidently killing the baby dragon), than to ruin the fun for everyone by ending the game until he can come up with a new story.
That said, it's all a matter of style. If despite my best efforts, the players come up with something I didn't think of to save/kill/change what I had planned, I go with it. Even if it means that the world, country, city, village, whatever is going to perish because of it. Of course, I'm also better at improv DMing that a lot of people out there. For people who aren't good at improv DMing, and there are a lot of them, this option isn't one that will work.
I think what he meant was....sometimes parts of the DMs story absolutely must happen or the story ends on the spot. Either the DM has this thing happen, or he turns to the players and says "Sorry guys, you just ended the story. Come back in 3 weeks when I've gotten a new one made." In such a situation, it's better for the DM to cause the event to happen in some manner that is reasonable(such as accidently killing the baby dragon), than to ruin the fun for everyone by ending the game until he can come up with a new story.
Then the DM, besides being a railroader, also writes bad adventures. And no, In this situation its still better to accept what the players did and let the world react to that. And if the DM really needs 3 weeks to come up with a plan of what to do he is imo unfit for DMing.
So, if a DM is asked to run a campaign for a group (or if the DM volunteers and the group agrees) and the DM spends time and effort to create a campaign (say, for example, start in Waterdeep, travel to Cormyr to retrieve an artifcat, and then go to Icewind Dale to kill Frosty the Evil Snowman) and the group decides that they are instead going on a cross country trek to Kara Tur to get drunk on sake that the DM should just scrap his entire campaign?
The DM should talk with the players out of the game about it. Then he either scraps his story or incooperates what the players want into it. He also learned the valuable lesson that you should not plan a whole campaign before the very first session.
I repeat, if the DM only gets enjoyment out of telling other people his story he should not Dm but write a book instead.
The harm it did seems pretty apparent to me.
I don't know. This seems like an issue with the player to me. He doesn't seem to be able to see past the "Rules", which are intentionally designed to be flexible and changable to make the story better.
If I were that DM, I would not change my DM style based on the player's problem with the rules. What I WOULD do, is appologize to the player for not warnning him ahead of time that the rules are flexible and if something makes sense to the story/game world in defiance of the rules, the story/game world will win out. I would then explain to him that things like this will probably happen in the future, and see if he's okay with it. If he's not, I would suggest to him that this isn't the game for him and that it might be best if he found a game more to his liking elsewhere.
I don't know. This seems like an issue with the player to me. He doesn't seem to be able to see past the "Rules", which are intentionally designed to be flexible and changable to make the story better.
If I were that DM, I would not change my DM style based on the player's problem with the rules. What I WOULD do, is appologize to the player for not warnning him ahead of time that the rules are flexible and if something makes sense to the story/game world in defiance of the rules, the story/game world will win out. I would then explain to him that things like this will probably happen in the future, and see if he's okay with it. If he's not, I would suggest to him that this isn't the game for him and that it might be best if he found a game more to his liking elsewhere.
You really say that the the player who is disappointed that the DM took control of his character to do something completely against what he envisioned for his character only to tell his railroading story is the problem?
Doing the complete opposite of what the rules say is not "flexible", it is houseruling and in this case railroading.
You really say that the the player who is disappointed that the DM took control of his character to do something completely against what he envisioned for his character only to tell his railroading story is the problem?
If by that you mean "The DM did not take over the player's character and railroad him.", then yes. That's what I mean.
If by that you mean "The DM did not take over the player's character and railroad him.", then yes. That's what I mean.
You are aware that player characters are meant to be played by the players and not the DM, do you?
Your games must look very strange when 4 guys watch a 5th guy playing D&D solo.
Unless of course the DM, with his unending compassion, allows the players to take over one of his characters and to participate, as long as they only do what he wants them to do.
You really say that the the player who is disappointed that the DM took control of his character to do something completely against what he envisioned for his character only to tell his railroading story is the problem?
Doing the complete opposite of what the rules say is not "flexible", it is houseruling and in this case railroading.
For me it is not a proble with what he did but with how he did it. Big difference between the two. As I said elsewhere I think that if the DM said something along the lines of, "Despite your best effort to subdue the baby dragon it did not work. Rregetably the hatchling dies." If the DM had explained that to me I would have accepted it. How the original DM did it was what was wrong, not what he did.
For me it is not a proble with what he did but with how he did it. Big difference between the two. As I said elsewhere I think that if the DM said something along the lines of, "Despite your best effort to subdue the baby dragon it did not work. Rregetably the hatchling dies." If the DM had explained that to me I would have accepted it. How the original DM did it was what was wrong, not what he did.
Both was wrong. The actions of the players are more important than what the DM has planned for the future. If the DM wants to preserve his plan he should do it by including the actions of the players into his plan and not by preventing the players from taking certain actions.
"Despite your best effort to subdue the baby dragon it did not work. Rregetably the hatchling dies." is as bad as "You punch its brains out. It is dead. Move on", just a bit more subtile.
A good DM who wants to keep his planned story would have allowed the dragon to be knocked out, but did not stop trying to kill it (Oh, it has a disease, better do something against it" or "The villager mob want to kill this hatchling as revenge for their lost friends, families and homes". At worst this would have given the DM time to change his story, at best the issue would have resolved itself.
Honestly, I don't mind open ended games with flexibility and room for movement if that fact is made known to me before hand.
But honestly. Why play a game with detailed mechanics and rules if you want to have the flexibility and authority to change any rule at a moments notice? Play something else then! It isn't fair to say its a problem with a player when they are simply trying to make their characters exist in a world that is designed with specific mechanics. If any rule can simply be changed at the DMs whim, then honestly, why buy new books? Why even roll up classes and races? Just sit around the table with your friends and freeform everything out.
I think what he meant was....sometimes parts of the DMs story absolutely must happen or the story ends on the spot. Either the DM has this thing happen, or he turns to the players and says "Sorry guys, you just ended the story. Come back in 3 weeks when I've gotten a new one made." In such a situation, it's better for the DM to cause the event to happen in some manner that is reasonable(such as accidently killing the baby dragon), than to ruin the fun for everyone by ending the game until he can come up with a new story.
Then the DM, besides being a railroader, also writes bad adventures. And no, In this situation its still better to accept what the players did and let the world react to that. And if the DM really needs 3 weeks to come up with a plan of what to do he is imo unfit for DMing.
Were you 100% perfect at being a DM from the very first time you "sat behind the DM's screen"? I would bet dollars to donuts that you were not. I would also bet dollars to donuts that only a handful of DM's got everything perfectly correct the first time out of the gate. As far as we know this so far is only an isolated case and in that there is no crime in someone being a bad DM or needing 3 weeks to plan what he is doing. It could just be a sign of being inexperienced. And based on the original post this is either the first time he is DMing or the first time he is DMing 4th edition ("One of the players who normally PCs has decided to try his hand at DMing some 4E.")
So, if a DM is asked to run a campaign for a group (or if the DM volunteers and the group agrees) and the DM spends time and effort to create a campaign (say, for example, start in Waterdeep, travel to Cormyr to retrieve an artifcat, and then go to Icewind Dale to kill Frosty the Evil Snowman) and the group decides that they are instead going on a cross country trek to Kara Tur to get drunk on sake that the DM should just scrap his entire campaign?
The DM should talk with the players out of the game about it. Then he either scraps his story or incooperates what the players want into it. He also learned the valuable lesson that you should not plan a whole campaign before the very first session.
That was only one example. Not every DM would think to sit down with the players and discuss what everyone wants to do. Just look at how few groups back in the days of previous editions sat down to discuss something as simple and important and potentially game destroying as alignment? Does that make them bad or unfit at being DMs? Maybe. Maybe not. It is just as likely that it simply means that they are inexperienced.
Let us look again at the example of the original poster and his DM. Would you not agree that the players wanted to go on the adventure that the DM had prepared? After all, they did go on the adventure! If so then would you not agree that the DM made a mistake and through this incident he has hopefully learned a valuable lesson?
I repeat, if the DM only gets enjoyment out of telling other people his story he should not Dm but write a book instead.
And why are you turning this into a worse case scenario? Why do you automatically assume that if a DM enjoys the game that he only gets enjoyment out of telling other people his story? Why do you make the assumption that railroading can only be about the DM getting enjoyment out of telling his story? Why can this not be a case of the DM trying to do it for the sake of EVERYONE'S enjoyment of the game?
I agree with you, though, that if a DM only gets enjoyment out of telling other people his story then MAYBE he should write a book instead. (I say maybe because some players are fine with that.) But I agree with you only IF the DM is like that. Not every DM is like that, though. Not every DM who railroads or coaxes the players along a certain path is like that. Not every bad or inexperienced DM is like that. Nor is every DM perfect, and that is not a crime and it does not automatically make them bad DMs or unfit to DM.
Were you 100% perfect at being a DM from the very first time you "sat behind the DM's screen"? I would bet dollars to donuts that you were not. I would also bet dollars to donuts that only a handful of DM's got everything perfectly correct the first time out of the gate. As far as we know this so far is only an isolated case and in that there is no crime in someone being a bad DM or needing 3 weeks to plan what he is doing. It could just be a sign of being inexperienced. And based on the original post this is either the first time he is DMing or the first time he is DMing 4th edition ("One of the players who normally PCs has decided to try his hand at DMing some 4E.")
You might want to read this post of the OP about the proficiency of this DM at DMing
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=18401921&postcount=35
Let us look again at the example of the original poster and his DM. Would you not agree that the players wanted to go on the adventure that the DM had prepared? After all, they did go on the adventure! If so then would you not agree that the DM made a mistake and through this incident he has hopefully learned a valuable lesson?
Yes, the players wanted to go on that adventure, so it is even more unforgivable to railroad them, as they would have likely followed the plot with some hints.
And why are you turning this into a worse case scenario? Why do you automatically assume that if a DM enjoys the game that he only gets enjoyment out of telling other people his story? Why do you make the assumption that railroading can only be about the DM getting enjoyment out of telling his story? Why can this not be a case of the DM trying to do it for the sake of EVERYONE'S enjoyment of the game?
I was responding to the people who argue that "The DM must enjoy the game too, so it is ok for him to railroad".
If the DM enjoys other things besides telling his story than there is no need to railroad. If he does, well, see above.
You have talked to the DM and explained your side of the story. It is obvious that he is not going to retro-DM the incident and make the baby dragon be alive, but maybe he will retro-DM the incident to change your actions from "bashing in the hatchling's brains" to "failed to subdue despite your best efforts." It cannot hurt to ask, and it will help if you once more explain your characters background to him again.
You should also talk to the other players the group and explain once to them what your intentions were in this incident and ask them to adjust the thoughts/opinions/attitudes of their characters. This incident does not make your character hopeless to play or a lost cause. You can move on from this. You control what your player thinks. Make him regretful for this incident. Make him do something to atone for this. And put it behind you.
I also strongly urge you to sit down with the DM and discuss how he will do subdual damage and the "death's door" rule in the books. If he not going to be consistant with it then you might have a problem. Then you might want to reconsider the weapon of choice and tactics of your character.
Good luck with this and keep us posted as to what happens.
Take care and have a great day....
ciao,
john.
You are aware that player characters are meant to be played by the players and not the DM, do you?
Of course, and the DM in this case never played the character. He simply ruled reasonably on a set of circumstances and an action performed with the free will of the player in control.
Of course, and the DM in this case never played the character. He simply ruled reasonably on a set of circumstances and an action performed with the free will of the player in control.
So now your definition of reasonable is "completely against the rules and the intention of the player without giving any indication that the rules do not apply or that the action might not have the desired result"?
The character is allowed a choice when dropping an enemy. Either kill or subdue. The DM took away the control of the character from the player by making this choice for him against the explicit wishes of said player.
Both was wrong.
In your personal opinion, anyway.
The actions of the players are more important than what the DM has planned for the future.
By that logic, every single planned encounter by the DM is Derren style railroading if the players don't like the encounter.
If the DM wants to preserve his plan he should do it by including the actions of the players into his plan
He did. He included the player action of "I attack it." into his plan.
and not by preventing the players from taking certain actions.
He didn't. He allowed the player to strike to not kill, but due to circumstances beyond the character's control, it killed anyway.
"Despite your best effort to subdue the baby dragon it did not work. Rregetably the hatchling dies." is as bad as "You punch its brains out. It is dead. Move on", just a bit more subtile.
Again. In your personal opinion.
In your personal opinion, anyway.
As I am not the supreme overlord of existence everything I post is my opinion.
By that logic, every single planned encounter by the DM is Derren style railroading if the players don't like the encounter.
If you just could read....
ACTIONS are more important than the DMs story. So encounters are railroading when they happen even though the PCs took successful actions to prevent them, not when they simply don't like them.
He did. He included the player action of "I attack it." into his plan.
He didn't. He allowed the player to strike to not kill, but due to circumstances beyond the character's control, it killed anyway.
Except that the action was "I attack and subdue" which the DM changed (against the rules) to "I attack and kill".
It was not "beyond the characters control". The rule specifically allow the character to choose what happens and the DM did not houserule that rule.
But honestly. Why play a game with detailed mechanics and rules if you want to have the flexibility and authority to change any rule at a moments notice? Play something else then! It isn't fair to say its a problem with a player when they are simply trying to make their characters exist in a world that is designed with specific mechanics. If any rule can simply be changed at the DMs whim, then honestly, why buy new books? Why even roll up classes and races? Just sit around the table with your friends and freeform everything out.
Yeah. God forbid that we want to play D&D, a game that has detailed mechanics and rules INCLUDING the rule that allows the DM to change things on a moments notice. I guess we all have to play something else
So now your definition of reasonable is "completely against the rules and the intention of the player without giving any indication that the rules do not apply or that the action might not have the desired result"?
1) The action was not against the rules in the slightest, since the rules allow for the DM to change the rules.
2) The intention of the character is irrelevant to what happens with things outside of his control.
3) The character might not have any idea that his action would not have the desired result, and if so, there's no reason to tell the player something his character wouldn't know. At best, the player does the action anyway since his character wouldn't have that information, and at worst the player horribly metagames his character not doing the action.
The character is allowed a choice when dropping an enemy. Either kill or subdue.
Unless the DM has a good reason to rule otherwise.
The DM took away the control of the character from the player by making this choice for him against the explicit wishes of said player.
Bzzzt! Wrong! The DM never once took control of the character in this event.
As I am not the supreme overlord of existence everything I post is my opinion.
That's odd. All of the rest of us aren't the "supreme overlord of existence" either, but we manage to post facts AND opinions. Why do you fail at posting facts?
ACTIONS are more important than the DMs story.
Not true. At best, actions are equal to it, since the DM is a player, too.
Except that the action was "I attack and subdue" which the DM changed (against the rules) to "I attack and kill".
Do you not comprehend that the rules allow the DM to change the rules? Or are you being deliberately obtuse about it?
It was not "beyond the characters control". The rule specifically allow the character to choose what happens and the DM did not houserule that rule.
It WAS beyond the character's control. The character has absolutely no control over the fragility of a hatchlings head. THAT was the part that changed things, not the players decision to subdue.
Max, quick question, how would you feel if the DM suddenly decided that all players should roll a d12 to hit, while his monsters roll a d20?
1) It would be his right.
2) I don't have to play in a game like that, and wouldn't.
3) Unless of course he's retooled the game to work out fine with us rolling d12's.
4) This situation isn't at all the same as what occurred.
If the DM enjoys other things besides telling his story than there is no need to railroad.
In a perfect world with perfect DM's who never do anything wrong or make any mistakes then that would most certainly be true. But DM's are only human. Sometimes a DM who enjoys other things besides telling his story simply does not know any other way (in general or at that specific time) to keep the game/adventure/campaign moving along than to use a little bit of railroading for the overall good of the game.
Heck, I have used it a couple of time myself. Not too long ago I went through a bit of time in my life where I was lax in my planning on my campaign (which is an on going work in progress). The group had just ended and adventure and were to be presented with one of five adventures with which to continue the quest. So you know what I did? I railroaded them. I picked one of the five possible adventures that I had planned on dangling in front of them and in essence said it was this adventure or no D&D that night. I told them that I was not fully prepared for everything but that I was for this one adventure. In generic terms it was a horrific case of railroading. But you know what else? I do not care! Nor did any of my players. They accepted that I was not prepared and went along for the sake of the campaign. In fact, they sang for me. They all gave me a rousing chorus of the themesong for Rawhide and ended with a single exclamation of "All aboard the plot wagon!" and we all laughed about it! It was not me trying to tell my grand story. It was me making a decision that might not have been ideal for everyone (I am quite sure that one of the dwarves would have preferred to go on another quest for magical ale and the elf mage would have preferred to go search for the killer of her parents, but they did mind) but it worked for the campaign. They know that I am not always fully prepared and sometimes I have to wing it. Sometimes I have to "ask" them to hop aboard the "plot wagon" to keep the campaign going. If that makes me a bad or unfit DM then do not tell my players as they have never uttered a negative word to me about my game and almost always compliment me after each session.
Then there was the other time I broke my arm rollerblading and ended up DMing while my arm was gimped out in a cast and due to my recovery I had not prepared the next adventure. I whipped out an old 1st edition module I was familiar with, informed the group that they had been regretably side-tracked from their main quest and were on a mini-quest to kill some orcs who had offended them in some manner. They were fine with that. Did it detract from their "story"? Yes. Did they have fun? Very much so. Sometimes the game is just as much if not more about having fun playing the game as it is about the story of the characters. Maybe my players are defective somehow and just really enjoy playing D&D. I do not know. But they do not mind if once in a while I have to railroad for the sake of the entire game.
And for the record, I for one resent the implication that any and all DM's who railroad in even the slightest bit are bad DM's and/or are unfit to DM or that they are self-absorbed story demagogues. It is an insult to me and my players. The reality of the world is that just because You might think that there is only one type of DM (i.e. bad) does not make it a universal truth. There are far too many variables in the world of gaming to make a blanket statement that every single case of railroading is unforgivable.
Max, quick question, how would you feel if the DM suddenly decided that all players should roll a d12 to hit, while his monsters roll a d20?
Sorry, but that is a very bad analogy. In the original post we are talking about a SINGLE ISOLATED event. Unless I missed additional follow up posts there is no indication that this rule on knocking out monsters instead of slaying them with the "death blow" is permanently gone from the game. It seems to me like the DM made this ruling on the spot and for this one situation. Again, this was a SINGLE ISOLATED event.
Was the DM within his right to do this? Yes he was.
Did he do it in the best possible way? No he did not.
Should he therefore be condemned for what he did? I for one do not think so.
Will he learn from this and do a better job in the future? I hope he does.
And for the record, I for one resent the implication that any and all DM's who railroad in even the slightest bit are bad DM's and/or are unfit to DM or that they are self-absorbed story demagogues. It is an insult to me and my players. The reality of the world is that just because You might think that there is only one type of DM (i.e. bad) does not make it a universal truth. There are far too many variables in the world of gaming to make a blanket statement that every single case of railroading is unforgivable.
Nice strawman.
I never said that railroading is bad. Unlike you I don't use railroad as an insult, but as a description to describe a style of DMing.
True, I have a very low railroad tolerance, but as long as the railroad does not invalidate any actions of the players and is hidden from their views it is ok.
So not all railroading DMs are necessarily bad, but this one certainly is.
Sorry, but that is a very bad analogy.
That analogy describes the situation rather well.
DM: "The Bad guy is close to the door. You only have seconds before he vanishes"
Player: "I cast Sleep to stop him"
DM: "Your Magic Missile hits the bad guy, but he still manages to go through the door and activate the trap which collapses this passage. You can't catch him and he gets away.
Player:"What? I casted Sleep, not Magic Missile!"
DM: "No you didn't. Trust me on this"
Alternatively, if you rather believe that the DM changed the rules instead of changing the action it would go like this:
DM:"Your sleep spell hits the bad guy. Now he double moves at full speed and gets through the entry which collapses behind him.
Player:"He can't. The Sleep spell would slow him"
DM:"It didn't. Trust me on this".
No matter how you turn it, the DM railroaded in a bad way by negating an action of a character.
Deal, and move on.
You didn't want to be a killer, and the gods have decreed the blue drakeling died...by accident.
Resolve to still not be a killer, with your full intention.
If the gods decree you are to be one, resist.
On your knees pray "Crom, why do you wish me to kill? Show me a sign. I was taught by the tribal elders to be merciful."
That's how I'd handle it.. not "My PC is wrecked."
I know how I'm playing my PC. What the DM rules is out of my hands. Maybe his (DM's) world is cruel.
So BE IT.
Good luck.
How about if I hit you over the head with a 20lb chunk of iron to "subdue" you and see if you survive? Not a threat, but just a point to make you think about the effects of being struck, even with a blunt object.
When you use force on an enemy then you risk killing or injuring them, regardless of if that force is intentionally lethal, or even "non-lethal" People are killed in the real world by rubber bullets and tasers, both which are specifically designed to be non-lethal force. Imporvising by using the dull end of an axe head (esentially a heavy mace) to whap a creature in the head is going to risk cracking it's skull like an overripe water mellon.
The DM's call was very realistic, a direct blow to the head is dangerous regardless of your intent.
As for dealing subdual damage, you have created a character who wants to use mechanics outside of the raw, you need to accept the systems that the DMs come up with accordingly, and more importantly you need to use weapons that deal non-lethal damage as well, such as a Sap, or a Shinai (a practice sword made of loose strips of bamboo), a flexible leather paddle, physical moves such as grappling etc. And while your PC respects life and believes in not killing, he has to recognize that the use of force carries a degree of risk. Non-Lethal is a misdenomer meaning, "not as likely to kill" You can't be both a pacifist and use force, the two terms are contradictory.
Hitting creatures over the head with heavy chunks of iron and expecting to only "subdue" them isn't a realistic mechanic. You need to make a compromise here. A proper outlook for your character is to understand that even when using the minimal force needed, you risk injuring or killing.
My honest opinion?
How about if I hit you over the head with a 20lb chunk of iron to "subdue" you and see if you survive? Not a threat, but just a point to make you think about the effects of being struck, even with a blunt object.
A axe weights a lot less than that. And when you hit with the broad side you can subdue rather well with it.
When you use force on an enemy then you risk killing or injuring them, regardless of if that force is intentionally lethal, or even "non-lethal"
Not according to the rules
As for dealing subdual damage, you have created a character who wants to use mechanics outside of the raw
That is not outside of the raw. The rules are pretty clear about how to subdue an enemy and the DM ignored that rule.
That analogy describes the situation rather well.
DM: "The Bad guy is close to the door. You only have seconds before he vanishes"
Player: "I cast Sleep to stop him"
DM: "Your Magic Missile hits the bad guy, but he still manages to go through the door and activate the trap which collapses this passage. You can't catch him and he gets away.
Player:"What? I casted Sleep, not Magic Missile!"
DM: "No you didn't. Trust me on this"
ROFL Are you really suggesting that this is what occurred? If it is, keep it up. I love the jokes you post. They keep me laughing.
Alternatively, if you rather believe that the DM changed the rules instead of changing the action it would go like this:
DM:"Your sleep spell hits the bad guy. Now he double moves at full speed and gets through the entry which collapses behind him.
Player:"He can't. The Sleep spell would slow him"
DM:"It didn't. Trust me on this".
Ditto.
No matter how you turn it, the DM railroaded in a bad way by negating an action of a character.
Really? Do you KNOW that the DM didn't have a ritual performed on the bad guy so that sleep was altered into haste? The player sure as hell doesn't. Of course, you'd rather make poor assumptions and rail against railroading that believe that people should trust in their DMs.
Nice strawman.
I never said that railroading is bad. Unlike you I don't use railroad as an insult, but as a description to describe a style of DMing.
True, I have a very low railroad tolerance, but as long as the railroad does not invalidate any actions of the players and is hidden from their views it is ok.
So not all railroading DMs are necessarily bad, but this one certainly is.
You are going to condemn this inexperienced DM for a single action?
I do not think my statement up above to be a strawman. While it is true that you have said that a little railroading is fine you have also stated that it is only fine if it is unseen. The rest of your comments seem to be carrying a tone that any and all DM's who openly railroad for any reason are bad DM's. The fact that you have pretty muched condemned this DM repeatedly for what at the moment is still only a single isolated event further adds to this general tone. If I misread your tone then I apologize.
The DM's call was very realistic, a direct blow to the head is dangerous regardless of your intent.
Shhhh! Use words like reasonable. Too many people here falsely believe that realistic = reality. That's can of worms to be avoided. :PBut hitting creatures over the head with heavy chunks of iron and expecting to only "subdue" them isn't a realistic mechanic.
It's reasonable enough for D&D, though. Unless of course there are other circumstances involved like the hatchling incident.
You are going to condemn this inexperienced DM for a single action?
I see you have not read the link I provided, so allow my to quote the relevant part.
B. The DM isn't new to DMing, he has run various games in the past including quite a bit of 3E and Star Wars 3E and Saga. He is an experienced PC as well and is very in tune to the 4E rules, spirit and the group he was Dming for.
This DM is far from being inexperienced.
I do not think my statement up above to be a strawman. While it is true that you have said that a little railroading is fine you have also stated that it is only fine if it is unseen. The rest of your comments seem to be carrying a tone that any and all DM's who openly railroad for any reason are bad DM's. The fact that you have pretty muched condemned this DM repeatedly for what at the moment is still only a single isolated event further adds to this general tone. If I misread your tone then I apologize.
No, thats quite correct. Open railroad which negates actions of the players = bad. Imo of course (Some people apparently require this to be said each and every time while I think it is quite clear that this is just my opinion)
As for being "just one instance", I simply don't believe that the DM will change as 1. He is not a new DM and 2. When questioned by the OP he brushed him off with a classic railroader sentence.
When someone goes so far to violate a character like the DM did he isn't going to suddenly stop doing that in the future.
The DM's call was very realistic, a direct blow to the head is dangerous regardless of your intent.
Shhhh! Use words like reasonable. Too many people here falsely believe that realistic = reality. That's can of worms to be avoided. :P
Actually the Op did never specify how he attacks the dragon except that he uses the flat side of the axe instead of the pointy one. That he swings with full power at the head was dictated by the DM.
Not according to the rules
You know what's funny. You're not fooling anyone when you keep ignoring that the "Rules" say the DM can change the rules. That rule exists, whether you choose to ignore it because it causes your argument to fail or not.
That analogy describes the situation rather well.
DM: "The Bad guy is close to the door. You only have seconds before he vanishes"
Player: "I cast Sleep to stop him"
DM: "Your Magic Missile hits the bad guy, but he still manages to go through the door and activate the trap which collapses this passage. You can't catch him and he gets away.
Player:"What? I casted Sleep, not Magic Missile!"
DM: "No you didn't. Trust me on this"
Alternatively, if you rather believe that the DM changed the rules instead of changing the action it would go like this:
DM:"Your sleep spell hits the bad guy. Now he double moves at full speed and gets through the entry which collapses behind him.
Player:"He can't. The Sleep spell would slow him"
DM:"It didn't. Trust me on this".
No matter how you turn it, the DM railroaded in a bad way by negating an action of a character.
To me this would work:
DM: "The guard is getting away. He is rushing through the open door."
Player: "I cast sleep spell."
DM: "Your sleep spell hits him as he steps through the doorway and his momentum carries his unconscious body through the door where it somehow tirggers some sort of a trap that collapses the archway."
It works for me both from a DM's perspective and a Player's perspective. The spell still worked but the exact outcome of the entire scenario is not what the Player was hoping for. The Player was obviously hoping to put the guard to sleep before he got through the doorway. Successfully casting sleep does not automatically guarantee that the guard will fall asleep before going through the door. To me a spell like sleep would not somehow suddenly negate the laws of physics that deal with a body in motion.
And I have said several times that I think that the DM in question handled the situation poorly, that he could have still had the dragon killed in a manner that would not have in any way caused the player to get his character all distressed.
DM: "Unfortunately your attempt to subdue the hatchling does not work. You pull your blows but somehow you did not pull them enough. You tried your best but the hatchling still dies."
I would find that acceptable as both a Player and a DM.
That analogy describes the situation rather well.
DM: "The Bad guy is close to the door. You only have seconds before he vanishes"
Player: "I cast Sleep to stop him"
DM: "Your Magic Missile hits the bad guy, but he still manages to go through the door and activate the trap which collapses this passage. You can't catch him and he gets away.
Player:"What? I casted Sleep, not Magic Missile!"
DM: "No you didn't. Trust me on this"
Alternatively, if you rather believe that the DM changed the rules instead of changing the action it would go like this:
DM:"Your sleep spell hits the bad guy. Now he double moves at full speed and gets through the entry which collapses behind him.
Player:"He can't. The Sleep spell would slow him"
DM:"It didn't. Trust me on this".
First analogy is incorrect. GM didn't change subduing blow to lethal but ruled that the creature died upon subduing.
Second is better, if the bad guy had a magic item for example that says:'when bearer becomes slowed, he is hastened instead'
Heres another:
Player: I want to open that door, is it a minor action as per standard rules?
GM: yes.
Player: ok I grab the handle and open the door.
GM: the door doesn't budge (it's barred from the other side)
Player: What?!? You said I can open it with a minor action!?!? House rules! Railroading! You're forcing me to stay in this room!
First analogy is incorrect. GM didn't change subduing blow to lethal but ruled that the creature died upon subduing.
And as I said before, that is just disguised house ruling and does in no way change that the DM is railroading.
I see you have not read the link I provided, so allow my to quote the relevant part.
Sorry. I am pretty sure I clicked on the link but it seems I closed out the tab it was on without reading it. I apologize and I retract my statements about condemning an inexperienced DM. I was going off of the Original Posters's comment about the person in question wanting to try his hand at DMing.
I still think, though, it is a bit unfair to condemn him over this one incident.
And as I said before, that is just disguised house ruling and does in no way change that the DM is railroading.
Er, not if he actually had a magic item that changed sleep. I'd hate to play in one of your games, where nothing can ever be created and only things writen in the "rule" books can ever happen or be used. God, how boring.
Max, quick question, how would you feel if the DM suddenly decided that all players should roll a d12 to hit, while his monsters roll a d20?
This is s different case then the orriginal poster. The DM used the RaW to determine that that blue dragon died. The Dragon was a baby hatchling fresh from it's egg, and likely not to have many hps to begin with. It is very possible that the damage from the blow to the head was greater then it's negative bloodied HP value.. ie if the baby dragon has 20 hp and it's bloodied value is 10, then the barbarian does 16 damage to it bring it down to 4 hps, and then does 15 damage on the second blow to the head bringing it down to -11 damage, then the dragon would be dead and the option to knock out would not be available.
And as I said before, that is just disguised house ruling and does in no way change that the DM is railroading.
Matter of definition, but as I said before, by your definition, every single campaign ever played anywhere included railroading.
However, DM then didn't force the player to do anything.
Er, not if he actually had a magic item that changed sleep. I'd hate to play in one of your games, where nothing can ever be created and only things writen in the "rule" books can ever happen or be used. God, how boring.
And I would hate to play in one of your games where things change unpredictably in an instant where you can never be sure what your next action will result in.
And I would hate to play in one of your games where things change unpredictably in an instant where you can never be sure what your next action will result in.
I'd hate to bring quantum mechanics in this, but in real life it can be mathematically proven that the result of no action is absolutely certain.
And I would hate to play in one of your games where things change unpredictably in an instant where you can never be sure what your next action will result in.
Lucky for me, none of my players have to worry about things changing unpredictably in an instant, because unlike you, they have a grasp of what's actually going on here in this thread and understand that I'm not going to do things arbitrarily.
Noting that you're still avoiding the DMs can change the rules rule.
I'm certain if the creators wanted detailed and realistic properties for each of their weapons, giving specific ones the option to deal subduel, they would have. The DM has the right to change rules AFTER giving prior warning to the players. If he doesn't, then he is disrespecting his group and the general spirit and understanding of 4E.
In all honesty, the "roll a D12 reference" does work. It doesn't have to be a constant thing, even just one encounter would be frustrating. What if your character is fighting a massive dragon and the DM says "You have to roll D12s against the Dragon to hit because his hide is so thick it will be harder to penetrate." This is an example of the DM changing the rules, to help make the encounter more "realistic, but completely breaking the mechanics of the game. What if the DM said- "Your AC is reduced to 0 because the dark creeper assassins are just too fast and skilled for you to defend against." The fact is, I should never as a player have to worry about the rules being abruptly changed without any prior notice. If random rug pulling like this were to become a trend, the game would quickly become frustrating and all together futile.
The DM used the RaW to determine that that blue dragon died. The Dragon was a baby hatchling fresh from it's egg, and likely not to have many hps to begin with. It is very possible that the damage from the blow to the head was greater then it's negative bloodied HP value.. ie if the baby dragon has 20 hp and it's bloodied value is 10, then the barbarian does 16 damage to it bring it down to 4 hps, and then does 15 damage on the second blow to the head bringing it down to -11 damage, then the dragon would be dead and the option to knock out would not be available.
No, you're wrong. Read it again.
Hint: Only PCs count negative HP. You should try looking more closely at the rules for *NPCs* who hit zero.
A axe weights a lot less than that. And when you hit with the broad side you can subdue rather well with it.
An axe weighs enough that being hit over the head with it, even with the flat of it, is very likely to kill a person. A blow to the skull with a heavy chunk of metal is a death blow, and not a "subdual damage" blow.
That is not outside of the raw. The rules are pretty clear about how to subdue an enemy and the DM ignored that rule.
Yes, if a creature is knocked below 0 hp the PC can choose to KO rather then kill, persumably by not dealling a death blow or a coup de grace but by striking the creature in a non-lethal fashion.
A called shot to deal a direct blow to the soft skull of a newly hatched baby is choosing the Death Blow or coup de grace, I suggest choosing a non-vital area to hit a creature in when deciding not to kill it.
Part of the DMs job is to arbitrate the rules and to keep a sense of realism and believability to the game in general. Making a ruling that a direct blow to the head with a large chunk of iron by a very strong barbarian is going to kill a freshly hatched dragon, is an EXTREMLY REASONABLE ruling.
And using the KO rules to their most extreme, If I placed a shotgun's barrel directly over a small bug and pulled the trigger, thereby doing 500hp damage to a .000001 hp bug, I could declare that I only KO'd it and not killed it outright. I think there is a point where the DM has to use his descrition and rule that excessive damage bypasses the KO option
DM: "Yes, X will work"
PC: "I do X"
DM: "X fails"
PC: "What? Why?"
DM: "It wasn't realistic to think X would work"
This is what happened. It is bad DMing plain and simple. Now watch as this magically turns into okay DMing
PC: "Will X work?"
DM: "It's risky, no guarantee"
PC: "Hmm..."
Ain't nothing wrong with that.
But if that wasn't bad enough, we found out later that X really did fail just because the DM wanted it too for story reasons. He lied about how the players could interact with the world.
There was no hidden knowledge that the PCs lacked.
There was no previously stated house rule.
It was just lying to the PCs.
4e PHB Page 295 under "Knocking Creatures Unconscious". You don't have to say in 4e that you deal Nonleathal damage. Once you reduce a monster to 0 hp you can choose to knock it unconscious rather then kill it. So you don't need a house rule unless your group wants all monster to die no matter what. You clearly told the DM that you were knocking it Unconscious so it is not dead. Just point this rule out to the DM/s and point out that the choice to kill or not is up to you not them.
You do know that the DM rules the rules, right? The rules don't rule the DM.
In all honesty, the "roll a D12 reference" does work. It doesn't have to be a constant thing, even just one encounter would be frustrating. What if your character is fighting a massive dragon and the DM says "You have to roll D12s against the Dragon to hit because his hide is so thick it will be harder to penetrate." This is an example of the DM changing the rules, to help make the encounter more "realistic, but completely breaking the mechanics of the game.
No. Dragons already have a high AC to represent that. The d12 analogy = fail.
What if the DM said- "Your AC is reduced to 0 because the dark creeper assassins are just too fast and skilled for you to defend against." The fact is, I should never as a player have to worry about the rules being abruptly changed without any prior notice. If random rug pulling like this were to become a trend, the game would quickly become frustrating and all together futile.
Except that would be stupid. What your DM did was......reasonable. But it seems you would rather whine about it than deal with a DM judgment call that had a reason for happening. ::shrug::
Part of the DMs job is to arbitrate the rules and to keep a sense of realism and believability to the game in general. Making a ruling that a direct blow to the head with a large chunk of iron by a very strong barbarian is going to kill a freshly hatched dragon, is an EXTREMLY REASONABLE ruling.
And using the KO rules to their most extreme, If I placed a shotgun's barrel directly over a small bug and pulled the trigger, thereby doing 500hp damage to a .000001 hp bug, I could declare that I only KO'd it and not killed it outright. I think there is a point where the DM has to use his descrition and rule that excessive damage bypasses the KO option
This is it exactly.
An axe weighs enough that being hit over the head with it, even with the flat of it, is very likely to kill a person. A blow to the skull with a heavy chunk of metal is a death blow, and not a "subdual damage" blow.
Do you know how much an axe weights?
A called shot to deal a direct blow to the soft skull of a newly hatched baby is choosing the Death Blow or coup de grace, I suggest choosing a non-vital area to hit a creature in when deciding not to kill it.
Part of the DMs job is to arbitrate the rules and to keep a sense of realism and believability to the game in general. Making a ruling that a direct blow to the head with a large chunk of iron by a very strong barbarian is going to kill a freshly hatched dragon, is an EXTREMLY REASONABLE ruling.
This is it exactly.
And again people fail to read. The OP never said that he is swinging at the head. That was dictated by the DM.
It seems pretty obvious to me that you're bantering back and forth with railroaders, and they don't want to be told that no one really likes it when they do crappy stuff like this DM did.
They probably all think railroading is bad except when they do it, because they can do it really subtly and it only ever advances their awesome stories. Who would get ****** off at that, right?
And again people fail to read. The OP never said that he is swinging at the head. That was dictated by the DM.
Or that he was even swinging his axe - the OP said he attempted to "knock the dragon out". He never said "Use the flat head of my axe to knock the baby dragon out". That truly WOULD be silly. Why not sock it one across it's face with a punch? Or maybe smack it with the wooden shaft of your axe? You know, like a sap, which used to be used for doing non-lethal damage specifically.
While the DM does make the rules, and the rules presented in the rulebook ARE merely guidelines to his almighty power, I am of the opinion that he does have a responsibility to his players to inform them of changes, or at least hint at them.
Mainly the point of contention seems to be did the DM have the *right* to do this. Sure he had the right. Was it a mistake? I suppose it depends on your view of what a DM's job is. My view of a DM's job is to make a fun and entertaining experience for the players. In this instance I think that the DM did a poor job of making it fun, as the player was obviously distraught by the outcome.
Of course if your view of a DM's job is that the DM should be an amazing storyteller above all else, and the wyrmling dying was an integral part of the story, then sure, this ruling was correct. In the end it all comes down to personal play styles, personal opinions, and personal choices. Some people can choose to think this was a bad call. Others can choose to think it was a good call.
Frankly, in the end though, arguing over which it was is a moot point - either someone thinks it was or wasn't and they really aren't going to change their opinion no matter how many facts you throw at them. I count myself as one of these people, but I'm pretty certain everyone else posting here is of a similar position. But really, bickering over what we think is the best role of a DM isn't going to help the OP with their problem: "What do I do now that it is my opinion that my DM did something wrong?"
That means whether or not you agree with their opinion you should be able to give constructive advice on the topic.
When I disagree with my DM about something rules-wise like that I generally try to talk to them about it after the session if a quick rules-check in-session doesn't clear it up first. Then I try and understand why the DM did what they did. If I personally disagree with the way a DM thinks a DM's job should be then that shows during the conversation. From there I generally start ticking off grievances over time and if it exceeds a certain amount I will leave the party. Generally though most DM's do a bang-up job and I try to give them the benefit of the doubt first - let the situation play out a few sessions before making a final judgment call. I suppose it comes down to one question:
Are you having fun?
If not...well maybe you should start spending your leisure time having fun instead of having not-fun.
You do know that the DM rules the rules, right? The rules don't rule the DM.
Yes that is true but He already told the Player that the player could do it. Then told him It was dead right after. Although a DM can do this it is not fair and looked down upon. The DM should have stayed with the ruling he had chosen to begin with then after the game sit the group down, look up the rules, and then decide then how it works for them. The DMG says if you as a DM is wrong about a ruling and it has a big effect on the story, like killing a PC off or having the PC kill something that should still be alive, then he/she should make ammends. Page 30 DMG4e under " Bad Rules Call". The DM made a call that was a bad call. Now the DM needs to admit to the mistake and fix what went wrong.
Do you know how much an axe weights?
And again people fail to read. The OP never said that he is swinging at the head. That was dictated by the DM.
For reference Battle axe weighs 6lbs, Double weighs 15lbs, Execution axe 14lbs, Great axe 12lbs, Hand axe 3, and waraxe is 10lbs. In reference the weapon that weighs the most is
the double axe and the one that weighs the least is The throw stars at .01lbs. If you look right at the stats for the double axeand the Battle axe both do the same damage. The Execution axe weighs over twice the battle axe and only does one die more. Weight of the object used doesn't have that much to do with it. In real life it would be how hard the person was hit with the object. Having a 6lb object fall and hit your head would more then likely knock you out or/and give you a concussion but someone swing 6lb object as hard as they can will kill you. By swinging the axe sideways and controlling how much strength they used behind the swing the Player should have been able to knock the creature out. I would have ruled a crit hit killed the creature.
It is OK for a DM to do it their own way. It is not OK for them to say that a player can do it one way when they don't even mean to let the player do that. This creates mistrust between players and DM. That is why it is wrong.
Derren, you're never going to win.
It seems pretty obvious to me that you're bantering back and forth with railroaders, and they don't want to be told that no one really likes it when they do crappy stuff like this DM did.
They probably all think railroading is bad except when they do it, because they can do it really subtly and it only ever advances their awesome stories. Who would get ****** off at that, right?
He's never going to win, because he's wrong.
On my next turn I explain that I am using subduel again, using the flat of my ax if you will, to knock the little guy out.
That's what OP said, and you knock someone out by hitting them in the head.
It can be argued that OP didn't mean that he wanted to hit the dragon in the head, but it's VERY reasonable for the DM to think that it was a shot to the head based on OP's request.
Yes that is true but He already told the Player that the player could do it. Then told him It was dead right after.
He actually asked if he could attemtp it, and was told the attempt was fine.
Quick thinking, I attempt to knock the dragon out using subduel damage. I explain this to the DM and he says thats fine.
The DMG says if you as a DM is wrong about a ruling and it has a big effect on the story, like killing a PC off or having the PC kill something that should still be alive, then he/she should make ammends. Page 30 DMG4e under " Bad Rules Call". The DM made a call that was a bad call. Now the DM needs to admit to the mistake and fix what went wrong.
The difference is, the DM was not wrong with this call. He made a spot ruling that changed things. He didn't get a rule wrong by mistake, so it wasn't a bad call. What it was, was a bad way to go about making a GOOD call.
He's never going to win, because he's wrong.
That's what OP said, and you knock someone out by hitting them in the head.
It can be argued that OP didn't mean that he wanted to hit the dragon in the head, but it's VERY reasonable for the DM to think that it was a shot to the head based on OP's request.
Except that he's not. The DM changed the game at the last moment for no other purpose but to get his own way. It's the very definition of being a sucky DM.
And if any DM's out here are muttering stuff to them selves like "well sometimes you have to railroad a little bit," or "it may suck when others do it but my story is really good so it's okay," well then you aren't any better.
Thats also really uncreative.
Someone who can't do better should not DM.
Being a DM is not a creativity test, sorry to break it to you.
Being a DM is not a creativity test, sorry to break it to you.
That was actually just a nice way of saying that your example is laughable and silly.
No. Dragons already have a high AC to represent that. The d12 analogy = fail.
Except that would be stupid. What your DM did was......reasonable. But it seems you would rather whine about it than deal with a DM judgment call that had a reason for happening. ::shrug::
The rule that allows you to choose to kill or simply knock out a foe represents the situation at hand, but the DM chose to ignore that representation too. So why wouldn't any other analogy work? What if the DM decides that the Dragons AC isn't the best representation of his startling defenses and chooses to give it an aura that makes players roll a D12? Under your philosophy, the DM would be in his own right to change the rules to whatever he deems them to be. And with all due respect, who are you to decide what is reasonable and not reasonable? It is simply your opinion. I think using a rule from a game I'm playing that has had no indication it is to be changed is pretty reasonable. When it is changed after the fact and I suffer consequences due to that change, THAT seems unreasonable. That is my opinion.
I'm sure you will attempt to quote someone and look clever by hammering away with your repeated defense on the subject, thus raising this simple thread to ever more impressive post count heights, but the fact is I simply can't agree with you. Just because the DM has the right to change things doesn't mean he can disregard his players when making those changes.
As noted earlier, I have dealt with the DM call. I'm going to continue to play and use the situation for character development. I don't think the DM is a "Bad DM"- this whole thread was to discuss the one single incident. But I don't have to like it. Nor do I have to think it is fair, respectful to the spirit of the game or a good call. And your insult can't really change that. :D
That was actually just a nice way of saying that your example is laughable and silly.
Laughable and silly how? It's perfectly acceptable to have a story start with an assassin killing a king. It might not be very original, but it's reasonable. Being a DM is not an exercise in creativity, nor is it all about being original.
If you set up the PCs to be the bodyguards of the King *and then* want to run the combat, you risk them succeeding in thwarting not just your plans but your PREMISE - and you'll rightfully be called for "Railroading!" for correcting that. On the other hand, if your story *opens* with the Head Bodyguard telling all the lesser bodyguards (the PCs) that the Royal Bodyguard Corps has failed, the King is dead, and now (Insert story premise here, whether it's Find The Killer, or Escape From Prison, or Protect The Heir Who Is Away At Boarding School Right Now, or whatever), that feels very different to the players, even if it reaches the same result.
If you want your story to start with the murder of the king, then either start it *with the murder of the king*, as part of your opening descriptions, and let the PCs start acting in the aftermath, or simply make sure they're nowhere near it when it happens.
And what if, for dramatic license, I want the players to actually see the king dying? I accept that as 1 way of doing it, but that certainly shouldn't be the only way I can set the story up.
I'm pretty sure D&D in general is a game that has to do with creativity and imagination.
What was the quote from the start of the original D&D rules? "This is a game that is fun. It helps you imagine." Not, "This is a game that is about math and obscure trivia. It helps you do better on your SATs," or "This is a game about storytelling. It helps one person to act out a pre-determined story using his friends to help."
I'm pretty sure D&D in general is a game that has to do with creativity and imagination.
As a DM, your job is to create a story, but that story need not be original. You can take concepts from all over the place to fuel your stories.
He actually asked if he could attemtp it, and was told the attempt was fine.
This was the DMs Call.
The difference is, the DM was not wrong with this call. He made a spot ruling that changed things. He didn't get a rule wrong by mistake, so it wasn't a bad call. What it was, was a bad way to go about making a GOOD call.
Then AFTER the encounter he infom the player that the OP had killed the dragon even though he told the player that he wasn't going to kill the dragon. This is change the call after the fact. He wasn't going to let the OP do it to begin with and never told the OP that. The DM told him a lie or The DM mixed up the rules and thought that the -Bloodied rule was for monster too.
As a DM, your job is to create a story, but that story need not be original. You can take concepts from all over the place to fuel your stories.
I didn't say it had to be original. Nothing is original anymore. We get fed the same stuff in movies, books, media and our RPing- just with new creative and imaginative spins. RPing in its very existence IS an exercise in creativity. Both for the one running the game and the collective that are playing in it.
To say a DM doesn't need any creativity is like saying a fiction writer doesn't need creativity or a good director for a film.
I'm pretty sure D&D in general is a game that has to do with creativity and imagination.
The DM is supposed to take what the players do and turn that into the story. No matter if it goes along with the story that was planned or not. This was a great event for the DM to make what the player did more important to the story. If the dragon was supposed to die then the DM could have made the thing sick after a few days and had the players try to get the dragon back to mother before the thing dies and then keep them busy with encounters. Could have been handled better but that can still be fixed.
He's never going to win, because he's wrong.
That's what OP said, and you knock someone out by hitting them in the head.
~snip~.
Really? ...Really? I can punch someone in the chest or the side hard enough to knock you out. Sheer pain can cause unconsciousness. In a full swing to the side of the baby dragon can one deprive the baby of air, or two break some ribs that intern are so painful that the baby dragon falls unconscious or at least is to much pain for the baby to use its breath weapon (a very acceptable way to subdue the dragon without killing it or knocking it unconscious). Two very good ways I could use an axe to make a baby dragon go sleep sleep now, or so it won't kill all my players next turn. Just cause I say I'm going to paint my house does not always mean I will use a brush, I could use an air compressor so just cause thats what you assume does not mean that is what any one else assumes.
I agree the DM has complete control over the rules/game but after saying that it will knock him out and then screwing the player over by killing it, is a dick move doesn't mean he can't do it just that it is annoying and if I was playing a character like the OPs I would be furious with the DM.
My
.Except that he's not. The DM changed the game at the last moment for no other purpose but to get his own way. It's the very definition of being a sucky DM.
And if any DM's out here are muttering stuff to them selves like "well sometimes you have to railroad a little bit," or "it may suck when others do it but my story is really good so it's okay," well then you aren't any better.
LOL Stick your head in the sand often?
And with all due respect, who are you to decide what is reasonable and not reasonable?
I'm God.
This was the DMs Call.
Yep.
Then AFTER the encounter he infom the player that the OP had killed the dragon even though he told the player that he wasn't going to kill the dragon. This is change the call after the fact. He wasn't going to let the OP do it to begin with and never told the OP that. The DM told him a lie or The DM mixed up the rules and thought that the -Bloodied rule was for monster too.
None of which makes the DMs call invalid. The player asked if he could ATTEMPT to subue, and the DM said yes. Nothing in that call indicates that the player has any chance to actually subdue, and the DM would be wrong to tell the player that he had no chance when his character would not know ahead of time that he couldn't subdue the thing.
The DM isn't obligated to ruin the story by informing the player of things that are behind the scene, like "The hatchling is too weak and fragile to survive attacks that put it to 0 hit points." The player has no right to know things like that, and if he finds out the hard way, he should roleplay the situation out, not complain about it.
I'm God.
Wow. Max, I can tell by your childish replies now that you're side of the issue has lost all steam. Not to mention you're credibility as a respectable poster on these forums. I truly hope you let some of the wisdom that was shared in this thread alter how you treat your players in the future. If I have learned anything from all this- it's that I would never play under a DM as unyielding, rude and immature as you.
Really? ...Really? I can punch someone in the chest or the side hard enough to knock you out. Sheer pain can cause unconsciousness. In a full swing to the side of the baby dragon can one deprive the baby of air, or two break some ribs that intern are so painful that the baby dragon falls unconscious or at least is to much pain for the baby to use its breath weapon (a very acceptable way to subdue the dragon without killing it or knocking it unconscious).
A full swing to the side of the hatchling would also have hit it in the head and tail. It's a very small thing, fresh out of the egg. Further, the most commonly used place to knock someone out is the head. If the player meant something else, it's his fault for not specifying.
Two very good ways I could use an axe to make a baby dragon go sleep sleep now, or so it won't kill all my players next turn.
Really? The dragon was fragile. Your hit to the side just ruptured the internal organs and killed it.
I agree the DM has complete control over the rules/game but after saying that it will knock him out and then screwing the player over by killing it, is a dick move doesn't mean he can't do it just that it is annoying and if I was playing a character like the OPs I would be furious with the DM.
The DM never said it would knock it out. Didn't you read my quote of OP's post? The DM only said that OP could ATTEMPT to knock it out.
Wow. Max, I can tell by your childish replies now that you're side of the issue has lost all steam.
Hey, if you ask a stupid question, expect a stupid answer. Of course reasonable is an opinion.
It's obvious to everyone here that you're a railroader. You railroad your PCs but somehow have yourself fooled to think that you do it in a manner that is not annoying as hell to your PC's.
This DM (or you in whatever campaign you run), might think that his story is awesome, but honestly, a player isn't going to be so interested in it that it's worth being railroaded to see. What ever wonderful story this DM dreamed up, he ****** all over his friend to tell it, and it seems you **** all over your friends to tell whatever story you dreamed up.
So tonight we are playing, my regular gaming group and I, and we've just started a fresh campaign. One of the players who normally PCs has decided to try his hand at DMing some 4E. We've all made our characters- I am Conn, an easy going but proud Barbarian that respects life and only takes it when he must. In fact, it is the bulk of his character build that taking life is a last resort. It was my intention to simply state that my damage on certain creatures/people would be subduel. Some of the DMs in our circle think this rule is cheesy and unrealistic so they have made house rules to make it harder to hit ect. (Tonights DM did not specify a house rule on this) Personally, I think punishing the players for not just hack n' slashing their way through enemies is wrong- but thats not exactly what this is about.
There is this Dragon that is attacking nearby settlements and we have to find out why. We think it is ticked that its egg has been stolen. Long story short, we find what we think is the Dragon's egg- the egg hatches. Inside is a blue hatchling. Various party members immediately think it is cute and start feeding it ect-it is still hungry even as they empty their rations in its mouth. The big, bad minotaur warden in the group decides its time to tie the hatchling up before its hunger turns into aggression, but the hatchling bolts, making a run for it! Quick thinking, I attempt to knock the dragon out using subduel damage. I explain this to the DM and he says thats fine. I deal some damage, but the little bugger is still up. Now he is ticked. He hits the party with his breath attack and bloodies several of us instantly! On my next turn I explain that I am using subduel again, using the flat of my ax if you will, to knock the little guy out. After all, he's going to drop people next turn if he gets a chance to do that again. And if we can knock him out maybe he'll be safe to travel with. I hit, I deal damage- the DM says that I kill the dragon.
I am really upset and so is my character. This man who does not wish to kill unless he must has just beaten a baby animal to death. Other party members are disgusted with his cruelty. The Cleric of Bahamut is outright furious. And the quest may be ruined now that we've killed the attacking Dragons offspring. The DM explains that it is unrealistic to hit a baby and not expect to kill it and that for the sake of RPing I should accept it. I do accept the decision, and I love RPing and the plot hooks that come with it, but isn't completely altering a rule wrong without some kind of notice? Isn't punishing a player by sullying his character's alignment, background and personality kind of messed up when that player was using a defined and simple rule and was given the consequences of that rules exact opposite results? Honestly, I'm still pondering this and wondering what the rest of the game has in store. Needless to say, my character is afraid to ever attempt to knock someone out now because he may splatter their brains out instead.
I'm curious as to what you guys think. As a DM or a PC, how would you react to this and what are your opinions on a situation like this or similar to this?
DID the OP change this statement or did I miss something? Because the OP said what the PC was going to do and then the DM said OK. Not that the PC can try.
Max, what on earth does my reply have anything to do with sticking my head in the sand?
This below.
It's obvious to everyone here that you're a railroader. You railroad your PCs but somehow have yourself fooled to think that you do it in a manner that is not annoying as hell to your PC's.
I'm not a railroader, and neither is the DM in question. Your head is in the sand, keeping you nice and oblivious to what is actually going on.
DID the OP change this statement or did I miss something? Because the OP said what the PC was going to do and then the DM said OK. Not that the PC can try.
ROFL Read your bold part. OP says "Quick thinking, I ATTEMPT....." Attempt, as in try.
The DM says OK. As in "OK, you can try."
Do you know how much an axe weights?
Page 218 of the PHB, states it weighs 12 lbs, most of that weight is on the heavy lump of iron on it's business end. It also says that an Axe does a base damage of 1d12, the highest base damage of any other weapon listed.
He used the Heaviest, most brutally damaging weapon possibly available to him to attempt to do "subdual" damage to a freshly hatched baby!!!
Here is an example of this sort of thinking!
DM, It is dark and there is loose straw piled everywhere in the barn, it is very dry and dusty in the room, and there are crates of old fireworks under the straw.
PC: Is it safe to light a candle? Without burning everything down?
DM: Yes it is safe to light a Candle.
PC: Ok, I put the candle on the ground in the center of the barn on top of a crate of those old fireworks and cast Fireball on it to light it.
DM: You do what???
PC: Well I don't have matches, how else would I light the candle?
DM: Ok... The barn blows up, engulfed in a ball of flames as the straw and fireworks are all ignited at once by your fireball, the explosion is seen by cities miles away as a mushroom cloud expands over the crater where the barn once stood.
PC: What the hell you said it was safe to light a candle, the rules as written in the books even say that candles are safe!!!
DM: ......
This is a case where the Barbarian used brutal and exxessive force on a rather fragile creature, the DM made a fair ruling that the freshly hatched baby could not survive that much damage lethal or otherwise.
Then AFTER the encounter he infom the player that the OP had killed the dragon even though he told the player that he wasn't going to kill the dragon. This is change the call after the fact. He wasn't going to let the OP do it to begin with and never told the OP that. The DM told him a lie or The DM mixed up the rules and thought that the -Bloodied rule was for monster too.
It`s one thing to say that a Player can do something (or rather attempt something) there is another to abrbitrate what actually occured. To say`that the player can do something doesn`t mean they will actually succeed, but rather that they will take that decalred action, the consequences of that action can be totally different then expected.
PC: I am going to beat the freshly hatched baby dragon with this very large axe to knock it out.
DM: OK, you can hit the dragon with the axe.
This does not mean that the axe will KO the creature, only that the PC may attempt to knoch out the creature. The player could miss and not do enough damage to knock it out. For example, the Player did hit the baby with his axe, and the baby survived to the next round without being knocked out.
example, dragon has 20 hps, the barbarian hits it with the axe and does 19 damage, the baby is bloodied but alive.
Is the DM railroading? He said the player could hit it with an axe and knock it out, yet the dragon isn`t knocked out. Something different happened despite what the DM said. This is because what a player can do is arbitrated by the consequences of his rolls and other variables. PC: can I jump across this pit? DM: Yes, PC: rolls a 2, fails and falls into the pit. The DM saying something can be done only means it can be attempted.
Next round the player asks if he can do it again, the DM says, yes you may Just as before this doesn`t mean that the barbarian will have an auto success.
Nor does the DM need to spoon feed his players what they should or shouldn`t be doing. For all we (or the player) know the DM could have rolled the appropriate skill behind his screen to see if the barbarian would realize what he was doing. The barbarian doesn`t stop to access the Dragon`s condition.
The Barbarian rolls again, this time scoring 45 damage, bringing the dragon down to negative 44 hps, the DM (who was expecting the dragon to be knocked out himself) realises that this damage is eccesive, he decides to rule that under these circumstances that there is no real way the baby could have survived that blow, even if it was meant to be subdual and evokes the death at negative bloodied hp rule which the creature is far beyond.
To me, I see a reasonable ruling on the DMs part. I don`t see the DM as Railroading, because his story from what I see of it, intended that the baby Dragon be alive (the quest fails otherwise) I don`t believe the DM intended the players to fail the quest as this would be pointless. In fact this is the opposite of railroading where the DM allows the storyline to be serriously and unexpected altered even when he has the ability to say otherwise.
He attempted to attack and deal Non lethal damage. The DM said it was a success and dealt damage. So he was successful both times. Otherwise he wouldn't have dealt damage.
And then he found out that non-lethal damage in those very specialized circumstances can still kill. he did non-lethal type of damage, but it killed anyway.
He used the Heaviest, most brutally damaging weapon possibly available to him to attempt to do "subdual" damage to a freshly hatched baby!!!
Would it have been better if I used a Longsword? Short sword? Dagger? My boot? There is simply no mechanic, not one in the least, that deals with larger weapons having any lethal results when attempting to knock someone out. I'm sure if the game designers wanted to incorporate this amount of realism they most certainly would have. I can see how in the real world one weapon might potentially be more difficult to knock a foe out with than another, but the developers of 4E decided that D&D is a heroic game and such tedious nit picking takes away from the essence of the game. If a DM has an issue with this decision then they should make a note of that before the game begins or as soon as the rule comes up. What I don't think people realize is that D&D is full of things that are not realistic. Baby dragons for one. Who is to say that freshly hatched dragons aren't sturdy and durable? As we don't have them in our real world and they exist strictly in pretend-fantasy land then perhaps they shouldn't be treated with the same fragile reputation as a soft, spongy newborn. The fact is, the hatchling had well over 40 hit points, an AC over 16 and dealt damage that bloodied 4 out of 5 of the members in my party in a single turn. This doesn't seem like a weak, vulnerable infant. Heck, we even got XP for this! :D It was an encounter and in 4E, encounters are considered challenges. Whether I tried to knock this thing out with an ax or a sock full of marshmellows simply has no merit in this case.
Nor does the DM need to spoon feed his players what they should or shouldn`t be doing. For all we (or the player) know the DM could have rolled the appropriate skill behind his screen to see if the barbarian would realize what he was doing. The barbarian doesn`t stop to access the Dragon`s condition.
You kind of condridict yourself here. You say it is up for players to not be spoon fed yet you remark that the DM should roll to discover what my character sees right in front of him or what he realizes he is doing? As a player, I would hope I would have the opportunity to role play my own character. If the DM gets to decide how my character views the world around him and how he reacts to it, especially things directly in front of me and that I am interacting with, (Invisibility and other magical things like that aside) then that IS taking control of my character.
And then he found out that non-lethal damage in those very specialized circumstances can still kill. he did non-lethal type of damage, but it killed anyway.
No he didn't because it doesn't work that way in 4e. He could have just decided upon getting the dragon down to 0 hp not to kill it. Because once a monster hits 0hp they are disabled and you don't track their hp anymore.
Would it have been better if I used a Longsword? Short sword? Dagger? My boot? There is simply no mechanic, not one in the least, that deals with larger weapons having any lethal results when attempting to knock someone out.
Perhaps it would have been better to use a different weapon, I state the very real and brutal statistics for an Axe for a very good reason and it makes a valid point if you would care to listen.
That it is a very poor choice of a weapon to use to do minimal and non-lethal damage in this situation. It`s not the case where the weapon does excessive damage compared to it`s intended results. It`s simply overkill, and if you read my other posts you would see where I refered to how the use of even weapons specifically designed to be non-lethal (rubber bullets and tasers) can and do kill people.
I beleive from your original post that it is the result of the excessive use of force that the DM made his ruling from. The baby was simply too vulnerable to be able to withstand such use of force, non-lethal or otherwise.
In the absence of feedback from your DM I have to conclude that his ruling could well be reasonable and justifiable.
Using a weapon that did considerably less damage or that was not designed to be specifically lethal (such as your boot) may have been a better choice for knocking out the baby dragon as the force used wouldn`t have been as excessive.
Other possible alternatives would have been ropes, grappling etc. The baby dragon didn`t fight back until after your first blow with the axe and so was acting in self defence, the situation was only so desperaate because of your initial use of force.
I'm sure if the game designers wanted to incorporate this amount of realism they most certainly would have. I can see how in the real world one weapon might potentially be more difficult to knock a foe out with than another, but the developers of 4E decided that D&D is a heroic game and such tedious nit picking takes away from the essence of the game.
Roleplaying games use rules to help arbitrate most common situations that pertain dirrectly with the game, but they can`t predict all possibilities, thus a DM is often called upon to make reasonable arbitrations and decisions for when the rules aren`t realistic or for when the rules don`t cover a specific eventuality. It is this which makes roleplaying games so very different from board games, it has a DM.
If a DM has an issue with this decision then they should make a note of that before the game begins or as soon as the rule comes up. What I don't think people realize is that D&D is full of things that are not realistic.
preferably they should take note of such rulings in advance, but I submit that the situation may not have been known to the DM until after it had occured. He likely at the begining of the encounter, when the Egg Hatched, had intended that the Barbarian would attempt to subdue it by beating upon it with a very large axe. It`s only after you rolled your damage that the situation would be apparent to the DM and he would have to make his ruling.
Your presence as the Dungeon Master is what makes
D&D such a great game. You make it possible .... That means
itās your job to resolve unusual actions when the players
try them.
The fact is, the hatchling had well over 40 hit points, an AC over 16 and dealt damage that bloodied 4 out of 5 of the members in my party in a single turn. This doesn't seem like a weak, vulnerable infant. Heck, we even got XP for this! :D It was an encounter and in 4E, encounters are considered challenges.
You Bloodied the Dragon in a single blow, which means you did well over half it`s hitpoints in a single blow. One member of the group in one blow. In the second blow the DM declared the baby dragon dead with no chance of survival.
If on the second blow, you likely brought the creature down below it`s negative bloodied HP, then the DM is right in calling your use of force excessive and I would likely make the same ruling.
Whether I tried to knock this thing out with an ax or a sock full of marshmellows simply has no merit in this case
Well, yes it does, a sock of marshmellows wouldn`t do excessive damage. Point of the matter is if you wish to do subdual damage then using excessive, lethal force isn`t the way to go (ie a large axe) A Sap, a padded billy club, a paddle of hardened leather, a flexible rod, a shinai practive sword.
What I am talking about and what you are talking about might not be the same. I am not refering to subdual damage, or the knock otu rather then kill option, nor do I think the DM should, under normal circumastances, not allow those. What I think the issue is rather is about Massive Damage or Excessive Force, and in this case the combined circumstances of the vulnerabilities of a new born creature vs excessive force seems to be the issue the DM had, I personally can understand how his ruling seems reasonable.
Also, as a player, I would hope I would have the opportunity to role play my own character. If the DM gets to decide how my character views the world and around him and reacts to it, especially things directly in front of me and that I am interacting with, (Invisibility and other magical things like that aside) then that IS taking control of my character.
I agree. However, while you can control your character`s views of the world around him, and how your character reacts, you CANNOT control how the world around your character reacts to your character. It is the DM`s job to arbitrate how the world reacts to you.
For instance your character can give a guard a bribe, but you, as a player, cannot determine if the guard will take the bribe or not. You don`t control the guard, the DM does and he may decide it reacts differently then your character expects.
The DM here is not controling your character, nor his views. Your character swung his axe with intent of only doing subdual damage and knocking it out, The DM did not stop your attempt, nor change your intentions or actions. You rolled to hit, you rolled the damage, but it is up to the DM to determine the results of that damage.
The DM however did roleplay the baby dragon, and it is the DM that controls the baby dragon and not the players. The DM decided that His character, the baby dragon, was frail and could not survive excessive force, regardless of the intent of those applying siad force.
The baby dragon`s vulnerability and frailness is something that is beyond the control of your character, it`s not something that you as a player can decide upon.
Aditionally the rule that you die when you reach your negative bloodied HPs is not exclusive to the PCs, It can apply to NPCS and Monsters, it just generally isn`t as a matter of conveneince.
Monsters and characters controlled by the Dungeon
Master usually die when they reach 0 hit points,
.....You generally donāt need to
stalk around the battlefield after a fight, making sure
all your foes are dead.
This is only so as to not waste time having to declare they coiup de grace all the dying enemies after each battle, a conveneince and nothing more, but it is not a hard and fast rule. A DM is well within the RaW to use the negative bloodied death rule on a mosnter or NPC.
When you reduce a creature to 0 hit points or fewer, you
can choose to knock it unconscious rather than kill it.
Until it regains hit points, the creature is unconscious but
not dying.
The creature is still brought to negative HPs (although it is stabilized and not dying) It is reasonable to assume that if a creature is brought to negative HPs without killing it then the death at zero hp rule isn`t being applied, in which case the monster is treated like a PC and applying the death at negative bloodied hps rule is reasonable.
You kind of condridict yourself here. You say it is up for players to not be spoon fed yet you remark that the DM should roll to discover what my character sees right in front of him or what he realizes he is doing?
I am not contradicting myself. I often make rolls behind my screen to determine what the characters see or notice, based upon their skills. Asking a player to make a Heal or Perception roll to see what the dragon`s health is can lead to meta-gaming on the player`s part. Rolling behind the screen for the player and then revealing what his character may have noticed based upon that roll is not playing the character for him, it is simply telling you what your character is capable of noticing.
For instance if someone is sneaking up behind you, can your character hear them. Asking you to make a Listen Check will only tell your character that there is something for them to hear, so the DM uses your passive skill. Skill ckecks such as Heal don`t have a passive check, however they could be used to notice the health of the baby dragon (you notice that it`s eyes are glazed, like it has a concussion)
I wouldn`t spoon feed the information to you that I thought hitting the dragon with an axe was a bad idea, but I might drop a few hints if your character should notice something is amiss based upon your skills, which I would determine by rolling in secret (in short the amount of information that your character gains would be based upon the skills You choose for that character and not my prejudice as DM)
What if I'm a wizard with a 8 Str? Am I to flay about trying to thwak the thing over the head, rarely hitting and dealing 3 dmg at a time? I certainly can't try and make my spells subdual, you know- the entire source of my characters power, since that wouldn't be realistic enough. I guess all wizards have to be heartless and murder everything they come across because its the only viable option they have.
What you wield shouldn't be an issue. A skilled axemen with a proficiency in his weapon will know the BEST way to strike an opponent so that it won't kill his intended foe. With the flat of the blade or the butt of the haft, making sure to "pull his punch" so that he only knocks the enemy out and not crush it to death. Yes, if he were to come down on it with its full weight, size and his strength behind it I'm sure he would kill it...but choosing not to kill it after reducing it to 0 (the 4E rule) takes using your imagination and visualizing a player doing just that. Softening the blow. D&D is about heroic adventuring first, ironclad realism second. While I respect your views and opinions on the subject, my opinion is kind of made. At least for the type of game I'd like to play in. When NEW rules are made up to enforce strict realism by replacing the OFFICIAL rules that promote heroism then it really isn't much fun. Especially if said rules are made up after an action takes place and a character is punished for it. And after all, someone who is trying to play a good hero should never be punished for trying to do just that- be good and heroic- for the sake of pinpoint realism.
No he didn't because it doesn't work that way in 4e.
Yes. Yes it does. It works that way if the DM says it works that way, using 4ed rules, too. See, 4ed rules allow DMs to change the rules.
He could have just decided upon getting the dragon down to 0 hp not to kill it. Because once a monster hits 0hp they are disabled and you don't track their hp anymore.
But he didn't. And by the rules, that was his call to make.
For instance if someone is sneaking up behind you, can your character hear them. Asking you to make a Listen Check will only tell your character that there is something for them to hear, so the DM uses your passive skill. Skill ckecks such as Heal don`t have a passive check, however they could be used to notice the health of the baby dragon (you notice that it`s eyes are glazed, like it has a concussion)
Someone sneaking up behind you and you hearing their whisper soft footsteps and noticing if you're strikes are knocking something out or caving it's skull in are two completely different things.
What skill would he have rolled for? My PASSIVE perception?
"With your keen eyesight, you happen to notice that the dragon hatchling 6 inches away from you is being crushed to death by your blows and not knocked out."
Or
"With your keen eyesight, you don't happen to notice the gushing blood oozing out of the dragon hatchlings nose and the chorus of shattering bone as you beat it to death." Sorry man, I rolled a 1 for you're perception.
Sure, the DM might have given the monster some unique trait that says non-lethal damage still kills it.
He may have rolled a secret knowledge check that the player failed to tell him that non-lethal damage would indeed been lethal in this case.
We all know that didn't happen. The DM wanted the dragon to die, so he waved his magic DM wand and told the player he had bashed a baby dragons brains in.
This is what is known to people who aren't railroaders as suckiness. Railroaders, on the other hand, are so deluded that when someone points out their suckiness to them, they accuse that other person of having their head in the sand.
Delrevan, please keep me informed how this game develops (private mail if this thread gets locked).
You already accepted the DMs ruling, so its no use to bring it up again, but be very careful when he does that again. I would also advise you to try to raise the dragon and watch his reaction to this (after all that would be the easiest way to stop the attacking dragon).
Have you spoken with the other players? What do they think about this?
Well, this thread taught me how many bad DMs are out there...
It's taught me how many people on this board are elitist twits who think they're smarter and better than everyone else at DMing
This is only so as to not waste time having to declare they coiup de grace all the dying enemies after each battle, a conveneince and nothing more, but it is not a hard and fast rule. A DM is well within the RaW to use the negative bloodied death rule on a mosnter or NPC.
Actually it's more closely tied to the rules than you think. Most monsters don't have Healing Surges, so when they're dropped to 0, they would normally start making "death rolls". However, since there is no chance of them being able to spend Healing Surges they don't have they just die automatically to keep bookkeeping down a little bit.
Most monsters don't have Healing Surges
Wrong, they have them, just no way to activate them during combat through second wind.
Wrong, they have them, just no way to activate them during combat through second wind.
This is indeed correct. Monsters do have healing surges, they just aren't included in the stat blocks for the monsters since they rarely come up.
There is no proof that the dm wanted the dragon to die. It was one of the players that started combat. During combat, one of the players wanted to subdue it (and I believe that a dragon would rather die than being subdued). The dm may have thought: "The players may think it would rather be unrealistic for the dragon to survive another blow with the axe..." and said the dragon is killed. IIRC there was also a cleric of Bahamut in the party, outraged at the death of the wyrmling. Shouldn't he try to kill the blue dragon at once, according to his religion, which is part of his character's background?
There is also no proof that the dm was railroading, because the op gave us only little information.
Though I admit, there is enough information to tell that this encounter was poorly dm'ed. At least, maybe.
It's taught me how many people on this board are elitist twits who think they're smarter and better than everyone else at DMing
so true...
to the op: yes, dnd is a fantasy game, but it should be realistic enough to not epxect newborn beings to survive the blows of an axe.
Then the DM should say that. For example he should say that when the player looks at him and asks if he can use subdual damage to subdue the hatchling.
Also, seriously, people complaining about how dragon anatomy isn't realistic? What exactly do you know about dragon anatomy or development? Do you know how think their scales are fresh out of the egg? No, no you don't because they are made up magical creatures.
It's taught me how many people on this board are elitist twits who think they're smarter and better than everyone else at DMing
So I guess the guys at WotC are also elitist twits as they have wrote into the DMG that this was a bad call....
Fact is the DM broke the rules to do something completely against the intention of the player which affects his character and his enjoyment of the game in a negative way.
That is simply a bad railroad.
And to all those who can't read posts correctly, that the character hit the dragon on the head with an axe was dictated by the DM, not the player. The player just said that he wanted to subdue the dragon.
You can say whatever is "realistic" and say that DMs can "make a call", but doing that without giving the PCs a heads-up is actually one of those things you shouldn't do as a DM. It's unfair, and an abuse of permission-to-do-anything-because-you're-the-DM. Because there is a rule; if a creature is dropped to 0 hit points or fewer, the creature who dropped it can choose to simply drop it to 0 hit points and knock it unconscious - and not dying -, and it will wake up in 5 minutes at 1 hit point should it be left alone. That's a rule, and it doesn't say "only applies to matured creatures." Baby Dragons included.
Even if the rule was arguably unfair, that doesn't change the DM's crime. And I'd stand by the guy who says the rule is completely fair.
Then the DM should say that. For example he should say that when the player looks at him and asks if he can use subdual damage to subdue the hatchling.
Why? The character probably would not have any clue that this would be the case. Why allow the player to screw things up badly and metagame by not performing an action his character would do, due to a lack of knowledge?
Fact is the DM broke the rules to do something completely against the intention of the player which affects his character and his enjoyment of the game in a negative way.
Or put another way, "I'm Derren. I love to ignore the fact that no rules were broken, since the "rules" allow the DM to change the "rules" on the spot. I won't acknowledge that, since if I did, I would lose the argument and I'd rather look foolish than admit that no rules were actually broken."
And to all those who can't read posts correctly, that the character hit the dragon on the head with an axe was dictated by the DM, not the player. The player just said that he wanted to subdue the dragon.
Er, no. He said he wanted to knock the dragon out with the flat of his axe.
Even if the rule was arguably unfair, that doesn't change the DM's crime. And I'd stand by the guy who says the rule is completely fair.
Here's the thing. If a player said to me, "My character wants to subdue the dragon by using my axe not to kill it." and I told him that the dragon was too fragile for that, but his character doesn't know it, I'd expect him to hit it with the flat of his axe anyway. If he didn't, I'd slam him hard with penalties for metagaming. Metagaming is as bad as railroading is, maybe worse.
Why? The character probably would not have any clue that this would be the case. Why allow the player to screw things up badly and metagame by not performing an action his character would do, due to a lack of knowledge?
No. There was a house rule in effect that players couldn't always choose to subdue enemies they knocked down to zero. When the player looks at the DM and asks if he can subdue the creature, if the DM doesn't mention the houserule then he's just being a dick.
The rules are the players interface for interacting with the world through their characters. When the players can't trust the rules then it throws everything out of whack. If the DM had mentioned the house rule ahead of time then there wouldn't have been any problem, everything would have been fine. But he didn't, and all this resulted.
No. There was a house rule in effect that players couldn't always choose to subdue enemies they knocked down to zero.
No, there wasn't. That DM never, EVER said that. He only said that because the hatchling was so fragile, that ONE INSTANCE resulted in death from the attempt to subue.
When the player looks at the DM and asks if he can subdue the creature, if the DM doesn't mention the houserule then he's just being a dick.
Right, but there wasn't a house rule like that, so this doesn't apply to this situation.
Here's the thing. If a player said to me, "My character wants to subdue the dragon by using my axe not to kill it." and I told him that the dragon was too fragile for that, but his character doesn't know it, I'd expect him to hit it with the flat of his axe anyway. If he didn't, I'd slam him hard with penalties for metagaming. Metagaming is as bad as railroading is, maybe worse.
Except that by the rules, every warrior who is proficient with a weapon clearly knows how to knock a creature unconscious -- no matter how fragile -- with the weapon that they're proficient with. Heck, by the rules, even weapons they're not proficient with.
And don't say that using an axe to knock someone out is ridiculous. The player would be saying "my character wants to subdue the dragon by using the flat of the axe to bludgeon it in the side of the head" or something. Or using the pommel, or perhaps punching with it. Flavour it how you like, because it's the rule. Don't like it? Change it. But notify your players first.
Unless the DM changed the rule and notified his players accordingly at least prior to the battle itself, it's an unfair call. No ifs, ands, or buts.
Except that by the rules, every warrior who is proficient with a weapon clearly knows how to knock a creature unconscious -- no matter how fragile -- with the weapon that they're proficient with. Heck, by the rules, even weapons they're not proficient with.
Except the "rules" allow the DM to make a single case call that differs from the "rules" due to special circumstances.
And don't say that using an axe to knock someone out is ridiculous. The player would be saying "my character wants to subdue the dragon by using the flat of the axe to bludgeon it in the side of the head" or something. Or using the pommel, or perhaps punching with it. Flavour it how you like, because it's the rule. Don't like it? Change it. But notify your players first.
There was no change, though. It was a single call based on a rare set of circumstances that will likely never occur again. It wasn't a rule change.
Unless the DM changed the rule and notified his players accordingly at least prior to the battle itself, it's an unfair call. No ifs, ands, or buts.
Once again, there was no rule change involved.
Except the "rules" allow the DM to make a single case call that differs from the "rules" due to special circumstances.
There was no change, though. It was a single call based on a rare set of circumstances that will likely never occur again. It wasn't a rule change.
Once again, there was no rule change involved.
It was a single call, but a single call that will continue to be true. From now on, any infants that are attacked as soon as they're born will be unable to be knocked out. Obviously, that doesn't bother some people (myself included), but that might bother some others. Making a call is still changing the rules.
And making a call without consulting the players first is still wrong, no matter how you might feel on it. You're still altering a rule -- however briefly -- without informing your players, who play the game by the rules they know. If, when making the call, you alter the rules so that the players end up causing something they wouldn't have normally or somesuch, you are punishing your players for following the rules as written. Which is a mistake, if nothing else.
Edit: Wow, some bad spelling errors there... all better, though.
It was a single call, but a single call that will continue to be true.
Whoah! Where the hell do you get THAT from? The DM made the call based on the fragility of a hatchling born right as the party got there. I supposed it might be true to form if they go around bashing newborns straight from the womb with a two handed axe, but otherwise, you're grossly out of place in saying that.
From now on, any infants that are attacked as soon as they're born will be unable to be knocked out.
With a two handed axe, you're probably right. As a general rule, though? You're making a gross assumption.
Yes. Yes it does. It works that way if the DM says it works that way, using 4ed rules, too. See, 4ed rules allow DMs to change the rules.
But he didn't. And by the rules, that was his call to make.
Yes but their group of DMs had already decided that they could do it in their game and decided how it should work. (even though they didn't know how the rules worked in 4e before they made the change.) He decided to change that after he had already told the player that it was a success.
So tonight we are playing, my regular gaming group and I, and we've just started a fresh campaign. One of the players who normally PCs has decided to try his hand at DMing some 4E. We've all made our characters- I am Conn, an easy going but proud Barbarian that respects life and only takes it when he must. In fact, it is the bulk of his character build that taking life is a last resort. It was my intention to simply state that my damage on certain creatures/people would be subduel. Some of the DMs in our circle think this rule is cheesy and unrealistic so they have made house rules to make it harder to hit ect. (Tonights DM did not specify a house rule on this) Personally, I think punishing the players for not just hack n' slashing their way through enemies is wrong- but thats not exactly what this is about..
It doesn't matter. A DM can't rightfully change a rules after telling the player they That it already worked. Also can't make a House rule without informing the players about the rule first. Which didn't happen. He decided that he was not going to let it happen and lied to the player making the player think it was working or was confused about how it damaged worked in 4e.
Yes but their group of DMs had already decided that they could do it in their game and decided how it should work. (even though they didn't know how the rules worked in 4e before they made the change.) He decided to change that after he had already told the player that it was a success.
It doesn't matter. A DM can't rightfully change a rules after telling the player they That it already worked. Also can't make a House rule without informing the players about the rule first. Which didn't happen. He decided that he was not going to let it happen and lied to the player making the player think it was working or was confused about how it damaged worked in 4e.
I challenge you to show me where the DM said it worked, or even WOULD work. I don't think you can do it.
So tonight we are playing, my regular gaming group and I, and we've just started a fresh campaign. One of the players who normally PCs has decided to try his hand at DMing some 4E. We've all made our characters- I am Conn, an easy going but proud Barbarian that respects life and only takes it when he must. In fact, it is the bulk of his character build that taking life is a last resort. It was my intention to simply state that my damage on certain creatures/people would be subduel. Some of the DMs in our circle think this rule is cheesy and unrealistic so they have made house rules to make it harder to hit ect. (Tonights DM did not specify a house rule on this) Personally, I think punishing the players for not just hack n' slashing their way through enemies is wrong- but thats not exactly what this is about.
There is this Dragon that is attacking nearby settlements and we have to find out why. We think it is ticked that its egg has been stolen. Long story short, we find what we think is the Dragon's egg- the egg hatches. Inside is a blue hatchling. Various party members immediately think it is cute and start feeding it ect-it is still hungry even as they empty their rations in its mouth. The big, bad minotaur warden in the group decides its time to tie the hatchling up before its hunger turns into aggression, but the hatchling bolts, making a run for it! Quick thinking, I attempt to knock the dragon out using subduel damage. I explain this to the DM and he says thats fine. I deal some damage, but the little bugger is still up. Now he is ticked. He hits the party with his breath attack and bloodies several of us instantly! On my next turn I explain that I am using subduel again, using the flat of my ax if you will, to knock the little guy out. After all, he's going to drop people next turn if he gets a chance to do that again. And if we can knock him out maybe he'll be safe to travel with. I hit, I deal damage- the DM says that I kill the dragon.
I am really upset and so is my character. This man who does not wish to kill unless he must has just beaten a baby animal to death. Other party members are disgusted with his cruelty. The Cleric of Bahamut is outright furious. And the quest may be ruined now that we've killed the attacking Dragons offspring. The DM explains that it is unrealistic to hit a baby and not expect to kill it and that for the sake of RPing I should accept it. I do accept the decision, and I love RPing and the plot hooks that come with it, but isn't completely altering a rule wrong without some kind of notice? Isn't punishing a player by sullying his character's alignment, background and personality kind of messed up when that player was using a defined and simple rule and was given the consequences of that rules exact opposite results? Honestly, I'm still pondering this and wondering what the rest of the game has in store. Needless to say, my character is afraid to ever attempt to knock someone out now because he may splatter their brains out instead.
I'm curious as to what you guys think. As a DM or a PC, how would you react to this and what are your opinions on a situation like this or similar to this?
The OP said the OP decided their PC would attempt it and explained that how the OP expected it to work. The DM said that that was fine, Meaning that he was allowing him to do it. Then he says after the thing is dead that it was really working that way after all. The DM was a player before this in there group. The DM knows the rules they play with and that the player in question like to do this allot. This was not an on the spot rules call. The group had already decide that they could do it even though they didn't understand the 4e rules completely. The DM should have described the attack to the player in a way that made the player understand that the tactic was not working as planned. Clearly the DM didn't say anything that would have made the player think that it wasn't working as the OP and the DM had discussed before the OP attacked. So NO the DM can't after all that just up and say, " Sorry dude it just doesn't work that way."
The OP said the OP decided their PC would attempt it and explained that how the OP expected it to work. The DM said that that was fine, Meaning that he was allowing him to do it.
Incorrect. You underlined the wrong line. Look at the previous line where OP only requests to attempt it. OP never asked for it to work, and the DM never indicated that it would work. Only that the attempt was fine.
I want you to quote where the DM says that it will work.
Incorrect. You underlined the wrong line. Look at the previous line where OP only requests to attempt it. OP never asked for it to work, and the DM never indicated that it would work. Only that the attempt was fine.
I want you to quote where the DM says that it will work.
No The OP didn't ask to attempt it. The OP decided the the PC was going to attempt to do that. Then the DM said "YES THAT IS FINE". Then the OP hits with his attack. Since the DM already said he could do the attack then the PC was trying to knock the dragon out when he hit. But he didn't drop the dragon down to 0hp. So he did the same attack the 2nd round. Since the DM never told the PC that the attack didn't work the way he expected then it worked the same as last round only the monster drop below 0hp and as such was not killed. Then the DM told the player after the battle the the attacks didn't work the way the DM said they would work. The simple fact is that the Player asked to do an attack. The DM said that the attack was fine with him. You are stuck on the OP saying attempt. the OP was talking about what the PC was going to do not asking if the PC could attempt to do it. Even if that was the case. The DM still said that it was fine with him. The player saying attempt doesn't change the DM saying that the attack was fine with him. The DM should have told the OP after the first attack that it was dealing leathal damage. He never said that. So it worked as they agreed upon.
Incorrect. You underlined the wrong line. Look at the previous line where OP only requests to attempt it. OP never asked for it to work, and the DM never indicated that it would work. Only that the attempt was fine.
I want you to quote where the DM says that it will work.
I want you to post where the DM says it didn't work that way after the first attack hit since the DM already said that it was ok for him to do the attack.
No The OP didn't ask to attempt it.
The OP decided the the PC was going to attempt to do that. Then the DM said "YES THAT IS FINE".
You're right. He asked if the PC could ATTEMPT it, and the DM said that the PC could attempt it. Then the OP hits with his attack. Since the DM already said he could do the attack then the PC was trying to knock the dragon out when he hit. But he didn't drop the dragon down to 0hp. So he did the same attack the 2nd round. Since the DM never told the PC that the attack didn't work the way he expected then it worked the same as last round only the monster drop below 0hp and as such was not killed. Then the DM told the player after the battle the the attacks didn't work the way the DM said they would work. The simple fact is that the Player asked to do an attack. The DM said that the attack was fine with him. You are stuck on the OP saying attempt. the OP was talking about what the PC was going to do not asking if the PC could attempt to do it. Even if that was the case. The DM still said that it was fine with him. The player saying attempt doesn't change the DM saying that the attack was fine with him. The DM should have told the OP after the first attack that it was dealing leathal damage. He never said that. So it worked as they agreed upon.
You have reading comprehension issues. That's clear. Anyone who cannot comprehend what attempt means, should not be in this conversation.
I explain this to the DM and he says thats fine.
Then later after the encounter and maybe the game he explains.
The DM explains that it is unrealistic to hit a baby and not expect to kill it and that for the sake of RPing I should accept it.
Never does he say the original attack or the second one wasn't working the way the OP wanted. He waited till after the fact then informed the OP that it didn't makes sense to the DM for it to work that way. Which he should have said to begin with.
2attempt
Function: noun
Date: 1534
1 a: the act or an instance of attempting ; especially : an unsuccessful effort b: something resulting from or representing an attempt
2: attack, assault
1atĀ·tempt
Pronunciation: \É-Ėtem(p)t\
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French & Latin; Anglo-French attempter, from Latin attemptare, from ad- + temptare to touch, try ā more at tempt
Date: 14th century
1: to make an effort to do, accomplish, solve, or effect
2archaic : tempt
3archaic : to try to subdue or take by force : attack
ā atĀ·temptĀ·able \-Ėtem(p)-tÉ-bÉl\ adjective
synonyms attempt, try, endeavor, essay, strive mean to make an effort to accomplish an end. attempt stresses the initiation or beginning of an effort . try is often close to attempt but may stress effort or experiment made in the hope of testing or proving something . endeavor heightens the implications of exertion and difficulty . essay implies difficulty but also suggests tentative trying or experimenting . strive implies great exertion against great difficulty and specifically suggests persistent effort .
Pick one.
Pick one.
I'll take both. Both of them simply describe an effort to do something. And the DM okay'd that effort. He did not promise success in any way, shape, or form.
So if you play a character that doesn't want to kill your enemies and thus be a hero you have to carry a padded stick around with you?
What if I'm a wizard with a 8 Str?
It largely depends on what you are fighting. I would consider using a taser as a good alternative to deadly force when stopping a criminal. However I wouldn't use it to disipline my 9 year old child as it would likely kill her.
If you were fighting an adult monster then the use of a great axe and following the knockout instead of kill rule would be a reasonable use force, as most such creatures are strong enough to handle that sort of punishment. I seriously doubt that you could reduce an ancient dragon to below it's negative bloodied hp level in a single blow, even with intent to kill, so the option is feasible.
The KO instead of kill rule is largely based upon this, that most creatures that you reduce below zero are still well above their negative bloodied hp value, and thus wouldn't dead yet. They are considered dead because this avoids tiresome complications that will only slow the game down. So the option of not killing when reduced below negative hps is given. This is just for simplicity's sake and for most creatures it works.
However the possibility arises that a low hp monster vs high damage from a powerful character may not be adequately covered by these simplified rules, In such cases where massive damage is done beyond the negative bloodied hp, the DM is well within the other rules as written to arbitrate the rules as your DM did.
As for weapons, it would perhaps be wise to have and use non-lethal weapons such as I described against weaker targets that wouldn't reasonably survive a blow from an axe.
As for not wanting to kill but still wanting to be the hero in battle, this is a bit of a contradiction in your character's design. Such a character would have to accept the reality that non-killing isn't always possible, even when you try, or else go nuts with stress over the contrary ideas.
For instance, he intented to only KO the baby dragon, he had no intent on killing the baby dragon. It died because he made a miscalculation and not because he deliberately killed it. He might feel bad about it's death, but he has to recognize that he had to do something to stop it or else it would have killed your party and esceped, He tried his best to use minimal force and that is all he can do.
I guess all wizards have to be heartless and murder everything they come across because its the only viable option they have
People who choose to be pacifists generally aren't bothered by their inability to wage war effectively. Such a Wizard is likely to stay in the city and concentrate on more non-violent activities.
Besides which I was very specific in refering to doing massively excessive damage to low hp beings, as opposed to normal damage to normal monsters.
A violent carreer is perhaps a poor choice of occupations for someone who is opposed to violence. So there is a need to tread carefully when deciding how and when to use Force.
I don't disagree with your character concept, I rather like it, however I do caution you that there is a risk under certain circumstance when using non-lethal force. I don't think this goes against your character concept, because a "slight risk of death or injury" is far better then choosing to kill everything without descretion.
What you wield shouldn't be an issue. A skilled axemen with a proficiency in his weapon will know the BEST way to strike an opponent so that it won't kill his intended foe. With the flat of the blade or the butt of the haft, making sure to "pull his punch"
Perhaps, but can I ask if you did pull your punch? That would indicate that you subtracted your strength modifier rather then add it to your weapon's damage. If you applied your entire strength modifier to the damage then you didn't "pull your punch" but rather "put your entire strength into the blow"
This isn't an intent to kill by your character, but a miscalculation of the amount of force needed, you atempted to knock the baby out, it didn't survive the non-lethal damage.
In much the same way that a Tazer (which uses non-lethal force) can kill people. As I have explained it is possible for the damage to excede it's capacity to survive it. Unless you regularly fight weak, low hp creatures it shouldn't be an issue that ever happens again in your group (that is it wouldn't happen when you fight the dragon's mother)
Yes, if he were to come down on it with its full weight, size and his strength behind it I'm sure he would kill it...
So am I, so I ask again, did you subtract your strength modifier from the damage or did you add it (thereby coming down on it with your full strength)
but choosing not to kill it after reducing it to 0 (the 4E rule) takes using your imagination and visualizing a player doing just that. Softening the blow. D&D is about heroic adventuring first, ironclad realism second.
As I have explained, it is and can be well within the rules as written for the DM to arbitrate this situation exactly as he did The Death at zero rule is based upon the assumption that the creature will die anyways, the choose KO rules is provided because in actuality the creeatures would only be dying and not actually dead yet (they wouldn't actually die until they reach negative bloodied hp) so applying the negative bloodied rule to a creature that the players choose to KO is well within reasonable interpretations of the rules as written.
While I respect your views and opinions on the subject, my opinion is kind of made. At least for the type of game I'd like to play in When NEW rules are made up to enforce strict realism by replacing the OFFICIAL rules that promote heroism then it really isn't much fun.
Strict interpretation of the rules as I have done fully supports your choosing to KO creatures rather then kill them, there is, however, a possibility of risk involved in doing so in rare circumstances, involving low hp creatures vs massive damage.
HOWEVER....
Those rare circumstances (the use of a high damage weapon against a baby dragon) are rare, and can furthermore be prevented and thus allowing you to heroicly use non-lethal force, by you carrying more then one weapon. A secondary weapon designed to to use non-lethal force, could be carried for those rare circumstances where your barbarian encounters low hp creatures that he wants to heroically KO without risking excessive force.
Especially if said rules are made up after an action takes place and a character is punished for it. And after all, someone who is trying to play a good hero should never be punished for trying to do just that- be good and heroic- for the sake of pinpoint realism.
I don't think that the ruling could be made by the DM until after the circumstance happened. I don't think the DM fully considered the consequences of your attacks until he was faced with the result. Upon which he had to make a ruling, "does massive damage bringing a monster below negative bloodied kill it or does it get knocked out"
The DM can't really make a house rule before the game if he is not aware of the issue. The DM's ruling here sounds like it was based upon an unexpected circumstance.
I don't thinkytou are being punished. Your charcater clearly never intended to kill the dragon. However unforseen circumstances happened as a result of your actions. That's life, and I think you should continue your no-kill phylosophy, this should be seen a a lesson and you should consider other non-lethal alternatives to have availabvle should a similair situation occur in the future.
Additionally to "being punished for being good" I think your character made a mistake in attacking the dragon like you did after it escaped. The dragon didn't attack the group until after your hostile action and you should have attempted less drastic ways then thumping it out first. Offing it food, trying to bag, net or lassoo it, grappling etc, but emmediately whacking it with a large axe was imo a horrible mistake that turned the situation into a messy fight.
I seriously doubt that you could reduce an ancient dragon to below it's negative bloodied hp level in a single blow, even with intent to kill, so the option is feasible.
The KO instead of kill rule is largely based upon this, that most creatures that you reduce below zero are still well above their negative bloodied hp value, and thus wouldn't dead yet.
No, you're wrong. Dead wrong. Completely, absolutely wrong. Read it again.
Monsters and NPCs *do not track negative hitpoints*.
The rule about knocking them out has *nothing to do* with the PC rules for negative hitpoints and Death Saves.
"Monsters die at 0, or you can take them alive if you want" is not an optional or simplified rule. It's not a quick way to abstract the "real" rules. It is the rule. PCs are the *exception*, in that they can actually survive going to 0 and below, and they have special effects - counting negative HP, making Death Saves, etc - that allow for this.
Upon which he had to make a ruling, "does massive damage bringing a monster below negative bloodied kill it or does it get knocked out"
By which you mean, he *chose* to make a *house rule* to count a monster's damage past zero, changing the RAW.
Even assuming it *was* past "negative bloodied", which has not yet been established.
I'll take both. Both of them simply describe an effort to do something. And the DM okay'd that effort. He did not promise success in any way, shape, or form.
Yes but after the attack roll the DM would have told the OP that the attack didn't work right or discribed it in a way to let the OP know that it didn't work the way the OP thought. Since he didn't Then when the attack hit and damage was dealt then the attack worked.
I think what he meant was....sometimes parts of the DMs story absolutely must happen or the story ends on the spot. Either the DM has this thing happen, or he turns to the players and says "Sorry guys, you just ended the story. Come back in 3 weeks when I've gotten a new one made." In such a situation, it's better for the DM to cause the event to happen in some manner that is reasonable(such as accidently killing the baby dragon), than to ruin the fun for everyone by ending the game until he can come up with a new story.
A well-designed adventure should never hinge on the PCs doing or not-doing a particular action at a particular moment.
Breaking the plot line or branching completely from it are not the only two options when the PCs do not follow the DM's planned script. A good DM will always have ways to guide the action back to the main plot.
Sorry, but that is a very bad analogy.
A more apt analogy would be the DM letting you roll a d20 but secretly ignoring any result above a 12 and not telling you about it till afterward.
Choosing to change the rules of the game and not tell the players - indeed rather explicitly leading the players think the rules of the game as they knew them were still in use - is not the DM making a judgment call, it is the DM making a big mistake.
Yes but after the attack roll the DM would have told the OP that the attack didn't work right or discribed it in a way to let the OP know that it didn't work the way the OP thought. Since he didn't Then when the attack hit and damage was dealt then the attack worked.
Are you aware of how hit points work? The first attack probably didn't even do more than glance off the dragon, if it hit it even that hard.
A well-designed adventure should never hinge on the PCs doing or not-doing a particular action at a particular moment.
Right. I didn't say it should be based on what the players do. I said that sometimes certain things must happen. There's a difference.
In the case of OPs DM, I don't think he expected things to happen the way they did, and that is something that all DMs run into. No one can predict everything that might happen, and when you have 4-6 players and 1 DM, it's very probable that those players will try things that the DM didn't anticipate.
At that point, usually the DM has a fairly easy call to make. Sometimes, it is a hard one that requires improvisation on the part of the DM that can include, yes, an on the spot call that changes a rule for that circumstance or even the rule in general.
Breaking the plot line or branching completely from it are not the only two options when the PCs do not follow the DM's planned script. A good DM will always have ways to guide the action back to the main plot.
I'm aware of that, but it's not always possible to come up with a reasonable solution to the problem that has come up that allows for the plot to go on. Sometimes, the plot suffers a horrible death.
MrCustomer:
No, you're wrong. Dead wrong. Completely, absolutely wrong. Read it again.
Monsters and NPCs *do not track negative hitpoints*.
The rule about knocking them out has *nothing to do* with the PC rules for negative hitpoints and Death Saves.
"Monsters die at 0, or you can take them alive if you want" is not an optional or simplified rule. It's not a quick way to abstract the "real" rules. It is the rule. PCs are the *exception*, in that they can actually survive going to 0 and below, and they have special effects - counting negative HP, making Death Saves, etc - that allow for this.
MOnsters "ussually die at 0" is what the DMs guide actually says, this is because the players shouldn't need to waste time scouring the battlefield and offing all the fallen monsters, and because most don't have healing surges (ie they will continue to be dying until they reach negative bloodied anyways) And in the vast majority of cases this is correct.
Monsters and characters controlled by the Dungeon
Master usually die when they reach 0 hit points,
Usually means not always, and thus it can occur that they don't die at zero, just that they ussually do die because it is conveneint.
However, in the rules, when a player chooses to KO a monster instead of killing it, that monster is still reduced to negative HPs, so monsters can like players be at negative HPs. What the rules don't cover however is what if the monster is past it's negative HP bloodied?
The reason the rule doesn't cover this is because it is such a rare event, the vast majority of monsters that the PCs face cannot be reduced to their negative bloodied hp in a single move, and when KO the monsters don't continue to loose HP, so the vast majority of monsters 99.999999% of them wouldn't be at negative bloodied hp, not in a single blow from above 0 hp.
A monster, any creature, is still alive when at negative HP, but we ussually leave them as dead because they will be anyways, (they would be dying or the PCs would coupe de grace them after the fight) The KO rules is thus provided because normally the characters could save a dying monster.
Applying the Death at negative bloodied rule to a monster is reasonable, as a monster a: Doesn't have to die at 0, it just ussually does and b: the KO rule doesn't cover this situation so a ruling should be made.
A well-designed adventure should never hinge on the PCs doing or not-doing a particular action at a particular moment.
Breaking the plot line or branching completely from it are not the only two options when the PCs do not follow the DM's planned script. A good DM will always have ways to guide the action back to the main plot.
That's right. But we do not know the dm's script (if one exists) included the dragon to die. After all, it was the players that started combat (probably expecting to kill the dragon).
And you can't measure a dm by one example, be it bad dm-ing or good dm-ing.
Even if the rule was arguably unfair, that doesn't change the DM's crime. And I'd stand by the guy who says the rule is completely fair.
Fact is the DM broke the rules to do something completely against the intention of the player which affects his character and his enjoyment of the game in a negative way.
That is simply a bad railroad.
And to all those who can't read posts correctly, that the character hit the dragon on the head with an axe was dictated by the DM, not the player. The player just said that he wanted to subdue the dragon.
The dm is the rules. If a rule is changed spontaneously it's ok, as long as it is reasonable (and it is reasonable in this case). Though changing rules shouldn't happen too often, except houserules. As a player, even with the same background as the op, I wouldn't even care about the dead dragon.And in the case of a dm announcing the house rule "Blue dragons crawling out of their eggs are rather being killed than subdued when struck by the broad side of an axe several times" is ridiculous and I would rather believe it a joke.
The op was not dictated to do anything. It rather seems that the op was misunderstood and/or the dm misinterpreted the planned action of the op. In that case, the op should have said "I did not say that I would try it with the axe again", but it's rather obviously since the dm and all players knew that the op's character was wielding the axe. The op could then have said "I rather try a grapple or with an unarmed strike". Which did not happen.
Why do people assume that when the OP said, "I try to subdue him with the flat of my axe," it was a full-out, baseball swing?
Because if it would be different their argumentation would fall apart.
Why do people assume that when the OP said, "I try to subdue him with the flat of my axe," it was a full-out, baseball swing? What if instead he decided to choke up on his weapon and deliver a carefully placed push to knock his opponent down and pin him with the haft? Doesn't that fall under, "subdue?"
The fact that he said "I beat it over the noggin with the flat of my axe" kind of gave it away. But yes, I agree, subdue can mean a lot of things.
Because then their argumentation would fall apart.
That doesn't actually make any sense.
Him: Why do people assume X?
You: Because then their argumentation would fall apart.
Doesn't actually make sense.
Why do people assume that when the OP said, "I try to subdue him with the flat of my axe," it was a full-out, baseball swing? What if instead he decided to choke up on his weapon and deliver a carefully placed push to knock his opponent down and pin him with the haft? Doesn't that fall under, "subdue?"
It really depends on the amount of damage done, and how the player describes what the character is doing BEFORE he does it. If a character does 100 points of damage, it's isn't a careful little rap on the noggin. However, if the player told me "I want to jab the little tyke with my axe to knock the breath out of it and keep it from being seriously hurt, and I'll even take a penalty to damage to be sure of it.", I wouldn't kill off the dragon unless there was something completely out of the player's hands, like an poison or heart defect or something that only I knew about.
Because then their argumentation would fall apart.
At least we HAVE an argument, rather than "Wa, wa, wa, you suck as a DM because you railroad!!!"
The fact that he said "I beat it over the noggin with the flat of my axe"
Quote where he said that.
It really depends on the amount of damage done, and how the player describes what the character is doing BEFORE he does it. If a character does 100 points of damage, it's isn't a careful little rap on the noggin. However, if the player told me "I want to jab the little tyke with my axe to knock the breath out of it and keep it from being seriously hurt, and I'll even take a penalty to damage to be sure of it.", I wouldn't kill off the dragon unless there was something completely out of the player's hands, like an poison or heart defect or something that only I knew about.
Which of course is completely against the rules.
Monster reduced to 0 HP -> player decides to subdue the enemy instead of killing him -> Enemy is just subdued.
That are the rules and the DM violated them and the clearly spelled out intention of the player.
Which of course is completely against the rules.
Monster reduced to 0 HP -> player decides to subdue the enemy instead of killing him -> Enemy is just subdued.
That are the rules and the DM violated them and the clearly spelled out intention of the player.
You keep repeating this as if it makes you right or something. While repeating something that was wrong over and over might have worked for Bush(let me clue you in, it really didn't), it's not working for you. The rules say that the DM can change the rules, so his ruling was NOT against the rules.
See, I can repeat the truth as often as you choose to ignore it.
You keep repeating this as if it makes you right or something. While repeating something that was wrong over and over might have worked for Bush(let me clue you in, it really didn't), it's not working for you. The rules say that the DM can change the rules, so his ruling was NOT against the rules.
See, I can repeat the truth as often as you choose to ignore it.
You are confusing truth with lie.
The PC can decide if he subdues an enemy or not by simply declaring it when he drops an enemy to 0. No special preparations, no special combat move and no attack penalties are needed.
Everything else deviates from the rules and thus they are broken.
But, ok lets ignore the rules breaking, even if only to stop you from hiding behind this falsehood.
The DM is still bad and railroading as
1. He changed a rule and negated an action a player made to preserve his predetermined story.
2. He made the game less fun for a player because he nearly destroyed his character concept.
3. He made it look like the players plan was ok and only informed him that it wasn't after he rules that the enemy was killed.
You keep repeating this as if it makes you right or something. While repeating something that was wrong over and over might have worked for Bush(let me clue you in, it really didn't), it's not working for you. The rules say that the DM can change the rules, so his ruling was NOT against the rules.
See, I can repeat the truth as often as you choose to ignore it.
Please don't bring politics into this, Maxperson.
And yes, you are right, what the DM says goes. On the other hand, if he says enough stupid things, his players go too. We're not arguing if the DM is allowed to make a rules change, we're arguing whether his rules change was done in a fair manner. According to Rule 0, the DM can tell the PCs that none of their attacks deal damage against the troll because it's midnight and trolls can't die until the sun comes up. If he doesn't give them a chance to know that BEFORE everyone dies because they were constantly fighting immortal trolls and didn't know it, it's a [human phallus] move.
The entire situation here could have been turned around if the DM had taken a step back from trying to "win" against his PC and given him a fair shot: because, as I read it, that's what the DM was trying to do: to "beat" his player who'd come up with a way to sidestep his predetermined course of events. One phrase that I have learned to keep in my back pocket at all times is, "Before you try that, let me tell you something you might not know. . ." I used that when a player tried, in a mecha game, to swing a ship around with a tow cable: "Before you try that, let me tell you something you might not know: how big do you think that ship is? Okay, let me clarify, a corvette is not a single-person shuttle, it's a destroyer-class ship ten times bigger than your mecha. Still want to try it?" I used it again when a player attempted to polevault across rooftops with a spear: "Before you try that, let me tell you something you might not know: Main Street is fifty feet wide. Your spear is ten feet at most. Still want to try it?"
If I were the DM in this situation, I would have brought out that phrase: "Okay, quick question, before you attempt to subdue this dragon, how tough do you think it is? Mmm, okay, make a perception check. . . fine. You notice that, despite the fact that it can breathe fire, it's scales are still moist and soft, not hard like adult dragons. Subduing it without killing it might be hard. Still want to try using your axe, or do you want to go unarmed?" Which might prompt the player to say, "Sure, I think it can take it," in which case on his own head be it: and believe it or not, there are players who will still go down the "Certain Death Road of Dragons," instead of the "Annoying Road of Merchants who want to sell you stuff," even after you tell them, yes, the names are real, and they mean what you think they mean.
You are confusing truth with lie.
So you're denying that the game gives the DM the ability to change the rules? Yes or no?
The PC can decide if he subdues an enemy or not by simply declaring it when he drops an enemy to 0. No special preparations, no special combat move and no attack penalties are needed.
Everything else deviates from the rules and thus they are broken.
Bzzzt! Changed via the rules, not broken.
The DM is still bad and railroading as
1. He changed a rule and negated an action a player made to preserve his predetermined story.
You really don't know WHY he did it, and neither does OP.
2. He made the game less fun for a player because he nearly destroyed his character concept.
What happened actually didn't do diddly to the concept as put forth by OP. Accidently killing something doesn't change in any way that the character respects life and only takes it when he must.
3. He made it look like the players plan was ok and only informed him that it wasn't after he rules that the enemy was killed.
He okay'd the attempt, and the attempt only.
Please don't bring politics into this, Maxperson.
Sorry, it was just to show a similar example, not to actually discuss politics.
And yes, you are right, what the DM says goes. On the other hand, if he says enough stupid things, his players go too.
This I can agree with completely.
We're not arguing if the DM is allowed to make a rules change, we're arguing whether his rules change was done in a fair manner.
You might be. Derren is not.
According to Rule 0, the DM can tell the PCs that none of their attacks deal damage against the troll because it's midnight and trolls can't die until the sun comes up. If he doesn't give them a chance to know that BEFORE everyone dies because they were constantly fighting immortal trolls and didn't know it, it's a [human phallus] move.
Right, but in this case, it not only was a reasonable interpretation of a set of unique events, he probably didn't even know it was going to play out that way and could not have told them in advance.
I'll admit, it would have been better if he had gone about it in a different way, but even so, it was not a horrible way to rule the situation.
The entire situation here could have been turned around if the DM had taken a step back from trying to "win" against his PC and given him a fair shot: because, as I read it, that's what the DM was trying to do: to "beat" his player who'd come up with a way to sidestep his predetermined course of events.
I think this is a gross assumption. Especially given that we have only a one sided very biased person telling us what happened. ;)
One phrase that I have learned to keep in my back pocket at all times is, "Before you try that, let me tell you something you might not know. . ." I used that when a player tried, in a mecha game, to swing a ship around with a tow cable: "Before you try that, let me tell you something you might not know: how big do you think that ship is? Okay, let me clarify, a corvette is not a single-person shuttle, it's a destroyer-class ship ten times bigger than your mecha. Still want to try it?" I used it again when a player attempted to polevault across rooftops with a spear: "Before you try that, let me tell you something you might not know: Main Street is fifty feet wide. Your spear is ten feet at most. Still want to try it?"
Yes! Those are things that the character would very likely know and/or realize. The fragility of a hatchling dragon at first level? Not very likely that the character will know and/or realize. It's a different situation.
If I were the DM in this situation, I would have brought out that phrase: "Okay, quick question, before you attempt to subdue this dragon, how tough do you think it is? Mmm, okay, make a perception check. . . fine. You notice that, despite the fact that it can breathe fire, it's scales are still moist and soft, not hard like adult dragons. Subduing it without killing it might be hard. Still want to try using your axe, or do you want to go unarmed?"
That's one way to handle it. I personally think it's spoonfeeding the players a bit much, but it's not a wrong way to do things by any stretch. First level PCs, especially a barbarian, would be very unlikely to have that much dragon knowledge.
That's right. But we do not know the dm's script (if one exists) included the dragon to die. After all, it was the players that started combat (probably expecting to kill the dragon).
Well there's your problem. A DM should not have a script.
And you can't measure a dm by one example, be it bad dm-ing or good dm-ing.
Of course we can. One example is all we have then that is all we can judge. Anything else would be mere supposition.
If more examples come to light, good or bad, then they will be considered and the overall judgment modified if the evidence so merits.
So you're denying that the game gives the DM the ability to change the rules? Yes or no?
The DM changing the rule necessitates notifying the players. Not only did the DM not do this, he explicitly lead the players to believe the extant rules were in effect.
Why do people assume that when the OP said, "I try to subdue him with the flat of my axe," it was a full-out, baseball swing? What if instead he decided to choke up on his weapon and deliver a carefully placed push to knock his opponent down and pin him with the haft? Doesn't that fall under, "subdue?"
Cos it is immaterial. The player said he was using subdual damage, the DM accepted it, then the DM ignored the rules and results of that action. How the PC attempted the subdual has no bearing it on whatsoever. If at any point the DM deemed the PC's attempt to somehow be in danger of being applied as real damage rather than subdual he should have told the player so, not simply ignored the rules cos he was fooling enough to give the PCs something he did no want them to have.
It really depends on the amount of damage done, and how the player describes what the character is doing BEFORE he does it..
So characters have to describe each and every one of their attacks before they do them so that they don't suffer some unforeseen consequence? For RPing purposes, it is a nice touch, but it is not required. If a person swings his weapon and declares he wants to subdue his target, it really shouldn't matter how he narrates it. It is generally understand that he is doing everything in his power to subdue that creature and not kill it- just as the rule describes. Also, if I were to reduce the amount of damage I do, I'm not only nerfing myself as a player attempting to restrain an enemy, but making rules up as I go. Which as a player, is completely non legit. Max, go ahead quote/spout you're same old song and dance on the subject. If my character beat a baby dragon to death, your tireless efforts to defend poor DMing has certainly beaten this topic to death-with no attempt to subdue.
The fact that this thread has reached 300 posts is intriguing and kind of hilarious. Anywho, tomorrow night is the next session and we'll be picking up directly after the Dead baby dragon incident. So I'll keep you posted.
So characters have to describe each and every one of their attacks before they do them so that they don't suffer some unforeseen consequence?
Not specifically for that reason, no. However, the more information you can give on what and how you do something, the better the DM is going to be able to understand you. The clarity not only aids in roleplay, but also in making sure the communication isn't going to get screwed up and the result not what you intended.
If a person swings his weapon and declares he wants to subdue his target, it really shouldn't matter how he narrates it. It is generally understand that he is doing everything in his power to subdue that creature and not kill it- just as the rule describes.
In 99.99% of cases, this is correct. However, sometimes circumstances are unique enough that the "rules" aren't appropriate. In these situations, clarity is good.
If I were to punish myself for the amount of damage I do, I'm not only nerfing myself as a player but making rules up as I go.
No one is suggesting that you do this.
If my character beat a baby dragon to death, your tireless efforts to defend poor DMing has certainly beaten this topic to death-with no attempt to subdue.
How.....clever.
Where we disagree is in execution: My opinion in the matter was basically summed up by one of my first DMs, who, during one campaign, had a halfling fling open a door to a huge hallway full of drow and yell out that [Marital Aid] Shagguns was here to kick their asses. . . a hallway full of drow armed to the teeth. After being told, at least twice, that there was a very good chance that the next room was full of drow. After seeing two drow walk in armed to the teeth and hearing the clamour of an entire army of drow assembling in the next room over.
His words were: "I'm sorry, I consider myself a lenient DM, and I don't really like to kill players, but some things are just so freaking stupid, I can't really justify to myself letting you live." As I recall, the halfling with his stubby legs and move rate of 20 didn't make it very far.
For me, it would have taken something about that bad to justify simply killing the dragonling: Not to say that I'm necessarily a nice DM. Seriously, there are so many more mean things you can do with a captive dragonling that's still alive than a dead one. . . :evillaugh
For me, it would have taken something about that bad to justify simply killing the dragonling: Not to say that I'm necessarily a nice DM. Seriously, there are so many more mean things you can do with a captive dragonling that's still alive than a dead one. . . :evillaugh
I can see that, and I really don't know what I would have done in that situation. I wasn't there, and I'm just not willing to take the word of someone whose posts show such a bitter bias, at face value. There's no way for us to know the exact circumstances, what was actually said on both sides, and what have you. I agree, though, there ARE a lot more things you can dow ith a live hatchling than a dead one.
The fact is, I'm not bitter over the subject nor is it keeping me from playing the game. I was frustrated at first for my reasons given throughout this thread, but as I have stated previously, I have spoken with my DM and explained things. As did he. Just because I disagree with something doesn't mean I have created a bitter bias.
And honestly, this is my last post to you on this subject. You've been rude to your fellow posters, close minded and arrogant about you're point of view throughout this topic.
For those of you with a continued interest in better understanding Player/DM relations, especially in this particular instance, I'll post an update after our gaming session tomorrow. The Saga continues.
Are you aware of how hit points work? The first attack probably didn't even do more than glance off the dragon, if it hit it even that hard.
He killed it in 2 turns?
You keep repeating this as if it makes you right or something. While repeating something that was wrong over and over might have worked for Bush(let me clue you in, it really didn't), it's not working for you. The rules say that the DM can change the rules, so his ruling was NOT against the rules.
See, I can repeat the truth as often as you choose to ignore it.
Not without give the player warnings first. You are supposed to let your players no your house rules ahead of time. The DM never informed the player of this ahead of time, never said the attack didn't work the way "Discribed" and never informed the player he was killing the thing he thought he was knocking out. You can't use "The DM can change the rules as he like" To prove your point.
A DM can make a rules call on the spot if the rules are not clear or unknown.
Of course this was not the case because they had aready talked about being able to do the same thing before the group started the new game.
A DM can change any rule he feels doesn't work well with his/her group but not with considering the stuff on page 189 DMG4e and you must still inform the players ahead of time before making such a change.
You can not change this rule. YOU MUST INFORM THE PLAYERS OF RULES CHANGES AHEAD OF TIME>
YOU MUST INFORM THE PLAYERS OF RULES CHANGES AHEAD OF TIME>
While this is very sound advice, it is not technically true. Not every DM is perfect and can anticipate every possible outcome within the game. That means that sometimes that some DMs have to change the rules on the fly.
The other one is known rules issues that the DM decides needs a change. These are the ones where a play needs notice for. And is the type we are talking about here now.
My point was that the DM in question would have "made the call" before letting finish their turn. Not wait till after the encounter and then say sorry tuff luck.
You should go back and read my original post Max. I explain what took place (in the first two paragraphs) by giving the details of the situation. I know every story has two sides, but honestly, if you reply to a post that you feel has 0 credibility- then you are just wasting your time and mine. I started this thread to hear people's opinions and comments on what they would do or how they would feel in a similar situation. Not have you play judge and jury to the value of my word.
Here's the thing. You've shown that you are very biased in this discussion. Whether it's intentional or because of your emotional connection(and I'm not saying it's deliberate), it's very likely that you have gotten at LEAST some words wrong, and a few changed words creates whole worlds of different meaning. There's just no rational way we can make an accurate assessment of what happened. All any of us can do is make assumptions about what really happened and what the DM might have been trying to do and why.
And honestly, this is my last post to you on this subject. You've been rude to your fellow posters, close minded and arrogant about you're point of view throughout this topic.
If you want to think so. It makes no matter to me, really. I'm not posting here against you, so much as for the DM's ability to make on the fly rulings when necessary.
He killed it in 2 turns?
2 or 200, until the last hit, most of the damage hasn't been physical.
Not without give the player warnings first. You are supposed to let your players no your house rules ahead of time. The DM never informed the player of this ahead of time, never said the attack didn't work the way "Discribed" and never informed the player he was killing the thing he thought he was knocking out. You can't use "The DM can change the rules as he like" To prove your point.
I absolutely can. Furthermore, not all rules are known before the DM makes the call. He isn't God and can't come up with every single mix of circumstances that require a ruling.
A DM can make a rules call on the spot if the rules are not clear or unknown.
Or if a set of circumstances warrants a change.
You can not change this rule. YOU MUST INFORM THE PLAYERS OF RULES CHANGES AHEAD OF TIME>
LOL Because you say so? I think not.
I think I'll wait post till the greenish activities stop.
I absolutely can. Furthermore, not all rules are known before the DM makes the call. He isn't God and can't come up with every single mix of circumstances that require a ruling.
Or if a set of circumstances warrants a change.
LOL Because you say so? I think not.
How do you expect the players to play if you don't tell them what rules you are using up front? Not talking about rules problems that come up in the middle of play. It is like telling the players to come to the game with their PC rolled on the first game of the campaign and then when the get their and you start playing you tell the player that the classes they all pick are not allowed in your games. Sorry get over it. Don't think I'd have many player turn arounds.
I'm done.
We are not talking about every DM in every game. We are talking about what happen in this one. and in this case they had already decided how it worked in the game. So the logic in the last post does hold up give the OP example. Again he had already decided it was not going to work and didn't even tell the OP before hand.
You're assuming this. We can't know for sure.
You are still over looking the fact that the DM never told the player his attacks were dealing lethal damage, In there view of the rules at the time.
The first attack didn't really hit the dragon, at least not that hard. That's the way hit points work. Nothing in that first hit would indicate lethal damage, especially since it wasn't lethal damage, but subdual damage. The DM ruled(according to OP) that in this rare set of circumstances, subdual damage killed anyway. He didn't rule(according to OP) that it was instead lethal damage. With the second hit, the DM could have told the player that it was lethal damage, but it still would have been too late.
How do you expect the players to play if you don't tell them what rules you are using up front?
Are you claiming to be God? Are you trying to tell me that nothing ever happens that you did not expect and calls for an on the spot ruling?
Not talking about rules problems that come up in the middle of play.
Neither am I. I'm talking about rare situations that come up that the "rules" fail to take into account. Where if you follow the "rules" as they are written, you end up with an absurdity or situation that just doesn't make sense. Those require on the spot rulings as well.
It is like telling the players to come to the game with their PC rolled on the first game of the campaign and then when the get their and you start playing you tell the player that the classes they all pick are not allowed in your games. Sorry get over it. Don't think I'd have many player turn arounds.
I'm done.
Good. If that's the sort of analogy you think applies here, it's clear that you don't really understand what the conversation is about.
You're assuming this. We can't know for sure.
We can only go on what we know.
The first attack didn't really hit the dragon, at least not that hard. That's the way hit points work.
Not quite.
Nothing in that first hit would indicate lethal damage, especially since it wasn't lethal damage, but subdual damage.
Certainly it would. To wit, the DM saying so. And if the blow killed then it dealt lethal damage. That's the way D&D works.
The DM ruled(according to OP) that in this rare set of circumstances, subdual damage killed anyway. He didn't rule(according to OP) that it was instead lethal damage.
Under the rules of the game subdual damage cannot kill, thus ruling that a subdual attack killed is indeed ruling that the PC was dealing lethal damage.
Are you claiming to be God? Are you trying to tell me that nothing ever happens that you did not expect and calls for an on the spot ruling?
Neither am I. I'm talking about rare situations that come up that the "rules" fail to take into account. Where if you follow the "rules" as they are written, you end up with an absurdity or situation that just doesn't make sense. Those require on the spot rulings as well.
After the fact ā on the spot.
Clearly the people being obtuse in this thread, by trying to make this into an argument about wether the DM may do anything he likes
, are people I would never consent to play with.So to the OP: Any reasonable person would agree your DM did you dirty.
Every DM I have played with that I'd consider playing with again has made it a point to indicate when your actions as a player might not have the outcome you would otherwise expect. Therefore as a player we are given a chance to reconsider, or press forward if the implied risk was deemed to be worth the reward.
Definately, IF and only if the character would recognize that action as possibly having an outcome different from what the player expects. Or do you seriously expect a DM to tell the player that skipping a stone across the lake is a bad idea because it might wake up the dragon sleeping at the bottom?
Or do you seriously expect a DM to tell the player that skipping a stone across the lake is a bad idea because it might wake up the dragon sleeping at the bottom?
Seriously? Seriously?! Any good DM finding themselves running under such an absurd premise would probably rule that if minor actions could disturb the dragon then they have done so previously and are now part of the lore of the area, and we'd get a roll. (Actually it is unlikely the dragon would even still be under the water because just a moment ago a bird alighted on the shore and the dragon rushed up to see what the commotion was all about.) :P
The point of my post, which is not that dissimilar to others in this thread, was not to continue this silly line of argumentation but rather to give support to those who share my opinion. Consider this "Dude, I don't know what they are on about either - the DM in the OP is an epic fail". This is one more vote under "I would not play a game with a DM that thinks a 'gotcha' of this magnitude was necessary or acceptable."
Seriously? Seriously?! Any good DM finding themselves running under such an absurd premise would probably rule that if minor actions could disturb the dragon then they have done so previously and are now part of the lore of the area, and we'd get a roll. (Actually it is unlikely the dragon would even still be under the water because just a moment ago a bird alighted on the shore and the dragon rushed up to see what the commotion was all about.) :P
::watches the actual point go sailing over your head::
Definately, IF and only if the character would recognize that action as possibly having an outcome different from what the player expects.
Why do you keep talking about characters and what they know or recognize. This is not a n in-game issue, it is a rules-based one.
Or do you seriously expect a DM to tell the player that skipping a stone across the lake is a bad idea because it might wake up the dragon sleeping at the bottom?
You're kidding, right? That cannot possibly be something you consider analogous to the scenario outlined by the OP.
::watches the actual point go sailing over your head::
I think everyone gets the point that you are sarcastic and argumentative, or is there some other point you imagine you are getting across to everyone?
Definately, IF and only if the character would recognize that action as possibly having an outcome different from what the player expects.Why do you keep talking about characters and what they know or recognize. This is not a n in-game issue, it is a rules-based one.
Because people have been harping on whether the DM should have warned the PLAYER of something that the CHARACTER would not have recognized. If the CHARACTER would not recognize the fragility of a hatchling dragon(being first level and with no dragon or arcane knowledgeexperience), there is no reason for the DM to tell the PLAYER that his subdual swing could kill. The in game aspect has much to do with the situation in question here.You're kidding, right? That cannot possibly be something you consider analogous to the scenarios outlined by the OP.
Out of character knowledge is out of character knowledge. The character in question had no idea that he could accidently kill the dragon with the flat of his axe, just as the character skipping the stone has no idea that skipping the stone might be a bad idea.
The two situations are different, but the underlying principle is the same. If the character doesn't know, then you don't need to inform the player that his character's action might be a bad one.
As a PC, I would definitely ask the DM right there about it as a rules clarification. It's non confrontational if posed as a rule question, and alerts the DM to my alarm on such an issue, and possibly can nip it in the bud. If the DM maintains their position that they were within the rules doing so, I'd take it up with them before/after a session. Its not going to change for that instance at that point, so the best you can do is let the DM know that you really didn't like how that played out, and stave off future issues.
As the DM, like I said earlier, I think it's an interesting way to do minor character hooks. Personally, I wouldn't have done someting like this so early in the campaign. If the player effected asked me when this happened in the session, I'd talk about my reasoning for it, and sport healthy debate for about 5 mins, and let them know after that that if they still feel strongly about it, we can talk another time. If they made the effort to actually talk to me outside of session, it would show to me how strongly they didn't like what I did. This would definitely encourage me to try to change that for further sessions. If I still maintained that my position was correct, I would still try to make such instances less common as order to keep the player happy.
My 2 cents
So a trained warrior has no idead how and if his attacks will be lethal or not? Just that it damages? I'm still seeing green.
Take the blinders off then. Then explain to me how practicing with swords and dummies somehow teaches you how to guage the fragility of a freshly hatched dragon, something you've never studied or seen before?
I don't see the point in arguing with you any more. The warrior doesn't just train on dummies. They train with wooden weapon against other warriors. They watch battles so to see things in action. There is no reason for a DM not to tell the player how well his/her attack works. I will not post again without some valid point/s. Sorry.
Um, and what part of that is detailed info on the fragility of baby dragons? Way to dodge the issue like a politician.
Um, and what part of that is detailed info on the fragility of baby dragons? Way to dodge the issue like a politician.
While I do agree with a ruling for massive damage that brings a creature to negative bloodied killing it. I think in this situation that the DM should have given an appropriate discription on the first blow so that the Barbarian had information to base his actions on properly.
As I have stated in an earlier post, I would have rolled the appropriate skills for the player behind the DMs screen and then given descriptive clues based upon those rolls.
ie, roll Healing, get a result of 20 "The dragon looks like he is bloodied for sure, his eyes are glazed like it has a concusion...." or a perception: "It looks wobbly..."
Some feed back or description of the situation would have been appropriate in this case
While I do agree with a ruling for massive damage that brings a creature to negative bloodied killing it. I think in this situation that the DM should have given an appropriate discription on the first blow so that the Barbarian had information to base his actions on properly.
As I have stated in an earlier post, I would have rolled the appropriate skills for the player behind the DMs screen and then given descriptive clues based upon those rolls.
ie, roll Healing, get a result of 20 "The dragon looks like he is bloodied for sure, his eyes are glazed like it has a concusion...." or a perception: "It looks wobbly..."
Some feed back or description of the situation would have been appropriate in this case
These are valid things to do. I agree that it wasn't handled in the best fashion, but I think it was definately something that was the DM's right to do and wasn't railroading or "bad".
So a trained warrior has no idead how and if his attacks will be lethal or not? Just that it damages? I'm still seeing green.
Possible the barbarian in this case has only been taught to fight effectively with his battle axe, and to deal non-lethal damage to worthy opponents, monsters and soldiers. Being non-violent there would be little need to teach or learn how to subdue young ladies and children while pillaging their lands so as to take them captive (or worse), so I doubt he was trained how to fight people who weren't capable of defending themselves.
mom-lethal is a misdenomer for weapons, they can and do kill. Rubber bullets used by riot police can and do seriously injure and kill people, tasers, designed to subdue, can and do kill people. They are non-lethal because they are less likely to kill, unlike say a bullet which Will kill.
Attacking the baby dragon normally would have an absolute chance of killing, the crreature would called dead at zero or negative hps. Where as using non-lethal force wouldn't kill it at 0 or negative hps, that could only happen if it brings the creature down to negative bloodied hps.
If the baby dragon had 30 hp, then using lethal force would kill it at 0 hp, it would kill it at -5 hp, it would kill it at -10 hp etc. However non-lethal force would only KO the dragon at 0 hp, would only KO the dragon at -5 hp, -10 hp, only KO the dragon at -14 hp. Using non-lethal force, the baby Dragon would only die if that one attack brought it down to -15 hp.
Much depends on the Hp of the baby dragon and the reason the DM made his ruling (we haven't heard the DM's arguement in this) but if the baby dragon only had say 10 hp (5 bloodied) and the barbarian was using a 1d12 axe, with a +3 Strength modifier, things could get messy, really fast for this baby dragon. Say the first blow he rolls a 6 for a total of 9 damage bringing the baby to bloodied with 1 hp remaining. I beleive that should have been clue enough that this baby dragon wasn't able to handle being blungeoned with a battle axe, instead he attacks again on the off chance that the baby's breath weapon would have recharged (which is unlikely) this time he rolls an 11 for a total damage of 14 and bringing the baby dragon down to -13 hp.
1 blow that does more damage then the dragon has hp, bringing it down past 3 times it's bloodied hp level. This si the point where the DM looking at the situatin that unfolded in front of him and says. "Well yes you tried to use non-lethal force, but the severity of that force is clearly beyond the baby dragon's ability to survive" which I think is a fair enough rulling considering it just hatched moments before.
they enjoyed it.......but thats the scary part.... if im not careful ill be DM'ing an evil campaign
Possible the barbarian in this case has only been taught to fight effectively with his battle axe, and to deal non-lethal damage to worthy opponents, monsters and soldiers. Being non-violent there would be little need to teach or learn how to subdue young ladies and children while pillaging their lands so as to take them captive (or worse), so I doubt he was trained how to fight people who weren't capable of defending themselves.
mom-lethal is a misdenomer for weapons, they can and do kill. Rubber bullets used by riot police can and do seriously injure and kill people, tasers, designed to subdue, can and do kill people. They are non-lethal because they are less likely to kill, unlike say a bullet which Will kill.
Attacking the baby dragon normally would have an absolute chance of killing, the crreature would called dead at zero or negative hps. Where as using non-lethal force wouldn't kill it at 0 or negative hps, that could only happen if it brings the creature down to negative bloodied hps.
If the baby dragon had 30 hp, then using lethal force would kill it at 0 hp, it would kill it at -5 hp, it would kill it at -10 hp etc. However non-lethal force would only KO the dragon at 0 hp, would only KO the dragon at -5 hp, -10 hp, only KO the dragon at -14 hp. Using non-lethal force, the baby Dragon would only die if that one attack brought it down to -15 hp.
Much depends on the Hp of the baby dragon and the reason the DM made his ruling (we haven't heard the DM's arguement in this) but if the baby dragon only had say 10 hp (5 bloodied) and the barbarian was using a 1d12 axe, with a +3 Strength modifier, things could get messy, really fast for this baby dragon. Say the first blow he rolls a 6 for a total of 9 damage bringing the baby to bloodied with 1 hp remaining. I beleive that should have been clue enough that this baby dragon wasn't able to handle being blungeoned with a battle axe, instead he attacks again on the off chance that the baby's breath weapon would have recharged (which is unlikely) this time he rolls an 11 for a total damage of 14 and bringing the baby dragon down to -13 hp.
1 blow that does more damage then the dragon has hp, bringing it down past 3 times it's bloodied hp level. This si the point where the DM looking at the situatin that unfolded in front of him and says. "Well yes you tried to use non-lethal force, but the severity of that force is clearly beyond the baby dragon's ability to survive" which I think is a fair enough rulling considering it just hatched moments before.
There again comes the problem that I have already pointed out to you. The DM never told the player how his attack faired. Most DMs don't tell the player how much HP the monsters had let. The DM could have just said after the first attack that the baby dragon doesn't seem to be able to handle the blow/s, You killing the dragon. Which would have gave the player the clues he needed.
As for the bolded part ether this is you assuming this by what you think should have happened or you know the DM and know what he was thinking at the time. However this is not how the rules work in 4e. If as you say he made the call at the time of the attack then he should have inform the player that fact at the time that he made the call. Not after the encounter or at the end of the game.
Because people have been harping on whether the DM should have warned the PLAYER of something that the CHARACTER would not have recognized.
He should. Always. The DM is effectively playing the senses of the characters. They only know of the world what he tells them.
If the CHARACTER would not recognize the fragility of a hatchling dragon(being first level and with no dragon or arcane knowledgeexperience), there is no reason for the DM to tell the PLAYER that his subdual swing could kill.
Immaterial. Subdual damage cannot kill unless the DM has changed the rules of the game, and if he has done so he must tell the Players. The DM in this situation compounded his - let's charitably call it an "error" - by also refusing to give the player in-game feedback of which his PC would be aware.
Out of character knowledge is out of character knowledge. The character in question had no idea that he could accidently kill the dragon with the flat of his axe, just as the character skipping the stone has no idea that skipping the stone might be a bad idea.
The two situations are different, but the underlying principle is the same. If the character doesn't know, then you don't need to inform the player that his character's action might be a bad one.
Not even remotely close. One is an in-game issue, the other is a rules-issue. They are as similar as apples and 1819 Jethro Wood patented iron plows with interchangeable parts.
Um, and what part of that is detailed info on the fragility of baby dragons? Way to dodge the issue like a politician.
There are many more logical fallacies than the Red Herring, you know. You might want to try a few of them for variety.
Even if this were an in-game issue - which it is not - the "fragility of baby dragons" is immaterial. Unless a baby dragon manifests injury in a manner so dramatically different and distinct from every other creature in the game living, dead, and undead then "detailed info" is not required.
Immaterial. Subdual damage cannot kill unless the DM has changed the rules of the game, and if he has done so he must tell the Players. The DM in this situation compounded his - let's charitably call it an "error" - by also refusing to give the player in-game feedback of which his PC would be aware.
I have to agree here, too. If there are rules assumptions that are different from what the game says, and the average person would know these (like there being no such thing as subdual, or how to subdue someone works differently), then it's the DM's responsibility to tell the PC, OR let the player change his action based on the new knowledge.
It's like every human in the house ruled game being able to fly without wings - would you prefer the DM to tell you at character creation, or wait until you're all falling off a cliff, and after the party's all dead the DM asks, "Well, why didn't you just have the humans in the group fly you down safely? You guys are so stupid."
First, and this is just minor, from what I remember there is no subdual damage type anymore. Now I could be wrong because my book is not in front of me at the moment but the way that I remember the rules was that you did normal damage now with each hit but whomever dropped the target to 0 or below was able to just choose dead or unconscious with the default being dead. Please correct me if I have that wrong with the correct rule from the book.
Secondly and more to the point, I think that that the DM did in this case was completely within the rules and at the same time very wrong and unfair to the player. I have been DMing for about 20 years now and while I know there are people here who have been doing it much longer (good for you by the way) I would say I have a bit of experience on how to run a game smoothly. There were multiple other ways to handle this situation but the DM did the equivalent of a slap in the face to this player's character concept. However the DM did follow the rules because the DM makes the rules. You could drop to 0 hp and the DM could say, "ok you are dead roll a new character." "But what about my saves?" "You dont get em this time." "But I have an ability...?" "Doesnt work this time." Can he do it? Sure. Should any sane DM do something like that? Not if he wants to play with others. Admittedly that was an extreme example but its similar. "Yes! I knocked it out!" "Nope you crushed its skull." "Wait. What? I wanted t knock it out!" "Yep. But you killed it instead cause it was a baby."
He could have done multiple other things. He could have said, "Your first attack makes the creature stagger and nearly fall to the ground. The little one looks in bad shape from just your cautious hit." Give the player a little hint that his attacks have the possibility to do serious damage. Or just tell him go for it but say that it may be weaker than it looks. If the DM doesn't want that kind of warning to happen or considers it unlikely that the players would recognize the situation as that dire then fudge the numbers. Let the next guy take it out and make sure it misses if it's initiative comes up. If you are the DM you can do that its part of that changing the rules thing. If for some reason he would want that character specifically to kill it then after session tell your player you have something big in mind for his character that stems from this event so hang in there and work with him on the RP part of the consequences.
My take on this situation is that the DM didn't care about the work the player had put into his character concept and had something happen that diminished the players enjoyment of his character and therefore the gaming experience. The rules are there so that we can have a fair structure to have fun in and the DM's ability to alter those rules is there to make sure we keep having fun if the rules get in the way. If you can't remember that one player has a concept as unique as "no killing" and cannot find way for that to work then they have no business behind the DM screen.
Before the session, I spoke with the DM and let him know in further detail the importance of my character background and personality. With that in mind, I used some ideas that other posters suggested earlier in this thread and did my best to make the most of the RPing opportunity in the midst of this mess.
Connavar, taking the dead dragon with him, told the party that he would be leaving for the night and would return at dawn. Placing the hatchling in a shoulder-slung traveling sack, he packed the container with fresh snow to try and keep the corpse preserved as he left the group and traveled out into the wilderness. That night he used his nature to find herbs and plants that could be crushed and mixed to create a hallucinagine state when burned in a fire pit and breathed in. The herb mixture was often used amongst his people to speak to the spirits of both nature and the ancestors and was widely believe to create higher levels of insight. Breathing in deep, Connavar implored the wisdom of the Spirits in this matter. They offered him their advice. The Spirits declared that no matter how hard one tried to preserve life there were times when it could not be saved. They also advised him to do his best to make amends with the Mature Dragon, honor demands it, if it were possible- but if fate pushed the Dragon to conflict, that Connavar should feel no shame at defending himself. Still, the death of the hatchling should always be a reminder for him to only act with aggression if he was prepared to claim life.
After the communion with the spirits, Connavar made his decisions based off their wisdom. He struck the flat of his ax against stone until the blade had shattered into pieces. Ritualistically, he bound straps of leather, hemp and vine around the haft and handle of what was once his ax- padding it to help insure that it would be more difficult to slay with the weapon. Adding fresh snow to the hatchling's corpse, he made his way back towards his sleeping group.
Connavar has three choices in his mind at this point. His first is to try and find a way to return the hatchling to life. The second, which he dreads, is that he will offer up his first born child to the dragon to repay the blood feud between him and the deadly creature. He does not wish this course of action, but he is honor bound to do so. The last course of action is to try and stop the dragon through diplomacy or deed. If the Dragon insists on fighting, he will not flee, but will face the fury of it's wrath for better or worse.
He should. Always. The DM is effectively playing the senses of the characters. They only know of the world what he tells them.
First you say he should have warned him of something that the character could not recognize. Then you say the DM is the character's sennses and they only know what he tells them. You're being remarkably inconsistent.
Immaterial. Subdual damage cannot kill unless the DM has changed the rules of the game, and if he has done so he must tell the Players. The DM in this situation compounded his - let's charitably call it an "error" - by also refusing to give the player in-game feedback of which his PC would be aware.
There was no rule change. The rule remains the same now as it was before that incident happened. There was only an isolated call based on rare circumstances that the game "rules" couldn't anticipate.
Not even remotely close. One is an in-game issue, the other is a rules-issue. They are as similar as apples and 1819 Jethro Wood patented iron plows with interchangeable parts.
Wrong. The character couldn't recognize that the dragon hatchling was so fragile that subdual damage with a huge metal axe would kill it anyway. That's an in character problem. That there are rules involved in addition to that is something extra.
Even if this were an in-game issue - which it is not - the "fragility of baby dragons" is immaterial. Unless a baby dragon manifests injury in a manner so dramatically different and distinct from every other creature in the game living, dead, and undead then "detailed info" is not required.
What injury? The first hit didn't do much damage to it at all. That's the nature of hit points. It's all scrapes and bruises until the final hit.
I have to agree here, too. If there are rules assumptions that are different from what the game says, and the average person would know these (like there being no such thing as subdual, or how to subdue someone works differently), then it's the DM's responsibility to tell the PC, OR let the player change his action based on the new knowledge.
Let the player change his action based on new knowledge that his character doesn't know? You are actually advocating metagaming? Do you also allow your players whose characters have no idea what a medusa is to attack her using only mirrors to view her? Is it okay with you for your players to buy the module that you are running them through so that they can know where the traps are to bypass them, and where the hidden treasure is so that their characters can grab it? I certainly don't.
If I told the player that the subdual damage would or even COULD kill the baby dragon, but the character has absolutely no idea about that, and they changed their mind, I'd slam him with an exp penalty for metagaming. I'd then talk to him about it out of character and warn that future metagaming would result in expulsion from the play group.
It's like every human in the house ruled game being able to fly without wings - would you prefer the DM to tell you at character creation, or wait until you're all falling off a cliff, and after the party's all dead the DM asks, "Well, why didn't you just have the humans in the group fly you down safely? You guys are so stupid."
It's not like that at all. The incident we're discussing here isn't a blanket rules change.
So last night was our follow up session.
[snip]
That sounds like a fight with the dragon is unavoidable.
It's like every human in the house ruled game being able to fly without wings - would you prefer the DM to tell you at character creation, or wait until you're all falling off a cliff, and after the party's all dead the DM asks, "Well, why didn't you just have the humans in the group fly you down safely? You guys are so stupid."
Its more like every human being able to fly by raw, but after the human party members jump of a cliff and splattered on the ground the DM informs them that humans can't fly after all.
Here's a big barbarian hunter who knows what he's doing. If the creature looks too fragile to knock out like that, he should have fair warning. That would have made it all better, in my opinion.
Point number two: damage is not damage. That is, scoring a hit with an axe and rolling some damage does not mean you actually hit the creature... just that it's one step closer to death (or unconsciousness, if you choose not to kill it). Nothing wrong with describing a hit (that is, the attack roll exceeds the defence score) as a miss that tires the target out (or whatever), or in the case of subduing something, a feint that leaves it open to a tackle/pin. Same game effect, still using an axe, but no contact is made. If a player described things that way in my game, I'd go with it.
First you say he should have warned him of something that the character could not recognize. Then you say the DM is the character's sennses and they only know what he tells them. You're being remarkably inconsistent.
No I am being consistent, you simply do not agree with what I am saying and so are trying to belittle it, and by extension me, rather than respond to my points it in any intelligent or meaningful way. I mean it is refreshing to see you switch it up slightly from your standby Red Herring but this response is still just as fallacious.
There was no rule change. The rule remains the same now as it was before that incident happened.
There was a rule change, to wit subdual damage becoming lethal damage. Unless the players were informed of this possibility beforehand - which does not appear to be the case in this instance - then it was most certainly a rules change.
There was only an isolated call based on rare circumstances that the game "rules" couldn't anticipate.
Hitting things with a weapon is not a "rare circumstance that the game 'rules' couldn't anticipate".
Wrong.
That's a funny way to spell "right".
The character couldn't recognize that the dragon hatchling was so fragile that subdual damage with a huge metal axe would kill it anyway.
Once more for the hard of thinking: there is no requirement for "recogniz(ing) that the dragon hatchling was so fragile".
That's an in character problem. That there are rules involved in addition to that is something extra.
This is a rules-problem. That there are also in-game issues that going along with it, and compound the DM's error, makes it worse but is not the core problem.
What injury? The first hit didn't do much damage to it at all. That's the nature of hit points. It's all scrapes and bruises until the final hit.
Not quite.
Let the player change his action based on new knowledge that his character doesn't know?
No, let the player change his action based on a new rule that the player didn't know.
You are actually advocating metagaming?
I do no think that word does not mean what you think it means.
Do you also allow your players whose characters have no idea what a medusa is to attack her using only mirrors to view her? Is it okay with you for your players to buy the module that you are running them through so that they can know where the traps are to bypass them, and where the hidden treasure is so that their characters can grab it? I certainly don't.
Again with the Straw Man.
If I told the player that the subdual damage would or even COULD kill the baby dragon, but the character has absolutely no idea about that, and they changed their mind, I'd slam him with an exp penalty for metagaming. I'd then talk to him about it out of character and warn that future metagaming would result in expulsion from the play group.
Subdual vs. lethal damage is a rules-based issue. By penalizing players for their characters not knowing the rules of the game you are encouraging, nay requiring, them to use player knowledge and thus meta-game.
You also seem to have missed, or are deliberately ignoring, the part about the DM not telling the player subdual damage could kill.
It's not like that at all. The incident we're discussing here isn't a blanket rules change.
"Subdual damage can kill" is indeed a blanket rule change.
No I am being consistent, you simply do not agree with what I am saying and so are trying to belittle it, and by extension me, rather than respond to my points it in any intelligent or meaningful way. I mean it is refreshing to see you switch it up slightly from your standby Red Herring but this response is still just as fallacious.
Actually, I wasn't belittling you. You were the one whose response said two opposing things. However, your response, falsely claiming falacy is a nice(not really) evasion.
There was a rule change, to wit subdual damage becoming lethal damage. Unless the players were informed of this possibility beforehand - which does not appear to be the case in this instance - then it was most certainly a rules change.
It was a ruling, not a rules change. To change a rule, the rule has to be changed into something new, and the DM never stated that all damage is now lethal.
Hitting things with a weapon is not a "rare circumstance that the game 'rules' couldn't anticipate".
But hitting a fragile hatchling dragon fresh from the egg with a huge axe IS. PCs will rarely be in a position like this, where the subdual rule might not be appropriate. It will probably never happen again to this group.
Once more for the hard of thinking: there is no requirement for "recogniz(ing) that the dragon hatchling was so fragile".
There absolutely is, if the DM says there is. And since this is something that makes sense, there really isn't a problem with the DM ruling it that way.
Actually, I wasn't belittling you. You were the one whose response said two opposing things. However, your response, falsely claiming falacy is a nice(not really) evasion.
I am evading nothing. My statements were not in opposition cos "you've injured it" is something the PC would indeed know and thus something of which the DM should have informed him.
It was a ruling, not a rules change. To change a rule, the rule has to be changed into something new, and the DM never stated that all damage is now lethal.
That subdual damage can be lethal is a rules change.
But hitting a fragile hatchling dragon fresh from the egg with a huge axe IS. PCs will rarely be in a position like this, where the subdual rule might not be appropriate. It will probably never happen again to this group.
What one is hitting is immaterial. If this scenario differed so greatly from the norm as to warrant a change to the rules the DM should have said so.
There absolutely is, if the DM says there is. And since this is something that makes sense, there really isn't a problem with the DM ruling it that way.
There is a problem with the DM ruling it that way when he doesn't let the players know said ruling is being made. If he wanted the hatchling's "fragility" as you put it to be an issue, so much so that it warrants changing the rules of the game to accommodate, then some indication of such should have been made.
If the DM had decided even subdual damage was sufficient to kill this creature then he should have indicated such. The fact the PC hit the thing more than once to kill it offers a perfect way of doing so in-game. After the first blow the DM should have told the PC that the creature is obviously seriously injured, not just stunned or dazed as is normal with subdual damage. He should have indicated to the players, either in game or out, that somethinn was amiss and the normal rules were not in effect.
What one is hitting is immaterial. If this scenario differed so greatly from the norm as to warrant a change to the rules the DM should have said so.
There is a problem with the DM ruling it that way when he doesn't let the players know said ruling is being made. If he wanted the hatchling's "fragility" as you put it to be an issue, so much so that it warrants changing the rules of the game to accommodate, then some indication of such should have been made.
If the DM had decided even subdual damage was sufficient to kill this creature then he should have indicated such. The fact the PC hit the thing more than once to kill it offers a perfect way of doing so in-game. After the first blow the DM should have told the PC that the creature is obviously seriously injured, not just stunned or dazed as is normal with subdual damage. He should have indicated to the players, either in game or out, that somethinn was amiss and the normal rules were not in effect.
So long as the player isn't allowed to change what his character is going to do based SOLELY on player knowledge, I don't care what he's told. Metagaming is to be discouraged, though.
So long as the player isn't allowed to change what his character is going to do based SOLELY on player knowledge, I don't care what he's told. Metagaming is to be discouraged, though.
Do you call "knowing the rules" metagaming? (rethorical question. You have already shown that you do).
How does a good player play D&D in your opinion as things like healing surges, attack bonuses, AC, powers and HP are all metagaming according to you?
Or in short, if you use the D&D rules you are a bad player.....
So long as the player isn't allowed to change what his character is going to do based SOLELY on player knowledge, I don't care what he's told. Metagaming is to be discouraged, though.
People do this all the time, though. It's called playing in a given ruleset. Such as, you know, as an example, Dungeons and Dragons.
The DM in this case could easily have given realistic and very reasonable in-game hints that were in no way metagaming that could have avoided this whole situation. The DM did not do so, ergo: bad call.
When it's something central to the player's character concept and something that he should have known (being a hunter and generally skilled at subduing/killing things), hints should have been given. They weren't.
I don't actually have a huge problem with the DM saying, "Sorry guys, can't subdue this one. It's too fragile." I would argue with it, but the DM is well withing their rights to do so. There are (in my opinion) better ways to handle it, but sure. If the DM feels it necessary, go to town. Just don't be a jerk about it.
The character had also struck (to subdue) once before successfully. That was a prime opportunity for the DM to let on that subdual might not be an option. Didn't take it, instead chose to jerk the PC around. Not so cool, not a good call.
Do you call "knowing the rules" metagaming? (rethorical question. You have already shown that you do).
I call using out of character knowledge to change in character actions that the actual character would know nothing about, metagaming.
How does a good player play D&D in your opinion as things like healing surges, attack bonuses, AC, powers and HP are all metagaming according to you?
Or in short, if you use the D&D rules you are a bad player.....
Get back to me when you're actually going to respond to what I've said, and not post idiotic crap like this.
People do this all the time, though. It's called playing in a given ruleset. Such as, you know, as an example, Dungeons and Dragons.
Wrong. The rules don't allow you to metagame. And simply playing by the rules isn't metagaming. Players are not allowed to deliberately use creature weakneses that they know about, but the characters don't. That's not only metagaming, but it's cheating.
The DM in this case could easily have given realistic and very reasonable in-game hints that were in no way metagaming that could have avoided this whole situation. The DM did not do so, ergo: bad call.
He could have, and that would have been reasonable. However, that he didn't, was ALSO reasonable. It's very reasonable to think that a first level fighter wouldn't know how fragile a hatchling dragon is.
When it's something central to the player's character concept and something that he should have known (being a hunter and generally skilled at subduing/killing things), hints should have been given. They weren't.
When someone hunts squirrels for a living, and the end up in the desert looking at a tortoise, they aren't going to be able go guage the tortoise effectively. The dragon was waaaaaaaay out of his league. It's not even an animal.
The character had also struck (to subdue) once before successfully. That was a prime opportunity for the DM to let on that subdual might not be an option. Didn't take it, instead chose to jerk the PC around. Not so cool, not a good call.
Struck at, but didn't really hit it hard enough to do anything. That's the way hit points work. You get scratched, bruised, whatevered, but not really injured. Serious injury and/or death only occur on the very last swing that takes you 0(or lower if you're a player)
If I told the player that the subdual damage would or even COULD kill the baby dragon, but the character has absolutely no idea about that, and they changed their mind, I'd slam him with an exp penalty for metagaming. I'd then talk to him about it out of character and warn that future metagaming would result in expulsion from the play group.
It's not like that at all. The incident we're discussing here isn't a blanket rules change.
So basically you're saying that if you change the rules and your players respond by changing their actions, you'll penalize them, yell at them, and then expel them.
In other words ā do what I want or get out.
You should send in your picture to the "Worse DMs Ever!" thread and get it out of the way, because thats exactly what you are. The players get to either bow to your every whim, which we can all plainly see are pretty stupid, or go home.
If I had to, I'd guess there aren't very many DMs in your area if you have a group at all.
I call using out of character knowledge to change in character actions that the actual character would know nothing about, metagaming.
Get back to me when you're actually going to respond to what I've said, and not post idiotic crap like this.
You get what you sow...
So a character not using his best attack because "its a daily" is metagaming. As is trading your trusty sword for a new one you just picked up because it has a higher plus.
Heck, even knowing that you have a daily attack is metagaming.
A character deciding the attack instead of flee because he has healing surges left? Metagaming
A character deciding to use his encounter power instead of an basic attack because the warlord gave him a bonus to attack. Metagaming.
Picking a paragon path? Metagaming.
Use the Create Magic Item ritual? Metagaming.
And thats just a small list of things you call metagaming in 4E.
Fact is, D&D has rules and players expect this rules to be followed. The DM violated that by arbitrarily changing the rules without any warning or just a hint to further his railroad plot while ignoring and damaging a players character concept by taking control of that character and doing something completely against its personality.
When a character says he subdues an enemy then he attacks to subdue it. He does not swing an axe at full power at the head.
To expand my example from above. When you play a game where a specific race can fly at will and the players decide to jump off a cliff to get somewhere faster and fall to their deaths as the DM decided that this race can't fly it is perfectly fine DMing. Even more, if the DM had informed them as they were about to jump that they can't fly they could not have changed their action as otherwise they would be bad, metagaming players.
So basically you're saying that if you change the rules and your players respond by changing their actions, you'll penalize them, yell at them, and then expel them.
It's no different than a player cheating by buying a module that you are running and using knowledge of what is in there by having their character avoid traps and grab hidden treasure.
In other words ā do what I want or get out.
If that's how you run your game. I don't run mine that way.
You should send in your picture to the "Worse DMs Ever!" thread and get it out of the way, because thats exactly what you are. The players get to either bow to your every whim, which we can all plainly see are pretty stupid, or go home.
It's only seems stupid to you, because you have reading comprehension issues, as evidenced by your "In other words...." crap.
Wrong. The rules don't allow you to metagame. And simply playing by the rules isn't metagaming. Players are not allowed to deliberately use creature weakneses that they know about, but the characters don't. That's not only metagaming, but it's cheating.
Me: "I use Trick Strike on that big orc. Fighter, I'm going to move him into a good position for a flank."
MaxpersonasDM: "Sorry, but that's metagaming. Your character couldn't know that for the rest of the encounter you're going to be able to slide him around."
Me: "Umm... I'm gonna go play in another game now. Seeya."
That's what I'm getting at. By your definition, knowing that you're allowed to knock a creature out is metagaming.
He could have, and that would have been reasonable. However, that he didn't, was ALSO reasonable. It's very reasonable to think that a first level fighter wouldn't know how fragile a hatchling dragon is.
Not specifically, no. But if it's that fragile, it looks that fragile. I am not an expert in textiles, but when I was handling a very old silk garment, I could see that I needed to be careful with it. As it turns out, I needed to be more careful than I was, but that's another story. Some things are obvious.
When someone hunts squirrels for a living, and the end up in the desert looking at a tortoise, they aren't going to be able go guage the tortoise effectively. The dragon was waaaaaaaay out of his league. It's not even an animal.
But he's still going to be able to trap it with a snare.
Struck at, but didn't really hit it hard enough to do anything. That's the way hit points work. You get scratched, bruised, whatevered, but not really injured. Serious injury and/or death only occur on the very last swing that takes you 0(or lower if you're a player)
That's one option on how hit points work, yes. Not every "hit" connects though. Or at least, it doesn't need to be described that way. "The orc chief swings his warhammer at you. You manage to get your shield up in time, but the shock of the impact jars your whole body. You don't think you can take much more of this. Take 13 damage." Or: "You swing your axe at the baby dragon, hoping to catch it with a non-lethal blow. It twists out of the way, barely avoiding your strike, but you can see it panicking as it realizes it can't keep this up for much longer. It takes 12 damage."
Incidentally, hitting something on the head to knock it out only works so well in movies. You're as likely to kill someone as knock them out, or just give them a headache later. Hard to guage these things. An experienced warrior skilled enough in battle to be a first level PC would certainly know this.
So a character not using his best attack because "its a daily" is metagaming.
Nope.
As is trading your trusty sword for a new one you just picked up because it has a higher plus.
Nope.
Heck, even knowing that you have a daily attack is metagaming.
Nope. Characters have no idea what a daily attack is. If the character refers to a daily attack, that's almost always **** poor RP. I suppose SOME daily powers have built in reasons why they work 1xday, so those would be exceptions.
A character deciding the attack instead of flee because he has healing surges left? Metagaming
Nope. If he's running because of healing surges, that's bad RP, not metagaming. No character knows what a healing surge is. If he's running because he's beat to hell and at the limit of his endurance, that's in character and perfectly fine. No metagaming there.
A character deciding to use his encounter power instead of an basic attack because the warlord gave him a bonus to attack. Metagaming.
Characters don't make those decisions, because they have no idea what a bonus or encounter power is.
Picking a paragon path? Metagaming.
Use the Create Magic Item ritual? Metagaming.
And thats just a small list of things you call metagaming in 4E.
Blah, blah, blah. You have just demonstrated that like railroading, you have no idea what metagaming means.
And no, that list is 100% YOU calling it metagaming, not me.
Blah, blah, blah. You have just demonstrated that like railroading, you have no idea what metagaming means.
No, I am just using your definition of metagaming (A character doing something because the rules the character can't be aware of say it works that way)
And no, that list is 100% YOU calling it metagaming, not me.
Yes you do. See above. Character does something because the rules say it works that way -> Metagaming. (In this case a character attacking an enemy without giving a huge monologue about how he intents to capture it because the rules say you can decide to subdue a creature when reducing it to 0 or fewer HP, or doing exactly that because of a houserule to said rule. In both cases the character does something because a rule says that it works that way and you define that as metagaming)
And: A character using a magical item after reaching a milestone. Metagaming
There, 110%. As always you are proven wrong.
And its interesting how much of my post you ignored.
Me: "I use Trick Strike on that big orc. Fighter, I'm going to move him into a good position for a flank."
MaxpersonasDM: "Sorry, but that's metagaming. Your character couldn't know that for the rest of the encounter you're going to be able to slide him around."
Me: "Umm... I'm gonna go play in another game now. Seeya."
That's what I'm getting at. By your definition, knowing that you're allowed to knock a creature out is metagaming.
Bzzt! Wrong, but thank you for playing. That's not my definition at all.
Not specifically, no. But if it's that fragile, it looks that fragile. I am not an expert in textiles, but when I was handling a very old silk garment, I could see that I needed to be careful with it. As it turns out, I needed to be more careful than I was, but that's another story. Some things are obvious.
Thanks for proving my point. You thought you were careful enough...you were wrong. The same thing happened with the subdual strike and the fragile hatchling.
But he's still going to be able to trap it with a snare.
But he won't know how much or little it will take to kill it vs. knock it out. That's beyond his knowledge. Look, if the barbarian in question had been 10th level, I would be handling this differently. A 10th level barbarian has been around the block a few dozen times. A 1st level barbarian is still has price tags on his sword. A dragon is just beyond the knowledge of a 1st level barbarian.
That's one option on how hit points work, yes. Not every "hit" connects though. Or at least, it doesn't need to be described that way. "The orc chief swings his warhammer at you. You manage to get your shield up in time, but the shock of the impact jars your whole body. You don't think you can take much more of this. Take 13 damage." Or: "You swing your axe at the baby dragon, hoping to catch it with a non-lethal blow. It twists out of the way, barely avoiding your strike, but you can see it panicking as it realizes it can't keep this up for much longer. It takes 12 damage."
Right.
Incidentally, hitting something on the head to knock it out only works so well in movies. You're as likely to kill someone as knock them out, or just give them a headache later. Hard to guage these things. An experienced warrior skilled enough in battle to be a first level PC would certainly know this.
With humanoid creatures, I would definately agree. He's never battled hordes of dragon hatchlings, though.
No, I am just using your definition of metagaming (A character doing something because the rules the character can't be aware of say it works that way)
Yes you do. See above.
And: A character using a magical item after reaching a milestone. Metagaming
There, 110%. As always you are proven wrong.
And its interesting how much of my post you ignored.
I find it interesting as well. It actually makes me wonder if he even has a group that plays with him, or if he just reads D&D books all day and dreams about what awesome adventures he'd run if he could just find someone that would play with him.
Imagine how fun it would be, constantly being called a metagamer and a bad roleplayer by some guys who just knows that if you did exactly what he told you, you would be completely blown away by the awesome story he's spouting off.
But he won't know how much or little it will take to kill it vs. knock it out. That's beyond his knowledge.
By this standard, you could never subdue a person.
How would you without metagaming, anyway? The rules say that when you drop an enemy to 0, you can choose to kill him or not. You obviously can't decide before the strike, because you don't know if it will drop him to 0, and if you decide after ā well I can't possibly see how a character would know that in-game.
Of course, he actually doesn't have to know that at all, since you just made that rule up. Really, Max, the more you post, the more thankful I am for my DM.
How would you without metagaming, anyway? The rules say that when you drop an enemy to 0, you can choose to kill him or not. You obviously can't decide before the strike, because you don't know if it will drop him to 0, and if you decide after ā well I can't possibly see how a character would know that in-game.
Good point.
Bzzt! Wrong, but thank you for playing. That's not my definition at all.
Really? Sure seemed to be.
Thanks for proving my point. You thought you were careful enough...you were wrong. The same thing happened with the subdual strike and the fragile hatchling.
Still don't see how it proves your point. Doesn't even support it. You're focusing on the wrong aspect. I could see, even as a non-expert, that I needed to handle with care. I chose to handle anyway.
My point is that even not having faced a baby dragon before, not being an expert in dragons, that barbarian should have been able to see at a glance that there was risk. I could, in my example.
But he won't know how much or little it will take to kill it vs. knock it out. That's beyond his knowledge. Look, if the barbarian in question had been 10th level, I would be handling this differently. A 10th level barbarian has been around the block a few dozen times. A 1st level barbarian is still has price tags on his sword. A dragon is just beyond the knowledge of a 1st level barbarian.
Sure thing. But if he's faced a drake (entirely reasonable), he'd know some similar creatures. And the visual should have been enough.
With humanoid creatures, I would definately agree. He's never battled hordes of dragon hatchlings, though.
With any natural creature. From there it's easy enough to extrapolate to unnatural ones.
Ok I have been reading this post for awhile now and finally decided to put my opinion out for everyone to argue with.
First, and this is just minor, from what I remember there is no subdual damage type anymore. Now I could be wrong because my book is not in front of me at the moment but the way that I remember the rules was that you did normal damage now with each hit but whomever dropped the target to 0 or below was able to just choose dead or unconscious with the default being dead. Please correct me if I have that wrong with the correct rule from the book.
Secondly and more to the point, I think that that the DM did in this case was completely within the rules and at the same time very wrong and unfair to the player. I have been DMing for about 20 years now and while I know there are people here who have been doing it much longer (good for you by the way) I would say I have a bit of experience on how to run a game smoothly. There were multiple other ways to handle this situation but the DM did the equivalent of a slap in the face to this player's character concept. However the DM did follow the rules because the DM makes the rules. You could drop to 0 hp and the DM could say, "ok you are dead roll a new character." "But what about my saves?" "You dont get em this time." "But I have an ability...?" "Doesnt work this time." Can he do it? Sure. Should any sane DM do something like that? Not if he wants to play with others. Admittedly that was an extreme example but its similar. "Yes! I knocked it out!" "Nope you crushed its skull." "Wait. What? I wanted t knock it out!" "Yep. But you killed it instead cause it was a baby."
He could have done multiple other things. He could have said, "Your first attack makes the creature stagger and nearly fall to the ground. The little one looks in bad shape from just your cautious hit." Give the player a little hint that his attacks have the possibility to do serious damage. Or just tell him go for it but say that it may be weaker than it looks. If the DM doesn't want that kind of warning to happen or considers it unlikely that the players would recognize the situation as that dire then fudge the numbers. Let the next guy take it out and make sure it misses if it's initiative comes up. If you are the DM you can do that its part of that changing the rules thing. If for some reason he would want that character specifically to kill it then after session tell your player you have something big in mind for his character that stems from this event so hang in there and work with him on the RP part of the consequences.
My take on this situation is that the DM didn't care about the work the player had put into his character concept and had something happen that diminished the players enjoyment of his character and therefore the gaming experience. The rules are there so that we can have a fair structure to have fun in and the DM's ability to alter those rules is there to make sure we keep having fun if the rules get in the way. If you can't remember that one player has a concept as unique as "no killing" and cannot find way for that to work then they have no business behind the DM screen.
I believe that the group was using the 3.5 rules on that subject because they didn'rt unstand the 4e rules on the subject if that helps.
Actually, I wasn't belittling you. You were the one whose response said two opposing things. However, your response, falsely claiming falacy is a nice(not really) evasion.
It was a ruling, not a rules change. To change a rule, the rule has to be changed into something new, and the DM never stated that all damage is now lethal.
But hitting a fragile hatchling dragon fresh from the egg with a huge axe IS. PCs will rarely be in a position like this, where the subdual rule might not be appropriate. It will probably never happen again to this group.
There absolutely is, if the DM says there is. And since this is something that makes sense, there really isn't a problem with the DM ruling it that way.
1ruling
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
: an official or authoritative decision, decree, statement, or interpretation (as by a judge on a point of law)
In this case it would be RAW. And since the RAW says that the player gets to chose whether to kill it or not once the creature hit 0hp and the DM changed this after telling the player that he could do it that would be a change not ruling. The group of DMs had already decide (ruling) how it worked in their games. The DM at the time decided to change that ruling because it didn't makes since to the DM. Then he decide instead to let the player do the attack and lie saying it was fine when he didn't even agree with what the player asked to do. You keep overlooking this one simple fact. The group already made the ruling on the rule.
NONLETHAL DAMAGE
Dealing Nonlethal Damage: Certain attacks deal nonlethal damage. Other effects, such as heat or being exhausted, also deal nonlethal damage. When you take nonlethal damage, keep a running total of how much youāve accumulated. Do not deduct the nonlethal damage number from your current hit points. It is not ārealā damage. Instead, when your nonlethal damage equals your current hit points, youāre staggered, and when it exceeds your current hit points, you fall unconscious. It doesnāt matter whether the nonlethal damage equals or exceeds your current hit points because the nonlethal damage has gone up or because your current hit points have gone down.
Nonlethal Damage with a Weapon that Deals Lethal Damage: You can use a melee weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage instead, but you take a ā4 penalty on your attack roll.
Lethal Damage with a Weapon that Deals Nonlethal Damage: You can use a weapon that deals nonlethal damage, including an unarmed strike, to deal lethal damage instead, but you take a ā4 penalty on your attack roll.
Staggered and Unconscious: When your nonlethal damage equals your current hit points, youāre staggered. You can only take a standard action or a move action in each round. You cease being staggered when your current hit points once again exceed your nonlethal damage.
When your nonlethal damage exceeds your current hit points, you fall unconscious. While unconscious, you are helpless.
Spellcasters who fall unconscious retain any spellcasting ability they had before going unconscious.
Healing Nonlethal Damage: You heal nonlethal damage at the rate of 1 hit point per hour per character level.
When a spell or a magical power cures hit point damage, it also removes an equal amount of nonlethal damage.
They have did away with this rule in 4e and just let the attacker chose when the creature is reduced to 0hp not to kill it. Since the DM was clearly using NONleathal damage he was using the 3.5 rules on the subject. The call he made was a rules change because the DM decided the creature was to weak to survive from NONleathal damage. Which changes the 3.5 rule on the subject because IT IS NOT REAL DAMAGE. What should have been pointed out to the DM is that the rules work different in 4e and that the new rules go against what happened.
Wrong. The rules don't allow you to metagame. And simply playing by the rules isn't metagaming. Players are not allowed to deliberately use creature weakneses that they know about, but the characters don't. That's not only metagaming, but it's cheating.
He could have, and that would have been reasonable. However, that he didn't, was ALSO reasonable. It's very reasonable to think that a first level fighter wouldn't know how fragile a hatchling dragon is.
When someone hunts squirrels for a living, and the end up in the desert looking at a tortoise, they aren't going to be able go guage the tortoise effectively. The dragon was waaaaaaaay out of his league. It's not even an animal.
Struck at, but didn't really hit it hard enough to do anything. That's the way hit points work. You get scratched, bruised, whatevered, but not really injured. Serious injury and/or death only occur on the very last swing that takes you 0(or lower if you're a player)
So your saying the DM was wrong because he didn't give the player the knowledge check so the PC could see how fragile the baby dragon was. Heal check I believe but you can correct me if I'm wrong.
No, I am just using your definition of metagaming (A character doing something because the rules the character can't be aware of say it works that way)
Yes you do. See above. Character does something because the rules say it works that way -> Metagaming. (In this case a character attacking an enemy without giving a huge monologue about how he intents to capture it because the rules say you can decide to subdue a creature when reducing it to 0 or fewer HP, or doing exactly that because of a houserule to said rule. In both cases the character does something because a rule says that it works that way and you define that as metagaming)
And: A character using a magical item after reaching a milestone. Metagaming
There, 110%. As always you are proven wrong.
And its interesting how much of my post you ignored.
I've given you every opportunity to stop twisting my words into bull crap that has nothing to do with what I say, and you continue to prove yourself to be useless to read. I'm going to block you now. You and YOUR definition of metagaming can sit in your room all by your lonesome.
Still don't see how it proves your point. Doesn't even support it. You're focusing on the wrong aspect. I could see, even as a non-expert, that I needed to handle with care. I chose to handle anyway.
You tried to subdue it(handle it carefully) and killed it by accident(didn't handle it carefully enough).
Sure thing. But if he's faced a drake (entirely reasonable), he'd know some similar creatures. And the visual should have been enough.
He provided his background to the DM, and if there was a drake fight written into it, I'll change my stance on what the DM should have told him.
Then he decide instead to let the player do the attack and lie saying it was fine when he didn't even agree with what the player asked to do. You keep overlooking this one simple fact. The group already made the ruling on the rule.
The group isn't in charge, so that's a non-issue. Further, he didn't lie to the player. He simply said that it was fine for the player to make the attempt. Success was never agreed to.
So your saying the DM was wrong because he didn't give the player the knowledge check so the PC could see how fragile the baby dragon was. Heal check I believe but you can correct me if I'm wrong.
In my opinion, arcana would address knowledge of dragons more than a heal check. Yes, healing deals with damage, but dragon physiology would be very foreign. I'd give a bonus to the roll if the person had both skills, though.
That's true, all of this is about opinion, but that doesn't mean you can't be wrong.
Max, you can quote Rule 0 all day long ā and you would be right about that ā the DM can change rules if he wants, but it wouldn't change the fact that his players would hate it and no one would have fun, except for the DM. That's what everyone here has been saying for like 10 pages. No one is arguing that he couldn't change the rules when he wanted, but that it was a crappy thing to do to a friend.
I've also said multiple times that this DM didn't go about it in the best way. There were lots of ways he could have done what he wanted to do in a better way.
Another thing is you can't completely cut out metagaming from D&D ā it's a rule based gamed heavily focused on combat tactics that have pretty much absolutely no correlation with real life. The tactics that succeed in D&D would get a man killed in the real life, while real-life tactics will not help your adventuring party.
This isn't metagaming. Metagaming is basically cheating. Using silver weapons against lycanthropes when your characters would have no way of knowing the weakness. Things like that. Simply coordinating in battle isn't metagaming in the least.
The rule for subduing an enemy is completely unrealistic, but it is the rule, and the DM changed it in an underhanded manner. I'm pretty sure you know that the chance of this DM having given the baby dragon a special trait is pretty slim. We also can't ignore that there actually are wyrmling dragons in the Draconomicon, and they're not fragile at all.
First, I agree with you. The chances of this having been built into the hatchling are very slim. I think it more likely that he just realized that the situation was one in which the dragon was likely to die anyway. Second, I don't think that he thinks that wyrmlings are fragile, but one that has JUST climbed out of the egg is. If the battle had taken place a few weeks later, it probably would have turned out differently.
We even got a post describing the next session, and we've seen the story ā it's all right, but it is significantly lessened by how it was arrived at. It could have been arrived at in other way quite easily, without the DM taking the weapon out of his players hand and wielding it himself.
We're going to have to agree to disagree on the severity of what the DM did.
So it is OK to treat people like you have on here just because you think that you can't be wrong?
I can be wrong, just not on this particular subject. All we can have on this subject, is different OPINIONS. There is no right or wrong. For instance, had I or someone else in my group done what this DM did, no one in the group would have cared, and indeed, would have thought it a great thing. For my group, what this DM did would be a good thing. For you and your group? Not so good. ::shrug::
This isn't metagaming. Metagaming is basically cheating. Using silver weapons against lycanthropes when your characters would have no way of knowing the weakness. Things like that. Simply coordinating in battle isn't metagaming in the least.
Thats a perfect example, but let me explain where I see the problem with that.
Its basically no fun.
If my party is attacked by werewolves, in order to not metagame if for instance the characters failed the knowledge checks, would be to force myself to not use silver weapons. It's wouldn't even be metagaming exactly, as I think werewolves=silvered weapons even before I think about the vulnerability trait. Its basically cultural for anyone who's watched a lot of monster movies as a kid.
After you go an encounter or two basically ignoring your silvered weapons, you start looking for in-game reasons to find out what you all ready know. Maybe you go hunt down a sage or something, but basically you're going to all this effort for an answer you all ready have, and will get very little satisfaction in finding the answer.
It's just not worth it at all. I've DMed games under that principle (not in 4ed), and while it was amusing for awhile watching the characters try and think up reasons why they should "check out if maybe this dagger works better," it ends up as a minor comedic episode until they figure it out. It always felt just like when players would try and figure out exactly which plus a magic weapon by tracking what ACs they were hitting and missing. Not a big deal, but while they were fiddling with sums and such, they weren't immersed in the story.
I always figured lycanthropes and silvered weapons (or red dragons hating cold), was the kind of knowledge everyone in a fantasy world was told from the cradle. It would be hard to find someone in the real world who wouldn't mention silvered bullets if one was talking werewolves, so why shouldn't the knowledge be just as common in D&D land or where ever?
You tried to subdue it(handle it carefully) and killed it by accident(didn't handle it carefully enough).
Yes, and I could, as a non-expert, see at a glance that this was a risk. Complete non-expert. Glance. Comprehended situation. Aware I might break it. If anything, the fact that I picked it up and it tore proves my point even more solidly... I, a non-expert, at a glance, determined it was very fragile and I would risk tearing it if I picked it up. And I was right.
He provided his background to the DM, and if there was a drake fight written into it, I'll change my stance on what the DM should have told him.
Seriously, not that different in physiology. Drake or no, it's not that hard to see. Especially in the case of a dragon where they're preternaturally tough; if it's so frail as to be not subduable then they'd seriously look it.
We agree that the DM should be able to make that call. I think he was a jerk about how it was done, though. The OP has serious grounds for complaint, and I completely disagree that it was reasonable not to let him know ahead of time. If the DM is going to change something that works a certain way in all other cases, he's got to drop some hints (well... I am sure there are some reasonable circumstances, but this ain't one of them).
Thats a perfect example, but let me explain where I see the problem with that.
Its basically no fun.
If my party is attacked by werewolves, in order to not metagame if for instance the characters failed the knowledge checks, would be to force myself to not use silver weapons. It's wouldn't even be metagaming exactly, as I think werewolves=silvered weapons even before I think about the vulnerability trait. Its basically cultural for anyone who's watched a lot of monster movies as a kid.
After you go an encounter or two basically ignoring your silvered weapons, you start looking for in-game reasons to find out what you all ready know. Maybe you go hunt down a sage or something, but basically you're going to all this effort for an answer you all ready have, and will get very little satisfaction in finding the answer.
It's just not worth it at all. I've DMed games under that principle (not in 4ed), and while it was amusing for awhile watching the characters try and think up reasons why they should "check out if maybe this dagger works better," it ends up as a minor comedic episode until they figure it out. It always felt just like when players would try and figure out exactly which plus a magic weapon by tracking what ACs they were hitting and missing. Not a big deal, but while they were fiddling with sums and such, they weren't immersed in the story.
I always figured lycanthropes and silvered weapons (or red dragons hating cold), was the kind of knowledge everyone in a fantasy world was told from the cradle. It would be hard to find someone in the real world who wouldn't mention silvered bullets if one was talking werewolves, so why shouldn't the knowledge be just as common in D&D land or where ever?
I don't mind players trying to come up with reasons why their characters would know. I also don't think that it's necessary to know in order to beat the encounter, so there really isn't a reason to jump through major hoops for the info.
We agree that the DM should be able to make that call. I think he was a jerk about how it was done, though. The OP has serious grounds for complaint, and I completely disagree that it was reasonable not to let him know ahead of time. If the DM is going to change something that works a certain way in all other cases, he's got to drop some hints (well... I am sure there are some reasonable circumstances, but this ain't one of them).
And I think you're being overly hard on him by calling him a jerk. A mistake or even a bad judgment call doesn't make him a jerk.
And I think you're being overly hard on him by calling him a jerk. A mistake or even a bad judgment call doesn't make him a jerk.
Re-read what I wrote. I didn't call him a jerk. I'm sure he's a nice guy. Well, actually, I have no idea one way or the other. If the OP told me either way, he's the one who'd know, right?
We have a DM who let a player subdue an enemy, but then declares that he killed it in a rather violent way which breaks the rules as written and goes completely against what the character stands for.
When questioned, the DM only says "everything happens for a reason and you should go with the flow" which is a classic railroad response.
Then, in the next game, the DM highlights that you should not try to subdue everyone and that it is ok to kill.
Here are the posibilities:
1. The death of the baby dragon (and likely the mother) are planned and you are not allowed to deviate from his railroad
2. He wants to screw with your character, either because he thinks it makes for a nice story (railroad again), or because he does not like your nonviolent character concept.
Either way, you should speak with your DM about those two points and make it clear that you are not happy when he changes the rules to screw your character, no matter the reason.
Either he will stop or continue with it. In the latter case you have to decide if you continue to play, change your character to something more "acceptable" or stop playing in this game.
He could have, and that would have been reasonable. However, that he didn't, was ALSO reasonable. It's very reasonable to think that a first level fighter wouldn't know how fragile a hatchling dragon is.
You don't need to know how "fragile" something is to recognize that you have injured it.
When someone hunts squirrels for a living, and the end up in the desert looking at a tortoise, they aren't going to be able go guage the tortoise effectively. The dragon was waaaaaaaay out of his league. It's not even an animal.
Immaterial. One need not be familiar with a creature to recognize that you've injured it.
Struck at, but didn't really hit it hard enough to do anything. That's the way hit points work. You get scratched, bruised, whatevered, but not really injured. Serious injury and/or death only occur on the very last swing that takes you 0(or lower if you're a player)
Not quite.
I've already blocked Derren for being usless to read. Feel free to keep this up if you want to join him. If you want a serious conversation, feel free to not pull crap like this.
Personal attacks and telling people you've put them on ignore are both CoC violations.
The group isn't in charge, so that's a non-issue. Further, he didn't lie to the player. He simply said that it was fine for the player to make the attempt. Success was never agreed to.
One does not "attempt" to apply subdual damage in D&D. A subdual attack either hits and deals subdual damage or it misses, there are no rules about the attack instead being applied as lethal damage. By adding such a rule, the DM has changed the rules of the game and must inform the players of this fact. Not only has he not informed the player but he purposely lead the player to believe the extant rules were still in effect.
Even if it were a case of the DM deciding the hatchling was so "fragile" that in this single isolated instance subdual damage would apply as lethal damage, this should have been indicated to the players.
Just OOC I referenced the SRD. I know they are different in 4e, but these are teh stats for a hatchling dragon in 3.5:
Wyrmling
Size: S
HP: 6d12+6 (45)
Str: 13
Dex: 10
Con: 13
Int: 10
Wis: 11
Cha: 10
BaB/Grapple: +6/+3
Attk: +8
Fort: +6
Ref: +5
Will: +5
Breath Weapon: 2d8 (14)
Spd: 40 ft., burrow 20 ft., fly 100 ft. (average)
Init: +0
AC: 16 (+1 size, +5 natural), touch 11, flat-footed 16
Special: Immunity to electricity, create/destroy water
CR: 3
I see nothing about "fragility", not anything in those stats to indicate it is particularly fragile in any way. Indeed, for a party of 1st level PCs this thing - a CR3 encounter - would be considered very challenging. Yes the DM is within his scope to make this a particularly "fragile" example, but that is atypical of the norm. And if it is so atypical as to warrant changing the way a core rules mechanic functions then some indication should have been given to the players.
---
As an aside:
Bzzt! Wrong, but thank you for playing.
You do this a lot. Are you unaware of how obnoxious that is or do you simply not care?
You don't need to know how "fragile" something is to recognize that you have injured it.
Immaterial. One need not be familiar with a creature to recognize that you've injured it.
But you DO in order to effectively guage how badly.
Just OOC I referenced the SRD. I know they are different in 4e, but these are teh stats for a hatchling dragon in 3.5:
Those aren't the stats for a hatchling, those are for a wyrmling. It's perfectly reasonable to treat a fresh hatchling as being weaker. Human babies are weak, but a newborn is much weaker than an 8 month old.
You do this a lot. Are you unaware of how obnoxious that is or do you simply not care?
The answer is that I just don't care. You see, I only do it to people who come at my like jerks, so they deserve responses in kind. If you don't like it(general you), then engage me in a friendly discussion and it to won't happen.
So a character not using his best attack because "its a daily" is metagaming. As is trading your trusty sword for a new one you just picked up because it has a higher plus.
Heck, even knowing that you have a daily attack is metagaming.
A character deciding the attack instead of flee because he has healing surges left? Metagaming
A character deciding to use his encounter power instead of an basic attack because the warlord gave him a bonus to attack. Metagaming.
Picking a paragon path? Metagaming.
Use the Create Magic Item ritual? Metagaming.
And thats just a small list of things you call metagaming in 4E.
Guys, your character isn't allowed to talk, because that could make the NPCs react, and that is metagaming!
Those aren't the stats for a hatchling, those are for a wyrmling. It's perfectly reasonable to treat a fresh hatchling as being weaker. Human babies are weak, but a newborn is much weaker than an 8 month old.
Actually, according to the Draconomicon, when a dragon hatches it is pretty stiff from being stuck in an egg, but it is a fully developed wyrmling with all of its skills and abilities.
But you DO in order to effectively guage how badly.
If it has any injuries it is taking lethal damage, ergo the attacker will know something is amiss.
Those aren't the stats for a hatchling, those are for a wyrmling. It's perfectly reasonable to treat a fresh hatchling as being weaker. Human babies are weak, but a newborn is much weaker than an 8 month old.
It covers newborns. From the 3.5 SRD:
Wyrmling
Age (Years): ā5
Of course the DM can choose to have this present this creature as being different from the norm, but if said differences warrant a deviation from the rules of the game then he should present that information to the players through in-game information of which their PCs would be aware.
The answer is that I just don't care.
So you are consciously choosing to insult other posters, also a CoC violation. Good to know.
You see, I only do it to people who come at my like jerks, so they deserve responses in kind.
"He started it!" is not a valid defense.
If you don't like it(general you), then engage me in a friendly discussion and it to won't happen.
This was a friendly discussion until you made it otherwise.
But you DO in order to effectively guage how badly.
Those aren't the stats for a hatchling, those are for a wyrmling. It's perfectly reasonable to treat a fresh hatchling as being weaker. Human babies are weak, but a newborn is much weaker than an 8 month old.
The answer is that I just don't care. You see, I only do it to people who come at my like jerks, so they deserve responses in kind. If you don't like it(general you), then engage me in a friendly discussion and it to won't happen.
Bzzt! Wrong, but thank you for playing.
.
You shouldn't talk about what you don't know about. Seeing as I'm some what of an expert on the 3.5 dragon lets have you be more inform on your info.
OK
1. A Wyrmling is considered a wyrmling from 0-5 years of age. And even the weakest of dragons, the white dragon, has a LA of +2 right out of the egg. This means that a baby white dragon start from the egg couldn't be played by a player till the groups level was about 3rd.
2. Wyrmling are so weak and fragile when they hatch that their parent often lay egg around their lairs just to see which ones come out the toughest. They also bring live food for them to fight when they lay their eggs at their own lairs.
3. Wyrmling that have just been hatch take a -2 dex, -2 attacks, and can't fly. All these disappear after one hours time. Page 12 Draconomicon 3.5 under "Rules for wrymling abilities" Beside these above a hatched wrmling has the same stats as the MM entry. Unless you are playing PC in which the DM can make the player use Monster classes for leveling.
Now for some other things.
In 4e the DM is supposed to use Passive skill knowledge check which he/she should have already written down for easy access. The DM uses these Passive skills to determine whether a PC knowledge something without having the players roll to try to remember something. The DM in question did not use these. Which means that he didn't care if the player's PC knew it or not.
It would have been a heal passive check. The arcana would told about lore and that kind of stuff but the damaging part would have been learned through heal. And no you don't have to be trained to have a passive check.. You can check that out. Page 26 DMG4e. You might want to read the whole "Dispensing Information" section because you don't seem to understand it to well from the way you are typing. Most importantly the part under "Informing the players" and " Game States, Conditions, and Effects"
Hope this helps you.
But you DO in order to effectively guage how badly.
Those aren't the stats for a hatchling, those are for a wyrmling. It's perfectly reasonable to treat a fresh hatchling as being weaker. Human babies are weak, but a newborn is much weaker than an 8 month old.
The answer is that I just don't care. You see, I only do it to people who come at my like jerks, so they deserve responses in kind. If you don't like it(general you), then engage me in a friendly discussion and it to won't happen.
And this is why it is considered greenish activities.
Do not harass, bully, threaten, harm or cause discomfort for other persons, including any other members. For example:
Use hate speech or racial, ethnic, sexist, homophobic or religious slurs
Harass a specific person (repeated flaming, personal attacks or posting their private information)
Troll or bait the community in general with inflammatory statements, such as ones designed to elicit a negative response from the community
Post or otherwise disclose any personal or private information of another person, or any confidential information pertaining to a business, without consent
Thought this was needed also.
inĀ·flame
Variant(s): also enĀ·flame \in-ĖflÄm\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): inĀ·flamed also enĀ·flamed; inĀ·flamĀ·ing also enĀ·flamĀ·ing
Etymology: Middle English enflamen, from Anglo-French enflamer, from Latin inflammare, from in- + flamma flame
Date: 14th century
transitive verb
1 a: to excite to excessive or uncontrollable action or feeling ; especially : to make angry b: to make more heated or violent : intensify 2: to set on fire : kindle
3: to cause to redden or grow hot from anger or excitement
4: to cause inflammation in (bodily tissue)
intransitive verb
1: to burst into flame
2: to become excited or angered
3: to become affected with inflammation
ā inĀ·flamĀ·er noun
If it has any injuries it is taking lethal damage, ergo the attacker will know something is amiss.
You're actually arguing that subdual damage from an greataxe swing won't cause bruising or abrasions? No injuries whatsoever? That's just stupid.
So you are consciously choosing to insult other posters, also a CoC violation. Good to know.
Nope. My being an ass to people who act like an ass to me isn't "insulting" them.
"He started it!" is not a valid defense.
That's nice. Not defending it.
This was a friendly discussion until you made it otherwise.
It still is, between me and the few posters who didn't start acting like an ass to me.
1. A Wyrmling is considered a wyrmling from 0-5 years of age. And even the weakest of dragons, the white dragon, has a LA of +2 right out of the egg. This means that a baby white dragon start from the egg couldn't be played by a player till the groups level was about 3rd.
I'm not disputing that. I'm saying that a human newborn of 1 minute is a hell of a lot weaker than one of 6 months. Both being at 0 years. It's not at all unreasonable for the DM to rule how he did with the baby dragon.
2. Wyrmling are so weak and fragile when they hatch that their parent often lay egg around their lairs just to see which ones come out the toughest. They also bring live food for them to fight when they lay their eggs at their own lairs.
And who says this wasn't a weaker one that would have failed and been killed by his first food? Nothing in that paragraph actually goes against what the DM ruled.
3. Wyrmling that have just been hatch take a -2 dex, -2 attacks, and can't fly. All these disappear after one hours time. Page 12 Draconomicon 3.5 under "Rules for wrymling abilities" Beside these above a hatched wrmling has the same stats as the MM entry. Unless you are playing PC in which the DM can make the player use Monster classes for leveling.
One hour isn't one minute. So that paragraph definately shows that freshly hatched dragons are weaker than wyrmlings. The party should have waited an hour or so before trying to subdue it. :P
In 4e the DM is supposed to use Passive skill knowledge check which he/she should have already written down for easy access. The DM uses these Passive skills to determine whether a PC knowledge something without having the players roll to try to remember something. The DM in question did not use these. Which means that he didn't care if the player's PC knew it or not.
Or didn't know. Or didn't think the PC had any chance to know. If I put something in my game that is so obscure that a low level PC would have no chance to know it, I won't allow a roll. Of course, the players usually never know that there was something they failed to realize.
It would have been a heal passive check. The arcana would told about lore and that kind of stuff but the damaging part would have been learned through heal. And no you don't have to be trained to have a passive check.. You can check that out. Page 26 DMG4e. You might want to read the whole "Dispensing Information" section because you don't seem to understand it to well from the way you are typing. Most importantly the part under "Informing the players" and " Game States, Conditions, and Effects"
Hope this helps you.
What the PCs might or might not have a chance to know is up to the DM, not page 26. Page 26 includes guidelines to help the DM, but the DM is not obligated to follow it against what he feels is correct. This doesn't mean the DM is always right, but it doesn't mean he's acting like a jerk if he doesn't allow a roll.
You're actually arguing that subdual damage from an greataxe swing won't cause bruising or abrasions? No injuries whatsoever?
No. From what orifice did you pull that?
That's just stupid.
I agree, your claim was stupid.
Nope. My being an ass to people who act like an ass to me isn't "insulting" them.
Your being an ass is insulting to everyone who wishes to partake of civil discourse. Your "he started it" defense makes it worse.
That's nice. Not defending it.
Avoiding the point is not addressing it. Sarcastic emotes do not help.
It still is, between me and the few posters who didn't start acting like an ass to me.
These boards do not exist solely for your enjoyment. If you feel someone has mistreated you then report them or ignore them, acting like an ass and
ing all over the forums in response helps nothing.No.
You claimed I was suggesting there should be no visible effect from subdual damage.
I replied that no, I am not suggesting anything of the sort.
Can you explain to the rest of the class how that is funny?
You claimed I was suggesting there should be no visible effect from subdual damage.
I replied that no, I am not suggesting anything of the sort.
Can you explain to the rest of the class how that is funny?
You stated very clearly that ANY injuries on the dragon, such as scrapes or bruises, shows that it has taken lethal damage. Then you state that subdual damage COULD cause injuries such as scrapes or bruises. That's what's so freaking funny. You contradicted yourself in the span if two posts.
You stated very clearly that ANY injuries on the dragon, such as scrapes or bruises, shows that it has taken lethal damage. Then you state that subdual damage COULD cause injuries such as scrapes or bruises. That's what's so freaking funny. You contradicted yourself in the span if two posts.
No, thats what you put into his mouth.
Small bruises are no real injury and any real injury shows that you are not subduing someone.
The contradiction is only in your, very confused, mind.
But this has nothing to do with 4E any more.
In 4E you don't have to attack a creature to subdue it. In fact, you can't.
The one who drops the enemy decides if he kills or subdues him. And the DM in question violated that rule.
You stated very clearly that ANY injuries on the dragon, such as scrapes or bruises, shows that it has taken lethal damage.
I stated nothing of the sort. You are simply misrepresenting my position in order to bolster your own.
Then you state that subdual damage COULD cause injuries such as scrapes or bruises.
Anyone trained in combat, particularly one who favours non-lethal combat, can easily recognize the difference between indicators of non-lethal and lethal damage. What those specific indicators may be is immaterial to differentiating between them.
That's what's so freaking funny.
Ridiculing a position you are deliberately misrepresenting, or perhaps simply fail to comprehend, says much more about you than me.
You contradicted yourself in the span if two posts.
I did nothing of the sort. You are simply misrepresenting my position in order to bolster your own.
No, thats what you put into his mouth.
Eww! Please don't ever say that again! ;)
I stated nothing of the sort. You are simply misrepresenting my position in order to bolster your own.
You stated very clearly that ANY injuries on the dragon, such as scrapes or bruises, shows that it has taken lethal damage. Then you state that subdual damage COULD cause injuries such as scrapes or bruises. That's what's so freaking funny. You contradicted yourself in the span if two posts.
Your post that clearly shows your opinion that ANY injury MUST be lethal.
If it has any injuries it is taking lethal damage, ergo the attacker will know something is amiss.
My post clarifying that you are saying that subdual damage won't cause any injuries.
You're actually arguing that subdual damage from an greataxe swing won't cause bruising or abrasions? No injuries whatsoever? That's just stupid.
You contradicting your previous post that all injuries must be caused by subdual damage.
No. From what orifice did you pull that?
And the answer is YOUR orifice, which is apparently talking out of both ends.
Anyone trained in combat, particularly one who favours non-lethal combat, can easily recognize the difference between indicators of non-lethal and lethal damage. What those specific indicators may be is immaterial to differentiating between them.
Not in 4ed. It's all near misses, minor cuts, bruises, and abrasions until you hit 0.
Ridiculing a position you are deliberately misrepresenting, or perhaps simply fail to comprehend, says much more about you than me.
You're the one who contradicted himself. If that wasn't what you intended to do, that's your fault, not mine. Be clearer next time.
Not in 4ed. It's all near misses, minor cuts, bruises, and abrasions until you hit 0.
And thats why twisting the blade in the wound increases the damage you do (torturous strike)
You're the one who contradicted himself. If that wasn't what you intended to do, that's your fault, not mine. Be clearer next time.
No, he was perfectly clear. The fault lies with you as you deliberately misinterprete him as you lack any real arguments but are too stubborn to admit that or even to just stop posting nonsense.
Thanks to you the OP has likely abandoned this thread already so we won't hear how the situation develops. Now it only serves as example of your bad DMing skills (although I doubt that you really DM) and unfriendly behaviour.
1.I'm not disputing that. I'm saying that a human newborn of 1 minute is a hell of a lot weaker than one of 6 months. Both being at 0 years. It's not at all unreasonable for the DM to rule how he did with the baby dragon.
2.And who says this wasn't a weaker one that would have failed and been killed by his first food? Nothing in that paragraph actually goes against what the DM ruled.
3.One hour isn't one minute. So that paragraph definately shows that freshly hatched dragons are weaker than wyrmlings. The party should have waited an hour or so before trying to subdue it. :P
4.Or didn't know. Or didn't think the PC had any chance to know. If I put something in my game that is so obscure that a low level PC would have no chance to know it, I won't allow a roll. Of course, the players usually never know that there was something they failed to realize.
5.What the PCs might or might not have a chance to know is up to the DM, not page 26. Page 26 includes guidelines to help the DM, but the DM is not obligated to follow it against what he feels is correct. This doesn't mean the DM is always right, but it doesn't mean he's acting like a jerk if he doesn't allow a roll.
First lets get this one out of the way.
1. So it is you view that every baby creature in 4e should be treat as if it was a human newborn? I wonder how reg baby animals survive out in the wilds being so much like human babies
2.If it was odd ball of the bunch then again the DM would have told the group as such. Which again he didn't. Is it you view that the player just sit there and make up what happens and all the DM has to do is say," Hit" or"Miss" for 4 hours?
3. I fail to see how being crapped from being inside a egg for 120 days is the same as being so weak that nonlethal is lethal. The dragon's skin on it's wings just have to dry before it can fly. "Hurry every one the dragon just hatch. Someone thump him on the head before it become a real dragon. Everyone know they have that Zombie weakness only instead of critical hit it is instant death from nonlethal."
So tonight we are playing, my regular gaming group and I, and we've just started a fresh campaign. One of the players who normally PCs has decided to try his hand at DMing some 4E. We've all made our characters- I am Conn, an easy going but proud Barbarian that respects life and only takes it when he must. In fact, it is the bulk of his character build that taking life is a last resort. It was my intention to simply state that my damage on certain creatures/people would be subduel. Some of the DMs in our circle think this rule is cheesy and unrealistic so they have made house rules to make it harder to hit ect. (Tonights DM did not specify a house rule on this) Personally, I think punishing the players for not just hack n' slashing their way through enemies is wrong- but thats not exactly what this is about.
There is this Dragon that is attacking nearby settlements and we have to find out why. We think it is ticked that its egg has been stolen. Long story short, we find what we think is the Dragon's egg- the egg hatches. Inside is a blue hatchling. Various party members immediately think it is cute and start feeding it ect-it is still hungry even as they empty their rations in its mouth. The big, bad minotaur warden in the group decides its time to tie the hatchling up before its hunger turns into aggression, but the hatchling bolts, making a run for it! Quick thinking, I attempt to knock the dragon out using subduel damage. I explain this to the DM and he says thats fine. I deal some damage, but the little bugger is still up. Now he is ticked. He hits the party with his breath attack and bloodies several of us instantly! On my next turn I explain that I am using subduel again, using the flat of my ax if you will, to knock the little guy out. After all, he's going to drop people next turn if he gets a chance to do that again. And if we can knock him out maybe he'll be safe to travel with. I hit, I deal damage- the DM says that I kill the dragon.
I am really upset and so is my character. This man who does not wish to kill unless he must has just beaten a baby animal to death. Other party members are disgusted with his cruelty. The Cleric of Bahamut is outright furious. And the quest may be ruined now that we've killed the attacking Dragons offspring. The DM explains that it is unrealistic to hit a baby and not expect to kill it and that for the sake of RPing I should accept it. I do accept the decision, and I love RPing and the plot hooks that come with it, but isn't completely altering a rule wrong without some kind of notice? Isn't punishing a player by sullying his character's alignment, background and personality kind of messed up when that player was using a defined and simple rule and was given the consequences of that rules exact opposite results? Honestly, I'm still pondering this and wondering what the rest of the game has in store. Needless to say, my character is afraid to ever attempt to knock someone out now because he may splatter their brains out instead.
I'm curious as to what you guys think. As a DM or a PC, how would you react to this and what are your opinions on a situation like this or similar to this?
The OP never says how long after the hatching this happened.
4.Isn't that what the passive checks are for? So you are saying the DM Know automatically what every PC knows? Why even ask what they are going to do? Just hand them a script and tell them to remember their lines or they PCs will die from nonlethal damage.
5.No the DM is not always right. I have read the 4e books a number of times but maybe I missed some. Where in the rules of 4e does it say the DM is always right? A page number would be help so I can find this most note worth of rules? You would think if he/she was always right they wouldn't need a part in the book DMG4e about DMs making mistakes and fixing them. Page 30. I never know I became all knowing just by running a game a D&D. With enough followers I could start my own temple.
I think we can boil down the opposing viewpoints to these:
A. The GM of the game made an unfair call against the player because they forced the player to act against their will based on unspecified ruling.
B. The GM of the game was perfectly within their rights to make an unspecified ruling and expect their players to be flexible enough to work with it.
Okay. These are fundamentally irreconcilable viewpoints based on the personal preferences of either respective poster.
I think it should be clear at this point that neither party is going to convince the other that they are right. At least not in the rigid bounds this argument has been constructed around. All other details that have been brought up are superfluous and simply serve for us to tie each other up in semantics.
Most importantly, the entire issue that this topic was created to address was a grievance that a player had with his DM. He asked for the input of others to help him with this situation. In my opinion, this is not the correct time to argue over what is right and what is wrong. It is not helpful to the OP to agree or disagree with them, and subsequently try to prove yourself right or wrong. Those who have responded, "I think you are (right/wrong), but here is how I think you should compromise" are more much more helpful.
In short, I ask you to ask yourselves, "Is this argument really worth the headache? Will I or anyone involved gain anything from me proving my point besides self-congratulation?"
I only comment because I hold the theory that life should be lived with an emphasis on having fun and enjoying yourself and I believe that sour debate makes all who partake in it more mean and unfortunate as human beings.
I am of the opinion that we do all have the capacity to ignore people who make us feel unpleasant. You can even ignore me, if you wish, if I offend you when I ask if we could all just stop beating dead baby dragons.
First lets get this one out of the way.
1. So it is you view that every baby creature in 4e should be treat as if it was a human newborn? I wonder how reg baby animals survive out in the wilds being so much like human babies
Answer, they don't. A great many, if not most of them die because they are weak and can't survive. Those that do go on to make the next generation of babies to struggle for survival.
2.If it was odd ball of the bunch then again the DM would have told the group as such. Which again he didn't. Is it you view that the player just sit there and make up what happens and all the DM has to do is say," Hit" or"Miss" for 4 hours?
Where are you even getting this?
The OP never says how long after the hatching this happened.
Long story short, we find what we think is the Dragon's egg- the egg hatches. Inside is a blue hatchling. Various party members immediately think it is cute and start feeding it ect-it is still hungry even as they empty their rations in its mouth. The big, bad minotaur warden in the group decides its time to tie the hatchling up before its hunger turns into aggression, but the hatchling bolts, making a run for it!
Not long. It hatched in front of them.
4.Isn't that what the passive checks are for? So you are saying the DM Know automatically what every PC knows? Why even ask what they are going to do? Just hand them a script and tell them to remember their lines or they PCs will die from nonlethal damage.
No. The rules do not trump the DM. The DM will have a damn good idea what each PC would know at a given level. If they know it, there isn't a roll. If they might know it, there's a roll. If the DM is unsure, there's a roll. If he knows that they don't know it, there isn't a roll to be had.
5.No the DM is not always right. I have read the 4e books a number of times but maybe I missed some. Where in the rules of 4e does it say the DM is always right? A page number would be help so I can find this most note worth of rules? You would think if he/she was always right they wouldn't need a part in the book DMG4e about DMs making mistakes and fixing them. Page 30. I never know I became all knowing just by running a game a D&D. With enough followers I could start my own temple.
I never said the DM is always right. Maybe I missed the post number.
Be clearer next time.
Okay, I'll be clear.
You are disruptive and rude. You are intolerant to the point of hostility towards any opinion that differs from your own and refuse to acknowledge when you opinion has been disproven. Instead you belligerently dig in your heels and resort of logical fallacies, insults, misrepresentations, and outright fabrications in order to "win".
Okay, I give up. You win. Grats.
Can the rest of us go back to having a civil discussion now? Thanks.
Delrevan, assuming you still care to slog through this mire, what's the latest update on the situation?
You are intolerant to the point of hostility towards any opinion that differs from your own and refuse to acknowledge when you opinion has been disproven.
This is a flat out lie. I have many mellow conversations with people who aren't an ass towards me, and no one here has "proven" their opinion one way or the other. This particular subject isn't subject to right or wrong.
Instead you belligerently dig in your heels and resort of logical fallacies, insults, misrepresentations, and outright fabrications in order to "win".
Another flat out lie. I can't win this any more than you can.
I believe the OP had their last game and did a nature walk type ritual where there DM basically told the OP that he shouldn't try to subdue targets all the time because not every encounter is going to allow this. That sometimes you will just have to kill things or something like. It was a page or two back. I'll see if I can find it.
So last night was our follow up session.
Before the session, I spoke with the DM and let him know in further detail the importance of my character background and personality. With that in mind, I used some ideas that other posters suggested earlier in this thread and did my best to make the most of the RPing opportunity in the midst of this mess.
Connavar, taking the dead dragon with him, told the party that he would be leaving for the night and would return at dawn. Placing the hatchling in a shoulder-slung traveling sack, he packed the container with fresh snow to try and keep the corpse preserved as he left the group and traveled out into the wilderness. That night he used his nature to find herbs and plants that could be crushed and mixed to create a hallucinagine state when burned in a fire pit and breathed in. The herb mixture was often used amongst his people to speak to the spirits of both nature and the ancestors and was widely believe to create higher levels of insight. Breathing in deep, Connavar implored the wisdom of the Spirits in this matter. They offered him their advice. The Spirits declared that no matter how hard one tried to preserve life there were times when it could not be saved. They also advised him to do his best to make amends with the Mature Dragon, honor demands it, if it were possible- but if fate pushed the Dragon to conflict, that Connavar should feel no shame at defending himself. Still, the death of the hatchling should always be a reminder for him to only act with aggression if he was prepared to claim life.
After the communion with the spirits, Connavar made his decisions based off their wisdom. He struck the flat of his ax against stone until the blade had shattered into pieces. Ritualistically, he bound straps of leather, hemp and vine around the haft and handle of what was once his ax- padding it to help insure that it would be more difficult to slay with the weapon. Adding fresh snow to the hatchling's corpse, he made his way back towards his sleeping group.
Connavar has three choices in his mind at this point. His first is to try and find a way to return the hatchling to life. The second, which he dreads, is that he will offer up his first born child to the dragon to repay the blood feud between him and the deadly creature. He does not wish this course of action, but he is honor bound to do so. The last course of action is to try and stop the dragon through diplomacy or deed. If the Dragon insists on fighting, he will not flee, but will face the fury of it's wrath for better or worse.
Here you go. I still can't see how the PC/player was at fault but from the OPs post that is what the OP thinks or just wants to get past this.
You have reading comprehension issues. That's clear. Anyone who cannot comprehend what attempt means, should not be in this conversation.
Here is you telling me that I can't read because I didn't agree with you.
Are you aware of how hit points work? The first attack probably didn't even do more than glance off the dragon, if it hit it even that hard.
Here is you saying that it takes two hits to kill the baby but it is so weak from hatching that nonlethal damage killed it.
You keep repeating this as if it makes you right or something. While repeating something that was wrong over and over might have worked for Bush(let me clue you in, it really didn't), it's not working for you. The rules say that the DM can change the rules, so his ruling was NOT against the rules.
See, I can repeat the truth as often as you choose to ignore it.
Baiting.
I can see that, and I really don't know what I would have done in that situation. I wasn't there, and I'm just not willing to take the word of someone whose posts show such a bitter bias, at face value. There's no way for us to know the exact circumstances, what was actually said on both sides, and what have you. I agree, though, there ARE a lot more things you can dow ith a live hatchling than a dead one.
He is you saying that you really don't know what happen but will not take the OP at face value so are making up what you think the DM was thinking at the time just so you can agrue with others. We only know what the OP says happened. The DM in question has the right to come on here and say what happen and has so we go by what the OP says happen. We don't make things up just to show the other sides view.
Here's the thing. You've shown that you are very biased in this discussion. Whether it's intentional or because of your emotional connection(and I'm not saying it's deliberate), it's very likely that you have gotten at LEAST some words wrong, and a few changed words creates whole worlds of different meaning. There's just no rational way we can make an accurate assessment of what happened. All any of us can do is make assumptions about what really happened and what the DM might have been trying to do and why.
If you want to think so. It makes no matter to me, really. I'm not posting here against you, so much as for the DM's ability to make on the fly rulings when necessary.
Another post on how you can't be proven wrong because you are making up what happen because the DM never said what happen.
::watches the actual point go sailing over your head::
I don't I have to post any on this one. It speaks for it's self.
I call using out of character knowledge to change in character actions that the actual character would know nothing about, metagaming.
Get back to me when you're actually going to respond to what I've said, and not post idiotic crap like this.
This one was after about 10 post of you arueing with everyone on a RULING that you assumed to have happen and thus think the DM was right when we have no way to no what the ruling was. All we know is that the DM said the attack worked twice then told the Player he had kill the thing.
It's no different than a player cheating by buying a module that you are running and using knowledge of what is in there by having their character avoid traps and grab hidden treasure.
If that's how you run your game. I don't run mine that way.
It's only seems stupid to you, because you have reading comprehension issues, as evidenced by your "In other words...." crap.
Another reading comprehension problems followed by you saying it was crap.
Your post that clearly shows your opinion that ANY injury MUST be lethal.
Except you didn't quote his (or her, I guess) post, you quoted your own! That's not really proof, that's just reiterating a point that people have already claimed to be a fabrication.
You're the one who contradicted himself. If that wasn't what you intended to do, that's your fault, not mine. Be clearer next time.
So how about you post some evidence to back up your point?
I have many mellow conversations with people who aren't an ass towards me.
Now, you've said this many a time, and you know what? I've never seen evidence of it. The only time I've ever seen you come close to a civil conversation with any poster was in the Alignment thread(s). And even then, there was some low-key bickering (albeit on all sides, so you can't be singled out and blamed for that).
The fact is, there are 2 examples of posters who you have baited and insulted. I don't need to go and find the posts, because Ace_of_time (the gem in a bucket of muck that he is) went and pulled quite a few of your instances of insults, baiting, misinterpratations and personal attacks from this thread alone and compiled them in one easy to read list.
Your complete disregard for another poster as soon as they post something that you disagree with is staggering. You may start out the discussion as a polite and respectful poster, but you soon degenerate into:
Bzzt! Wrong, but thank you for playing.
And when asked if you were aware of how obnoxious your behavior was, you simply stated that, yes you were, but, no, you didn't give a rats a**.
You do this a lot. Are you aware of how obnoxious that is or do you simply not care?
The answer is that I just don't care. You see, I only do it to people who come at my like jerks, so they deserve responses in kind. If you don't like it(general you), then engage me in a friendly discussion and it to won't happen.
Bold and underline added by me for further discussion of material contained in quote
Ok, the bold text first. You don't care? You don't care that you are coming across as obnoxious and stubborn? You don't care that this kind of behaviour basically breaks down any chance of any civil discussion continuing. Because let me tell you, it does. It's a veiled personal attack, and people will just see you as a spoiled child, stamping his feet until he gets his way. People will not want to continue to have a discussion with someone like that.
Now the underline. Apparently, the only way to engage in a friendly discussion with you is to completely agree with everything you say so as not to hurt your ego.
Maybe the problem isn't with _Jayne_Cobb_ and Ace_of_time, maybe it's with you, and your attitude towards other posters on these forums.
Just something for you to think about.
He is you saying that you really don't know what happen but will not take the OP at face value so are making up what you think the DM was thinking at the time just so you can agrue with others. We only know what the OP says happened. The DM in question has the right to come on here and say what happen and has so we go by what the OP says happen. We don't make things up just to show the other sides view.
No. That's not at all what that says. That's me saying that we can't know what happened. There was nothing there about me "making up" anything about the DM.
I think the point has been made. The OP said what happen so unless you are the DM in question or you're in the group we will all go by what the OP says happened instead of making things up just to argue with others. Thanks for your imput.
I can guarantee you that OP didn't tell us word for word what the DM said. I'm not saying he intentionally distorted it or anything, but the odds that OP has a photographic memory and can remember exact wording is so slim as to be not worth consideration. All he has to to is misremember 1 single word, and he can change whole volumes of meaning. This means that we cannot know with any accuracy what the DM was trying to do with his ruling. He may have been being a jerk, or he may have been being a very fair DM. We just don't know.
P.S. Apparently you still don't know what attempt means ;)
Except you didn't quote his (or her, I guess) post, you quoted your own! That's not really proof, that's just reiterating a point that people have already claimed to be a fabrication.
So how about you post some evidence to back up your point?
You you freaking blind??? I did quote his posts. Multiple posts from him. Just because they didn't have his name in front of them, it doesn't mean that they weren't his
Now the underline. Apparently, the only way to engage in a friendly discussion with you is to completely agree with everything you say so as not to hurt your ego.
Not true at all.
Maybe the problem isn't with _Jayne_Cobb_ and Ace_of_time, maybe it's with you, and your attitude towards other posters on these forums.
No. It's definately with them. Ace started to be civil for a while, and I responded in kind. When he started to actually engage in normal conversation, I actually had some hope for him. Then he started his asshattery again and it is going downhill. Jayne has always been a jerk with his responses to me. Maybe one day he'll figure it out and actually engage in civil conversation.
It takes two to make a fight, y'know.
You've got to admit though that the "He started it!" attitude is immature, at best.
It takes two to make a fight, y'know.
Yes I do, and that's a flaw of mine. Nobody is perfect. You may not believe it, but I do try(and do) mitigate it. It's just that sometimes when people are repeatedly an ass towards me, it can really get to me. Also, I'm not at all trying to use it as a defense of my behavior. I was asked about it, so I answered the question.
You you freaking blind??? I did quote his posts. Multiple posts from him. Just because they didn't have his name in front of them, it doesn't mean that they weren't his
You stated very clearly that ANY injuries on the dragon, such as scrapes or bruises, shows that it has taken lethal damage. Then you state that subdual damage COULD cause injuries such as scrapes or bruises. That's what's so freaking funny. You contradicted yourself in the span if two posts.
That exactly what you quoted, then acted like it proved you right. You have never quoted the post or posts where _Jayne_ contradicts him/her self. You simply reiterated your own post, which people claimed was a fabrication in the first place.
That exactly what you quoted, then acted like it proved you right. You have never quoted the post or posts where _Jayne_ contradicts him/her self. You simply reiterated your own post, which people claimed was a fabrication in the first place.
Then you didn't read like 3-4 post later where I went over it post by post with him contradicting himself.
Then you didn't read like 3-4 post later where I went over it post by post with him contradicting himself.
No actually, he says "If the dragon has any injuries, it has taken lethal damage."
To which you respond "You're saying that a greataxe won't cause abrasions on something? LOLOLOL HOW WRONGZ!"
He then asks you were you pulled that from.
I have read over the posts. You are, whether deliberatly or not, misinterprating what he has said. He has said that if something has injuries then that is not subdual/nonlethal damage. No, that's lethal damage.
Then you start saying "Oh, are you trying to argue that if I hit you with a Greataxe, you won't get a bruise?" A (again, whether deliberate or not) misinterpratation.
No actually, he says "If the dragon has any injuries, it has taken lethal damage."
To which you respond "You're saying that a greataxe won't cause abrasions on something? LOLOLOL HOW WRONGZ!"
He then asks you were you pulled that from.
It MIGHT have been because he responded with that sentence in direct response to my post talking about bruises and scrapes. I said "Hit point damage results only in scrapes and bruises, so you can't tell if something has taken lethal damage or not. Only the last hit knocks out a creature or causes lethal injury." He responds "ANY INJURY ON THE BODY IS DUE TO LETHAL DAMAGE." If he didn't mean that scrapes and bruises were lethal, he shouldn't have said so.
I can guarantee you that OP didn't tell us word for word what the DM said. I'm not saying he intentionally distorted it or anything, but the odds that OP has a photographic memory and can remember exact wording is so slim as to be not worth consideration. All he has to to is misremember 1 single word, and he can change whole volumes of meaning. This means that we cannot know with any accuracy what the DM was trying to do with his ruling. He may have been being a jerk, or he may have been being a very fair DM. We just don't know.
P.S. Apparently you still don't know what attempt means ;)
If the OP didn't post it and the DM didn't post what happened then you made up everything you assumed happened. It doesn't matter if the OP didn't put it word for. We go on what was given not what could have happened. I would love to hear your insight on the NON-made up stuff that the OP posted. Anything about the DM ruling this way or is with in his right not to do it that is your assumptions and nothing more.
PS. The player went over what the player was trying to do with his attack. according to the RAW at that time the DM should told him it would not work because the baby dragon was to WEAK from the hatching. The DM said that it was fine for the attack to do that. That is what happened and is all we know. If he rolled the attack, Which the OP did, and hit with the attack, which he did, then it would have been nonlethal damage as was discussed. Clearly he was dealing nonlethal because it was that damage that killed the thing. You can't just not give the players the info they need!
No. That's not at all what that says. That's me saying that we can't know what happened. There was nothing there about me "making up" anything about the DM.
And yet you have spent like 10 page arguing over what you don't know happened. What does that say?
You you freaking blind??? I did quote his posts. Multiple posts from him. Just because they didn't have his name in front of them, it doesn't mean that they weren't his
I believe the confuse you are having with the posters statements is that in 3.5 nonlethal damage wasn't real damage and their for would not have left anymarks what so ever. Since it is not real damage and those were the rules they were using at the time the attacks shouldn't have never killed the dragon because it was taking real damage, just nonlethal. You keep twisting the questions up so as to caught the poster. It didn't work so you insulted them instead. I beleive if you had post the quotes as you say you did then it would be easy for you to go back and repost the post for us to see.
If the OP didn't post it and the DM didn't post what happened then you made up everything you assumed happened.
The problem with that theory, is I'm not assuming anything.
Anything about the DM ruling this way or is with in his right not to do it that is your assumptions and nothing more.
Nothing about what I'm saying a DM can do is an assumption. All DMs can change the "rules" at their will. That's part of the "rules". So when I say it's within a DMs rights to rule a certain way, that's a fact, not an assumption.
PS. The player went over what the player was trying to do with his attack. according to the RAW at that time the DM should told him it would not work because the baby dragon was to WEAK from the hatching.
This is an opinion, and you're entitled to it.
The DM said that it was fine for the attack to do that.
Not as OP wrote. That may or may not have been what the DM said, but according to what OP wrote, the DM only said that attempting to subdue was fine.
If he rolled the attack, Which the OP did, and hit with the attack, which he did, then it would have been nonlethal damage as was discussed.
It probably should have been non-lethal. I personally think that the death of the hatchling should have come about in a completely different manner. However, in my opinion, the DMs ruling as it has been explained was, while not the best, certainly reasonable.
Clearly he was dealing nonlethal because it was that damage that killed the thing. You can't just not give the players the info they need!
Say what? I think you meant dealing lethal, but if not, then I'm not getting this. :P
And yet you have spent like 10 page arguing over what you don't know happened. What does that say?
It says that I've been arguing over DM powers and authority. ;)
I believe the confuse you are having with the posters statements is that in 3.5 nonlethal damage wasn't real damage and their for would not have left anymarks what so ever.
This is untrue. A fist fight leaves bruises and abrasions, even though it's 100% non-lethal damage in 3.5. In 3.5 it doesn't say it leaves a mark, but it doesn't say that it doesn't either. That leaves us to common sense which says definitively that it does indeed bruise and scrape. It just heals quickly is all.
It didn't work so you insulted them instead. I beleive if you had post the quotes as you say you did then it would be easy for you to go back and repost the post for us to see.
No. If you didn't bother to look the first time, I'm not going to go back and post it again. It's not hard to find if you really want to see it.
No. If you didn't bother to look the first time, I'm not going to go back and post it again. It's not hard to find if you really want to see it.
Posts #407 to post #414. He lists places where you back track, move goalposts, bait and generally insult people. It's there in black and white, for everyone to see. Even you. Trust me, it's not that hard to find if you really want to see it.
The problem with that theory, is I'm not assuming anything.
Nothing about what I'm saying a DM can do is an assumption. All DMs can change the "rules" at their will. That's part of the "rules". So when I say it's within a DMs rights to rule a certain way, that's a fact, not an assumption.
This is an opinion, and you're entitled to it.
Not as OP wrote. That may or may not have been what the DM said, but according to what OP wrote, the DM only said that attempting to subdue was fine.
It probably should have been non-lethal. I personally think that the death of the hatchling should have come about in a completely different manner. However, in my opinion, the DMs ruling as it has been explained was, while not the best, certainly reasonable.
Say what? I think you meant dealing lethal, but if not, then I'm not getting this. :P
Here we go again. You maybe be talking about all the Dms in the world but we are referring to the DM of the OP group. You seem to think that you can take the the general DMs statements and then say you are right about the DM of the group in question. I don't care what the General DM does and I'm sure the OP didn't start this thread to hear someone rant 10 pages about things that don't apply to the OP's problem.
Except you are the only one that thinks there was a "RULING". To everybody else the DM said he could do an attack that deal nonlethal. Then killed the creature off. You assume there was a ruling. And that would be fine but using that to rant and cause trouble and not in anyway help the OP could be considered by some to be a bit off topic.
That is your right to have you own opinion. It is not your right to belittle someone because they don't agree with that opinion. The topic here about the DM of the game of the OP's. Do you have an opinion on this topic that doesn't involve your assumptions on what you think might happen.
Quick thinking, I attempt to knock the dragon out using subduel damage. I explain this to the DM and he says thats fine. I deal some damage, but the little bugger is still up. Now he is ticked. He hits the party with his breath attack and bloodies several of us instantly! On my next turn I explain that I am using subduel again, using the flat of my ax if you will, to knock the little guy out. After all, he's going to drop people next turn if he gets a chance to do that again. And if we can knock him out maybe he'll be safe to travel with. I hit, I deal damage- the DM says that I kill the dragon.
Here is the player telling the DM that he is going use his attack to subdue the dragon and the DM saying it is fine for the attack to do that.
I am really upset and so is my character. This man who does not wish to kill unless he must has just beaten a baby animal to death. Other party members are disgusted with his cruelty. The Cleric of Bahamut is outright furious. And the quest may be ruined now that we've killed the attacking Dragons offspring. The DM explains that it is unrealistic to hit a baby and not expect to kill it and that for the sake of RPing I should accept it. I do accept the decision, and I love RPing and the plot hooks that come with it, but isn't completely altering a rule wrong without some kind of notice? Isn't punishing a player by sullying his character's alignment, background and personality kind of messed up when that player was using a defined and simple rule and was given the consequences of that rules exact opposite results? Honestly, I'm still pondering this and wondering what the rest of the game has in store. Needless to say, my character is afraid to ever attempt to knock someone out now because he may splatter their brains out instead.
I'm curious as to what you guys think. As a DM or a PC, how would you react to this and what are your opinions on a situation like this or similar to this?
Here is the DM saying he never intended to let the player subdue the dragon because even hit a baby should kill the baby. He didn't rule on it. He decided before the attack was made that it was going to kill the dragon. Then didn't tell the player that it was to small for him to do that. Please show me where it says the DM said that the attempt to subdue is was fine. When he clearly didn't think that it was even possible for that to happen. You are assuming that the DM was saying the attempt was OK. No where does the OP say this.
Here we go again. You maybe be talking about all the Dms in the world but we are referring to the DM of the OP group. You seem to think that you can take the the general DMs statements and then say you are right about the DM of the group in question. I don't care what the General DM does and I'm sure the OP didn't start this thread to hear someone rant 10 pages about things that don't apply to the OP's problem.
My statements about what DMs have the right to do encompasses OPs problem.
Except you are the only one that thinks there was a "RULING". To everybody else the DM said he could do an attack that deal nonlethal. Then killed the creature off. You assume there was a ruling. And that would be fine but using that to rant and cause trouble and not in anyway help the OP could be considered by some to be a bit off topic.
It's not my fault that OP claimed that the DM only agreed to let him attempt to subdue the dragon. Either the DM only agreed to let him try, or OP chose the wrong words when posting his original post. Either way, attempt means attempt.
That is your right to have you own opinion. It is not your right to belittle someone because they don't agree with that opinion. The topic here about the DM of the game of the OP's. Do you have an opinion on this topic that doesn't involve your assumptions on what you think might happen.
I've not made any assumptions, so all of them on this topic don't involve assumptions.
2. No where does it say that in that post. Sorry.
Here is the player telling the DM that he is going use his attack to subdue the dragon and the DM saying it is fine for the attack to do that.
No, he said he was going to ATTEMPT to subdue the dragon, and the DM said fine.
Please show me where it says the DM said that the attempt to subdue is was fine. When he clearly didn't think that it was even possible for that to happen. You are assuming that the DM was saying the attempt was OK. No where does the OP say this.
You underlined it yourself. "I attempt to knock out the dragon using subduel damage. I explain this(in the english language, "this" refers to the attempt to knock out the dragon) to the DM and he says that's fine."
Maybe OP screwed up and used the wrong wording for what the DM said, but we don't know that.
I understand both the wording and how you are taking it. Thanks again for your opinion on the matter at hand.
You're welcome.
I know.:D
Isn't a friendly conversation much better, Ace? :P I much prefer it this way to the other way.
Or in this case at least 5. One telling us that we are wrong and four telling him that he is.
Nothing in this will help the OP. Why? Because the GM in question has already told him that "sometimes he will just have to kill things". Seems rather wrong to tell a pasifist character that statement.
If it was me that was given that ruling Id be looking for a new GM.
While I am firmly on the player's side about what the DM did, I will say that I would find the sort of character concept the OP has extremely annoying. Basically he's turned every fight into a long, drawn-out affair where the party has to worry about what to do with the enemies he knocked out.
I can see that getting old real quick.
And to be honest, I wouldn't let a player bring such a character into a game I was DMing.
While I am firmly on the player's side about what the DM did, I will say that I would find the sort of character concept the OP has extremely annoying. Basically he's turned every fight into a long, drawn-out affair where the party has to worry about what to do with the enemies he knocked out.
I can see that getting old real quick.
And to be honest, I wouldn't let a player bring such a character into a game I was DMing.
Depending on the campaign, I guess. But in my campaign, I would be reaaaaally reluctant about allowing it. I would allow it if the player and I discussed an innocence-gone-kind-of character development beforehand. Or maybe I'll run with it, but I'm going to show them/tell them it'll be really hard to be a pacifist when the campaign is about, y'know, fighting stuff that is trying to kill you and your loved ones.
In the end, it would depend on how the player fleshes out his/her character, and if I think it would contribute to the story a lot (even though it will hinder the party by being a pacifist), I would allow it.
Depending on the campaign, I guess. But in my campaign, I would be reaaaaally reluctant about allowing it. I would allow it if the player and I discussed an innocence-gone-kind-of character development beforehand. Or maybe I'll run with it, but I'm going to show them/tell them it'll be really hard to be a pacifist when the campaign is about, y'know, fighting stuff that is trying to kill you and your loved ones.
In the end, it would depend on how the player fleshes out his/her character, and if I think it would contribute to the story a lot (even though it will hinder the party by being a pacifist), I would allow it.
The part that bothers me is that unless the whole party is into it, every fight then turns into a whole, "we can't offend the pacifist or we'll have to listen to a lecture for like 20 minutes." Pretty much all the RPing then centers around one guys character dynamic.
The part that bothers me is that unless the whole party is into it, every fight then turns into a whole, "we can't offend the pacifist or we'll have to listen to a lecture for like 20 minutes." Pretty much all the RPing then centers around one guys character dynamic.
There's nothing wrong with throwing your RP right back into the pacifist character's face. Something like "I'm not a pacifist. I'm never going to be a pacifist. If someone is trying to kill me, they are going to die first. If you don't like it, keep it to yourself or go find other people who think the way you do to travel with."
You don't have to take his RP with a smile just because it's his RP.
There's nothing wrong with throwing your RP right back into the pacifist character's face. Something like "I'm not a pacifist. I'm never going to be a pacifist. If someone is trying to kill me, they are going to die first. If you don't like it, keep it to yourself or go find other people who think the way you do to travel with."
You don't have to take his RP with a smile just because it's his RP.
Yeah, I know. But I'd rather the RPing drove towards a goal, as opposed to being a constant source of tension between party members. Some tension is fun, but it also quickly gets tiresome.
I've removed content from this thread because baiting and harassment are Code of Conduct violations, and to preserve continuity on the thread. You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://forums.gleemax.com/community_coc.php
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Thank you.
Hello,
I've removed content from this thread because baiting and harassment are Code of Conduct violations, and to preserve continuity on the thread. You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://forums.gleemax.com/community_coc.php
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Thank you.
No, thank you Ceilidhs. Hopefully, all parties will attempt to discuss things civilly now.
@OP, please keep us informed how it goes.
My guess is that either your DM wants to railroad you into a fight with the big dragon, or that he wanted to screw with your character (not necessarily out of spite, but maybe because he thinks it will create a interesting story).
It will be interesting to see what he does when you try to raise the dragon.
If he blocks again, talk to him out of the game again about how much freedom your character has, that you are bothered by being railroaded and if he has something against your character concept.
@OP, please keep us informed how it goes.
My guess is that either your DM wants to railroad you into a fight with the big dragon, or that he wanted to screw with your character (not necessarily out of spite, but maybe because he thinks it will create a interesting story).
It will be interesting to see what he does when you try to raise the dragon.
I think it more likely the DM went ":censored", I just gave the PCs a pet dragon. I've got to get rid of that thing ASAFP" and nothing - including the rules of the game -were going to stand in this way.
One of the cardinal rules of DMing is "Don't put anything in the game you don't want the PCs to have", but no one is perfect. Sometimes a DM slips and realizes too late he let something unintended fall into PC hands, and it is fair enough for a DM to realize he messed up and take something back, but this was not the way to go about it.
I too am curious to see how the plays out.
Yeah, I know. But I'd rather the RPing drove towards a goal, as opposed to being a constant source of tension between party members. Some tension is fun, but it also quickly gets tiresome.
Hrm. It seems Ceilidhs was a bit overzealous in removing posts. I had a response to this that wasn't in any way worth removal, so I'll post it again. :P
Right. If someone is RPing it as a constant source of tension, then they are most likely being a jerk about it. I reasonably RPd pacifist won't keep getting on the other members over and over again for the same thing. He'll realize fairly quickly that they just won't change and adopt his views. Like you've said, a bit of tension and conflict(not physical attacks) is fun, and in a group of good roleplayers, nothing will become a constant source of tension.
I think it more likely the DM went ":censored", I just gave the PCs a pet dragon. I've got to get rid of that thing ASAFP" and nothing - including the rules of the game -were going to stand in this way.
One of the cardinal rules of DMing is "Don't put anything in the game you don't want the PCs to have", but no one is perfect. Sometimes a DM slips and realizes too late he let something unintended fall into PC hands, and it is fair enough for a DM to realize he messed up and take something back, but this was not the way to go about it.
I too am curious to see how the plays out.
Possibly. My personal belief is that the DM figured the dragon would be killed by the PCs and went $#%^ when they didn't, and his story depended on it dying. And I agree with you that the way he did it was not the way to go about fixing the problem.
I think it more likely the DM went ":censored", I just gave the PCs a pet dragon. I've got to get rid of that thing ASAFP" and nothing - including the rules of the game -were going to stand in this way.
Oh, come on, any GM who can't handle "baby dragon will take their food and their help now and still eat them later" really isn't worthy of the title.
(I still maintain that this DM is a jerk, but implying that he couldn't think of *anything* between "they must kill it" and "it will love them forever" is just being *mean* to him.)
And again you have the right to think that way. We will not argue with you any more. It is clear you are just trying to fight with others. So I think you for your thought and good bye.
I wasn't arguing or trying to fight with him. I was expressing an opinion on what I think the DM might have been getting at. Way to be overly sensitive ;)
Oh, come on, any GM who can't handle "baby dragon will take their food and their help now and still eat them later" really isn't worthy of the title.
Based on the story the OP told I don't think this DM is worth the title.
(I still maintain that this DM is a jerk, but implying that he couldn't think of *anything* between "they must kill it" and "it will love them forever" is just being *mean* to him.)
Not really. Some DMs don't deal when things don't go as expected well. I had a DM once who realized he gave me too powerful a magic item. His solution was to have an umber hulk's arm reach out of a wall as I passed and take it away from me.
And again you have the right to think that way. We will not argue with you any more. It is clear you are just trying to fight with others. So I think you for your thought and good bye.
I think you're reading into Max's post something that isn't there, mate. He's essentially saying the same thing I did: DM messed up, tried to fix his mess-up, and messed things up far worse.
I think you're reading into Max's post something that isn't there, mate. He's essentially saying the same thing I did: DM messed up, tried to fix his mess-up, and messed things up far worse.
Pretty much. I just have a different opinion on the motives behind what happened.
Based on the story the OP told I don't think this DM is worth the title.
Not really. Some DMs don't deal when things don't go as expected well. I had a DM once who realized he gave me too powerful a magic item. His solution was to have an umber hulk's arm reach out of a wall as I passed and take it away from me.
I think you're reading into Max's post something that isn't there, mate. He's essentially saying the same thing I did: DM messed up, tried to fix his mess-up, and messed things up far worse.
I wasn't going to post back anymore that is all.
When you reduce a creature to 0 hit points or fewer, you can choose to knock it unconscious rather than kill it.
This is crystal clear. According to the rules, you cannot kill something by accident. On the other hand:
All DMs can change the "rules" at their will. That's part of the "rules". So when I say it's within a DMs rights to rule a certain way, that's a fact, not an assumption.
As Max points out, the DM can choose to alter the rules at his discretion. If a DM thinks that it's stupid that - according to the rules - you can knock somebody out with a Fireball, it's his prerogative to overrule the letter of the law.
However...
Max describes it as the DM's right to change the rules, and this is the part that I disagree with. The DM has the power to make the rules up as he goes, to be as arbitrary as he likes, and to pull "Gotcha" rule changes to the detriment of his players. But a DM who abuses that power is a bad DM.
A DM has the power to do whatever he wants. The players have a right to expect that the DM will use that power responsibly. There's an unwritten rule that overrides even Rule Zero, and it's this: players are entitled to a reasonable expectation that the DM will play fair.
Max describes it as the DM's right to change the rules, and this is the part that I disagree with. The DM has the power to make the rules up as he goes, to be as arbitrary as he likes, and to pull "Gotcha" rule changes to the detriment of his players. But a DM who abuses that power is a bad DM.
A DM has the power to do whatever he wants. The players have a right to expect that the DM will use that power responsibly. There's an unwritten rule that overrides even Rule Zero, and it's this: players are entitled to a reasonable expectation that the DM will play fair.
No. We pretty much agree across the board here. It's the DMs right to do what he wants, but abuse does make him a bad DM who will soon be short on players. Players do have the right to expect the DM to be fair with his use of his power. I've said as much in several posts here, but I can see where they would have been burried in the mire around them. ;)
The DM made a bad call. That's it. and instead of rewinding time or simply giving things a dose of RET-CON, things are standing and are probably gonna kill off a good (but now that I re-read it rather lame sounding) character.