D&D General D&D memes thread discussion…

I can see it now.


We have rules and limitations for a reason. These kinds of things, and more extreme, have come up in various games over the years. Targeting specific areas to blind or sever limbs, killing a vampire with a wooden "stake" shot to the heart, are all examples I have personally seen. The DM (sometimes me, sometimes not) shot down the ideas for good reasons.

There is still plenty of opportunity for creative play. I've had people cut the rope holding up the chandelier causing it to fall on multiple enemies, knock over a statue as part of an ambush, fire an arrow to temporarily attach the BBEG's robes to a door to slow them down and so on. But those things were situational and dependent on a specific scenario.

I've played with "yes and" DMs. It wasn't a game I enjoyed because the person that was best at playing "convince the DM" did all sorts of things that were overpowered. If I wanted to play a narrative story first game, I wouldn't be playing D&D. Different strokes for different folks.

LOL. You brag about how you have infinite dragons, but you’re also apparently terrified of your players doing anything creative or outside the rules. That’s certainly a stance.

Paul Farquhar said:

That happened in my game. Along with "pulling a tapestry down on their heads" and "Goliath charges into the room and picks up and swings the table the pirates are seated around" (that one was me). Being creative with things established as being part of the shared fiction is good play. Trying to add things that are not part of the shared fiction (such as a flaming sword) is cheating.

Click to expand...

The issue with this is that you're either at the mercy of how descriptive your DM is, or you're constantly having to slow down play asking for extra details of what is and isn't in the scene.

As a note, Baldur's Gate 3 handles things like the flaming sword very neatly. If you're near a fire source, acid surface or similar, just use the "dip" bonus action to coat your weapon in it, and it'll deal extra damage of the appropriate type next hit.

overgeeked said:

LOL. You brag about how you have infinite dragons, but you’re also apparently terrified of your players doing anything creative or outside the rules. That’s certainly a stance.

Click to expand...

Run your game the way you want, and I'll do the same. The rules and limitations we have are part of what makes the game challenging and fun. Whatever the PCs can do, so can their enemies and I don't want to play that game.

MarkB said:

The issue with this is that you're either at the mercy of how descriptive your DM is, or you're constantly having to slow down play asking for extra details of what is and isn't in the scene.

As a note, Baldur's Gate 3 handles things like the flaming sword very neatly. If you're near a fire source, acid surface or similar, just use the "dip" bonus action to coat your weapon in it, and it'll deal extra damage of the appropriate type next hit.

Click to expand...

In my games whatever the PCs can do the enemy can also do. Is that still fun? Does it add anything to the game?

Oofta said:

In my games whatever the PCs can do the enemy can also do. Is that still fun? Does it add anything to the game?

Click to expand...

Is it supposed to not be fun? Do you mean it as a threat of "never do anything creative that might be effective or I'll just turn around and have the NPCs do it to you even harder next encounter"? Is that how your NPCs operate - whenever one of them dies to a creative tactic by the PCs their collective hive mind uploads the experience so that every subsequent NPC will suddenly start doing it?

If it's not fun, that would be because you're choosing to make it unfun.

Oofta said:

In my games whatever the PCs can do the enemy can also do. Is that still fun? Does it add anything to the game?

Click to expand...

Why would it not be fun?

Generally NPCs can do things PCs can (even if they might not have all the same exact matching mechanics) and it works out fine. Monsters can cast PC spells, use a magic item, attack with a weapon, etc.

If you have the balance off it is not fun either way, such as in your permanent blind for a cover penalty example where rampant easy blinding is not really fun either way. But if it is a reasonable effect given D&D combat then yes it should be fine.

MarkB said:

Is it supposed to not be fun? Do you mean it as a threat of "never do anything creative that might be effective or I'll just turn around and have the NPCs do it to you even harder next encounter"? Is that how your NPCs operate - whenever one of them dies to a creative tactic by the PCs their collective hive mind uploads the experience so that every subsequent NPC will suddenly start doing it?

If it's not fun, that would be because you're choosing to make it unfun.

Click to expand...

If both PCs and NPCs can do it then it's just an arms race. Both sides to extra damage. But yes, if it were as easy as dipping a weapon in flame to make your next attack do extra damage? Why wouldn't that be a standard combat tactic that was developed as soon as we had both weapons and fire?

It's not creative, it's an exploit people want to use because it was in a game.

Voadam said:

Why would it not be fun?

Generally NPCs can do things PCs can (even if they might not have all the same exact matching mechanics) and it works out fine. Monsters can cast PC spells, use a magic item, attack with a weapon, etc.

If you have the balance off it is not fun either way, such as in your permanent blind for a cover penalty example where rampant easy blinding is not really fun either way. But if it is a reasonable effect given D&D combat then yes it should be fine.

Click to expand...

Permanently blind an NPC? Not a problem, they were only going to have 15 minutes of fame anyway. Blind a PC? Hope you have a high level cleric handy because I wouldn't consider your eyes being permanently damaged being the blinded condition, you're blinded as a result of not having eyes. That would require a regenerate spell.

Oofta said:

If both PCs and NPCs can do it then it's just an arms race. Both sides to extra damage. But yes, if it were as easy as dipping a weapon in flame to make your next attack do extra damage? Why wouldn't that be a standard combat tactic that was developed as soon as we had both weapons and fire?

Click to expand...

Coating weapons in substances to make them more deadly has been done since we had weapons, it's called poison. Fire is just a bit more exciting.

Oofta said:

It's not creative, it's an exploit people want to use because it was in a game.

Click to expand...

It's the other way around, it was in the game because it's the sort of getting-creative-with-their-environment thing that players want to do. BG3 didn't invent it.

And don't try to deflect by getting caught up in a specific example. How does it profit you as a DM to shut down any attempt to get creative in play with either "well, that just straight-up wouldn't work" or "okay, but you realise I'll be having the enemy do that to you every encounter from now on"? Who is that fun for?