# My Brawler Fighter and how fellow players complain



## Lo-Kag (Jun 22, 2011)

So in a new 4th ED game I started last night a made a Half-Orc Fighter brawler style. I really enjoyed playing him because of the sheer versatility of him.

In the middle of one particular encounter I was unable to reach an enemy to mark him. My fighter picked up a rcok, threw it, and hit the skeleton. The character sheet says that I would deal 1d4 + Dex mod damage on a hit. Another player said that I wouldn't deal my Dex mod damage because a rock doesn't have the "Light Thrown" property.

Later on I looked in my Rules Compendium to look up the specific rules for both ranged attacks and the use of improvised weapons.

I sent the entire party an email quoting the exact pages that are very specific on these rules. I was in the right that I would have dealt 1d4 + dex mod for the damage.

Then he sends me an email:


""As per the definition of "cheese" this is exactly case in point  reinforcing what I said. Cheese happens when someone tries to  "Brian-ize" the rules in such a way that they gain a huge benefit at the  cost of the campaign which the DM has spent a great deal of time and  preparation on. I think maybe we can coin that phrase "Adam-izing" it  now too.

Being able to deal as much damage by throwing a rock as you would if you  had hit them with a battleaxe flies in the face of the suspension of  disbelief that Dungeons & Dragons is. Trying to get away with  something silly because the book doesn't say you can't is offensive to  me as a DM.""


Am I in the wrong here? The Brawler is made to be able to throw things and be fairly effective at doing some damage. A Ranger would be able to do even more damage, but it's the same principle.

They wrote a rulebook and I might as well follow it. So, to the other DMs who read this:

What do you think?


----------



## Matt James (Jun 22, 2011)

Give me their emails.

I kid, I kid. Those were some pretty harsh words from your DM. I would hardly call that cheese. It sounds rather improvisational. You were thinking on your feet and adapted to a situation where your character couldn't use their chosen weapon. If I were your DM, I would have rewarded your ingenuity and ability to adapt. It's a tough place to be in. He's probably a friend of yours, and the group all likely knows each other. I'm not sure how else to handle it. Maybe show him this thread? I'm sure others will be along and will echo what I've said.


----------



## Ryujin (Jun 22, 2011)

My take on the Brawler is that he's an improviser, using whatever comes to hand. If it's a rock that comes to hand, then it's a rock he uses. That's not cheese; it seems the very nature of the character.

Back in the day I used to carry a bag of silver coins because, if nothing else, I could whip them at weres for a point of damage plus strength bonus. It was better than not being able to hit them, at all, and silver weapons were _expensive_!


----------



## RangerWickett (Jun 22, 2011)

Suspension of disbelief really ought to be able to go a bit farther than the DM is suggesting. D&D's a game where a 3-ft. tall guy can hold a 6-ft. tall guy immobile with a grab. Or a fighter can spin around and hit 8 people in 6 seconds after taunting them to come toward him.

Hell, in the real world, if you peg a guy in the head with a rock, you can kill him.

A rock has +0 proficiency modifier for your attack roll, since it's an improvised weapon. But if it hits, it's perfectly dangerous.

I do not in any way think what you did was cheesy or silly. It was rules-legal, and more importantly it was legitimate.


----------



## Pentius (Jun 22, 2011)

Well, I get the feeling there's a significant part of the story we're missing here.  That said, you're right by the rules, and the idea that there's this much fuss over whether or dex mod damage goes into a thrown rock is quite silly.


----------



## Mengu (Jun 22, 2011)

That is rather harsh.

The idea of throwing a rock (and following RAW while doing it) being cheesy beats the pants off any previous cheese declaration I have ever heard!

The person in question would likely be appalled at hearing what I tell my players when they do improvised attacks. I tell them to roll their basic attack (or their average at-will attack if they don't have a good basic), roll their damage (as per their attack with their primary weapon/implement), and add a d8! Yes, thrown chairs, doors slammed on faces, and hay bails knocked over from a loft deal more damage than "I swing my longsword" because I like it that way!

(There also apparently aren't enough exclamation point keys on my keyboard!!!)


----------



## IanB (Jun 22, 2011)

I feel like the core issue here is actually a social dynamic, not rules.


----------



## Joshua Randall (Jun 22, 2011)

D&D is just group therapy with dice.

-- me

(Feel free to quote me.)

= = =

But seriously: everyone at that table needs to chill out. If the brawler fighter build is that annoying to the DM and the other players, maybe the OP can retrain into a different kind of fighter. And/or if the DM and the other players are so uptight about stuff like this that it's causing the OP not to enjoy the game, maybe he needs to seek a different group.


----------



## Pentius (Jun 22, 2011)

I don't know if that would help, really.  For one, if phrases like "offensive" and "flies in the face of suspension of disbelief" are getting tossed around, a couple points of damage is probably not the real issue.  That, or there is such a stick in that butt that the DM is best described as a human popsicle.  For two, being a Brawler isn't what gave him the damage.  Having dex mod in your ranged basic attacks, even with rocks, is explicitly laid out in the RC(I checked).


----------



## Prestidigitalis (Jun 22, 2011)

If I got that email from a fellow player, I would be tempted to go out in the middle of the night, find his or her car, and key the doors.  And if I had any spraypaint, I might get carried away.

Expect an update tomorrow morning, when I have had time to consider whether  the above paragraph is a joke or not.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Jun 22, 2011)

Lo-Kag said:


> ". . . Trying to get away with something silly because the book doesn't say you can't is offensive to me as a DM."​What do you think?



We must be missing something. Because for someone to cavalierly toss out he's "offended" (_srsly!?  offended!_) over this? Seems like playing the shirt-rending victimhood card.

Uh oh, he's offended, better step back, you're going to cause the sensitive flower to wilt.

Offended . . . by the intended rules.


----------



## Spatula (Jun 22, 2011)

Was this email from the "another player" mentioned previously, or the DM? Your post is not clear to me on that account.

You're not wrong, according the rules. The email, if real, is definitely very over the top. Since weapons mainly exist to be used in attacks, using a weapon from the rule book to make an attack is certainly not cheesy. What else would improvised weapons be used for? Now, whether the rock in question qualifies as an improvised weapon or not is up to the DM.

And of course, a battleaxe would do 1d10+Str damage, with an extra +2 to hit, plus bonuses from magic or feats, etc. Which is probably a lot better for your fighter than 1d4+Dex damage with no to-hit bonus.

Now, you and/or the emailer may have handled the situation poorly from a social perspective...


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 22, 2011)

I don't know what inordinate advantage you are supposed to be gaining by being able to do a little extra damage with a thrown rock.

You're right, of course, but being right doesn't always help when you've got a drama queen/control freak/overly sensitive DM.  

What might help is this: Pick your battles.

Is it absolutely vital to you that your table adhere to the RAW? 

Or can you let the DM have her little despotic leadership for now?

Maybe you can take over DMing in a few months, if you'd like.  

My usual situation where a DM is wrong (intentionally or not) about the rules is to say, "Hey, the rules say X, if you want to do it by them, but if not, it's your game, dude." Sometimes the DM will be totally fine with RAW, sometimes they'll prefer what they have in their heads, but in both cases, it IS the DM's choice. 

No message board consensus or rulebook is really going to functionally change that.

You are right. Be proud of that!  But unless it's _really important_ that you be right on this, just drop it.

And maybe next time the DM is wrong, don't bother quoting RAW. 

I would advise you to try and take the DMing helm later on, if you can. Often, one of the best ways to gently show DMs things like "Adding DEX mod to a thrown rock won't break your game!" is to demonstrate that it is possible yourself. That's not always possible, but it wouldn't hurt to ask. Not now, of course. Wait a few weeks. 

It seems like your DM got a little testy about...something. Maybe it doesn't have anything to do with the game. Maybe the way you phrased your response he took as rude. Maybe he's just generally tetchy about D&D. Whatever the case, friendship > RAW, so shrug, maybe with a "Dude, I just thought you might like to know the actual rules, but whatever," and keep on.

Unless it's a Really Big Deal to you.

In which case, chill out, and THEN do the above. Or just ditch the group.


----------



## FireLance (Jun 22, 2011)

Eric Anondson said:


> We must be missing something. Because for someone to cavalierly toss out he's "offended" (_srsly!?  offended!_) over this? Seems like playing the shirt-rending victimhood card.
> 
> Uh oh, he's offended, better step back, you're going to cause the sensitive flower to wilt.
> 
> Offended . . . by the intended rules.



Methinks he is "offended" because (in decreasing order of generosity):

1. He thinks the OP is acting like a rules lawyer.

2. He doesn't like the fact that he was publically called out for making an incorrect ruling.

3. He's the kind of guy that always has to be right, even when he's wrong.

If any of the above is true, then pointing out that a sling bullet fired from a sling is more accurate (+2 proficiency bonus) and deals more damage on average (1d6+Dex modifier) probably isn't going to help, either. 

I think the OP will just have to judge for himself whether staying in the game is worth it, or a waste of time.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 22, 2011)

Lo-Kag said:


> I sent the entire party an email quoting the exact pages that are very specific on these rules. I was in the right that I would have dealt 1d4 + dex mod for the damage.



I'd want to see this email to put the next one in context.  In general, sending the entire group an email instead of the DM is a weird thing to do when you're having problems with the game.



> ""As per the definition of "cheese" this is exactly case in point  reinforcing what I said. Cheese happens when someone tries to  "Brian-ize" the rules in such a way that they gain a huge benefit at the  cost of the campaign which the DM has spent a great deal of time and  preparation on. I think maybe we can coin that phrase "Adam-izing" it  now too.
> 
> Being able to deal as much damage by throwing a rock as you would if you  had hit them with a battleaxe flies in the face of the suspension of  disbelief that Dungeons & Dragons is. Trying to get away with  something silly because the book doesn't say you can't is offensive to  me as a DM.""



With that said, this is kind of a red flag that the DM may be a pampered princess.  Whenever you call out cheese by naming it after a player, it puts a bad taste in my mouth.  The big question is, "Did you provoke him with your first email?"

He should know the correct rules, mind you - as far as I know, you were in the right there - but calling it offensive to him is just dumb.

-O


----------



## Herschel (Jun 22, 2011)

Hit him in the head with a rock and ask "does that feel like a d4 or a d4+dex beyotch? ;-). 

Seriously though, it's really minimal damage and the important thing is you were able to mark the baddie. Maybe he was upset his thug was marked, I don't know from just one side. You shouldn't have sent the e-mail to the whole group, he shouldn't have gotten upset. Brawlers give up some solid stuff to have a high enough Dex to do that build.


----------



## Mika (Jun 22, 2011)

There is something in your DM's e-mail that makes me wonder if you left out something -- the part where he talks about a thrown rock doing more damage than a battle-axe.  Assuming that your fighter has higher strength than dexterity, wouldn't 1d4 + dex mod be a lot less than the total damage (including your strength mod) that you would do with a battle axe?  Between the lack of proficiency bonus and the fact that you were (or should have been) attacking with dexterity instead of strength, you would have been better off with a heavy thrown weapon, if you had one.  

You didn't try to add both strength and dexterity, did you?  That would have been just plain wrong.


----------



## Lo-Kag (Jun 22, 2011)

Ok, so the player that sent me the email is not the DM for this game, but another one entirely, which is why he says he's offended.

I sent him an email directly:

""So if it wasn't a rock but let's say a handaxe or dagger(same die roll  as a rock) would have been used in the same situation, would that still  be "cheese?"

I was just following what the compendium says.""

A few hours later I received this email:

""No, of course not, because those are weapons that are meant to be used as such. 

I know you were just following what the compendium says - the rules have  nothing to do with my point. My point is that you were throwing a rock  expecting the same results as you would get with a dagger. You were  intentionally being silly at the expense of Mike's campaign world. He  spent a lot of time planning and trying to set a theme and you  interrupted everyone's immersion in that world by doing something that  the rules don't say you can't do. That is the definition of cheese.

If it had been my game I would have said that's cheese and it's not  allowed and we would have moved on. But you put Mike in a bad position  because he was focused on getting his story across and making sure we  were seeing all the cues and hints to keep the interaction moving. The  reason I'm upset is because we had to bring the game to a screeching  halt to look up a rule to see if you could actually deal damage with a  thrown rock, when we all know you can't. Not because the rules don't say  you can't but because we all know it's cheesy.

However, this is Mike's game and I will defer to whatever he decides. I just felt insulted as a DM and I had to say something.""



Mike is the DM he is referring to. And I also spoke to him about this very thing. HE told me that it wasn't cheese. 

I just don't understand why he's having such a problem with this. I was having fun playing my character. And I was laughing from the fact that I could mark from across the field.


----------



## Mengu (Jun 22, 2011)

> you interrupted everyone's immersion in that world by doing something that the rules don't say you can't do. That is the definition of cheese.




I see. The rules also don't say you can't drop your pants and moon your thousand strong enemy, so I suppose that's also cheese. Hiding a loaded crossbow under the table and pulling the trigger before your adversary? Complete cheese. Using your cat-o-nine-tails to swing across a chasm in a collapsing cave? Utter cheese.

Maybe in some dictionary awesome = cheese? I don't know. I don't understand your friend. Why does someone picking up and throwing a rock hinder a story, or one's immersion into the game world? Do rocks not exist in this world? If anything, I'd say it *helps* immersion because a frustrated hero can grasp at unprecedented and yet surprisingly effective means. It is certainly in character, and an action that would get a pat on the back from me as DM or fellow player.

If it is the amount of damage you do with a thrown rock vs thrown dagger that bothers him, it's just numbers on a paper. Has nothing to do with immersion, story, etc. Conflict resolution is just rules we follow to, well, resolve conflict. And the mechanics for throwing a rock is a very far cry from cheesy. Either way, the berating seems totally uncalled for.


----------



## ceiling90 (Jun 22, 2011)

As a DM, I would have been hooting and saying "awesome". I mean, I'd ask a quick look up, and be on our merry way. I like when players try to do thing not implicitly stated by the rules or quite frankly, implicitly stated in the rules. 

Good man, using rocks to mark people. You should from now on, carry a bag of pebbles. 

I dunno what your friend's(?) problem is with that. I think that person needs a little alone time, and you should have a quick word with your DM. While this sounds completely silly, it makes tension at the table, and not in a good way.


----------



## FireLance (Jun 22, 2011)

Lo-Kag said:


> I just don't understand why he's having such a problem with this.



Oh gosh. So many possibilities, but I'll be generous and suggest that he might have trouble visualizing the scene.

Perhaps to him, when he hears the word "rock", he doesn't see how it could be dangerous because he's thinking of a piece of stone smaller than a fist, instead of something roughly the size of a bowling ball. 

Mind you, I think (although I have no practical experience either way) that even a relatively small (say, fist-sized) rock could kill (or say, smash the skull of an animated skeleton) if it hit a vital area and was thrown with sufficient force, e.g. by a half-orc fighter with an 18 or 20 Strength and probably not-too-bad Dexterity, too.

He might also be taking the approach that if such a large-sized rock had existed, the DM would have mentioned it. Or, he might take issue with another player simply declaring that such a rock existed instead of asking the DM whether or not it did, thereby infringing on what he sees as the DM's sole prerogative of defining what exists in the game world. This is more of a playstyle clash. 

Or, he could be trying to impose his preferred version of reality (which may or may not be congruent with actual reality; see above) on what is essentially a shared fantasy. 

Frankly, from the tone of his email, he sounds like someone who takes his gaming waaaay too seriously for me to have fun playing with him.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 22, 2011)

Lo-Kag said:


> ""So if it wasn't a rock but let's say a handaxe or dagger(same die roll  as a rock) would have been used in the same situation, would that still  be "cheese?"
> 
> I was just following what the compendium says.""
> 
> ...




This guy sounds like a total prick.  I'm not sure I'd be able to play alongside such a jerk.  Can you talk to your DM Mike, show him this email, and get his input?  Hopefully he'll be equally outraged and ask the jerk to cool it.

BTW it's always the DM's choice whether to pause the game to look up a rule, or just make an improvised ruling.  The best ruling, certainly in 4e, is that a thrown rock is an effective improvised weapon.  Rocks were probably the first thrown weapons in human history, and are still used today to inflict injury and death.  He could also be mean and say there were no rocks to hand, if that was plausible.


----------



## Dannager (Jun 22, 2011)

S'mon said:


> This guy sounds like a total prick.




This.

Heck, if you end up deciding that this guy isn't worth maintaining a friendship with (and if I were in your position, I'd be giving that some _serious_ thought), point him in the direction of this thread so that he can hear what a bunch of uninvolved people familiar with the situation think of his decision to be insulted.

If it were me, I would follow these steps:

1. Open up your PHB to page 219, your Heroes of the Fallen Lands to page 332, or your Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms to page 334.

2. Point to the "Sling" entry in the weapons chart. Make sure he reads that line. Especially the part where it deals more damage than you did.

3. Repeat after me:

"That's a sling. It's a rock propelled at a target. It deals more damage and is more accurate than my character throwing a rock. You're being a total dick, you're berating someone for doing something that is reasonable, creative, intelligent, and *well within the rules*. You will kindly shut the hell up about what my character can and cannot do in the future. And you will send a sincere apology email for your behavior to everyone in our group - apologizing to me for your outrageous and insulting attitude, and to our group for inciting needless drama and wasting everyone's time."

And, again, if none of this gets the point across, have him visit this thread.

The player in question clearly has some behavioral issues - issues that make the game significantly less enjoyable for other players and create drama. This needs to be dealt with, because if it's not I can guarantee you that things will only get worse.


----------



## Mummolus (Jun 22, 2011)

I had a DM once who had us fight in meticulously clean dungeons, because he didn't like the idea of us being able to pick up and throw a rock at any given creature. 

Of course, playing in our campaigns, he's always the first to grab for random debris to throw. 

Some people are just ridiculous.


----------



## samursus (Jun 22, 2011)

Just wanted to point out:



Lo-Kag said:


> ... - the rules have  nothing to do with my point. My point is that you were throwing a rock  expecting the same results as you would get with a dagger. You were  intentionally being silly at the expense of Mike's campaign world. He  spent a lot of time planning and trying to set a theme and you  interrupted everyone's immersion in that world* by doing something that  the rules don't say you can't do.* ... [emphasis mine]




The rules are explicit in this matter.

[sblock=PHB pg. 219] Improvised one-handed ranged weapon
Cost: — gp
Damage: 1d4
Range: 5/10
Weight: 1 lb.

Improvised weapons include anything you happen to pick up, *from a rock* to a chair. [/sblock]

Other than that, yeah, dude has issues.


----------



## Pentius (Jun 22, 2011)

Yeah, this second email brings it to the point where, unless you left out taking a crap on the hood of his car, he's just being a prick.  This isn't even about something the rules don't say you can't do, this is about him taking issue with a creative and reasonable tactic that the rules specifically say you can do.

"The player in question clearly has some behavioral issues - issues that make the game significantly less enjoyable for other players and create drama. This needs to be dealt with, because if it's not I can guarantee you that things will only get worse." -Dannager, right up there.


----------



## Dannager (Jun 22, 2011)

Just a quick note: no matter how tempting it might be, do not respond to his "We all know rocks don't deal any damage," brain fart by throwing a rock at his head.

D&D doesn't need to be in any more topical police procedural episodes.


----------



## Saracenus (Jun 22, 2011)

Lo-Kag said:


> I sent him an email directly:
> 
> ""So if it wasn't a rock but let's say a handaxe or dagger(same die roll  as a rock) would have been used in the same situation, would that still  be "cheese?"
> 
> ...





There is so much wrong with what your fellow player is saying that a picture is definitely worth a 1,000 words:







I would also start sharpening your claws...






​Because your "friend" is gonna pull this again because your play styles are diametrically opposed...




​

My Two Coppers,​
​


----------



## DracoSuave (Jun 22, 2011)

Dear god.  Where to start...

If you have a group that pisses and moans that you're using a subpar attack, and that you're 'taking advantage of the system' by doing a *subpar attack*...

Well first, they need to get their heads out of their rears.  It's on thing to piss and moan when the player does something that is game unbalancing and ends their fun too quickly.  It's another thing entirely to piss and moan because someone's doing something cheesy that's the equivalent of tickling the enemy with a wet noodle.

Secondly, you're a Strength dude.  Dex (tho obviously not terrible) isn't your primary, so there's whining over very small amounts of damage.  At least you didn't use it with a power!

This sounds like a terrible group dynamic.  There might be background we don't know about, we might not.  But there's one thing for certain:  Your group sucks, and you're better off not being in it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 22, 2011)

1) Point out to Sir Prickalot that the thrown rock is one of man's earliest weapons, and that even in these modern times, every year, there are numerous incidents in which people go to the ER with serious- occasionally _fatal_- head injuries suffered by being struck in the head or chest by a baseball.  And in riots in the Middle East (and other areas) thrown rocks and bricks result in severe injuries to police.  Again, including fatalities.

And those people have helmets and/or other protective devices like riot shields and body armor.

2) You did a subpar attack 100% within the rules, so show him the attack...and how much worse it could have been if it was usable with your primary stats...and/or a power.

3) Feel free to tell him this story from a 3.5 campaign in which I was a participant:


> *The Battle of the Brutal Slaughter of the Harpies*
> 
> We were attacked by Harpies, and the quick-thinking Druid hit them with an Entangle as they did a strafing run through some foliage- snagged them all!
> 
> ...


----------



## jbear (Jun 22, 2011)

I can't say much more than what has been said, apart from: You should definitely throw more rocks ... or chairs ... or perhaps even the Backseat DM's character (over a cliff say).

But you should get a pair of Giantkind Gloves! Then you can throw any object under 30lbs At Will with a range 6/12; Atk: STR+2 Dmg: 2d6+STR. Hehehe, I'd love to see your Backseat DM's face when you pull that one out of your Bag of Tricks!! Throwing Rocks Pimped!

As for rocks not being as lethal as a battle axe! Ha! Risable! Ha ha ha ha ha I say! Try telling that to André the Giant, or Wesley (who was having them thrown at him), in the Princess Bride!

Tell that to William Wallace or his big red headed Scottish Barbarian friend (who slept through the rest of the wedding after losing a stone throwing competition) in Braveheart!

Tell that to Wicket and the Ewoks of Endor who defeated an imperial army with little more than a few well placed rocks! And that was rocks vs lasers, let alone battle axes!

Anyway, don't let it worry you. By the sounds your DM has the right of it. The other player is NOT the DM. SO just ignore him. If you can't do that REMIND him he is not the DM.


----------



## Ryujin (Jun 22, 2011)

S'mon said:


> This guy sounds like a total prick.  I'm not sure I'd be able to play alongside such a jerk.  Can you talk to your DM Mike, show him this email, and get his input?  Hopefully he'll be equally outraged and ask the jerk to cool it.
> 
> BTW it's always the DM's choice whether to pause the game to look up a rule, or just make an improvised ruling.  The best ruling, certainly in 4e, is that a thrown rock is an effective improvised weapon.  Rocks were probably the first thrown weapons in human history, and are still used today to inflict injury and death.  He could also be mean and say there were no rocks to hand, if that was plausible.




I agree, on all counts. Generally speaking if our group comes up against a situation, that we don't have the rule for on at the tip of our fingers, we make a quick-and-dirty ruling and then just move on, looking up the appropriate rule later.

As to the email, he's obviously wrong on all counts. Weapons aren't the only things that can do damage, in 4e. That's explicit. If this so damages his delicate sensibilities then I can only conclude that he'd have suffered an embolism, had he been in the session in which our Rogue rode an animated statue like a bucking bronco.


----------



## DracoSuave (Jun 22, 2011)

Had you done picked up a rock and thrown it in my game, I might have gone to page 42 had you described it in a way I thought was awesome.

That player'd had a conniption!


----------



## Prestidigitalis (Jun 22, 2011)

Regarding the other player's motivation of being so concerned about the effort the DM put into the story and atmosphere, etc:

D&D is a game, not "story hour".  If a DM is only capable of telling a linear, pre-planned story without interruption...  Well, more power to him or her, and his or her group, if that's what they all enjoy.  But players are supposed to be able to participate too (it's true, really -- look it up) and that means doing really far out things like saying "I pick up a rock and throw it" without everyone acting like they just witnessed the climax of a bad acid trip.

It would be one thing if the rock throwing incident was in the middle of the DM's thrilling description of a delightful glass house the party had just found, but apparently it was in the middle of a combat encounter in which the player's character had no weapon to hand and needed something to fight with.  If you can't do it then, when can you?  

At a certain point, it sounds an awful lot like "How dare you bruise my fist with your nasty chin?"


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 22, 2011)

Lo-Kang's Fellow Player said:
			
		

> "The reason I'm upset is because we had to bring the game to a screeching halt to look up a rule to see if you could actually deal damage with a thrown rock, when we all know you can't. Not because the rules don't say you can't but because we all know it's cheesy."




In trying to get to the actual point of contention (beyond your fellow player being a goober), it seems like part of the problem was the rules look-up.

One thing you might do, to avoid exacerbating the issue: Get to know your character inside and out. Get to a position where you don't feel like you have to ever ask about what the rule is, just apply it. If the DM wants to stop you, they can, but from the sounds of it, your DM isn't the one with the issue, it's some other dude. If you know how the rules apply, then the game won't have to stop while they look up some obscure rule. 

In the "pick your battles" arena, this individual player probably isn't worth the time it takes to debate them. Just go through the DM. OK, they think it's cheesy, you think they're overreacting, ultimately, it doesn't matter.

You still might want to direct him to this thread.


----------



## Stumblewyk (Jun 22, 2011)

I _absolutely love_ how this dude is claiming to take umbrage _for another DM_.  He's offended because another DM had to handle a *correct!* ruling in game.

"You made Mike do something as a DM that was within the rules and it obviously upset [-]me[/-] him!  How could you do that to [-]me[/-] him!?!?  Everything was fine and great, and we were all completely immersed in the game until you took advantage of a rule available to all of us and made [-]me[/-] Mike _consider_ something!

And then - *THEN!* you had the gall to prove how little [-]I[/-] Mike knew about the rule in question by quoting the rules themselves!  [-]I'm[/-] Mike is really, really mad about this, I'm sure!"

The OP is right, everyone else in this topic is right, and this doofus wanna-be DM in question needs a swift kick to the throat.


----------



## jimmifett (Jun 22, 2011)

I'm all for Rule of Cool, and i'll let a player throw a rock in my game, but there has to be a couple things in order to make it cool enough and prevent abuse, esp to mark.

You should already have a ranged weapon on you, at least a javelin or dagger. Lets say you've used it tho, I'll allow the following to find a rock big enough to be useful:

Find Rock
_You should have bought more javelins instead of a fourth visit to the brothel house the other night..._
Encounter Minor Action
Target: Personal
Effect:
Choose one:
​
An unmodified Hi-Low d20 roll. 11 or better, you find a rock.
Nature check with Easy DC when in the woods/field, you find a rock.
Dungeoneering check with Easy DC in dungeon/cave, you pry a loose rock or stone from the floor/walls.
Streetwise check with Easy DC in town, you pry a loose brick/cobblestone free.


----------



## Herschel (Jun 22, 2011)

Mengu said:


> Hiding a loaded crossbow under the table and pulling the trigger before your adversary? Complete cheese.




Actually, it's only cheese if you shoot second and Greedo shot first.


----------



## Ryujin (Jun 22, 2011)

Herschel said:


> Actually, it's only cheese if you shoot second and Greedo shot first.




That's called an 'interrupt'


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jun 22, 2011)

If this incident breaks his immersion, then let me be the first to say that 4E may not be for him.  He's got a lot ruder surprises in store, shortly.  Though, if his immersion is broken this easily, then D&D is probably not for him.

Heck, even Runequest or something like it may not work.  A local group many years ago playing RQ 2nd ed. had an extended siege where the PCs couldn't get out of a fortress, but the inhabitants were secure enough to hold out for months.  By the end of the siege, all of the PCs had over a 100% in throwing things, because of rocks they threw while bored (and earned legimately under arrow fire).


----------



## MrMyth (Jun 22, 2011)

My advice would be to respond along these lines:

"I can understand your concern that throwing a rock at an enemy might seem 'silly' compared to throwing weapons designed for that purpose at them. But keep in mind that Improvised Weapons are supported by the game as an option. Note that while it does do as much damage as a dagger, there is a downside - they lack a proficiency bonus, so it is much harder to hit the enemy in the head. You can chuck a rock at someone, but you are likely to miss - but if you hit them, it will definitely leave a mark! (No pun intended.) 

I can understand your concerns, but both the rules and the DM find my actions acceptable and reasonable. Not because I found some loophole to be 'cheesy', either - this is using the rules for improvised weapons precisely as intended. If you feel they break your immersion in the game, I would recommend talking about it with the DM, or sending customer feedback to WotC."


----------



## vagabundo (Jun 22, 2011)

Hmmm total idiot. I would hate to play in one of his games, probably...

I think you should now build your character around using improvised weaponry.

That should give you the Passive Aggressive Lv2 perk.


----------



## Stumblewyk (Jun 22, 2011)

vagabundo said:


> Hmmm total idiot. I would hate to play in one of his games, probably...
> 
> I think you should now build your character around using improvised weaponry.
> 
> That should give you the Passive Aggressive Lv2 perk.



 The OP totally needs to ask his DM if he can adapt the Arena fighter build from Dark Sun for this game.  Suddenly, everything is an improvised weapon!  Yay!  And at d8 damage to boot!  Huzzah!


----------



## Ryujin (Jun 22, 2011)

vagabundo said:


> Hmmm total idiot. I would hate to play in one of his games, probably...
> 
> I think you should now build your character around using improvised weaponry.
> 
> That should give you the Passive Aggressive Lv2 perk.




He should MC as a Barbarian, take the "Improvised Missile" feat, Belt  of the Brawler, and Giantkind Gloves, then forever after walk into every combat without a single weapon on him.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 22, 2011)

Stumblewyk said:


> The OP is right, everyone else in this topic is right...




Is this a first in the history of EN World?!


----------



## vagabundo (Jun 22, 2011)

Stumblewyk said:


> The OP totally needs to ask his DM if he can adapt the Arena fighter build from Dark Sun for this game.  Suddenly, everything is an improvised weapon!  Yay!  And at d8 damage to boot!  Huzzah!






Ryujin said:


> He should MC as a Barbarian, take the "Improvised Missile" feat, Belt  of the Brawler, and Giantkind Gloves, then forever after walk into every combat without a single weapon on him.




I like the idea of a bad-ass, ripping up bits of the scenery and bashing the bad guys with it: rocks, chairs, flag poles, bowls, rope, cacti, branches; every tavern brawl would be a massacre!  

Actually reminds me of Jet Li in Romeo Must Die. I like the character concept.


----------



## Ryujin (Jun 22, 2011)

vagabundo said:


> I like the idea of a bad-ass, ripping up bits of the scenery and bashing the bad guys with it: rocks, chairs, flag poles, bowls, rope, cacti, branches; every tavern brawl would be a massacre!
> 
> Actually reminds me of Jet Li in Romeo Must Die. I like the character concept.




While that's not a bad example, I was thinking of two different ones. The first would be any action movie starring a 'professional wrestler', where he starts bashing the crap out of people with chairs, tables, opponents.... The second would be the way that Jackie Chan seems to always involve the scenery in his defences, and attacks; fridge door to the face, parry with chair, reposte with lamp...


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 22, 2011)

ceiling90 said:


> As a DM, I would have been hooting and saying "awesome". I mean, I'd ask a quick look up, and be on our merry way. I like when players try to do thing not implicitly stated by the rules or quite frankly, implicitly stated in the rules.
> 
> Good man, using rocks to mark people. You should from now on, carry a bag of pebbles.




IMHO that would be cheese. To Mark something you at least have to appear a threat in my opinion, throwing a pebble is hardly going to do that but hefting a rock is.


----------



## Traveon Wyvernspur (Jun 22, 2011)

As I stated in one of my exp points comments, ask the other player if he's ever heard of the term "stoning" this is a real thing and I quote: "*Stoning*, or *lapidation*, is a form of capital punishment  whereby a group throws stones at a person until the person dies. No  individual among the group can be identified as the one who kills the  subject. This is in contrast to the case of a judicial executioner. Stoning is slower than other forms of execution, and hence is a form of execution by torture."

Then ask him, if he'd like to go out back and you can toss some stones at him and see if it's cheesy and if it hurts.

I agree with the posts previously with how stupid this player is being comparing a tossed 1d4 RAW rock to a frickin BATTLEAXE? Are you kidding me? The sling uses a stone as a few posters have mentioned and that isn't cheesy (makes me wonder if he'd allow a halfling that used a sling in his own campaign), the comparison of the tossed rock to a Battleaxe is the ONLY cheese here and you can take that to the bank.

If I were you I'd straighten this guy out real quick with some irrefutable facts as stated in the posts by your fellow EnWorlders, from my post with actual proof of stoning killing actual people to RAW for rocks to how dumb it is even to suggest a rock does comparable damage to a battleaxe. He's in the wrong, point him here to this forum and these posts and he can see how utterly misinformed he is.

I'm still SMH after reading this thread.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 22, 2011)

I'm trying to recall when I've seen something more wrong on the subject of DMing and 4e than the fellow DM listed.  [Edit: I take it back.  There's always Dark Dungeons and FATAL.]  I think there's something completely and monumentally wrong on one line in two, and as such the e-mail best serves as a warning to others.



Lo-Kag said:


> (Quotes from other player's e-mail)
> ""No, of course not, because those are weapons that are meant to be used as such.
> 
> I know you were just following what the compendium says - the rules have nothing to do with my point. My point is that you were throwing a rock expecting the same results as you would get with a dagger.




You were expecting a rock to be a dagger? False. You were expecting to do something with a rock. But there's about the difference in level of effectiveness between a rock and a dagger as between a dagger and a greatsword (seriously, +3 to hit is a lot - next time carry throwing daggers or javelins).



> You were intentionally being silly at the expense of Mike's campaign world.




So you should have done nothing and just sat still and waited rather than tried to help your party out. Oh, wait. That would be silly. Doing what you can to get the bad guys when in combat is, what's the word? Ah, yes. Practical.



> He spent a lot of time planning and trying to set a theme and you interrupted everyone's immersion in that world by doing something that the rules don't say you can't do.




Correction. He went and did something that the rules say you _can_ do. Explicitely. And give stats for - and make a poor option.



> That is the definition of cheese.




No it isn't in any gaming group I've ever been in. Cheese is choosing ridiculously overpowered options. Not underpowered improvisations.



> If it had been my game I would have said that's cheese and it's not allowed and we would have moved on.




I'm very glad I'm not _in_ your gaming group. I like improvising and I love it when I'm DMing and my players do something unexpected.



> But you put Mike in a bad position because he was focused on getting his story across and making sure we were seeing all the cues and hints to keep the interaction moving.




And now I'm _very_ glad I'm not in your gaming group. DMs who are focussed on the story they want to tell and want the PCs to not interfere with it are _terrible_ DMs.



> The reason I'm upset is because we had to bring the game to a screeching halt to look up a rule to see if you could actually deal damage with a thrown rock, when we all know you can't.




Who's this "We"? Because most of us who know the rules know that you can - it just isn't very effective (it doesn't get a proficiency bonus to hit).



> Not because the rules don't say you can't




The rules say you _can_.



> but because we all know it's cheesy.




You keep using that word. I do not think it meanswhat you think it means.



> However, this is Mike's game and I will defer to whatever he decides. I just felt insulted as a DM and I had to say something.""




And as a DM, _I_ feel insulted by the pile of twaddle there.



> And from Lo-Kag.
> I just don't understand why he's having such a problem with this. I was having fun playing my character. And I was laughing from the fact that I could mark from across the field.




Just a word of warning. "I'm only playing my character" is a red-flag defence. It's normally used by jackasses to defend robbing the rest of the party and other such antisocial behaviour. That wasn't what happened here but it's not a good defence.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jun 22, 2011)

S'mon said:


> Is this a first in the history of EN World?!




Great, now you've got me waiting for the other shoe to drop.


----------



## Saracenus (Jun 22, 2011)

Dear Passive-Aggressive Player (with alleged pretensions of being a DM),

The 80s called and they want their DMing style back. I mean, really?  What you are proposing is what my friends and I did back in 7th grade when we were learning the game without any help.

Here is my counter, if you sit behind the screen with your outmoded "I did all this work, thus you will conform to my story" style, it is you who are sucking all the fun out of the game for your players. 

Part of being a good DM is the learning to improvise when the players throw you a curve ball and the converse is encouraging folks to be creative and improvise as well. D&D is not a writer's exercise just for you, it is a group project where you are the just the lead on the team. Learn it, Love it or Leave it.


----------



## Saracenus (Jun 22, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> Bad DM Advice Guy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Here, let me graphic-ize that for ya!







EDIT: Someone spot me XP for Neonchameleon (Princess Bride Ref) as I need to spread it around some more before I can...


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jun 22, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> Who's this "We"? Because most of us who know the rules know that you can - it just isn't very effective (it doesn't get a proficiency bonus to hit).




Maybe he had a ferret in his pocket?  A story teller ferret?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 22, 2011)

Ryujin said:


> He should MC as a Barbarian, take the "Improvised Missile" feat, Belt  of the Brawler, and Giantkind Gloves, then forever after walk into every combat without a single weapon on him.




"There are no dangerous weapons, only dangerous men." _ Robert Anson Heinlein_


----------



## Dannager (Jun 22, 2011)

Crazy Jerome said:


> If this incident breaks his immersion, then let me be the first to say that 4E may not be for him.  He's got a lot ruder surprises in store, shortly.  Though, if his immersion is broken this easily, then D&D is probably not for him.




If the idea of rocks being used to injure someone breaks his immersion, *life* is probably going to be too much for him.


----------



## Dannager (Jun 22, 2011)

Bagpuss said:


> To Mark something you at least have to appear a threat in my opinion,




That is your opinion, but that opinion is not necessarily supported by the game. Appearing to be the biggest threat isn't a prerequisite for marking an enemy. Marks can be achieved through distraction, annoyance, magical compulsion, and any number of other tactics that have nothing to do with how much of a threat the enemy sees you as.

Can we please stop doing stuff like this? Defining the game for other people in clear opposition to its actual rules? That's what got the jerk player who is the subject of this thread into this mess in the first place.


----------



## Robtheman (Jun 22, 2011)

To the original poster:

I agree with your position, the fact that your assailant was misinformed, and that he is an uptight prig. You may consider these issues as well. I'm not not trolling you - rather offering a perspective on why you seem to have royally pissed that guy off and, by implication in your post title, other players at the table.

Your original post was titled "my-brawler-fighter-and-how-fellow-players-complain." Ths implies that more than a single person was upset with your behavior. Based on the information you've provided only one person complained. Is that accurate or were there other players annoyed with your choice at the time? You were careful to frame yourself as a victim without explaining how you might have been disrupting the game. Certainly you were not wrong about the rules, however we learned from the immortal Lebowski that you can be right and still be an butt. I'm not calling you one, merely asking you if you were frustrating other people with the methods you used to argue your points and or the timing. Some things can wait until after the game.

The subtext of his longer e-mail (quoted in your second post) is that a serious and detailed world was being described and what he viewed as shenanigans interfered with that. I have no clue if that was the case but I suspect that is the personality of the other player coloring his perspective. Clearly he likes serious games and values recreation of reality in his game. Not my cup of tea, nor many of those on enworld.

That said, you're description of your actions (chuckling happilly that you could mark from range and arguing a point at the table that led to a book reference) would interrupt the flow of that type of encounter. Too much of that might annoy less uptight players as well. Is it possible you do other things that do qualify as cheesy? If so, you might have set yourself up for this. The story of the boy who cried wolf comes to mind.

If you want to maintain a positive relationship with these players you might need to bite your tongue from time to time. Consider why the other player is getting so upset. You might even ask him to talk briefly about it. Don't talk. Just listen. You might reach a middle ground and at the very least you'd know how to avoid pissing him off, if that matters to you. I can assure you that quoting a post on EnWorld will do nothing to improve your relationship with the other gamers, especially if they see themselves quoted on a popular forum. Asking for "expert" community support is awefully similar to rules lawyering. At the end of the day the only opinions that matter are those held by the players and GM at your table. 

Good luck and hopefully you can have fun with your character and this group. For what it's worth I absolutely love brawlers!


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 22, 2011)

Dannager said:


> That is your opinion, but that opinion is not necessarily supported by the game. Appearing to be the biggest threat isn't a prerequisite for marking an enemy.




Never said it was.



> Marks can be achieved through distraction, annoyance, magical compulsion, and any number of other tactics that have nothing to do with how much of a threat the enemy sees you as.




In the case of a fighter which is what we were talking about it comes from attacking, throwing a pebble that isn't going to do any damage doesn't really pass as an attack in my book. I suppose fair enough if a player wants to waste his standard action, throwing pebbles when he could be throwing rocks or daggers. They can, just don't see the point.



> Can we please stop doing stuff like this? Defining the game for other people in clear opposition to its actual rules? That's what got the jerk player who is the subject of this thread into this mess in the first place.


----------



## Ryujin (Jun 22, 2011)

Tossing a little pebble might not do damage, but it could certainly act as a distraction. I'd allow it, on that basis, as marking.


----------



## Mithreinmaethor (Jun 22, 2011)

Outside of Marking the monster so it has a -2 to hit any allies other than you was there something else about you marking the monster that they didnt like?


----------



## The Little Raven (Jun 22, 2011)

Mithreinmaethor said:


> Outside of Marking the monster so it has a -2 to hit any allies other than you was there something else about you marking the monster that they didnt like?




Apparently, doing the rules-legal 1d4 damage with a rock destroyed the integrity of the DM's world.

This guy is a jerk and an idiot. He reminds me of a guy I gamed with briefly in high school who used to try to screw everyone over when they were (and I seriously am quoting him) "having more fun than me."


----------



## Estlor (Jun 22, 2011)

Man, if he had that much of a problem with you throwing a rock for 1d4+4 damage, I wonder what he would have thought about the barbarian PC I DM for jumping down a ladder, grabbing a monster on the back, pulling them off, wrestling around in mid air to get on top, and riding them down until they slammed into the ground.

(By the by, page 42 is a lot of fun.)


----------



## Traveon Wyvernspur (Jun 22, 2011)

Ryujin said:


> Tossing a little pebble might not do damage, but it could certainly act as a distraction. I'd allow it, on that basis, as marking.




Hell I'd even allow you to shoot a spit ball at him and mark him that way, I remember doing things like that to my friends in grade school. It was certainly a distraction and would make them mad for a few minutes especially a big wet one that smushed them in the back of the neck.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 22, 2011)

Traveon Wyvernspur, given this discussion, your sig is rather apt.


----------



## Dannager (Jun 22, 2011)

Bagpuss said:


> Never said it was.




You said "To Mark someone you have to at least appear as a threat in my opinion." Even if the Fighter is temporarily unable to reach his opponent, that doesn't make him not-a-threat, suddenly. He is still threatening, in the sense that in about six seconds he will be bearing down on you with an axe.



> In the case of a fighter which is what we were talking about it comes from attacking, throwing a pebble that isn't going to do any damage doesn't really pass as an attack in my book.




There are a number of attacks in D&D which don't involve dealing damage. Those can still mark. Because marking a target isn't a function of dealing damage to that target. If that were the case, the Fighter's mark ability would read something like, "You apply your mark whenever you deal damage with an attack to an enemy."

Again, making it more difficult for your enemy to hit anyone but you can be accomplished in any number of ways. Injuring your enemy is only one of them, and it's narrow-minded to use that sort of justification for preventing a player from doing something that is both plausible and well within the rules.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Jun 22, 2011)

I have utterly no sympathy for the sensitive delicate wilting emailer, but _trying_ to see things from his perspective.

He mentions the DM setting the scene with care.
He mentions "everyone" was immersed.

Then we gather that the OP'er picks up a stone and plunks a skeleton in the noggin'. I _guess_ in certain scenes this could change in tone strangely and unpleasantly. Depending on the tone of the scene, I can imagine it.

Maybe there are a whole lot more details about the overarching scene that was set. Maybe.

I've seen far stranger things done in far more solemn moments. And every time it was all fun, and the DM rolled with it and the whole party had a blast. But the group of players all knew what we were getting with each other's characters when we sat down.

Is this a new group the OP'er just joined? Did the DM (not the delicate emailer) not know what kind of character the OP'er was bringing in?

Wished that emailer would show up and bring the other side of the story we're not wholly seeing.


----------



## Herschel (Jun 22, 2011)

Bagpuss said:


> IMHO that would be cheese. To Mark something you at least have to appear a threat in my opinion, throwing a pebble is hardly going to do that but hefting a rock is.




Getting drilled in the melon with a chunk of granite should definitely constitute a threat.


----------



## Dannager (Jun 22, 2011)

Eric Anondson said:


> Then we gather that the OP'er picks up a stone and plunks a skeleton in the noggin'. I _guess_ in certain scenes this could change in tone strangely and unpleasantly. Depending on the tone of the scene, I can imagine it.




I don't think this changes anything. The Fighter certainly wouldn't have "Huh, I wonder how my picking up this rock and throwing it at the skeleton would change the _mood_ of this adventure," on his mind in the middle of a fight.

In other words, the player is under no onus to avoid plausible, reasonable, intelligent decisions that may ever so slightly alter the mood of the game.


----------



## the Jester (Jun 23, 2011)

I'd be curious to hear how/whether this resolves.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 23, 2011)

> The Fighter certainly wouldn't have "Huh, I wonder how my picking up this rock and throwing it at the skeleton would change the mood of this adventure," on his mind in the middle of a fight.




Oh, I don't know- sounds like RP of an introspective, aesthetically minded warrior...a "Death Artist," perhaps.

"I killed your father with my axe, I killed your brother with a stone.  Thanatiope, the Muse of Death, has inspired me to complete your family's triptych of woe by slaying you with..._a SHRUBBERY!_"


----------



## Colmarr (Jun 23, 2011)

Reading between the lines here, I see three possibilities:

the DM really is the sort of 'wilting flower' that everyone is criticising him for being; or
the OP is being bombastic and difficult about being denied 2-4 points worth of hit points damage, and rather than resolve the issue like an adult by allowing the DM to make the call at the table and then discuss it privately afterwards, he chose to disrupt the game by arguing the point at the table and then _continue_ to argument publically afterward.
somewhere in between.
If I were the DM, and a player acted in accordance with #2 - even if my ruling was wrong - I don't think I'd react very kindly to it either.

As others have suggested, I think there's more context to this story. A comment like "Adam-ing" certainly suggests to me an ongoing issue with rules lawyering.


----------



## Mummolus (Jun 23, 2011)

Colmarr said:


> Reading between the lines here, I see three possibilities:
> 
> the DM really is the sort of 'wilting flower' that everyone is criticising him for being; or
> the OP is being bombastic and difficult about being denied 2-4 points worth of hit points damage, and rather than resolve the issue like an adult by allowing the DM to make the call at the table and then discuss it privately afterwards, he chose to disrupt the game by arguing the point at the table and then _continue_ to argument publically afterward.
> ...



It doesn't seem to have been the actual DM who complained, though, but one of the other players. 

To the OP:
I'm curious as to whether your fighter consistently outperforms the other characters on the board, specifically that of the person who complained? We had an issue like this once, where someone was upset because they felt like they were under-performing compared to the rest of the group and kept lashing out in strange ways. It took a while to figure out what was going on and some gentle nudging, but once it was resolved things ran smoothly.


----------



## fba827 (Jun 23, 2011)

i have not read all of this thread, so i apologize if i'm bringing up something that's already been said.

but with reference to doing as much damage with a rock as a dagger, well the key difference between the two is not so much the damage but the the weapon proficiency bonus... as in, improvised weapons have none and therefore there is a greater chance of actually doing 0 damage with the rock than there is with the dagger.  It only happened that given your PC's attributes, he happened to be able to hit and therefore probably chucked the fist-sized rock at the target's head/crotch/spine/anywhere

and thrown rocks hurt. a lot.

try it as an experiment with two tomatoes - cut one with a knife and the other smash with a rock... assuming you didn't find some pebble size rock and instead used something fist sized, chances are you'll end up with the same amount of tomato guts spread across your kitchen counter.... the difference? the rock has to hit more central to actually do more damage while the knife can cut most anywhere -- sure, it's not a perfect experiment, but it's kind of sort of close...


so the complainer may be focusing on the amount of damage that the dice said you did. But looking at actual probabilities, he would see that _the chance of you doing any damage at all is lower_, thus (in some ways) accounting for the rock not being as effective as a weapon.

all that being said, make sure you are pursuing this with your group for the right reason... pick your fights and all that.
are you pursuing this with them because the freedom to do stuff by the rules vs. dm adjudication is important to your enjoyment of the game?
or are you pursuing this for the sake of showing the group that you are right?

if it's the later, well, you may be picking this fight for the wrong reason and it will only serve to make people unhappy to game with you.
conversely, if you're having this discussion with them for the sake of the former reason, well, know that at some point you'll have to accept the ruling and either move on or leave the group (if you keep pushing it beyond a tolerable amount then you'll turn in to "that guy" that the group talks about years from now that bothered them and wouldn't let the topic go)


----------



## Lo-Kag (Jun 23, 2011)

WOW

I really wasn't expecting this thread to go so far!
My fellow players and I talked and, to put simply, this has gone too far. We talked and worked out our differences in opinions and moved on.

In alot of ways I've really gone too far in posting personal emails and names on the internet and for that, I feel really bad. 

Thanks to everyone for posting your opinions and such.


----------



## Prestidigitalis (Jun 23, 2011)

Crazy Jerome said:


> Great, now you've got me waiting for the other shoe to drop.




Dear Posters:

You have been warned time and time again: you are *not* to agree with each other, no matter how tempting it may be to do so when you are all making sense.  ENWorld will have no chance of surviving in this rough and tumble age of Lady Gaga and Michele Bachmann if we allow our non-stop, over-the-top, hop-on-pop bickering to be interrupted.

So knock it off.  We have enough banhammers for all of you -- and trust me, the banhammer *ain't* no improvised weapon!

Sincerely,

The Modulators


----------



## DracoSuave (Jun 23, 2011)

Prestidigitalis said:


> So knock it off.  We have enough banhammers for all of you -- and trust me, the banhammer *ain't* no improvised weapon!




I concur.  This is a reasonable position.


----------



## Herschel (Jun 23, 2011)

DracoSuave said:


> I concur. This is a reasonable position.




Reasonable posts about reasonable ideas shall not be tolerated. You, sir, shall not receive your Edition War Commemorative Tote bag.


----------



## DracoSuave (Jun 23, 2011)

Herschel said:


> Reasonable posts about reasonable ideas shall not be tolerated. You, sir, shall not receive your Edition War Commemorative Tote bag.




This is a fair way to address the issue.


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 23, 2011)

Dannager said:


> You said "To Mark someone you have to at least appear as a threat in my opinion." Even if the Fighter is temporarily unable to reach his opponent, that doesn't make him not-a-threat, suddenly. He is still threatening, in the sense that in about six seconds he will be bearing down on you with an axe.




If that is the case I might allow it. But to routinely carry around a bunch of pebbles, rather than say several daggers, just to get a Mark at range seems a little daft. Further more I know it would in time annoy the hell out of most the players at my table. First because it would be a stupidly sub-optimal action and thus could lead to the party getting killed, and second, because really in a fight are you going to be more bothered by a pebble thrown by some fool across the battlefield or the rogue trying to stick a knife in your ribs from right in front of you.

I might allow pebble chucking as a daily or even and encounter at a push (IE: The conditions were just right for something as benign as a tap from a pebble to distract an enemy in mortal danger). But more frequently than that it would suspend my disbelief and spoil the game.



> There are a number of attacks in D&D which don't involve dealing damage. Those can still mark. Because marking a target isn't a function of dealing damage to that target. If that were the case, the Fighter's mark ability would read something like, "You apply your mark whenever you deal damage with an attack to an enemy."




Fine if you use your pebble for one of those attacks, because they normally describe in what why you are marking without dealing damage, and normally they are encounters or daily powers. 



> Again, making it more difficult for your enemy to hit anyone but you can be accomplished in any number of ways. Injuring your enemy is only one of them, and it's narrow-minded to use that sort of justification for preventing a player from doing something that is both plausible and well within the rules.




Right but I think most people have a limit to what they will accept, for example it might seem a great idea for you to play a character that is a court jester that only ever wacks people with a pig's bladder on a stick, doing no damage but claiming to do the fighter's mark because the rules allow him.

But I think the rest of the players would pretty quickly get annoyed with this character, and as a DM I wouldn't allow it for that reason, even if it was within the rules.

Just to be clear the odd pebble being chucked, to get a mark I don't have a problem with, carrying round bags of pebbles I would. For lots of reasons even if it is technically possible in the rules.


----------



## Ryujin (Jun 23, 2011)

If you were "more worried" about the guy chucking the pebble than you are about the rogue trying to stick a knife in your ribs then the rogue would be getting a bonus to hit and maybe damage. Instead the rock-thrower is acting as a distraction, which gives a -2 to attacks (and, perhaps, some additional issues).

A jester with a pig's bladder would also provide a suitable distraction, but would be rather sub-optimal to play


----------



## DracoSuave (Jun 23, 2011)

I would accept your 'pebble' argument at face value if not for the fact that *tossing rocks at people to harm them is one of the oldest forms of execution on the planet.*  It's called 'stoning.'  Look it up! 

At no point did the OP state his character was pulling out a packet of gravel.  Stones or rocks can come in dangerous, skull crunching, but throwable, sizes.  I can picture a downright gritty and bloody fight where one combatant, out of desperation, grabs a rock and tosses it at his assailant in hopes to brain him.

Isn't it a movie trope where tossing a rock at someone's head is used as a means to get their attention?

Pebbles.  Gravel.  I don't see those as weapons either.  Fortunately that isn't what the OP was talking about, was it?


----------



## MrMyth (Jun 23, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Oh, I don't know- sounds like RP of an introspective, aesthetically minded warrior...a "Death Artist," perhaps.
> 
> "I killed your father with my axe, I killed your brother with a stone. Thanatiope, the Muse of Death, has inspired me to complete your family's triptych of woe by slaying you with..._a SHRUBBERY!_"




_"You'll kill us... with a soup cup?"_
_"Tea, actually."_
_"What's that?"
"I'll kill you with my tea cup."_

I've actually really wanted to play the total improvised weapon master, ever since Martial Power 2 and Dark Sun and some Dragon articles made it very, very feasible... but unfortunately haven't had the chance.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 23, 2011)

At one point in the hilarious but short lived TV Show, The War Next Door, the good-guy character Kennedy Smith is described as knowing 700 ways to kill a man with a spoon.  At the end of the episode, he looks at his spoon and says "701."


----------



## DracoSuave (Jun 23, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> _"You'll kill us... with a soup cup?"_
> _"Tea, actually."_
> _"What's that?"
> "I'll kill you with my tea cup."_




Robert DeNiro to Sean Bean in Ronin:

"I ambushed you with a cup of coffee!"


----------



## the Jester (Jun 23, 2011)

Lo-Kag said:


> WOW
> 
> I really wasn't expecting this thread to go so far!
> My fellow players and I talked and, to put simply, this has gone too far. We talked and worked out our differences in opinions and moved on.
> ...




Dude, YOU have nothing to feel bad about- if someone is being as much of a total douchebag as duder was, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG with getting other people to check you and make sure it isn't actually you being the dick.

Also, when someone is treating you like garbage, you are not obligated to keep it to yourself. "It's just between you and me" is total BS in this case; it has to do with the _whole group._ Further, unless you agreed to keep the discussion between you and him, he's just trying to pull the old "your black eye is *family business* so just tell everyone you fell down the stairs" crap. 

The reason he prolly doesn't want you to discuss it elsewhere is because _he knows he was being a dick._


----------



## Dannager (Jun 23, 2011)

Bagpuss said:


> If that is the case I might allow it. But to routinely carry around a bunch of pebbles, rather than say several daggers, just to get a Mark at range seems a little daft. Further more I know it would in time annoy the hell out of most the players at my table. First because it would be a stupidly sub-optimal action and thus could lead to the party getting killed,




That's true. I don't think that we need to worry about that, though. It seems to me that the rest of the party taking the player's head off for being stupid in the middle of battle will serve as all the incentive needed to make him stop. Altering the rules to accomplish the same isn't really necessary.



> and second, because really in a fight are you going to be more bothered by a pebble thrown by some fool across the battlefield or the rogue trying to stick a knife in your ribs from right in front of you.



Perhaps the pebble is accompanied by a few choice words regarding your mother and her social activities the previous evening.



> I might allow pebble chucking as a daily or even and encounter at a push (IE: The conditions were just right for something as benign as a tap from a pebble to distract an enemy in mortal danger). But more frequently than that it would suspend my disbelief and spoil the game.



You mean that it would ruin your suspension of disbelief. But semantics aside, _why?_ This is an entirely plausible situation - if comical. It seems silly to be so heavily invested in some imagined inviolate level of immersion that a character throwing a rock a few times spoils the whole game for you. Consider, perhaps, that maybe you're not supposed to be _quite that immersed_.

To use an all-too-apt metaphor, here: If you choose to build your suspension of disbelief out of fine, fragile glass crystal, I don't feel you have the right to complain when a thrown rock shatters it. You're playing _D&D_. Build it out of sterner stuff.



> Fine if you use your pebble for one of those attacks, because they normally describe in what why you are marking without dealing damage, and normally they are encounters or daily powers.



That's not quite what I'm talking about.

Let's say that you're playing a Half-elf Fighter. You take Astral Seal (the non-damaging ranged Cleric at-will power) as your Dilettante encounter power. Let's say you then pick up Versatile Master, allowing you to use Astral Seal at-will. It doesn't deal damage, it's not necessarily a stupid option to use, and it still marks the target - not by virtue of the power itself, but because it's used by a Fighter.

What would be your reaction to this?


----------



## S'mon (Jun 23, 2011)

the Jester said:


> he's just trying to pull the old "your black eye is *family business* so just tell everyone you fell down the stairs" crap.
> 
> The reason he prolly doesn't want you to discuss it elsewhere is because _he knows he was being a dick._




I have to agree, and the analogy is apt.


----------



## Ryujin (Jun 23, 2011)

Dannager said:


> You mean that it would ruin your suspension of disbelief. But semantics aside, _why?_ This is an entirely plausible situation - if comical. It seems silly to be so heavily invested in some imagined inviolate level of immersion that a character throwing a rock a few times spoils the whole game for you. Consider, perhaps, that maybe you're not supposed to be _quite that immersed_.




To support this, just a few words:

Hellboy.

Agent Manning.

Throwing gears at Kroenen.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Jun 24, 2011)

Dannager said:


> Perhaps the pebble is accompanied by a few choice words regarding your mother and her social activities the previous evening.



"Sticks and *stones* may break my bones, but words will never hurt me?"

Wait, stones, what?


----------



## Dannager (Jun 24, 2011)

Eric Anondson said:


> "Sticks and *stones* may break my bones, but words will never hurt me?"




"Mind you, words _might_ cause me to suffer a -2 penalty to attack rolls, though."


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 24, 2011)

Of course, this is D&D, so actually, the saying would be: ""Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will kill me even faster if spoken by a guy in robes and a pointy hat."


----------



## Kzach (Jun 24, 2011)

It really depends on how you've conducted yourself up to now. We've only seen your side of the story but by the wording of the email, this is not the first time such a matter has been discussed. The email is harsh but then again, it sounds like he's at the end of a tether with you as a player.

On the surface, with the argument as presented, you were totally in the right with the rules and he was completely in the wrong in calling it cheese. Then again, for all we know, you could be a whiny rules lawyer who is constantly challenging everything the group and the DM says, creating unnecessary tension at the table and everyone is simply sick of it. I'm not saying that's the case here, I'm just saying that we don't know the full story.


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 24, 2011)

Dannager said:


> To use an all-too-apt metaphor, here: If you choose to build your suspension of disbelief out of fine, fragile glass crystal, I don't feel you have the right to complain when a thrown rock shatters it. You're playing _D&D_. Build it out of sterner stuff.




Again rocks or other improvised *weapons* I don't have a problem with pebbles, feathers, paper airplanes, etc. I do. Especially when their are much better options available that won't annoy everyone else at the table.



> Let's say that you're playing a Half-elf Fighter. You take Astral Seal (the non-damaging ranged Cleric at-will power) as your Dilettante encounter power. Let's say you then pick up Versatile Master, allowing you to use Astral Seal at-will. It doesn't deal damage, it's not necessarily a stupid option to use, and it still marks the target - not by virtue of the power itself, but because it's used by a Fighter.
> 
> What would be your reaction to this?




A lot of effort to find an example, but I don't really have a problem with that, it being a magical effect and the target suddenly glowing is going to be a bit of a distraction. Also it is less likely to annoy the rest of the party since at least it has some tactical use.


----------



## Rune (Jun 24, 2011)

Anyone carrying around a bag of pebbles to use for marking is not carrying around a bag of improvised weapons.  S/he is carrying a bag of sub-optimal, very much _non_-improvised weapons.

_Improvisation_ is a key component for improvised weapons.


----------



## Prestidigitalis (Jun 25, 2011)

Rune said:


> Anyone carrying around a bag of pebbles to use for marking is not carrying around a bag of improvised weapons.  S/he is carrying a bag of sub-optimal, very much _non_-improvised weapons.




...and is probably one of those pretentious people who so love to natter on about how chess is a child's game and only Go is worth playing.


----------



## Doombybbr (Jun 26, 2011)

heck 1d4 + dex is WEAK and he would only ever use it i he cannot reach his target, I would probably let the character use a second miner action if they want to find a particularly sharp rock(that might even have mould on it-ongoing poison damage) as a perception check, so in general it is weaker than the character's weapon unless he gets lucky and gets a rock that does large damage.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jun 26, 2011)

Doombybbr said:


> use a second miner action if they want to find a particularly sharp rock




using a miner action to find a rock does make a lot of sense. 

BTW, minor.


----------



## Doombybbr (Jun 26, 2011)

yep anything less or more than minor is unbalanced which is why I chose minor


----------

