Okay so, I have a game I run online, it's a 1:1 game to test mechanics and learn the rules and help a friend of mine do the same. Said friend runs a Rock Gnome wizard who goes by Tink. In the past most of the things Tink has tried to do have been a bit of a no-brainer, using tinker tools to mod weapons and so on. But in last nights session, I admit I was flummoxed. Tink having encountered a small pool of slimes decided the best course of action was to use the spell Shocking Grasp and a metal rod as a makeshift "cattle" prod to get the slimes out of the said pool. I know what I decided to do but I was wondering if anyone else has encountered this and what decision ya'll have made.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
GM of The Bonus Role - We are playing a 5E game set in my homebrew world of Audra check us out Sunday's at 10 AM CST and follow us at the following social media links. https://www.twitch.tv/thebonusrole @BonusRole
It's not a purely RAW for how the spell works, but I'm of the opinion that player ingenuity should be rewarded. As long as the application isn't too much of a stretch, ask the player to make a reasonable ability/skill check. The only danger is for the Tinker's Tools proficiency to be a go-to for all checks - every problem can be solved with the same INT+proficiency roll! One way to go about this (that is pretty flavourful for tinker gnomes) is to have failures go horribly, hilariously wrong. So where a success leads to unusually preferable results, failure ends in catastrophic (but still amazing) results. Maybe a success convinces the slimes to flee the pool, but a failure ends up causing an improbable chain reaction making the slimes coalesce into one giant, angry slime. This way you get a good story either way, and the player will avoid using the same check unless it makes sense.
What I ended up doing was allowing her to use the metal rod and the spell to prod the slimes out of the way but made it clear that the damage was less due to the electricity being transmitted along the rod and that it wouldn't be effective in combat.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
GM of The Bonus Role - We are playing a 5E game set in my homebrew world of Audra check us out Sunday's at 10 AM CST and follow us at the following social media links. https://www.twitch.tv/thebonusrole @BonusRole
I'd have called for an Arcana check against their spell save DC to not zap themselves. If they succeeded, I'd call for an Animal Handling check using their spellcasting ability, with advantage if they have both Arcana and Nature or disadvantage if they have neither, against a DC of 10 + the number of slimes + the slimes' Intelligence/Wisdom/Charisma modifier (I'm not sure which).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
I'd have called for an Arcana check against their spell save DC to not zap themselves. If they succeeded, I'd call for an Animal Handling check using their spellcasting ability, with advantage if they have both Arcana and Nature or disadvantage if they have neither, against a DC of 10 + the number of slimes + the slimes' Intelligence/Wisdom/Charisma modifier (I'm not sure which).
Might as well just say "Nah, doesn't work" with how harshly chance of success is reduced calling for multiple successful rolls. In my experience, players get discouraged from trying anything outside the box when this approach is taken.
As for my handling of this kind of thing: I keep a strict rule that spells do only what they say they do, nothing more, and nothing else. I do this because when the player is trying to figure out creative ways to use a spell, they will often unintentionally use real-world physics in their ideas because that's the set of "rules" that their brain is used to working with. This is a problem because the D&D game and real-world physics are entirely incompatible and all points of resemblance are mere coincidence or accident.
However, that just means that the use of the metal rod wouldn't be possible/necessary - not that "I shock the slimes to get them to move" wouldn't be successful, assuming the slimes are actually mobile. I'd have it come down to a morale check of sorts; determine what chance I think there is that the slimes aren't wanting to try and eat an electric meal, and roll a die if necessary (which I'd probably just say "Good idea, [insert player's name]. The slimes retreat from your shocking." without any die rolls because it was at least mildly creative to try and use the spell as a tool, rather than just say "I attack the slimes" and handle it as a combat.)
I'd have called for an Arcana check against their spell save DC to not zap themselves. If they succeeded, I'd call for an Animal Handling check using their spellcasting ability, with advantage if they have both Arcana and Nature or disadvantage if they have neither, against a DC of 10 + the number of slimes + the slimes' Intelligence/Wisdom/Charisma modifier (I'm not sure which).
Might as well just say "Nah, doesn't work" with how harshly chance of success is reduced calling for multiple successful rolls. In my experience, players get discouraged from trying anything outside the box when this approach is taken.
That is a slight exaggeration. There is probably around a 25% chance of success, but I can't calculate the exact number because I don't know the details of the encounter or the character. With an Int bonus of +3, half a dozen slimes, proficiency in neither skill, and the slimes having a -3 in the chosen mental stat, the chance of success is 121/400, or a hair over 30%. With proficiency in one skill (not at all unreasonable to expect a wizard to have Arcana, I think), the chance becomes 143/400, or almost 36%.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Not when taken in the practical sense; a player given the choice between an action with a ~30% chance of success and an action with potentially double that chance of success is likely to choose not to do the low-success-rate action in the majority of opportunities.
So the outcome is basically the same whether you say "No." or "Yes, but you will have significantly reduced chance of success." because of how a typical player will react to it over time.
Not when taken in the practical sense; a player given the choice between an action with a ~30% chance of success and an action with potentially double that chance of success is likely to choose not to do the low-success-rate action in the majority of opportunities.
So the outcome is basically the same whether you say "No." or "Yes, but you will have significantly reduced chance of success." because of how a typical player will react to it over time.
How do you get the ~60% chance of success doing something else?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
How do you get the ~60% chance of success doing something else?
It's a very common, if not aimed for, chance of success under "normal" conditions for an individual die roll in modern RPG design. Much less than that on the regular and everything feels "swingy", but much higher than that and success doesn't feel as special.
Specific example: it's the chance of success that a +5 attack bonus has against an AC of 14, both of which are fairly common in 5th edition D&D.
How do you get the ~60% chance of success doing something else?
It's a very common, if not aimed for, chance of success under "normal" conditions for an individual die roll in modern RPG design. Much less than that on the regular and everything feels "swingy", but much higher than that and success doesn't feel as special.
Specific example: it's the chance of success that a +5 attack bonus has against an AC of 14, both of which are fairly common in 5th edition D&D.
Next question: How, exactly, do you get a 60% chance of clearing out a small pool of slimes using shocking grasp?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Next question: How, exactly, do you get a 60% chance of clearing out a small pool of slimes using shocking grasp?
You don't, which was my point - the player is discouraged from trying to <clear out a small pool of slimes using shocking grasp> because of it's low chance of success, and chooses to do some other thing that they are likely to succeed at, such as but not limited to <do combat with a small pool of slimes>.
It's the same thing that caused players of the 3.5 rules to behave in a functionally identical manner to maneuvers like trips and disarms being forbidden unless you take the relevant feat; the choice was A) try a disarm and probably fail, or B) make a normal attack and probably succeed, and choice A was almost never taken (and in many cases of it being taken, was actually not taken because the player said "If that's how it works then never mind" upon being told how their declared action would be resolved).
Next question: How, exactly, do you get a 60% chance of clearing out a small pool of slimes using shocking grasp?
You don't, which was my point - the player is discouraged from trying to <clear out a small pool of slimes using shocking grasp> because of it's low chance of success, and chooses to do some other thing that they are likely to succeed at, such as but not limited to <do combat with a small pool of slimes>.
It's the same thing that caused players of the 3.5 rules to behave in a functionally identical manner to maneuvers like trips and disarms being forbidden unless you take the relevant feat; the choice was A) try a disarm and probably fail, or B) make a normal attack and probably succeed, and choice A was almost never taken (and in many cases of it being taken, was actually not taken because the player said "If that's how it works then never mind" upon being told how their declared action would be resolved).
Let me rephrase that. How do you get a 60% chance of success with no damage taken beating up a pool of slimes with magic, not necessarily shocking grasp?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Let me rephrase that. How do you get a 60% chance of success with no damage taken beating up a pool of slimes with magic, not necessarily shocking grasp?
That's not a thing I ever made any claim to have happen, so I have no reason to supply you with an answer. However, I'll be smarmy for the fun of it and supply an answer anyways; You do that by having great luck.
Okay, let me start over. My treatment of using shocking grasp and a metal rod to clear out a pool of slimes has, with the not-entirely-unreasonable numbers stated in post #7, a 121/400 chance to succeed with no damage taken and no spell slots expended, an 81/400 chance to fail and take 1d8 lightning damage, and a 198/400 chance to fail with no consequences. Rounding, that's a 3/10 chance to succeed with no damage taken and no spell slots expended, a 2/10 chance to fail and take 1d8 lightning damage, and a 5/10 chance to fail with no consequences.
I don't have enough information to calculate the possible results of a battle with the slimes, but I'd be willing to bet that, unless the PC has a ranged cantrip, the odds aren't that good.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Okay, let me start over. My treatment of using shocking grasp and a metal rod to clear out a pool of slimes has, with the not-entirely-unreasonable numbers stated in post #7, a 121/400 chance to succeed with no damage taken and no spell slots expended, an 81/400 chance to fail and take 1d8 lightning damage, and a 198/400 chance to fail with no consequences. Rounding, that's a 3/10 chance to succeed with no damage taken and no spell slots expended, a 2/10 chance to fail and take 1d8 lightning damage, and a 5/10 chance to fail with no consequences.
I don't have enough information to calculate the possible results of a battle with the slimes, but I'd be willing to bet that, unless the PC has a ranged cantrip, the odds aren't that good.
Right, and the players don't have enough information to calculate the possible results of a battle with the slimes either - they just have the calculations for if I do X that the DM has to adjudicate specially it takes 2 rolls to succeed, but if I do Y that is clearly covered by the existing rules it takes 1 roll to succeed, and in my experience that leads to players feeling like they can't or shouldn't do X the same as if their DM had say "No, that doesn't work."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Okay so, I have a game I run online, it's a 1:1 game to test mechanics and learn the rules and help a friend of mine do the same. Said friend runs a Rock Gnome wizard who goes by Tink. In the past most of the things Tink has tried to do have been a bit of a no-brainer, using tinker tools to mod weapons and so on. But in last nights session, I admit I was flummoxed. Tink having encountered a small pool of slimes decided the best course of action was to use the spell Shocking Grasp and a metal rod as a makeshift "cattle" prod to get the slimes out of the said pool. I know what I decided to do but I was wondering if anyone else has encountered this and what decision ya'll have made.
GM of The Bonus Role - We are playing a 5E game set in my homebrew world of Audra check us out Sunday's at 10 AM CST and follow us at the following social media links.
https://www.twitch.tv/thebonusrole
@BonusRole
It's not a purely RAW for how the spell works, but I'm of the opinion that player ingenuity should be rewarded. As long as the application isn't too much of a stretch, ask the player to make a reasonable ability/skill check. The only danger is for the Tinker's Tools proficiency to be a go-to for all checks - every problem can be solved with the same INT+proficiency roll! One way to go about this (that is pretty flavourful for tinker gnomes) is to have failures go horribly, hilariously wrong. So where a success leads to unusually preferable results, failure ends in catastrophic (but still amazing) results. Maybe a success convinces the slimes to flee the pool, but a failure ends up causing an improbable chain reaction making the slimes coalesce into one giant, angry slime. This way you get a good story either way, and the player will avoid using the same check unless it makes sense.
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile.
What I ended up doing was allowing her to use the metal rod and the spell to prod the slimes out of the way but made it clear that the damage was less due to the electricity being transmitted along the rod and that it wouldn't be effective in combat.
GM of The Bonus Role - We are playing a 5E game set in my homebrew world of Audra check us out Sunday's at 10 AM CST and follow us at the following social media links.
https://www.twitch.tv/thebonusrole
@BonusRole
I'd have called for an Arcana check against their spell save DC to not zap themselves. If they succeeded, I'd call for an Animal Handling check using their spellcasting ability, with advantage if they have both Arcana and Nature or disadvantage if they have neither, against a DC of 10 + the number of slimes + the slimes' Intelligence/Wisdom/Charisma modifier (I'm not sure which).
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
Not when taken in the practical sense; a player given the choice between an action with a ~30% chance of success and an action with potentially double that chance of success is likely to choose not to do the low-success-rate action in the majority of opportunities.
So the outcome is basically the same whether you say "No." or "Yes, but you will have significantly reduced chance of success." because of how a typical player will react to it over time.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
Okay, let me start over. My treatment of using shocking grasp and a metal rod to clear out a pool of slimes has, with the not-entirely-unreasonable numbers stated in post #7, a 121/400 chance to succeed with no damage taken and no spell slots expended, an 81/400 chance to fail and take 1d8 lightning damage, and a 198/400 chance to fail with no consequences. Rounding, that's a 3/10 chance to succeed with no damage taken and no spell slots expended, a 2/10 chance to fail and take 1d8 lightning damage, and a 5/10 chance to fail with no consequences.
I don't have enough information to calculate the possible results of a battle with the slimes, but I'd be willing to bet that, unless the PC has a ranged cantrip, the odds aren't that good.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)