i had a player get upset with me because i would not let her influence or meaningfully communicate with a rabid dog. said player then proceeded to knit what i can only guess was a sock the rest of the session at the table. i have two questions, was my judgement correct, and should i have demanded the finished sock as tribute for reluctantly running a game so that people would not be turned away.
Did the player have wild empathy? If not, she wouldn't have been able to influence it at all. If so, the most lenient I'd give her would be the dog being hostile, so it would be a 25+CHA check. I think she was probably overreacting regardless, though.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To the first, definitely. It's rabid. By definition, it's Hostile. Even if she had Wild Empathy, I wouldn't give her odds on being able to influence or communicate with it meaningfully, since it's entire thought process is basically 'kill kill kill'.
To the second, no, but you need to hash things out with the player and explain your situation, and be prepared to cut her loose if she's going to continue to be such a brat.
|
Well, the least you could have done is let her roll for it even if there was nothing that she should have been able to do. It might shut her up. (Yes, that's manipulative.)
If she wanted to use Handle Animal, she would have needed to push the animal so that's a DC27 check and would take a full round action. (DC increases by 2 because the dog has probably taken ability damage from rabies.)
She could try to Intimidate the dog, but that would take a full minute. Handle Animal would be faster but Pushing an animal is still a full round action.
If she had Wild Empathy it would take about a minute, and the DC would be 23. (You might want to add some modifier for being rabid)
Then there are spells like Charm Animal. (The dog would need to make a Will Save. Rabies does wisdom damage so his Will Save bonus would be less than +1.)
And I don't want to seem like a mathgeek, cause I'm not, but this is just plain wrong.
RABIES
Type disease, injury; Save Fortitude DC 14
Onset 2d6 weeks; Frequency 1/day
Effect 1 Con damage plus 1d3 Wis damage (minimum reduction to 1 Wis); Cure 2 consecutive saves
That should be the maximum reduction...
To the first, definitely. It's rabid. By definition, it's Hostile. Even if she had Wild Empathy, I wouldn't give her odds on being able to influence or communicate with it meaningfully, since it's entire thought process is basically 'kill kill kill'.
To the second, no, but you need to hash things out with the player and explain your situation, and be prepared to cut her loose if she's going to continue to be such a brat.
politics aint my bag, man
live and let waste their saturday nite, thats my motto
She could try to Intimidate the dog, but that would take a full minute. Handle Animal would be faster but Pushing an animal is still a full round action.
If she had Wild Empathy it would take about a minute, and the DC would be 23. (You might want to add some modifier for being rabid)
In these cases, the dog would have almost assuredly attacked her before she could complete the action.
Seriously, it's a rabid dog. Had I been a player at the table, I would have looked at her like she just grew the head of Jamie Farr out of her back, because I think the idea of trying to communicate or calm a rabid dog is simply, well, absurd. If you can't cure it, you put it out of its misery and stop it from infecting other animals or people.
To the first, definitely. It's rabid. By definition, it's Hostile. Even if she had Wild Empathy, I wouldn't give her odds on being able to influence or communicate with it meaningfully, since it's entire thought process is basically 'kill kill kill'.
To the second, no, but you need to hash things out with the player and explain your situation, and be prepared to cut her loose if she's going to continue to be such a brat.
politics aint my bag, man
live and let waste their saturday nite, thats my motto
Wasting their Saturday Night is fine. Wasting mine, and my fellow players' nights, by pulling a stunt like this, however, is unacceptable to me.
i agree i should have let her roll. pointless? yes. manipulative? yes. snickering to myself as she searches for modifiers? oh,yes.
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your tight-knit group was socked by her reaction?
|
|
She could try to Intimidate the dog, but that would take a full minute. Handle Animal would be faster but Pushing an animal is still a full round action.
If she had Wild Empathy it would take about a minute, and the DC would be 23. (You might want to add some modifier for being rabid)In these cases, the dog would have almost assuredly attacked her before she could complete the action.
Seriously, it's a rabid dog. Had I been a player at the table, I would have looked at her like she just grew the head of Jamie Farr out of her back, because I think the idea of trying to communicate or calm a rabid dog is simply, well, absurd. If you can't cure it, you put it out of its misery and stop it from infecting other animals or people.
No Eric, It's a gazebo!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I did not know that rage-knitting was a thing. Though, I suppose ancient Norsemen had to clothe themselves, somehow.
"That damn Thorgrif Hargisson! He took more than FOUR GOATS. MORE THAN FOUR! I'm so furious I could darn a sweater!"
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I want to know is, why did she even bring her knitting supplies to the table? Wasn't she supposed to be there to play Pathfinder?
One hobby at a time, man.
Eh, back when I started playing oh so many years ago two of the ladies at our table brought knitting and needle point to keep their hands busy while they played. I've seen homework, novels, miniature painting and so on at the table as well. I allow whatever at my table as long as you are paying attention to what is going on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've actually seen a few folks knitting. It isnt too problematic, thought it can make the player more... distracted. Still, as BBT said, it's better than electronics.
Knitting is not in the rules. As for influencing the rabid dog, only if they had Wild Empathy.
Seriously, this is a hilarious topic that we need more of. You were right on the dog, and you should have waited to ask for the sock until after you saw how well it turned out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My group has a great deal of knitting going on. My wife and others will will knit at a table, and she can run a character quite well and do so. As she explains it, it helps with her ADHD. Now, you want to have a simple pattern. A sock is an easy pattern, so she could likely have paid attention.
Also, don't push knitters. They're automatically armed.
There was a player at games I used to attend who would draw Pokemon characters at the table if she wasn't constantly the center of attention (but waited for spoon fed plot rather than take any initiative).
Another one who would bring a pillow and blanket so as to nap if the urge struck (and it always seemed to).
To say nothing of the players (there have been a few) who would leave for smoke breaks every 30 minutes, either coming back in ten minutes or a couple hours depending on who they ran into.
Knitting isn't too bad.
i had a player get upset with me because i would not let her influence or meaningfully communicate with a rabid dog. said player then proceeded to knit what i can only guess was a sock the rest of the session at the table. i have two questions, was my judgement correct, and should i have demanded the finished sock as tribute for reluctantly running a game so that people would not be turned away.
When some people get upset they want to put their mind on something thats not what they're upset about. Many gamers first ADD in their lives was not advanced dungeons and dragons. Stuff like that happens.
As long as the rabies is played consistantly as "GGRRRR I KIIILL YOU! MOUTH FOAAAAAM!" thats fine. If, like a few pfs scenarios i can name, the owner easily controls the thing and the rabies is there just to make it scarier, then the player has a point.
|
I'm not a knitter so I don't know - can you effectively knit and play at the same time? I don't think it's like reading a book; I think you can knit and do it as second nature? I might be wrong.
Rabies says (minimum 1 wisdom) because at 0 wisdom:
A character with a Wisdom score of 0 is incapable of rational thought and is unconscious.
Any kind of diplomacy with it would have circumstance modifiers on its DC through the roof.
Knitting while you play is one thing, knitting and ignoring the game going on is another. If someone wants to pull out the knitting kit and ignore the game going on, they should be treated in kind.
As others have brought up, ADD is a thing. Sometimes I need multiple things going on at once so I don't completely lose focus altogether. I generally settle for doodling on my character sheet or the whiteboard we use for mapping.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just out of curiosity, which of these would better describe the situation?
GM: There's a surprisingly aggressive dog growling at you.
Player: Neat! I'm a druid. I wild empathy at it. I've got a +27...
GM: No.
GM: There's a Rabid dog growling at you. He's pretty clearly off the handle. It's been so long that he was on the handle that he's actually forgotten what a handle is.
Player: Neat! I'm a druid. I wild empathy at it. I've got a +27...
GM: I did say "Rabid" and "Off the Handle..." I don't think that'll work... I'm going to go with no...
Player: Fine! *Knits a death-sock and considers slipping it over the GMs head."
Mostly what I'm asking is... Did the character / player know that it was rabid?
Also, knitting at the table is fine. My girlfriend does it regularly. She's even done it while GMing and performed perfectly up to snuff.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread reminds me of a National Enquirer title I once saw - "Space Aliens Taught My Dog to Knit".
Together with the Captain Picard reply - "Make it sew".
I think the amount of "distracted knitting" allowed would be proportional to how hawt she is!! =P~~
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Knitting is one of those things that when you reach a certain level of proficiency you can do it with the barest of conscious thought - I.E. if you have a player knitting at your table and s/he has been doing it a while, it's probably almost no disruption to them.
As for a dog with rabies, depends on what stage the disease is at. If it's full-blown, I'd basically have the dogs wisdom reduced down to near nothing and give it a permanent confused condition - there's a chance it could respond, but it's just as likely to damage itself or attack the nearest creature next turn.
We need to remember that there are a lot of players out there who have been afflicted with jerk DMs in the past, and they now tend to get antsy about situations just like this one:
DM: Rabid dog!
Druid: Wild empathy?
DM: No, it's rabid.
Druid: I back away.
Barbarian: I kill the dog!
DM: OK, it dies. 20 xp for the barbarian. The druid loses all her abilities for not protecting the dog.
So, if the player had had stuff like that before, being angry at what looks like a repeat performance -- even if it's not -- is sort of understandable.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We need to remember that there are a lot of players out there who have been afflicted with jerk DMs in the past, and they now tend to get antsy about situations just like this one:
DM: Rabid dog!
Druid: Wild empathy?
DM: No, it's rabid.
Druid: I back away.
Barbarian: I kill the dog!
DM: OK, it dies. 20 xp for the barbarian. The druid loses all her abilities for not protecting the dog.So, if the player had had stuff like that before, being angry at what looks like a repeat performance -- even if it's not -- is sort of understandable.
I've had jerk DMs before. But having encountered a jerk in the past is no excuse for being a jerk in the present.
|
|
We need to remember that there are a lot of players out there who have been afflicted with jerk DMs in the past, and they now tend to get antsy about situations just like this one:
DM: Rabid dog!
Druid: Wild empathy?
DM: No, it's rabid.
Druid: I back away.
Barbarian: I kill the dog!
DM: OK, it dies. 20 xp for the barbarian. The druid loses all her abilities for not protecting the dog.So, if the player had had stuff like that before, being angry at what looks like a repeat performance -- even if it's not -- is sort of understandable.
Technically, killing a rabid dog is good for the population...
Technically, killing a rabid dog is good for the population...
Sure, we both agree on that, but the player shouldn't be put into a situation where he/she needs to make a real-life Diplomacy check to convince the DM of that, or else the player's character's abilities are removed.
Check out any of the gazillion "paladin falls" threads for examples of how often this kind of stuff actually happens.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is nothing wrong with knitting at the table. I've seen knitter's doing their thing in Grad school (a hat per class), while listening to the lecture and participating meaningfully. Clearly the knitting bothers you more than them not liking your ruling, but you didn't say that they were disrupting the game.
As far as your ruling, perhaps you should explain the exact circumstances better. If the player had a reasonable expectation that they could do something with their character and you just said "no", without a reason it could be frustrating. My guess is that the way you handled the encounter was part of the problem. Not whether you were "right" by the rules, but by presentation. Invalidating a character or character concept without an explanation is frustrating to a player. If you won't work with them to tell a story, why should they work with you? Maybe you took away the only choice they felt they had in the situation.
It's also possible that the player is a passive aggressive noodle head. But you didn't give enough information and what is there is surely biased.
Shouldn't this thread be in Advice and not rules?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It depends on how you said it. If you said it with an attitude of "are you kidding? It's rabid! You can't empathize or communicate, idiot!" they may have reacted to the tone. or maybe they thought that's how you were talking to them even if you weren't. I have gotten in trouble (plenty of times) with my spouse for "making a face". You can find out if the player felt that way by talking before next session.
The other issue is was the player sulking or pouting. That is not the way to handle disappointment and causes a morale problem at the table. (polite way of saying it is childish).
You can also give players options if you think of them, if they didn't think of them. Such as "you could cast sure disease or sleep" etc. Sometimes we'll do this, or give hints.
I guess what everyone's saying it, it's not about communicating with the dog, it's about something else.
Thanks for not saying the gender of the player. I tried to be gender neutral above. It is interesting how most people assumed it was a female. I've seen men knit.
Regarding rabid: As Atticus Finch said, after shooting a rabid dog "stay away from that dog, it's still dangerous even after it's dead" If a player tried to communicate that would provoke an AOO from the dog. I would inform a player of this before letting them, I assume any character would know this.
My wife has seen people knit at work. It's not really an issue.
Thanks for not saying the gender of the player. I tried to be gender neutral above. It is interesting how most people assumed it was a female. I've seen men knit.
???
i had a player get upset with me because i would not let influence or meaningfully communicate with a rabid dog.
are people liking this thread