Player: "I have fire immunity, right? I knock over the four braziers next to me and set the whole building on fire...

>What prevents the barbarians from getting out?

"Someone else barred the door!"

A few knocked over braziers won't turn an entire house into a firestorm in just a few short moments.

But assuming it's a wooden house, or otherwise plenty of stuff around that can burn, this seems like a pretty good idea for that character (assuming a fight was coming and winning is a good thing), there and then at least. If people are too busy fighting to fight the fire, then having slowly growing zones of fire damage spread out from the knocked over braziers. This gradually gives an advantage to the fire immune guy, and presents a problem for anyone around who isn't. Possibly including the rest of the party.

Any enemy who isn't in a berserk frenzy will probably not stay within the fire to burn to a crisp though.

And once this fight is settled, depending on the weather and what else is around, the fire may or may not spread. In a wooden city, this could make the player somewhat less than idolized.

Its hard to be mad when youre on fire though.

Trust me, I know.

Fire immunity is not smoke inhalation immunity and if the building was so flimsy that the whole thing went up instantly then there's no reason the big muscle warlords couldn't have just smashed their way out through a wall and been fine.

Theyre barbarians.

They break down doors all the time during raids. This is not a problem for them.

I don't get it. Is this supposed to be a jab at the last GoT episode like it doesn't make sense? Don't tell me people are now butthurt over this.

If the guy thinks that a brazier can instantly burn down this place then i can only assume they are in a tiny hut made of nothing but straw. If so, the barbarians would only have to simply "destroy" the walls by casually walking against them and everything is fine.

It's not like the fire from the braziers just jump onto all the barbarians and stick to them like napalm.

>Don't tell me people are now butthurt over this.

There's been a suspicious lot of threads lately complaining about people being inspired by GoT for the games they run.

>Everyone suddenly becomes Medieval fire marshals and rule lawyers the exacting physics to fuck over a player

Not petty at all.

I think they had poured something on the floor before the meeting, but I'm not sure.

That was happening before this latest episode though.

>"Hey, why does it smell suspiciously like oil in here? And why is the floor so fucking slippery that I just fell?"

>implying it doesn't smell like oil already because of the braziers
>implying the kind of floor depicted in the show would be slippery

>even implying they would use oil
>saruman the implier

>How would you rule this situation as a GM?

Few things could have happened:

>The Fire simply doesn't spread. It hits the ground and the brazer dies: she's raped- possibly to death.

>The Fire doesn't spread fast enough. She isn't raped to death immediately, but is take out, beaten and then possibly raped to death at a later stage or point in time.

>The Fire DOES spread and she's just straight up crushed by a fucking supporting column, pillar or some other piece of rubble. This isn't a fucking tent fire or pyre- she's in an enclosed space.

>The Fire DOES spread but she dies from smoke inhalation or is suffocated by the fire itself. Again; enclosed space.

There's a lot of ways this could have gone wrong, but I suppose in terms of risk vs reward it was "okay".

If they had put a plan together ahead of time to coat the floor in flammable oil, barred the doors, and all of the barbarians had no weapons on them?

Hell yeah, the player wins in that situation.

>implying it doesn't smell like oil already because of the braziers
Oil all over the floor would smell very different.

>implying the kind of floor depicted in the show would be slippery
It would either be slippery, or icky and sticky. Noticeable either way.

I gleefully accept his actions, and roll 10d10 worth of damage, telling him to take that much damage. When he points to where it says "Fire Immunity" on his character sheet, I ask him if he has "Getting crushed by a burning fucking building" immunity, too.

But in all seriousness if I was dumb enough to let that scenario escape me when planning the encounter, he deserves the win for using his strengths. He'll still have to escape the building with flaming and pissed off barbarians in it, though.

You're right, we should always let players do shit like this to let there never be any consequences for their actions or need to be wary of their surroundings.

Next time we fight some people on a dam I'm just going to "blow it up" and instantly win the fight, take the money, and the group will be on our merry way. Or fight a group of bandits in a crop field and set fire to that to set the whole field on fire "burning all the [bandits] to a crisp!" Or start an avalanche because Mulan did it in that one movie so why not right?

Thinking outside auto-attack mode is great and should be encouraged, but to say that he wouldn't instantly win and get a gold star for this is being a "rule lawyer" is certainly not petty at all.

"Okay, you knock down the braziers and the entire building erupts into a fiery inferno. Though the flames lick at your body, you feel none of their heat."

"However, the burning building is filling the air with smoke. Roll CON save against choking."

Yep. Petty.

I'm sure that your idea in your last session was great user, but no need to get all hot and bothered that it didn't turn out how you wanted it.

Use your thinking-brain next time to do very good job.

>Or fight a group of bandits in a crop field and set fire to that to set the whole field on fire "burning all the [bandits] to a crisp!"

Obviously the best plan. What are you, fatuous?

Do you have oxygen deprivation immunity? What about protection from smoke inhalation? Falling debris? Flailing barbarians burning to death?

P E T T Y

Okay, that fire's going to be a problem in a little bit.
Right now, you have bigger problems.
Namely, some very angry barbarians.

I mean if the characters abilities from the show are copied, then they DO have protection from smoke inhalation, and can breath in fiery conditions, as they've shown to be able to do before.

Also all you'd have to do is hide inside a doorway, where debris won't fall for a while. Its also not very hard to dodge people who are concerned with burning to death.

The barbarians are well versed in fire safety and they calmly and quickly evacuate the building. They assemble at the designated meeting point and the chieftan takes role while the barbarian who was designated Safety Marshal hands out juice boxes and granola bars.

>not tying wagons together in the field to make for a better strategic path for the fire to follow

You call yourself a field strategist?

>rage after DM kills me for my super-awesome-ultra plan
>see thread on Veeky Forums
>"t-this is payback!" - you

Your snowflaking can only get you so far.

I would rather my players try to knock some braziers over than roll initiative and spend around two hours making attack rolls over and over. I would just say it works and reward them instead of trying half-fuck them for it.
And what about this faggot right here?

Can this murderer of his own uncle get any more petty and trivial with his attempt to project and contrive any excuse to not be that-DM?

Find out in two minutes when he tries to reply!

We need to know the surroundings.

Were his party members there? Are they fire immune? Are they in a wooden building, a thatch hut, or a stone building/castle? Are there multiple windows to allow for easy ventilation? I'm not saying that wanting to do some out-of-the-box things should never be done, I do them almost every fight I can when I am a player, but if you do things outside "roll to hit" combat then you should expect outcomes that are outside "you blocked it" or "you take (enter damage and type here."

If it's a wooden building then I would more than likely do a roll for a certain number of minutes based on the size of the building and make the fire spread accordingly, debris would have to be watched out for and it would fall in areas dictated by my best knowledge of support beam placements, and if there is not enough ventilation then it would make sense to make CON saves for that. Stone simply wouldnt burn and thatch would be easy to escape because...well it's thatch. Not seeing the problem outside the raping with that anons scenarios.

>DM didn't let me get an insta-win = That DM

Are you even trying?

If you're spending two hours making attack rolls you either need to design encounters better or stop playing DnD 4e

Holy shit, I thought you were just talking shit with the other dude, you really are That GM.

>...burning all the barbarian warriors to a crisp!
Oh, bad news, user. The barbarians accepts their fate and attack you!

In situations like this I use the "Yes, and/but..." rule.

"Yes, but the braziers don't instantly engulf the barbarians or building in flame. The burning coals spills over the floor between you and them creating a barrier of glowing ash. The patch of hot coals would be painful to step on even wearing boots, but not for very long. There seems to be some agreement between the barbarians that the situation has become more metal."

The player's clever thinking gives them some kind of tactical advantage, but unless the floor is made of the oldest, dryest, shittiest soft wood (though given a quasi-medieval setting it would probably be a little bit damp) that fucker ain't gonna catch from a shitload of hot coals. Likewise for the barbarians. People aren't that easy to ignite on fire.

HERE IS A SUPER DUPER IMPORTANT NOTE ABOUT BRAZIERS:

Braziers are almost solely for burning solid fuels like coal or wood, the ones you see in movies are usually burning modern petrochemical mixes for convenience. Shallow pools of slow burning oil (commonly derived from animal fats) were also sometimes put into them, though only about the same as the average oil lamp. Braziers were also used to warm oil for ceremonial purposes, but in this context the oil itself is not on fire. They were also an early fryer for people who could afford it!

Braziers are actually pretty safe, because if you spill hot coals or burning wood everywhere you're also likely to spill quite a bit of ash that will help put it out.

A cresset is the cup full of burning oil (kerosene I think), though they were mounted on long poles and used as early streetlights usually only on special occasions because they were so expensive to maintain.

>That GM

I don't think you understand what that phrase means. If you attempt to, as the original post stated, "set the whole building on fire" that is going to take a few minutes and combat is still going to continue after you kicked the braziers down.

Fire spreads, wood gets burnt, and the building loses the ability to support itself. If the player expects the enemies to all be "burning to a crisp" then they will have to wait as knocking over a four braziers is not the equivalent to casting fire max level fireball spells.

The post is basically Godmodding. Of course we're pissed.

They break the wooden wall behind them with ease before escaping

No, I get it. It's just obvious at this point. None of your niggling, for example, suppose details of the event that might actually play in the player's favor. Maybe they choose to use the flame as their shield, forcing the enemy to approach them through a bonfire, or if the barbarians have a different reaction such as being scared of burning alive, or if the fire finds some accelerant and turns the room into a ball of fire within seconds.

But you didn't.

My players just thought of something outside of 'I hit him with my sword' I'm going to not only allow this, I'll even fudge shit rolls (Or not roll at all) to keep encouraging this behaviour.

We need the entire scenario to know what happened and I am going with the basics. A player is committing to this action because they have fire immunity and nothing else. Would that be stupid? Yeah it would, but I have seen worse and I am sure that you have as well.

We can also assume that this guys party was not with him as well since they would do this without concern of their teammates fire immunity so why would they be scared? It's one person that knocked over some braziers and we are, at the very east two, barbarians. And they did not attempt to use this as their shield, they used the braziers as an offensive weapon to incinerate their enemies as seen in the original post.

We do not know the exact setup of this situation, but I'm assuming you are either very inexperienced or very naive to believe that the player was in the right here by expecting an instant win out of this.

They wouldn't be carrying any weapons though because it's forbidden to do so in their sacred city.

I'm not surprised. You seem quite capable of assuming if nothing else.

For someone who keeps harping on about needing to know the situation, you sure do like putting a lot of imagined stupidity and shortsightedness in our hypothetical player, imagining every negative consequence instead of every potential consequence, good, bad, or neutral, and believing everyone else wants an instant win for their players.

So I'm with the guy earlier, but for real this time. That's damn petty, dude.

Legitimate tactic. Players should be commended for this resourcefulness.

The moment the DM okayed that backstory he was asking for this shit anyways.

This guy gets it.

Also, we use that quote around our table all the time.

>not allowing the barbarians to teleport behind the party and snap the necks of the their weaker enemies simply because of their amazing strength

If the players with lower STR have beef with it I'll just point to their weak and flabby arms in comparison to the carved and defined muscles of the barbarians and continue the session.

>Maybe they choose to use the flame as their shield, forcing the enemy to approach them through a bonfire
too bad all we got was 'i'll use it as an offensive weapon, expecting the entire place to go up in smoke instantly!'
>if the barbarians have a different reaction such as being scared of burning alive
any barbarians currently berserking probably wouldn't give a shit, but once the fire gets out of control (ie, most likely several rounds after the braziers were knocked down) then they'd feasibly start to flee
it's not going to be instant, you mongoloid
>the fire finds some accelerant and turns the room into a ball of fire within seconds.
such as?
unless you're fighting in a gunpowder storage with conveniently easy to knock over braziers, i don't see what could make the room burn fast enough to turn the barbarians into a 'crisp' in little enough time that the player doesn't have to /think/ about how they're going about this.
of course i suppose some systems have ways of letting a player set up this kind of situation themselves - for example a player in GURPS can spend a couple of unused character points to make a change to the scene if the DM thinks it's reasonable, one example given is a robot breaking into a science lab and a player spending a couple of points to make sure there's a security console nearby so that they can see and react to this better.
so i suppose you could spend a couple of points to have a convenient barrel of oil or gunpowder sitting next to a brazier

but again, we didn't get much more than somebody kicking over a couple of braziers and going 'i win'

try using your brain a little more

>enclosed space
they had fires in there. there'll be a hole in the roof like in every premodern house.

Q.E.D.

P E T T Y
E
T
T
Y

You are assuming that this situation wouldn't be fun. Attempting to escape the enemies sight and somehow locking them into the burning building as you make your escape, attempting to break windows and force enemies on high ground to make them inhale more smoke making the battle much easier for yourself, or maybe even just using it as a distraction to get away.

Yeah I do make assumptions, but not all of them are negative. You on the other hand seem very quick to read everything I am saying about this situation as negative. Why would anything that i stated above be seen as a fuck you to the players originality? All I ever really said was that the building would be on fire, smoke MIGHT be an issue depending on the building, and debris would also be an issue but this does not have to be a negative unless you see it as one. Think it's petty all you want, but I see it as a more exciting albeit reckless change to the battle that could have good or bad consequences depending on the circumstances that we were not given on the environment the player was in.

My only problem this entire time was that this is in no way, shape, fashion, or form a "burning all the barbarian warriors to a crisp!" scenario as the OP said without combat continuing and the player making that a reality through continued actions other that playground "because I said so" bullshit.

>NO FUN ALLOWED

All those DMs who use their position as a power fantasy disgust me. I bet you all get boners when you kill a character.

This is the only right answer:

>try using your brain a little more
I did. I just happened to not be THAT GM while doing so.

You're so focused on being right, you're ignoring every single positive aspect to the plan just so you can shit all over it and make yourself feel clever. You're exactly the sort of autist that gives the hobby a bad reputation, unable to think outside the box.

In other words, your reaction to this is quite petty.

>Players can't fail. Especially bad ideas.
k

For the record I have zero problems letting my players do whatever the fuck they want. They also don't bitch when some of their dumber ideas fail.

You know why?

It's a fucking dumb idea.

>I'm immune to poison, I just put it in everyone's food
>I'm immune to disease, I just create a super plague
>I'm immune to cold, I just create an ice age
>I have access to other dimensions, I just destroy this one
it's a pretty good plan

>My only problem this entire time was that this is in no way, shape, fashion, or form a "burning all the barbarian warriors to a crisp!" scenario as the OP said without combat continuing and the player making that a reality through continued actions other that playground "because I said so" bullshit.

No seriously, that's just doing your absolute hardest to not accept that maybe combat did just end, that maybe the player did just throw a wrench into the works, and rather than rolling with it you just HAVE to take back control.

>If "clever" player actions don't always succeed you're PETTY!
Yeah, fuck tension. Fuck story telling. Hey, I have an idea... Why don't I let the players tell the story, make all the roles, AND GM, too?

>suffocation imminent
Roll a fort save, user.

>If the players are creative the GM is not allowed to be.
k

>they had fires in there. there'll be a hole in the roof like in every premodern house.

I did not notice that.

That HELPS; that is a good observation.

Most of those are allowing the fire to spread and the action to continue, but if you just let this player get away with a victory simply because they said "it burns them all, the end" how is that any "fun" for anybody else involved?

What about if the other players just say fuck it in the future and throw a few torches on the ground because "they did it"? It's a dick move to not allow them to do the action, but to say that a building takes time to burn is apparently no fun allowed territory? You are a special kind of special user.

>flaming and pissed off barbarians
wellp, i know what encounter I'm shoehorning into my next session
thanks user

Who the fuck gives a shit about your fanfic nigga people are here to play a game

God damn

>>I'm immune to poison, I just put it in everyone's food

Hold it right there! How do you know you're not immune to whatever chemical reaction that poison had with every type of food and material on the table? What if the barbarians, realizing you did it because you're sitting there so smug, start to attack ignoring the burning in their throats and bleeding from their armpits? Roll for initiative!

>You succeed in burning the building and killing the men inside
>You emerge into a mob of people
>They don't know who you are and see you as a fire witch that just killed their leaders
>You are attacked by 1,000 Dothraki Bloodriders. Roll for initiative

>People are here to play your game, but only part of your game!
kek Roll for Troll, +5.

This. Just because the GM made it harder than a single round win isn't petty.

>Player: I'm immune to poison.
>GM: Did you know your character has an allergy to the food their eating right now?
>Player: INCONCEIVABLE!

>This. Just because the GM made it harder than a single round win isn't petty.

That's the very definition of petty.

Roll for Troll. +6 bonus.

>Yeah, fuck tension. Fuck story telling. Hey, I have an idea... Why don't I let the players tell the story, make all the roles, AND GM, too?

Christ, you're supposed to tell the story with the player, not make them dance like puppets to your script. Let the tension come from the aftereffects of their success, or let the scene be the capstone to tension you already built up.

>something I didn't say
That was an excellent strawman, 4/10 made me reply but didn't make me mad.

>i'll just insult everybody who disagrees with me so that i don't have to come up with a convincing argument!
boring

my point is the 'positive aspect' to the plan is something that doesn't immediately happen, i don't see why you don't get this
you still have barbarians to deal with until the fire spreads enough to deal with them on its own

i don't know why you expect a standing ovation and instant success for one line of greentext

what kind of wacky ideas do people have about fire that makes them think that it both immediately turns a room into a furnace and also causes everybody to cower and run about screaming when unleashed
where's the fun in an instant 'i win' button anyway

>of little importance; trivial.
>unduly concerned with trivial matters, especially in a small-minded or spiteful way.
i guess?

i mean, yeah it's cool for the one guy immune to fire, but any DM worth his salt should find a way to engage the other party members too. Yeah the bad dudes are dead and burning, but maybe you skill monkey wants to investigate the ashes or some shit. Maybe your paladork wants to heal an injured NPC, maybe someone wants to gather a crowd to make sure the fire doesn't spread. Maybe the minmaxing powergamer wants to eat infinite dicks.
unless your players are assholes, in which case fuck em, encounter over

But with your -4 WIS modifier, you only get a 2/10.

user, tipping over four braziers does not just end combat in a single flash of blinding light with everything okay and your enemies being incinerated with just the tipping of said braziers. It just doesnt. OP would more than likely have specified if there was anything to help the fire be more intense or even explosive, but to say that tipping over four braziers just ends the fight because the player says so is stupid.

How is there even anything to argue on this point? He even said the player stated it was to set the building ablaze and burn the enemy to a crisp. You would seriously just let them take that win? Just like that? Jesus, I'd hate to see the tantrums your players go on when you deny them a castles destruction because they filed down some rotted nail or some other bullshit.

>With.

The player has no right to Godmod. Sorry. This is a shitty player and deserves whatever bullshit I throw at them.

Roll for troll, +7 bonus.

Roll for Shitpost Save. -4 penalty.

In general, the only correct answer, (and the only answer needed) for questions like this is "You're welcome to try."

Unless there is a misunderstanding due to my poorly describing something, each player is responsible for his or her own actions.

i kinda wanna play a troll now

And none of these absolutely acceptable actions were even considered by Mr. Petty over here.

>Godmod
With his continued use of the strawman technique, observers begin to wonder if he will ever actually reply to a post.

>and set the whole building on fire, burning all the barbarian warriors to a crisp!
>not Godmod as fuck

If they player in OP said: "I knock the braziers over hoping to set the building on fire," and left it at that? No problem.

But it's Godmodding. Plain and simple. They deserve a shit show.

>user, tipping over four braziers does not just end combat in a single flash of blinding light with everything okay and your enemies being incinerated with just the tipping of said braziers. It just doesnt.

It does if I say it does. That's kind of the point of being the DM. I decide if combat even needs to happen, usually based on if the players want it and if it wouldn't ruin the moment.

> OP would more than likely have specified if there was anything to help the fire be more intense or even explosive, but to say that tipping over four braziers just ends the fight because the player says so is stupid.

None of this is true. You're just assuming all of this, and it has nothing to do with what the proper response as a GM should be, which for the record would be to analyze the player's plan and potential outcomes, analyze the state of the players at the table and what they came here for, and doing my job as a DM, including if it means granting the player their victory without feeling the need to waste theirs and everyone else's time by rule lawyering some way to extend the scene.

It depends on what the floor composed of and how much flammable material there. But in any case, there is plenty of time for those barbarian warriors to kill your character. This is a good maneuver to start your escape, but nothing more.

This.

Give the GM a better idea of what your character is trying to do. Help your GM improvise and make the battle more kickass through your decisions. Not some "my power is to have any power I want" childish bullshit.

This is like if someone says they have an army waiting for them and should have them at level 1 simply because "it says so in my backstory." I don't give a fuck about your backstory, I'll just say your army died of malaria if you keep that shit up, you'll get them when it is appropriate for your level and the story has progressed to the point that it would make sense for them to come in. You cannot just say "I incinerate my enemies" and expect a green-light from the GM as if you just found some cheat that no one has ever found out in the table-top genre.

Guys, he already admitted to being petty. It's just autism at this point because he's incapable of seeing anything wrong with his decisions beyond how they affect his fun and his control over the game.

Oh, so you're just a grammar nazi. My mistake, sorry.

Any time a player says something that I have to respond with, "Uh, no. That's not what happens because that's beyond your character's control..." It fucking ruins the fun for me, for them, and everyone else at the fucking table. No one likes people like this. At all. At any side of the cardboard divisor.

I'd play this game.