[3.5] Giving players an even bigger reason to peek in the MM...
- Thread starter Erastus
- Start date
Olive
Explorer
this is of course silly.
they're suggestions. even the best DM's can benefit from ofther people's ideas. For those of us who have only DMed at low levels, this advice is good. And if your players take it as gospel ' a pit fied does x, then y' then you're being an idiot as a DM. Good advice, perhaps even great advice but not a RULE.
I like it, and I bet that there will be some advice in the tactics lists that you won't have thought of...
they're suggestions. even the best DM's can benefit from ofther people's ideas. For those of us who have only DMed at low levels, this advice is good. And if your players take it as gospel ' a pit fied does x, then y' then you're being an idiot as a DM. Good advice, perhaps even great advice but not a RULE.
I like it, and I bet that there will be some advice in the tactics lists that you won't have thought of...
Simplicity
Explorer
The tactics sections are a GREAT addition to the MM. I'm so glad that somebody thought of it. I'm not a newbie DM in the slightest, and I STILL think I'd use these things.
The only complaint I could see against them is: You're using up pages that could contain other monsters! But they've already committed to a monster a page (as requested by us). So, this seems like an excellent way to fill what would be otherwise wasted page space.
The only complaint I could see against them is: You're using up pages that could contain other monsters! But they've already committed to a monster a page (as requested by us). So, this seems like an excellent way to fill what would be otherwise wasted page space.
HellHound
ENnies winner and NOT Scrappy Doo
Erastus: I think the issue is with this statement of yours
"new and improved for those times when you just don't care enough to invest the time or thought it should require to play the game"
Frankly, I think the improvements are great for those who DO invest the time and thought required to run a game, since it gives us POINTERS. We don't HAVE to use them, but I've been known as a DM of 23 years experience, to FORGET to use an ability of a monster, one that could probably have changed the course of a battle. Something like this is a great bonus when prepping a combat.
I Care.
But sometimes, you can't invest hours into prepping a game. A lot of us also have full-time jobs and families and we like to spend our game-time gaming.
"new and improved for those times when you just don't care enough to invest the time or thought it should require to play the game"
Frankly, I think the improvements are great for those who DO invest the time and thought required to run a game, since it gives us POINTERS. We don't HAVE to use them, but I've been known as a DM of 23 years experience, to FORGET to use an ability of a monster, one that could probably have changed the course of a battle. Something like this is a great bonus when prepping a combat.
I Care.
But sometimes, you can't invest hours into prepping a game. A lot of us also have full-time jobs and families and we like to spend our game-time gaming.
Eridanis
Bard 7/Mod (ret) 10/Mgr 3
Erastus said:
If this sort of advice - not instructions, but advice - is not needed in the core rules (ones used by first-time players as well as experienced players, since there is no Portal-equivalent in D&D), where would you suggest putting them? In an additional product that would require another $20 or $30 expenditure? In an appendix to the book? Not included at all, and leave novices without a few lines of direction?
And would you have minded if this was included in the books in 2000?
This is an honest question, not a flame.
jgbrowning
Hero
I posted a post in the thread about the 3.5 pit fiend and i had a question about his combat. so far no-ones explained to me why i'm wrong (i assume here that i am 
) but...
i'm wondering if the tactics section will accuratly represent the intelligence of the creature?
joe b.
) but...i'm wondering if the tactics section will accuratly represent the intelligence of the creature?
joe b.
I like the idea, but as a computer programmer I think it could have been implemented much better as a list of weighted priorities rather than a round-by-round list of actions. The list as presented is not practical because there is no accounting for the response of the opponents. I would have liked to see something like this:
----------------------------------
Combat Tactics
The pit fiend opens with spell-like powers, attempting to neutralize dangerous opponents before entering melee combat.
Preparation: Unholy aura; activate fear aura, quickened summon Baatezu.
1st Priority: If in danger, use greater teleport to flee combat.
2nd Priority: If outnumbered, use mass hold monster to even the odds.
3rd Priority: Keep potential spell casters neutralized using power word stun
4th Priority: Weaken tough opponents with meteor swarm
5th Priority: Full attack to finish off the weakest targets
----------------------------------
The pit fiend doesn't do these things in order. Typically, it will perform actions higher up the hierarchy, and actions lower on the hierarchy when none of the higher options are applicable. This gives the DM some idea of what is most important to the Pit Fiend as it fights instead of a rigid list that only works in a very specific situation. It's more flexible. It's also one method one might use to model simple behavior effectively in AI for computer games. I think that the parallels in utility here are clear.
----------------------------------
Combat Tactics
The pit fiend opens with spell-like powers, attempting to neutralize dangerous opponents before entering melee combat.
Preparation: Unholy aura; activate fear aura, quickened summon Baatezu.
1st Priority: If in danger, use greater teleport to flee combat.
2nd Priority: If outnumbered, use mass hold monster to even the odds.
3rd Priority: Keep potential spell casters neutralized using power word stun
4th Priority: Weaken tough opponents with meteor swarm
5th Priority: Full attack to finish off the weakest targets
----------------------------------
The pit fiend doesn't do these things in order. Typically, it will perform actions higher up the hierarchy, and actions lower on the hierarchy when none of the higher options are applicable. This gives the DM some idea of what is most important to the Pit Fiend as it fights instead of a rigid list that only works in a very specific situation. It's more flexible. It's also one method one might use to model simple behavior effectively in AI for computer games. I think that the parallels in utility here are clear.
Erastus said:I appreciate the fact that most of you like the MM tactics. Well, not most - all. I seem to be alone here. But I think it's important to point out that it's not specifically the tactics that I don?t like, but the trend that is being established when 3rd Edition becomes 'The Fantasy Roleplaying Game with Training Wheels - with optional whicker handlebar basket and bell".
I'm really not as upset about the tactics as I am about creating RPGs that are specifically designed to hold your hand as you cross the street as the core product line.
I'm too old to have someone holding my hand when I cross the street, and not old enough to need a Boy Scout to help me.
It just seems to me that my first glance at the 'new and improved' looks like 'new and improved for those times when you just don't care enough to invest the time or thought it should require to play the game". It seems like it would be all too easy to carry this too far and use that optional handlebar basket to take the game on a ride to hell.
Let me see if I fully understand this absurdity. You want the game to be intentionally more difficult, confusing. You think all DMs should be forced to sacrafice and compensate for an arguably incomplete part of the game. How does the inclusion of tactics in any way limit you? Please answer this without some vauge, demogaugic allegory of 'training wheels'.
Similar Threads
