A Possibly Brilliant Strategy?

[ebenmckay]

So my players were fighting three skeletons in a playtest combat: two skeletal warriors and a blazing skeleton. The PCs were the DDXP pregens, minus the wizard.

The paladin player was fighting honorably, not running but dueling the skeleton warrior he marked one-on-one, when the player of the warlock decided to get sneaky. In addition to attacking the blazing skeleton with Eyebite, the warlock insisted on sauntering past the marked skeleton warrior every turn. This meant that the skeleton warrior with his pitiful INT and his super-powered AoO ability couldn't resist taking a swing.

Not only did I repeatedly roll badly (even with the skeleton's bonus to AoOs) and whiff against the warlock, but every time the warlock moved like this, the poor swing-happy skeleton took 13 radiant damage! The warlock player probably did this three turns in a row, and the only reason he didn't kill off the other skeleton in the same way was because the blazing skeleton pelted him to death with firebolts before he could get to it.

In any case, I found this an awesome strategy. Risky to be sure, but sneaky. Any chance I ran it wrong?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

So my players were fighting three skeletons in a playtest combat: two skeletal warriors and a blazing skeleton. The PCs were the DDXP pregens, minus the wizard.

The paladin player was fighting honorably, not running but dueling the skeleton warrior he marked one-on-one, when the player of the warlock decided to get sneaky. In addition to attacking the blazing skeleton with Eyebite, the warlock insisted on sauntering past the marked skeleton warrior every turn. This meant that the skeleton warrior with his pitiful INT and his super-powered AoO ability couldn't resist taking a swing.

Not only did I repeatedly roll badly (even with the skeleton's bonus to AoOs) and whiff against the warlock, but every time the warlock moved like this, the poor swing-happy skeleton took 13 radiant damage! The warlock player probably did this three turns in a row, and the only reason he didn't kill off the other skeleton in the same way was because the blazing skeleton pelted him to death with firebolts before he could get to it.

In any case, I found this an awesome strategy. Risky to be sure, but sneaky. Any chance I ran it wrong?

It sounds right. That kind of tactic works on low intelligence monsters (and is one reason I felt several 3.x dire animals were over-CRed).

Even so, I think the Skeleton (with Int 3) is still smart enough to realize that, if it takes damage from attacking the warlock, maybe it shouldn't attack the warlock. (Unless it had instructions to the contrary, and I don't know what the scenario behind the combat was.)

By the way, I know skeletons have Int 3 rather than nil, but IMO they should be immune to Eyebite anyway.

 

[FadedC]

Well this is D&D and not the psychology of learning, but most animals will quickly learn to associate pain with other stimuli if the two are paired together.

Or in other words even a dire bear would likely learn his lesson after a few tries. Certainly reasonable to have him try more then once though.

 

[Byronic]

I'm curious, when the blazing skeleton pelted the Warlock did the Warlock use Shadow walk (for concealment)?

 

[Sashi]

By the way, I know skeletons have Int 3 rather than nil, but IMO they should be immune to Eyebite anyway.

The question is: should the skeleton be immune to eyebite because of fluff reasons (i.e. "the skeleton has no eyes") or for balance reasons? Because the fluff is irrelevant to game mechanics.

 

[malraux]

I seems legit, at least the first time or two. That said, it seems like the tactic relies on the DM missing a lot. At best, the warlock had AC 18, and the skeleton had a +10 to hit. And a hit would do ~10 damage to the warlock, who doesn't have great HP to begin with.

And dumb question, because I still don't have the OA rules down. Doesn't the Eyebite attack also trigger an OA? Are creatures capped at one OA a turn?

 

[ebenmckay]

I'm curious, when the blazing skeleton pelted the Warlock did the Warlock use Shadow walk (for concealment)?

The flame orb attack by the skeleton was +8 vs Reflex, and I ruled in the absence of real rules for concealment that Shadow Walk gave the warlock +2 to defenses. This boosted the warlock's reflex defense from 13 to 15, which meant the blazing skeleton only needed a 7 to hit. I don't think it ever rolled less than a 15 against the warlock. That and the warlock player probably failed his save to put out the fire 5 times in a row.

As an aside: oops! I wrote that the warlock player used Eyebite against the blazing skeleton, and he did, but only a couple times (on the turns that hit, the blazing skeleton just pelted someone else). Mostly he used Eldritch Blast for the extra damage. It was really the ongoing damage that killed the warlock.

And as for the skeleton failing to learn? I figured that an INT 3 AND a sweet AoO enhancer (+2 attack, +1d6 damage) combined to make the provoking warlock irresistible to the skeleton warrior. At least for those three rounds the warlock was pulling the shenanigans.

 

[Mort_Q]

Well...

Whenever you affect a creature with a power, that creature knows exactly what you’ve done to it and what conditions you’ve imposed. For example, when a paladin uses divine challenge against an enemy, the enemy knows that it has been marked and that it will therefore take a penalty to attack rolls and some damage if it attacks anyone aside from the paladin.

... for whatever that's worth.

 

[theredrobedwizard]

The question is: should the skeleton be immune to eyebite because of fluff reasons (i.e. "the skeleton has no eyes") or for balance reasons? Because the fluff is irrelevant to game mechanics.

No, because it can still see. Now, if the thing was already blind I can see Eyebite not working; however, as the skeleton has a visual sense (whether or not it has actual eyes), then Eyebite is go.

-TRRW

 

[malraux]

The question is: should the skeleton be immune to eyebite because of fluff reasons (i.e. "the skeleton has no eyes") or for balance reasons? Because the fluff is irrelevant to game mechanics.

My gut instinct is that undead should be immune to [charm] effects, even though there's no reason for that to be so.