A Possibly Brilliant Strategy?

[ebenmckay]

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?

Eyebite being ranged would also trigger an OA, but the skeleton only made one OA per turn against the warlock. The warlock could've just sat next to the skeleton and fired off his ranged attacks to the same effect, but he chose to move around instead.

And OA rules as I understand them: you can make one OA per turn per opponent that provokes it.

 

[Dunamin]

From the Powers Excerpts:

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.

I think this is a quite explicit indication that even low intelligence monsters are fully aware of the consequences entailed by the described scenario, and they shouldn't necessarily be compelled to cause self-inflicted harm when there’s not enough gain to make up for it.

It could be worth it. Perhaps the skeleton thought that to begin with, it’s worth taking a shot at the passing warlock for the price of radiant damage. However, if it’s beaten to near-destruction by such a repeated tactic I think I'd have it change priorities, despite having low intelligence.

 

[ebenmckay]

Then I guess the question is: where's the cutoff? At what [INT level] and [special ability's incentive to do a certain action despite it being possibly suicidal in certain situations] would a monster justify trying it once, or even more than once? How many times would it make the mistake after it got smacked down? If it was a mindless (fluff-wise, anyway) zombie or ooze, would it KEEP falling for it?

I wonder if the DMG has recommendations for handling tactics for monsters with such low INT.

 

[ebenmckay]

BTW, for those who want to know, this was the third fight in the Second Son module.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Then I guess the question is: where's the cutoff? At what [INT level] and [special ability's incentive to do a certain action despite it being possibly suicidal in certain situations] would a monster justify trying it once, or even more than once? How many times would it make the mistake after it got smacked down? If it was a mindless (fluff-wise, anyway) zombie or ooze, would it KEEP falling for it?

I wonder if the DMG has recommendations for handling tactics for monsters with such low INT.

Int 3 is more than most animals. Most animals would stop attacking in such a situation. A frog (which is really dumb) will learn not to try to eat a wasp after making that mistake once.

Suggested tactics for dumb monsters is a good idea, IMO, but not necessary in this case.

 

[cdrcjsn]

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

Only because we're coming from 3e.

If 3e had presented charm person as a magic affecting a creature's soul rather than its mind? Then we would have no problems with the concept now.

The only reason we're having cognizance problems now is that charm undead was a necromancy spell in 3e, not enchantment.

 

[Mirtek]

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

Well, it is risky. IMHO it doesn't seem like a good strategy because it's main point is the striker trying to get hit.

This strategy sound all fun and games until it's tried against a monster that does hit the striker.

I would say it's a good way to speed things up against opponents who can't hit you and simply waste your time because they have so many hp to grind down, but against opponents who are able to the your tanks (and thus hit your strikers even more regulary) it should quickly waste a lot of hp of the poor striker bait

Then I guess the question is: where's the cutoff? At what [INT level] and [special ability's incentive to do a certain action despite it being possibly suicidal in certain situations] would a monster justify trying it once, or even more than once? How many times would it make the mistake after it got smacked down?

Depends on how well the monster can judge the PCs defence/hp it becomes worth to take the 13 damage if you're a brute who has trouble hitting the paladin but knows that you can likely hit some of his buddies and hurt him a lot.

So you either keep futilely missing the paladin and get damage from him and his buddies without dishing out damage in return, or you just go for his more squishy buddies and take the extra damage but at least start dealing out damage of your own

 

[Surgoshan]

Well, it is risky. IMHO it doesn't seem like a good strategy because it's main point is the striker trying to get hit.

This strategy sound all fun and games until it's tried against a monster that does hit the striker.

Well, yeah, it's a risky strategy for a striker due to low HP, but it's a sound strategy for the warlock because he has multiple abilities that make him harder to hit (shadow walk, eyebite). It would be sound for a rogue because he's designed to move in and out of melee. The ranger is meant to stay out of the way, so it wouldn't be as good an option for him. Decent risk for the warlock with a high payoff.

 

[Family]

I love it when a plan comes together.

 

[That One Guy]

It's a risky plan, but legit. I would think the skeleton (regardless of INT) would consider the backlash damage worth risking the first one to three times, but after that it would feel like there was too much risk for the reward.

Mmmmm... risky plans taste like breakfast.