Dungeon Mastering as a Fine Art

[Neonchameleon]

So heavy armor, stealth and hide as a non-class skill, smite ability, high hit points, etc. don't give incentive to face the big evil head up as opposed to say spending an action to try and sneak up on him and most likely failing miserably or attacking from range with a low Dex??

No they don't. The only incentives around here are anti-incentives. "You are either in theory or in practice not allowed to do this so don't do it." If the fighter can get the ambush they should, and rogues should very seldom waste actions for Sneak Attack.

Unless of course their abyssmally low hide and move silently scores negate that

In short the only reason they shouldn't is because the class tells them they can't. It's sound tactics. And if they can whittle the enemy down at range safely the fighter should do so.

This is a very different situation from "We know this is bad tactics but it is in character so we are going to make sure that it works better."

 

[Imaro]

No they don't. The only incentives around here are anti-incentives. "You are either in theory or in practice not allowed to do this so don't do it." If the fighter can get the ambush they should, and rogues should very seldom waste actions for Sneak Attack.

So now were down to nit-picking "how" different editions give an incentive for different classes to behave differently in play, which has nothing to do with my earlier point. In fact I'm not even understanding why you keep going down this line of argument since I haven't addressed it whatsoever in my previous posts...

Just answer this, does a rogue in pre-4e D&D play optimally by taking and doing the exact same actions as a fighter or a cleric or a paladin? If not then the classes have incentives to act "roleplay" in different ways.

Whetehr you like how those incentives are implemented or the end result is irrelevant to my point.

In short the only reason they shouldn't is because the class tells them they can't. It's sound tactics. And if they can whittle the enemy down at range safely the fighter should do so.

This is a very different situation from "We know this is bad tactics but it is in character so we are going to make sure that it works better."

FIrst, as I stated earlier you can do whatever you want in a roleplaying game... now whether your are more or less likely to be successful is based upon the makeup of your character...

Who cares whether you are given an incentive for bad tactics or not... I never argued that one way or the other... again now we're nit-picking how a particular result is achieved as opposed to whether it happens or not... and that's not my point, so I'm not sure what exactly (as far as my point goes) your arguments are addressing.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Just answer this, does a rogue in pre-4e D&D play optimally by taking and doing the exact same actions as a fighter or a cleric or a paladin? If not then the classes have incentives to act "roleplay" in different ways.

No. A fighter behaves optimally by taking as close to the same actions as a rogue as they can. [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has already mentioned what happens in AD&D if a Paladin tries behaving like ... a Paladin.

I never argued that one way or the other... again now we're nit-picking how a particular result is achieved as opposed to whether it happens or not... and that's not my point, so I'm not sure what exactly (as far as my point goes) your arguments are addressing.

This is not nitpicking. This is the whole point. Optimal play for fighters is hide and shank, catching the enemy flat footed and slaughtering them (SOP for the original game was to do this to dragons - or not fight them at all).

That you fail to accept the point doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It means that it's not one you see as important.

 

[Imaro]

No. A fighter behaves optimally by taking as close to the same actions as a rogue as they can. @Hussar has already mentioned what happens in AD&D if a Paladin tries behaving like ... a Paladin.



This is not nitpicking. This is the whole point. Optimal play for fighters is hide and shank, catching the enemy flat footed and slaughtering them (SOP for the original game was to do this to dragons - or not fight them at all).

That you fail to accept the point doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It means that it's not one you see as important.

Let's just agree to disagree... @Hussar's anecdotal evidence doesn't prove anything about the paladin and I'm sorry but in my time playing I've seen little to no fighters whose primary activities in combat across a campaign was to continuously hide and strike from the shadows... That you choose to accept the anecdotal evidence of one poster as fact and your own play experiences as universal doesn't make it so...

 

[Hussar]

Let's just agree to disagree... @Hussar's anecdotal evidence doesn't prove anything about the paladin and I'm sorry but in my time playing I've seen little to no fighters whose primary activities in combat across a campaign was to continuously hide and strike from the shadows... That you choose to accept the anecdotal evidence of one poster as fact and your own play experiences as universal doesn't make it so...

Well, of course you haven't seen it. The mechanics in 3e are virtually guaranteed that this tactic will fail. But, then again, just because your players aren't particularly interested in tactics doesn't make it a poor tactical choice.

Now, going back to AD&D, this tactic was a great one, because now fighters don't auto fail trying to hide or sneak.

Then again, it's not that hard to get a 3e fighter to be sneaky either. Elven cloak and Boots fix that problem and isn't terribly expensive.

Just answer this, does a rogue in pre-4e D&D play optimally by taking and doing the exact same actions as a fighter or a cleric or a paladin? If not then the classes have incentives to act "roleplay" in different ways.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-Mastering-as-a-Fine-Art/page27#ixzz33w9iJ2pP

Funny how you conspicuously leave off one class comparison there. Because I've been told multiple times that the way for a rogue to be successful is to start casting spells - seems a lot like being a wizard to me. And a rogue that hangs back and shoots arrows is about as effective as a commoner. No sneak attack at range. You have to act like a fighter or you don't do anything in combat. A rogue that never gets into melee is basically a torch carrier.

 

[Rod Staffwand]

It doesn't matter what the optimal strategy for any given class and their skill set is. Personality is not the same as tactical acumen. It's also not the same as a code of conduct, alignment or assembly of character build features.

 

[Neonchameleon]

It doesn't matter what the optimal strategy for any given class and their skill set is. Personality is not the same as tactical acumen. It's also not the same as a code of conduct, alignment or assembly of character build features.

Personality isn't the same thing as tactical acumen. But doing things that do not work over again in life or death situations and expecting the results to mysteriously change is .. a Darwin Award waiting to happen. Now I've a soft spot for Paladins in the mold of the Man of La Mancha - but a big part of their personality is that they know what they are doing and just don't care. They are going to do it anyway to try to light the way. This is an overwhelming personality trait.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Let's just agree to disagree... @Hussar's anecdotal evidence doesn't prove anything about the paladin and I'm sorry but in my time playing I've seen little to no fighters whose primary activities in combat across a campaign was to continuously hide and strike from the shadows... That you choose to accept the anecdotal evidence of one poster as fact and your own play experiences as universal doesn't make it so...

There is not, I believe, any edition of D&D other than 4e where to "continuously hide and strike from the shadows" is optimal tactics for the rogue with the exception of a rogue who has invested their first two feats to get Precise Shot and who doesn't have iterative attacks yet. And you were talking about optimal tactics earlier rather than something they do. Starting fights from ambush is good tactics for the fighter. And giving up your attacks to hide means the enemy stays alive longer and hurts your mates a lot more. It flattens your DPR in 3.X due to the full attack rules (and is impossible in 2e) - while at low levels it's still bad tactics at range because you need precise shot, and in melee because of opportunity attacks. (Not to say there aren't times where it works, but it's rare rather than continual). The only game where it's actually optimal tactics much of the time (the initial question) is ... 4e. Which doesn't have Full Round Attacks or need the Precise Shot feat.