D&D 4E The (lack of a) Bag of Rats Problem in 4e

[robertliguori]

Actual text in qeustion:"Characters can gain no benefit from carrying a sack of rats in hopes of healing their allies by hitting the rats."

This implies to me that the player is removing one and killing it, not just swatting at the whole bag. So thanks for playing.

You will notice that the sentence says only that no benefit is gained from carrying the sack around. The sentence strongly implies that benefit is also not gained from the actual hitting of the rats, but that's an implication, not a statement. I gain no benefit from carrying a healing potion in my pack in hopes of drinking it to regain HP, but I do gain the benefit when I drink the potion.

Lurker37: Does this mean that if you defeat all of the non-minions in a given encounter, but minions remain, there exists a threshold past which you stop being able to damage the minions? If one giant rat versus a standard level 1 party is not a credible threat, then does this mean that when the encounter of ten rats has been reduced to one, the party can no longer target the remaining rat? If there are two rats, can the party target them? If the party has a guaranteed source of damage (one of the warlock items, for instance) but there is a chance that the warlock will not use it (because it would be tactically advantageous to focus fire on the artillery elite, for example) are the minions credible threats? Do they remain credible threats if the warlock makes the suboptimal choice, counting on the pact bonus from killing the minions to make up for not shooting the artillery unit?

How does this interact with monsters? A 1st-level character is not a threat to the Tarrasque. Does this mean that the tarrasque is incapable of using its on-hit abilities against 1st-level characters? In fact, given the inherent mutualism of your definition, can a character not decide to ignore the threat presented by any monster, therefore denying it credible status to him, thereby making himself incapable of injuring the creature and rendering himself not a credible threat to it (and therefore invulnerable to it)?

 

[Fifth Element]

First, I was specifically referring to a claim about what was 'explicitly' stated in the rules. Next, well, yes; it is generally assumed that if you have a list of rules that prohibit A - F and read as though the intent was to prohibit G but don't actually, then G isn't prohibited by the letter of the rules.

But that's a meaningless semantic argument. It doesn't matter if it's explicit, if the intent is clear.

Individual giant rats are; they're a size category larger than rats, but still manageable for the given example. However, yes, I was incorrect when I referred to indiviual rats instead of individual giant rats in my previous posts.
We weren't discussing giant rats. Giant rats don't work - they're Small, and therefore your bag o' them is going to have very few. How many halflings (also Small) can you carry around in a bag at once?

Were I trying to win points on a debate team, I would certainly do so. As this is the internet, I can remain blissfully unconcerned with persuading anyone who cares more for my tone than my argument.

Your argument has been assessed and rejected. All that's left is the tone. It was found wanting.

However, when things reach the point of an argument being stated, me presenting a counterargument with points, and hearing the original argument repeated back, I pretty much give up on convincing my opponent and work instead on amusing myself.

Your admission that you're not arguing in good faith will likely not go over well with the moderators.

 

[Fifth Element]

You will notice that the sentence says only that no benefit is gained from carrying the sack around. The sentence strongly implies that benefit is also not gained from the actual hitting of the rats, but that's an implication, not a statement.

No, read it again. It specifically refers to hitting the rats. Even if your argument had any meaning (other than mere semantics), it would be wrong.

 

[Fifth Element]

can a character not decide to ignore the threat presented by any monster, therefore denying it credible status to him, thereby making himself incapable of injuring the creature and rendering himself not a credible threat to it (and therefore invulnerable to it)?

Sorry, the issue is not being able to hurt something that is not a credible threat. The issue is activating an 'on-hit' effect by hitting the credible threat. No one has suggested that if something is not a credible threat, you are unable to harm it, or be harmed by it. We're only discussing the activation of effects that trigger upon hitting a target.

 

[robertliguori]

Yeah, the "it explicitly forbids one ridiculous action, but doesn't explicitly forbid this nearly identical ridiculous action, so it must be okay!" mentality boggles me.

"If there are sixteen giant rats, and you're fighting them, and you curse and slay each of them one at a time, you get a pact bonus for each of them."

"If there are fifteen giant rats, and you're fighting them, and you curse and slay each of them one at a time, you get a pact bonus for each of them."

"If there are fourteen giant rats, and you're fighting them, and you curse and slay each of them one at a time, you get a pact bonus for each of them."

....

"If there is one giant rat, and you're fighting it, and you curse and slay it, you don't get a pact bonus. Unless you didn't want to fight it, at which point you do; if you mistakenly do want to fight the rat, but it turns out to be more of a challenge than you expected, but you still kill it without damage, then you do gain the pact bonus."

Common sense in this case suggests that the characters are aware of their status as PCs in an RPG, and can be expected to think and act accordingly.

This quote, right here, explains perfectly why we have the Bag-o-rats line in the DMG. Unfortunately.

The bag of rats scenario exists because there is a perverse incentive to engage in many weak encounters over level-appropriate ones, and similar perverse incentives to fight monsters just powerful enough to count as credible threats. The problem isn't the rats; its that rules exist making it beneficial to fight the rats. Remove the benefits from killing rats, get an absolute definition for credible threat (to avoid "You can't attack him; there's only a .05 chance he'll damage you. He rolls...a 20. And he had a vicious weapon. Well, you can get back three of those hit points when you kill him next round."), and you remove the problem. In 3.X, the problem with the rats wasn't the rats; it was with cleave. Remove cleave, and you remove the problem. But if there is a tactical benefit to killing individual weak monsters, then you should expect players to try to fight individual weak monsters.

STOPSTOPSTOP

This conversation is making me stupider for hearing it. I don't cotton to them there Forge nonsense (It's a *#&$*ing GAME, chode boys, not a history dissertation), but back in my day we had a word for people who did this kind of crap thinking.

MUNCHKIN. Obsessed with 'winning' munchkin. And we mocked them and discounted them and make funny books about their love of pointless rules exploitation.

We've got a word for the kind of player who preferred no thinking to crap thinking:scrub. We made little boo-hoo noises and imitated their voices, saying "You keep winning! It's not faaair!" at them. This is a game, as you say, and unlike a history dissertation, you can lose a game.

I imagine it worked about as well as mocking munchkins. If you don't like the kind of play environment that begins with the players and GM discussing "Hey, this rule here isn't fun. Let's change it.", or "Yes, we know that this rule doesn't fit your definition of fun, but it does for the rest of us, so it stays.", then don't play with people like that. I choose not to play with GMs who expect me to read their minds about what rules from the books obviously accurately describe the world and what rules from the books obviously are poor approximations of their vision and will be summarily ignored and cause me to be mocked for assuming them to be valid.

 

[Fifth Element]

In 3.X, the problem with the rats wasn't the rats; it was with cleave. Remove cleave, and you remove the problem.

I think you mean Great Cleave. Actually, I think you mean Whirlwind Attack.

And no, that wasn't the problem. Ridiculous interpretations of "RAW" were the problem.

 

[robertliguori]

But that's a meaningless semantic argument. It doesn't matter if it's explicit, if the intent is clear.

So?

...
No! Bad Robert! No Hongifying!

To elaborate, yes, it does matter. When I refer to what the rules say, I am referring to what the rules say, not what I think they mean. "The rules say..." is a different statement than "The rules should say..."

Your argument has been assessed and rejected. All that's left is the tone. It was found wanting.

Oooh, the passive voice. And you were going after me for condescension. Given your previous statement about intent, I will interpret your statement to read "I have assessed and rejected your argument, and found your tone wanting."

I will then give your opinion of my arguments the consideration it is due, then try, somehow, to find the strength to move on.

I'll refrain from quoting myself again (as that can make you go blind and grow hairy palms), but I will paraphrase; I intend to argue in good faith with those who are arguing in good faith with me, and have extraordinarily little care for the opinions of those who expect repeated unproven assertions to change my mind.

Your admission that you're not arguing in good faith will likely not go over well with the moderators.

First the following:
Alice: "X."
Bob: "!X, because A, B, and C."
Alice: "No, X."
Bob: "...Flooba."

...isn't an argument; as such, neither Alice nor Bob can be said to be arguing in good faith. Next, ominous warnings of impending Moderator action also does not tend to go over well with the mods. I do not think that I have violated forum rules; I invite you to report any and all of my posts you feel do so. I will of course turn down the snark and/or leave the thread as the moderators see fit, should they agree with your assessment.

No, read it again. It specifically refers to hitting the rats. Even if your argument had any meaning (other than mere semantics), it would be wrong.

I will refrain from diagramming the sentence out for you in light of the previous comment about condescension. I will politely suggest that you look up the definition of a preposition phrase and consider the sentences "Characters can gain no benefit from carrying a sack of rats." and "Characters can gain no benefit from
carrying a sack of rats in hopes of healing their allies by hitting the rats." before you make a semantic argument.

The intent is clear; powers that convey benefits when used in combat are not supposed to generate a perverse incentive to engage in short, weak combats against totally ineffectual foes. But what the rule says does not match what the rule intends.

Sorry, the issue is not being able to hurt something that is not a credible threat. The issue is activating an 'on-hit' effect by hitting the credible threat. No one has suggested that if something is not a credible threat, you are unable to harm it, or be harmed by it. We're only discussing the activation of effects that trigger upon hitting a target.

You have read the description of the basic attack as a power, right? Did you note that [W]+Str or Dex mod damage happens on a hit?

I think you mean Great Cleave. Actually, I think you mean Whirlwind Attack.

I mean Cleave. Cleave created the situation where you could swing at a rat and also get a free attack on the nearby goblin. The simplest variant of the bag of rats simply involved chucking a rat past the fighter; the rat provoked an AoO, which the fighter took, and then cleaved into the foe, effectively generating a free attack for the fighter. Great Cleave certainly exacerbated the problem, but the problem began quite simply.

And no, that wasn't the problem. Ridiculous interpretations of "RAW" were the problem.

Like what RAW actually said?

Look, we agree that the RAW often produces, when read literally, results that are far out of line with what RAI surely must be. The problem is that identifying RAI down to the fine detail is nearly impossible, and very often, RAI simply didn't cover the specific interaction of rules in general. When that happens, the GM needs to form their own intent, and the more cases where that happens, the less benefit there is to using the rules in the first place. The entire idea of having a standard ruleset is to have a common set of expected interactions that produce good results. DM A can think that it makes sense for a warlock to offer the soul of a giant rat to his pact patron, and that the costs versus benefits of keeping a rat restrained for emergency use do not unbalance the game, and are actually a good way to showcase how Warlocks are different than Ranger-Wizards, and that at the end of the day, a giant rat can injure a warlock, so it's a credible threat. DM B might think that credible threat status refers to the situation, not the creature, and might rule that players can use their powers to, for example, shatter a pillar holding up a cavern and cause a cave-in, but only in the middle of a fight. DM C might rule that a pillar is not a credible threat, and so on.


I think that the above situation is indicative of poorly-written rules. I personally prefer clear rules that can be unambiguously corrected to unclear ones that require much interpretation and context, and I think that anyone who thinks that common sense is an appropriate way to approximate the behavior of a system that is grossly at odds with normal day-to-day experience needs to be slapped with a haddock. One example I've seen used before is exponential numbers. Most people have a very poor intuitive feel for how exponential growth works; just for fun, ask people to estimate how thick a piece of paper would be if you could somehow fold it in half fifty times.

D&D tropes are worse, because there are many ways to interpret what is common knowledge. One GM may have grown up on Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, and enjoyed the works of Jim Butcher, and finds the idea of wizards not having required implements to be a violation of common sense. Another might work out a complex system, in which some spells did require an implement, some required the caster to speak clearly, some for the caster to speak and gesture, and so on. Who is to say that any one set of expectations is more correct than another?

 

[hong]

DM A can think that it makes sense for a warlock to offer the soul of a giant rat to his pact patron, and that the costs versus benefits of keeping a rat restrained for emergency use do not unbalance the game, and are actually a good way to showcase how Warlocks are different than Ranger-Wizards, and that at the end of the day, a giant rat can injure a warlock, so it's a credible threat. DM B might think that credible threat status refers to the situation, not the creature, and might rule that players can use their powers to, for example, shatter a pillar holding up a cavern and cause a cave-in, but only in the middle of a fight. DM C might rule that a pillar is not a credible threat, and so on.

Now, ponder on why this is not a problem.

D&D tropes are worse, because there are many ways to interpret what is common knowledge. One GM may have grown up on Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, and enjoyed the works of Jim Butcher, and finds the idea of wizards not having required implements to be a violation of common sense. Another might work out a complex system, in which some spells did require an implement, some required the caster to speak clearly, some for the caster to speak and gesture, and so on. Who is to say that any one set of expectations is more correct than another?

Similarly, ponder on why it does not matter for any one set of expectations to be more correct than another.

 

[Blackeagle]

My issue is that I have no term to recognize an unenforced rule. If the books have a rule that states X, but X does not happen in the game world, then to me, X is not a rule.

Which is why we have Rule 0. This is not a computer game. The RAW cannot possibly cover every circumstance, and even when they do cover a circumstance they cannot possibly be a perfect model of the gameworld that the players and DM are trying to represent. The purpose of the DM is not merely to execute the rules like a computer, it is to use judgment in interpreting and applying the rules. The DM is not an umpire calling balls and strikes. Judicial activism on the DM's part is not only permitted, it is encouraged.

 

[Blackeagle]

Common sense in this case suggests that the characters are aware of their status as PCs in an RPG, and can be expected to think and act accordingly.

To me common sense suggests the opposite. Down the road of self-awareness lies madness, and The Order of the Stick (the stuff of great comedy, to be sure, but a lousy roleplaying experience).

The bag of rats scenario exists because there is a perverse incentive to engage in many weak encounters over level-appropriate ones, and similar perverse incentives to fight monsters just powerful enough to count as credible threats. The problem isn't the rats; its that rules exist making it beneficial to fight the rats.

The problem exists because some DMs are unwilling to rule out such a ludicrous tactic. The rules have little to do with it.

Remove the benefits from killing rats, get an absolute definition for credible threat (to avoid "You can't attack him; there's only a .05 chance he'll damage you. He rolls...a 20. And he had a vicious weapon. Well, you can get back three of those hit points when you kill him next round."), and you remove the problem.

Why do we need an absolute definition of "credible threat" when we have a DM sitting right there at the table to make the judgement call?

In 3.X, the problem with the rats wasn't the rats; it was with cleave. Remove cleave, and you remove the problem. But if there is a tactical benefit to killing individual weak monsters, then you should expect players to try to fight individual weak monsters.

The problem is not with cleave, the problem is with players trying to use cleave in a manner in which it was not intended. This is one of those circumstances when the rules do not match up with the gameworld. It's the DM's job to deal with these situations.