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

[Exquisite Dead Guy]

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

I'm dying to use this as my new .sig! Do you think that's a valid example of "fair use"?

 

[Lurker37]

"Legitimate targets" (and similar advice) is basically a handwave to help empower novice DMs to deal with such things.

And with 4E WoTC are hoping to attract a large number of new players, and thus a lot of novice DMs.

So it seems to me that advice aimed at novices - especially advice that points out what happens when the rules are open to interpretation - are a vital part of the 4E books. Experienced players can skip this stuff, but for a novice group this advice could possibly make the difference between a good game and a bad game.

 

[robertliguori]

Robertligouri, the rules of the game are not the physics of the game world.

I stopped caring about RAW quite some time ago. Now I'm more concerned with finding players who would rather play a game of heroic fantasy action than the game called "find the hyperliteralist, contorted, exaggerated loopholes and try to bully the DM into letting me break his game".

OK, let's define terms. "Rules of the game" can be used to mean either RAW, or the shared set of assumptions among the players about how the game works. Monopoly free parking money is an example of what can be a rule of the game, but isn't RAW; quiet ignoring of rules judged to be unnecessary and disruptive (XP multiclassing penalties, for example) can be another.

"Physics of the game world" is a less ambiguous term; it refers to how events unfold in the game. It is usually dependent on the adjudication of the GM. If it is in violation of RAW in certain places, this is generally a good thing. If it is in violation of player expectations, then while the rules of the game aren't serving as the physics of the world, that lack is indicative of a problem. Really, the root cause of the problem is a lack of shared assumptions; if one set of players is thinking "We can trivially defeat this encounter in a nonheroic manner, but aren't going to because that isn't fun." and another set of players is thinking "We're going to find interesting and thematic ways for the rules to intersect and see what happens when they do, because playing every encounter out according to exactly what the GM planned isn't fun.", you will have a violation of player expectations.

To me, a game that requires my character to not notice and pursue obvious beneficial tactics is a broken game. If the rules are such that boring or annoying tactics are optimal (or if not optimal, at least perversely incentivized), then it is the rules that are broken, not the game.

 

[Jon Wake]

"Physics of the game world" is a less ambiguous term; it refers to how events unfold in the game. It is usually dependent on the adjudication of the GM. If it is in violation of RAW in certain places, this is generally a good thing. If it is in violation of player expectations, then while the rules of the game aren't serving as the physics of the world, that lack is indicative of a problem. Really, the root cause of the problem is a lack of shared assumptions; if one set of players is thinking "We can trivially defeat this encounter in a nonheroic manner, but aren't going to because that isn't fun." and another set of players is thinking "We're going to find interesting and thematic ways for the rules to intersect and see what happens when they do, because playing every encounter out according to exactly what the GM planned isn't fun.", you will have a violation of player expectations.

OH GOD MY BRAIN STOP PLEASE NOW

 

[Mort_Q]

Is the idea of a Warlock carrying around a (largish) rat in a cage to sacrifice for his pact really that odd? Some temp. hp. just before combat or a short range teleport are both nice.

A Warlock sacrificing rats as part of a ritual is not odd.

A Warlock carrying around living sacrificial animals on an adventure is not only odd, it's also impractical.

Opinions are like that I guess.

 

[robertliguori]

"Physics of the game world" is a less ambiguous term; it refers to how events unfold in the game. It is usually dependent on the adjudication of the GM. If it is in violation of RAW in certain places, this is generally a good thing. If it is in violation of player expectations, then while the rules of the game aren't serving as the physics of the world, that lack is indicative of a problem. Really, the root cause of the problem is a lack of shared assumptions; if one set of players is thinking "We can trivially defeat this encounter in a nonheroic manner, but aren't going to because that isn't fun." and another set of players is thinking "We're going to find interesting and thematic ways for the rules to intersect and see what happens when they do, because playing every encounter out according to exactly what the GM planned isn't fun.", you will have a violation of player expectations.

OH GOD MY BRAIN STOP PLEASE NOW

I could try again using Forge jargon, if you like.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

That's silly. The bag-o-rat is fixed by 4e. And I don't even mean that 'legitimate threat' mention.

---

The main problem of a guy bringing additional weak minions to the fight is that the idea is ridiculous and hurts the story.

But just for fun, let the guy do it. Let him bring additional target on the battlefield and see what happens.

He now needs to kill these additional target, for crying out loud. These are standard actions wasted on targets that shouldn't even be here. Economy of action anyone?

A warlock kill one of these easy to hit 'rat'. He can teleport. So what? that imbecile has spent his precious action killing a target that shouldn't even be here instead of attacking a target that matters!

A cleric hits a 'rat' and gives a +2 to hit to his friend. Great. The ONLY situation where this is a worthy tactic is if you needed a 20 to hit. If you needed a 20 to hit you can either go through a whole bag of rat and still get killed or you can start running right now.

Other wise : i.e. Target AC 18, reflex 14. +4 to hit for cleric with lance of faith, (1D8+4), +8 your buddy attacking AC (1D8+5).

By my estimation : Doing bag or rat gives an average of 5,53 hp/round assuming auto-hit on lance of faith while if both attack it yields 9,69.

So go ahead. Hit the rats.

A fighter attack a 'rat' to cleave. Kills a target that doesn't need to be here and then does STR damage on a tough opponent. Are you kidding me? Hit the tough opponent!

Best case scenario, you use it to autokill another minion. That's the closest thing to a win for the bag of rat tactic. But you could have tried to cleave two minions without conceding attack advantage by brining in a free flanking opportunity. My 1st level fighter has +8 to hit. Level 1 minions tend to have less than 19 of AC. On average I kill more minions per round by attacking the minions than by attacking a surething and getting only one kill, even if it was a valid tactic.

Meanwhile, those extra target give free combat advantage to the enemy. IF THEY STAY.

More likely they scatter if they are so weal and you have wasted an action releasing them.

It's such an abominably stupid tactic that I'd let the players do it just so they could see it once and for all.

Actions are precious. Don't waste them on targets that shouldn't even be here in the first place!

 

[The Little Raven]

<blah blah blah>

Rules are not the physics of the game world.

Rules are the rules of the game.

 

[SSquirrel]

Why? A warlock carrying an animal as blood sacrifice to his pact master sound much less ridiculous than a fighter carrying a rat to hit the rat for a free hit on the dragon.

I actually think sacrificing an animal prior to every battle has a lot of flair for a warlock

Cool, go ahead and include it as fluff for your character. However, the act of killing the rat is not what powered your ability to teleport. That only happened when you killed the enemy you did not bring in a bag/cage over your shoulder

This all makes me think it would be funny to have a magic item called Bag of Rats. Could be a cursed item and anytime you used an Encounter power a rat would drop from the bag and attack your ankles.

 

[robertliguori]

Rules are not the physics of the game world.

Rules are the rules of the game.

I'm sorry, you appear to be using definitions of the words 'rules', 'game world', and 'physics (of the game world)' of which I am unfamiliar. Moreover, as the statements '(This set of) rules are the physics of the game world' and '(This set of) rules are the rules of the game' are logically equivalent under the terms I have proposed, I am curious what you could be trying to say with the above statement.

I am also curious why, if you have definitions of the above words that are different than the ones I posted, you do not feel the need to clarify how you happen to be using those words. Not doing so is rather dishonest; I could choose to interpret your post to mean "I am swayed by your careful delineation of terms and cogent analysis, but alas, I chose to make use of the Hand of Hong artifact and need to keep my concordance up.", but that would not be an honest interpretation of what you chose to post.

Or, to rephrase, I'm calling you on your Humpty-Dumpty routine. Try rephrasing your statements, cleaning up your syntax and avoiding ambiguity, and see if you still get pithiness.