What's tactics got to do, got to do with it.

[ExploderWizard]

Forked from: Is there a Relationship between Game Lethality and Role Play?

I don't regard use of flaming oil as good tactics. It's a rules exploit. The Pun-Pun of its day, though not as extreme.

There's no serious comparison between flaming oil and Pun-Pun. That's ludicrous.

I mean, you're really comparing a 1st level Kobold that can transform himself into a god with an alchemical weapon that does 1d6 damage?

I forked this discussion into it's own thread so the original thread could stay on topic, I hope no one minds.

The topic of tactics vs rules exploits is subject worty of discussion on it's own. So what are the major differences and how do we tell them apart?
Lets discuss.

 

[amysrevenge]

The topic of tactics vs rules exploits is subject worty of discussion on it's own. So what are the major differences and how do we tell them apart?
Lets discuss.

Well, let's see. It's a fine thing, and very subjective.

I'd have to say that if one trick (let's go with flaming oil) is your first answer to the question "What do we do about this situation" most of the time (defining "most" is where the subjectivity comes in) then it is probably an exploit rather than a clever tactic.

I know that I DMed for a group in 3E who was all about the following trick: 1) Fill a barrel with 50 flasks worth of Alchemist's Fire 2) Spider Climb at low level, Fly at higher level 3) Drop on your foes from beyond reach. Clever as heck the first time. An exploit by the nth time (where n is defined by the observer - for me it was 2).

 

[Doug McCrae]

One man's good tactics are another man's exploit. The reason I call it the latter is that it relies upon knowledge of the DMG. A reasonable person wouldn't expect medieval lantern oil to be as effective as it is in D&D. I think Gary intended it as normal lantern oil, not alchemical, but made it far better than it should be, like a molotov cocktail. That's why they make the distinction in 3e between alchemist's fire and normal oil.

The same goes for siccing dogs on your foes in old school D&D, which relies on knowledge of the MM.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Well, let's see. It's a fine thing, and very subjective.

I'd have to say that if one trick (let's go with flaming oil) is your first answer to the question "What do we do about this situation" most of the time (defining "most" is where the subjectivity comes in) then it is probably an exploit rather than a clever tactic.

I know that I DMed for a group in 3E who was all about the following trick: 1) Fill a barrel with 50 flasks worth of Alchemist's Fire 2) Spider Climb at low level, Fly at higher level 3) Drop on your foes from beyond reach. Clever as heck the first time. An exploit by the nth time (where n is defined by the observer - for me it was 2).

That's a funny trick. I guess it depends on how the effect was ruled. I suppose it could be decided that initial damage is only increased by a bit, but that ongoing damage would last longer and be spread over a greater area. If the damage from every flask was added together then it has become an improved fireball and is overpowered. It would be like letting a really strong character sovereign glue 3 axes together to get triple damage on every swing.

 

[gizmo33]

A rules exploit (I see this frequently called "abuse") is a player using rules in a way the DM doesn't like and didn't anticipate. It's a judgement call on the part of the DM and IME can be solved by a house rule/clarification.

 

[ExploderWizard]

One man's good tactics are another man's exploit. The reason I call it the latter is that it relies upon knowledge of the DMG. A reasonable person wouldn't expect medieval lantern oil to be as effective as it is in D&D. I think Gary intended it as normal lantern oil, not alchemical, but made it far better than it should be, like a molotov cocktail. That's why they make the distinction in 3e between alchemist's fire and normal oil.

The same goes for siccing dogs on your foes in old school D&D, which relies on knowledge of the MM.

For me, the major difference is determine by the perspective of the character. If the tactic is something that provides a tangible benefit as seen by the character then it's a tactic.

To explain further, lets use the examples you gave:

1) Flaming oil. This can be both a tactic and an exploit. If the oil caused the same 1d6 damage as any other weapon, would the player still want to make use of it? If the answer is yes then it's a tactic and one that makes good common sense to the character. He can attack an enemy at range, set him on fire, light up a dark area, or prepare a battleground to trap foes. If the answer is no, then it's an exploit only being used for the huge game mechanic advantage it provides.

2) Using Animals. Having something, anything to take damage for you if you can arrange it is smart tactics whether it be a dog, or a dimwitted man-at -arms. Using dogs exclusively because they are cheap, and expendable is a rules exploit that a good DM wouldn't let get out of hand.

 

[Leatherhead]

A rules exploit (I see this frequently called "abuse") is a player using rules in a way the DM doesn't like and didn't anticipate. It's a judgement call on the part of the DM and IME can be solved by a house rule/clarification.

You're not going to get a better answer than this.

 

[Dausuul]

I know that I DMed for a group in 3E who was all about the following trick: 1) Fill a barrel with 50 flasks worth of Alchemist's Fire 2) Spider Climb at low level, Fly at higher level 3) Drop on your foes from beyond reach. Clever as heck the first time. An exploit by the nth time (where n is defined by the observer - for me it was 2).

The problem here isn't alchemist's fire. The alchemist's fire is incidental. The problem is fly and spider climb. Unless you're allowing the fire damage from each flask to stack.

In general, I think an exploit is a tactic whose effectiveness is a result of a flaw or limitation in the rules and does not make sense within the context of the game world. For instance, in 4E, it is advantageous to wait to use healing magic or inspirations until a comrade is actually on the ground and unconscious, because of the "count up from zero" rule; you negate more of the enemy's damage. I consider this an exploit, albeit a minor one.

 

[Cadfan]

The problem here isn't alchemist's fire. The alchemist's fire is incidental. The problem is fly and spider climb.

No, its the alchemist's fire too. When you've got a player who "reasons" that normal alchemist's fire does 1d8 damage (or whatever it does, I forget now), and that therefore 50 vials of alchemist's fire stuffed into a small barrel does 50d8 damage, the problem is the alchemist's fire.

That sort of stuff is great fun the first time it happens. Then it follows a sharp curve down to lame.

I don't have a great definition of exploit versus tactics, but I do feel that I know it when I see it. If you're beating the game and not the monster, its probably an exploit.

 

[ExploderWizard]

No, its the alchemist's fire too. When you've got a player who "reasons" that normal alchemist's fire does 1d8 damage (or whatever it does, I forget now), and that therefore 50 vials of alchemist's fire stuffed into a small barrel does 50d8 damage, the problem is the alchemist's fire.

That problem isn't alchemist's fire. That is the DM on his knees pleading for rules abuse.

I don't have a great definition of exploit versus tactics, but I do feel that I know it when I see it. If you're beating the game and not the monster, its probably an exploit.

This is pure win! XP for you sir.


edit; someone cover me............denied........no Stairway :-(