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

[aboyd]

If I go to the Humane Society today, right now, and want to adopt a dog, they've got 'em. Lots of 'em. But if I start running an illegal dog-fighting business in my basement, and I have to go back to the Humane Society to "adopt" another hundred dogs to replace all the dead dogs in my basement, well, I've ruined the economic model. People will ask questions, dogs will be "rationed" until they determine that I am a villain who is killing dogs for profit, etc.

In what ways does this fit the situation we're talking about?

In the way that I was trying to drive toward -- economic models have expected uses and if you go outside the expected use, the model cannot sustain itself.

In our modern-day USA, dogs are typically bred & sold on a non-bulk basis. You buy one, as a pet or hunting dog. Maybe you buy 2 or 3 or 4 if you're breeding them or if you need them for some other reason. And there are edge cases where someone will need 250, and that's fine. The edge cases don't diminish the typical expected use which is someone buys a couple and then they're done for a while. For a long while.

If you usurp that expected use by dropping in for 100 dogs in January and another 100 in February, the systems in place which are perfectly capable of meeting normal expected demand begin to buckle.

I use that example, because I am trying to suggest that if a DM used that same logic to decide that there was a dog shortage after I ran through 20 of them, I would be OK with that. So let's say he said to me, "You're buying up specially trained war dogs that don't bark, wear barding, and take combat directives... and they are not used to these animals being bought in such volume. They expect a person to buy 1 and treat it like a druid's bear companion, not send it forward to die on every tripwire." Well, then OK. Their economic model would then be to sell 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 to someone over the course of their adventuring career, and they'd have capacity for that. If I came along and used that same supplier to run through those dogs much more quickly than others do (because I am exposing the dogs to do far more than most -- using the dogs to trigger traps, using the dogs as a meat shield rather than a flanking bonus, and so on) then I'm just saying that I'm not going to object (much) when the DM says that I've got more demand than they have supply.

 

[LostSoul]

Now, the only reason this is coming up is because the DM wants to stop a tactic that is cheesy.

To me, trying to solve the issue in game by either engaging in one upmanship tactics with the players, or screwing over the players by introducing elements that aren't there to begin with is a very bad DMing tactic. I'd much, much rather simply be up front with the players and try to come to some sort of consensus about what is acceptable at the table.

Yep, that is lame. The DM's job is not to stop a tactic that is cheesy. The DM's job is to react to what the PCs do and deal with it.

He might want to create a house rule that stops this; so may any other player in the group. That is traditionally the DM's job but it doesn't need to be. The important point is that it's discussed among the group.

 

[Ariosto]

The 1E PHB in fact does not list a price for war dogs. It lists prices for guard and hunting dogs, which have no entries in the MM. It is in any case up to the DM to establish the nature of things in the campaign world, and up to the player to learn via role-playing whatever is not assumed character-knowledge. "Establishing the Character" (PHB p. 34) clearly assumes that the freshly minted adventurer is a newcomer to the locale. That may not always be the case, of course, but it handily coincides with a new player's lack of prior knowledge.

It may sometimes be necessary to introduce a "cosmic flux" change in assumptions. Whether a player or the DM first recognizes a problem, it's best discussed collectively. "It seemed a good idea at the time, but ..." is likely to come up more than once!

Simply repeating a reliable tactic, even if it seems to point up a somehow "broken" rule, might not be something the players find dull. Talking about it, and mentioning the potential for reducing long-term interest, is probably a good idea as soon as the potential is recognized. If the players want to stay the course anyway, then it may behoove the DM to go along. The players can choose their own actions on the basis of whatever they find fun. A radical new adjustment to established rules is best undertaken with a consensus of participants.

That's a different matter from the world responding in sensible ways to the players' actions, though. Such responses might well make some tactics less desirable.

 

[Hussar]

The 1E PHB in fact does not list a price for war dogs. It lists prices for guard and hunting dogs, which have no entries in the MM. /snip

I always loved the comprehensive nature of 1e rules. Oh the arguments, oh the arguments.

 

[Ariosto]

Hey, 4E solved at least one "exploit" problem; you can buy a lantern ... but no oil! (unless you get the errata)

RuneQuest went through three editions (and Stormbringer four) without pricing arrows.

The 3.5 PHB lists guard dogs, but has no entry for them; is there one in the 3.5 MM? (The 3.0 MM has only small and riding dogs.)

 

[Hussar]

Hey, 4E solved at least one "exploit" problem; you can buy a lantern ... but no oil! (unless you get the errata)

RuneQuest went through three editions (and Stormbringer four) without pricing arrows.

The 3.5 PHB lists guard dogs, but has no entry for them; is there one in the 3.5 MM? (The 3.0 MM has only small and riding dogs.)

Heh, never noticed that one though. Funny enough, Guard dogs are not in the SRD. Wonder if that got errata'd. And, yeah, the 3.0 doesn't list guard dogs at all.

Man, that's just sad. Someone needs their butt kicked for that kind of oversight. Piss poor design all the way around.