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

[kevtar]

It's funny because I just approached the players in my group (4e) and mentioned that they should consider using some type of tactics in their encounters. Most of the players want to use tactics, but we have a "loose-cannon" striker who just can't work as a team (the player not the PC).

The three players who took up the challenge to create tactics for certain situations came up with some clever ideas. I hoped that a series of tactics that they could employ on a regular basis would help with the amount of time the combats are taking. It's just taking too long for players to decide what to do. One of the options they have come up with goes like this:

1) A rogue sneaks to the door at the end of the hall and does the rogue thing (traps, locked, etc all while in stealth).

2) The rogue tries to silently and inconspicuously open the door to get a peek inside.

3) If the monsters are within the area of the Wizard's enlarged fireball, the PCs attempt "the Big One."

4) The players position their PCs adjacent to the Wizard and aid his attack roll. He then makes his attack with an additional +whatever.

Of course, this is all subject to a lot of different variables, but there's the idea. They have a handful of "formations" that they will use depending on the situation. If they're surprised, they'll go into the "duck n cover" formation. If they are facing a solo creature, they'll try the "mano y mano" formation. I don't think the "big one" (with the party aiding the attack of an enlarged fireball from a bloodmage) is an exploitation of the rules. However, if they start ganking all of the encounters from here on out, then maybe I'll change my position on the matter.

 

[Mallus]

Exploits are a subset of tactics that only work under a particular set of rules.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Exploits are a subset of tactics that only work under a particular set of rules.

Or that target a specific weakness.

....The target area is only two meters wide. It's a small thermal exhaust port right below the main port.....

 

[Leatherhead]

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

Breaking the rules isn't rules abuse. You should be going off the rules on heat dangers for this: 1d6 damage unless totally immersed, then it is 10d6 damage per round. Maybe even a chance to catch on fire.

 

[Herschel]

Tactics are something that works against the bad guys within the rules.

Exploits work against the game and bend the rules.

 

[Doug McCrae]

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.

Not necessarily. What if all those dogs and spear-carrying rabble make noise and alert Nosnra the hill giant chief? What if their morale breaks? What if the dogs won't go near monsters because the scent freaks them out? It's good tactics only because the rules, or the GM, make it so.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Not necessarily. What if all those dogs and spear-carrying rabble make noise and alert Nosnra the hill giant chief? What if their morale breaks? What if the dogs won't go near monsters because the scent freaks them out? It's good tactics only because the rules, or the GM, make it so.

Exactly so. It's the situation that determines if the use of fodder is good tactics. If the situation turns your assets into liabilities then trying to use them would no longer be considered good tactics.

 

[Dausuul]

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.

No, that's a problem with the DM's on-the-fly ruling. I don't have my 2E books in front of me, but I'm virtually certain they do not say you can put 50 vials of alchemist's fire in a barrel and blow it up for 50d8 damage. If something like this happens, the DM has to rule that it works that way, even if only by acquiescing to the player's spurious claim.

Obviously, this sort of thing happens at the gaming table. But it's compounding the problem to allow the player to use the trick again. It should be understood that any "stunt mechanic" is a non-precedent-setting house rule. If the players want to repeatedly use the same stunt, the DM can and will sit down and work out balanced rules for it, without regard for how it worked in the past.

If there were rules in 2E (which I don't think there are) for stacking alchemist's fire damage, and the rules allowed you to build to 50d8, that would be a rules exploit. I suppose it's an exploit to treat a DM's hasty on-the-fly ruling as a Law of the Game written in stone, but it's a rather different kind.

 

[Doug McCrae]

It's the situation

It's not just the situation. The rules and DM decision making play a huge part in determining whether something is good tactics. For example, what if houserules are being used that make wandering monster checks much more frequent for the typical 'small army' party of old school play? Equally the DM may just decide to make a lot more checks for such a party. These rules or rulings make small parties far more successful in all dungeon expeditions where there are wandering monsters ie the vast majority. That's not the situation that's making small parties a good tactic, it's the houserule.

 

[AllisterH]

Heh...

IIRC, there is actually a similar exploit in using holy water/flaming oil and combining it with the rogue so that a rogue actually puts out more damage easily than a high level fighter via sneak attack?