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

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I cannot agree with it. It would be true if the rules of the game were designed to reflect how the real world works. They are not approximation of the real world - in many aspects they are completely unrealistic. And I do not mean that they are an abstraction.They just describe world much different than our and characters much different than real people. Most tactics that would be effective in real world either depend on GM fiat or just plainly don't work. You need to either have your GM ignore a major part of rulebooks or think of tactics that would work in the game world as opposed to our world. And the rules of the game are the only information we may base these tactics on.

That is why the rules should be simple and clearly state what they describe and what they don't. If one may destroy the game just by using the rules, it just means that these rules are bad. What most exploits are based on is extrapolating the rules outside of their designed range, like in the "barrel of alchemist fire" example.

Some things described in this thread definitely aren't rule exploits from my PoV. There is nothing wrong with using dogs if one is able to buy appropriately trained dogs and is able to command them during a fight. It definitely won't work as a tactic used in every dungeon, just because the dogs will get killed and there is not many appropriately trained ones (silent, not running from monsters, accepting commands from a character who didn't train them) to buy. On the other hand, it will be very good to use from time to time, during missions the party perceives as especially hard.

The difference between an "exploit" and a "tactic" can be difficult to make out. Two guidelines might apply:
1) It doesn't make "sense" that the tactic works. If you had a similar situation in the real world, it couldn't be that effective. That is often problematic once we add magic, of course.
2) It is considerably more powerful than other options, and it becomes in a default solution for many situations. The problem might be there are also "default tactics" that you will use as default. But then, these tactics don't guarantee a success. The exploit basically does. A 50d6 alchemist fire attack sounds like a guaranteed success in most cases. Bullrushing an enemy off a cliff can only be done if there is a cliff. Bullrushing him into a Wall of Fire just deals some more damage, it's no automatic guarantee you win.
Basically, a tactic that is too good compared to no tactics or a different (non-stupid) tactic might be an exploit. If you can use this tactic easily and often, it's even more likely to be an exploit and not merely a tactic. If the 50d6 alchemist fire attack requires immense resources the players might never have again, or if you can't easily reacquire a pack of hunting docks after losing them in the Giant fortress, it might still consider an acceptable tactic.
Scry-Buff-Teleport done once would be a viable tactic. You use it on every BBEG or larger monster? It's an exploit.

 

[TheNovaLord]

also an issue of how xp works in D&D

if i can kill 10 lots of orc guard dead easy with the floaty barrel of invisble alchemy...then i will and earn 200xp a time

in other games, rolemaster for example, there is a law of diminshing returns xp wise. If u do the same thing over and over you arent 'learning' so will get less and less xp. You will accomplish the task, kill 10 lots of orc guards, but by the 6 or 7th will likely be earning no xp for it.

i wonder if a D&D GM could do this?

 

[Ariosto]

So, Ariosto, how would you resolve our canine issue?

By learning from experiences in the real world with guard and attack dogs in, e.g., the U.S. Marine Corps.

 

[FireLance]

I cannot agree with it. It would be true if the rules of the game were designed to reflect how the real world works. They are not approximation of the real world - in many aspects they are completely unrealistic. And I do not mean that they are an abstraction.They just describe world much different than our and characters much different than real people. Most tactics that would be effective in real world either depend on GM fiat or just plainly don't work. You need to either have your GM ignore a major part of rulebooks or think of tactics that would work in the game world as opposed to our world. And the rules of the game are the only information we may base these tactics on.

At some level, the rules would have to approximate or emulate reality, or many players will not be able to get into the game. For some DMs, "what happens in the real world" also has a significant bearing on what they would deem effective (or not) in their games; see the post above by Ariosto. And as I mentioned, this applies more to mundane effects, but even mundane effects can be perceived very differently by different people.

 

[Hereticus]

See, while I know this is a perfectly legitimate style of gaming, it's just not one I have any interest in anymore. It turns into a ridiculous arms race and the players ALWAYS lose. I'm the DM, I can't lose any pissing contest with the players. I have unlimited resources and the players only have their characters. I win.

Gee that was fun. Can we go back to killing orcs now?

It's not about you as the DM winning (I hope you don't see it that way), it's realizing that you as the DM should be capable of challenging your players regardless how powerful they get, or what tactics they use.

 

[Zustiur]

Some things described in this thread definitely aren't rule exploits from my PoV. There is nothing wrong with using dogs if one is able to buy appropriately trained dogs and is able to command them during a fight. It definitely won't work as a tactic used in every dungeon, just because the dogs will get killed and there is not many appropriately trained ones (silent, not running from monsters, accepting commands from a character who didn't train them) to buy. On the other hand, it will be very good to use from time to time, during missions the party perceives as especially hard.

Exactly. Using attack dogs is not a rules exploit. Using attack dogs over and over (replacing the dead ones) is a stupid-DM exploit.


I see it like this. Who sells dogs trained that well? Not many people. Okay, so you managed to get a few attack dogs... then you found the jackpot, a guy willing to sell you 50 of these attack dogs.
Awesome, 50 well trained attack dogs... which incidentally belong to the king's army, and he'd like them back thank you very much.

There are a lot more stupid-DM exploits than rules-exploits. I should know, I've suffered enough of them (being a fairly stupid-DM). The classic being attack chickens. Yes, chickens. Yes I was about 12 at the time.

 

[aboyd]

The difference between an "exploit" and a "tactic" can be difficult to make out.

I was quite happy with the definition on page one:

If you're beating the game and not the monster, its probably an exploit.

 

[Primal]

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?

The problem with this is that these "tricks" with oil/holy water cost quite a lot... hundreds of GPs per "dose". How many times can they afford to do it per session? And, if the players persist using it, I want to know who is carrying all those 50 gallon barrels and how. I would also rule that the splash radius is way bigger.

 

[Dausuul]

also an issue of how xp works in D&D

if i can kill 10 lots of orc guard dead easy with the floaty barrel of invisble alchemy...then i will and earn 200xp a time

in other games, rolemaster for example, there is a law of diminshing returns xp wise. If u do the same thing over and over you arent 'learning' so will get less and less xp. You will accomplish the task, kill 10 lots of orc guards, but by the 6 or 7th will likely be earning no xp for it.

i wonder if a D&D GM could do this?

In 3E, the XP rules explicitly work this way. In 4E, they got rid of that and rely on DM common sense.

Also, where are you finding all these orc guards so conveniently clumped together in groups of 10? 4E haters to the contrary, this isn't World of Warcraft. They don't respawn.

 

[Krensky]

also an issue of how xp works in D&D

if i can kill 10 lots of orc guard dead easy with the floaty barrel of invisble alchemy...then i will and earn 200xp a time

in other games, rolemaster for example, there is a law of diminshing returns xp wise. If u do the same thing over and over you arent 'learning' so will get less and less xp. You will accomplish the task, kill 10 lots of orc guards, but by the 6 or 7th will likely be earning no xp for it.

i wonder if a D&D GM could do this?

Yes. You can lift the XP reward philosophy from Spycraft 2.0, for instance. The players get XP for the first (or first group) of an antagonist NPC the players interact with and overcome (kill, knock out, bypass, whatever) per 'mission' (DM adjudication required). The lion's share of XP however, comes from overcoming challenges and meeting goals. It is OK to double dip here when putting an adventure together (ie Give them the Orc Gurad squad XP and the XP for getting past the guards).

A lot of adjudication may be required, this is more proof of concept then system.