Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Nagarhi 04-29-04, 02:10 AM	I had a recent experience with a PC who had the "Elusive Target" feat from the "Complete Warrior" book. The battle had raged for 3 rounds, during the first the PC was flanked and an enemy 'missed' him and struck an ally. The same occurred during the 2nd round of combat. In the third round, he was flanked again, and again the bad guy 'missed' and struck an ally, this time killing the ally. It was now that as DM, I decided that the bad guys, all of average intelligence (INT 10) would stop flanking his PC as it was too dangerous. My prblem is, the Player of the PC has taken issue with my decision, saying that they reacted to quickly. Opinions? Was I too harsh ? Should I have dithered about more. Personally, I thought that after 3 rounds of such constant 'errors', including killing one of their own, that it was time for a change in tactics...But...well...what does everyone else think ?
VaMinion 04-29-04, 02:27 AM	A saying comes to mind: First time is chance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is a conspiracy. If you had avoided flanking entirely, it'd be metagaming. Not flanking after the first mis-stab, I would say was a little iffy as well...but once you've tried it three times and stabbed a friend instead, I think even a stupid NPC would realize flanking is a bad idea and try something else.
Lord Crimson 04-29-04, 02:29 AM	I think that your ruling was perfectly reasonable. You didn't nerf the feat. In fact, you actually let one of the BEGs kill one of his own allies and, it sounds like, weaken another. Your player needs to accept the fact that most villains are not entirely stupid. Ogres? Maybe. Humans? Not as much. I mean, you could have just had them not flank him at all. For all he knows, it's important to the story that these guys are smarter than the average dummy.
Nyvinyd 04-29-04, 02:40 AM	3 rounds is a full 18 seconds. Bring out a stopwatch and have him actually realize how long 18 seconds of hard battle is. 18 seconds into a fight, you realize how dodgy this guy is, after you kill your friend. 18 seconds is a long time to be fighting. Now, had you positioned your guys just to the side of the square so that would have you still been taking him on with multiple guys, but not flanking, then you'd have a problem.
Maladaar 04-29-04, 02:49 AM	Elusive Target? **scratches head** I may just have to look this up and give it to a BBEG. I will let you know how long it takes my PCs to realize that flanking is not the best thing to do.
Generic Fighter 04-29-04, 02:59 AM	I think some examples of tactical changes might explain this much better than any way else so here goes: Wolves [INT2] know that losing members of their pack on a hunt is bad and if outclassed will simply retreat. A fire elemental [INT4-8] knows that if its flames do not affect an opponant it is at a disadvantage and will useualy strike at a differant opponant. If all of its opponants appear immune to its flames it will most likely retreat if possible. An Orc [INT8] knows that he is not suposed to hit cousin Turg when he's aiming for the "stupid human" in between them. Anyways I think you did fine for the most part but one of the enemies probaly should have called out instructions to the others about the change in tactics. Generic Fighter:fight!:
Nagarhi 04-29-04, 04:22 AM	The first melee actually consisted of a Ftr6/Clr4, Clr10 and a Wiz 8 against a group of 4 mountain trolls (INT 10). They were reinforced they following round by 2 more trolls led by a troll champion (INT 13). The next round a troll shaman (INT 14) and 1 troll bodyguard arrived as well..:) It was during this melee that they maganged to kill 3 trolls and seriously wound three others, with the wizard killing the troll champion with a phantasmal killer spell. The group then withdraw to return 2 days later. During this melee, in the heart of the troll lair, there were 5 mountain trolls, 3 adolescents, and the troll shaman. In this melee, I decided that the trolls had been advised about the party, and that they refused to engage him in flanking maneovers ! The PC in question (Ftr6/Clr4) was not to happy with me ..:( Needless to say, it was a battle royal, but the party was victorious!...:)
Maladaar 04-29-04, 04:44 AM	This makes even more sense. If the PCs strike the enemy using "unusual" tactics or feats and leave survivors, you can bet the enemy will discuss this and try to come up with possible ways to nullify the PC's advantage in combat.
Will Brandiman 04-29-04, 04:45 AM	I always try to ensure that my monsters behave in combat in a manner appropriate to their INT. Low INT creatures will probably just attack the nearest enemy and will only run away if it is obvious that they cannot win. High INT creatures will target specific enemies, either to take out the weakest opponents quickly or neutralise the ones that offer the greatest threat to them. They will change tactics if it is clear that their attacks are not working. They will target weaknesses of the enemy (using fire on cold creatures etc). They will fight to their strengths. A high INT wizard knows that he will die if forced into melee and will go to great lengths to prevent this from happening. If they cannot win then they will often retreat although in some cases this is not appropriate and they will fight to the death. In some cases their occupation comes into it. For example, a human commoner probably has little or no experience of combat and, even though he has average INT, will not make decisions from a tactical point of view. An Orc soldier on the other hand is a warrior of a warrior race. Even though his INT is lower than the human commoner, he has combat experience and will use at least rudimentary tactics. If you use tactics against PC's that your monsters have no reason to know then you might be meta-gaming. For example, if your party always magically buffs themselves up before entering combat and you use a Dispel Magic on them in the opening round this might be considered meta-gaming unless there is a reason for the caster of the dispel to know or suspect that the enemy are heavily buffed. On the other hand, if the party always does this and your spellcaster has fought them before then he will have every reason to launch a dispel against them at the start of a battle.
Mojave Rattler 04-29-04, 10:00 AM	Its just a PC whining, they do it all the time to try to get ahead. They'll respect you and ultimately enjoy the game more if there's a bit of hardship. Just shrug...you control the mooks, they control their PCs.
Salla 04-29-04, 01:10 PM	Your NPCs realized that their present tactic wasn't working and changed it; perfectly fine. Your player is out of line.
astute1 04-29-04, 01:36 PM	I would say that after 2 or 3 rounds, the bad guy should be able to figure out what's going on and stop flanking. He even killed one of his allies! I think that's perfectly justified for an average intelligence enemy. You might create a game mechanic, for example, an intelligence check (DC10) each round to figure out what's going on, but I think that's needless bookeeping.
redraven 04-29-04, 01:42 PM	This situation is no different than a similar one I was DMing involving a monk with the Deflect Arrows feat. When the Captain of the archer squad shot his best aimed arrow (29 attack roll) at the "unarmored fool" only to have it harmlessly batted away, you can be sure that the surprised Captain will order the rest of his squad to attack someone else. I think every character should know how "good" their attacks are when they roll them. Thus, if some Orc rolls a good hit but suddenly finds himself hitting his buddy, I think it should be fairly obvious that this Orc will know something is going on - maybe he's not smart enough to know of the feat, but he's at least smart enough to know flanking isn't working. If anything, you were being quite generous in having the NPCs make three rounds worth of futile attacks. -Red Raven
Roland the Crownbreaker 04-29-04, 01:50 PM	3 rounds and then changing tactics is not DM Metagaming. Having a DM who loves to use grappling giants, and then never tries even a single grapple on the character who has chosen the Close Quarter Fighting feat, (before it is ever used) now that is unfair to the player.
Rian Lightblade 04-29-04, 02:32 PM	I going to agree with everyone else. Your ruling was very fair to both PC and NPC alike. 3 rounds is more then enough time for the BBEG to figure out what he's doing wrong and alter his tactics. PCs love to whine when things get tough but that's when they really enjoy the game.
sidekick 04-29-04, 06:51 PM	Int is not the only indicator for combat tactics. Racial Culture is also important. Orcs will charge in like crazy, probably raging;). Sure if after a few rounds they are killing thier own by accident they'll prob adjust thier tactics slightly (prob bullrush and grapple), that;s even if they try to flack, their barbs are probably too obsessed with downing thier opponents. Hobgoblins will use refined military tactics as a dominant feature. Goblins would prob just keep on flanking, its the only tactic that works for them. if it fails they'd just run away and ambush later. I think that any halfway intelligent foe that doesn't have a smach and bash, berkerker culture would figure it out. The bezerkers would to, they'd probably just think., must kill foe quicker and start powerattacking. That's my opinin anyway. oh,m and you did the right thing!! NPCs do discuss party weaknesses/tactics if they live.
Edymnion 04-30-04, 01:24 AM	Well, the obvious way to look at it is from the other side of the table. If it was the BBEG with this feat, and the player kept missing and killing other PCs, would it be metagaming for him to stop doing it? No, it would be called common sense. The old "Hey, every time I try to hit this guy, he dodges out of the way and I stab Bob in the neck! I better stop doing that!" You acted appropriately. Heck, if anything you were still playing him rather dumb. I would have had him stop after the second time myself. If your player keeps throwing a fit about it, just have him go up against a bad guy with the exact same feat, and see how he acts. If he stops before doing it at least 4 times, tell him he's metagaming and that he has to keep attacking the way he is. Turn about is fair play.
Maladaar 04-30-04, 03:22 AM	Like I said, during our next session I am going to throw a minion that has that feat against my PCs as a test. None of them have that book and therefore have no idea about that feat. I will post the results of this experiment to see how long it takes the PCs to figure it out. I will purposefully move the foe into combat that allows for easy flanking. I can't wait!!! :devil:
Dragonteuthis 04-30-04, 06:29 AM	Just to let you know, you actually gave the player more than he deserved...the baddie couldn't've killed his friend unless he was wielding a reach weapon. Most everyone forgets that requirement; otherwise the feat's ridiculously overpowered. It's most useful against giants and other natural reach creatures; even then it can be hard to use. But then, tactical feats usually are. In any case, you were not wrong at all. I suggest you show the player this thread. I'd also like to point out that any player who's read Complete Warrior would instantly recognize the feat and yell out to everyone to not flank, regardless of intelligence. It's just a sign of metagaming...I've had a player of an Int 6 yelling out complex strategies and devising theorems about magic...the XP penalties I levy never teach him a lesson. Soryy for the rant...got off-topic here.
Twisted Puppy 04-30-04, 10:17 AM	I say you made the right call by changing the monster's tactics. One thing a group of PCs has going for them is that, having worked together for a while, they know how each other is going to react in a given situation. At the same time, they tend to react to certain situations in ways that become standard to the party - and predictable. An intelligent or well trained (hobgoblin for example) opponent will present situations to the PCs and see how they react. If the PCs react to the same thing the same way every time, the bad guys will be sure to set a trap that will take advantage of that. In one game I ran, we had a barbarian who regularly charged archers and spellcasters - not a bad idea, really. He would sunder the bows of the archers and simply carve spellcasters into tiny bits. While going through rolling hills, three times the group was sniped at: twice by archers who fired 2 or 3 shots, then ran, and once by a sorceror, who tossed a fireball and a magic missile, cast invisibility on himself, then ran. In all three cases the barbarian had charged at them and actually got close enough to be a threat. What the party did not realize was that it was a single group of goblins and hobgoblins doing this. Further up the trail (I think the following day), the two archers again fired on the PCs. The barbarian spotted them, and charged. As he approached the archers, he raised his axe, bellowed with rage (which he declared as he began to charge) - and fell into a 30 foot deep pit with spikes at the bottom. He paid the price for being predictable.
Lady Mia 04-30-04, 10:27 AM	your too generous... after the first time it was used no one should flank the PC. Unless the monsters are exceptionally dumb they would adapt as quickly as any PC does. When PCs have something used on them they adapt very quickly, its fair to have monsters adapt just as fast. And of course its fair to have anyone who knows about the PC and his clever tactic never flank him either. For example: The PCs are in a bar bragging about the trick and how it hurt the trolls and some brigands overhear. Then its fair to have those brigands avoid flanking. Same with troll survivors warning the rest of the tribe.
Nagarhi 05-01-04, 04:18 AM	Well thats for all the replies. I don't feel so bad now :) One thing tho. I had assumed it was just part of the feat that the antagonist could reach past the PC to strike the opposing flanker, regarless if he wouldn't normally have the Reach to strike that far. Is that correct, or not ? It would certainly greatly limit the application of the feat if the flankers had to have Reach on the opposing flanker to successfully strike them....
Sarta 05-01-04, 06:17 AM	Originally posted by Nagarhi Well thats for all the replies. I don't feel so bad now :) One thing tho. I had assumed it was just part of the feat that the antagonist could reach past the PC to strike the opposing flanker, regarless if he wouldn't normally have the Reach to strike that far. Is that correct, or not ? It would certainly greatly limit the application of the feat if the flankers had to have Reach on the opposing flanker to successfully strike them.... I read it the same way since many weapons of reach do not work against an adjacent foe. To rule otherwise means that the feat is only usable against opponents using spiked chains and whips (the only two weapons I could think of off-hand that can be used both at reach and against adjacent opponents). Sarta p.s. I think your ruling was dead on. If the attackers had been animals or of animal intelligence I would have had concerns. However, they were of moderate intelligence and had it demonstrated repeatedly that that tactic failed. Personally, I'd have had the flankers change tactics to grapple the elusive target and proceed to throttle him. This will work since the elusive target feat can only affect one of them at a time.
OmiKapSi 05-01-04, 02:26 PM	Dragonteuthis (and others concerned about reach with ET reach): At no point in the entire feat description is reach or threatened squares mentioned. Now, I can see how it would make sense for the attacker to need to be able to threaten their ally on the far side of you, but the feat doesn't even mention any cover that you would provide. My thought is that the diverting defense aspect of the feat involves actually directing the attack to some extent, as they swing, you grab their elbow and pull them forward, or you grab their opponents limb and use it to block the blow. Now, I realise that this may seem like a lot, but it is a 3 feat string, and when one compares it with the potential of great cleave, it's pretty balanced. As for the original topic: I vote with the majority. :D
zodiki 05-01-04, 06:45 PM	What's interesting is that in core D&D, it's mechanically impossible to hit a friend with your attack (unless they are providing some sort of cover) so after the very first time the monster hit it's ally, he would have thought something was up. Even at Int 10 I would have given him a chance to figure it out after 1 miss-hit. After 2 miss-hits, he'd automatically figure it out. Your ruling was perfectly fine, if not actually erring on the side of the PCs. edit: didn't know you needed reach so it's use is limited for a BBEG.
Maladaar 05-03-04, 12:34 AM	There is an old adage, "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me." Anything that is halfway intelligent should suspect something is wrong the by second "accidental" attack on an ally.
Dragonteuthis 05-03-04, 08:39 AM	To those discussing the reach issue of this feat. Yes, reach is necessary to hit the ally, though foes without will still miss. You simply cannot make attacks on squares you don't threaten. Imagine this scenario, the feat ignoring reach, where A is an enemy, and B and C are allies. B has the Elusive target feat. XAX XBX XCX "C" is wielding a short sword, and announces that he attacks B. It misses, and he gets to attack A at his flat-footed AC. Good thing C's a rogue! A guaranteed sneak attack every round! You can see where this would cause problems if you let non-reach weapons do this. It's quite clearly against the rules. True, it would only work against wielders with spiked chains and creatures with reach, both of which aren't in abundance (but neither are they rare). However, that's how Tactical feats are supposed to work. That's why they have three limited uses instead of a single powerful one.
Wayne 05-03-04, 12:37 PM	Elusive Target makes no mention of the attacker needing to be wielding a reach weapon for its Diverting Defense to work. And no surprise-- it would only work against Large creatures (a normal-sized character with a reach weapon can't threaten someone adjacent to him anyway without a spiked chain, which means even with a reach weapon he won't be threatening an ally)! The reason why, I think, it allows that exception is because you don't automatically turn one flanker against another-- you have to pick one of the two with Dodge, and the other flanker can still hit you normally. (Since I houserule that Dodge grants a flat +1 Dodge bonus to AC Diverting Defense is a bit better, but it doesn't change that much-- you still just divert one attack per round.) The Dodge caveat makes it more logical, too-- an opponent attacks, you evade, you miss and hit someone else also trying to hit the same target. (The Feat presumably requires Mobility for this and the Cause Overreach function, which at the risk of sounding redundant also works against melee weapons, and not just reach ones. :] ) And although the original question has been long since answered, might as well toss in my opinion... only the most dim of opponents are going to keep attacking when they realize it's not working (enemy's AC or DR or whatnot is too good for them), or is in fact counterproductive (enemy with this feat, Karmic Strike, etc.). Nagarhi made the right decision; a few rounds is a long time in combat, and none of the attackers were stupid by any means (if a 6-Int Orc can figure this out, then a 10-Int anything else could, too :D).
Edymnion 05-03-04, 02:25 PM	Originally posted by zodiki What's interesting is that in core D&D, it's mechanically impossible to hit a friend with your attack (unless they are providing some sort of cover) Yes you can, actually. Thats what Precise Shot is for. If you're firing into melee, and miss because of the -4, you stand a chance of hitting your friend in melee with the target, regardless of whether or not said friend was in direct line of fire.
Luminosity 05-03-04, 03:18 PM	Yes you can, actually. Thats what Precise Shot is for. If you're firing into melee, and miss because of the -4, you stand a chance of hitting your friend in melee with the target, regardless of whether or not said friend was in direct line of fire. You're probably right, but where is the documentation?
Xavori 05-03-04, 03:38 PM	Originally posted by Twisted Puppy In one game I ran, we had a barbarian who regularly charged archers and spellcasters - not a bad idea, really. He would sunder the bows of the archers and simply carve spellcasters into tiny bits. While going through rolling hills, three times the group was sniped at: twice by archers who fired 2 or 3 shots, then ran, and once by a sorceror, who tossed a fireball and a magic missile, cast invisibility on himself, then ran. In all three cases the barbarian had charged at them and actually got close enough to be a threat. What the party did not realize was that it was a single group of goblins and hobgoblins doing this. Further up the trail (I think the following day), the two archers again fired on the PCs. The barbarian spotted them, and charged. As he approached the archers, he raised his axe, bellowed with rage (which he declared as he began to charge) - and fell into a 30 foot deep pit with spikes at the bottom. He paid the price for being predictable. Well, if the same thing would happen with the group actually realizing what was going on, and the barbarian still fell into the trap... then yeah, its a really good example then :) (Yours is fine, but you cant just tell what would happen if the party did know that they were the same hobgoblins)