D&D 5E Replacing Damage-On-A-Miss

[ExploderWizard]

Which basically reinforces my point that in a DnD game, odds are very rarely that bad. Which means that typically PC's will win the majority of encounters.

I would say that in an interesting D&D game, the winning of encounters isn't an automated process in either direction. Winning or losing will be determined by the decisions made during play which include when or IF 'an encounter' will be faced at all. Win and loss percentages by the numbers are of course more important when encounters are served conveyor-belt style and must be dealt with as they come. It is far simpler in that case to just load all the numbers into a simulator and see what happens.

 

[TwoSix]

I would say that in an interesting D&D game, the winning of encounters isn't an automated process in either direction. Winning or losing will be determined by the decisions made during play which include when or IF 'an encounter' will be faced at all. Win and loss percentages by the numbers are of course more important when encounters are served conveyor-belt style and must be dealt with as they come. It is far simpler in that case to just load all the numbers into a simulator and see what happens.

Unless, of course, the tactical decision making of the players makes a significant difference within the encounter itself. I've TPKed two different 4e groups on fairly baseline encounters due to poor tactical play on the players' part.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Unless, of course, the tactical decision making of the players makes a significant difference within the encounter itself. I've TPKed two different 4e groups on fairly baseline encounters due to poor tactical play on the players' part.

Oh it can certainly happen. Were these poor tactics system mastery related or would they be considered poor tactics in a systemless sense? ( For example charging uphill against a numerically superior force)

 

[TwoSix]

Oh it can certainly happen. Were these poor tactics system mastery related or would they be considered poor tactics in a systemless sense? ( For example charging uphill against a numerically superior force)

The latest one was having one of the healers fall into a pit trap at the entrance to the wizard's sanctum, and leaving the other healer behind to help him out, while the other three ran ahead to engage the spellcaster and his pets.

Not a military type mistake, really, but bad for pretty much every version of fantasy gaming I've ever done. Never get out of range of the healer!

 

[ExploderWizard]

The latest one was having one of the healers fall into a pit trap at the entrance to the wizard's sanctum, and leaving the other healer behind to help him out, while the other three ran ahead to engage the spellcaster and his pets.

Not a military type mistake, really, but bad for pretty much every version of fantasy gaming I've ever done. Never get out of range of the healer!

Leaving 2 out of 5 party members behind and charging into a fight is a bad call any day of the week in any game. Sounds like the trouncing was well desrved.

 

[Hussar]

I would say that in an interesting D&D game, the winning of encounters isn't an automated process in either direction. Winning or losing will be determined by the decisions made during play which include when or IF 'an encounter' will be faced at all. Win and loss percentages by the numbers are of course more important when encounters are served conveyor-belt style and must be dealt with as they come. It is far simpler in that case to just load all the numbers into a simulator and see what happens.

Of course not. Of course it is not guaranteed. But in virtually every version of DnD, your odds of success on a reasonable encounter, ie one that is not overwhelming, always favours the PC's and always has.

Fifteen orcs vs a 1 1st level ad&d party of seven pcs. Who will most likely win? My money is on the pcs. Which is not to say they can't lose. But their odds are pretty heavily stacked in their favor.

 

[Lanefan]

Fifteen orcs vs a 1 1st level ad&d party of seven pcs. Who will most likely win? My money is on the pcs. Which is not to say they can't lose. But their odds are pretty heavily stacked in their favor.

15 orcs vs. a party of 7 PCs in 1e? The surviving orcs might eat well tonight.

So much would depend on circumstance and luck, particularly early on. Party MU gets sleep away, game over for the orcs. Orcs open up with missiles before engaging and-or get any sort of surprise, probably game over for the party. Straight-up fight in an open field, each PC has to take on 2 orcs on average (which means goodbye spellcasting, the front line can't stop them all) with a spare orc roaming around - I don't fancy the party's chances.

Lan-"and even if the party wins they're very likely going to end up down a few people"-efan

 

[Hussar]

15 orcs vs. a party of 7 PCs in 1e? The surviving orcs might eat well tonight.

So much would depend on circumstance and luck, particularly early on. Party MU gets sleep away, game over for the orcs. Orcs open up with missiles before engaging and-or get any sort of surprise, probably game over for the party. Straight-up fight in an open field, each PC has to take on 2 orcs on average (which means goodbye spellcasting, the front line can't stop them all) with a spare orc roaming around - I don't fancy the party's chances.

Lan-"and even if the party wins they're very likely going to end up down a few people"-efan

True, missile weapons might really change the scenario. By the same token, orcs are not often armed with bows, while PC's almost always are. At range, my money is definitely on the PC's.

But, it's true that it might go badly for the PC's, but, my money is still on the PC's. The orcs just can't hit anyone other than the MU enough to really have an impact. Go forward to Unearthed Arcana AD&D, and the odds favour PC's even more. Go into 2e, and it's a cakewalk encounter.

To be fair, in 3e, you're almost guaranteed to kill PC's in this encounter. The PC's might win, but, they're going to lose people far, far more often than not.

 

[Minigiant]

That's the thing. People can say "use tactics" but difficult is difficulty.

Low level d&d is much like the hardest difficulty in strategy games. You lower the chance of success and are at the mercy of terrain and enemy placement. Trap you avoided behind you, enemies in front of you... guess we are losing 1d4-2 PCs. Most of the TPKs at low levels that I have seen or heard of have been a PC dropping from bad luck and the dominoes fall eventually.

Great weapons promote a style that raises your TPK chance until the users HP is high enough to take 4 hits before heals easy.

 

[Ruzak]

Because it doesnt match D&D traditions. Because it doesnt match reality. Because it doesnt match fantasy tropes. Because it makes little sense. Because you have to pick your fighting style well before great weapons are useful.

There's no strong argument for making great weapons only good at high levels. Only arguements against.

I agree we want to support all (at least both two-handed & shield) combat styles at all levels.
On the other hand, there is something cool about a natural evolution of fighting techniques. At some point the fighter is tough (evasive, lucky) enough to ditch the shield. He needs a big weapon to hurt the dragons he's facing nowadays anyway.