D&D 5E Low Level Wizards Really Do Suck in 5E

[KarinsDad]

Congratulations, you've just rediscovered the difference between Combat As Sport and Combat As War. In Sport, the encounter begins when initiative is rolled. In war, it begins with the recon you conducted two weeks earlier. Acquiring "cannon fodder allies" is the PCs' responsibility. Anyway, you're right, you would hate that kind of game.

Probably not. I just dislike a game where the DM fudges the most logical decisions/actions of the NPCs to allow an excessively lopsided NPC advantage become a disadvantage and protect the PCs.


I guess my understanding of the two was closer to:

Combat as Sport vs. Combat as War: a Key Difference in D&D Play Styles...

People who want Combat as Sport want fun fights between two (at least roughly) evenly matched sides. They hate “ganking” in which one side has such an enormous advantage (because of superior numbers, levels, strategic surprise, etc.) that the fight itself is a fait accompli. They value combat tactics that could be used to overcome the enemy and fair rules adhered to by both sides rather than looking for loopholes in the rules. Terrain and the specific situation should provide spice to the combat but never turn it into a turkey shoot. They tend to prefer arena combat in which there would be a pre-set fight with (roughly) equal sides and in which no greater strategic issues impinge on the fight or unbalance it.

The other side of the debate is the Combat as War side. They like Eve-style combat in which in a lot of fights, you know who was going to win before the fight even starts and a lot of the fun comes in from using strategy and logistics to ensure that the playing field is heavily unbalanced in your favor. The greatest coup for these players isn’t to win a fair fight but to make sure that the fight never happens (the classic example would be inserting a spy or turning a traitor within the enemy’s administration and crippling their infrastructure so they can’t field a fleet) or is a complete turkey shoot. The Combat as Sport side hates this sort of thing with a passion since the actual fights are often one-sided massacres or stand-offs that take hours.

Our fights are not always between two roughly evenly matched sides.

And the fight you described was not a one-sided massacre for the PCs based on their brilliant plans. It was a "I'll make it look like a tough fight, but in reality as the DM, I'm not going to really do that". It sounds like you might be playing a third style or a modified CaW.


And quite frankly, I think that the tables I've been at often have a little bit of both of the CaS and CaW styles. The 12 on 6 fight I mentioned earlier was the party knowing that there was a large enemy force nearby, so we wiped out a small group of the enemy in a side camp and set up an ambush (with traps and plans and such), waiting for when reinforcements would show up to investigate why the side camp wasn't sending back reports (we even had fake letters created so that if we had to abandon the side camp, the NPCs might be misled to our future intentions). The reinforcements, though, were really tough. It wasn't us winning because the DM thought we came up with a great plan and the DM did not hold our hands on it. The entire intent of our plan was to whittle down the large force and to trick them into sending out groups to look for us where we would not be. It was not a "just go in and fight a basically even set of foes once initiative is rolled situation".


One comment that I found amusing from that thread was:

I used to have what you'd call a "combat as war" style.

The problem was that eventually I started to recognize the man behind the curtain. I knew that I wasn't actually coming up with brilliant plans to defeat the monster, I was, at most, coming up with brilliant plans to defeat the DM. But that's like a four year old wrestling with his father- you only win if (when) he lets you win.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Probably not. I just dislike a game where the DM fudges the most logical decisions/actions of the NPCs to allow an excessively lopsided NPC advantage become a disadvantage and protect the PCs.

Yeah, I hate that too. NPCs should act logically and realistically. The DM shouldn't tone NPCs down just because PCs are involved.

Our fights are not always between two roughly evenly matched sides.

According to your quote, CAS players "tend to prefer" roughly evenly matched sides. Does your group tend to prefer roughly even matches, or do your combats often range from "so easy they're a social encounter" up to "triple-deadly encounter"? If they're Medium/Hard 60% or more of the time, you're probably playing Combat As Sport.

And quite frankly, I think that the tables I've been at often have a little bit of both of the CaS and CaW styles. The 12 on 6 fight I mentioned earlier was the party knowing that there was a large enemy force nearby, so we wiped out a small group of the enemy in a side camp and set up an ambush (with traps and plans and such), waiting for when reinforcements would show up to investigate why the side camp wasn't sending back reports (we even had fake letters created so that if we had to abandon the side camp, the NPCs might be misled to our future intentions). The reinforcements, though, were really tough. It wasn't us winning because the DM thought we came up with a great plan and the DM did not hold our hands on it. The entire intent of our plan was to whittle down the large force and to trick them into sending out groups to look for us where we would not be. It was not a "just go in and fight a basically even set of foes once initiative is rolled situation".

The whole point of Combat As War is to give yourself lopsided advantages, or failing that, to at least negate the overwhelming advantage the bad guys have so you have a small chance of victory. If your DM played your opposition the same way you think I should have played mine (knowing everything about the hidden PCs' plans; strategically paranoid, always operating as if an enemy force is hidden under every bush and ready to instantly respond with overwhelming force in any direction; coordinated like a well-oiled telepathic machine so that, for instance, no one ever wastes a turn Dodging unless every other valid target is Dodging too; as tactically-smart as the DM himself) then you will lose 50% of the time to an equal force, and in any situation where the force ratio is against you you will lose far more than 50% of the time. So if you've had more than four fights in your campaign and survived them all, the odds are 15:1 that the DM is "holding your hand" by being less lethal than he could be in one way or another. (Because 50%^4 = 1/16.) You claim that you're winning victories through sheer brilliance and everyone else in the world is just "wrestling with their dads," but we know that you're wrestling with your dad too. D&D isn't a game designed for even fights, because D&D is designed to have lots of fights, and the two goals aren't compatible. Chess is an even game, but imagine what would happen if the loser of every chess match were executed. A chess "veteran" then becomes someone who has won four matches against other veterans, and veterans would assiduously avoid playing against each other. Mostly they would play newbies, and that's what the DMG encounter rules are built to guarantee. A fight against your mirror image is far beyond Deadly, and the DMG discourages you from using even fights (where you could lose or die!) frequently.

[1] In spite of the fact that the fight was not only 10x deadly on paper, it was still triple-deadly even if we wrote off all the monsters you dismiss as "not played logically" and pretend they didn't exist. In fact, the neogi wizard/leader by himself would constitute a Hard encounter for the whole group of PCs and NPCs, and in my expert opinion re-playing the battle would have wiped out the PCs 3 times out of 4. They basically got lucky, and yet you think they had it too easy. [shakes head sadly] There's no pleasing some people I guess.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If your DM played your opposition the same way you think I should have played mine then you will lose 50% of the time to an equal force, and in any situation where the force ratio is against you you will lose far more than 50% of the time. So if you've had more than four fights in your campaign and survived them all, the odds are 15:1 that the DM is "holding your hand" by being less lethal than he could be in one way or another.

That sounds like a pretty fair test for 'real CaW.' Does the party get wiped about as often they wipe the floor with the opposition, or is the DM letting them have the benefit of a doubt here or there, playing the opposition 'sub optimally,' letting the players have more info than they really should, or otherwise engaging in a little illusionism to make their victories seem sweeter?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

That sounds like a pretty fair test for 'real CaW.' Does the party get wiped about as often they wipe the floor with the opposition, or is the DM letting them have the benefit of a doubt here or there, playing the opposition 'sub optimally,' letting the players have more info than they really should, or otherwise engaging in a little illusionism to make their victories seem sweeter?

I would agree, if "real CAW" were synonymous with "evenly-matched CAW". Remember that CAW is a style, not a difficulty level.

I don't have an explicit goal to defeat the PCs, and I try to ensure that they only go into lopsided fights with their eyes open (telegraphing difficulty), which isn't really compatible with "evenly-matched CAW" where there are enemies who are explicitly out to kill them. In fact I set up the campaign world to make them initially unimportant specifically because I think it would be too hard to avoid killing the PCs if they had such enemies right off the bat.

("Late at night, Falgoth the Ancient Red Dragon receives word from a paid informant that the Kingmen (PCs) have left the capital. The informant shows him the PCs' campfire, and Falgoth sneaks in at +7 to stealth (isn't spotted by watchman) and attacks you where you're huddled around the campfire. In the surprise round, he hits you all with 91 points of fire damage, save for half, and then kills Nox the wizard with three swipes of his tail." Note BTW that I am not averse to BBEG NPCs doing such things to each other, nor to showing up to recruit the PCs by proving that they could do such things to them if the PCs don't undertake a mission. In fact I'm planning to run this exact scenario next session, sans fire breath and killing, and with a slightly younger dragon.)

Anyway, my point is that even though I don't deliberately set the PCs up to lose, if they do the wrong thing it can easily happen. So far, of the 4 biggest hostile encounters in the campaign in which combat occurred, the PCs have won 2 and lost 2. Of the ones that they lost, I allowed them to spend a karma point for a mulligant, and they still lost, but at least that time the barbarian managed to lug the wizard's unconscious body away from the battle instead of the wizard's corpse. (He still lost his pet wolf, and the wizard lost his spellbook and all his magic items.) The enemy didn't pursue because, see above, total annihilation of the PCs is not a motivation for them. I think it has to be possible for the PCs to lose in order for CaW to work, but I don't think it has to happen any particular percentage of the time. You can imagine a party who is so bad at CaW that they always charge straight for the superior enemy force, get slaughtered, and roll up new characters, but that would still be CaW.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I would agree, if "real CAW" were synonymous with "evenly-matched CAW". Remember that CAW is a style, not a difficulty level.

I'd assume 'real' CaW to be on both sides of the screen. That's not evenly matched - because the DM has a lot more freedom in a game like 5e, and because the players are team vs the DM, alone - but it's symmetrical, and seems above-board.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I'd assume 'real' CaW to be on both sides of the screen. That's not evenly matched - because the DM has a lot more freedom in a game like 5e, and because the players are team vs the DM, alone - but it's symmetrical, and seems above-board.

But "symmetrical" is a CAS thing. CAW doesn't expect symmetry.

There's also a narrative problem. Since players are totally reliant on the DM to be their sensory apparatus in the game world, it could potentially feel unfun and unfair for the DM to show the players the fruits of CaW play used against them, since they didn't get to witness the planning that led up to it. "You drank from your canteen? Okay, DC 19 Con check to not be paralyzed for an hour. Suddenly there are warg riders attacking you, and your new friend Hibbert is stabbing you in the chest! Everything goes black. What just happened?" I'm not saying that's an insoluble problem, but it does seem like mutual CaW would work better between two different groups of PCs ("Head of Vecna") than between the DM and the PCs. Remember, in the Head of Vecna, the players still blamed the DM even though there was an actual group of players responsible. How much worse would it be if the responsible parties were all in the DM's imagination?

Anyway, if anyone has any good tips for springing CaW shenanigans on the party while still keeping it fun for the players (not the PCs), I wouldn't mind hearing them. I expect to need them pretty soon, because the PCs are starting to get involved in... things.

 

[Tony Vargas]

But "symmetrical" is a CAS thing. CAW doesn't expect symmetry.

So the players can legitimately expect to win, as long as they do so in creatively unfair ways? Heh.

Honestly, I don't have a lot of respect of the CaW/CaS dichotomy - or any analysis of the hobby that starts by dividing players into two camps, too us/them to be legit - so I probably shouldn't go poking at it.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

So the players can legitimately expect to win, as long as they do so in creatively unfair ways? Heh.

That's a little bit too strong. How about, "The players can legitimately expect to probably survive, if they pick their battles, negotiate well, and pay attention to intel. The DM will not deliberately go out of his way to set PCs up for failure, so there is probably a way out of any given situation that isn't somehow of their own making."

Corollary: attempting to "win" every single encounter is a legitimate way to get killed. The DM will not feel sorry if you engage a superior force in combat on the basis of dubious "creative" tactics and then die horribly when those tactics are ineffective or insufficient. Once the scenario has been created, the DM is an uncaring god and not your friend.

I hear you on the anti-dichotomy front. I didn't even know what CaW meant until a month ago, and I don't use the term normatively. It's occasionally a useful shorthand though for communicating playstyles. In particular, I use it to communicate "I don't care about level-appropriate encounters."

 

[Tony Vargas]

I hear you on the anti-dichotomy front. I didn't even know what CaW meant until a month ago, and I don't use the term normatively. It's occasionally a useful shorthand though for communicating playstyles.

It's one of many new terms that was dreamed up for use against 4e in the edition war. It's a little stilted as a result. If it were presented as one of many styles instead of one of two (and if styles were presented as different ways of enjoying any game, rather than reasons for loving/hating specific games), it'd be easier to take seriously.
And CaS doesn't even need to be called out as a style. Approach a game like a game? Not exactly a defining, exclusive thing.

 

[KarinsDad]

The interesting thing here is that, when your groups gets in a lopsided fight and wins, you attribute your victory to your own mad tactical skillz. When Celtavian's group or my players get in a lopsided fight and win, you armchair-quarterback the DM and write it off as "the DM holding [your] hands."

When someone posts lopsided odds and states that they won, I say great.

When someone posts impossible odds and states that they won, I call shenanigans. There's always a trick involved.

If your DM played your opposition the same way you think I should have played mine (knowing everything about the hidden PCs' plans; strategically paranoid, always operating as if an enemy force is hidden under every bush and ready to instantly respond with overwhelming force in any direction; coordinated like a well-oiled telepathic machine so that, for instance, no one ever wastes a turn Dodging unless every other valid target is Dodging too; as tactically-smart as the DM himself) then you will lose 50% of the time to an equal force, and in any situation where the force ratio is against you you will lose far more than 50% of the time. So if you've had more than four fights in your campaign and survived them all, the odds are 15:1 that the DM is "holding your hand" by being less lethal than he could be in one way or another. (Because 50%^4 = 1/16.) It's okay if you're oblivious to that fact, but don't expect people to take you seriously when you claim that you're Alexander the Great winning victory through sheer brilliance and everyone else in the world is just "wrestling with their dads," because we know that you're wrestling with your dad too.

Fact?

What a strange philosophy. PCs do not win equal fights because the DM makes it easy for them and does not play the monsters lethally.

PCs win basically equal fights because of spells and special abilities. D&D has always been that way.

Monsters and NPCs run out spells and special abilities quickly because in every version of the game, the vast majority of them only have 0 to 3 total. After that, they rely on some standard run of the mill attacks until they are dead.

PCs, on the other hand, almost always have something left in the tank. Mass Cure spells. Web spells. Fireball spells. Action points in 4E. Something that shifts action economy in their favor or changes an unconscious or nearly unconscious PC into a partially healthy PC.

That's the edge that most monsters/NPCs do not have. When monsters get to zero hit points, they die. When PCs get to zero hit points, they often get healed.

The main reason PCs win is because of attrition and the shift of action economy. Eventually, the monsters get whittled down and do not get back up whereas if the PCs get whittled down, other PCs bring them back up to continue the fight.

The other main reason PCs typically survive their fights is because players hole up when the PCs run low on resources after encounters. The monsters typically do not have this option. Monsters and NPCs typically run out of good options part way through a single encounter as opposed to after six encounters and are left with subpar options.

These are the reasons PCs win. Not because DMs are being easy on them.


Granted, there are unusual situations where the NPCs are truly equal to the PCs (like a Mirror of Opposition, or a team of same or higher level evil adventurers designed just like PCs), but equality in D&D tends to mean similar levels, hit points, AC, damage, and numbers; not the go to the well abilities of PCs (like not being killed at 0 hit points).