D&D 5E Letting the enemy have even a single attack is the result of a strategic failure.

[FormerlyHemlock]

Nah, that's hyperbole.

Only Assassins could ever win.

...and wizards, and druids, and Sharpshooter fighters, and monks, and...

(I'm assuming BTW that letting your enemy get an attack against the Glabrezu summoned by your Glyph of Warding does not count as a strategic failure, because why would you care if the Glabrezu is at risk?)

 

[Eltab]

...and wizards, and druids, and Sharpshooter fighters, and monks, and...

... and anybody reading a Scroll of Fireball while facing 5-HP kobolds,
and high-level PCs against a village's worth of peasants with pitchforks and ...

My Tiamat group blew off a random encounter I created: 8 Lizardmen javelin-throwers hiding in the shallows of a lake. All 8 Lizardmen stood up and threw a javelin; each Lizardman was targeted by whichever L12 PC went next. None of the Lizardmen got to throw a second javelin; Only the Ranger took > 10% of his HP (because I concentrated on the guy in front - him).
I might have the group replay that scenario as their L4 selves - so they can see how much more powerful they are than the "standard group of adventurers" the Council is working with.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

In a fantasy version of my neighborhood, I'd get from my house to the bus stop by setting the sniper up on overwatch in a tree (with climbing spurs maybe), while the monk (in company with the Lore Bard) sweeps the sides of the road and around corners looking for hostiles, and flushes them out with her own missile fire.

Even in such a contrived situation, you haven't solved the basic problem of identifying the enemy as something you want to kill while you remain at a distance. You can see hundreds of feet ahead of you, sure, but how close does someone need to be before you recognize that they want to attack you? And if it's a person, then there's a non-negligible chance that they'll want to talk to you first, because they haven't decided whether or not you're an enemy yet.

And even if you could magically identify hostiles, you can't move on while your sniper is still in the tree, unless you're planning to hire a new sniper ever 600 feet. This ambush scenario you've set up has zero applicability to anything, because you don't know where or when an enemy might appear. You don't even know that they'll appear ahead of you; they could just as easily appear to either side or from behind, where you probably won't notice them 300 feet away.

Secondarily, consider that you are nobody special in the game world. If it was possible to figure out a simple procedure and eliminate most enemies from a distance, with minimal danger, then you would have fallen victim to such by now. If you want free victories without bothering to play through them, then it's equally fair for your PCs to be dispatched off-screen.

 

[crashtestdummy]

Sure, that's a perfectly valid strategy. But it seems like a different strategy to the one that aims to exclude the possibility of the enemy striking back.

Of course, in some circumstances one strategy might be more effective than the other, but that doesn't mean the other strategy isn't valid too.

You are correct, but the original statement didn't allow for using different strategies in different circumstances. It states that "Letting the enemy have even a single attack is the result of a strategic failure." I was pointing out that letting an enemy have an attack isn't necessarily a strategic failure. It might even be a strategic success! It all depends on what the strategy is...

In other words, the original statement appears to assume that the only strategy to be used is to strike hard and strike first. I politely disagree.

 

[Lehrbuch]

Even in such a contrived situation, you haven't solved the basic problem of identifying the enemy as something you want to kill while you remain at a distance. You can see hundreds of feet ahead of you, sure, but how close does someone need to be before you recognize that they want to attack you? And if it's a person, then there's a non-negligible chance that they'll want to talk to you first, because they haven't decided whether or not you're an enemy yet.

Depends on context, obviously. But the party could have members scouting way ahead of the main group. Or familiars and so forth flittering ahead. Which doesn't mean you will always correctly identify threats before they are encountered...but that's just one of the ways the strategy can sometimes fail.

Secondarily, consider that you are nobody special in the game world. If it was possible to figure out a simple procedure and eliminate most enemies from a distance, with minimal danger, then you would have fallen victim to such by now. If you want free victories without bothering to play through them, then it's equally fair for your PCs to be dispatched off-screen.

Except that in the game fiction PCs are by definition important, especially once they advance to Tier 2 and beyond. And even if the PCs were not important in the game fiction they are important in the game...because they are the PCs. Regardless of PC strategies, the PCs shouldn't get TPKed without warning, by hyper-aggressive, stealthy opponents any more than they should (usually) face encounters that are rated well beyond Deadly.

 

[Lehrbuch]

In other words, the original statement appears to assume that the only strategy to be used is to strike hard and strike first. I politely disagree.

I suppose you could read the original statement like that (if you do, I agree with your comment). However, to me, it doesn't read like a claim that there is only one strategy. It seems to be more a claim that if the enemy is able to attack, then a (viable) strategy has failed. Which, of course, in-play will happen often for all sorts of reasons, even if that is the strategy the PCs are trying to follow.

On the other hand, IRL there is pretty much a single ideal, degenerate strategy to anything resembling a "combat encounter", which is to strike hard and first with overwhelming force. Which is why that's the apparent strategy of police SWAT teams, etc. Other strategies are only pursued when the actual in-field circumstances mitigate against this.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

And even if the PCs were not important in the game fiction they are important in the game...because they are the PCs. Regardless of PC strategies, the PCs shouldn't get TPKed without warning, by hyper-aggressive, stealthy opponents any more than they should (usually) face encounters that are rated well beyond Deadly.

That's meta-gaming. The DM is not obligated to throw level-appropriate encounters at you, and any expectation that they will is based on out-of-game knowledge, so you can't take that into consideration. Besides, it doesn't take a higher-level enemy to slit your throat while you sleep.

If you're playing in a world where you can easily defeat your enemies without ever rolling initiative, then you have to live with that. If you don't want to play in that kind of world, then tell your friend before you all sit down at the table that you don't want to play in that kind of world. You can't have it both ways.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Depends on context, obviously. But the party could have members scouting way ahead of the main group. Or familiars and so forth flittering ahead. Which doesn't mean you will always correctly identify threats before they are encountered...but that's just one of the ways the strategy can sometimes fail.

And in the given example, the party does have someone scouting ahead: the Shadow Monk. (And in fact she has a decent Charisma skill and Persuasion proficiency, so can negotiate if necessary. And the Lore Bard is with her, and he has an even better Persuasion skill, as well as Stealth/Perception Expertise.)

 

[Lehrbuch]

That's meta-gaming. The DM is not obligated to throw level-appropriate encounters at you..

No, but they are obligated to try to make the game fun. And successfully ambushing and eliminating the PCs before they have a chance to react is unlikely to be considered fun.

There's nothing wrong (or unexpected) about monsters/NPCs attempting similar, highly effective tactics to the PCs. It is just doing so successfully merely by DM fiat that won't happen, if the DM is sensible.

...and any expectation that they will is based on out-of-game knowledge, so you can't take that into consideration.

Why not? Who says?

And isn't the players choosing not to use such a strategy because they don't want to encourage the DM to similarly escalate NPC strategy, exactly the same sort of meta-gaming?

If you're playing in a world where you can easily defeat your enemies without ever rolling initiative, then you have to live with that.

I don't think anyone is saying it is easy to apply the strategy of "neutralising the enemy before they can react". It is hard. It is still a good strategic goal, just one that will almost always end up imperfectly implemented.

If you don't want to play in that kind of world, then tell your friend before you all sit down at the table that you don't want to play in that kind of world. You can't have it both ways.

I'm not sure why you can't have both the PCs being relatively successful at doing something, and the NPCs / monsters being relatively unsuccessful at doing the same thing. After all, it's the supposed essence of most adventures that the PCs are the heroes that get stuff done.

 

[hejtmane]

I love the idea of this statement. It reminds me for several really cool literary characters from novels and I would love to have a player in my game with this attitude(or even play one if I ever get another chance to play!".

In my experience with D&D though, it really isn't possible. While I have seen a few tricks in my time that really went over well those are very few and far between. Maybe this is my fault as the DM though?

I mean several times the group found out way ahead of time that the monster was a vampire or Dragon or some such and developed tactics to aid them. Most of the time it was hit or miss if it would work or not though. Trying a rope around the Dragons leg and the other end around the pummel of his saddle just didn't pan out like he wanted.

All that said though do you guys have experiences that differ from mine? Do your players ever manage to pull this off?

Is it possible to pull off long term?

I one had a group build moveable walls with copper coating on the outside and they would use them to block off sections of the dungeon and narrow entry down hallways to give them advantage. It worked well till a set of pit traps and after that they just forgot about it.

My son is DMing for a school club that started because I DM for him and some of his friends and now has a 2 group club at school now. First encounter was he had them all on a slave ship as slaves rowing a boat Kraken attacks the ships giving them a chance to escape. in the mass of confusions etc etc. One of the guys got a bright idea jump in an empty barrel jump in the water and float away. It worked he allowed it because it was great outside thinking hell even when it is epic fail sometimes they have a great time.

One scenario with my sons group they where fighting an oger it was downstairs started coming up so one of them whizzed on the floor they froze the pee oger steps over pee hits guy whizzing sending him into the wall with zero HP they all laughed and had a good time about how his junk was hanging out etc etc

I always award extra xp for thinking outside the box even on failures because man it makes the game so much more fun and the players love the extra freedom and you get a better game imo