D&D 5E Do you want your DM to fudge?

[Rhenny]

I gotta admit, I tend to agree with this. If for no other reason than it's pretty easy to do unintentionally. It's not like the DM is Sun Tsu and makes perfect tactical choices every time anyway. If I make a bad choice, I might not be doing it intentionally. ...... I'd prefer not to expand that definition because it causes too much confusion.

Amen. For a lot of creatures and PCs, the "fog of war" (chaos, positioning, distractions) will cause them to do sub-optimal actions. I'm a fan of keeping combat fast so I always encourage players to make quicker decisions (not stupid but quick so that if it isn't the best idea, it's still ok), but I also promise them that their foes will do the same. Sometimes they just make bad decisions (unintentionally or intentionally). Of course, if their foe is an elite commander or warrior, more tactical decisions may be an issue.

 

[Hussar]

Even take the idea of targeting. If a creature has three attacks, if it focuses on one PC it will be far more effective than if it spreads its attacks.

Is it fudging to spread attacks?

 

[Rhenny]

Even take the idea of targeting. If a creature has three attacks, if it focuses on one PC it will be far more effective than if it spreads its attacks.

Is it fudging to spread attacks?

Yeah...focus fire is definitely the way to go, unless each attack has the chance to cause a condition like paralysis or stun, etc.

Maybe some foes are just whirling dervish type fighters or so wildly out of control that they will spit their attacks, but most of the time, it does seem a little like DM is pulling punches when a foe splits attacks.

 

[Lanliss]

Yeah...focus fire is definitely the way to go, unless each attack has the chance to cause a condition like paralysis or stun, etc.

Maybe some foes are just whirling dervish type fighters or so wildly out of control that they will spit their attacks, but most of the time, it does seem a little like DM is pulling punches when a foe splits attacks.

But is Pulling your punches the same as Fudging?

 

[Rhenny]

But is Pulling your punches the same as Fudging?

Not by how most people have been defining fudging. For most, fudging is just changing or disregarding die rolls that have already been made.

Unfortunately, there are some players who are so sensitive that if a DM purposefully pulls punches, they feel cheated.

 

[GSHamster]

Even take the idea of targeting. If a creature has three attacks, if it focuses on one PC it will be far more effective than if it spreads its attacks.

Is it fudging to spread attacks?

I would say that it depends on the creature. Claw/Claw/Bite and a fighter's multiple attacks should hit the same creature. But something like a tail slap or Beholder's eye's should hit multiple people.

I would say that it plays into expectations. A creature is expected to act in a certain way. If the creature:

1. acts in an unusual way,
2. to the benefit of the PCs
3. without a compensating reason

then that is fudging.

 

[Maxperson]

Even take the idea of targeting. If a creature has three attacks, if it focuses on one PC it will be far more effective than if it spreads its attacks.

Is it fudging to spread attacks?

That's not a yes or no question. It's really creature and situation dependent. An owlbear might strike out at a few different opponents who have hit it and ticked it off. A dragon, though, fights very intelligently and will almost always choose the best tactic.

 

[Hussar]

That's not a yes or no question. It's really creature and situation dependent. An owlbear might strike out at a few different opponents who have hit it and ticked it off. A dragon, though, fights very intelligently and will almost always choose the best tactic.

But, there's the rub isn't it? What's the "best tactic"? Best tactic in the D&D game or best real world tactic? In the real world, wounding multiple foes is a very good tactic because wounded people run away, fall down, fight less effectively, etc. Additionally, when surrounded by enemies, it's not like you have a top down camera telling you where each enemy is, the relative strengths of those enemies and whatnot. It's quite possible that when faced with multiple foes, you are slashing at everyone and anyone within reach, just to keep them at bay. Additionally, in the real world, when a 100 foot iguana hits you with a claw, you fall down.

OTOH, in the game of D&D, it makes the best sense, in a purely gamist mindset, to focus fire because wounds don't affect offensive capabilities. You can't stab someone in the arm to render them an ineffective swordsman. All you can do is ablate abstract HP until they fall down.

So, what's the "best tactic" here? Should we always judge tactics based on gamist terms or not?

I don't have an answer to this. AFAIC, that's going to depend on table and play style. What might seem like a "best tactic" to one DM is blindingly stupid to another. I mean, probably the best tactic for any dragon facing a group of PC's is to fly well out of range of everything the players can throw at it, and then do bombing runs with uprooted trees or boulders. Or simply run away and come back when the PC's buff spells have run out and attack them when they camp. There's a million and one "best tactics" and that's extremely hard to judge.

 

[Maxperson]

But, there's the rub isn't it? What's the "best tactic"? Best tactic in the D&D game or best real world tactic? In the real world, wounding multiple foes is a very good tactic because wounded people run away, fall down, fight less effectively, etc. Additionally, when surrounded by enemies, it's not like you have a top down camera telling you where each enemy is, the relative strengths of those enemies and whatnot. It's quite possible that when faced with multiple foes, you are slashing at everyone and anyone within reach, just to keep them at bay. Additionally, in the real world, when a 100 foot iguana hits you with a claw, you fall down.

OTOH, in the game of D&D, it makes the best sense, in a purely gamist mindset, to focus fire because wounds don't affect offensive capabilities. You can't stab someone in the arm to render them an ineffective swordsman. All you can do is ablate abstract HP until they fall down.

So, what's the "best tactic" here? Should we always judge tactics based on gamist terms or not?

I don't have an answer to this. AFAIC, that's going to depend on table and play style. What might seem like a "best tactic" to one DM is blindingly stupid to another. I mean, probably the best tactic for any dragon facing a group of PC's is to fly well out of range of everything the players can throw at it, and then do bombing runs with uprooted trees or boulders. Or simply run away and come back when the PC's buff spells have run out and attack them when they camp. There's a million and one "best tactics" and that's extremely hard to judge.

You're way overthinking things. The best tactic is the one the DM feels is the best for the situation, and that will not be a deliberately stupid one when it come to a dragon.

 

[pemerton]

Is it fudging to spread attacks?

Yeah...focus fire is definitely the way to go, unless each attack has the chance to cause a condition like paralysis or stun, etc.

In the fiction, does the attacker know that PCs have hit points? And hence that one blow probably can't maim or kill a PC?

If not - for instance, at a table that treats hit points more as "meta" than as "meat" - then there is nothing silly about an attacker splitting attacks, hoping to take down multiple enemies. At least until it has evidence that the PCs are skilled combatants that it can't hope to take down except one at a time - which in itself is probably a sign, to the attacker, that the whole jig is up and it should just surrender!