D&D General Breaking Out of "Default Actions"

[Fauchard1520]

For a lot of builds, there's ONE THING they want to do over and over again. Maybe it's eldritch blasting. Maybe it's laying down a full attack. If you're into making the hp go up instead of down, you might consider yourself a dedicated healer. But whatever that ONE THING is, I've seen entirely too many players unthinkingly default to said thing without considering other options.

When the situation change you’ve got to think on your feet. The warlock can blow an action pulling his buddies out of black tentacles. The barbarian can break the mechanism rather than punch the minotaur. The bard can stop singing for five seconds and help man the walls. These are not optimal actions--the thing your build is built for--but they are sometimes the smarter play.

So my question to the board is this: Have you seen another player fall into this trap? And if so, what's the best course of action? Should you offer advice and point out other options? Or is it not worth the risk of activating the old, "Dude, let me play my own character?"

Comic for illustrative purposes.

 

[iserith]

I prefer not to weigh in as a DM or as a player on what another player should do unless they ask for advice. If someone wants to just eldritch blast all the time, that's their business.

 

[Asisreo]

It all depends on the player's playstyle. Some like to use lightsabers all the time because that fits their fantasy and they don't need anything else to meet their expectations. The other stuff with The Force may even be too complex for them.

Some players, like myself, maximize and optimize their combat abilities, which often means adjusting to every situation for the most optimal play. Most systems have slight boosts to different strategies that you can use which is available to most characters. Like ranged attackers abusing range or melee combatants imposing some penalty on ranged attackers when they're in range.

A play might not be "The most optimal" for my build but having backups on me can help. I may decide that the enemy has a bigger advantage from range and it would behoove me to get within melee of him.

 

[jasper]

Dude let them play their own character. And charge them a quarter for each character sheet.

 

[Bawylie]

I have a “You play your own character” houserule for the kids’ group. They are often very interested in what everyone else should do.

Apart from that, in terms of game design, I think the defaults are GOOD. You should have something you’re familiar with, something reliable, something defining. For new players this is essential. For old heads, this is the seed from which the character grows. Only when you’re comfortable with that thing can you truly know when NOT to use it.

Also, what Iserith said about it not being my business during play.

 

[prabe]

Also, what Iserith said about it not being my business during play.

That's where I am as a DM, too, though if I'm anticipating an action/reaction I might ask about it, so I know when to start/stop rolling with Disadvantage (rather than rolling all the attacks at once). That's more about keeping thing sflowing around the table than running the character for the player, though.

 

[Big Bucky]

I think part of this is how DND is designed. If your goal is to kill something then it often doesn’t make sense to do anything other than just attack each turn.

I think it’s important as a DM to really describe the environment well. Players may not know there are things around that could help them out. And you may need to remind them that you here are other ways to defeat the obstacle.

Often players that are used to the hack it out approach might not even realize that there are other ways. I think this also requires some trust in the DM that you won’t punish them for taking a more creative approach.

 

[Eltab]

I recently drew off half the enemies in one scenario to chase my halfling Arcane Trickster and used Field of Blades over and over to persuade them - not very successfully - to back off a bit. No dagger or bow-and-arrow with Sneak Attack for this Rogue! (The DM and hence the enemies did not need to know that my goal was to give my group a few turns to deal with the other half of the enemies.). But if I ever do this again, I'm going to use a Wood Elf Monk, so I can get out of melee once I'm bloodied and stay out of melee.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

As a player, I'm always looking to capitalize on things in the environment to give myself or my party an 'edge'. I get bored with the constant 'I attack with my sword' over and over again...that said, I find the rules a bit confining sometimes. I want to disarm the guy but I don't have that 'ability'. Also, if my character is built for damage and I don't do that attack action, it hinders my party. I want to push the enemy prone but he'll just stand up again without any penalty so it's pointless.

It's hard to use ingenuity when the mechanics punish you for it.

Overall, you should just let people play their character. Often other players will -during a fight, or as a debrief - point out where their allies could have made better tactical choices

 

[DND_Reborn]

Others have it right. For the most part, the default option is the best, more effective choice, than doing something else.

Now, that is not always the case. In our session yesterday, our raging barbarian, instead of attacking and ogre, shoved in back into the Maelstrom our sorcerer had cast.

I do wish D&D was more tactical, but 90% of the time just causing damage is the best course.