D&D General Discuss: Combat as War in D&D

[Lanefan]

But again, who is to decide what the monster's 'best hand' is?

In many cases it's fairly obvious.

In those where it isn't, that's where the DM has to put on a thinking cap. And maybe she guesses wrong; whatever "best hand" she comes up with plays right into whatever tactics the players/PCs come up with during the session. Them's the breaks.

VERY RARE in history is the time when equally prepared and resourceful opponents engage in conflict. Usually one side or the other simply has some decisive material advantage the other cannot counter.

By sheer coincidence I was just reading up on the battle of Waterloo the other day, and that's one instance where - going in - the forces were fairly even. The thing that tipped the balance against Napoleon was the to-him unexpected arrival of a third army (the Prussians) who he had expected his own outlier army to deal with or at least hold at bay.

Otherwise it's quite possible Napoleon could have won that thing.

 

[Lanefan]

I mean, even back in the days of Gygaxian dungeon crawl there were conventions. The monsters in B2 don't set up watches and alarm systems and all swarm out of their caves to gang-bash attacking human parties, although that would make a lot of sense for them to do (there are a few perfunctory guards around, and I think in the notes for the module it talks about maybe if the monsters get shellacked a few times they might all clear out). I mean, probably realistically, given the scale of the Caves of Chaos, as soon as anyone came visiting the whole place would be in an uproar, and the party would be fleeing for its lives!

This assumes the various monster groups there in fact all get along with each other and would co-operate to this extent.

IMO B2 works way better if the different groups of monsters don't all get along and each have their own allies/enemies/neutrals among the other groups e.g. maybe the Hobgoblins and Goblins are allies but neither have any use for the Kobolds while the Gnolls just piss everybody off, etc.

 

[Lanefan]

System design has a lot to do with CaW and CaS as well. PF2 for example, has +1/lvl and a <10> DC critical system. This means anything outside a strict level band with the party would auto-crit them to death. Punching above your weight is suicide, so it keeps you within a challenge band, which is very CaS, IMO. In older editions, if you laid out and executed a good plan, it was possible (yet dangerous) to punch above your weight and be successful.

Exactly, and IMO this steep power curve (or narrow challenge band, to use your term) is a very serious - almost fatal - flaw in 3e and 4e design.

I mean, a game where Merry and Eowyn can't punch above their weight to bring down a Ringwraith isn't a game worth playing.

 

[Lanefan]

I assume you mean in terms of random peasants were almost as strong as a fighter in 1e, or more properly a 1e fighter was just a peasant with some good weapons and a bit of training. I'm not sure what a 'peasant' is like in 5e. Still, it is true that a 5e level 1 PC seems rather tougher than 'regular folks'. OTOH I think you could still manage to play a game that gave a pretty decent 'zero to hero' feel. 4e OTOH just really fundamentally doesn't let you compare a PC to a normal person, and is pretty clear that PCs are ALL heroes, even at level 1.

Yet, it seems Gygax didn't really think PCs were 'zeroes' at level 1 either. He describes a PC as a special sort of character, destined for possible greatness. Nor are their level 1 capabilities THAT unimpressive. Beyond class stuff and race stuff, they are RICH (possessed of about a year's worth of living expenses at least) and possessed of a high level of overall competence and 'presence of mind'.

Indeed, there's certainly design space in the Gygax game to slot in a viable 0th-level between commoner/peasant and 1st-level; and it's something I use all the time. EGG even kinda waved at this idea (badly, IMO) with Cavaliers' design in UA.

In 4e there's design space for about 5 viable levels between commoner/peasant and 1st-level and it's one of the great failings of the edition that this design space wasn't used.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The path to deconfliction as a DM, once combat starts, is to be completely neutral - detached, even - and to act with integrity regarding what the opposition knows and-or is capable of doing..

Indeed; and this is where some random prep-time dice-rolling can come in handy if-when it's truly uncertain what the orcs might be able to know/learn.

This again comes back to integrity IMO.

Human beings are never unbiased. Not at all. No amount of dice you roll is going to matter, the very things you pick to dice for and not dice for are arbitrary, selected because they will or will not result in what you do or do not want to have happen, the true agenda. Lest the game be a failure, this true agenda must, as some others have suggested in a slightly different way, ultimately be about gamist considerations. Thus 'CAW' or 'CAS' is merely color, just a type of 'spin' you put on the events, their tone. There's no actual figuring out of warlike anything.

If you want to see what a REAL wargame RP scenario is like, play a Free Kriegspiel sometime. Noting that is exactly the sort of thing that Dave Arneson was into. I can believe that he could run a campaign where WAR was figuratively fought on a realistic basis, but in no case does the referee in a game like that play either side. There's a good reason for that, it doesn't work. There is ALWAYS a 'red team'.

 

[Vaalingrade]

In 4e there's design space for about 5 viable levels between commoner/peasant and 1st-level and it's one of the great failings of the edition that this design space wasn't used.

Define 'viable'. Is it the delicious salsa that builds up between the claws of small cats due to characters not having enough HP to exist in a stiff wind?

Also define 'commoner' in 4e. I don't remember them being statted, mostly because a traditionally statted commoner is basically a water balloon filled with blood and shame.

 

[Imaculata]

Exactly, and IMO this steep power curve (or narrow challenge band, to use your term) is a very serious - almost fatal - flaw in 3e and 4e design.

I mean, a game where Merry and Eowyn can't punch above their weight to bring down a Ringwraith isn't a game worth playing.

I think there's a large difference between a steep power curve and impossible odds.

I should remind people that I've been running a 3e campaign for years now in which the players are always up against foes that are two challenge ratings higher than would be considered level appropriate. And yet they always punch above their weight.

I run my games to be deadly at higher levels. My villains DO treat this as a war. They lay ambushes and attack the players with superior strength and numbers. And yet no deaths yet. They are nearly level 20, and our last session was the closest we've ever come to a pc death.

What did it take? Several guards of the same level as them (lvl 18), a few paladins (lvl 20), a few priests with instant death spells (lvl 20) and a gargantuan stone construct (CR 22) with 5e style special attacks.

When other DM's hear about my campaign, they are shocked how tough I make my fights.

But there's more to it than that. I carefully consider the capabilities of the players when creating encounters and I include strategic options that would allow them to turn the odds more in their favor.

In a game where combat is treated as a war, it is all about strategy. And so a DM needs to design the battles in a way that includes many strategic options. You never know what the players will pick up on, but you don't want the fights to be unwinnable. As long as there are lots of options, the players are free to be creative in their approach, which is a lot of fun.

 

[S'mon]

Recently IMC a 6 PC mostly level 5 group went hunting goblins... found no goblins... were heading for an Abbey for the night when ambushed by 20 goblins & a goblin boss. Extremely tough fight! From the goblin POV they were definitely doing CAW, within the limitations of goblin-ness. Archers BA hiding & shooting every round wreaked havoc on the PCs.

 

[Lanefan]

Define 'viable'. Is it the delicious salsa that builds up between the claws of small cats due to characters not having enough HP to exist in a stiff wind?

Also define 'commoner' in 4e. I don't remember them being statted, mostly because a traditionally statted commoner is basically a water balloon filled with blood and shame.

Remind me never to play a commoner in your games, if that's how you view them.

But obviously people with few hit points (including minions!) can survive a stiff wind, otherwise the game-world would be very sparsely populated. And yes, low-level play can be lethal particularly if the players insist on fighting everything they meet. So what?

 

[reelo]

In a game where combat is treated as a war, it is all about strategy. And so a DM needs to design the battles in a way that includes many strategic options. You never know what the players will pick up on, but you don't want the fights to be unwinnable. As long as there are lots of options, the players are free to be creative in their approach, which is a lot of fun.

I actually say the DM doesn't need to do that. The PLAYERS need to find out (scout, scry, bribe) what they're up against, and come up with a plan. They have to figure out if they possibly bite off more than they can chew. If they find themselves in a fair, or even difficult fight, it means their planning wasn't good enough! They need to figure out if they better run or not.