D&D General Didn’t Mike Mearls propose a one-roll combat encounter?

Ruin Explorer said:

To achieve what you're describing you're going to need to totally ignore encounter-building guidelines and just throw tons of "Deadly+" encounters at the PCs, like ones that they, on paper, definitely cannot handle

Click to expand...

That seems to be pretty much what I do all the time. I've got two mythic monsters in the next room.

Paul Farquhar said:

That seems to be pretty much what I do all the time. I've got two mythic monsters in the next room.

Click to expand...

I mean, there definitely are people who take that approach. I know with the level 15/16-ish party I run for I need to chuck Deadly encounters at them to even make them break a light sweat, and Deadly+ if I expect actual tactics, but my point is re: the game as designed, and I think it's a little sassy and self-congratulatory and even, dare I say it, a tad elitist and "git gud"-ish to claim that playing the game in line with the actual rules and guidelines is a "platinum platter", with the (unintended?) implication that you're just a "casual" who doesn't like "[actual] challenge". There are ways to put that without putting on an ermine robe to that degree.

modern skirmish games seems to have adapted to a new system
you roll and enemy rolls at same time-factor modifiers into rolls . your not just standing there trading blows

you roll init and say the goblin rolls lower. you strike and kill goblin. encounter over
in a group of 3 characters thats zero fun
theres also just a lot of sitting around waiting

i know the argument is its been that way for ever but eventually someone is going to come out with the D20 vs D20 system. back in the day we didnt have 3 death saves. -10 you were dead

enemies now have legendary actions. what about a once a day quick action. i rolled a 1 as a spellcaster but the party really needed me to crowd control etc. i use my quick action however that comes with a penalty. say i lose a spell slot rest of day etc.

Han solo runs around the corner and theres a ton of stormtroopers so he runs away. Could be a an option? maybe a penalty for doing that say -1 on attacks rest of combat or something

Ruin Explorer said:

I feel like this is a bit of a self-serving misrepresentation.

Click to expand...

Your feeling--feel whatever you want.

Ruin Explorer said:

To achieve what you're describing you're going to need to totally ignore encounter-building guidelines and just throw tons of "Deadly+" encounters at the PCs, like ones that they, on paper, definitely cannot handle (but in practice, they just about can), to achieve retreat/forced parlay/forced to buy their way out etc. as often as you're seeing it.

Click to expand...

First, yes, I totally ignore the guidelines because they put the game in "easy mode" (yeah, that platinum platter...).

But, even with that, I throw more hard encounters than anything else. They pose a reasonable threat, use reasonable resources, etc. They are challenging without being over taxing IMO. However, with enough of those, the PCs will face defeat from the next one and so must react accordingly as I've described. Sometimes they are stubborn or come up with something so they can win it, but that is less common than more common.

Ruin Explorer said:

Especially with a lower number of encounters/day.

Click to expand...

Second, I said nothing about encounters/day. Everything I discussed was about encounters per session. One has nothing to do with the other.

Perhaps by "day" you mean "session"? But IME when most people talk about encounters/day they mean "adventuring day", particularly when they also reference using the guidelines for encounter-building, etc.

Ruin Explorer said:

By your logic, the default design of D&D in 5E is very definitely a "platinum platter", which seems, well like a reach to me.

Click to expand...

It can seem like a reach or not, but it is. As you've stated, the players are expected to win--that is the default design. Personally, I have never been fond of playing a game where I know I am pretty much going to win. YMMV, of course.

Ruin Explorer said:

But I know you do a lot of stuff a bit differently to standard, rules-wise, so I guess it's not surprising.

Click to expand...

Well, those encounter guidelines are just that, guidelines... not rules. One has little, if anything, to do with the other.

DND_Reborn said:

It can seem like a reach or not, but it is. As you've stated, the players are expected to win--that is the default design. Personally, I have never been fond of playing a game where I know I am pretty much going to win. YMMV, of course.

Click to expand...

I mean, that describes most RPGs. But it doesn't really describe 5E well, because it, like a minority of RPGs, is more interested in attrition. Indeed 5E may be the most attrition-oriented RPG out there. Most of the others that do this are either D&D-relatives, or, interestingly, narrative games like a lot of PtbA/FitD games (not all of them), or Resistance-system games (Spire/Heart, for example)*.

DND_Reborn said:

But, even with that, I throw more hard encounters than anything else. They pose a reasonable threat, use reasonable resources, etc. They are challenging without being over taxing IMO. However, with enough of those, the PCs will face defeat from the next one and so must react accordingly as I've described. Sometimes they are stubborn or come up with something so they can win it, but that is less common than more common.

Click to expand...

I gotta be honest here, it sounds like you're playing D&D perfectly normally and just bumped up from Normal to Hard encounters, presumably because you have a well-optimised/organised group of PCs/players, but labelling others who don't do the same as having victory literally "served up" to them on a "platinum platter", is just weird as hell given that.

Like yeah, if your PCs are strong, you do need to use Hard or even Deadly encounters more! Otherwise it gets dull! That doesn't at all seem like what you were describing earlier though, which implied most fights were "life and death".

* = I wonder if the attrition model vs. life-and-death model has been been explored much in RPG theory? It seems separate from GNS.

Ruin Explorer said:

I mean, that describes most RPGs. But it doesn't really describe 5E well, because it, like a minority of RPGs, is more interested in attrition. Indeed 5E may be the most attrition-oriented RPG out there. Most of the others that do this are either D&D-relatives, or, interestingly, narrative games like a lot of PtbA/FitD games (not all of them), or Resistance-system games (Spire/Heart, for example)*.

Click to expand...

Ruin Explorer said:

I gotta be honest here, it sounds like you're playing D&D perfectly normally and just bumped up from Normal to Hard encounters, presumably because you have a well-optimised/organised group of PCs/players, but labelling others who don't do the same as having victory literally "served up" to them on a "platinum platter", is just weird as hell given that.

Click to expand...

Ok, let's try a different approach...

I am challenging the players (regardless of their experience with the game) with combats, many of which could turn deadly given any number of circumstances. IME this is what the game would call a Hard to Deadly encounter. Assuming typical play choices, dice rolls, etc. The players know they will likely be victorious 90% of the time (the 9-in-10 from upthread), sometimes with more attrition--sometimes less. 1-in-10 times either I throw something at them (Deadly) to remind them that victory is not a guarantee or bad choices, bad rolls, etc. do it for me. In such circumstances, the PCs "fail to defeat" the encounter and are forced to retreat, surrender, negotiate, etc. FWIW, this ratio is of course not set--just a relative goal I try to reach by judging the pace of encounters, where the adventure is heading, etc.

Anyway, If I don't do that and house-rule the game, it [combat] is really a piece of cake (on that platinum platter) given those default guidelines for encounter design, etc. you mentioned. IME most games after 5th level become academic if a DM follows the encounter guidelines and/or doesn't have house-rules to counter the default system. Combat in such games is boring and predictable IMO.

FWIW, I am not going to discuss this point of the game being designed in easy-mode as that topic has been done so often it is ridiculous at this point. If you disagree, no issues, but that is how I see and have experienced 5E and so I stick by it.

But all that being said, if a player finds combat boring (because they simply aren't interested in it) then it begs the question: why waste your time with combat since the PCs win (by default) practically all the time?

(Now, this is making an assumption about the combat experiences of a group-- do you find combat boring in general or because you win all the time? The OP does not specify why they started the thread, so my response was to @overgeeked who from their post finds combat boring because of the foregone conclusion of victory.)

If you want a random system just in case you desire an element of risk and possible loss, then do a single roll (as I described upthread). Or, do something like @overgeeked suggested (a single combat check for accumulated damage to determine the victor). If keeping attrition in the game is important to you, there are lots of ways to handle it with a simpler system than combat.

Or, you don't worry about attrition (unless it plays some factor in your single-roll system?) and just narrate every combat accept perhaps the climax encounters... which is what I was originally suggesting to @overgeeked if regular combat is tedious. Because even if you develop a single roll system, my first thought is such a system will still be boring because it will be designed for the PCs to continue to win most of the time--because that seems to be what people want? (It is certainly how 5E was designed...)

Ultimately, I like to think of it like this: Do you want to do a word-search game or a cross-word puzzle?

Both can certainly be fun, but the first practically assures you of success if you give it enough time, while the second you might struggle a LOT to finish--if you even can. If combat is like a word-search: relatively easy and something you can always complete but you find that boring, your options are either try a different style of combat (e.g. cross-word puzzle) or don't bother doing the combat (and spend your valuable game time engaging it what is more fun for your group).

DND_Reborn said:

If you want another system using a single die roll, here you go:

• Each player rolls a d20 for each character they have.
• The DC for the check is based on the encounter difficulty the DM sets: 2 = Easy, 3 = Moderate, 4 = Hard, 5 = Deadly.
• Each subsequent encounter before the PCs get in a short or long rest increases the base DC by 1 due to attrition.
• Spellcasters (Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard) with no spell slots remaining have disadvantage on the roll.
• Non-spellcasters (Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue) with less than maximum HP for the encounter have disadvantage on the roll.

Results:

• Any PC who fails the roll is reduced to 0 HP by the encounter.
• The encounter is a TPK if all players fail the roll. (So, the larger your party, the more likely someone will survive.)
• PCs reduced to 0 HP must recover as normal (using features, magic, or resting).
• Any PC with the spellcasting trait who fails the roll loses their highest remaining spell slot. If they succeed in the roll, they lose their lowest available spell slot. (This affects what spells casters have access to for non-combat pillars.)

You can adjust the rolls and DC if you really want, like the players get +1 per PC level and the DC is increased by the average CR (or level) of the opponents. Personally, I wouldn't bother and just use the base mechanic above, but to each their own...

Click to expand...

Building off of the above system, here is how some of the numbers work out:



So, the table shows (under Party Size) the probability of a TPK (every PC fails the DC roll). In the highlighted cells, my personal suggested Encounter and DC are in yellow and correspond to the odds (one in...) of the PCs facing a TPK (or similar defeat). For example, if you made a "hard encounter" a DC 12, the odds are about 1 in 11 that the PCs will lose, resulting in a TPK or whatever fits the narrative of your game.

The DCs I originally suggested are way too low for me, personally, to ever consider such a simple combat system, but you can adjust accordingly to taste. Of course, with each subsequent encounter increasing the DC by 1, lower DCs as a starting point might be better... Or perhaps the increase in DC depends on the encounter you just succeeded against? Like +0 for easy, +1 for moderate, +2 for hard, and +4 for deadly?

Anyway, just sharing the concept. Cheers.