D&D General Fixing the Offense Tunnel Vision problem

[Sacrosanct]

A bit of a definition. By "problem" I mean how many tables focus on doing as much damage as possible as choice #1, 2 and 3 when planning combat. And I understand that this isn't a problem for some people because a) they might like to play that way, or b) they have players that aren't focused on DPR so they use other options anyway.

That out of the way, let's go on to the actual problem as I define it: Players looking at DPR as the primary options when doing combat as opposed to other alternatives (like crowd control, debuffing, etc.). I've heard several folks in the past say that offense is always better than defense. Always. I disagree with that unless you recharge all resources after every battle, but that's a discussion for another day. Let's assume this is true. We also know that there have been many complaints about D&D

• lasting only a couple rounds of combat, even boss battles.
• HP bloat to make enemies last longer isn't really all that fun.

Assuming that 90% of the time, players will always choose to do more DPR than anything else, how do we fix that? How do we make the combat encounter more well-rounded with choices other than just damage? For example, if a boss battle lasts 6-7 (ha!) rounds instead of only 3-4, then choices like DoT or debuffing look a lot more attractive. But we don't want to just give more HP because that's boring. Some options include:

• having a way to mitigate or debuff the players
• using mooks to soak up PC spells and resources
• mechanics like legendary resistance (which I don't like btw)
• expanding the battlefield so terrain and movement are more of a factor
• prepared battle spaces, sort of like lair actions but more robust
• multi-stage encounter (video game boss fights are well known for this)

If you're encountering this problem, what are some of your solutions?

 

[Deset Gled]

One main reason folks prefer offense to defense is that offense makes a good defense. A dead enemy does no HP damage and casts no spells. More modern D&D compounds this by making healing even cheaper. You can afford to take one or two rounds of damage by going full offense, because you know it will be healed with a short rest.

An obvious solution to this is to make damage hurt more. Make it so those HP heal in days instead of minutes, and players will think longer about running head on into battle.

A slightly less obvious corrolary to this is that you also need powerful defensive options in combat. Offense is still more valuable if it ends HP drain too quickly. You need to give options that make 3 rounds of holding back guaranteed to cost less HP than running in head on.

The simplest solution I have found in 5e is: stick to low levels. HP bloat is trivial when you have 3 or less HD. AC and cover is more valuable when fighters can't afford full plate and spells are still limited. Of course, this solution starts to have its own problems after too many sessions.

 

[touc]

Diversifying combat goals (e.g. protect that NPC for 10 rounds, DPR doesn't matter so much as protective abilities), or as you propose change combat mechanics can shift combat strategies but likely at the cost of longer combat encounters. The longer the combats, the less roleplay / exploration you get in. Combined with "dead enemies can't deal damage" and it's built in for players to maximize DPS. For most random encounters and "routine" battles, the slugfest is expected.

For combat mechanics, brainstorming:

• Boost the effectiveness of DOTs and debuffs to make them more appealing. Consider boosting some, not all, special attacks to be extra lethal (e.g. AD&D days when wyvern poison was save or die).
• Make up some new abilities for supervisor/leader enemies, such as "once per round block a single [insert type like melee attack, targeted spell, ranged attack, etc.] you can see, declared before the damage is rolled. You take no damage." There was a class of enemies in my Dragon Age campaign (3d6 system instead of d20) that had this. I also did the next redesign as a major complaint of the system was HP bloat and the extended combat slugfests that resulted:
• Cap PC hit points. Reduce "minion" hit points to 50% and increase their # in combat. Keep bosses / leaders 100%. Capping PC hit points in some way could completely wreck a campaign if done wrong (it might take some experimentation), but it would also push characters to invest in a combination of offensive and defensive capabilities.

For encounters:

• I've posted in the past a list of 20+ alternative objectives in combat other than beating the other guy's HP down. So did this community many years ago.
• If you can make a quick reference sheet with a list of 20+ of combat alternative objectives or complications, you can spice up combats with a quick glance. Not every encounter is or should be a special "king of the hill" or "capture the flag." Sometimes there's simply orcs in the next chamber that need to die before you can move further into the castle. Even so, I like things like alarm bells, horns, etc. Someone is going to ring that bell, and you probably don't have the DPS to kill them all. But, do you have something else? (spells to silence, cut the cord, etc.) By inserting little tokens like this, diversity in spells and abilities that do more than raw DPS might be useful.

 

[Kurotowa]

Good luck trying to change human nature! A preference for big damage numbers and hitting the enemy until they stop moving holds true across every class based game I've ever played. Not just D&D or even TTRPGs, but everything.

In every MMORPG I've ever played, direct damage classes are far and away the most popular, and many of those players live down to the stereotype of fixating on damage meters while ignoring tactical considerations or group buffs. In the modern hero shooter genre, direct damage heroes are again the overwhelming favorite, while tanks and healers are harder to come by.

Far be it from me to speculate too deeply into the psychology of why. But the visceral satisfaction of taking direct offensive action and getting an immediate result has a broad appeal. Even when the optimizers spell out why it isn't the most objectively effective, most players still favor it.

So I don't think design incentives will move the needle very much on this one. The playstyle isn't favored because it's the best, it's favored because that's what a lot of people enjoy most. Simple, direct, and immediate.

 

[MGibster]

One main reason folks prefer offense to defense is that offense makes a good defense.

Words of wisdom from none other than master strategist Mel from Alice.

That out of the way, let's go on to the actual problem as I define it: Players looking at DPR as the primary options when doing combat as opposed to other alternatives (like crowd control, debuffing, etc.). I've heard several folks in the past say that offense is always better than defense.

It might help to identify the source of the problem. I humbly suggest that hit points themselves are the root cause with hit point bloat further exacerbating the problem. A creature on its last hit point is just as effective as it was when it had ninety-nine hit points, so the longer it remains on its feet, the more opportunities it has to do damage to the PCs, thus motivating PCs to do as much damage as quickly possible to end the threat.

If you're encountering this problem, what are some of your solutions?

Early in my current campaign, I tried setting fights on interesting terrain to give players some options. Even something so simple as being able to push someone off a cliff or drop something heavy on the bad guys can encourage PCs from doing something other than hitting someone.

 

[aco175]

What! No Conan meme about lamentations of women yet. Some people just like to roll lots of dice and feel powerful on game nights.

I recall the old Stoneskin spell that would just bounce one attack no matter how much damage it was. I cannot recall the last time it was used with the 4e/5e rules.

 

[Tigris]

General:

If you can burst down enemies in 2 turns then its the best option. Also what should martial characters do when not dps? They cant do anything else.


The "Alphastrike problem" was even present in some groups in Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition, and there combat lasts 4-5 turns not 2-3 as in 5E.


The reason why this was not always the case is that 4E had the possibility to do other roles (Controller (debuff and area damage), Leader (heal and buffs) and defender (protecting allies)) fully supported. Of course in many groups players did focus on other things than just damage because of that, but for some groups the alphastrike problem was still there.


What I mean with 4E fully support other roles is that you have mechanics which allow you to protect allies (reactions, good opportunity attacks, cover rules which are not ignored), as well as strong heal as minor action (not just Jojo) as well as encounter long buffs, and long lasting (but not instant win) debuffs to control things.


Also with combinations like prone and slow you could hinder enemies from attacking you altogher, since slow did reduce movement to only 2 squares and prone cost whole movement to get up. So as a controller you could spend your turn to maybe make 1-3 monsters unable to attack and deal some damage to them.


Solutions from other games:

However, D&D 4e had many mechanics against this, some groups just ignored several of these mechanics or "made the game faster" (sometimes by halving XP). So here what 4e does against the alphastrike problem (but again not all of them can work in 5E because of the too short combat and other mechanics):

• 4e has minions. 1 hp enemies (ehich can only be killed with a hit not with a miss even if it does damage(. So if you attack an enemy (type) with your strongest attack before you know that they have more than 1 health, then you have a good chance to waste your power.
• Of course when you directly tell the players which enemies are minions this does not help.
• Even if not using minions, you can have a wide range of monster strength. Monsters could be level -3 or level +3. Or they can be elites (or solos but they are normally obvious). A +3 elite is 6 times as strong as a -3 normal enemy. So you do not want to waste your ultra burst on a wrak enemy. And 4e had the "bloody" mechanic. You learn when an enemy goes below 50% hp giving you a clue how much HP they have, helping you to not waste damage.
• Again telling the players who an elite is makes part of this less needed.
• Then 4e has 4 different defenses. And most classes have at least 2 different ones they can attack (eapecially casters non casters most often attack just against armor). Between a weak defense and a strong defense there is normally around a 20% hit chance difference (so 65% chance to hit or 45%). Do learning through weaker attacks what is the strong and wrak defrnses of enemies can help you not use your strong Reflex attack against the enemy which has a strong reflex defense.
• Some people even tell the players the stats of the enemies making this tactic unneeded
• then there also exist damage immunities for certain types, or resistances and weaknesses. So you might want to know beforehand if you want to attack with a strong ability.
• Similar as above.
• combats would typically go around 5 turns often 6. You only having at most 1 daily spell (in average) per combat + you only having 4 encounter abilities + having several ways to use more than 1 encounter ability per turn. (Some dont need an action (but a minor action or reaction), you beinh able to use 2 attacks in a single turn every 2 combats in average and more) makes sure that in a normal combat you would need to do 1-3 at will attacks anyway, makes it worth to wait for good opportunities for abilities.
• However, some groups used house rules to cut HP by half because "faster combat = better" and then this does not apply.. (at that time many people took forever to take decisions because they were not used to them. And rpgs were played by even more people with no understanding of game design..)
• there are lots of abilities in the game which grant you conbat advantage against an enemy (+2 to hit), or leader abilities which grant you a temporary bonus to hit, or abilities to temporarily reduce the enemy defenses. So its normally worth to use the really good abilities when some good conditions are given. This was originally especially imoortsnt in higher levels (with more encounter and daily abilities)-
• however, some loud players did not like that teamplay was needed and complained a lot, so some feats were created to give more + hit on higher levels to make this less needed. (But still usefull!)
• Then most strong abilities are at least to some degree situational. Like often they are area attacks and of ciurse the strongedt the more enemies you can catch with it. 4e hss lots of forced movement which makrs it possible to clump enemies together zo create a perfect situation for such spells.
• However, if the GM just clumps them together from the start and the players are in range and have initiative then well... Other situational abilities might need allies next to an enemy, or you want to be able to kick an enemy into dangerous terrain (which some classes can also create) or similar things.
• Then using reinforcements. Its mentioned in thr DMG and the first sdventure hss a fight with them. But well that might be true for other games as well. So 4e also created a mechanic for reinforcements. The lurker monster roles. Monsters which hide/start invisible and only come out later trying to kill your squishy backline. I hope you then still have some strong sbilities to save them!
• Of course if you never use Lurkers, or let them attack the fighter round 1 this does not help.
• Also in case you think "well if it feels like enemies are missing there are lurkers", well you can also use enounter budget on hidden traps! Or use an elite among the enemy monsters (unless you use all the same monsters...) etc.
• Some enemies had some disruptive powers. Like kicking players away after 1 attack (even if they would do a multi attack which may hit 2+ more times). Or some other defensive reaction (get more defenses, take less damage for a round etc.) So you might want to use your strong (multiattack) powers only when you know the enemy has most likely no more strong defensive abilities (most enemies only have 1 or 2 abilities. Some abilities are multi use, so you can test that first with a weaker attack etc.)
• However a GM is not forced to use such powers to waste alpha striking, so some may just not use such monsters.

Another game which has mechanics against the alphastrike problem is 13th age:

• The combat also lasts 4-5 turns in average making bursting down harder especially with
• The main anti alphastrike mechanic mechanic the escalation dice, which allows to give enemies relative high defense, since each turn the bonus you add to your attacks increases (dice starts at 0 and then increases up to 6 and it gets added to attack rolls). This means its normally not ideal to just try to use your strong bursts in turn 1 or 2. So defensive options become better: Combat Rules – 13th Age SRD
• Some classes also have attack "chains" where later attacks gets stronger, like 2 classes can/need to charge their attacks, while the monk has a progression
• Still 13th age also focus of damage, because without the grid there is not a big focus on movement, so many effects cant really be done anymore.

Conclusion

• If combat is too short, there is no space for anything besides damage
• If (some) classes cant do anything effective besides damage, there is no good reason to no maximize damage
• You can use some mechanics to help against "full burst" / pure DPS, but its more against burst damage than general damage

 

[Sorinth]

I don't really buy into the idea that it's even a problem when it happens.

But to stay productive I'd offer puzzle battles as an option. You could for example have a shadow based boss that is immune to damage unless they are within bright light. Obviously this boss would either snuff out or leave any area of bright light whenever possible, so the players would constantly have light up areas and then do their damage before the boss gets out of the light.

Redirecting damage is another option, especially if it can be redirected towards someone the PCs don't want to kill. For example a Vampire who has charmed an NPC friend of the PCs and has something like a Warding Bond type effect with them means the PCs can't just unleash the damage novas.


But there's also just showing them there's a better way, a rival adventuring group that somewhat mirrors the PCs but use non DPR tactics is a great way to show off how effective those tactics can be. It might be a little "unfun" for the players if they are getting CCed a bunch, so might be best suited for a gladiatorial type games situation where the stakes aren't life & death. And while the combat might be unfun, that real frustration can actually be used to fuel a great rivalry/story arc if you lean into this group doing things that indirectly also cause frustration like getting to a dungeon and looting it before the PCs, or gaining fame/rewards the PCs were gunning for.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I think reflecting and redirecting damage can be a big one. It would encourage players to find alternative ways of dealing with the enemy.

 

[J-H]

Capping HP growth at 10th level has worked great in my BG2 game. Nobody's over 150hp and they are 19th level. Everyone has invested in defensive abilities where they can, and although the access to magic makes their ACs relatively high, every hit that gets through counts. Combined with exhaustion if you go to 0, in-combat healing with potions and spells is very much on their radar.