D&D General Fixing the Offense Tunnel Vision problem

[Zardnaar]

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.

Large numbers are fun.
Offense>defense.
Death is best debuff.
HP bloat requires more damage

In D&D I rate control and support highly as well.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Another problem is that you normally lack the information needed for this. Like you do not know exactly how many more attacks the enemy gets when you play defensively or how much less damage you take. But you do know that a dead enemy cant do damage, always.

I still think the problem is that PC resources recover too quickly. If you only recovered your CON bonus every long rest instead of full HP, you can bet players would look more towards defense, because now your HP have to last a lot longer. Killing an enemy quicker but still taking some amount of damage is going to be worse than taking longer to beat the enemy, but reducing damage to negligible.* You can reduce that damage by increasing defense, taking out enemies through other means (charming, incapacitating, etc.), or other reasons. Not saying damage isn't an option, but saying the other options become more relevant and legitimate choices.

*Taking 5 damage in a shorter combat round, but having 10 combats between recovery is gonna be worse than taking 4 damage even if those combat rounds are longer. It's only with fast recovery does it make it totally ok to take that damage and get the battle over fast.

 

[jmartkdr2]

One other dnd design element that makes high-damage builds more effective is the way resources recharge between battles. That means you have the most resources at the start of the fight, so you can do your strongest attacks in round 1, which is also the round where doing the most damage is most effective (more targets, less chance of overkill, better for gaining an action economy edge, etc.)

13th Age and other games flip the script on this by giving you reasons to hold back in the start of a fight, meaning it makes more sense to use buffs or defensive actions early and make your big attacks later. 13th Age does this with the Escalation Die, but I can think of a few other ways to do it offhand.