D&D General Fixing the Offense Tunnel Vision problem

[HatWearingFool]

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.

I haven’t played like this so I don’t really know, but I think if my hp was capped I’d be even more incentivized to crush opponents as quickly as possible, ideally before they even get to go. Although maybe at times it makes healing in combat an optimal choice I suspect not overall.

I agree with one of the above comments that the issue is fundamentally that no one’s effectiveness as an opponent is impeded until they hit 0 hp. This is why healing isn’t a great strategy in combat, or buffs.

So it just make sense to focus one enemy at a time until they drop. Unless you have some other objective in an encounter such as save this person in 3 rounds or less or they die and you lose.

If enemy’s lost actions, damage potential, movement…. Anything some where between 1 and 100% hp then it might make sense to split damage or something else but the action economy is king so the best way to win is to eliminate enemy action potential as quickly as possible.

Go first, hit hard.

Although I could see having low hit points motivate me to ensure combat is weighted as much in my favour as possible before it starts, once you roll I think it’s kill the enemy as quickly as possible.

 

[GMMichael]

Two words: death tree.

I agree with one of the above comments that the issue is fundamentally that no one’s effectives as an an opponent is impeded until they hit 0 hp. This is why healing isn’t a great strategy in combat, or buffs.

Assuming this means what I think it means, I'd say the issue is D&D's focus on hit points. What if monster entries listed a Morale Check Bonus, or a Bribe Minimum, or a Non-Combat Goal for each monster?

 

[HatWearingFool]

Two words: death tree.

Assuming this means what I think it means, I'd say the issue is D&D's focus on hit points. What if monster entries listed a Morale Check Bonus, or a Bribe Minimum, or a Non-Combat Goal for each monster?

Sorry, I cleaned it up a bit. But yes you got it right.

Although I’d say it’s two things:

Hit Points are essentially an on/off switch with 1%-99.9% being “on” and 0% being “off”.

And the other issue being that the action economy is king.

If you are faced with 3 equivalent opponents it’s almost always better to kill one rather than wound 3.

 

[The Sigil]

Generally, I would point out that generally, swarms of smaller enemies (assuming they stay apart so they can't be cleared out by a fireball) is better than a single super tough BBEG. This is for two reasons:

1. Action economy - OP, you've already stated you're not a fan of legendary actions so that means other than perhaps a reaction, a BBEG is likely getting hit 4x as often every round as the PCs are since there are 4x as many PCs as BBEGs... but face the PCs off against a swarm of lower creatures and now the PCs are getting hit 4x as often every round as they are hitting baddies.

2. Wasted damage - If your PCs can deal 20 points of damage in a single hit, and your BBEG has 200 hp, it takes 10 hits to bring him down as none of that damage is wasted. If you instead throw 20 baddies with 10 hp each at the PCs... it takes 20 hits to bring them down as the "extra" 10 damage from each attack beyond the 10 hp needed to incapacitate is wasted.

Others have suggested alternative goals, terrain, but I'll throw one more sneaky tough thing in that I think goes underestimated in D&D - give your boss MOBILITY. For instance, the ability to dimension door as a bonus action and then move, is a great way of making sure the PCs can't just surround the boss and whomp on him... every round where the melee characters have to chase a target that has moved farther than their move speed helps.

I recall a near-TPK that took place once when a mid-level party of seven characters I was running found themselves up against a single monk that was just one level higher than the party... but had an 18 Strength was equipped with boots of striding and springing. Vertical leap for a character with an 18 strength is 7 feet (3 + modifier of 4) with a 10' running start... but boots of striding and springing triple that, so now the monk could leap 21 feet into the air - meaning he could easily leap up a story or two if near a building. Now imagine encountering the monk in a courtyard of a villa that is 5 stories high. On his first turn, the monk leaps from the courtyard up to a balcony on the second floor. Missile attacks? Deflected. Spell attacks? Evaded. As the party closes in on the balcony, he gets a running start off the balcony and leapt 25' diagonally/horizontally across the courtyard (long jump of 18x3 feet = 54 feet) to a third-floor balcony (since you are at the height apex of a jump at the midpoint, and he's only trying to go "up" 10 feet to the next story, I felt this was easily doable if he is doing half his horizontal distance and half his vertical distance). The party couldn't keep up, couldn't pin him down to target him, and even though he was peppering them only with sling bullets between leaps, it nearly resulted in a TPK ... the party eventually had to retreat. (I had not deliberately planned this; I was actually surprised by how deadly the mobility was, especially the ability to easily change elevation, and the monk's ability to slow fall without taking damage allowed him to quickly and safely drop a couple of stories once the party got close to him to start the chase all over again).

Generally, any intelligent BBEG should NEVER be standing in a slugfest with the PCs trading blows; they should almost always be moving out of the PCs' range (or as close to it as they can manage) on every one of their turns. Dragons shouldn't ever be going toe-to-toe with PCs, they should almost always be airborne (or waterborne for green or black dragons), making swoop attacks at the middle of their movement as they dive bomb and fly back up (or better yet, retreat underwater where missile weapons won't help)... or just strafe with breath weapons without ever engaging in melee. Creatures with a burrow speed should attack and burrow back underground before ending their movement... yes the PCs can follow down the hole, but now the creature can burrow around them and attack from any angle, and the PCs can't just move through solid earth to surround them. Incorporeal creatures should retreat through walls after attacking, etc.

I would also recommend Map Crow's video on DM tactics (mostly around encounter design) as they will give you some good ideas on how to design an encounter with multiple layers of threats where the PC's just can't rush the boss and go nova.

 

[Kurotowa]

I agree with one of the above comments that the issue is fundamentally that no one’s effectiveness as an opponent is impeded until they hit 0 hp. This is why healing isn’t a great strategy in combat, or buffs.

Non-damaged based offensive actions have two major downsides. One is that they have to be pretty strong to be worth doing instead of dealing damage. The other is that they're a PITA to keep track of.

That was one of the common complaints about 4e, as I recall. That all the buffs and debuffs and conditional modifiers were a nightmare to track and calculate for every turn. That sort of combat design is fine for a video game because the computer handles it all automatically, but in a TTRPG it has to be done manually. Which means unless your DM has the right talents, combat is going to slow to a crawl and be full of errors.

A big advantage of HP is that it's a single number that mostly just goes down. That makes it simple and easy to track. And keeping it that way is a major overall design goal for 5e. Not that even 5e isn't complicated for the casual players. I'm the designated rules guy for my group and I still have to remind people about details constantly.

 

[Merlecory]

I think we have some different play experiences. Control/buffs from caster are fairly common in my experience. Faerie Fire and Web are staples on my casters (who can have them), as are spells like Bless.

That said, some thoughts in no particular order:

• Players focus lots on damage/attacking since that's what the game focuses on. A 5e fighter gets more features boosting offense than they do defense.
• Outside of Dodge, I am blanking on what defensive actions PCs can take. Spells like Shield and Absorb Elements are pretty good defensively, but they are reactions, not actions.
  • I have seen casters Dodge to help maintain concentration, but I don't think I have ever seen a martial character use it.
• A turn spent on defense doesn't (usually) advance a fight. The PC takes a turn Dodging, and the enemy misses. No resources are spent, not health is lost. Some possible "solutions" to help
  • Enemies can get powerful, telegraphed attacks. A clear "at the start of this enemies next turn, excrement impacts the cooling device" can encourage players to seek out cover.
  • Ways to control enemy aggression. Video game "Tank" classes rely on this. Similarly, the Armorer Artificer's Thunder gauntlets impose disadvantage on creatures that are attacking enemies other than the Artificer. Note: AoE's and features that impose a saving throw are not hindered by this at all.
  • Counter attack's could solve this, if the reward for countering are greater than just attacking. If these can be used without cost every turn, they risk being the go-to, and players may perceive the DM to be adversarial when enemies don't attack the countering character.

 

[J-H]

Outside of Dodge, I am blanking on what defensive actions PCs can take. Spells like Shield and Absorb Elements are pretty good defensively, but they are reactions, not actions.

Disengaging is a defensive action that forces enemies to chase you. Rogues, Monks, or free with the Mobile feat. I see it pretty regularly. My wife's character used Mobile a couple of days ago to de-stick herself from an azer barbarian so she could go kill the spellcaster he was trying to protect.

Grapple + Silence is great against enemy spellcasters to prevent spellcasting. It doesn't deal damage, but it prevents it. It does take some teamwork. Grappling alone can also be used to keep a melee enemy in place. I had one group of players succeed at fighting a Shadow Dragon mostly because the Enlarged barbarian was able to grapple it and keep it inside the area of a Sickening Radiance spell and the cleric's Daylight. The barbarian was the only one taking melee hits. He was a shield-user so while grappling the only damage he could do was unarmed strikes... so yes, he punched a dragon to death.

Using a shield instead of big weapon or dual-wielding. If Barbarian, not Reckless attacking.

If my dual-wielding barbarian could get a Defender weapon, I would absolutely put that in the off hand for +3 AC all the time.

Spells whose primary purpose is reducing enemy to-hit chances or denying them the ability to act: Bane, Entangle, Earthen Grasp, Blindness, Fog Cloud, Stinking Cloud, Sleet Storm, Synaptic Static, Shield of Faith, Blur, Blink, Mirror Image, Frostbite.
Only two of those deal any damage at all (SS & Frostbite). Most of them are pretty good, although Sleet Storm is very situational. Only Synaptic Static and Sleet Storm are above 3rd level.

 

[aco175]

Last week the Pcs fought some of the new lamia monsters and their basic attack lets them force WIS saves of be charmed. There is also no text that says the PCs can make saves at the end of their turns, so it looks like they are charmed for an hour. This took out 2 PCs and 2 of the henchmen who are half the party's level. Suddenly the fights looked a lot worse and the players were searching their sheets for something.

The barbarian did have some power that let him suspend the charm while raging and granting advantage to attacks against him. I did not look it up and went with it.

 

[Umbran]

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

My primary approach is to design encounters such that "dead enemy" is not the actual goal. If killing the enemy is a means, rather than an end, other means will be considered.

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

Which might be more clearly noted in the thought that, given a goal of "dead enemy", the game's math rewards offense over defense.

 

[Sacrosanct]

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.

Based on many of the responses, I guess today is that day

Here's why I disagree that doing HP damage is always the best option. There are two examples that immediately jump to my mind, although I'm sure there are more.

1. The math doesn't always support that unless you recharge all resources after every battle. If you've got a PC with 15 HP and does 8 damage each round, and an opponent with 15 hp and does 5 damage each round, assuming PC wins initiative, the PC takes 5 damage by the time the opponent dies in the 2nd round before it gets to act. However, if instead the PC has defense that reduces incoming damage by 3 and their own damage by 3 each round, the combat takes an extra round, but the PC only takes 4 damage by the end of the combat. So why offense is often better, it's not always better. The issue here is allowing PCs to recover all of their HP after every battle. There is no carry-over risk.

2. If you have 4 enemies each doing 10 damage each round, immobilizing one or two of them reduces their damage to 0 each round, allowing PCs to focus fire on those not immobilized and keep their own HP from being reduced as much. Clearly a better option that isn't just damage.