D&D General Fixing the Offense Tunnel Vision problem

[Tigris]

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.

I do agree with you, but these options dont always exist / do not exist for everyone.


This was 100% the idea behind controller and defender rome in D&D 4e, but it probided specific mechanics for it.


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.


You also dont know if not suddenly thst enemy has some huge trick like a spell slot etc. So killing it before it can use it is the default with a lack of information. (Especially in 5e where some really low hp enemies can have 4th level spell slots!)


Also you might fear a crit (especially with the hight crit damage rule which some groups use), so the longer an enemy lives the higher the chance they get some crit.


One other problem is also that often it can feel bad if I use a ressource and an action just to make the enemy also lose its action (snd we both deal no damage). Sure if its a single boss it will be worth it, but with more enemies it becomes harder. Thats why I think its good to always have also some damage on the control spells to feel some progress.

 

[Reynard]

The problem with developing solutions to this problem is that the design of 5E is aimed at hit points as the primary balancing factor for CR. You can't change the "hit it as hard as possible" mindset without making victory something besides eliminating hit points.

 

[HatWearingFool]

The other options beside damage are what the community has helpfully labeled save or suck…. And I guess the community label kind of explains the general thoughts around those options

Maybe it’s just me and the people I know but D&D combat just isn’t that great. Still a game I have fun with but I don’t understand how combat is still the way it is after all these years.

I think a DM has to go out of his way in D&D to make combat interesting, which works but can be a pain. It would be nice if combat could just be fun without a lot of contrivance.

Nimble fixes many of my issues with D&D combat. This game is 5e compatible and really goes to show (IMHO) how WOTC could improve things with just a bit of effort.

You choose whether to attack or defend, no passive damage avoidance. If you use all of your actions attacking you will die quickly. You can interpose and intercept an enemy’s attack against another pc if you want to tank. You can save all of your actions for defence and literally just tank/wall for the party.

Save or suck spells aren’t an issue.

There is no action economy issue when fighting solo bosses. And therefore you don’t need fun killing legendary resistances. This one really gets me going… the big fix? A solo boss gets an action every time a pc has a turn… boom action economy fixed for any number of pc’s . It’s simple and works amazing (for me).

 

[HatWearingFool]

The problem with developing solutions to this problem is that the design of 5E is aimed at hit points as the primary balancing factor for CR. You can't change the "hit it as hard as possible" mindset without making victory something besides eliminating hit points.

That and legendary resistances you have to attrit through if you choose to go with something beside damage.

Oh great I have a couple rounds of, Nope just didn’t work to go through before I start doing stuff. I know it’s the same as wearing down ho, but somehow it feels different to me ¯\(ツ)/¯

EDIT: now that I think about it I guess the difference is with damage is that failures are my dice rolls and other options failure is because of the enemy dice rolls or powers.

 

[Tigris]

Maybe it’s just me and the people I know but D&D combat just isn’t that great. Still a game I have fun with but I don’t understand how combat is still the way it is after all these years.

I think a DM has to go out of his way in D&D to make combat interesting, which works but can be a pain. It would be nice if combat could just be fun without a lot of contrivance.

This is a D&D 5e problem not a D&D problem. 4e solved that before. Including solo bosses which worked and did scale differently. (If every solo just gets 1 attack each player turn its also just always similar and also feels more similar to just 1 enemy per player).


Also just needing an action tax for defense in the end does not solve the problem completly, it just slightly shifts it. "Ok I know I need X actions to survive, how can I do most damage with the other actions."


I dont know nimble but Dhadowbane also "solved it" with active defense, only that there mathematically the choice does not really matter in many situations.

 

[GMMichael]

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 . . . You also dont know if not suddenly thst enemy has some huge trick like a spell slot etc. So killing it before it can use it is the default with a lack of information.

Sounds like the party needs to have a chat with the local ranger before leaving town, to learn about the regional monsters.

You choose whether to attack or defend, no passive damage avoidance. If you use all of your actions attacking you will die quickly. You can interpose and intercept an enemy’s attack against another pc if you want to tank. You can save all of your actions for defence and literally just tank/wall for the party.

Active defense makes perfect sense to me, as long as it doesn't equate to "I postpone the end of combat for a round."

How does intercepting enemy attacks work? It's attractive to stick yourself between a brute and your more fragile party member, but likely as risky as breaking up a fight between two hamsters (trust me, I know).

Also, it seems pretty unfair that you can use tanks in Nimble. Just saying.

 

[Tigris]

Sounds like the party needs to have a chat with the local ranger before leaving town, to learn about the regional monsters.

And I am sure they will not tell exactly how much damage they deal and how much life they have. Because the "do less damage take less damage" needs precise calculations to work.

If the enemy lives 2 turns more instead of 1, then the calculation presented no longer works and killing it fsster eould again give the psrty less damage.

Also, it seems pretty unfair that you can use tanks in Nimble. Just saying.

Well the D&D community does find (or did in the past) tanks "too gamey".

 

[HatWearingFool]

Active defense makes perfect sense to me, as long as it doesn't equate to "I postpone the end of combat for a round."

How does intercepting enemy attacks work? It's attractive to stick yourself between a brute and your more fragile party member, but likely as risky as breaking up a fight between two hamsters (trust me, I know).

Well you can take the risk of burning all your actions on offensive combat and hope the problem goes away, but unlike d&d you are pretty much guaranteed to be hit if you don’t choose to defend.

For intercepting attacks I look at it like I’m sacrificing an offensive action to give the other player one. Basically my action is used for defence so you can use your action for something (more effective).

For example it’s probably more effective for a highly durable character to take and defend the hit than to have a mage use an action to defend. The mages defence just won’t be that good.

So the interpose action states:
If a creature within 2 spaces would be struck with an attack, you can push them out of the way and become the new target of the attack. You enter their space and move them to an adjacent space of your choice.

Interpose and defend?
Yes! As long as you have enough actions to spend you can interpose and defend at the same time.

Some classes get bonuses for interpose and defend as well.

 

[Basic Expert]

Offense leads to a win condition. Defense does not. Thus, in the player mindset offense > defense. Sure, there are outliers and situations where that is not the case, but how much information do players have to make that calculation during the combat?

Building towards DPR is also much easier to quantify than other factors. How much is a debuff worth? Sometimes a lot. Sometimes nothing. "DPR number go up!" is simple enough for most players to grasp.

And with D&D specialization-based design for characters, it's not like many can rebuild from offensive-masters to defensive-masters on the fly. You just go with what works. Everything else is situational and much harder to implement.

 

[Kurotowa]

Offense leads to a win condition. Defense does not. Thus, in the player mindset offense > defense. Sure, there are outliers and situations where that is not the case, but how much information do players have to make that calculation during the combat?

D&D is just not built for a defense based gameplan. For one, the resource attrition model means that saving resources now doesn't pay off until a hypothetical future point several encounters down the line. Which may or may not ever arrive, depending on how long the adventuring day is. For another, defensive actions only pay off if the enemy still attacks you. If the DM has the NPC be smart and say, "Gee that guy turtled up, let me attack someone else instead" then the defense had a much lower return.

Compare this to an MMORPG raid boss fight. The fight can demand every resource available because all those resources refresh after the encounter. The fight can ride a fine line where you're always one or two mistakes away from a TPK because everyone just stands up from a TPK and tries again. The fight can throw lethal amounts of damage at the players that has to be defensively mitigated because damage and health levels between boss and players is massively asymmetrical, and players are rapidly bouncing from full health to almost dead to full health again.

The combat environment varies so much, and what works or doesn't work is very different.