Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Majoru Oakheart" data-source="post: 4615070" data-attributes="member: 5143">It's true that periodically we would choose other options.&nbsp; It's not like grapple and disarm were NEVER used.&nbsp; But they were only either used when:a) It was a special circumstance where we weren't trying to kill the monsters(about 5% of our battles)b) A new player who hadn't figured out the odds yetIt's just that in the average D&amp;D campaign plot there simply isn't much reason not to kill(or knock unconscious) monsters.&nbsp; Take, for example the following plots:-A group of insane followers of a very powerful god want to resurrect him and destroy the world.&nbsp; You must stop them.&nbsp; They are insane and can't be reasoned with.&nbsp; They summon powerful unintelligent creatures and demons to protect them.-Powerful archmage wants to rule the world, you need to find the 7 parts of a powerful artifact which is the only way to defeat him.&nbsp; They are hidden in ancient dungeons filled with undead, constructs, oozes, and animals.-Goblins are attacking nearby villages, the local lord hires you to go to their camp and kill them all so they no longer pose a threat.I just don't see a situation in those cases where(when it does come to combat) you'd NOT want to attack to do damage.&nbsp; The only reasons I could come up with are personal ones for the characters involved.&nbsp; Things like: &quot;I never kill someone until I've disarmed them and offered them a chance to surrender.&quot;&nbsp; I can see roleplaying reasons.&nbsp; But no real practical reason except in rare circumstances.&nbsp; I've seen encounters where there'd be an enemy wizard who had hundreds of hitpoints but only one good attack and it was from a wand.&nbsp; In which case, disarm is a good idea.&nbsp; But it happens so rarely.&nbsp; Because wizards are the most likely to die to damage(due to low AC, low hitpoints).&nbsp; This makes the very enemies it is best to grapple and disarm the ones that it is even BETTER just to attack for damage on.&nbsp; And you'll find that being dead causes people to drop their weapons and stop casting spells just as effectively as a disarm or grapple.As I said, I could see role playing reasons for using combat maneuvers.&nbsp; However, I could see those characters being constantly picked on by my players if they joined our group.&nbsp; Anyone who makes up a character who is suboptimal is often made fun of or complained about.&nbsp; Things like &quot;I can't believe you are playing a character who refuses to do damage.&nbsp; You realize I almost died this session because you didn't attack that monster.&nbsp; If you were playing a better character, we'd have a much easier time.&nbsp; Maybe you could have your character slowly realize that his vow is endangering his friends and that by not attacking the monster you are actually hurting people.&nbsp; Then he can change his mind about his vow and help us kill the monsters.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Majoru Oakheart, post: 4615070, member: 5143"] It's true that periodically we would choose other options. It's not like grapple and disarm were NEVER used. But they were only either used when: a) It was a special circumstance where we weren't trying to kill the monsters(about 5% of our battles) b) A new player who hadn't figured out the odds yet It's just that in the average D&D campaign plot there simply isn't much reason not to kill(or knock unconscious) monsters. Take, for example the following plots: -A group of insane followers of a very powerful god want to resurrect him and destroy the world. You must stop them. They are insane and can't be reasoned with. They summon powerful unintelligent creatures and demons to protect them. -Powerful archmage wants to rule the world, you need to find the 7 parts of a powerful artifact which is the only way to defeat him. They are hidden in ancient dungeons filled with undead, constructs, oozes, and animals. -Goblins are attacking nearby villages, the local lord hires you to go to their camp and kill them all so they no longer pose a threat. I just don't see a situation in those cases where(when it does come to combat) you'd NOT want to attack to do damage. The only reasons I could come up with are personal ones for the characters involved. Things like: "I never kill someone until I've disarmed them and offered them a chance to surrender." I can see roleplaying reasons. But no real practical reason except in rare circumstances. I've seen encounters where there'd be an enemy wizard who had hundreds of hitpoints but only one good attack and it was from a wand. In which case, disarm is a good idea. But it happens so rarely. Because wizards are the most likely to die to damage(due to low AC, low hitpoints). This makes the very enemies it is best to grapple and disarm the ones that it is even BETTER just to attack for damage on. And you'll find that being dead causes people to drop their weapons and stop casting spells just as effectively as a disarm or grapple. As I said, I could see role playing reasons for using combat maneuvers. However, I could see those characters being constantly picked on by my players if they joined our group. Anyone who makes up a character who is suboptimal is often made fun of or complained about. Things like "I can't believe you are playing a character who refuses to do damage. You realize I almost died this session because you didn't attack that monster. If you were playing a better character, we'd have a much easier time. Maybe you could have your character slowly realize that his vow is endangering his friends and that by not attacking the monster you are actually hurting people. Then he can change his mind about his vow and help us kill the monsters." [/QUOTE]

Verification