How do we really want combat to be?

[Cyraneth]

(...) Same goes for massive death-dealing spells. I want the finesse...that personal touch people will remember. (...)

Well, isn't muttering a single dark word (power word kill), looking at your opponent with evil glee oozing of finesse as well? Purely gamemachinically it isn't, but imagine the scene. A person able to slay with a mere word, and even without spilling a single drop of blood, must be awe-inspiring. And while finesse can be defined in many ways, a duelist's swashbuckling style is full of finesse, an assassin's ability to pick his enemies (by sneaking and death attacking) is certainly a kind of finesse as well, as he only eliminates whatever is necessary, nothing more, and just as well is a necromancer's ability to slay if he wants to (by expending a fairly large amount of magical power and hoping the target won't resist it). He "spares" the minions by simply slaying the bad guy. If the DM isn't fond of necromancers or assassins slaying certain villains or creatures, they simply protect them against such effects (with death ward, armor with the fortification ability, undead, plant, or construct type, or if all else fails new magic items). I presume characters fearful of death effects will protect themselves against such effects as well.

- Cyraneth

 

[Cyraneth]

Because, as we all know, death is character building.

More 'cause deaths let the players feel exactly how dangerous the life of a hero and adventurer is. If they never die 'cause they only kill goblins all the time and laugh while the gnolls try to pierce their +5 full plates of heavy fortification they aren't really heroes. Any guy could do that. What makes them heroes is facing these life-or-death situations, wondrously surviving the lich's finger of death or something similarly dangerous. But if those life-threatening situations become so easy to resist, however, that the players won't mind another, they can't really be considered heroic either.

Exactly. And think of how heroic your wizard is, now that all the broken feats and spells have been nerfed.

Well, to be heroic, you still need to be able to actually -do- something. Just hurling spells left and right to see them fail isn't going to be heroic either.

"Look, guys. My 16th-level wizard actually survived this adventure although he didn't do a thing, except hide behind the rogue. How heroic!"

- Cyraneth

 

[reapersaurus]

Oh my GOD - Cyraneth- PLEASE tell me you are not a DM.

I could have sworn that you were a player who was whining after having his best cheese taken away.
But now I'm very concerned that you are a DM and actually forcing your unexamined-approach towards wizards down your players throat.

 

[Deset Gled]

Party's total HP + Party's total average damage output in X rounds + Party's total AC + random dice roll >< Monsters' total HP + Monsters' total average damage output in X rounds + Monsters' total AC + random dice roll

When I DM, this is fairly close to the ideal setting for combat. There are, however, a few recalculations that need to be done.

First, it is never the "party's total" or "monsters' total" that matters in the heat of battle, it is each character's and monsters total individually. Every player wants their character to live, and aid in whatever way they can. Likewise, they need to deal damage to specific enemies to kill them (not every encounter is a swarm, after all)

Next, the factor of knowledge comes into play. The characters know their own HP totals and AC, and average damage and hit rolls, but at times that will be all they know. They can't always know the AC or HP of the enemy, or what type of damage they resist, so they can't know what they can use to kill them until they've experimented a bit. During this experimentation is normally when they also find out how much damage the enemy can cause as well.

Conversly, there will be times when all of these factors are known to the PCs. When this happens, and I want the battle to be notable, I make sure that the monsters are always the ones that look mathematically better. This is when players start to actively use strategy in the game. They need to figure out how much control they have over the situation, and what things they can alter (either with their situation or their enemies). In this situation, utility spells and abilities are more useful than damage and hitpoints. Depending on the situation they may decide to not even have a full battle with the enemies, perhaps sneaking away, or sending out one character to cause a distraction while the others run by.

Finally, the "random dice roll" is brought into play. This is often much more dramatic than anything the players know can happen with a single spell. When the lead fighter gets critted, it may be time for the party to run from enemies they would normally be able to smack around the room without trouble. Alternativly, if someone trying to distract a powerful enemy gets a crit on them, the party may decide to stop running away and get in the fray. Either way, randomness is definetally exciting.

Hopefully, somewhere in the midst of all of this, there is a story line, character development, and fun.

 

[Cyraneth]

Oh my GOD - Cyraneth- PLEASE tell me you are not a DM.

I could have sworn that you were a player who was whining after having his best cheese taken away.
But now I'm very concerned that you are a DM and actually forcing your unexamined-approach towards wizards down your players throat.

I'll have to "disappoint" you, reaper. I am a DM, I don't force any "unexamined approaches" onto my players. We're still playing (mostly) 3.0 and it works just fine. And the party's wizard actually gets a kill with his spells every now and then too.

- Cyraneth

 

[Cyraneth]

When I DM, this is fairly close to the ideal setting for combat. There are, however, a few recalculations that need to be done. (Look to the original post for full message.)

So, you don't like it when either a monster or player dramatically shifts the battle with a lucky death spell or sneak attack? Or did you just leave that out? If combat was all about stacking up hit points, potential damage output, attacks per round, and AC, there'd be a lot more fighters around, and a lot fewer wizards. A wizard should, just like a cleric, rogue, or fighter, be able to hold his own in a fight and most other places. If a class is totally dependent on others, it is poorly balanced and/or ineffective. A wizard fighting a fighter should put the fighter at great risk, just as he is at great risk. Without a "meatshield" the fighter can just wade up and grapple him, crack his skull, or otherwise defeat him. A wizard should be able to do the same to the fighter (but with a spell instead of a sword), regardless of the levels of the combatants as long as they're equal.

- Cyraneth

 

[Deset Gled]

So, you don't like it when either a monster or player dramatically shifts the battle with a lucky death spell or sneak attack? Or did you just leave that out?

Not at all. The occasional death spell is part of what I meant by "strategy". Likewise, sneak attacks are not a very "lucky" occurance, as they have to be intentionally set up by the rogue.

I think, however, the main difference between your thinking, and that of the designers and other people here on the board is summed up when you say:

A wizard should, just like a cleric, rogue, or fighter, be able to hold his own in a fight and most other places.

In my experience, no player can hold their own in a normal D+D setting. Every player has strengths and weaknesses, and they rely on the strengths of the others in their party to help them while they cover their friends weaknesses.

To go on a slight tangent, it's interesting to note that in everything I have seen you say so far about casters, you have never mentioned their use at casting utility spells. Do you feel that the utility ability of a caster is less important than their ability to deal direct damage/death to others? If so, why?

 

[reapersaurus]

I'll have to "disappoint" you, reaper. I am a DM, I don't force any "unexamined approaches" onto my players.

Than I thank my lucky stars that I have never had to deal with a DM like you, since I would consider it my holy misson to bereft you of your so-closely-held delusions about spellcasters.

 

[The Little Raven]

How do we really want combat to be?

Effectively handled by a computerized system that delivers the result on small squares of cardstock paper.

 

[eryndel]

Don't let them feel safe, knowing that a huge bunch of hit points will unerringly keep them alive for at least 5-6 rounds...

and

Well, to be heroic, you still need to be able to actually -do- something. Just hurling spells left and right to see them fail isn't going to be heroic either.

These ideas, in my mind, seem to contradict one another. The usual effect I see of a save or die effect is to take a creature out quickly, thus robbing them of the opportunity of being heroic. Sure, without "save or die" spells, a character will likely stay alive for several rounds, but this will at least give them the time to act heroicly.

I consider this a good thing. If a character in a game I'm running needs to die, I feel they should at least have a chance to go out well. "Save or Die" spells take that away. Personally, I don't remove them entirely, but that are used very cautiously (only the true big bad's of mine will have death effects and I tend to keep them out of my players hands.) The reason: They have the ability to dramatically change the game at a moments notice. As a GM, I want to keep that power to myself.

That saying, these spells can be used to increase dramatic tension. I just make sure they are generally used to scare the PCs, not remove them from my game.

Just my thoughts,

Werner