D&D 5E Letting the enemy have even a single attack is the result of a strategic failure.

[GameOgre]

I love the idea of this statement. It reminds me for several really cool literary characters from novels and I would love to have a player in my game with this attitude(or even play one if I ever get another chance to play!".

In my experience with D&D though, it really isn't possible. While I have seen a few tricks in my time that really went over well those are very few and far between. Maybe this is my fault as the DM though?

I mean several times the group found out way ahead of time that the monster was a vampire or Dragon or some such and developed tactics to aid them. Most of the time it was hit or miss if it would work or not though. Trying a rope around the Dragons leg and the other end around the pummel of his saddle just didn't pan out like he wanted.

All that said though do you guys have experiences that differ from mine? Do your players ever manage to pull this off?

Is it possible to pull off long term?

I one had a group build moveable walls with copper coating on the outside and they would use them to block off sections of the dungeon and narrow entry down hallways to give them advantage. It worked well till a set of pit traps and after that they just forgot about it.

 

[I'm A Banana]

You can do it. Surprise is powerful in 5e, and one of my groups is eager to get surprise. Clever use of skills like Stealth and Intimidation and Persuasion can prevent fights before they break out.

To make it more robust, you want to reward clever plans. That dude who tied the rope around the saddle of his horse - did you give Inspiration for the cleverness even if the idea didn't pan out? Same with the movable walls? It's 5e's version of "have some free XP for being awesome," and it's one of the more basic ways you can encourage players to go a little off-book.

 

[Greg Benage]

I'm agnostic on the truth value of the claim, but if it's true, most all D&D campaigns will feature plenty of strategic failure.

A good campaign, IMO, will have encounters for which the players can make that kind of strategic preparation. But it won't be all, or even most of them.

 

[GSHamster]

There's a fairly old thread somewhere on these forums about Combat as War versus Combat as Sport.

That thread went into great detail about the mindset about this issue, as well as the pitfalls. It's really worth reading. Unfortunately I can't seem the thread, but maybe someone else has better search skills.

 

[Sage Genesis]

D&D 5e is fundamentally not built with this mantra in mind. Legendary Monsters are the most obvious example, as they have generous health and special actions that kick in immediately after a PC acts. Unless you're somehow packing super-reliable instant death effects (that can't be countered by Legendary Resistance) then the monster will simply get off an attack.

D&D with its ever-increasing health pools, fairly common resistances, and strict daily limitations on how often you can bust out powerful AoE spells is just not the best fit for this kind of game. A game like Shadowrun or something Fuzion based might be better suited.

 

[Umbran]

Setting aside the basic rules construction for the moment....

I think that D&D combat is *tactical*, not strategic, and so the statement does not generally apply.

 

[Lehrbuch]

Setting aside the basic rules construction for the moment....

I think that D&D combat is *tactical*, not strategic, and so the statement does not generally apply.

The combat encounter is tactical. However, when, where, and whether the combat occurs and who is present and how prepared the PCs and opponents are for fighting are all strategic matters that the PCs/players may have some agency over. The extent that the PCs/players can make strategic decisions obviously depends on the nature of the adventure and the way that the DM is running things, of course.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The same could be said from the perspective of your enemies. If your goal is to avoid a back-and-forth open combat, and just crush your enemies outright, then you need to expect that the same thing will happen to the PCs sooner or later. If the party goes around collapsing the bad guy's lair to avoid having a fight, then eventually the PCs will be murdered in their sleep without even needing to roll dice, because apparently that's how the world works.

Once initiative has been rolled, any expectations are reduced to probabilities. If your goal is to avoid letting them attack, then you need to avoid rolling initiative. It's not "bad strategy" if you roll poorly on your attack. A more realistic goal would be to not take more than half of your HP in a single encounter, or nobody should be hit more than once, or something like that.

One of the things where 4E seriously ruined D&D forever was in its ludicrous healing rates. Back in the day, you could have had a (somewhat unreasonable) goal to not take damage, because any damage taken now would increase the likelihood of death and failure down the line. You would usually fail, but it was a failure in degrees, and keeping your goal in mind would mean you took as little damage as possible. Ever since healing surges and overnight-full-heal, your HP are a constantly-replenishing resource that you should be spending in order to focus on some objectives at the expense of others; if you try to avoid all damage, then you're unnecessarily limiting your options, and you might miss out on the best solution just because it involved the whole party eating a friendly fireball or two.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Yes, letting your enemy get even a single attack is a strategic failure.

Above all else, I think that this fact clearly illustrates that failure, even commonly occurring failure, is fun in the context of table-top RPGs.

 

[Nagol]

There's a fairly old thread somewhere on these forums about Combat as War versus Combat as Sport.

That thread went into great detail about the mindset about this issue, as well as the pitfalls. It's really worth reading. Unfortunately I can't seem the thread, but maybe someone else has better search skills.

Here you are: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...s-War-a-Key-Difference-in-D-amp-D-Play-Styles