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

[crashtestdummy]

I suppose you could read the original statement like that (if you do, I agree with your comment). However, to me, it doesn't read like a claim that there is only one strategy. It seems to be more a claim that if the enemy is able to attack, then a (viable) strategy has failed. Which, of course, in-play will happen often for all sorts of reasons, even if that is the strategy the PCs are trying to follow.

If you don't read the original statement the way I did, then that just begs the question as to what is the strategy that's failed? If it's not articulated, how can you say it's failed?

As a contrived example of why the idea that stopping enemies from attacking is not universally a good idea, consider the situation where you have a choice of expending resources to ensure you attack first, or simply sending in the tank with AC 23. If you know that the opponent will only ever be able to hit you on a 20, then which is the better strategy -- allowing them to attack with a 5% chance of hitting, or expending resources to prevent that 5% chance? I'd say the letting them attack is the better strategy if you can be sure that the number of chances they get to attack is very low, even if it's non-zero. Spending resources unnecessarily just to meet some ideal is, to me, the worse strategy.

Having said that, most of the time the idea of trying to stop enemies from attacking is a good idea, but it's not the 'perfect' strategy that is implied by the opening statement.

 

[Mirtek]

and monks

Viewing anything except a 100% stunlock as a failure will lead to a lot if failed monks.

With this definition there's hardly a battle in history thats not a strategic failure.

 

[fjw70]

For me in D&D I don't worry about success or failure too much. Having fun is the top criterion for me and failure can sometimes be more fun than success.

 

[mellored]

Wood Elf Rogue with mobility can do well. Shoot and run. Not much can catch you and you have longbow range.

Rogue with greater invisibility also works well. I'm think the enemy attacking empty spaces counts under this definition.

Trickster cleric can let the enemy to waste it's spells on your duplicate.

Disguise self + friends is a good combo (at-will with warlocks). You get people upset at each other.

Divination wizard + hold creature is great against big guys. Though you might have to wait a few days until fortunes favor your endeavor.

It's possible. Though really depends on the DM's willingness. Remember all the tricks worth both ways. He too can make an ambush with a stun locking monks backed by a divination wizards with greater invisibility.

 

[TerraDave]

And "No plan survives first contact with the enemy"

Where D&D and reality meet.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I said this in the other thread that spawned this one. I disagree with that statement because it omits that fact that many monsters can do the same sort of planning and creative thinking that PCs can. There's no reason why players are the only ones who get to do that. So no, it's not a strategic failure if a monster hits you. It's also not how the game was designed at it's core, which is to assume monsters will be hitting you.

 

[Celtavian]

Our party generally has this attitude. It's a min-max attitude. You want to set everything up so they can't retaliate. It does work sometimes. There are many fights where the enemy is doing the exact same thing. And if it works for the enemy, the PCs are TPKed. It leads to very paranoid play.

Since I'm so accustomed to this type of play, it doesn't stand out. As a DM, I certainly wouldn't find it interesting to run the game if every encounter I set up ended in this fashion. Fact is some enemies are so powerful the only way you'll end anything is a knockdown, drag out fight to the death. That is where heroes show their mettle by their willingness to die and sacrifice themselves to achieve victory for the greater good against an enemy that destroys nations and worlds. I think that a tactician that adhered too greatly to the idea that the enemy landing a hit was a strategic failure would have his morale destroyed by some ancient demon or a massive dragon that shrugged off all attempts to kill him quickly and without retaliation. Does that tactician run when his only option becomes to sacrifice himself and others to achieve victory? Or does he flee knowing he cannot win without the risk of death?

The philosophy is a common one among strategists. "He strikes first need not strike again." "Hit someone hard enough and they won't get up." "He who strikes first often strikes last." I believe if a DM has dealt with carefully planned stealth attacks more often than not, you become burned out building encounters that die without retaliating. It becomes an exercise in mental masturbation relying almost completely upon DM caveat.

 

[Umbran]

As a contrived example of why the idea that stopping enemies from attacking is not universally a good idea, consider the situation where you have a choice of expending resources to ensure you attack first, or simply sending in the tank with AC 23.

Or, even more simply - how about the case where the characters are in front of wintesses, and being the aggressor means the character will wind up in jail, but self-defense is entirely allowed! Allowing the enemy to get one shot in then means you can devastate them *legally*.

Strategy is about more than hit points of damage

 

[Chaosmancer]

Or, even more simply - how about the case where the characters are in front of wintesses, and being the aggressor means the character will wind up in jail, but self-defense is entirely allowed! Allowing the enemy to get one shot in then means you can devastate them *legally*.

Strategy is about more than hit points of damage

I was just about to bring up a similar point. Tricking an enemy into attacking first, either to gain a moral high ground or to reveal themselves before they are truly ready is equally viable strategy.

After all, you want an enemy to get the first "attack" if you are using "bait"

 

[jonathonhawke]

Perhaps the phrase might mean that the best strategy is to neutralize your enemy without engaging him at all.
For example, sneaking past the guards, or tricking another enemy into attacking them.