D&D General Playing to "Win" - The DM's Dilemma

[Thomas Shey]

What do you mean "operate in small groups" and "aren't social"??? If you are those things, you don't fall under the umbrella of "most intelligent entities" IMO.

Bandit groups, species that tend to operate in small packs, and others. Pretty much anything where the majority of your life you interact regularly with at most extended family groups. That can happen even with species that also operate in larger groups; its described non-trivial parts of humanity during various periods when they only got together in larger groups periodically to trade or hunt for mates.

Regardless, if you know healing exists, why wouldn't you take the extra attack to make sure a fallen enemy stays down? I mean, of course if you are surrounded you have the standing ones to deal with, but that is why making the extra attack is situational.

When I could, instead, be putting another enemy down? Why? I mean, I didn't see much of that even in RuneQuest, and people knowing a little healing in that was practically endemic, because there were more important things to do. I mean, heck, if you put an opponent down and the enemy healer spends a round preventing them from dying, that may well be more useful than making it so they end up having something better to do like toss some variety of spell at you. Its not like they're not going to have to take time getting back to their feet and such too. And that's even if they're in a position to do so.

I did look at your actual point, but you changed it, so I asked you to bring it back.

I'm not bringing it back because I don't think the narrower one you want to argue around is useful. I might have expressed is overly casually but I'm not obligated to cling to that when its not dependent for my broader point.

Even for D&D in general magical healers, healing potions, etc. have been commonplace in most D&D worlds/settings/published adventures. The only

Uhm, no. You could got a very long time in 3e and earlier, and in some modern offshoots, without encountering an enemy healer as a PC. In particular, you could go a long time without seeing one in a combat group, because they were too uncommon to send out with every hunting party.

edition I can speak to this is 4E, which I never played. I can only state what exists in the TSR & WotC materials which, again, have magical healing (often magical "healers") as fairly abundant. Of course there are exceptions, but in general that is true IME. It is also the case in every homebrew game I have played in or run. I mean, frankly I hate how the fact 5E has healing potions as "common magical items" for 50 gp... but they are right there in the equipment section so that is how most people use them.

Healing potions aren't all that relevant most of the time because 1. The downed person can't very well use one if they're unconscious and 2. They can't be used remotely; someone has to disengage and go over to apply them. As such, this is even more a case where taking the time to double-tap someone down is not a great tactic--its just a vindicative one.

 

[ezo]

Bandit groups, species that tend to operate in small packs, and others. Pretty much anything where the majority of your life you interact regularly with at most extended family groups. That can happen even with species that also operate in larger groups; its described non-trivial parts of humanity during various periods when they only got together in larger groups periodically to trade or hunt for mates.

So, again all people that would know magical healers exist in the D&D world...

When I could, instead, be putting another enemy down? Why? I mean, I didn't see much of that even in RuneQuest, and people knowing a little healing in that was practically endemic, because there were more important things to do. I mean, heck, if you put an opponent down and the enemy healer spends a round preventing them from dying, that may well be more useful than making it so they end up having something better to do like toss some variety of spell at you. Its not like they're not going to have to take time getting back to their feet and such too. And that's even if they're in a position to do so.

As I said, it depends on how easily a creature can make certain a foe stays downed and how many other threats are currently out there.

And getting to their feet, etc. isn't precisely hard to do.

I'm not bringing it back because I don't think the narrower one you want to argue around is useful. I might have expressed is overly casually but I'm not obligated to cling to that when its not dependent for my broader point.

I think you have that backwards. I was discussion your broader claim, and then you focused on how often healers appear in combat...

Uhm, no. You could got a very long time in 3e and earlier, and in some modern offshoots, without encountering an enemy healer as a PC. In particular, you could go a long time without seeing one in a combat group, because they were too uncommon to send out with every hunting party.

Maybe you could, if that is your experience, but that certainly was never mine.

Nor, again, would you go a very long time without encountering an "enemy" cleric or druid in TSR or WotC publications. Literally pull just about any adventure and you'll find them.

Healing potions aren't all that relevant most of the time because 1. The downed person can't very well use one if they're unconscious and 2. They can't be used remotely; someone has to disengage and go over to apply them. As such, this is even more a case where taking the time to double-tap someone down is not a great tactic--its just a vindicative one.

Considering taking a potion of healing in 5E is now a bonus action (oi...) they are even more relevant.

My point was more healing is very prevalent in D&D, always has been, and it is only getting worse. As such, if the enemy as the chance to double-tap a downed foe, they should. While a magical healer might be able to do something more offensive on their turn, IME getting those front-liners back up and into the fight yeilds better offensive results.

 

[TheSword]

Sure. That's entirely rationale. People have had enemies pick on the mages for decades for example, which is why even with D&D offshoots where they aren't particularly brittle, you need to provide them some protection usually.

Yeah, but for me it probably applies to any large damage dealers. A Paladin that does 86 damage in a round is probably going to get targeted exclusively by that point on.

You make a threat assessment for your NpCs.

 

[TwoSix]

Yeah, but for me it probably applies to any large damage dealers. A Paladin that does 86 damage in a round is probably going to get targeted exclusively by that point on.

You make a threat assessment for your NpCs.

Well, by the ranged attackers. The melee crowd is going to see the smear of paste the paladin left behind and get the heck out of there.

 

[Thomas Shey]

So, again all people that would know magical healers exist in the D&D world...

Okay, if you're going to obsess on that, I'm done. I've explained why "know they exist" is not as relevant as "expect to hit them in a given combat" but you won't let it go and I'm tired of it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah, but for me it probably applies to any large damage dealers. A Paladin that does 86 damage in a round is probably going to get targeted exclusively by that point on.

You make a threat assessment for your NpCs.

Sure. The mages are usually a standout because of their area capacity.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well, by the ranged attackers. The melee crowd is going to see the smear of paste the paladin left behind and get the heck out of there.

Unless they're the kind that wants to show they can deal with the damage monster...

 

[TwoSix]

Unless they're the kind that wants to show they can deal with the damage monster...

And that's why mooks are mooks.

 

[ezo]

Okay, if you're going to obsess on that, I'm done. I've explained why "know they exist" is not as relevant as "expect to hit them in a given combat" but you won't let it go and I'm tired of it.

No worries. I refuted your point a while back and that was all I was doing.

 

[Thomas Shey]

No worries. I refuted your point a while back and that was all I was doing.

Sticking to a point I was never married to and ignoring the one I was isn't the good look I think you believe it is.