D&D (2024) The Problem with Healing Powercreep


log in or register to remove this ad



James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun
There's also the fact that unless the DM specifically ends combat and either A) invokes the chase rules or B) decides the bad guys have better things to do*, enemies are just as fast if not faster than PC's and are perfectly capable of pursuing them and continuing the assault.

*Now I don't know about you, but if some jerks bust into my house, picked a fight with me and my mates with the intent of murdering us and taking our stuff, and suddenly got cold feet, I wouldn't be inclined to just "let them go"- I'd want to make sure that they'd never get the idea to come back and try again later. Which is what I'm pretty sure any group of PC's would be inclined to do, after years of seeing them do anything in their power to murder any enemy who tries to flee from them!
 

There are other concerns with running away. Turn order.

In order to run away you need to get away from your opponents, and as JG says above, that might not be easy to do with the way movement works. To make matters worse, initiative also becomes a problem. It's very easy for someone to be caught in a bad spot because of initiative and turn order.

The dynamics of tactical combat discourage running away because running away itself becomes a tactical challenge. Can you afford to spend a turn not attacking your opponents if you can't guarantee that your enemies will not start attacking your teammates?
 

DrJawaPhD

Adventurer
Players rarely (never?) run away for two reasons. First, just because it is obvious to the DM that the players are outmatched, it is never apparent to the players unless the DM telegraphs it to the point that the players are basically told to not engage in combat. As a player, I can't see the HP and damage of the enemies, I just have to assume that combat is winnable unless the DM makes it clear otherwise.

Second, once combat starts, the game mechanics basically don't allow running away unless the DM telegraphs that the enemies will not chase the players for some narrative reason. A couple classes will have abilities to help them get away like teleport, dimension door, stealth, etc, but many classes are just stuck fighting to the end because it's tactically the only option.
 

pemerton

Legend
Only until they learn to take proactive measures before anyone gets dropped to 0 to prevent that occurrence: avoiding combat, using healing abilities while still well above 0, changing tactics to favour ranged attacks and eschew melee when possible, hiring more muscle (e.g. henches etc.) for the front line, etc. etc.; and most of all being willing to bail out when things go sideways.
Just focusing on hiring more muscle - what makes that better game play than an expectation that the PCs can succeed in their endeavours via their own abilities?

I mean, Conan doesn't generally hire more muscle - and even if he starts out with friends or a warband, by the end of the story he's generally fighting solo.

The Fellowship of the Ring doens't hire more muscle - and those points when the protagonists become warband leaders (eg when Aragorn enters the Paths of the Dead; or when Merry and Pippin take command of the resistance in The Shire) are all about the development of character and theme, not a study in tactics and expedient generalship.

I'm not saying that a game which foregrounds "hiring more muscle" is inherently bad. But nor is it inherently good. It does suggest a genre quite different from what seems to be the norm for contemporary D&D play, and for at least much of the inspirational fiction.

For some reason this seems to be the hardest lesson for some players
Mostly because it's not fun for some players. Same with avoiding combat or relying on ranged weapons.

Some people paly this fantasy roleplaying game for the fantasy.
This. Off the top of my head I can't think of a Conan story where he runs away. Ged does run away from the Gebbeth in A Wizard of Earthsea, but not because he is losing a fight with it.

There is nothing per se better about a fiction that involves fleeing, than one that doesn't. It depends on what sort of fiction we want.

There are other concerns with running away. Turn order.

In order to run away you need to get away from your opponents, and as JG says above, that might not be easy to do with the way movement works. To make matters worse, initiative also becomes a problem. It's very easy for someone to be caught in a bad spot because of initiative and turn order.

The dynamics of tactical combat discourage running away because running away itself becomes a tactical challenge. Can you afford to spend a turn not attacking your opponents if you can't guarantee that your enemies will not start attacking your teammates?
There's also the fact that unless the DM specifically ends combat and either A) invokes the chase rules or B) decides the bad guys have better things to do*, enemies are just as fast if not faster than PC's and are perfectly capable of pursuing them and continuing the assault.
This too. How is the action declaration "We flee!" going to be resolved. The resolution in 13th Age is clear (the PCs escape, but suffer a "story" setback as decided by the GM). The resolution in Torchbearer 2e is clear (the PCs initiate a Flee/Pursue conflict, which gets resolved using the conflict rules). The resolution is relatively clear in classic D&D (the evasion/pursuit rules are activated).

In Torchbearer and class D&D the resolution of the plural declaration "we flee" is facilitated by the fact that there is generally no "turn order" across the PCs.

A system which separates the PCs in turn order and hence action economy, which resolves fleeing simply by movement of squares on a board, etc - ie that has the general properties of contemporary D&D - is already not well-positioned to support the resolution of a group decision to flee. 13th Age gets around this by using a "meta"-style of resolution for the declaration. I'm sure other technical solutions are possible too. But it's hopeless to approach this as if it's some sort of moral or intellectual or emotional failing on the part of players, as opposed to a question about both the technical and the aesthetic aspects of game design.
 

James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun
Just focusing on hiring more muscle - what makes that better game play than an expectation that the PCs can succeed in their endeavours via their own abilities?

I mean, Conan doesn't generally hire more muscle - and even if he starts out with friends or a warband, by the end of the story he's generally fighting solo.

The Fellowship of the Ring doens't hire more muscle - and those points when the protagonists become warband leaders (eg when Aragorn enters the Paths of the Dead; or when Merry and Pippin take command of the resistance in The Shire) are all about the development of character and theme, not a study in tactics and expedient generalship.

I'm not saying that a game which foregrounds "hiring more muscle" is inherently bad. But nor is it inherently good. It does suggest a genre quite different from what seems to be the norm for contemporary D&D play, and for at least much of the inspirational fiction.


This. Off the top of my head I can't think of a Conan story where he runs away. Ged does run away from the Gebbeth in A Wizard of Earthsea, but not because he is losing a fight with it.

There is nothing per se better about a fiction that involves fleeing, than one that doesn't. It depends on what sort of fiction we want.

This too. How is the action declaration "We flee!" going to be resolved. The resolution in 13th Age is clear (the PCs escape, but suffer a "story" setback as decided by the GM). The resolution in Torchbearer 2e is clear (the PCs initiate a Flee/Pursue conflict, which gets resolved using the conflict rules). The resolution is relatively clear in classic D&D (the evasion/pursuit rules are activated).

In Torchbearer and class D&D the resolution of the plural declaration "we flee" is facilitated by the fact that there is generally no "turn order" across the PCs.

A system which separates the PCs in turn order and hence action economy, which resolves fleeing simply by movement of squares on a board, etc - ie that has the general properties of contemporary D&D - is already not well-positioned to support the resolution of a group decision to flee. 13th Age gets around this by using a "meta"-style of resolution for the declaration. I'm sure other technical solutions are possible too. But it's hopeless to approach this as if it's some sort of moral or intellectual or emotional failing on the part of players, as opposed to a question about both the technical and the aesthetic aspects of game design.
Even in 2e D&D, fleeing from an opponent in melee gave them a free attack on you, which isn't the greatest idea if you're already losing.

EDIT: or multiple attacks, if the opponent has several attacks per round!
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
There are other concerns with running away. Turn order.

In order to run away you need to get away from your opponents, and as JG says above, that might not be easy to do with the way movement works. To make matters worse, initiative also becomes a problem. It's very easy for someone to be caught in a bad spot because of initiative and turn order.

The dynamics of tactical combat discourage running away because running away itself becomes a tactical challenge. Can you afford to spend a turn not attacking your opponents if you can't guarantee that your enemies will not start attacking your teammates?
You can afford to spend a turn not attacking your opponents if you can guarantee they'll attack your teammates instead.

At some point when things break down, the self-preservation instinct makes it an "every man for himself" situation: if you can get out, get out; and with any luck some of the others will also get out.

There are always acceptable losses.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Just focusing on hiring more muscle - what makes that better game play than an expectation that the PCs can succeed in their endeavours via their own abilities?

I mean, Conan doesn't generally hire more muscle - and even if he starts out with friends or a warband, by the end of the story he's generally fighting solo.

The Fellowship of the Ring doens't hire more muscle
They don't need to, as the original party of the four Hobbits are given loads more muscle at the point when they become the Fellowship.

Then after the Fellowship breaks up, Frodo and Sam pick up Gollum (hired stealth rather than hired muscle) while Merry and Pippin pick up a small army of Ents.

As for Conan, any examples involving him are rather lost on me as I've never read a shred of Conan material and, truth be told, am not likely to anytime soon.
A system which separates the PCs in turn order and hence action economy, which resolves fleeing simply by movement of squares on a board, etc - ie that has the general properties of contemporary D&D - is already not well-positioned to support the resolution of a group decision to flee. 13th Age gets around this by using a "meta"-style of resolution for the declaration. I'm sure other technical solutions are possible too. But it's hopeless to approach this as if it's some sort of moral or intellectual or emotional failing on the part of players, as opposed to a question about both the technical and the aesthetic aspects of game design.
D&D might not support the whole group trying to flee at once (though perhaps it should, that's a different discussion) but it supports individuals fleeing just fine. The person fleeing just has to withstand an AoO or edition equivalent if facing a foe at the time, and then be able to either run faster than the foe (if means of even higher-speed travel aren't available) or to bleed it off onto an ally, preferably something expendable such as a summoned monster.
 

Remove ads

Top