D&D 5E This Game is Deadly

[Khoram]

Since the beginning, the fighter's role was front-line infantry, while the wizard was artillery. In the olden days there was a sort of unwritten rule that many, even most, monsters would gravitate towards attacking the PC in the front of the party, or the 'one who looked toughest' (the fighter, fighter-sub-class, or, later, barbarian). In CRPGs/MMOs it was hard-coded as 'aggro.' In 4e it was formalized by mechanics that supported the defender role. In 5e, there's one fighter option a little like that, but it's mostly back to counting on the DM to control the monsters in the way that makes the best fight, not the way that fights best (and can result in excessive character death). Players can help by sticking to a defensive, squishies in the middle, marching order, and pushing their fighters into any convenient choke-point, like a narrow corridor (or two abreast in a standard 10x10 corridor), doorway, or the like.

Yes I understand what a tank role is. I'm saying, if your group just popped up out of a chimney that the scout/rogue went up first, and haven't had time to organize yet and get ambushed by a bugbear, how exactly is it the fighter's fault if the bugbear attacks someone other level 1 character that has less max hp than the suggested bugbear attack hits for?

You're telling me you expect the DM to have monsters only attack the fighter? I find that kind of lame. I spread the attacks around if the players have their characters in attackable positions and haven't done anything to avoid being attacked.

 

[keterys]

Went through a series of encounters once where the wizard dropped in every encounter, cause no one was really trying to grab my attention other than him. Eventually they adjusted their tactics accordingly, but it did make me miss DM incentives like 4E to funnel attacks.

 

[wwanno]

However, I will disagree with you when you said "if the bugbear hits the rogue/wizard/cleric is becouse the fighter didn't play his role of tank". How exactly is that supposed to work if the fighter isn't in front and the group gets surprised or attacked by the bugbear? What if the bugbear rolls higher initiative than the fighter and, logic would dictate, attacks the easiest, nearest target - likely the unarmored wizard or lightly armored rogue who was scouting first up the chimney? Regardless, how exactly does a fighter "play his role of tank" in 5E D&D? Outside of choosing the protection role.

Fighter is the front line (we agree). Yes you are right and the bugbear could simply win the initiative and attack another party member before the fighter closes in.
I didn't recived my copy of the starter set yet, and I don't know the layout of the cave (is there a single way in? if that is true the fighter should be the first PC to enter - or the stealthy rogue).
Anyway (as I said in another post), I think the bugbear (a big goblin with fight training - from the 3.5 description on the MM) should attack the most menacing adversary (in order to erase him from the equation), and that is the fighter.
This would change if the wizard walks in with a writing "Beware! I am the wizard. BOOM!" on his forehead.

But I say, "deadly" doesn't means "bad system of rules for low levels" (and I am not saying you said it, but a lot of people seem to complain about it).
The starter set is just an adventure. Nothing more. The designers of the starter set could replace (or you could) the bugbear with something else.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yes I understand what a tank role is. I'm saying, if your group just popped up out of a chimney that the scout/rogue went up first, and haven't had time to organize yet and get ambushed by a bugbear, how exactly is it the fighter's fault if the bugbear attacks someone other level 1 character that has less max hp than the suggested bugbear attack hits for?

Well, another old-school expectation was that the thief would die. A lot. The thief's role was to scout ahead of the party, look for traps, and get killed a lot, because those were very dangerous things to do, and he didn't have much in terms of AC, hps, or saves, and his 'special ability' to sneak up and surprise monsters and find/remove traps was, really, not that special at all.

That's anther topic from the wizard or cleric getting killed because the fighter didn't tank (or was ignored in his limited ability to tank), since they actually had some value to the party beyond expandability.

The 5e rogue, thanks to stealth being a single check and proficiency & expertise, actually /can/ sneak up on monsters and achieve surprise and actually has a fair chance at finding and bypassing a trap.

You're telling me you expect the DM to have monsters only attack the fighter? I find that kind of lame.

Yes. The flip-side of the DM having all this freedom to mess with the rules, make arbitrary off-the-cuff rulings, and generally be in the driver's seat of his own game, is that he also has a responsibility to use that 'power' to facilitate the other players' fun, even if that may mean quietly playing the monsters a little 'dumb' or hiding a lot of dice rolls behind a DM screen so he can fudge a few now and then.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I think he meant earlier edition's Raise Dead spells bringing you back a level lower than when you died.

But interestingly, monsters that used to drain levels now drain maximum hit points (temporarily). It's an interesting mechanic to be sure.

Ah, gotcha.

That is an interesting mechanic; a bit like 4e's surge-draining monsters, but more immediately dangerous.

 

[Trickster Spirit]

But is it The Most Dangerous Game?

Don't be absurd, that game is too dangerous!

 

[AverageCitizen]

Yes. The flip-side of the DM having all this freedom to mess with the rules, make arbitrary off-the-cuff rulings, and generally be in the driver's seat of his own game, is that he also has a responsibility to use that 'power' to facilitate the other players' fun, even if that may mean quietly playing the monsters a little 'dumb' or hiding a lot of dice rolls behind a DM screen so he can fudge a few now and then.

I have yo side more with Tony for this one. And here is why.

This exchange highlights an interesting reality (or unreality) of DND: many, if not most, fights end with one side obliterating the other.

Which really doesn't make sense.

A lot of people argue that unless DMs are playing their monsters/NPCs for maximum lethality they are playing them 'dumb'. Well, unless your monsters are well-drilled suicidal zealots with nothing to lose, sacrificing 3 goblins and a bugbear to kill a wizard or a rogue is really, really 'dumb'.

 

[Reynard]

In the olden days there was a sort of unwritten rule that many, even most, monsters would gravitate towards attacking the PC in the front of the party, or the 'one who looked toughest' (the fighter, fighter-sub-class, or, later, barbarian).

Not in my "olden days" starting in the mid-80s. Even stupid brutes like orcs know to kill the fireball slinging wizard and fighter healing cleric. The reason the fighter was the front line is because he had to be -- otherwise, the bad guys got to the wizard and eviscerated those 1d4 hit points per level with a single swipe.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Not in my "olden days" starting in the mid-80s. Even stupid brutes like orcs know to kill the fireball slinging wizard and fighter healing cleric. The reason the fighter was the front line is because he had to be -- otherwise, the bad guys got to the wizard and eviscerated those 1d4 hit points per level with a single swipe.

Not everyone has the same olden days. Mine started in '80. Experiences with groupthink probably varied by region, too.

A lot of people argue that unless DMs are playing their monsters/NPCs for maximum lethality they are playing them 'dumb'. Well, unless your monsters are well-drilled suicidal zealots with nothing to lose, sacrificing 3 goblins and a bugbear to kill a wizard or a rogue is really, really 'dumb'.

I've heard third-hand accounts of a DM with a little interest or experience in military tactics running monsters like asymmetrical-warfare skirmishers - inflicting pain, breaking contact, etc - with pretty horrific results. Talk about 'fantasy Vietnam.'

But, yes, most 5e-guidelines combats are weighted heavily in the PCs favor and hypothetical 'really played smart' monsters would travel in larger groups and/or flee & mobilize more capable defenders when confronted by a threat posed by a party of spellcasters and heavily-armored warriors.

All the more reason for the DM to play smart, /as a DM/ (as the 'facilitator of the fun' you could say), not just 'smart' in-character as a monster.

 

[AverageCitizen]

I've heard third-hand accounts of a DM with a little interest or experience in military tactics running monsters like asymmetrical-warfare skirmishers - inflicting pain, breaking contact, etc - with pretty horrific results. Talk about 'fantasy Vietnam.'

But, yes, most 5e combats are weighted heavily in the PCs favor and hypothetical 'really played smart' monsters would travel in larger groups and/or flee & mobilize more capable defenders when confronted by a threat posed by a party of spellcasters and heavily-armored warriors.

Right, you got me. But unless we want to fundamentally change the pace of the game to resemble Vietnam, we are already playing the monsters a little dumb anyway. So we might as well do it your way and keep the game moving and not the 'murder the PCs for having the gall to set foot in my dungeon' way.

Note: I am aware that the guerilla warfare way and the murder-the-players way can be fun to. I am just saying they are not intrinsically more 'true'.