Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ExploderWizard" data-source="post: 6750971" data-attributes="member: 66434">Indeed why not? In the abstract combat system of D&D many things are assumed. We don't believe that a man-sized opponent completely fills a 5' square. Moving around in that space is an unstated assumption. To stand completely still means someone needs to declare it. Likewise a first level character that only gets one attack per round is trying to land more blows than that. The abstracted rules only grant a single chance for a significant hit because its a game. Even so there are things that can be done and chosen by the player to grant advantage. Occupying higher ground, attacking from hiding, retreating to defend narrow portals, etc. All of these are player driven and influence the outcome of a combat. The more time a force has for preparation the more chances they have to stack on the circumstances needed for victory. If a small group of starting PCs were hunting a very strong and dangerous cave bear that could bite any one of their heads off in a single bite I would expect them to formulate a plan that allowed them to kill it without exposing themselves to attacks. There is no " kill the darn bear by being smart" skill on the character sheet, so the players are going to have to come up with a plan. Perhaps they dig a pit, lure it in then kill it safely from above, or do likewise in a ravine by baiting it in, blocking the entrance and shooting it. Such plans have a chance of success. How good the plan is determines if it requires a die roll, auto succeeds, or auto fails. I don't have a problem with a good enough plan simply working as intended. Sometimes players will be missing crucial information that will render a good sounding plan useless.  In the abstraction of D&D its fluff. In another combat system, such as GURPS, it would matter Depending on the actual situation, there may not even be a course of action that could automatically succeed. Sometimes there is and sometimes there isn't. There may be circumstances that arise which require choosing the best of a crop of bad options. There might be trap so terrible that the very best solution has about a 50% chance to work and several more obvious solutions which are even worse. The point being, just because a really good approach can automatically resolve some challenges doesn't mean that there will always be a way to do so.   The only problem with not rewarding players for doing more than " I attack with my axe" is that "I attack with my axe" is eventually all you are going to get. In time that gets shortened to " I attack/sneak/disable device/etc"  Players like to know that their efforts are worth something.  It is not specific to traps. Traps is just the example I'm using. It also applies to interaction. What a player says matters. Doing an in-character voice doesn't matter, the intent and meaning of what is said DOES matter. If a player decides to take a chance and reveals an important secret to an NPC to gain trust, it matters. If a player is a smartass to a short tempered NPC it matters. Sometimes these things can matter more than a skill die roll.  The circumstances of picking a pocket can certainly benefit from approach. If the player has a specific target in mind simply observing them a bit, may improve the odds. Lets say our rogue needs to steal a treasure map from a shifty somewhat paranoid character. Following the shifty NPC around for a bit reveals that he is constantly reaching into his pocket every minute or two to feel that his precious map is safe. This knowledge tells our rogue that she needs to replace the stolen map with a similar sized piece of parchment. She does so and is successful in the switch. Because of that, she has much longer head start because the fool won't realize he has been robbed for several hours. So there are ways for player input to affect outcomes beyond just traps.</blockquote>

Verification