D&D 5E "When DMing I Avoid Making the PCs have 'pointless' combats." (a poll)

[Charlaquin]

This poll is a tricky one for me. The instruction "For whatever value of "pointless" you use" would seem to lead to everyone saying "true", but so far it's 4 true to 9 false, so obviously people aren't reading it the same way I am.

I said true because I don't think combats are supposed to be pointless. They're meant to be entertaining, dramatic (challenging) or just fun (power fantasy), random encounters help tell the players things about the world and what creatures inhabit the area, and they keep the game play fresh and less predictable for me.

I said false because I don’t think there’s such thing as a pointless combat, so I can’t really avoid something I don’t believe exists.

 

[payn]

To the best of my ability, so I said true. I always aim, but don't always succeed.

 

[Vaalingrade]

100% true.

Combats, like all encounters, are setpieces for me. I'm not going to throw in a random 2 hour conversation, so why would I throw in a random 2 hour fight?

 

[WarDriveWorley]

There are no pointless combats in my view.

This

 

[tetrasodium]

This is something that has changed over the editions. the scope of what qualifies as a "pointless encounter" has exploded to include nearly any encounter not in the double lethal range or so.

In the past every encounter mattered including the "trash" pointless ones the party can steamroll trivially. Sure those low CR critters may be no real threat to the group, but they nicked a couple people & now the group needs to decide between using precious resources that won't be available when they hit a real fight to heal them individually or continuing on knowing that any real fights will start with a couple people already wearing a few scratches that might really matter. Those were decisions with real weight the party needed to think about because those scratches might be what kills those PCs while those wasted heals might be the reason why someone else can't be healed to stop them from being killed.

Now in 5e though spell slots are entirely fungible, PC's don't need to heal every point of damage, PCs recover resources at the drop of the hat & do it safely, PCs even get to ignore damage beyond zero. Sure a player could theoretically be taken to negative max HP, but not everyone plays in the level 1-2ish range & it grows increasingly unlikely when any 1hp LoH or healing word will both reset the negative as well as bring the PC back to a fully functioning state. mooks just exacerbate the problem & make players gravitate towards short rest classes that try to force a short rest after every nova-5mwd encounter or two. With a small group it might matter, but start pushing 4-5+ PCs & there is just so much on demand nova after any rest thatthe gm needs to throw out swarms of seriously powerful critters to even qualify as a speedbump. There's not much use for pointless encounters in that light,

 

[J.Quondam]

Never really thought about it much, but I think I generally just leave it to the players/PCs to decide if a particular combat (or any other encounter) is "pointless" or not. That's mainly because "pointless" can mean different things in different campaigns, in different playstyles, and even to different characters. So I voted false.

That said, I do prefer to hand-wave away "trivial" combats (ie, skip the rolling if PCs vastly outmatch the opponent); and of course try to telegraph "hopeless" fights that PCs can't beat, so they can run or try something else. I also aim to give PCs more than one "out" to avoid or escape a combat, whether it's "trivial," "hopeless," "pointless", or something else.

 

[Mind of tempest]

I think Matt Colville calls this technique "Orcs attack!". IIRC he elucidates it very similarly- if you see that the PCs are spinning their wheels, stuck in circular debate about strategy to use or what to do next, throw in an action scene/monster attack to snap them out of it.

that is not pointless that is a tie break it solves a problem, pointless combat is where you end up killing people endlessly in a grindy maner for no real reason other than eating time or resources.

 

[Mannahnin]

that is not pointless that is a tie break it solves a problem, pointless combat is where you end up killing people endlessly in a grindy maner for no real reason other than eating time or resources.

I never said it was pointless. That was a brief digression to expand on/agree with Baldurs' point, that a combat which is irrelevant to the plot or main story or what have you may still be useful to the play of the game.

And personally, I think combat eating time and resources can indeed be meaningful, ie: have a point.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Okay, once again - should be a simple premise:

True or False: "When DMing I avoid making the PCs have pointless combats."*


* For whatever value of "pointless" you use (but please explain that value in a post if you can)

I am going to go with maybe... I said false becuse I often have them roll to drop WAAY underpowered foes to show them how powerful they have become... (Almost TPK with 3 hobgoblins at 2nd level looks way better when you at level 7 take out 5 of them like it was nothing)

but I do sometimes handwave fights... I have even threatened to do so AGAINST PCs... "If your 3rd level hexblade says he fights my achmage I am not rolling it... you die"

 

[aco175]

I may have some random encounters which tell the players maybe they should not have tried to rest here, but are not connected to main adventure in the way that set encounters are. I also think that most of my table likes to get into a fight at least once per session just to throw some dice and use cool powers and spells, so I may have an "Orcs Attack" moment.