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

[Lanefan]

False; as when resource attrition can happen in any combat and occasional very bad things (broken items, lost or deceased comrades, etc.) can happen even in the easiest of fights, no combat is pointless.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

False; as when resource attrition can happen in any combat and occasional very bad things (broken items, lost or deceased comrades, etc.) can happen even in the easiest of fights, no combat is pointless.

Doesn't this really cash out as "true" though? You choose to play by rules which make it so there is no such thing as a pointless combat. Therefore, you DO avoid having pointless combats. You just make the choice earlier in the process, at the level of choosing the rules to play by, rather than at the level of crafting the combats themselves.

Also very surprised to see how this poll has levelled out with time. The others I've voted in haven't, staying very strongly in favor of one option over the other (usually at or very near a 2/3 majority.) This one's a lot more equivocal, with 7.6 percentage points separating the two options as of this post, whereas it was a massive majority in favor of "false" before.

 

[Bill Zebub]

That’s like saying “pointless pizza.”

 

[Vaalingrade]

That’s like saying “pointless pizza.”

One with no cheese?

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Yeah, I was gonna say, I don’t know what a pointless combat would even be.

A group of 4 level 10 characters at full strength going in a cave to rest for the night with a single black bear guarding it's den.

The potential ethical argument about kicking a bear out of its den to sleep or whatever might make for an interesting situation for the players but the "roll initiative" challenge of actually defeating the bear is non-existent. In this scenario I would not run a combat if the players wanted the bear dead or driven out, it would just be narrated.


Same situation for that same party being attacked by 8 low level bandits with daggers and leather armor.

 

[Charlaquin]

A group of 4 level 10 characters at full strength going in a cave to rest for the night with a single black bear guarding it's den.

The potential ethical argument about kicking a bear out of its den to sleep or whatever might make for an interesting situation for the players but the "roll initiative" challenge of actually defeating the bear is non-existent. In this scenario I would not run a combat if the players wanted the bear dead or driven out, it would just be narrated.

Well, alright, but it seems like a pretty contrived scenario to me. Why are these full-strength 10th level characters taking a long rest in a bear cave?

Same situation for that same party being attacked by 8 low level bandits with daggers and leather armor.

This likewise seems like an unlikely event unless it’s a plot point in an event-based adventure, in which case I would think it would meet the “advances the story” criteria that most of the folks saying yes list as lending a point to an encounter.

 

[Charlaquin]

One with no cheese?

You jest, but this might have a point to someone who’s highly lactose intolerant.

 

[Charlaquin]

Doesn't this really cash out as "true" though? You choose to play by rules which make it so there is no such thing as a pointless combat. Therefore, you DO avoid having pointless combats. You just make the choice earlier in the process, at the level of choosing the rules to play by, rather than at the level of crafting the combats themselves.

I voted false for similar reasons; as I explained upthread, I can’t really avoid something I don’t believe exists. Also, I think answering false is more in the spirit of the poll, as while it does say “for whatever value of pointless you use,” the value I use is n/a. For any conceivable value of “pointless,” I am not doing anything in particular to avoid it.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I voted false for similar reasons; as I explained upthread, I can’t really avoid something I don’t believe exists. Also, I think answering false is more in the spirit of the poll, as while it does say “for whatever value of pointless you use,” the value I use is n/a. For any conceivable value of “pointless,” I am not doing anything in particular to avoid it.

I guess this just doesn't really admit a clean yes-or-no answer then, because to me, "I don't avoid them because I legit believe all combats have a point" is much closer in spirit to "yes I avoid pointless combats" because, if you ever DID think a combat was pointless for some reason, you would avoid it. Right?

 

[Charlaquin]

I guess this just doesn't really admit a clean yes-or-no answer then, because to me, "I don't avoid them because I legit believe all combats have a point" is much closer in spirit to "yes I avoid pointless combats" because, if you ever DID think a combat was pointless for some reason, you would avoid it. Right?

I do agree that my answer doesn’t really fit within either of the options presented, but I have to pick one to engage with the poll, so “false” seems like the best option given that other people will have opinions on what a pointless combat is, and I don’t avoid whatever those are. I guess hypothetically if I thought a combat was pointless I might avoid it? I don’t know, I don’t feel like it’s a useful hypothetical, because I don’t think combat is ever pointless.