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

[lingual]

If you have 6-8 fights a day, some of them have got to be close to pointless.

I suppose attrition is a part of the game.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Or simply the way session zero is done?
I give a lot of explanations to new players and to people that come to our Friday Night Dungeons. People know that I am a harsh DM that challenges the players to do their best and perform above and beyond normal expectations. Pushing their limits and so on.

I also tell people that short rests is a full night sleep and a long rest is a full week in a safe environment such as an inn, a castle or stronghold. Anything else only gives a short rest and you can only have two short rest between long rests. Not 3, 4, 5, or 6. Only two. So you'd better be wary, prudent and aware of the consequences. I also modified the light cantrip. It now only gives the light of a candle. I enforce the disadvantage rule on perception check without light so people carry torches and one of the great magical item can have is actually the Drift Globe. Players love that magical item and want to have more than one at all time!

Do wizards in your game only get one set of spells from the time they leave civilization to when they return? How would you do an epic journey in that setup.

I've never gotten a good answer on how GMs balance spell refreshing in games where short and long rests are stretched out to day/week.

 

[SteveC]

The discussion about using a Hut to provide easy rests definitely changes what qualifies as a pointless encounter. It's also something that needs to be addressed by the GM if it alters the campaign.

Any time there's an issue where the game is radically altered by a character power, spell, or other effect there just needs to be a conversation about it. I don't think that's out of line since we're all just expecting to have a fun experience with the game. Whether or not that "fun" means more challenge or a more casual game is really up to everyone involved.

 

[Helldritch]

In your bandit example...that is indeed an encounter....but it isn't a combat. There is a difference between the two. The poll was asking about pointless combat.

I find constant and relentless random encounters harm the "realness" of most settings. If a wandering party is consistently getting attacked multiple times a day then so should everything else in the world, including the wandering monsters themselves. The roads of the world would be piled hip deep with dead rotting bandit, goblin, and orc carcasses as no entity could travel along them even an hour without being harassed.

Roads=civilization=some degree of safety.

First bolded part: I feel the opposite. It makes the world much more alive. Encounter tables are not limited to combat but could be merchants, farmers, animals and so on.

Second bolded part: Road = civilization = risks of encountering what societies have the worst to offer or the best.

Heck, in the real world we have: Break and entry, car jacking, theft, murder, assault and many others.
We also have: Neighbourgs, friends, stores, cops (guards), services and so on.

The problem is not random encounters, it is how they are used and applied. Do not go overboard with them.

Edit: pronoun change...

 

[Helldritch]

Do wizards in your game only get one set of spells from the time they leave civilization to when they return? How would you do an epic journey in that setup.

I've never gotten a good answer on how GMs balance spell refreshing in games where short and long rests are stretched out to day/week.

Just like the fighter swings a sword, wizards use cantrips a lot more. Skills such as medicine, alchemy and herbalism become a lot more important. Hey!, players are taking the healer's feat simply because it is so useful.

 

[Celebrim]

In your bandit example...that is indeed an encounter....but it isn't a combat. There is a difference between the two. The poll was asking about pointless combat.

It strikes me as an optional combat. The thing that you've encountered is trying to flee. Do you want to give chase? Which is the same sort of encounter as "A white stag with hoofs and antlers of shining gold leaps across the road in front of you." You don't have to give chase, but if you do it will turn into combat at some point if the magical stag can no longer flee. Likewise, "As you are travelling on the road, you begin to hear the music of a lyre. After a little ways, you espy three females of an elvish air, clad only in a wreath of leaves around their hair, lying on a patch of sunny sward a just off the road. One is playing a lyre," is also an encounter that may or may not be combat depending on whether the party is stupid enough flirt with dryads and someone fails a saving throw.

I find constant and relentless random encounters harm the "realness" of most settings. If a wandering party is consistently getting attacked multiple times a day then so should everything else in the world, including the wandering monsters themselves. The roads of the world would be piled hip deep with dead rotting bandit, goblin, and orc carcasses as no entity could travel along them even an hour without being harassed.

Roads=civilization=some degree of safety.

I agree with you to some extent. I do consider what the life of an average farmer taking a wagon load of hay into town is going to be like when designing random encounter tables for civilized regions. As the two above encounters show, or haymonger could have an interesting day even if he personally isn't really threatened - he's not dumb enough to get involved in fey things, not skilled enough to chase the hart, and not handsome and charming enough to get himself in trouble with dryads even if he was inclined to. Even if I have 1% chance of encountering bandits along the way, chances are they'll ignore him as he's clearly not got enough coin to be worthwhile and it's bad policy as a bandit to 'dirty your nest' by attacking locals.

It should be pretty obvious that a 1% chance of encountering a random red dragon is far too high. An active red dragon so near the road would threaten the existence of civilization in the region, and unless the PC's are spectacularly unlucky they probably would not be the first person to encounter such a monster. The whole region for 40 miles around would be talking about how a large dragon had been spotted in the area.

I have made different random encounter tables for civilized roads during the day and during the night so that riding home drunk from the tavern after the sun has gone down is a somewhat riskier proposition.

 

[Umbran]

Per "How to Play," it's the goal of the DM and players both to make it so. Same for exploration and social.

Well, then you are, avoiding them have pointless combats! You are taking steps to make sure it isn't pointless!

 

[Helldritch]

It strikes me as an optional combat. The thing that you've encountered is trying to flee. Do you want to give chase? Which is the same sort of encounter as "A white stag with hoofs and antlers of shining gold leaps across the road in front of you." You don't have to give chase, but if you do it will turn into combat at some point if the magical stag can no longer flee. Likewise, "As you are travelling on the road, you begin to hear the music of a lyre. After a little ways, you espy three females of an elvish air, clad only in a wreath of leaves around their hair, lying on a patch of sunny sward a just off the road. One is playing a lyre," is also an encounter that may or may not be combat depending on whether the party is stupid enough flirt with dryads and someone fails a saving throw.

And is an optional combat pointless? Here in the fleeing example, the players know that they are strong. Known enough to be feared and recognized by the "rattle" of the world. It shows them that they have achieved something. With the dryads, it is about the same. But this time it is more like will the player actually flirt, flee or simply have small talk? Maybe the dryads are in need of help as bad trolls are cutting down the forest and thus, spur a whole adventure.

I agree with you to some extent. I do consider what the life of an average farmer taking a wagon load of hay into town is going to be like when designing random encounter tables for civilized regions. As the two above encounters show, or haymonger could have an interesting day even if he personally isn't really threatened - he's not dumb enough to get involved in fey things, not skilled enough to chase the hart, and not handsome and charming enough to get himself in trouble with dryads even if he was inclined to. Even if I have 1% chance of encountering bandits along the way, chances are they'll ignore him as he's clearly not got enough coin to be worthwhile and it's bad policy as a bandit to 'dirty your nest' by attacking locals.

Sure, and at the same time, why do you think local lords hire adventurers in the first place? Might it be that some bandits dirtied their nest by attacking locals and a few merchants because the pickings were not good enough for them?

It should be pretty obvious that a 1% chance of encountering a random red dragon is far too high. An active red dragon so near the road would threaten the existence of civilization in the region, and unless the PC's are spectacularly unlucky they probably would not be the first person to encounter such a monster. The whole region for 40 miles around would be talking about how a large dragon had been spotted in the area.

1% is high, but not for the adventurer. Simply because of a few things.
When travelling, the following applies.
1) First, there must be a chance for an encounter. Mine is about 20% (16+ on d20)
2) It must not be only an event. I give a 50% of an encounter to be "just" some noise, the traces of a battle and so on.
3) If you count all this, and if I had a table set for d%, it means that the dragon might be there is now a mere 0.1%.
4) If a dragon is indeed sighted. It might not attack, just flying by depending on the level of the group, then it is a good thing simply because the local authorities will seek to hire... adventurers!

I have made different random encounter tables for civilized roads during the day and during the night so that riding home drunk from the tavern after the sun has gone down is a somewhat riskier proposition.

That is a nice idea.

 

[Jer]

If you have 6-8 fights a day, some of them have got to be close to pointless.

I suppose attrition is a part of the game.

If you're having pointless fights just to get to the arbitrary 6-8 combats per "day" that is a suggestion in the DMG its time to rethink what you're doing. Even the advice in the book is just that 6-8 is the average number of combat encounters the party should be able to handle before they need a rest, not an expectation of the number of encounters they're going to have every single adventuring day before they rest.

(And that's before I get to my own personal objection that the writeup in the DMG is annoying. Their language around encounters feels off - like they're switching between two definitions of "encounter" - one that is "any kind of encounter" and one that is specifically a "combat encounter". 6-8 total encounters per day makes a lot more sense than 6-8 combat encounters per day, which is far more than any group I've ever played with averaged between rests. if the PCs take time in their adventuring day to talk their way out of a fight, or avoid a fight through clever skill/magic item use, or solve a riddle, or work through a trap, or ask a bunch of people questions about the mystery they're trying to solve, or any of the other things that PCs will do during an adventure, that's something the game should account for. IME the adventuring day has a lot of that kind of stuff in it and sometimes there's only room in it for 1 or 2 combats before it makes sense to have a rest.)

 

[overgeeked]

If you're having pointless fights just to get to the arbitrary 6-8 combats per "day" that is a suggestion in the DMG its time to rethink what you're doing. Even the advice in the book is just that 6-8 is the average number of combat encounters the party should be able to handle before they need a rest, not an expectation of the number of encounters they're going to have every single adventuring day before they rest.

Right. But...the game is balanced around that idea. The PCs have a certain amount of resources and they should be spread across that much combat in between long rests. If you put fewer fights in front of them, their resources have dramatically more impact if you keep the encounters "average" or "hard," so if you have fewer fights but want them to be meaningful, i.e. not pointless, then you also need to ramp up the difficulty of those fewer fights. Because if you don't, the PCs will steamroll those fights.

(And that's before I get to my own personal objection that the writeup in the DMG is annoying. Their language around encounters feels off - like they're switching between two definitions of "encounter" - one that is "any kind of encounter" and one that is specifically a "combat encounter". 6-8 total encounters per day makes a lot more sense than 6-8 combat encounters per day, which is far more than any group I've ever played with averaged between rests. if the PCs take time in their adventuring day to talk their way out of a fight, or avoid a fight through clever skill/magic item use, or solve a riddle, or work through a trap, or ask a bunch of people questions about the mystery they're trying to solve, or any of the other things that PCs will do during an adventure, that's something the game should account for. IME the adventuring day has a lot of that kind of stuff in it and sometimes there's only room in it for 1 or 2 combats before it makes sense to have a rest.)

That mostly stems from the designers falsely insisting that D&D is not a combat-focused game, but it is. They try to give a nod and a wink to the idea that there are other types of meaningful encounters, but when designing the game and the modules that go with it, it's almost all combat all the time. Which is why they made such a big deal about being able to gasp complete Witchlight without resorting to combat. Such innovation. Much new. Well, for D&D it is innovative and new.