D&D General Why are we fighting?

[Warpiglet-7]

It's similar in structure to 4E's skill challenges except that I'm tracking results as a contest. I don't necessarily think in terms of distance, but instead in terms of success totals or averages for a group. Sort of. A lot of times it just comes down to pacing and fun. I also use a similar structure, a set of connected skill checks, for things like escaping collapsing buildings, complex traps and what not.

It helps to just do it, of course. I also like to think ahead a bit if I think it's a possibility and jot down some potential obstacles sides could either use to obstruct or avoid. Also, are there any shortcuts, can you run through a building or alleyway instead of around.

The DM's version of obstacles in the chase rules is pretty limited, in particular it doesn't talk about using the environment to slow down your pursuers. I generally make my own obstacles up on the fly or have a little bit figured out ahead. Add in my list of PC skill proficiencies and it's off to the races so to speak.

I am going to make a mock up with sadistic orcs chasing a party and use my table with minis for relative positioning and see how it looks.

I realizes some is theater of the mind

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Guidelines have never been precise in any edition I've played.

My experience differs. 13A and 4e both have reasonably precise guidelines that are quite effective in practice. They are, of course, not perfectly so, because literally nothing ever is or will be.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If you want morale rules to work, there has to be an incentive for the players to not just continue every fight to the death. If enemies who run away alert everyone for miles around and come back with massive reinforcements, then of course players are going to want to fight to the death. Likewise, if accepting surrender means the players have the hassle of dealing with prisoners who will shiv them the moment they let their guard down, players will be less likely to let enemies surrender.

Sure, but how do you avoid that? Have the monsters act unrealistically? Just use creatures with animal intelligence?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Completely agree with this sentence.

The issue with hit points is, focus fire is always going to be the best option in D&D combat, because its the fastest way to reduce the threat. If, for example, PC-like NPCs had reasonable hit points, the PCs would just pick one and tear them to pieces in round 1.

 

[Oofta]

My experience differs. 13A and 4e both have reasonably precise guidelines that are quite effective in practice. They are, of course, not perfectly so, because literally nothing ever is or will be.

I ran and played 4E up to 30th level. I disagree, it was no more or less better than any other edition. In 4E you had narrowly prescribed expected magical item loadout, but you simply can't account for group tactical acumen and group builds.

 

[iserith]

Sure, but how do you avoid that? Have the monsters act unrealistically? Just use creatures with animal intelligence?

They don't always alert everyone when they get away, don't always return with "massive" reinforcement (or any at all), and don't always try to escape by murdering the PCs when captured.

If we can imagine a world in which adventurers fight dragons in dungeons, we can imagine reasons for these things not to happen.

 

[Oofta]

The issue with hit points is, focus fire is always going to be the best option in D&D combat, because its the fastest way to reduce the threat. If, for example, PC-like NPCs had reasonable hit points, the PCs would just pick one and tear them to pieces in round 1.

Tell that to my players - one in particular. When my wife mentioned something about focusing fire was better he ignored it and said "There are different lines of thoughts on that". I mean, I agree with you and it's only logical in most cases even if there are exceptions to every rule. Doesn't mean everyone agrees.

 

[Bill Zebub]

We are fighting because all you people with opinions different than mine are WRONG. And even some of you who share my opinions are wrong.




Oh, wait, you don’t mean fighting on the forums?

 

[Micah Sweet]

IME even if the prisoners can be expected to behave themselves (e.g. defeated soldiers of a culture known for its sense of honour etc.) the PCs don't want to accept surrender, as they don't want the ongoing headache of keeping watch on the prisoners, feeding them, keeping them safe, and so forth.

True. I've never met a party that actually  wanted to take prisoners, mostly for logistical reasons.

 

[Oofta]

We are fighting because all you people with opinions different than mine are WRONG. And even some of you who share my opinions are wrong.




Oh, wait, you don’t mean fighting on the forums?

Exactly.