Why can't the wizard/rogue/cleric do anything to lock down the opponents, why is it solely the fighter's job? You keep saying 'the fighter has more HP' as if they can't also be one-shotted by an orc with a greataxe at level one just like anyone else.
I never said can/can't I said more likely/less likely.
Quote:
All these options are technically available to other PCs but WAY more likely to kill them because the fighter has the higher hp. Also in many cases these are less likely to work because the fighter's more likely to hit what they aim at.
0
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
Also, pretty much all of those options are still things that another class can do just as well, if not better. Plus the additional options that they get from their class.
That's the point. Fighters only have basic options, and even if you're adding in bags of flour and Molotov cocktails, those aren't options specific to the fighter.
"All these options are technically available to other PCs but WAY more likely to kill them because the fighter has the higher hp. Also in many cases these are less likely to work because the fighter's more likely to hit what they aim at."
Why can't the wizard/rogue/cleric do anything to lock down the opponents, why is it solely the fighter's job? You keep saying 'the fighter has more HP' as if they can't also be one-shotted by an orc with a greataxe at level one just like anyone else.
I never said can/can't I said more likely/less likely.
Quote:
All these options are technically available to other PCs but WAY more likely to kill them because the fighter has the higher hp. Also in many cases these are less likely to work because the fighter's more likely to hit what they aim at.
Any class taking an action that their class supports will have exactly the same hit chance as the fighter, unless the fighter is using a longbow and the Archery fighting style in which case they're not doing any of your bizarre improv activities anyway, but you don't care because this is a hypothetical world where you want to kill all your players unless they throw away the rule book and make up actions and carry bags of flour to blind enemies because the wizard definitely can't cast spells from range without being instantly murdered by orcish longbows due to "hp hp hp hp hp hp hp"
+2
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
Hey Zak
What about the barbarian?
He's got more hit points and more options than the fighter
How do you account for him?
Or the paladin, with her higher AC and increased number of options?
Zak, your entire scenario is predicated on the idea that only the fighter can stop the orcs from hurting your party and that's just completely incorrect. The Wizard can cast a spell(Sleep is great!) the Rogue can hide, the cleric can cast a spell or engage with an equally high AC as the fighter.
And they have a higher risk of dying if they try it out in the open in this first round.
Heroes don't die on a moment's notice, and modern D&D is about playing heroes)
You've made a bunch of assumptions about necessary playtyle I haven't made.
You're making a bold and universal claim "people must play in this PCs-can't-be-one-shotted way"
I am making a modest claim "some people don't have to play that way, and for them, several of these truisms you're relating are not true".
Zak, your entire scenario is predicated on the idea that only the fighter can stop the orcs from hurting your party and that's just completely incorrect. The Wizard can cast a spell(Sleep is great!) the Rogue can hide, the cleric can cast a spell or engage with an equally high AC as the fighter.
And they have a higher risk of dying if they try it out in the open in this first round.
Heroes don't die on a moment's notice, and modern D&D is about playing heroes)
You've made a bunch of assumptions about necessary playtyle I haven't made.
You're making a bold and universal claim "people must play in this PCs-can't-be-one-shotted way"
I am making a modest claim "some people don't have to play that way, and for them, several of these truisms you're relating are not true".
I am discussing the design ethos and rules of Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition as described in the Player's Handbook, Monster Manual, and Dungeon Master's Guide. I am making no such universal claim.
I've played a lot of rogues over the years, and let me tell you, my first action of combat has never been "run for cover"
Legit.
How lethal is your game?
Sometimes people die? How would you even quantify that?
You don't have to precisely quantify, just give me some idea, so I can bridge this gap in this conversation:
How many hits do people die on?
How often are tpks?
How common is one-shotting?
What are the chances of a low-level party running into a massively high-level foe?
How often, in terms of deaths-per-session are we talking?
Things like that.
Because in order to survive I've had to play a rogue very differently than you.
0
admanbunionize your workplaceSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
My favorite thing about Fighters is that at level 1 they're throwing bags of flour and the Wizard's like "u saved me u're a god ty so much" and then at level five they're still throwing bags of flour and the Wizard casts Fireball.
Captain Ultralow resolution pictures of birdsRegistered Userregular
Y'know, I came to the kind of random realization just now that it'd be a lot easier to explain spellcasting classes in D&D/Pathfinder to new players if they could have came up with a synonym for "level" when they were making spells levels back in the 70s. Because as of right now, there's character level, spellcaster level (which may not be the same) and spell level. For the want of a thesaurus...
I've played a lot of rogues over the years, and let me tell you, my first action of combat has never been "run for cover"
Legit.
How lethal is your game?
Sometimes people die? How would you even quantify that?
You don't have to precisely quantify, just give me some idea, so I can bridge this gap in this conversation:
How many hits do people die on?
How often are tpks?
How common is one-shotting?
What are the chances of a low-level party running into a massively high-level foe?
How often, in terms of deaths-per-session are we talking?
Things like that.
Because in order to survive I've had to play a rogue very differently than you.
Are you playing Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition as per the ethos and rules laid out in the Players Handbook, Monster Manual, and Dungeon Master's Guide? Because all the answers are actually in there! You should read the books relating to the system that you're talking about! You know, the ones that you've got a credit in?
(But the people who make D&D don't actually play by the rules, which is a commonly known fact and complaint about the legitimate issues within the system)
+1
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
He's got more hit points and more options than the fighter
How do you account for him?
Or the paladin, with her higher AC and increased number of options?
Once the goalposts are moved there we get into things that are more or less true depending on edition and right now nobody's even acceded to very basic stuff like the same tactic in the open is less risky for the fighter than the wizard or "sometimes the best option for the fighter isn't run to obvious foe then hit ".
So first: does anyone get that running to that one foe and then pressing "hit" is not always the fighter's best option in ever possible situation?
He's got more hit points and more options than the fighter
How do you account for him?
Or the paladin, with her higher AC and increased number of options?
Once the goalposts are moved there we get into things that are more or less true depending on edition and right now nobody's even acceded to very basic stuff like the same tactic in the open is less risky for the fighter than the wizard or "sometimes the best option for the fighter isn't run to obvious foe then hit ".
So first: does anyone get that running to that one foe and then pressing "hit" is not always the fighter's best option in ever possible situation?
Honestly I feel like throwing a bag of flour at someone is a maneuver that a rogue would excel at, as opposed to a fighter
If you want to go around throwing flour at people to blind them you should probably play a rogue instead
That might be a smart move for the rogue in a different situation--like one where they had surprise on the orcs or were hidden.
In the situation I describe it could be dumb for the typical rogue in a high-lethality game because it would leave them exposed to likely less benefit than a thrown weapon.
The fighters job in that first round--as I described--is to reduce the orcs' ability to hurt the other PCs as much as possible in the first round so the rogue et al can get to better positions.
Wait, if this flour thing is not going to be as good as throwing a weapon, why is the fighter even bothering? Why don't they just attack?
Because it's the better option in some situations and not in others.
Every fight is a different situation.
Okay but in the hypothetical Four Orcs Adventures scenario you presented, wherein it was posited that throwing a bag of flour might be a better option for the fighter because it could buy the squishies time to find cover: The fighter should throw flour because it's better than attacking and it will give the rogue time to hide, but the rogue shouldn't throw flour because it isn't better than attacking and wouldn't give the rogue time to hide?
And all of this is to highlight that a fighter has plenty of choices and they're not a one-trick pony, because they have more hit points?
The specific idea is that: here in round one where everyone's out in the open and nobody's in a chosen position, the fighter has many options.
This was to address two specific statements:
1 The fighter can/should only do one thing in a fight (not true, then later
2 "If you want to throw flour you are better off being a rogue" (not true in this specific situation I described, which I chose bc it was the most boring tactical set-up imaginable )
Yup I follow.
So why isn't it true in the specific situation you described?
The rogue can die easily in the first round because they're out in the open. The rogue could easily die in roudn one soI reposted the situation below.
Do you think maybe your hypothetical scenario doesn't really address the idea that started this whole thing (which is that in D&D, attacking and doing as much damage as possible is usually the most tactically sound option for a fighter)?
Not at all, I address exactly that explicitly and repeatedly. Here it is:
(previous post snipped out)
Yeah no like I said I follow what you're saying. I don't agree with it and I'm asking for more dialogue, not just a repeat of what you've already said that I already don't agree with.
The rogue has less HP than the fighter. Got it. Totally with you on that.
Blinding an orc or two with pocket-flour might buy the rogue time to hide. No argument here.
The fighter should do this dirty trick because the fighter has more hit points. Nah you lost me. I contend that the rogue should do it, because they probably have a better chance at pulling it off (or at the very least, not a worse chance), and the best thing for the fighter to do in this situation is get into melee and kill something. The fighter has more HP, meaning it can last longer, meaning it should be up there taking hits because that is its one advantage in this opening round over the rest of the party.
Everyone else has their own tricks they can do that are probably more effective and more easily resolved than the fighter's improv, and if they don't, their improv still has the same set of possible outcomes as the fighter's. In your scenario literally the only thing the fighter has going for it is more HP, and the best use of that HP is getting up into melee - where a fighter belongs because they're a fighter.
Are you playing Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition as per the ethos and rules laid out in the Players Handbook, Monster Manual, and Dungeon Master's Guide?
I've played a lot of rogues over the years, and let me tell you, my first action of combat has never been "run for cover"
Legit.
How lethal is your game?
Sometimes people die? How would you even quantify that?
You don't have to precisely quantify, just give me some idea, so I can bridge this gap in this conversation:
How many hits do people die on?
How often are tpks?
How common is one-shotting?
What are the chances of a low-level party running into a massively high-level foe?
How often, in terms of deaths-per-session are we talking?
Things like that.
Because in order to survive I've had to play a rogue very differently than you.
Are you playing Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition as per the ethos and rules laid out in the Players Handbook, Monster Manual, and Dungeon Master's Guide? Because all the answers are actually in there! You should read the books relating to the system that you're talking about! You know, the ones that you've got a credit in?
Sometimes I unquestionably am because I'm playing in a game officially sponsored and overseen by WOTC more or less and sometimes it's difficult to say whether you're in the "ethos" because making up your own monsters (for instance) is definitely described as legit in the DMG but then there are monsters provided in the manual.
But the original claim was that "in D&D" (no edition specified) the fighter has but one thing to do.
0
admanbunionize your workplaceSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
I would consider the idea of a fighter bringing a 10lb bag of flour on any trip to be entirely bizarre. Or the idea that a 10' pole is somehow better at keeping orcs from running past you then swinging a sword at them. Or a polearm.
I buy the taunting idea, but that's not really improv so much as just what I would expect an adventurer to do.
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
Hey wait, can we talk about the fact that in this boring, stock standard encounter, the fighter has a bag of flour on him? Do your characters generally just carry bags of flour on them? That's a decent amount of weight, and given the overall rudimentary milling and refining techniques of the fantasy middle ages, it's honestly not a particularly cheap thing to have. Like, I know adventurers are frequently unreasonably wealthy for their economic status, but still.
I loved the hell out of D&D 4th edition bards. Mine didn't carry a weapon at all. The rest of the party were her weapons. Cause this enemy over here to stumble backwards, giving a nearby ally a bonus attack against them. Pull this enemy over there forward more, also giving a bonus attack. Enemy misses an attack against an ally, swap their places so now they are being flanked.
I know there's a word for this concept as it appeared in some... I think sci fi setting? I can't think of it now though. Basically where she was standing behind everyone playing her music and by virtue of the magic suffusing the notes everyone in her party fought better and more tactically and all the enemies fought worse.
But now in 5th she's just a wizard with a mandolin. Yawn.
I've played a lot of rogues over the years, and let me tell you, my first action of combat has never been "run for cover"
Legit.
How lethal is your game?
Sometimes people die? How would you even quantify that?
You don't have to precisely quantify, just give me some idea, so I can bridge this gap in this conversation:
How many hits do people die on?
How often are tpks?
How common is one-shotting?
What are the chances of a low-level party running into a massively high-level foe?
How often, in terms of deaths-per-session are we talking?
Things like that.
Because in order to survive I've had to play a rogue very differently than you.
A bunch; extremely rare; doesn't happen; that sounds dumb; some fraction, who cares
If it takes a bunch of hits for people to die and one-shotting doesn't happen then that explains why your rogue never runs away on round one.
Like I said:
The original goalpost "the fighter only has one thing they need to do" doesn't make sense in a high-lethality game. Someone will die if you just do that.
In a game where one-shotting is very possible and it usually takes only a hit or two to die (which simply requires the GM use tougher monsters) then tactics change.
Are you playing Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition as per the ethos and rules laid out in the Players Handbook, Monster Manual, and Dungeon Master's Guide?
I've played a lot of rogues over the years, and let me tell you, my first action of combat has never been "run for cover"
Legit.
How lethal is your game?
Sometimes people die? How would you even quantify that?
You don't have to precisely quantify, just give me some idea, so I can bridge this gap in this conversation:
How many hits do people die on?
How often are tpks?
How common is one-shotting?
What are the chances of a low-level party running into a massively high-level foe?
How often, in terms of deaths-per-session are we talking?
Things like that.
Because in order to survive I've had to play a rogue very differently than you.
Are you playing Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition as per the ethos and rules laid out in the Players Handbook, Monster Manual, and Dungeon Master's Guide? Because all the answers are actually in there! You should read the books relating to the system that you're talking about! You know, the ones that you've got a credit in?
Sometimes I unquestionably am because I'm playing in a game officially sponsored and overseen by WOTC more or less and sometimes it's difficult to say whether you're in the "ethos" because making up your own monsters (for instance) is definitely described as legit in the DMG but then there are monsters provided in the manual.
But the original claim was that "in D&D" (no edition specified) the fighter has but one thing to do.
Naw, we've been talking about 5E ever since you started this incredibly cyclical discussion. Sorry if you forgot.
Rainfall, do the activities listed here genuinely strike you as "bizarre" or is this meant as hyperbole?
Throwing a bag of flour to blind people or bull-rushing two orcs that likely have equal/better strength than you in an attempt to push them back actually does seem bizarre to me because it's wildly impractical(unless you're fighting in a kitchen or warehouse, which is immediately not the open ground you've been discussing, you're saying that the fighter just carries sacks of flour to blind people with? Which then becomes a planned use of an inventory item rather than improv, anyway) Your statement that fighters are best at improv because of higher HP is also bizarre to me because I've never played a game where party members didn't attempt to solve things in unorthodox manners regardless of class, and an extra 1/2 HP per level compared to a Rogue really isn't that significant.
+1
admanbunionize your workplaceSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
Hey wait, can we talk about the fact that in this boring, stock standard encounter, the fighter has a bag of flour on him? Do your characters generally just carry bags of flour on them? That's a decent amount of weight, and given the overall rudimentary milling and refining techniques of the fantasy middle ages, it's honestly not a particularly cheap thing to have. Like, I know adventurers are frequently unreasonably wealthy for their economic status, but still.
tbf I can guarantee you that if we've previously established that a bag of flour can be thrown and used to blind two enemies for any amount of time I'm bringing a bag of flour.
I'm not using it on four shitty orcs though. Imma kill one of them with my sword.
I've played a lot of rogues over the years, and let me tell you, my first action of combat has never been "run for cover"
Legit.
How lethal is your game?
Sometimes people die? How would you even quantify that?
You don't have to precisely quantify, just give me some idea, so I can bridge this gap in this conversation:
How many hits do people die on?
How often are tpks?
How common is one-shotting?
What are the chances of a low-level party running into a massively high-level foe?
How often, in terms of deaths-per-session are we talking?
Things like that.
Because in order to survive I've had to play a rogue very differently than you.
A bunch; extremely rare; doesn't happen; that sounds dumb; some fraction, who cares
If it takes a bunch of hits for people to die and one-shotting doesn't happen then that explains why your rogue never runs away on round one.
Like I said:
The original goalpost "the fighter only has one thing they need to do" doesn't make sense in a high-lethality game. Someone will die if you just do that.
In a game where one-shotting is very possible and it usually takes only a hit or two to die (which simply requires the GM use tougher monsters) then tactics change.
Yeah but that game is not Dungeons and Dragons
Straightzi on
+2
admanbunionize your workplaceSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
I've played a lot of rogues over the years, and let me tell you, my first action of combat has never been "run for cover"
Legit.
How lethal is your game?
Sometimes people die? How would you even quantify that?
You don't have to precisely quantify, just give me some idea, so I can bridge this gap in this conversation:
How many hits do people die on?
How often are tpks?
How common is one-shotting?
What are the chances of a low-level party running into a massively high-level foe?
How often, in terms of deaths-per-session are we talking?
Things like that.
Because in order to survive I've had to play a rogue very differently than you.
A bunch; extremely rare; doesn't happen; that sounds dumb; some fraction, who cares
If it takes a bunch of hits for people to die and one-shotting doesn't happen then that explains why your rogue never runs away on round one.
Like I said:
The original goalpost "the fighter only has one thing they need to do" doesn't make sense in a high-lethality game. Someone will die if you just do that.
In a game where one-shotting is very possible and it usually takes only a hit or two to die (which simply requires the GM use tougher monsters) then tactics change.
If you're playing in a game where one-shotting is very possible and the rogue runs away for one round, the rogue has done nothing but make shit worse for the party. When one lucky swing is all it takes to kill someone you need all your force to be directed at removing enemy attacks as quickly as possible.
[
Yeah no like I said I follow what you're saying. I don't agree with it and I'm asking for more dialogue, not just a repeat of what you've already said that I already don't agree with.
The rogue has less HP than the fighter. Got it. Totally with you on that.
Blinding an orc or two with pocket-flour might buy the rogue time to hide. No argument here.
The fighter should do this dirty trick because the fighter has more hit points. Nah you lost me. I contend that the rogue should do it, because they probably have a better chance at pulling it off (or at the very least, not a worse chance), and the best thing for the fighter to do in this situation is get into melee and kill something.
And I'm pointing out that in many situations (especially if they can be one-shotted) the rogue needs to spend that round running for cover or hiding, not moving 30' and doing a trick.
The person who does the trick in this situation can only move 30'--which may not be enough to get away from the enemy. So the tough guy might be the best guy to do it.
0
admanbunionize your workplaceSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
The rogue needs to fire that fucking bow. They can move wherever they want.
I've played a lot of rogues over the years, and let me tell you, my first action of combat has never been "run for cover"
Legit.
How lethal is your game?
Sometimes people die? How would you even quantify that?
You don't have to precisely quantify, just give me some idea, so I can bridge this gap in this conversation:
How many hits do people die on?
How often are tpks?
How common is one-shotting?
What are the chances of a low-level party running into a massively high-level foe?
How often, in terms of deaths-per-session are we talking?
Things like that.
Because in order to survive I've had to play a rogue very differently than you.
A bunch; extremely rare; doesn't happen; that sounds dumb; some fraction, who cares
If it takes a bunch of hits for people to die and one-shotting doesn't happen then that explains why your rogue never runs away on round one.
Like I said:
The original goalpost "the fighter only has one thing they need to do" doesn't make sense in a high-lethality game. Someone will die if you just do that.
In a game where one-shotting is very possible and it usually takes only a hit or two to die (which simply requires the GM use tougher monsters) then tactics change.
If you're playing in a game where one-shotting is very possible and the rogue runs away for one round, the rogue has done nothing but make shit worse for the party. When one lucky swing is all it takes to kill someone you need all your force to be directed at removing enemy attacks as quickly as possible.
The fighter has less chance of being one-shotted than the rogue.
And if the rogue is dead then everything is worse for the party.
An all-offense strategy is not always 100% the best thing to do.
Often the best thing to do is: set up the backstab, or get to a place you can snipe, or hold a chokepoint.
XP budgets for 5E say that 4 Orcs vs 4 Level 1 players is two times a Deadly encounter.
So you'd best believe that the spellcasters are burning all their resources to survive and you're alpha striking the hell out of these bastards, and if your DM is throwing Double Deadly encounters at the party without giving them time to prepare or advantageous terrain then your DM is an antagonistic idiot who probably shouldn't DM for you anymore.
One of my friends DMs high-lethality games where combat gets brutal but when we die in his games it's because shit went bad for two to three turns, not because of one lucky hit.
I've played a lot of rogues over the years, and let me tell you, my first action of combat has never been "run for cover"
Legit.
How lethal is your game?
Sometimes people die? How would you even quantify that?
You don't have to precisely quantify, just give me some idea, so I can bridge this gap in this conversation:
How many hits do people die on?
How often are tpks?
How common is one-shotting?
What are the chances of a low-level party running into a massively high-level foe?
How often, in terms of deaths-per-session are we talking?
Things like that.
Because in order to survive I've had to play a rogue very differently than you.
A bunch; extremely rare; doesn't happen; that sounds dumb; some fraction, who cares
If it takes a bunch of hits for people to die and one-shotting doesn't happen then that explains why your rogue never runs away on round one.
Like I said:
The original goalpost "the fighter only has one thing they need to do" doesn't make sense in a high-lethality game. Someone will die if you just do that.
In a game where one-shotting is very possible and it usually takes only a hit or two to die (which simply requires the GM use tougher monsters) then tactics change.
Yeah but that game is not Dungeons and Dragons
So as soon as the PCs run into a tougher monster than you are used to you're not playing D&D any more?
Hey wait, can we talk about the fact that in this boring, stock standard encounter, the fighter has a bag of flour on him? Do your characters generally just carry bags of flour on them? That's a decent amount of weight, and given the overall rudimentary milling and refining techniques of the fantasy middle ages, it's honestly not a particularly cheap thing to have. Like, I know adventurers are frequently unreasonably wealthy for their economic status, but still.
tbf I can guarantee you that if we've previously established that a bag of flour can be thrown and used to blind two enemies for any amount of time I'm bringing a bag of flour.
I'm not using it on four shitty orcs though. Imma kill one of them with my sword.
....and so not decrease their chances of one-shotting your friends as much as you could've.
I've played a lot of rogues over the years, and let me tell you, my first action of combat has never been "run for cover"
Legit.
How lethal is your game?
Sometimes people die? How would you even quantify that?
You don't have to precisely quantify, just give me some idea, so I can bridge this gap in this conversation:
How many hits do people die on?
How often are tpks?
How common is one-shotting?
What are the chances of a low-level party running into a massively high-level foe?
How often, in terms of deaths-per-session are we talking?
Things like that.
Because in order to survive I've had to play a rogue very differently than you.
A bunch; extremely rare; doesn't happen; that sounds dumb; some fraction, who cares
If it takes a bunch of hits for people to die and one-shotting doesn't happen then that explains why your rogue never runs away on round one.
Like I said:
The original goalpost "the fighter only has one thing they need to do" doesn't make sense in a high-lethality game. Someone will die if you just do that.
In a game where one-shotting is very possible and it usually takes only a hit or two to die (which simply requires the GM use tougher monsters) then tactics change.
Yeah but that game is not Dungeons and Dragons
So as soon as the PCs run into a tougher monster than you are used to you're not playing D&D any more?
Well, you're certainly not abiding by the rules and ethos of the game as laid out in the Players Handbook, Monster Manual, and Dungeon Master's Guide anymore. So no, you might as well be playing a different game.
Seriously, if you go into an encounter against 4 orcs, and the orcs have a 50% chance of killing the rogue or cleric on a hit, a 40% chance of killing the wizard on a hit, and a 25% chance of killing the fighter on a hit, what's the fucking difference? You're all way too likely to die anyway. The easiest way to ensure that party members survive to revive the fallen is by reducing the Orc's capacity to kill your entire party in one round by killing them. A 1st level party using spells can almost certainly kill two orcs in one round, lose one party member in the second round, kill one orc in the third round, lose another party member, and then take out the final orc.
If the fighter blinds/pushes two orcs in the first round and the rest of the party runs for cover, two orcs spend their turn getting unblinded/pushed, and the other two orcs kill the fighter. The party is down one fighter and the orcs are down zero.
I've played a lot of rogues over the years, and let me tell you, my first action of combat has never been "run for cover"
Legit.
How lethal is your game?
Sometimes people die? How would you even quantify that?
You don't have to precisely quantify, just give me some idea, so I can bridge this gap in this conversation:
How many hits do people die on?
How often are tpks?
How common is one-shotting?
What are the chances of a low-level party running into a massively high-level foe?
How often, in terms of deaths-per-session are we talking?
Things like that.
Because in order to survive I've had to play a rogue very differently than you.
A bunch; extremely rare; doesn't happen; that sounds dumb; some fraction, who cares
If it takes a bunch of hits for people to die and one-shotting doesn't happen then that explains why your rogue never runs away on round one.
Like I said:
The original goalpost "the fighter only has one thing they need to do" doesn't make sense in a high-lethality game. Someone will die if you just do that.
In a game where one-shotting is very possible and it usually takes only a hit or two to die (which simply requires the GM use tougher monsters) then tactics change.
Yeah but that game is not Dungeons and Dragons
So as soon as the PCs run into a tougher monster than you are used to you're not playing D&D any more?
Well, you're certainly not abiding by the rules and ethos of the game as laid out in the Players Handbook, Monster Manual, and Dungeon Master's Guide anymore. So no, you might as well be playing a different game.
Which part of the "rules and ethos" are you violating if you have the players fight a difficult monster?
0
admanbunionize your workplaceSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
I've played a lot of rogues over the years, and let me tell you, my first action of combat has never been "run for cover"
Legit.
How lethal is your game?
Sometimes people die? How would you even quantify that?
You don't have to precisely quantify, just give me some idea, so I can bridge this gap in this conversation:
How many hits do people die on?
How often are tpks?
How common is one-shotting?
What are the chances of a low-level party running into a massively high-level foe?
How often, in terms of deaths-per-session are we talking?
Things like that.
Because in order to survive I've had to play a rogue very differently than you.
A bunch; extremely rare; doesn't happen; that sounds dumb; some fraction, who cares
If it takes a bunch of hits for people to die and one-shotting doesn't happen then that explains why your rogue never runs away on round one.
Like I said:
The original goalpost "the fighter only has one thing they need to do" doesn't make sense in a high-lethality game. Someone will die if you just do that.
In a game where one-shotting is very possible and it usually takes only a hit or two to die (which simply requires the GM use tougher monsters) then tactics change.
If you're playing in a game where one-shotting is very possible and the rogue runs away for one round, the rogue has done nothing but make shit worse for the party. When one lucky swing is all it takes to kill someone you need all your force to be directed at removing enemy attacks as quickly as possible.
The fighter has less chance of being one-shotted than the rogue.
And if the rogue is dead then everything is worse for the party.
An all-offense strategy is not always 100% the best thing to do.
Often the best thing to do is: set up the backstab, or get to a place you can snipe, or hold a chokepoint.
Why can't you move and backstab on round one? Why can't you move and snipe on round one? Where the hell did this chokepoint come from and why isn't the more-durable fighter in it?
if your DM is throwing Double Deadly encounters at the party without giving them time to prepare or advantageous terrain then your DM is an antagonistic idiot who probably shouldn't DM for you anymore.
So there's a game.
It's actually (contra what you say) well within the rules.
Everyone's having fun and it's dangerous.
And yet the DM is an "antagonistic idiot".
What exactly is the problem here? Is it that people are having fun in a way you don't like
I've played a lot of rogues over the years, and let me tell you, my first action of combat has never been "run for cover"
Legit.
How lethal is your game?
Sometimes people die? How would you even quantify that?
You don't have to precisely quantify, just give me some idea, so I can bridge this gap in this conversation:
How many hits do people die on?
How often are tpks?
How common is one-shotting?
What are the chances of a low-level party running into a massively high-level foe?
How often, in terms of deaths-per-session are we talking?
Things like that.
Because in order to survive I've had to play a rogue very differently than you.
A bunch; extremely rare; doesn't happen; that sounds dumb; some fraction, who cares
If it takes a bunch of hits for people to die and one-shotting doesn't happen then that explains why your rogue never runs away on round one.
Like I said:
The original goalpost "the fighter only has one thing they need to do" doesn't make sense in a high-lethality game. Someone will die if you just do that.
In a game where one-shotting is very possible and it usually takes only a hit or two to die (which simply requires the GM use tougher monsters) then tactics change.
Yeah but that game is not Dungeons and Dragons
So as soon as the PCs run into a tougher monster than you are used to you're not playing D&D any more?
Well, you're certainly not abiding by the rules and ethos of the game as laid out in the Players Handbook, Monster Manual, and Dungeon Master's Guide anymore. So no, you might as well be playing a different game.
Which part of the "rules and ethos" are you violating if you have the players fight a difficult monster?
Page 82 of the Dungeon Master's Guide refers to encounter balance, with "Deadly" encounters being the hardest listed. Creating an encounter with a higher XP budget is possible, of course, but it's not recommended in the book, thus counter to the rules and ethos.
If you, the DM, decide that you want to kill the party, they can do nothing. Throwing 2x Deadly encounters at them repeatedly is definitely a high lethality game, but why would you want to play a game where you have a 25% chance of dying in any given turn in combat while playing the toughest possible character? On average you will be rolling a new character every other encounter, depending on who in the party survives the roulette wheel of death you've devised.
If the fighter blinds/pushes two orcs in the first round and the rest of the party runs for cover, two orcs spend their turn getting unblinded/pushed, and the other two orcs kill the fighter. The party is down one fighter and the orcs are down zero.
Running for cover is never the best option when one-shots are on the table unless the entire party flees the encounter.(Spoiler, you can't outrun 5E orcs since they can move as a bonus action and dash as standard)
Posts
I never said can/can't I said more likely/less likely.
Quote:
Sometimes people die? How would you even quantify that?
"All these options are technically available to other PCs but WAY more likely to kill them because the fighter has the higher hp. Also in many cases these are less likely to work because the fighter's more likely to hit what they aim at."
Any class taking an action that their class supports will have exactly the same hit chance as the fighter, unless the fighter is using a longbow and the Archery fighting style in which case they're not doing any of your bizarre improv activities anyway, but you don't care because this is a hypothetical world where you want to kill all your players unless they throw away the rule book and make up actions and carry bags of flour to blind enemies because the wizard definitely can't cast spells from range without being instantly murdered by orcish longbows due to "hp hp hp hp hp hp hp"
What about the barbarian?
He's got more hit points and more options than the fighter
How do you account for him?
Or the paladin, with her higher AC and increased number of options?
And they have a higher risk of dying if they try it out in the open in this first round.
You've made a bunch of assumptions about necessary playtyle I haven't made.
You're making a bold and universal claim "people must play in this PCs-can't-be-one-shotted way"
I am making a modest claim "some people don't have to play that way, and for them, several of these truisms you're relating are not true".
I am discussing the design ethos and rules of Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition as described in the Player's Handbook, Monster Manual, and Dungeon Master's Guide. I am making no such universal claim.
You don't have to precisely quantify, just give me some idea, so I can bridge this gap in this conversation:
How many hits do people die on?
How often are tpks?
How common is one-shotting?
What are the chances of a low-level party running into a massively high-level foe?
How often, in terms of deaths-per-session are we talking?
Things like that.
Because in order to survive I've had to play a rogue very differently than you.
Are you playing Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition as per the ethos and rules laid out in the Players Handbook, Monster Manual, and Dungeon Master's Guide? Because all the answers are actually in there! You should read the books relating to the system that you're talking about! You know, the ones that you've got a credit in?
(But the people who make D&D don't actually play by the rules, which is a commonly known fact and complaint about the legitimate issues within the system)
A bunch; extremely rare; doesn't happen; that sounds dumb; some fraction, who cares
Once the goalposts are moved there we get into things that are more or less true depending on edition and right now nobody's even acceded to very basic stuff like the same tactic in the open is less risky for the fighter than the wizard or "sometimes the best option for the fighter isn't run to obvious foe then hit ".
So first: does anyone get that running to that one foe and then pressing "hit" is not always the fighter's best option in ever possible situation?
Super genuinely curious: What don't you like about 'em?
Ah yes
Moving goalposts, that sounds familiar
Yeah no like I said I follow what you're saying. I don't agree with it and I'm asking for more dialogue, not just a repeat of what you've already said that I already don't agree with.
The rogue has less HP than the fighter. Got it. Totally with you on that.
Blinding an orc or two with pocket-flour might buy the rogue time to hide. No argument here.
The fighter should do this dirty trick because the fighter has more hit points. Nah you lost me. I contend that the rogue should do it, because they probably have a better chance at pulling it off (or at the very least, not a worse chance), and the best thing for the fighter to do in this situation is get into melee and kill something. The fighter has more HP, meaning it can last longer, meaning it should be up there taking hits because that is its one advantage in this opening round over the rest of the party.
Everyone else has their own tricks they can do that are probably more effective and more easily resolved than the fighter's improv, and if they don't, their improv still has the same set of possible outcomes as the fighter's. In your scenario literally the only thing the fighter has going for it is more HP, and the best use of that HP is getting up into melee - where a fighter belongs because they're a fighter.
I don't know.
Sometimes I unquestionably am because I'm playing in a game officially sponsored and overseen by WOTC more or less and sometimes it's difficult to say whether you're in the "ethos" because making up your own monsters (for instance) is definitely described as legit in the DMG but then there are monsters provided in the manual.
But the original claim was that "in D&D" (no edition specified) the fighter has but one thing to do.
I buy the taunting idea, but that's not really improv so much as just what I would expect an adventurer to do.
I know there's a word for this concept as it appeared in some... I think sci fi setting? I can't think of it now though. Basically where she was standing behind everyone playing her music and by virtue of the magic suffusing the notes everyone in her party fought better and more tactically and all the enemies fought worse.
But now in 5th she's just a wizard with a mandolin. Yawn.
If it takes a bunch of hits for people to die and one-shotting doesn't happen then that explains why your rogue never runs away on round one.
Like I said:
The original goalpost "the fighter only has one thing they need to do" doesn't make sense in a high-lethality game. Someone will die if you just do that.
In a game where one-shotting is very possible and it usually takes only a hit or two to die (which simply requires the GM use tougher monsters) then tactics change.
Naw, we've been talking about 5E ever since you started this incredibly cyclical discussion. Sorry if you forgot.
Throwing a bag of flour to blind people or bull-rushing two orcs that likely have equal/better strength than you in an attempt to push them back actually does seem bizarre to me because it's wildly impractical(unless you're fighting in a kitchen or warehouse, which is immediately not the open ground you've been discussing, you're saying that the fighter just carries sacks of flour to blind people with? Which then becomes a planned use of an inventory item rather than improv, anyway) Your statement that fighters are best at improv because of higher HP is also bizarre to me because I've never played a game where party members didn't attempt to solve things in unorthodox manners regardless of class, and an extra 1/2 HP per level compared to a Rogue really isn't that significant.
tbf I can guarantee you that if we've previously established that a bag of flour can be thrown and used to blind two enemies for any amount of time I'm bringing a bag of flour.
I'm not using it on four shitty orcs though. Imma kill one of them with my sword.
Yeah but that game is not Dungeons and Dragons
If you're playing in a game where one-shotting is very possible and the rogue runs away for one round, the rogue has done nothing but make shit worse for the party. When one lucky swing is all it takes to kill someone you need all your force to be directed at removing enemy attacks as quickly as possible.
And I'm pointing out that in many situations (especially if they can be one-shotted) the rogue needs to spend that round running for cover or hiding, not moving 30' and doing a trick.
The person who does the trick in this situation can only move 30'--which may not be enough to get away from the enemy. So the tough guy might be the best guy to do it.
The fighter has less chance of being one-shotted than the rogue.
And if the rogue is dead then everything is worse for the party.
An all-offense strategy is not always 100% the best thing to do.
Often the best thing to do is: set up the backstab, or get to a place you can snipe, or hold a chokepoint.
So you'd best believe that the spellcasters are burning all their resources to survive and you're alpha striking the hell out of these bastards, and if your DM is throwing Double Deadly encounters at the party without giving them time to prepare or advantageous terrain then your DM is an antagonistic idiot who probably shouldn't DM for you anymore.
One of my friends DMs high-lethality games where combat gets brutal but when we die in his games it's because shit went bad for two to three turns, not because of one lucky hit.
So as soon as the PCs run into a tougher monster than you are used to you're not playing D&D any more?
....and so not decrease their chances of one-shotting your friends as much as you could've.
Well, you're certainly not abiding by the rules and ethos of the game as laid out in the Players Handbook, Monster Manual, and Dungeon Master's Guide anymore. So no, you might as well be playing a different game.
If the fighter blinds/pushes two orcs in the first round and the rest of the party runs for cover, two orcs spend their turn getting unblinded/pushed, and the other two orcs kill the fighter. The party is down one fighter and the orcs are down zero.
Which part of the "rules and ethos" are you violating if you have the players fight a difficult monster?
Why can't you move and backstab on round one? Why can't you move and snipe on round one? Where the hell did this chokepoint come from and why isn't the more-durable fighter in it?
So there's a game.
It's actually (contra what you say) well within the rules.
Everyone's having fun and it's dangerous.
And yet the DM is an "antagonistic idiot".
What exactly is the problem here? Is it that people are having fun in a way you don't like
Page 82 of the Dungeon Master's Guide refers to encounter balance, with "Deadly" encounters being the hardest listed. Creating an encounter with a higher XP budget is possible, of course, but it's not recommended in the book, thus counter to the rules and ethos.
If you, the DM, decide that you want to kill the party, they can do nothing. Throwing 2x Deadly encounters at them repeatedly is definitely a high lethality game, but why would you want to play a game where you have a 25% chance of dying in any given turn in combat while playing the toughest possible character? On average you will be rolling a new character every other encounter, depending on who in the party survives the roulette wheel of death you've devised.
If they fire on round one, they don't get to move as far and they may need to.
And even in terms of sheer numbers, hiding in round one and backstabbing in round two is often a better option.
Running for cover is never the best option when one-shots are on the table unless the entire party flees the encounter.(Spoiler, you can't outrun 5E orcs since they can move as a bonus action and dash as standard)