Naw, we've been talking about 5E ever since you started this incredibly cyclical discussion. Sorry if you forgot.
Directly addressing this, it's not accurate. Here are the original quotes we're discussing:
I want to play a melee class because typically D&D does a terrible job of making melee classes interesting to play and I want to see how Dungeon World compares.
I mean, it's largely a competitive class mechanically when you min-max it, at least through levels 1-10, which most D&D campaigns never leave.
It's just boring. Move to optimal position if not already in optimal position, do your full attack, or whatever your best version of that is best on your optimized feat chain. Rinse repeat.
So: do you or do you not agree that no edition is specified here?
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
Throwing encounters that are twice the highest recommended level of difficulty is not well within the rules and ethos of the game.
How is everyone having fun when you have a chance of death every round that you're in combat? I'm certainly not having fun and neither is anyone else talking to you right now, since we're all opposed to this wild one-shot world you've presented us, making you the antagonistic DM and the rest of us your reluctant players who thought a 'high lethality' campaign meant that we would have challenging tactical encounters and wouldn't be spinning the murder roulette with odds worse than fucking X-Com.
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.
Wait wait, are you saying:
"It is not D&D to play this way, even though its on the book" or
"It is objectively not fun to play this way," or
"It is impossible to play this way," or
"Please explain to me why people play highly lethal games and have fun anyway?"
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.
Wait wait, are you saying:
"It is not D&D to play this way, even though its on the book" or
"It is objectively not fun to play this way," or
"It is impossible to play this way," or
"Please explain to me why people play highly lethal games and have fun anyway?"
You're in the open. Nether party has surprise. That's described in the scenario.
And if you're doing the "anyone already engaged can be backstabbed without stealth" that's devoting 2 PCs to one orc which is extremely inefficient in terms of eliminating orc offensive power.
Why can't you move and snipe on round one?
Cover isn't necessarily close enough. Sniping requires cover.
Where the hell did this chokepoint come from and why isn't the more-durable fighter in it?
Described in the scenario already: the fighter's not in the chokepoint because neither party has surprise and both the PCs and orcs are caught out in the open.
(Whether there is a chokepoint is a 50-50. They are, in the scenario as described, inside, so either there's a corner or a door or it's one endless hallway.)
As for orc movement, no initial encounter distance was specified, so the orcs could be anywhere in line of sight and the extra PC movement might matter.
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.
Okay see I didn't know all the rules! Alright, I concede. If:
Four PCs start an encounter in an open room,
Without a surprise round for either side,
Against four orcs that each can do enough damage in a single hit to kill a rogue,
But not enough damage in a single hit to kill a fighter,
Every PC has a movement speed of 30 feet,
Every orc has a movement speed of greater than 30 feet but less than 60 feet,
The DM rules that a pocket-flour attack is an improvised weapon attack,
The fighter has a better chance of hitting with an improvised weapon than the rogue,
The DM rules that the result of the attack is one round of blindness rather than damage,
The rogue can do enough damage to kill an orc in the opening round,
The rogue can do that damage from range,
The fighter is acting before the rogue in initiative order,
The rogue is acting before the orcs,
The wizard and cleric are acting after the fighter and rogue,
The result of a fighter missing with pocket-flour means the orcs attack the fighter,
But the result of a rogue missing with pocket-flour means the orcs attack the rogue,
And the fighter can't kill two orcs in the opening round,
Then yeah totally, the fighter ought to bust out that good good pocket-flour and the rogue better book it for the rocky outcropping or whatever that's 60 feet away.
Considering how often this must come up I can see your point.
You're in the open. Nether party has surprise. That's described in the scenario.
And if you're doing the "anyone already engaged can be backstabbed without stealth" that's devoting 2 PCs to one orc which is extremely inefficient in terms of eliminating orc offensive power.
Why can't you move and snipe on round one?
Cover isn't necessarily close enough. Sniping requires cover.
Where the hell did this chokepoint come from and why isn't the more-durable fighter in it?
Described in the scenario already: the fighter's not in the chokepoint because neither party has surprise and both the PCs and orcs are caught out in the open.
(Whether there is a chokepoint is a 50-50. They are, in the scenario as described, inside, so either there's a corner or a door or it's one endless hallway.)
As for orc movement, no initial encounter distance was specified, so the orcs could be anywhere in line of sight and the extra PC movement might matter.
This is not an exotic set up.
"In this scenario that I have devised in an infinite corridor where there is no chokepoint(unless there is) and the fighter is carrying a sack of flour(why) and a 10 foot pole(okay that one is reasonable)" and there is no possible way for anyone to hide or do anything other than die, run, or be a Fighter because the Fighter has 6 to 3 more HP than anyone else in the party meaning it will take the Orcs two attacks to kill him instead of one, the best result is definitely for the Fighter to only take two attacks from the orcs while the rest of the party flees. In the inn, where we have fled to, we will toast his memory and honor the fact that the Fighter is definitely the best class at improvising combat tactics because of his HP, if only there was something we could have done to assist rather than run"
0
Options
admanbunionize your workplaceSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
The rogue needs to fire that fucking bow. They can move wherever they want.
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.
Not really. Assuming B/x rules, a level 1 thief with a +2 Dex modifier has a 45% chance of hitting an orc, vs. a 65% chance to hit with a backstab. 45% gives you a 70% chance to hit at least once in two rounds, with a 20% chance to hit twice. Now assuming 4HP only half of the single hits will kill which gives about a 45% chance to kill an orc yourself, whereas a backstab will kill 5/6 of the time, so 55%.
So you're losing 10% chance to kill an orc over those two rounds, BUT in exchange you've gained:
A chance to kill an orc before they ever get to activate, because missile weapons go before melee.
A second chance to kill an orc before they activate, when your backstab would've put you in the melee phase of combat.
A good chance to wound or finish off an orc that got tagged by another weak weapon, like a magic missile or a cleric's club.
At the end of those two rounds you've potentially moved 60' away from the combat, so you're actually safer than just hiding on round one.
Note that this all assumes that "hiding" is somehow automatic in D&D, which has never been true.
I'm certainly not having fun and neither is anyone else talking to you right now, since we're all opposed to this wild one-shot world you've presented us,
So have you've moved the goal-posts from:
"This high-lethality scenario where less-obvious tactics are useful for the fighter is unimaginable/not D&D" to "it is imaginable but it isn't my idea of fun or some other people on the forum's idea of fun".
...or are you just throwing that second observation about your taste that it isn't your idea of fun on top of still maintaining that only doing one thing is the best move for a fighter in every combat?
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
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...
The 3.x designers are on record as specifically intending to reward system mastery and filling the game with suboptimal trap choices to catch out noobs. Making concessions to people who don't like poring over rulebooks and number crunching was never part of the plan. That's why of all the umpty-ump editions and variations of D&D it's the one I just can't bring myself to have any truck with. I'd rather deal with Gary Gygax's mildly aphasic word salad insanity; at least it has heart.
I'm certainly not having fun and neither is anyone else talking to you right now, since we're all opposed to this wild one-shot world you've presented us,
So have you've moved the goal-posts from:
"This high-lethality scenario where less-obvious tactics are useful for the fighter is unimaginable/not D&D" to "it is imaginable but it isn't my idea of fun or some other people on the forum's idea of fun".
...or are you just throwing that second observation about your taste that it isn't your idea of fun on top of still maintaining that only doing one thing is the best move for a fighter in every combat?
I think I've already demonstrated how your so called less obvious tactics are not actually useful because attacking is actually the best option in this scenario so literally everything else we're discussing is pedantry. (And don't get me wrong I love a good pedantry, but this is getting ridiculous)
Generally speaking in any given situation a fighter is best of attacking because that is the most effective fighter ability, they attack well. Accurately and powerfully and often.
Any additional abilities he uses are almost certainly going to be in order to enhance their attacking ability. That this is not the case 1/10, in fringe situations, means that the fighter can be described as "almost always attacking" without much trouble.
Typically the issue that fighters have isn't that they are ineffective, in 5e for example they are very effective, typically it's that they are boring to use because all you do is make attack rolls. Yes you can almost certainly construe a situation where that isn't the case. Usually it is.
The best option is for both the rogue AND the fighter to use flour to disable all four orcs, then the wizard and the cleric team up to bean one orc. Round 1 is players 1, Orcs 0. Round 2 the Rogue and the Fighter murder an orc, and the wizard and the cleric kill another orc, the remaining orc kills the rogue/wizard/cleric, then Round 3 the party kills the remaining orc.
If the fighter or the rogue do better damage than the wizard then the wizard can just use mage hand and flour to blind orcs with minimal risk while the fighter/rogue uses their superior damage. If the party has multiple sacks of flour(and why wouldn't you) then every encounter simply becomes a race to blind all the enemies while the remainder of the party kills stuff.
Long story short, flour is my new god, and running for cover will always be the worst possible action in round 1 of a D&D engagement.
Okay see I didn't know all the rules! Alright, I concede. If:
Four PCs start an encounter in an open room,
Yes
[*] Without a surprise round for either side,
Yes
[*] Against four orcs that each can do enough damage in a single hit to kill a rogue,
Yes
[*] But not enough damage in a single hit to kill a fighter,
No: they can, they're just less likely. The fighter's got better armor and more hp.
[*] Every PC has a movement speed of 30 feet,
Doesn't have to be, they just have to be in a situation where they need a full move to get to their best position.
[*] Every orc has a movement speed of greater than 30 feet but less than 60 feet,
Doesn't have to be, they just have to be encountered at a distance where the fighter can melee them but they can't melee a PC if that PC spend their next round running away or see them if they run for cover.
[*] The DM rules that a pocket-flour attack is an improvised weapon attack,
One of the 8 tactics described is that, yes.
[*] The fighter has a better chance of hitting with an improvised weapon than the rogue,
No, they just have to be less likely to die if they try it than the rogue (see above). I've said this like 6 times
[*] The DM rules that the result of the attack is one round of blindness rather than damage,
If the flour can damage 2 orcs at once that's possibly better, but would be a weird call. Though if the flour acts as caltrops and is slippery for at least 2 orcs trying to melee that's good.
These don't all have to be like this:
[*] The rogue can do enough damage to kill an orc in the opening round,
[*] The rogue can do that damage from range,
[*] The fighter is acting before the rogue in initiative order,
In this example, yeah
[*] The rogue is acting before the orcs,
Not necessarily.
[*] The wizard and cleric are acting after the fighter and rogue,
Not necessarily.
[*] The result of a fighter missing with pocket-flour means the orcs attack the fighter,
This is important: taking an offensive action exposes the fighter.
[*] But the result of a rogue missing with pocket-flour means the orcs attack the rogue,
The result just has to be that they can attack more PCs.
[*] And the fighter can't kill two orcs in the opening round,
So what you're saying is that everything is irrelevant other than initiative because the fighter cannot possibly disable enough orcs to save his own life and everyone else is potentially going after the orcs.
Oh wait flour counts as caltrops now? Shit I can never let my players read this thread.
Rainfall on
+2
Options
admanbunionize your workplaceSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
edited September 2017
Ultimately what this comes down to is that devoid of terrain or other mechanical ways for a Fighter to actually behave like a tank, an open conflict between this four-person party and these four orcs is a battle of pure math where each side's goal is to optimize the damage they're doing (thus the orcs charging past the person in heavy armor carrying a sword to kill someone wearing a dress and waving a stick) to the other side. A Fighter is strong is this scenario because doubling the number of hits it takes to go down (on average) gives them the effectiveness of two characters. Also they probably one-shot orcs if their strength is high.
Now, whether an improvised plan is strong is highly dependent on whether the GM wants to arbitrate that the improvised plan is more efficient than just attacking. If the GM decides it's not, it is never in the PC's favor to choose that plan. If the GM decides it is, it's always in the PC's favor. Now, I dislike this as a concept because balancing math like this is really complicated and even the smartest people struggle with it time and time again -- look at any competitive game with more moving parts than Chess or Go. However, it's a viable choice in the sense that a GM who rewards players for creativity is going to create a more fun game then one who does not, so if the emphasis is fun than we should always reward the improvised plan. Therefore any improvised plan is the correct choice, no matter how impractical it is.
Of course, this assumes that both the GM and PCs can do quick efficiency math which as demonstrated in this discussion so far isn't simple, even for someone whose been playing D&D for decades.
But if the party doesn't have initiative then they can't run for cover anyway so the fighter dies and then they're all exposed to die round two. The party cannot survive this hypothetical without casualties.
Further to this what almost certainly happens in this (frankly ludicrous) hypothetical is that the Fighter, who has typically seen that the best course of action is to get straight to the stabbin'
Goes straight to the stabbin'
He doesn't have a bag of flour because nobody carries a bag of flour around handy for these situations. Might have holy water for undead or whatever, but against Orcs? Holy shit some Orcs! Better kill them quick! And then the party probably dies because they are level one. But the point is that if you have a situation where 9/10 the fighter is best of attacking, then 9/10 even in that 1/10 fringe case, they won't take the time to consider exactly how they could gain a minute advantage by not attacking, and they'll just attack, because that usually works best.
Fighters are pretty boring because they don't have many options. Hell, even playing a Paladin is boring at times because cast Divine Favour, attack, rinse and repeat, if you hit something hard then exhaust a smite etc etc etc. But they do have the various smites for CC and such (thunderous and branding smite being the two useful low level ones, because there's no save against them and therefore if you hit you can guarantee the effect), whereas your Fighter just makes more attack rolls more often. The 5e fighter solves much of the DnD problem in that they are perfectly deadly, but in a combat heavy game I would say they probably aren't much fun to use, because even in situations where you could do something else, you probably won't.
The rogue needs to fire that fucking bow. They can move wherever they want.
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.
Not really. Assuming B/x rules, a level 1 thief with a +2 Dex modifier has a 45% chance of hitting an orc, vs. a 65% chance to hit with a backstab. 45% gives you a 70% chance to hit at least once in two rounds, with a 20% chance to hit twice. Now assuming 4HP only half of the single hits will kill which gives about a 45% chance to kill an orc yourself, whereas a backstab will kill 5/6 of the time, so 55%.
So you're losing 10% chance to kill an orc over those two rounds, BUT in exchange you've gained:
A chance to kill an orc before they ever get to activate, because missile weapons go before melee.
A second chance to kill an orc before they activate, when your backstab would've put you in the melee phase of combat.
A good chance to wound or finish off an orc that got tagged by another weak weapon, like a magic missile or a cleric's club.
At the end of those two rounds you've potentially moved 60' away from the combat, so you're actually safer than just hiding on round one.
Note that this all assumes that "hiding" is somehow automatic in D&D, which has never been true.
The post didn't specify edition--or the thief's level--all that has to be true is these two statements:
"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".
It doesn't mean that it has to be a better option in all situations in specifically b/x or that hiding needs to be automatic.
There are lots of by-no-means marginal situations you can picture where that's true.
[
I think I've already demonstrated how your so called less obvious tactics are not actually useful
You haven't at all.
Sorry, I thought I did? 4v4, party has initiative, if the entire party attacks they can kill 2 orcs(two for one seems fair if the orcs are all fighters), reducing the orcs to two attacks which kill the fighter, then the party kills one remaining orc and wounds the last one, who kills the wizard, then the cleric and rogue kill the final orc. Final score PCs 4 Orcs 2.
IF the party doesn't have initiative except for the fighter, if the fighter disables two he gets murdered by the other two, then the party kills one wounds one, three orcs one-shot the rest of the party, PCs 1 Orcs 4.
If the fighter attacks then there's only three orcs, two kill the fighter, one kills the wizard, the rogue and the cleric kill an orc, then the two remaining orcs kill the Rogue and Cleric, PCs 2 Orcs 4.
There's no better option unless the party can disable all four orcs before beginning to attack.
Rainfall on
0
Options
admanbunionize your workplaceSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
The rogue needs to fire that fucking bow. They can move wherever they want.
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.
Not really. Assuming B/x rules, a level 1 thief with a +2 Dex modifier has a 45% chance of hitting an orc, vs. a 65% chance to hit with a backstab. 45% gives you a 70% chance to hit at least once in two rounds, with a 20% chance to hit twice. Now assuming 4HP only half of the single hits will kill which gives about a 45% chance to kill an orc yourself, whereas a backstab will kill 5/6 of the time, so 55%.
So you're losing 10% chance to kill an orc over those two rounds, BUT in exchange you've gained:
A chance to kill an orc before they ever get to activate, because missile weapons go before melee.
A second chance to kill an orc before they activate, when your backstab would've put you in the melee phase of combat.
A good chance to wound or finish off an orc that got tagged by another weak weapon, like a magic missile or a cleric's club.
At the end of those two rounds you've potentially moved 60' away from the combat, so you're actually safer than just hiding on round one.
Note that this all assumes that "hiding" is somehow automatic in D&D, which has never been true.
The post didn't specify edition--or the thief's level--all that has to be true is these two statements:
"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".
It doesn't mean that it has to be a better option in all situations in specifically b/x or that hiding needs to be automatic.
There are lots of by-no-means marginal situations you can picture where that's true.
We don't have enough information for either of those statements to be true or untrue.
admanbunionize your workplaceSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
Also worth noting that if we're in any game other than B/x we have rules that prevent a character from dying immediately, which means it's actually completely fine for the orcs to bypass the fighter and club the wizard to unconciousness.
Also worth noting that if we're in any game other than B/x we have rules that prevent a character from dying immediately, which means it's actually completely fine for the orcs to bypass the fighter and club the wizard to unconciousness.
Nah--that's one less helper on your team.
Zak Sabbath on
0
Options
admanbunionize your workplaceSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
edited September 2017
Ya but it's a shitty wizard. They've already cast their spell(s) for the day. Or else they would just cast Sleep and render this whole conversation irrelevant.
And, again, this is just math: if you can trade your wizard for one of the orcs, you're better off than if you trade the fighter for a distraction.
The rogue needs to fire that fucking bow. They can move wherever they want.
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.
Not really. Assuming B/x rules, a level 1 thief with a +2 Dex modifier has a 45% chance of hitting an orc, vs. a 65% chance to hit with a backstab. 45% gives you a 70% chance to hit at least once in two rounds, with a 20% chance to hit twice. Now assuming 4HP only half of the single hits will kill which gives about a 45% chance to kill an orc yourself, whereas a backstab will kill 5/6 of the time, so 55%.
So you're losing 10% chance to kill an orc over those two rounds, BUT in exchange you've gained:
A chance to kill an orc before they ever get to activate, because missile weapons go before melee.
A second chance to kill an orc before they activate, when your backstab would've put you in the melee phase of combat.
A good chance to wound or finish off an orc that got tagged by another weak weapon, like a magic missile or a cleric's club.
At the end of those two rounds you've potentially moved 60' away from the combat, so you're actually safer than just hiding on round one.
Note that this all assumes that "hiding" is somehow automatic in D&D, which has never been true.
The post didn't specify edition--or the thief's level--all that has to be true is these two statements:
"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".
It doesn't mean that it has to be a better option in all situations in specifically b/x or that hiding needs to be automatic.
There are lots of by-no-means marginal situations you can picture where that's true.
We don't have enough information for either of those statements to be true or untrue.
If you can imagine even one situation in any edition of D&D where the fighter has something better to do than hit one specific obvious target, where not even the choice of target is a tactical decision then my point is made.
If you literally cannot, and are literally sure that in every situation the only thing to ever do with a fighter is hit one obvious guy with the same attack over and over then it is not.
I set up one dull situation with 8 options offering different levels of risk and reward. It doesn't even have walls or shadows or fire or a pit trap and already there's more than one option.
0
Options
admanbunionize your workplaceSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
edited September 2017
If that is the extent of your point you have put way too much effort into making it.
Ultimately what this comes down to is that devoid of terrain or other mechanical ways for a Fighter to actually behave like a tank, an open conflict between this four-person party and these four orcs is a battle of pure math where each side's goal is to optimize the damage they're doing (thus the orcs charging past the person in heavy armor carrying a sword to kill someone wearing a dress and waving a stick) to the other side. A Fighter is strong is this scenario because doubling the number of hits it takes to go down (on average) gives them the effectiveness of two characters. Also they probably one-shot orcs if their strength is high.
Now, whether an improvised plan is strong is highly dependent on whether the GM wants to arbitrate that the improvised plan is more efficient than just attacking. If the GM decides it's not, it is never in the PC's favor to choose that plan. If the GM decides it is, it's always in the PC's favor. Now, I dislike this as a concept because balancing math like this is really complicated and even the smartest people struggle with it time and time again -- look at any competitive game with more moving parts than Chess or Go. However, it's a viable choice in the sense that a GM who rewards players for creativity is going to create a more fun game then one who does not, so if the emphasis is fun than we should always reward the improvised plan. Therefore any improvised plan is the correct choice, no matter how impractical it is.
Of course, this assumes that both the GM and PCs can do quick efficiency math which as demonstrated in this discussion so far isn't simple, even for someone whose been playing D&D for decades.
The rogue needs to fire that fucking bow. They can move wherever they want.
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.
Not really. Assuming B/x rules, a level 1 thief with a +2 Dex modifier has a 45% chance of hitting an orc, vs. a 65% chance to hit with a backstab. 45% gives you a 70% chance to hit at least once in two rounds, with a 20% chance to hit twice. Now assuming 4HP only half of the single hits will kill which gives about a 45% chance to kill an orc yourself, whereas a backstab will kill 5/6 of the time, so 55%.
So you're losing 10% chance to kill an orc over those two rounds, BUT in exchange you've gained:
A chance to kill an orc before they ever get to activate, because missile weapons go before melee.
A second chance to kill an orc before they activate, when your backstab would've put you in the melee phase of combat.
A good chance to wound or finish off an orc that got tagged by another weak weapon, like a magic missile or a cleric's club.
At the end of those two rounds you've potentially moved 60' away from the combat, so you're actually safer than just hiding on round one.
Note that this all assumes that "hiding" is somehow automatic in D&D, which has never been true.
The post didn't specify edition--or the thief's level--all that has to be true is these two statements:
"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".
It doesn't mean that it has to be a better option in all situations in specifically b/x or that hiding needs to be automatic.
There are lots of by-no-means marginal situations you can picture where that's true.
We don't have enough information for either of those statements to be true or untrue.
If you can imagine even one situation in any edition of D&D where the fighter has something better to do than hit one specific obvious target, where not even the choice of target is a tactical decision then my point is made.
If you literally cannot, and are literally sure that in every situation the only thing to ever do with a fighter is hit one obvious guy with the same attack over and over then it is not.
I set up one dull situation with 8 options offering different levels of risk and reward. It doesn't even have walls or shadows or fire or a pit trap and already there's more than one option.
Your argument has consistently been(until now) that the fighter is better at improvised combat maneuvers than any other class due to higher ac and hp, this is a clear shifting of the goalposts.
Okay see I didn't know all the rules! Alright, I concede. If:
Four PCs start an encounter in an open room,
Yes
[*] Without a surprise round for either side,
Yes
[*] Against four orcs that each can do enough damage in a single hit to kill a rogue,
Yes
[*] But not enough damage in a single hit to kill a fighter,
No: they can, they're just less likely. The fighter's got better armor and more hp.
[*] Every PC has a movement speed of 30 feet,
Doesn't have to be, they just have to be in a situation where they need a full move to get to their best position.
[*] Every orc has a movement speed of greater than 30 feet but less than 60 feet,
Doesn't have to be, they just have to be encountered at a distance where the fighter can melee them but they can't melee a PC if that PC spend their next round running away or see them if they run for cover.
[*] The DM rules that a pocket-flour attack is an improvised weapon attack,
One of the 8 tactics described is that, yes.
[*] The fighter has a better chance of hitting with an improvised weapon than the rogue,
No, they just have to be less likely to die if they try it than the rogue (see above). I've said this like 6 times
[*] The DM rules that the result of the attack is one round of blindness rather than damage,
If the flour can damage 2 orcs at once that's possibly better, but would be a weird call. Though if the flour acts as caltrops and is slippery for at least 2 orcs trying to melee that's good.
These don't all have to be like this:
[*] The rogue can do enough damage to kill an orc in the opening round,
[*] The rogue can do that damage from range,
[*] The fighter is acting before the rogue in initiative order,
In this example, yeah
[*] The rogue is acting before the orcs,
Not necessarily.
[*] The wizard and cleric are acting after the fighter and rogue,
Not necessarily.
[*] The result of a fighter missing with pocket-flour means the orcs attack the fighter,
This is important: taking an offensive action exposes the fighter.
[*] But the result of a rogue missing with pocket-flour means the orcs attack the rogue,
The result just has to be that they can attack more PCs.
[*] And the fighter can't kill two orcs in the opening round,
Yes.
Well shoot, I thought I had it.
So if the fighter acts first, can disable all of the orcs in the opening round by doing something other than attacking, but can't disable all of the orcs in the opening round by doing damage, and the squishies can't do this because they are more likely to die if they try because they are less likely to succeed (otherwise they wouldn't be more likely to die), then the fighter should do something other than move into an optimal position and attack.
And this is a regularly occurring set of circumstances, such that you took umbrage with the idea that most of the time the best thing for a D&D fighter to do is to get into an optimal position and attack.
Man, if only this kind of nuance had been applied to the statement that started this whole thing. I'll bet that would have saved a lot of back-and-forth.
Further to this what almost certainly happens in this (frankly ludicrous) hypothetical
It's 4 humanoids vs a thief a wizard a fighter and a cleric. In a room.
Which part of that is remotely unusual, let alone ludicrous?
Ok: you don't have a bag of flour because that's outside your experience--that leaves the fighter with 7 options in this totally unimaginative scenario.
is that the Fighter, who has typically seen that the best course of action is to get straight to the stabbin'
Or...the fights are usually deadly so the fighter has seen that usually doing the obvious thing gets you killed so does something unusual.
It really depends on the fighter and on the campaign they're in.
Or...the fights are usuallt deadly so the fighter has seen that usually doing the obvious thing gets you killed so does something unusual.
It really depends on the fighter and on the campaign they're in.
Which, as I noted above, really just means that you've decided improvised actions are inherently more rewarding than built-in actions and set the difficulties and results to allow for that. Which is not a function of the Fighter, it's a function of your approach to D&D.
Posts
Directly addressing this, it's not accurate. Here are the original quotes we're discussing:
So: do you or do you not agree that no edition is specified here?
Throwing encounters that are twice the highest recommended level of difficulty is not well within the rules and ethos of the game.
How is everyone having fun when you have a chance of death every round that you're in combat? I'm certainly not having fun and neither is anyone else talking to you right now, since we're all opposed to this wild one-shot world you've presented us, making you the antagonistic DM and the rest of us your reluctant players who thought a 'high lethality' campaign meant that we would have challenging tactical encounters and wouldn't be spinning the murder roulette with odds worse than fucking X-Com.
Wait wait, are you saying:
"It is not D&D to play this way, even though its on the book" or
"It is objectively not fun to play this way," or
"It is impossible to play this way," or
"Please explain to me why people play highly lethal games and have fun anyway?"
...or something else?
Definitely something else.
You're in the open. Nether party has surprise. That's described in the scenario.
And if you're doing the "anyone already engaged can be backstabbed without stealth" that's devoting 2 PCs to one orc which is extremely inefficient in terms of eliminating orc offensive power.
Cover isn't necessarily close enough. Sniping requires cover.
Described in the scenario already: the fighter's not in the chokepoint because neither party has surprise and both the PCs and orcs are caught out in the open.
(Whether there is a chokepoint is a 50-50. They are, in the scenario as described, inside, so either there's a corner or a door or it's one endless hallway.)
As for orc movement, no initial encounter distance was specified, so the orcs could be anywhere in line of sight and the extra PC movement might matter.
This is not an exotic set up.
Okay see I didn't know all the rules! Alright, I concede. If:
Then yeah totally, the fighter ought to bust out that good good pocket-flour and the rogue better book it for the rocky outcropping or whatever that's 60 feet away.
Considering how often this must come up I can see your point.
"In this scenario that I have devised in an infinite corridor where there is no chokepoint(unless there is) and the fighter is carrying a sack of flour(why) and a 10 foot pole(okay that one is reasonable)" and there is no possible way for anyone to hide or do anything other than die, run, or be a Fighter because the Fighter has 6 to 3 more HP than anyone else in the party meaning it will take the Orcs two attacks to kill him instead of one, the best result is definitely for the Fighter to only take two attacks from the orcs while the rest of the party flees. In the inn, where we have fled to, we will toast his memory and honor the fact that the Fighter is definitely the best class at improvising combat tactics because of his HP, if only there was something we could have done to assist rather than run"
Not really. Assuming B/x rules, a level 1 thief with a +2 Dex modifier has a 45% chance of hitting an orc, vs. a 65% chance to hit with a backstab. 45% gives you a 70% chance to hit at least once in two rounds, with a 20% chance to hit twice. Now assuming 4HP only half of the single hits will kill which gives about a 45% chance to kill an orc yourself, whereas a backstab will kill 5/6 of the time, so 55%.
So you're losing 10% chance to kill an orc over those two rounds, BUT in exchange you've gained:
Note that this all assumes that "hiding" is somehow automatic in D&D, which has never been true.
So have you've moved the goal-posts from:
"This high-lethality scenario where less-obvious tactics are useful for the fighter is unimaginable/not D&D" to "it is imaginable but it isn't my idea of fun or some other people on the forum's idea of fun".
...or are you just throwing that second observation about your taste that it isn't your idea of fun on top of still maintaining that only doing one thing is the best move for a fighter in every combat?
The 3.x designers are on record as specifically intending to reward system mastery and filling the game with suboptimal trap choices to catch out noobs. Making concessions to people who don't like poring over rulebooks and number crunching was never part of the plan. That's why of all the umpty-ump editions and variations of D&D it's the one I just can't bring myself to have any truck with. I'd rather deal with Gary Gygax's mildly aphasic word salad insanity; at least it has heart.
I think I've already demonstrated how your so called less obvious tactics are not actually useful because attacking is actually the best option in this scenario so literally everything else we're discussing is pedantry. (And don't get me wrong I love a good pedantry, but this is getting ridiculous)
Any additional abilities he uses are almost certainly going to be in order to enhance their attacking ability. That this is not the case 1/10, in fringe situations, means that the fighter can be described as "almost always attacking" without much trouble.
Typically the issue that fighters have isn't that they are ineffective, in 5e for example they are very effective, typically it's that they are boring to use because all you do is make attack rolls. Yes you can almost certainly construe a situation where that isn't the case. Usually it is.
The best option is for both the rogue AND the fighter to use flour to disable all four orcs, then the wizard and the cleric team up to bean one orc. Round 1 is players 1, Orcs 0. Round 2 the Rogue and the Fighter murder an orc, and the wizard and the cleric kill another orc, the remaining orc kills the rogue/wizard/cleric, then Round 3 the party kills the remaining orc.
If the fighter or the rogue do better damage than the wizard then the wizard can just use mage hand and flour to blind orcs with minimal risk while the fighter/rogue uses their superior damage. If the party has multiple sacks of flour(and why wouldn't you) then every encounter simply becomes a race to blind all the enemies while the remainder of the party kills stuff.
Long story short, flour is my new god, and running for cover will always be the worst possible action in round 1 of a D&D engagement.
Yes Yes
No: they can, they're just less likely. The fighter's got better armor and more hp.
Doesn't have to be, they just have to be in a situation where they need a full move to get to their best position.
Doesn't have to be, they just have to be encountered at a distance where the fighter can melee them but they can't melee a PC if that PC spend their next round running away or see them if they run for cover.
One of the 8 tactics described is that, yes.
No, they just have to be less likely to die if they try it than the rogue (see above). I've said this like 6 times
If the flour can damage 2 orcs at once that's possibly better, but would be a weird call. Though if the flour acts as caltrops and is slippery for at least 2 orcs trying to melee that's good.
These don't all have to be like this: In this example, yeah
Not necessarily.
Not necessarily.
This is important: taking an offensive action exposes the fighter.
The result just has to be that they can attack more PCs.
Yes.
Oh wait flour counts as caltrops now? Shit I can never let my players read this thread.
Now, whether an improvised plan is strong is highly dependent on whether the GM wants to arbitrate that the improvised plan is more efficient than just attacking. If the GM decides it's not, it is never in the PC's favor to choose that plan. If the GM decides it is, it's always in the PC's favor. Now, I dislike this as a concept because balancing math like this is really complicated and even the smartest people struggle with it time and time again -- look at any competitive game with more moving parts than Chess or Go. However, it's a viable choice in the sense that a GM who rewards players for creativity is going to create a more fun game then one who does not, so if the emphasis is fun than we should always reward the improvised plan. Therefore any improvised plan is the correct choice, no matter how impractical it is.
Of course, this assumes that both the GM and PCs can do quick efficiency math which as demonstrated in this discussion so far isn't simple, even for someone whose been playing D&D for decades.
Goes straight to the stabbin'
He doesn't have a bag of flour because nobody carries a bag of flour around handy for these situations. Might have holy water for undead or whatever, but against Orcs? Holy shit some Orcs! Better kill them quick! And then the party probably dies because they are level one. But the point is that if you have a situation where 9/10 the fighter is best of attacking, then 9/10 even in that 1/10 fringe case, they won't take the time to consider exactly how they could gain a minute advantage by not attacking, and they'll just attack, because that usually works best.
Fighters are pretty boring because they don't have many options. Hell, even playing a Paladin is boring at times because cast Divine Favour, attack, rinse and repeat, if you hit something hard then exhaust a smite etc etc etc. But they do have the various smites for CC and such (thunderous and branding smite being the two useful low level ones, because there's no save against them and therefore if you hit you can guarantee the effect), whereas your Fighter just makes more attack rolls more often. The 5e fighter solves much of the DnD problem in that they are perfectly deadly, but in a combat heavy game I would say they probably aren't much fun to use, because even in situations where you could do something else, you probably won't.
You haven't at all.
The post didn't specify edition--or the thief's level--all that has to be true is these two statements:
"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".
It doesn't mean that it has to be a better option in all situations in specifically b/x or that hiding needs to be automatic.
There are lots of by-no-means marginal situations you can picture where that's true.
*I didn't write "always".
Sorry, I thought I did? 4v4, party has initiative, if the entire party attacks they can kill 2 orcs(two for one seems fair if the orcs are all fighters), reducing the orcs to two attacks which kill the fighter, then the party kills one remaining orc and wounds the last one, who kills the wizard, then the cleric and rogue kill the final orc. Final score PCs 4 Orcs 2.
IF the party doesn't have initiative except for the fighter, if the fighter disables two he gets murdered by the other two, then the party kills one wounds one, three orcs one-shot the rest of the party, PCs 1 Orcs 4.
If the fighter attacks then there's only three orcs, two kill the fighter, one kills the wizard, the rogue and the cleric kill an orc, then the two remaining orcs kill the Rogue and Cleric, PCs 2 Orcs 4.
There's no better option unless the party can disable all four orcs before beginning to attack.
We don't have enough information for either of those statements to be true or untrue.
Nah--that's one less helper on your team.
And, again, this is just math: if you can trade your wizard for one of the orcs, you're better off than if you trade the fighter for a distraction.
If you can imagine even one situation in any edition of D&D where the fighter has something better to do than hit one specific obvious target, where not even the choice of target is a tactical decision then my point is made.
If you literally cannot, and are literally sure that in every situation the only thing to ever do with a fighter is hit one obvious guy with the same attack over and over then it is not.
I set up one dull situation with 8 options offering different levels of risk and reward. It doesn't even have walls or shadows or fire or a pit trap and already there's more than one option.
However, for my actual response I refer you to this post I made above.
doing......
HomerInBushes.gif
Steam - Talon Valdez :Blizz - Talonious#1860 : Xbox Live & LoL - Talonious Monk @TaloniousMonk Hail Satan
This thread will be back to normal soon, I swear.
Your argument has consistently been(until now) that the fighter is better at improvised combat maneuvers than any other class due to higher ac and hp, this is a clear shifting of the goalposts.
You guys want to talk about Arena Rex? I fucking smashed my friend at it yesterday but it was an awesome game. I pushed someone into a Lion! Yeah!
Well shoot, I thought I had it.
So if the fighter acts first, can disable all of the orcs in the opening round by doing something other than attacking, but can't disable all of the orcs in the opening round by doing damage, and the squishies can't do this because they are more likely to die if they try because they are less likely to succeed (otherwise they wouldn't be more likely to die), then the fighter should do something other than move into an optimal position and attack.
And this is a regularly occurring set of circumstances, such that you took umbrage with the idea that most of the time the best thing for a D&D fighter to do is to get into an optimal position and attack.
Man, if only this kind of nuance had been applied to the statement that started this whole thing. I'll bet that would have saved a lot of back-and-forth.
I want you to not talk about Arena Rex because I keep wanting to buy into it so tell me more?
It's 4 humanoids vs a thief a wizard a fighter and a cleric. In a room.
Which part of that is remotely unusual, let alone ludicrous?
Ok: you don't have a bag of flour because that's outside your experience--that leaves the fighter with 7 options in this totally unimaginative scenario.
Or...the fights are usually deadly so the fighter has seen that usually doing the obvious thing gets you killed so does something unusual.
It really depends on the fighter and on the campaign they're in.
For a start who's side is the Lion on? You don't know! Feel the tension!
Let the crowd decide! Fuck it everything is Arena Rex now.
Which, as I noted above, really just means that you've decided improvised actions are inherently more rewarding than built-in actions and set the difficulties and results to allow for that. Which is not a function of the Fighter, it's a function of your approach to D&D.