The First Rule of Combat #ttrpg
Practically speaking, the goal in combat is to inflict as much damage as you can on your opponents, while mitigating the damage your side will take. You don't enter a combat you don't think you'll win, and you try to gauge how much it'll 'cost'.
Practically speaking, the goal in combat is to inflict as much damage as you can on your opponents, while mitigating the damage your side will take. You don't enter a combat you don't think you'll win, and you try to gauge how much it'll 'cost'.
Some games are designed to allow for this kind of mentality (Shadowun as an example, 2e Legend of the Five Rings as another). Range, cover, and the sheer damage output the character can unleash can end a combat in a single round.
Other games don't consider this, and you're expected to whittle each other down until one falls or the other - and it's expected that both sides are going to suffer damage in the process.
Some GMs argue that it's to create a 'challenge' for the players to overcome. But here's the thing, is that, then, saying L5R and Shadowrun don't give challenging combat, simply because it's possible to 'win' without being hurt? Of course, it can swing the other way as well.
A lucky roll from an opponent can drop a PC just as fast as the PC dropping the opponent - that tension is still there. So why not allow such in games like D&D - where instead of whittling down each other over time, you can get the job done quickly.
To that extent, there are means to do so in games like Pathfinder 1e, D&D 3.5, and even D&D 5e. We have had characters in 5e do things like 2d10+3d6+X damage in a single shot, and in Pathfinder, 2d6+17 (at 8th level). We've got a character with an AC of 27 (at 8th level).
The goal isn't 'a challenging combat', the goal is the more realistic goal people have of 'defeat your opponent with as little harm to your side as possible'. And honestly, there shouldn't be anything wrong with this.
Does it make sense to stand your ground and swing at your opponent again and again, taking hits yourself until one of you falls down? Of course not. You don't go toe to toe until you absolutely have to.
You can, however, try to overwhelm your opponent immediately and apply the pressure so they can't hit you back. Though we don't think there's any games out there that allow for that: 'you got hit, make a save or you can't attack on your turn'.
So, that really leaves limited options: "hit the person so hard they stop moving." or "hit from range and make sure they can't hit back". Anticlimactic? Yes. But the *characters* probably don't WANT a dramatic fight with a good chance of being hurt or killed.
The best we've ever seen was a group of adventurers take down a dragon without a single injury. It involved 30 NPCs, layers of traps, an ambush, and a lot of spells and ranged attacks under cover. It took a few rounds, but the dragon didn't stand a chance.
A complete victory for the PCs. A celebration afterwards, money spent like water. Why 30 NPCs? This was 1e AD&D, you didn't do things without a small mob of NPCs to help out.
(Next post!)
(Next post!)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
