Quote from: jhkim on June 13, 2023, 05:23:30 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 13, 2023, 04:27:14 PM
Any kind of non-attacking skill test or challenge will never be more effective than degrading the enemies' hit points via attacks, and will often be much less efficient.  So, how do I come to this conclusion?  Well, let's look at combat tests from probably two of the most popular game systems right now: D&D 5e and SWADE.  In 5e, a player may perform a "help" action, which gives the helped creature advantage on the next attack roll against the chosen creature.  In SWADE, a character may use the support action (resulting in a +1 or +2 bonus to a fighting roll for an ally) or perform a test, which results in either a distracted or vulnerable (-2 or +2 respectively to opponents' rolls or allies' rolls) with the possibility to make the target shaken on a raise.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 13, 2023, 04:27:14 PM
I'll note that a similar argument has been proffered previously by many folks when it comes to damage or healing.  Generally speaking, healing is less efficient than doing damage, as it spends resources without reducing the threat or capacities of the enemy.  The best healing is the healing that revives or keeps a character in the fight, as it preserves damage output and shortens the fight.

In my experience of 5E, though, healing is vital. Obviously, the best healing should be tactically applied rather than randomly

Please explain "tactically".  I would argue that healing is very powerful after an encounter, but worthless during the encounter unless it is necessary to keep a character in combat.  So any healing that occurs that heals the character so that they have more than 1 hit point at the end is wasted (in terms of that particular encounter.  In terms of the overall adventure, especially if it restricts resting, it might be more important for the next encounter, but that's not the topic at hand).

Quote from: Zalman on June 13, 2023, 05:30:08 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 13, 2023, 04:27:14 PM

• I am focusing on the most efficient resolution of fights

...
So that leaves killing/rendering unconscious due to damage as the primary goal.  And tests suck at this.

Eh, no, tests don't suck at this, skills do, simply because there isn't a skill that kills or renders your opponent unconscious. If there were, a "test" for it would be perfectly good at ending fights. Attribute tests are just informalized "skill" rolls.

Honestly, this whole thing seems like a giant strawman. Attribute tests are designed for things other than combat-ending tactics.

Except, many of the recent, popular RPGs include a "test" or "help" action directly in the rules as an option.  I'm trying to find out if they are actually useful outside of edge cases.  So I don't see how quoting the rules directly is a "straw man".

Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 13, 2023, 05:30:50 PM
Well, with actual examples, it is hard to judge, but I agree that in the confines of "assuming enemy combatants are equal or greater in number than the player characters" it is true MOST OF THE TIMES.

There are still cases (in 5e) in which giving adv is more useful than attacking. Say, against a foe that in unharmed by nonmagical weapons if you don't have one.

Also, if you're helping a paladin with a holy avenger to get a crit, or helping a rogue, etc. This would require a high AC and a tough monster in general, which is rare if "assuming enemy combatants are equal or greater in number than the player characters".

It seems you're assuming all PCs to have similar damage output which isn't necessarily true, especially against monsters with some resistance - or worse, immunities!

Also, depending on the game, a skill might let you FIND OUT if the monster has a weakness etc.

These are good points.  Especially the finding monster weaknesses one.  That would make a good "test" to include in a ruleset.  But the generic "help" action still seems to be wanting...

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on June 13, 2023, 06:22:34 PM
If I understand the parameters correctly, the first counter example that springs to mind is a well-timed intimidate. Depending on the system, that could be part of a skill and/or attribute test.

A third of the enemy orcs are dead.  Your buddy with the great axe has just lopped of one's head. The GM narrates that the orcs flinch as the head goes bouncing through the ranks.  You step up next to your buddy with your sword poised and ask, "Who wants to be next?"  If the GM calls for a test, and another third of the orcs run, then that's more fled than your attack was likely going to kill. 

Granted, it depends on how the GM runs it, and whether there is such a skill supported.

I agree.  What you've described would be a good use of a skill to shorten combat.  But, outside of personal/homebrew systems, I just can't see much support for it.  It's not in 5e or SWADE, as far as I can tell (neither listed as options or illustrated in examples of combat).  All they have are "help" actions that give small bonuses to attack for other party members.  Which seems quite useless...

Quote from: Theory of Games on June 13, 2023, 07:19:15 PM
That's incorrect in terms of how intimidation works in most games that have that skill available for characters. It's literally creating fear in a target, which done successfully means the foe flees, or at least backs off.

OK, which games are those?  One of my questions in the OP was for games that did these actions correctly.  Which ones boil into the combat (with mechanics or examples) those usages of skills)?  I'm looking for a rulebook that I can hand to a brand new player or GM that will encourage this kind of skill use.  Otherwise, your advice is "be a more experienced GM," which isn't necessarily helpful to the kids I'm trying to bring into the hobby...

Quote from: Zelen on June 13, 2023, 08:52:49 PM
I think the most general answer to this type of question is in how it relates to the action economy.

If your PCs are facing more powerful foes, the opposing side usually has fewer actions than the PCs. In this case, damaging is less important than denying them actions.

If your PCs are facing less powerful foes, the opposing side usually has more actions than the PCs. In this case, damaging is more effective than denying them actions.

That's kind of where I was in interpreting the situation.  When the enemies outnumber the players, reducing the size/capabilities of the enemy force seems to be the most optimal.

Quote from: Old Aegidius on June 14, 2023, 04:07:27 AM
The best action in most turn-based games irrespective of the details (and even real life) is to either improve your action economy faster than the opposition can, or hinder the action economy of the biggest threats in the opposing force faster than they can respond. Or both, if you can achieve it. Of course, a dead enemy has the worst imaginable action economy. So unless the details of the game make it worth debilitating the enemy, simply burning the opposition's HP down as fast as possible will also happen to be the best option for destroying the opposition's action economy.

Just allowing characters to give each other a small bonuses by helping with a skill or attribute test by comparison is almost never viable, I'd agree. Some people said it best earlier in the thread though: there are exceptions when it's so risky and pointless for your character to try to do direct damage that you're better off just pumping up an ally who has better odds. That can be really unfun too though, if that's a regular occurrence.

To prevent direct damage from being the best way to approach a combat, I think you need to either:

• Tune the math so it's sometimes more risky to go for direct damage than to help an ally who has better odds.
• There are too many opponents or they may arrive in unpredictable order/waves so you can't just nova the enemy to death.
• The enemy that is least-likely to be killed with direct damage is also the one that represents the most active and dangerous enemy in the opposing force (like a dragon).

It helps if debilitating conditions also enable more effective basic actions on those debilitated targets. It's gamey, but something like a mark that can be exploited by different powers can make certain combinations of powers or certain tactics more beneficial from time to time.

I agree with all off this.  I find it interesting that few games (at least to my knowledge) take this into account in their mechanics...

Quote from: rhialto on June 14, 2023, 09:13:06 AM

Quote from: warwell on June 14, 2023, 08:33:49 AM
I wonder if a system could allow the player making a successful defensive action a chance to immediately add an attack.

Harnmaster does this with the "Counterstrike" defense (though on equal levels of success both combatants hit each other). Stormbringer/Elric! allow for ripostes on a critical parry when using weapon + shield or two weapons. There are probably other such systems.

Worth looking into (I haven't played Stormbringer since it came out; time to reread).  Thanks!

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 14, 2023, 10:29:19 AM

Quote from: jhkim on June 13, 2023, 05:23:30 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 13, 2023, 04:27:14 PM
I'll note that a similar argument has been proffered previously by many folks when it comes to damage or healing.  Generally speaking, healing is less efficient than doing damage, as it spends resources without reducing the threat or capacities of the enemy.  The best healing is the healing that revives or keeps a character in the fight, as it preserves damage output and shortens the fight.

In my experience of 5E, though, healing is vital. Obviously, the best healing should be tactically applied rather than randomly

Please explain "tactically".  I would argue that healing is very powerful after an encounter, but worthless during the encounter unless it is necessary to keep a character in combat.  So any healing that occurs that heals the character so that they have more than 1 hit point at the end is wasted (in terms of that particular encounter.  In terms of the overall adventure, especially if it restricts resting, it might be more important for the next encounter, but that's not the topic at hand).

In my experience, serious fights in 5E will bring at least one character down to zero hit points. If no one is in danger of going to zero, then the fight isn't threatening. This might be a difference in how the DM handles enemy tactics. Unless they are mindless, I usually have my enemies behave tactically. They focus on taking down one PC at a time, just as PCs usually focus on taking down one enemy at a time. That means that the PC under assault goes down quickly, so keeping them in the fight is vital.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 14, 2023, 10:29:19 AM

Quote from: jhkim on June 13, 2023, 05:23:30 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 13, 2023, 04:27:14 PM
Any kind of non-attacking skill test or challenge will never be more effective than degrading the enemies' hit points via attacks, and will often be much less efficient.  So, how do I come to this conclusion?  Well, let's look at combat tests from probably two of the most popular game systems right now: D&D 5e and SWADE.  In 5e, a player may perform a "help" action, which gives the helped creature advantage on the next attack roll against the chosen creature.  In SWADE, a character may use the support action (resulting in a +1 or +2 bonus to a fighting roll for an ally) or perform a test, which results in either a distracted or vulnerable (-2 or +2 respectively to opponents' rolls or allies' rolls) with the possibility to make the target shaken on a raise.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 13, 2023, 04:27:14 PM
I'll note that a similar argument has been proffered previously by many folks when it comes to damage or healing.  Generally speaking, healing is less efficient than doing damage, as it spends resources without reducing the threat or capacities of the enemy.  The best healing is the healing that revives or keeps a character in the fight, as it preserves damage output and shortens the fight.

In my experience of 5E, though, healing is vital. Obviously, the best healing should be tactically applied rather than randomly

Please explain "tactically".  I would argue that healing is very powerful after an encounter, but worthless during the encounter unless it is necessary to keep a character in combat.  So any healing that occurs that heals the character so that they have more than 1 hit point at the end is wasted (in terms of that particular encounter.  In terms of the overall adventure, especially if it restricts resting, it might be more important for the next encounter, but that's not the topic at hand).

I mean yeah, getting folks up is pretty big in 5e, even with healing being weaker than say in 3.5 I'd argue due to not only the short/long rest paradigm but also just it not keeping up with damage and status effects/buffs/etcetera and the like usually (I do say usually, we'll get back to that). Healing Word is amazing. Also Lay on Hands because getting them to 1 hp is so damn cheap. But there are also instances like, well, Lay on Hands dumps where you can heal 5 hp per level in a single action. That can oftentimes outpace damage, and add security or even just plausibility to your side's chance of victory. Or mass heal healing pools ala Life Cleric or mass per turn Temp HP buffs like Twilight Cleric Domain's Channel Divinity (*Cough* Broken *Cough*). These can matter. Heck, even healing that can't keep up with damage can matter if it's the difference between somebody going down in one turn or in two. Better to waste a turn for the opponent(s) and give your friend that extra turn. Also healing paired with friendly damage mitigation through AC, resistances, high saves and the like can I feel be bigger than it is in a vacuum. Much like how straight DPR is usually stronger with vulnerability or the like than if the enemies are resistant to what you have or harder to damage. Healing almost always works, but attack damage is often gated behind rolls and contingencies.

Other games sometimes have similar mechanical importance to healing, I guess. Self-healing is big in VTM, which I have to admit I have indeed played. (Unrelated, I actually like the idea of dice pools because the better you are at something the more consistent your performance and typically the less chance you have of screwing up. Also you can more reliably differentiate between how many successes somebody of a given skill and attribute level can put out than in instances where a single D20 roll leads to much greater variation, which I think is helpful for DM difficulty arbitration and verisimilitude at times.) Also, healing can combine with defense in a lot of systems to become more than it would otherwise be, and full defensive actions can be pretty optimal in games of the White Wolf kind especially where self-healing, resource expenditure and the like is big. (Their company has gone off the deep end even more so than originally, tho, so I wouldn't necessarily recommend buying their stuff. Good mechanics at times, but I don't like the politics.) Though Exalted 2e gives a good example of where sometimes defense alone can be optimal and fights where the only goal is to kill can occasionally become wars of attrition if played smart, with everything ending in one or two hits and faster than healing would typically matter outside very specialized soak/heal builds.

There's also just more generally preventing folks from bleeding out via ability and skill checks. Like Heal/Medicine. That can determine degree of victory/perceived loss in a fight, so I feel like it can matter. One might not care whether they took down minion 5 on round 7 or 8, but they will almost certainly remember losing their buddy or escort target.

Some healing systems also rely on skill checks to determine whether you can medic somebody back into the fight, like some PbtA systems. So there investment can matter to healing's potential relevance to action economy and the like as you note.

Also healing in things like D&D can remove crippling debuffs that either remove you from a fight, or dramatically reduce your effectiveness. So it can be good as a counterplay to save or sucks.

Well, I have some other stuff I might say, but I think this is most of it with respect to healing.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 14, 2023, 10:31:34 AM

Quote from: Zalman on June 13, 2023, 05:30:08 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 13, 2023, 04:27:14 PM

• I am focusing on the most efficient resolution of fights

...
So that leaves killing/rendering unconscious due to damage as the primary goal.  And tests suck at this.

Eh, no, tests don't suck at this, skills do, simply because there isn't a skill that kills or renders your opponent unconscious. If there were, a "test" for it would be perfectly good at ending fights. Attribute tests are just informalized "skill" rolls.

Honestly, this whole thing seems like a giant strawman. Attribute tests are designed for things other than combat-ending tactics.

Except, many of the recent, popular RPGs include a "test" or "help" action directly in the rules as an option.  I'm trying to find out if they are actually useful outside of edge cases.  So I don't see how quoting the rules directly is a "straw man".

I don't think it's a strawman. That said, "killing/rendering unconscious due to damage" may be shifting the argument a bit tho.

There are lots of attacks that aim to cripple or take an opponent out of a fight entirely without any hp damage, or even without referencing hp unlike killing word. Basically the entire save or suck paradigm.

There are also debuffs that may or may not count as attacks in that they are guaranteed to land and don't do damage so much as prevent damage, or in the case of stuff like Faerie Fire allow allies to do more damage or hit more frequently or whatever.

Also, there are attacks like grapple/shove/feint/whatever that test skills to screw over an enemy in ways that can be advantageous. Like, you can grapple drag to mess with positioning and exploit the environment in 5e, or in 3.5e just grapple to force them to focus fire on a tank that wasn't a huge threat damage-wise but will suck to attack. Grapple shove is also a big one in 5e, in that you can give all allies and yourself advantage on all attacks until they break the grapple and stand up. There's also shoving off of cliffs, ranged shoves via things like echo knight, and blah. Feinting is also fun if the action economy is cheap or if you're fighting a solidly defended foe or sacrificing accuracy for power on your main attack, or just really need a limited ability or whatever from yourself or an ally to land. Feats like Silver Tongued in 5e also show how feints reliant on skill checks can be used for kiting or a disengage in addition to accuracy boosting, and plenty of other systems allow their use defensively. Heck, mounted combat often involves ride checks in systems like Wheel of Time and certain D&D editions, and that can actually be pretty big to a mounted build.

Also a lot of systems don't segregate skills and combat so you wind up having to use your skill check bonuses and/or dice pools to attack.

So I guess what I mean to say is that attacks aren't always just about hp damage, and moreover there are attacks that meaningfully use skill checks.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 14, 2023, 10:46:44 AM

Quote from: rhialto on June 14, 2023, 09:13:06 AM

Quote from: warwell on June 14, 2023, 08:33:49 AM
I wonder if a system could allow the player making a successful defensive action a chance to immediately add an attack.

Harnmaster does this with the "Counterstrike" defense (though on equal levels of success both combatants hit each other). Stormbringer/Elric! allow for ripostes on a critical parry when using weapon + shield or two weapons. There are probably other such systems.

Worth looking into (I haven't played Stormbringer since it came out; time to reread).  Thanks!

Harnmaster is great and I love how Counterstrike can make any attack without adequate speed or personal defensive capabilities a gamble if the foe is crazy/determined enough. Not least because injuries matter in Harn bigtime.

Also, much though I don't necessarily agree with all of this thread's premise, I have to admit this is a pretty awesome thread conversation topic and it really got me to thinking.

Here's how I've seen the idea handled slightly differently:

-Mythic: you're rolling repeatedly for "Do I go next? Do I hit?" and then "Do I do damage?", but since it's all about asking questions, you could follow up "Do I go next?" with a different question like "Can I trip him?"
-Ironsworn: in combat there's a status of you having "the advantage" or not, so that simply taking the "hit a guy" move is non-optimal unless you can take and keep advantage. Because it doesn't work with turns, the option to take some other action like casting a spell or moving to high ground doesn't waste a turn and give the enemy an un-answered attack on you. So, actions other than straight attacking might be efficient.
-Open Legend: failed attacks still give you some small benefit like slight damage, pushing an enemy, or boosting an ally's attack, so that attacking with less than full force might be worthwhile.
-Worlds Without Number: prominent rules about morale, instinct, and reaction rolls mean that intimidation and negotiation should play a major part in how a battle plays out. A scary or even just confusing action should be able to force NPCs to do something non-optimal, and this is more effective than hitting a guy sometimes.

TBH, I don't know if it's a problem with 5e core, how it's presented, or if modern players are just missing something.  Fighting isn't necessarily how you handle every encounter.  If you don't have the debate periodically about whether to negotiate, sneak around, or fight when coming across a new creature, you're missing a large part of D&D dungeon crawling experience.  I think at least part of the problem is that PCs are so hard to kill that players develop the mentality of "shoot first, ask questions later."  It's sad to see gaming degenerated so badly.

In the old days, not everything you met in the dungeon was a mindless attack zombie.  Sure, it might be but it could be a greedy little SOB that will be happy to show you the secret door for a silver coin.  That dragon could be evil or he could be just a sweet good boy doggy with a really bad case of mange.

Quote from: BadApple on June 14, 2023, 05:35:42 PM
TBH, I don't know if it's a problem with 5e core, how it's presented, or if modern players are just missing something.  Fighting isn't necessarily how you handle every encounter.  If you don't have the debate periodically about whether to negotiate, sneak around, or fight when coming across a new creature, you're missing a large part of D&D dungeon crawling experience.  I think at least part of the problem is that PCs are so hard to kill that players develop the mentality of "shoot first, ask questions later."  It's sad to see gaming degenerated so badly.

Good point.