In the last two weeks, we’ve examined how story can drive both the exploration and socialization pillars of D&D; now it’s time to tackle combat. I think it’s safe to say that combat is the most popular pillar of the game, both with the public and with Wizards of the Coast. Combat has far and away the most mechanical support in the actual rules of the game, which I think translates directly into its popularity at tables across the world. The design of almost all the classes is oriented specifically around combat effectiveness. The myopic focus of most classes makes those that have more abilities with socialization or exploration value seem underpowered. While playing a suboptimal build can be fun, being underpowered is just disappointing. Who cares about a ranger’s ability to navigate wilderness when a combat optimized fighter can just take the Outlander background to get all the survival skills she’ll ever need? The fighter can fill the role of the ranger while also being great in combat, making the ranger wholly redundant. If a DM does an exceptional job at building engaging exploration encounters, then there is a good reason to play a ranger, but exploration remains the weakest pillar at most tables. Why, then, would anyone want to play a ranger?
In a long running game in which I am a player, I play as Bedwyr, an elven fighter with astounding dexterity. Bedwyr fights with bows and rapiers and has a ridiculously high AC. He’s what I’ve affectionately termed a “dodge-tank”. Thanks to a few skill proficiencies, Bedwyr is also an adept survivalist. One of Bedwyr’s companions is Arged, the dwarf ranger. Arged wears heavy armor, dual wields axes, sometimes uses a crossbow, and has strength as his highest attribute. He is essentially Bardin from the Vermintide games, if any of you are familiar with him. We often joke that Bedwyr is the fighter who should have been a ranger, while Arged is the ranger that should have been a fighter. Despite what should be the mechanical similarities between our characters, Bedwyr’s base mechanics are much stronger in combat than Arged’s. Arged is without a doubt the better survivalist, but Bedwyr can get by in almost every situation. Meanwhile, Bedwyr deals much more damage in combat than Arged and has higher survivability due to his high AC. Despite Arged’s suboptimal mechanics, he’s a great character that my friend enjoys playing because of the story behind him. The details of Arged’s backstory and personality make it inconceivable for him to be anything other than a ranger. My friend is still not happy when Arged’s mechanics underperform, but he still has fun in combat because of the picture painted by his character, the narrative splash he adds to every fight.
When most people are introduced to D&D for the first time, they come up with a character concept that sounds enjoyable to play. The new player wants to be a ninja, or a powerful mage, or a devout priest. They don’t know about the relative strengths and weaknesses of the classes, nor do they know about what mechanics they might have to use to actualize their vision of the character. It is only after pouring over rulebooks and web forums that some of us gravitate toward builds that are mechanically strong. I did this to a degree with my character, Bedwyr. He isn’t completely optimized, but he’s close. Unfortunately, in my drive to make him as combat-effective as possible, I neglected to give him a well-built or consistent personality. As a result, I didn’t enjoy combat as much as I should have, and he was an absolute train-wreck off the battlefield. In his early days, Bedwyr was just the stab-o-matic. He excelled at combat, but he was just a machine completing a function. There was no life to his fighting because there was very little in the way of story supporting him.
I’ve provided these rather long anecdotes from my own table to demonstrate how essential it is to have story-driven characters, even in combat situations. An encounter will have no life if it is only the pitting of one stat block against another. The same concept is true for DMs. The enemies the players face should be just as well developed as the NPCs with which they talk. A villain should have his own motivations, goals, virtues, and vices. Even if the enemy is a monster or animal, it should have a lair or leave signs of its last victims. Almost all creatures should know to avoid combat when it isn’t advantageous. Animals don’t want to be cornered, they will wait until they can attack at a moment that is favorable to them. Most creatures should also attempt to flee if the combat is going poorly. The game doesn’t provide good mechanics for fleeing, either for the enemies or the players, but it should always be an option. For it to be a viable option, the DMs may have to do some home brewing or communicate to their players how they will handle fleeing.
When both players and enemies have fleshed out motivations and traits, then the stage is set for a memorable fight. Now that combat is beginning, we must not lose our focus on story and resort to a contest of stat blocks. Narrative concerns should affect the decisions players and enemies make within a combat, and these need not be made on a character by character basis. I’ve seen many encounters where a player role-plays a combat decision based on their character’s personality, but where they don’t consider the greater narrative context. Yes, a character may be cowardly, but might he not muster some courage to face a weak or outnumbered enemy? Another character may be a master tactician, but won’t she forget her logic when a loved one has been wounded? Characters shouldn’t have fixed responses to every situation, they should be living, thinking people who adapt their responses to the circumstances. In the same vein, the in-game experiences of characters should probably alter their outlook in some way. If a companion was killed by orcs in the last campaign, it makes sense for the party to distrust half-orcs or to mercilessly eradicate nearby orc tribes. Similarly, a villain who has been bested by the party should learn from her experience. If the party wizard repeatedly countered her spells, frustrating her designs, then she might endeavor to first remove him from the equation.
The combat itself can tell a tale. Players shouldn’t become bored, repeating the same actions to whittle down a monster’s sizable pool of hit points. It’s important to encourage one’s players to seek creative solutions in combat, and reward anything that is cool. As a DM, I can make a boring exchange of blows exciting by adding narration, or throwing in extra effects. If a giant has managed to strike a might blow on a character, I might have that character be thrown by the force of the hit, even if there are no mechanics for such a rule. If a player wishes to attack the eyes of a monster, and rolls a good attack, then I may have the creature be blinded for a round. For added narrative tension, turn the combat into a chase scene, or a hostage situation. Make the terrain destructible, or light it on fire. Split the party across the battlefield, or force them to think in three dimensions. DMs should do anything they can to break up the rote exchange of combat and turn it into an exciting series of events, a story that unfolds during play.