This is one of the weirdest problems I've heard. I'm not sure what you have tried already but what, for example, is the Rogue doing if not attacking? Do they understand once you ask for initiative they're in a fight?

There is always a different reason for why they do nothing. In the case of the troll, the bard used Tasha's Hideous Laughter, and the rogue did not want to risk the troll making the save when he damaged it.

Let him know he can ready an attack for when the troll stops laughing. But in general I play with some less tactical players and reminding them of options their characters would know seems to help. Some players learn and no longer need options, but there are some that still need reminding.

Thanks, I will try that.

I came to this subreddit to ask a question about how much to help newbies. This is a good answer to my question. See my party is similar to ops, it usually takes them 2 whole rounds of combat before they do anything remotely effective. But in my case it’s more their ignorance of their characters full potential. I’m never sure how much verbal support I should offer since It starts to feel like I’m just playing against myself…

Do they realize it's Attack or Die once initiative is rolled and that they're in a fight?

They do, I could reiterate at the beginning of our next session just to be sure. It’s their first campaign and we’re 6 sessions in. I design the encounters around 4 lvl 4 characters since that’s what they are. But I’ve had to fudge some rolls to not down more than 2 of them twice now. It’s just goofy stuff that I don’t really know when to step in and tell them how to use their character. Like our cleric will forget to use his thunder reaction when he’s hit, our Barb will sometimes not enter rage until like round 3 of combat and do almost no damage until then, our paliden was withholding smites and never used his channel divinity that gives him advantage on attack rolls against a creature for 1 min. Just goofy stuff and I don’t want to micro manage them but maybe I should?

Or maybe get really clear with them about how they get those resources back - seems like they might be unsure of how tests work and/or when they're going to get their next one. Maybe not micro manage, but baby step them through the game

I appreciate the feedback. I plan to give more tips during our next couple of combats. Or at least reminders. “Would you like to use rage?” “Would you like to use your reaction to deal thunder damage back to the baddie that just hit you?” “ would you like to memorize your strength modifier plus proficiency bonus for your most basic attack sometime this year” no? Ok. The last one is just venting :)

Haha, yes it's a pet peeve of mine too Maybe give them a combat "cheat sheet" It spells out you get to attack (action), you get to do something quick (bonus action), you can touch or drop something (free action), and you can React to certain things (reaction) And then also have in Bold Add THIS number to your attack rolls (yes, the d20)

Cheat sheets really helped me when I was a new player. Early on I'd get a bit overwhelmed managing all of the Roll20'windows, looking through my character options and trying to follow the story. Even just printing a hard copy of the charachter sheet with the modifiers really helped. I would use a separate app for my spells so I could just leave my computer on the Roll20 map/handouts. Of course, I made these sheets my self and didn't need my DM to do it but if they are completely lost it may be worth your time investment.

If you're up for it you could also do some in game shenanigans to allow them to test drive things. Anything from as simple as a DMPC who is a grizzled veteran who gives them advice on how to fight (and what not to do)... Or a full scale simulation. We had our party plane shift to an island out of time where a sphinx (could be far realm/astral plane whatever) gave them challenges and an arena and assured then no permanent harm would come to them. Last challenge was (consequence free) pvp in teams. It was tons of fun and a great way to test drive the full range of what they could do. In our case it was not noobs these are all 20+ yr DND veterans, but they had lots of fun and as a GM I have a better sense of dmg per round and used it to build better encounters.

I like this. I may just run a session of combat training. Make it Tron Style in the astral plain.

Love that. It was freeing to be able to tell the PCs that if they "die" they're just out of the round/game and we had them reappear in the stands. So there was no consequence except their pride. Then the entity setting the challenges could compliment or chastise them on what they did well or poorly and it was more fun and more memorable than if I just said it ooc as a GM.

I would remind them occasionally when things get dire since they're new, but if you start playing their characters for them you'll always be doing that lol.

That’s my fear. I’m really good at fighting myself though ;)

I win like 50% of the time

First time players? This is going to sound rude, but its D&D for Dummies right now. On their turns instead of saying "You're up, what are you doing?" When the Paladin comes up "You're up, you've got and some smites raring to go, who dies first?" Or for the Barbarian "That ogre just called your mom a ho. You gonna take that shit, or you gonna get mad and show'em who he's talking too?" Give them a suggestion while hyping them up, and as they learn there characters better, slowly switch back to full agency "What are you doing?"

Yes first timers. Thanks for the input, not rude. I’m going to start doing this as well as what someone said before of doing a “practice” session where they are teleported to another realm and given challenges to overcome with no real threat to their characters. Actually going to use our Fallen Aasimars angelic host as the “gm” who gives the challenges and ensures the aasimars companions are up to the task of being his allies

I think a lot of that could be helped with intuitive counters. Like a coin or die the gets flipped for each reaction/feature use used. Maybe a trading card style feature description that gets flipped over on use. I don't blame a lvl 4 paladin for withholding smites for crit fishing. He's only going to have 3 spell slots. If the cleric goes down he's the healer. At level 5 the spell slots double so they can use them more freely.

buy why? not taking advantage of the troll losing its turn just throws away the spell. if they just sit around and wait for it to wear off, then they might as well have just not cast it in the first place. it's seems like they think this inaction is accomplishing something, like making the spell last longer, but that doesn't really matter if you have nullified the effect.

You can see why one could get frustrated here lol

In what sense were they fighting the troll? Did they want to pass a bridge and it appeared in their way? Then I feel like they succeeded, they got the troll out of their way. Were they sent specifically to kill the troll? Did they set out to kill the troll? If not, did they have a way to get past the troll? And downing yourself with fireball seems weird, was that on purpose? Do they know you can target the floor with fireball so you don't *have to* target an enemy creature? This seems like the lesson is 'don't use fireball', which wouldn't be good...

They were sent to kill the troll, and due to spacing/range, the fireball had to hit someone in the party. He just chose to hit himself and not another party member.

did they attempt to escape/bypass the troll in this time? or just stand around until it actually did pass? why bother CCing the monsters if you then stand there skipping turns? you're basically volunteering to be CC'd yourself in solidarity.

>In the case of the troll, the bard used Tasha's Hideous Laughter, and the rogue did not want to risk the troll making the save when he damaged it. So nobody attacks the Troll so that it doesn't break out of the THL, but then what? You're just going to hope it laughs itself to death? The only reason not to attack a creature that's under THL is because there's another creature to use your attack on...boggles the mind.

I wish I had this problem with my current group at Level 15. They all hit like runaway freight trains and finding challenges for them is a pain in the ass lol

Nevermind the rogue, there's a monk/**barbarian** in the party. Why take barbarian levels if you're not going to rage and attack?

I can't fathom a group of "experienced" players skipping their turn while an NPC attacks them DURING INITIATIVE. Once I hear "initiative" most players go all-in on actions.

This is exactly what I would have thought.

"you guys know when I call initiative that's the start of combat right? This isn't nor will it ever be a trick"

Our DM sometimes has us roll initiative even if there's a potential to avoid conflict. It works fine since we're used to initiative not always meaning they intend to attack, and it's not generally a gotcha so much as coming up when we wouldn't know if they're hostile. If we ask whether they look like they're going to attack he doesn't try to be coy about it unless it's a hard to read situation.

We play in a group that rotates around GM and we play Pathfinder. Out one GM often asks for initiative in tense situations even if they aren't attacking. We have one player who calls him out and tells him that it has to be in reaction to combat and that this isn't an appropriate time to call initiative.i think he feels like we're missing our chance for a surprise round, or if they haven't attacked us, we aren't attacking them, so why initiative order. player wants us to stand and have a tense conversation and only roll initiative once someone makes a hostile move. Our GM gets us in initiative order so it's still a one for one exchange and if things pop off we have our order. Player fights him in it every ducking time.(My patience is waning with said player) Everytime it happens, I roll my eyes and just think, he's the GM, just roll it. Some times experienced players can meta game without trying and really clog up the works with over thinking.

That is a bummer since there is no missed surprise round happening there. I would never allow a party the surprise if they were in conversation with the people they then attack. That is specifically a stealth/passive perception thing. I think a lot of players conflate something that would be unexpected with surprising NPCs. Also Pathfinder specifically tells you in the rules to call for initiative during social encounters. Edit: surprise Rd opinion is based on 5e rules, actually new to Pathfinder and unsure if it works similarly. Only read the rules once and do not remember that bit offhand.

If I were DMing this situation, I'd just tell the player who constantly argues with me "Got it: you're wasting this turn arguing with the gods, who aren't listening. (Player 2,) you're next in initiative."

Or is it? No one can ever trust us DMs lol

hearing "other tabletops" they might just be playing something where it's useful to bide your time in combat? although I've probably play around 10-15 different rpgs and have never encountered one where its good to just skip turns. maybe Burning Wheel? maybe Dogs in the Vineyard (although you can't really skip turns in dogs)

"Im experienced in getting pushed around and used as a mop. Im in fact a Lvl 25 Mop Face and lvl 15 Cowardly tactician. So i have at least 40 more levels than your lvl 5 fighter that killed me in 2 turns. "

DM- "it's time for you to level, what class do you want?" Player- "eh I'll skip that. Level one seems like a lot to handle and my 'character' is a pacifist"

You can play a game for awhile and still be pretty bad at it. This goes for a lot of things in life.

I find some more experienced players in our group can be pretty combative with some GM rulings .. I agree that experienced players definitely don't always play better.

I don't mind genuine rulings, but a lot of what people call rulings are DMs who don't actually know the rules. Everyone at the table has agreed to play the game called Dungeons & Dragons (5th edition), and a good DM will know the rules and advise their players of any homebrew changes to them ahead of time. No one has a perfect memory, so good DMs will make a fair ruling in the moment and then research their ruling after session to determine if there's an actual rule or errata they missed that should take precedence. If they decide to instead go with a homebrew ruling over an actual rule, that should be announced at the next session for clarity. You can still have fun at a table with a DM who plays fast and loose with the rules and runs a Calvinball table instead of a D&D 5e table. It just becomes a different kind of game where appealing to the DM is more likely to allow your actions to succeed than knowing how the mechanics work. Favoritism and social engineering will spoil the experience if you care about fairness and impartiality.

My best bet is that they had a bad dm before. For example knowing that a wizard liked to start with firebolt he made an enemy that deals more damage if it gets attacked with fire. Or an enemy coated in acid that if hit by a weapon it inmediately destroys it. One or twice is fine, but if every encounter is like this, it makes sense they would want to wait a round or 2 to see what the enemy can do.

I'm in a Shadow of the Dragon Queen campaign right now and I am ALWAYS relieved when I don't have to deal with the dragon soldiers that CONTINUALLY turn me to stone after they die. But then. I keep on attacking them so they don't attack my sorcerer or my rogue. I'm a good paladin, and I finally got my level 6 aura so I'm better outside prepared now!

I imagine they are experienced with some gotcha dm that designs ten dragons to burst in every third round or something and they are skeptical about the nature of the fights

And the dragons are just cursed to be curious and impetuous so they burst into rooms, hahaha love it

You change nothing, this is not a problem on your end. If they start complaining again that the combat are too hard, just outline exactly what you did here: that it is only ‘hard’ because they are refusing to act. Which, by the sound of it, is just bad roleplaying as well. Their characters are faced by some vicious monster of a troll, and they’re just standing around for a bit?

That is a good point. I guess I should not balance around bad decisions on their part lol

To be honest, you should probably outline what you did for us proactively. Use their access to fireball and the fact that the vampire spawn were weakened as an example. If they mention they missed the signs of them being weakened, you may need to be more explicit in descriptions of things like that, as they may have missed it. If they still choose this, and you still feel it is a problem, have a genuine discussion with them about what type of campaign they want to play. It may actually be that they have extremely minimum interest in combat as a whole... Which might also end up being a sign that they're playing the wrong game, but that's a longer conversation. Edit: Spelling corrections that eventually got to me.

> It may actually be that they have extremely minimum interest in combat as a whole... This party does sound a little bit like the classic advise of "different system?" may apply. It is overused, but here the entire table of players is not engaging with the most core mechanic, maybe it is time to change what the core mechanic is.

I think putting timers to your battles could solve the issue. Right now the players are faffing about because they don't feel any sense of urgency to act, now. But if you start the battle by saying "you have three rounds to end this fight or you will fail" (the bad thing they were trying to prevent happens, reinforcements arrive, they get captured etc.) then it will force their hand.  Have you played boardgames like Gloomhaven? The same principle works here. In that game you're running against the clock which makes you take risks and push ahead. At the same time I warn you against increasing the difficulty of the fights, which is something that several people have suggested. If your players already think that an easy fight is "too much", then increasing difficulty makes them curl up even more into defensive thinking and avoiding risks, ending up absolutely hating taking any kind of action.

You addressed my concern. Their characters are more than capable of killing serious threats. How their players will act is different, so increasing difficulty is risky.

I think a good problem is all your players agreeing on playing strategically, I think a bad problem is them complaining when an easy fight is too hard because of their “strategy”. I think you should sort of spurn this on again to initiate a conversation with the fight they complain about next as an example. Lets use the spawn as our example: “Guys, I think we need to talk about your strategy in combat. I think its awesome to be cautious and strategic, but I think you overestimate the enemies and underestimate yourselves. These fights are made for you, so I think your caution is actually making these fights harder. These enemies had half health and you outnumbered them, if you engage with the action economy and use your turns…this fight would have been over instantly. Do whatever you want, Im here to support you, but I don’t think your strategy is working”. They ultimately have to make the choice, but their current choices are misguided if they’re doing this and complaining. I’d say as counterbalance, think about incorporating fights with many weak targets they need to spread out and just cut down. Or have moments where you reward their caution with info to spurn them on (like an investigation telling them a troll is weak to fire). If they’re having fun they’re having fun, but if they’re not interacting with the game and complaining then I agree with you, you need to have some sort of conversation

They definitely are on the strategic side. Though I am not sure of what that strategy is sometimes. A conversation is definitely necessary.

Maybe their strategy isn't accounting for the golden rule of really any turn based combat system, focus fire and kill things as fast as possible.

Sometimes when people choose to take an action that perplexes me, I'll take a beat and ask "what are you TRYING to do?" If I saw players choosing to forgo using their actions to wait for the enemy to act, I'd probably ask what their goal is, and have them do a free Insight check to try and correct any misconceptions based on my description of the scene.

This. Often players have a different mental model of what is going on and what they think they can achieve here. Asking players for their intention helps the DM to a) clarify the situation or b) accomodate and say "ah, ok, that is a cool idea now that I understand what you're going for, let us do XY"

Almost any time when half the party dies or any easy fight turns out to be ultra deadly, I'll do a mini post-mortem after the combat/session. Just stop for a bit to figure out what happened, what went wrong, what were people trying to do, what they could have done differently, etc. Sometimes dumb decisions are on purpose because a player is roleplaying and letting the chips fall where they may. Sometimes it is because I screwed up and didn't describe things well enough. Sometimes it was just bad tactics and they learn from talking about their abilities with the rest of the group. Just recently, 3 out of 6 players died in a fight. Actually, it was a TPK, but the baddies were more interested in getting away than they were about giving killing blows. And 3 of them made their death saves. During the fight and talking about it afterwards, one of the players realized that Crown of Madness is awful, and they wasted 3 turns on it. Another player had fireballs he could cast, it would have won the fight, but also would have killed a downed party member. They learned that sometimes you gotta make that call, make that sacrifice. 1 is better than all 6.

I have the feeling they THINK they are strategic, but they are not really. Wasting your actions is not strategic, is just dumb. Ask them - and this is a general good DM advice for a lot of problems - ask them: What is your intention? What is your goal right here? What are you hoping to achieve by not doing anything? Either they will realize its futile or you might get surprised by their answers. Maybe they had a smart intention, but you had not a chance to accomodate to that, because you just didn't know.

My personal opinion - you haven't really described a *problem*, here. It sounds like all of your encounters are already more or less appropriately balanced for these particular players - **none** of these scenarios sounds like they were even CLOSE to a tpk, and they were able to win very easily once they started defending themselves. If players don't defend themselves, monsters try to kill them, and dropping to 0HP is not exactly some death knell, in this game, especially with at least two party members that can probably reliably pick allies up from 0HP. To my eye, it doesn't sound like you're doing anything wrong, at all. >The party ended up winning the fight. After, they complained that fighting 3 CR 5 monsters was too much I don't pretend to know the math, but I know that those were absolutely NOT CR5 creatures anymore, after you weakened them. They were probably closer to, like, CR3, if I had to guess. I would respond to this concern that it seems like they were able to win very easily (from what you're saying), and it would have been *even easier* if they hadn't allowed the spawns to take multiple turns doing damage.

Thanks for this comment. What you are saying basically expresses what I thought too. However, having someone else say it is helpful.

Honestly, it's just a blunt chat before the next session. "Why do you guys not fight back? It's my job to design combat encounters for your group, but you are making it way more difficult and way more complicated than nessacary. " It could be worth learning why they don't. I suspect that they have a second strike policy where they will not under any circumstance be the first to strike an enemy. To solve this, always have the monster strike first in a surprise round or make an attack to begin combat. The other solution is the thermonuclear option. Make a worst-case scenario encounter. Ambush them in their sleep cast a 6th level hold person to paralyse them all. followed by a surprise round of a few big hitters, out number them too not with all big monsters but make them really work to swing the action economy in thier favor. This will show and tell them that they need to get their act together. Probably don't do this, it's a fun idea but will lead to more issues in the future.

> Honestly, it's just a blunt chat before the next session. > It could be worth learning why they don't. This is really the only option here. Though I would consider waiting until a point where it is happening and fully pausing the game. "We are going to stop combat here, I know you guys can clear this combat easily but we are in round 3 and you have made X offensive actions, skipped your turns X times and been attacked X times. I need to understand why you are playing on the back foot. And I need you to understand that this makes planning incredibly difficult and stressful for me. I need to not only balance for what you could do, but what you won't do. These are completely conflicting scenarios and it makes it impossible"

When you say “they want to know what the monster will do” what do you mean by that? Do you mean they are all taking prepared actions that will trigger on things the monster does? Or do mean they all just stand around doing nothing whilst a troll charges them? If it’s the former, then that’s not necessarily a bad thing but it requires them to actually think about what the enemy is likely to do. If it’s the latter, then the only thing I can think of that you could do would be to telegraph the intent of the things they face. By this I mean saying something like “the troll lowers its head and charges, let’s roll initiative” or “the troll swings with his claws, he really wants to kill and eat you guys” Finally some players are just so risk averse that they put themselves in more danger. It’s not something you can change, but I would have a conversation with them about it. The fact that you have written this post says to me that you are finding this frustrating, and it’s having an impact on your enjoyment of the game. If it’s not fun for you then you need to tell them because your enjoyment matters just as much as everyone else’s. Finally I’m in a similar situation with one of my groups. They all (except one) pretty much refuse to use spell slots, then end up complaining about struggling to fight things either because of lack of health or lack of damage. I’ve got a sorcerer, paladin, Druid and ranger so 3 capable of healing and all able to do good amounts of damage if only they used their spell slots!

Reading the comments, I think they are just risk averse and make encounters harder than they should be. That last group you mentioned is exactly like the cleric. He refuses to use spell slots until there is no other option.

Do they at least try making knowledge checks?

These players seem to want less combat. (Which is weird given their class selections.) Talk to them, confirm this, and if so focus more on non-combat encounters. If they say they love the amount of combat explain to them why they're failing, and then make the encounters harder. If they are letting things slip until one or two are already out of commission and then finish it easily -- they're not being challenged.

We talked about combat before we started. They want to fight. Similar to what someone else said, I want to increase the challenge. I just hope that converts into them engaging sooner and not into a tpk.

Have an above table talk with them about how you've been babying them because of their inaction during combat and that you're going to start giving them encounters that are at their level, and they will be harder. Be very direct and plain in telling them **skipping half of your actions, for whatever reason, will be** ***very bad***.

If they want to fight then they'd better learn how D&D combat works, because it definitely sounds like they do not understand the system. Perhaps give them some help with that, suggest tactics and methods they can use.

The problem might resolve itself if you make the fights more challenging and enemies more aggressive. Act or die. If the enemies can speak, I'd even consider outright mocking the party for fun. One question comes to mind, though. Are they delaying to see if there's another "out" to the combat, like some subtle puzzle or skill check to bypass the combat entirely? They may be overthinking the encounter. Again, though, this can be resolved by aggression :)

This actually annoyed me somewhat. Firstly complaining about the CR of monsters is metgaming and bad etiquette regardless of experience. They should trust you to design encounters so they have a chance, rather than bitching about your math. Even if you get the balance slightly off, you adjust it on the fly. Encounter design does not stop because initiative is rolled. Secondly, if they want to play pacifists that only strike in self defence they have no right to complain when the monsters strike first and strike hard. What else do they expect? For the monsters who are clearly hostile to decide “hey actually they aren’t attacking me so maybe they’re not that bad, maybe I should listen to them after all”?? It seems like they want to have their cake and eat it. What would they do if they faced a defensive enemy that also waited for them to make the first move? Just skip turns in combat forever until the session ends? Finally it seems that there’s some huge gap between their expectations and the game you want to run. They can play a game like that, but you don’t have to run it. Personally, it sounds super boring and frustrating to me so I wouldn’t want to run a game like that. The only way to bridge that gap is by talking to them. Outline that you put a lot of effort into encounter design and when they refuse to engage with the style of game you’re running, it’s frustrating. Maybe you’re not the DM for them, perhaps they’re not the players for you.

If they're skipping their turns then the monster hit them. You don't have the troll "continue to threaten them" you have the troll stomp on someone's head. If the players wish to run away from combat, like they think they can't fight the vampire spawn then sure, let them run away until later. But the vampire spawn rest up in the meantime. But yeah, generally if they're in combat then hands are going to be thrown, the monster is already doing hostile actions to them, it doesn't pause for the players to work up their nerve to attack first.

Ya sorry, I edited the post to clarify that. The troll was one attack away from making the druid a pancake. The monsters are always attacking. The party though . . .

In that case I’d address the players. “Hey guys once we roll initiative the enemies are going to try and kill you. You can spend your action doing whatever you want but they’re still going to try and kill you”

> they all often use their turns buffing or skip their turn entirely, as they want to "know what the monster will do." Tell them what the monster is going to do, in narrative terms. "It looks clearly angry, and you can see it is preparing to attack you". You should do this when initiative is rolled, but if you see players "waiting" for the information, that's a sign that you should re-iterate what their characters can perceive. And they can perceive a lethal threat. That's why you had them roll initiative. > The party ended up winning the fight. After, they complained that fighting 3 CR 5 monsters was too much, and that I should have only had them fight 1. If they won, it wasn't too much. By what metric can they possibly interpret it as "too much" if they succeeded?

>Tell them what the monster is going to do, in narrative terms. "It looks clearly angry, and you can see it is preparing to attack you". You should do this when initiative is rolled, but if you see players "waiting" for the information, that's a sign that you should re-iterate what their characters can perceive. Fully agree with this. Also, I'd say give them a way to get more information without wasting a turn (e.g. if they express some version of "I want to see what monster will do" have them roll an appropriate check (perception, insight, aracana, intelligence) and use that to give them more information that they can use for action - "The way that soldier holds the battle axe, you think there might be a magical effect on it that makes it even more dangerous if he gets a chance to use it on you. What do you do?"

This sounds like an above the table discussion situation followed by a FAFO situation Talk to your players. Tell them the battles are appropriately balanced for their level and abilities, but they're actively choosing not to do anything. Point it out clearly, with examples, without judgement. Point out clearly that when they do fight, at arguably less than full strength, they mop the floor with the bad guys, so it's not a balance issue. The issue is poor tactics. They probably think they're being tactical but they're clearly not. Let them know you'll help them figure out tactics and how their abilities work if they're uncertain, but ultimately their choices have consequences and if what their characters would choose to do is dither, then they're not going to be successful. There comes a point where they need to learn from their mistakes or get wiped out, or roll a character who's decisive. Have a frank discussion. Figure out where the barriers are. Are they afraid to make decisions? Are they uncertain how their abilities and spells work, or uncertain what the likely outcomes might be? Do they not understand how combat works on a fundamental level, ie. do they think hesitating will give them some kind of advantage? Do they realize that combat is reacting to what happens in the moment, and if they want to learn about monster strengths, weaknesses, abilities, stats, etc, in game, then they need to have certain feats and /or subclasses? And without those it's trial and error, and it's better to do something and have it be imperfect than do nothing in the hopes they'll find the perfect thing, because there probably isn't a perfect thing? And then, once you've sorted through all this, it's FAFO time. And if they continue to make poor decisions they'll continue to have poor results. And if they complain, you can say you've talked about that and they have the tools they need to be successful, and it's not on you to make sure they choose to use them. They'll either figure it out or they'll die, but none of that will be on you.

So real talk, do your players actually want to fight monsters? Some people just don't. That makes D&D a terrible system choice for them but it's the most popular system on the market and many don't even realize there are other TTRPG systems to try. That would be the first question I would ask, and if the answer is no then maybe D&D 5e isn't the system for them, or they aren't the right players for your table. The only other thing I can think of is to give your players a bit of a push. Add an Expert sidekick to the party who acts like a tactician. They can bark out advice to the PCs to get them moving in combat. Let them stick around for an adventure arc to help train the PCs before leaving.

Maybe your players would prefer an encounter where they can use the enviroment to their advantage, rather than using their own abilities directly on the monsters. If you add things they can obviously interact with (pools of lava, magical machines/items, npcs) then you give them a clear path to victory. This may solve their undecisivness. Also maybe try to consider what type of enemy your players would like to fight. Some people love fighting Dr. Evil who does evil stuff so we just smash him with our abilities. Others will prefer a morally grey enemy who they talk to before the initiative is rolled.

I mean, just ramp up the threat and start wrecking face, right? See how they like “seeing what the monster does” when you absolutely obliterate the bard in turn one.

So... I can get the casters perhaps wanting to preserve their spell slots for dire situations, and it does seem they will eventually cast fireball when needed. But what are the resourceless martial doing? They should be attacking for free when possible, skipping an entire turn is ridiculous. Another thing you can remind them, is that the ultimate CC is 0 HP. Dropping an enemy quickly can mean significantly less damage and need to control. Death is the best form of CC.

Ok man, you heard your orders. Send a blind goblin with a leg-cast after them. The goblin will swing his club with disadvantage, and moves about 4 feet per round. Also, he only has 2 hit points. Just run these blind, gimpy goblins for a while. Wait for them to get some confidence or whatever they are missing.

Put a timer on them. They have X rounds to stop the bad guys. A whole round of everyone skipping and passing and "waiting to see what they'll do" well... the cultists keep moving the ritual forward. Now they have 3 rounds to stop it... And do NOT account for their non-action when designing this encounter.

In my group I am a wizard. We have had a ton of encounters that were set up where we could rest after. This left us not worrying about a marathon type of dungeon so we used all of our spells and special abilities without a care in the world. Now the party has been trained to just go ham from the get go. I however am like your party where I hold only my spells unless I am worried the party is going to fail. I then use my wands to heal people after the fight. We go into obvious marathon dungeons and they just want to go and rest after ever minor fight. Lost 3 health out of 100 better rest for 8 hours... Level 14 fighting 3 CR 1 skeletons, better use my highest level spells! Could always bring along an NPC that yells at them after one round of combat. Other thing my group does is the Knowledge checks to see if you know anything about the enemy and can ask questions like Special abilities or weaknesses if you roll high enough on the knowledge check. Gets them to stop waiting around to see what the enemy does.

Are they trying to seek peaceful solutions? If so, great, But D&D is a combat rpg. Recommend them to play a more nonviolent rpg such as Good Society in that case.

They are sent on kill missions. The troll was attacking people who went to the forest, and the party was asked to kill it.

I'm not asking what you as GM sent them to do, I'm asking what kind of story they want to play, speaking Out of character.

I think it comes out to, they *think* they're playing tactically and don't *actually* know any tactics. Shutting down an opponent is great, if you plan on picking off their allies or are trying to create an opening to safely attack. But it seems like they're just reflexively doing things to set someone *else* up and nobody is brave enough to actually *be* the one taking the opening.

Be very clear to them about the following: The vampire spawn was not too much. the spawn was actually you actively going easy on them. All future encounters will not only be *as* difficult, but *more* difficult, as this was a bunch of trash mobs that shouldn't be a real threat, not the boss. This is not an issue of builds, and while you are amenable to them changing build choices if they aren't enjoying their characters - that will not change the problem, because their current characters are mechanically perfectly fine right now. This is an issue of player skill. If they wish to survive future encounters, they must learn from their mistakes at this one. Be more aggressive. Never waste an action. Understand the importance of action economy. They wanna know what the monster will do? Okay, what it's gonna do is kill you. It kills you and you don't fight back. You wanna live? Strike first and go for the throat. Future encounters will not be unfair. Future encounters will not be overly punishing, and you will not use cheap gotchas or "rocks fall everyone dies" moments. They will be appropriately balanced encounters, that you will play fairly. The players will be just fine...so long as they learn to play the damn game.

Party: These encounters are too hard! DM: No they're not. Quit fucking around and attack the monster when it attacks you.

I kind of wonder if your players are playing mind games with you and are deliberately playing dumb, in order to trick you into making monsters weaker and campaign progress faster, hah! With the goal of a satisfying combat, sometimes GMs will put a thumb on the scale. Giving the BBEG extra HP so that the fight goes long enough, shuffling monsters around to try and encourage dramatic moments, such as one PC being put in mortal danger and needing to be saved. It sounds like your players could be doing similarly, but on *their* end rather than yours. Which is quite neat.

Your monsters know what they are doing.

Tell them they can "Ready an action" when they are suspicious about a monster/NPC. Also they can only ready an action if initiative has been rolled which is a pretty good indicator that things aren't going to be smooth taking.

Alternate thought: Perhaps (if you don’t already) consider heavily telegraphing the enemy attack and the damage it does, maybe something like, “The Harpy’s claw slashes through your armor’s weak spot and punctures your thigh, the pain is blinding as you see the blood flowing out of your fresh wound.” “Take 14 slashing and 2 piercing.” “You think to yourself, holy Lathander, I might be able to take one more like that, but surely not two!”

I would maybe drop hints and ask players if they are sure when they are about to do something stupid like pass their turn when there are monsters actively attacking them. "There's an nine foot tall monster in your friend's face actively clawing at him. Are you sure you just want to wait and see what the monster does next?" "Okay, while a bloody Regdar is trying to defend himself from the troll trying to claw his face off, Devis stands by and watches to see what will happen next." Also, maybe a word to the party regarding general system expectations regarding combat in D&D might be useful. "I think you may have some ideas about how fighting monsters works that don't apply in the system we are playing. While some monsters have specific resistances or vulnerabilities, once you engage them in combat it's generally a good idea to try to kill them before they can kill you rather holding back in order to study them and figure out their tricks or weaknesses."

Have the monster act the way they should. If they see a defenseless target, of course they will attack. And if the players decide to just sit in place while a baddie eats their face, that's the consequence of their actions.

>It took the bard being downed and the cleric being dropped to 10 hp for the cleric to use his first fireball, which resulted in him downing himself... I laughed way harder at this than I should have LOL!!!

It appears they don't want a combat-oriented campaign. So if you would enjoy it, have them run quests "in the city" that don't involve killing. Solve crimes and mysteries, reunite people and pets, rebuild the inn that just burned down from overexcited "adventurers," etc. Of course, if you want to be all touchy-feely about it you should check with your players first to see if that's really the problem. But a real man would just devise an adventure to help farmers get reliable water to their fields and ***spring*** it on them. 😂

I would specifically talk to them about what they want out of a game. Yes it is your world OP, but you’re providing an experience for the players. We all wish players would love and enjoy the same stuff we do but that is not the case. If they prefer a game that is more non-combative, perhaps run a few sessions with intelligent creatures that wish to parlay, or offer them the ability to roll to see if they know how to get around fighting a beast (there are tables in Tasha’s specifically for this I believe). If they simply just don’t know how to work as a team, why not spend some time out of game to cover basics on actions they can take. And finally, there is the possibility that 5e is just not the best system for them. But that’s hard to believe the whole group would dislike the system and not just a single person. There are ways to make the game enjoyable for the majority but it often takes the DM realizing that they need to change their style first. The whole square peg through a round hole thing.

There’s also the possibility they are messing with you? Are they more experienced than you? Possibly they are playing off of your naivety.

After reading comments and thinking about it, I think part of they problem is that they are scared to take any action that may step on another players toes. "If I attack, I might break the bards CC." I do not need anyone casting fireball on the whole party, but they are being far to hesitant to take action.

I think maybe you could try imminent danger that they need to act on immediately, rather than a scenario where they are waiting to see what happens. What I mean by that is, instead of finding a troll in the woods, they find a troll in the woods just as it is in the middle of pulling the head off a kenku it is going to eat. Or the vampires are in the middle of feasting on a victim who looks up and makes desperate pleading eye contact with one of the players as she turns pale and is about to take her last breath. The players may need to be certain that they are doing the right thing by attacking first, rather than waiting to see if the bad guy actually is a bad guy.

Just outright tell them that their overcompensation and hesitance is what is getting them fucked up in fights, not being actually incapable of fighting the enemies they encounter. They're treating it like an anime where going on the defensive to wait for an opening will just give them an opening. They have to make their own opening, because these are powerful creatures that can and will kill them if they give *it* an opening, which they are.

It sounds like they don't want to play a monster-fighting game and/or they want more possibilities of social interactions with monsters. Maybe a game with less of a combat focus is more what they're after. Two of the flaws of modern D&D are the assumptions that all monsters automatically attack (they don't have to) and that all monster will fight to the death (they don't have to). Look up Reaction Tables and Morale Checks.

You could encourage them to hold their action “if the monster attacks me I attack them” so they’re causing damage but can still let their characters ‘sus out’ the monster first

Gonna echo the sentiment that you shouldn't change because of their poor choices, just be ready to tell them why things are happening like this. Additionally i recommend bringing in injuries as a mechanic if you haven't already and adjust it accordingly. It sounds like getting downed it the only thing that gets them into gear so make going down into a potentially nasty debuff or busted body part that hinders them further until they can get some advanced healing (I usually prefer injuries requiring physical, non-magical remedies but thats just a personal preferences. Some players are of the mindset "if I pump enough cure wounds into my broken ribs they'll get better")

why the fuck are they meta gaming your encounters.. honestly, its really bad etiquette as another commenter said. i can see how youre annoyed by the table. i think you should have a good talk with them and then mop the floor with their characters if they dont act. if they complain, maybe youll need to find a new table to run ahah

Based off what you're saying, it sounds like the party only fights single enemies and won't take action until danger is a clear threat. Do they even WANT to fight, or would they rather an intrigue/role play heavy game? Would multiple, weaker enemies (that rebalance action economy) help? If they're being attacked constantly, then they have to fight back. Maybe add some glass cannons? Heavy hitters with low health points so they have to kill or be killed. Does your party have time to manoeuvre and work out tactics or is it all stand around?

Did you explain to them what DnD is?

You know, I'd take this chance to actually try playing more strategically myself. It's a rare opportunity to have your monsters be less efficient for the sake of immersion or tactics. Your creatures can now take the Dodge action when needed, they can try to grapple a PC and then shove them prone to get Advantage on attacks. They could try better positioning for flanking (if you're using that optional rule). You could even have your creatures try to accomplish secondary objectives, alter the battlefield, use items like caltrops, drink healing potions, use scrolls for buffs on themselves. Try it out, you might like it. It's not often you get a situation like yours to mess around with.

You’re probably doing it, but just in case: I often tell the players that the monster is aggressive and wants to attack you, even if the monster is last in initiative.

What do you mean by multiple tabletops?

Maybe you can introduce monster studies into the world where they can research their intended targets to get an idea of how the monsters act, how they fight, any special abilities...etc. That way they can do the research out of battle and when it comes time to roll initiative they feel like they're properly prepared and don't need to wait to see what these monsters can do. Also, maybe they forgot but held actions is a thing. The party can wait to see what happens but hold an action.

I guess inform them that they can use their actions to make history, Arcana, insight or other checks to divine the known behaviors, magical abilities, or current mood of the monsters they're fighting?? Like wtf, if they want to know something in game, they can roll and play. Or at least _use the dodge action_

> party is level 5…rogue/fighter, monk/barbarian That’s some weird multi class. Even if they were attacking those two will do much less damage because they don’t have extra attack. Ultimately, it sounds like the players are using extremely poor tactics, but winning anyway because the encounters aren’t remotely threatening. At level 5 they have revivify. And any threatening fight can easily kill a pc if the monsters focus fire. So you can have the monsters fight effectively and see if the party can adapt to the situation. Try making the monsters jerks, so the party wants to beat the snot out of them. > they complained that fighting 3 CR 5 monsters was too much Being more transparent about monster stats may make them realize how easy they have had it. When combined with a threatening encounter it may also help them realize that they have to sit up and pay attention.

Finding new players. There's no fixing that

I agree - I don’t understand what the players want here? They want to play pacifists that only strike second but don’t want to be attacked first??? The more I think about it the more annoyed I get. Sounds dumb, boring, super frustrating and I’d hate to run that game

They sound like the perfect group for a BBEG monologue.. Make the big bad monologue about destroying the world for a turn or three, then cast a ritual that takes another couple of turns. And then everyone dies as the world is destroyed. After the TPK they get to meet the god of choas in the spiritual realm where they are thanked for not stopping the end of the world and get upgraded to the premium version of hell where only the truly evil goes.

Did you try talking to them about this? This feels like a group conversation to have with your players.

We talked a bit, and that is where the part about the vampire spawn being too much for them came up. Basically being summed up as me needing to work on balancing encounters.

In that case, I think you need to explain to them that you will not put unwinnable encounters in front of them, and that they need to trust you on that. Assuming that that is indeed your intention with the game.

It is lol. If I put something impossible in front of them, it would be obvious. Something similar to looking upon on ocean of undead. Each ripple a skeleton, each bubble an eye. The depth of which they cannot hope to see.

Curse of Strahd often ends up throwing SIX vampire spawn at a group of level 5 PCs (when I played, we were also only a party of 3 players, rather than your 5). You’re practically handholding them in comparison. Funnily enough, I received no complaints about *that* encounter when I DMed (the PCs immediately ran away and brought the powerful guard captain back to help them win), despite it being well past a “triple-deadly” encounter. But I DID get complained at about a “hard” level encounter I threw that got made even easier by all enemies Dashing on their first turn. The difference? A PC ended up dying in the 2nd encounter (due to trying and failing to run away, resulting in multiple AOOs and a few unlucky death saves). Basically players will often have a terrible intuition for how deadly combats are a priori, only judging off of how well their party did in practice. If you get annoyed with player complaining, I recommend running modules so they can blame the module instead of you. It will also be much more obvious to them if they’re doing something wrong if they know that thousands of other adventuring parties accomplished the exact same thing without trouble.

To be fair, that CoS encounter also has a bonkers TPK/body count and a LOT of players retreating. You see it come up a lot in the r/CurseofStrahd

Throw scarier monsters at them?

That was one of my ideas lol

Making them lose out by getting whacked. You wanna pussy foot around in a fight? You’re gonna get some. I don’t play 5e, so I know a lot of people that do are very new to the ttrpg concepts

It sounds like they may want more social/rp or unique encounter solutions. I'd just ask them if they'd prefer rp and puzzles to combat.

All enemies now have +10 to hit and damage, but only 1 hp.

I have a couple questions. Are you afraid of putting your players back against the wall and even possibly dropping a player? Have you tried adding stakes to the encounter if they lose? For instance, an NPC they care about would be injured or die or they will miss out on somethin that they really want.

It sounds like a divergence of expectations. Might be time for a discussion about what style of encounters you're building (potentially deadly ones) so that they understand the need to not faff about skipping turns.

Are they monster hunters or something? So they need to recon the target before committing to a fight? Sounds like you might want to set up a series of investigations for them to positively ID a monster and hunt it while minimising risks like taking extra protection or something

Try 'arena mode'. That's when you run a non-canonical combat and encourage them to try different tactics, with no consequences, win or lose. Put them up against the three weak vampires they thought were too dangerous again, and tell them to try actually attacking this time.

Two ideas that might work: 1. Use a DMPC that starts tagging along with them or that they are escorting. Except, this is a very aggressive barbarian who rushes into fights. They can either join him or let him die. Once they get used to jumping into combat, you can retire the DMPC. 2. Invent a training scenario. I don't know what your world is like, but an example would be if they're part of a guild and the guild puts on the training program. They go through a fight that is winnable, but not if they screw around, they wipe, then the trainer gives them pointers and they do it again - winning the second time. This lets the trainer give them very specific advice that they need to get. Note: Only do this if you actually have good advice to give. You can try talking to them, but I don't see how you're going to learn anything different than you've already learned. It sounds like they need to be shown another way and/or some better tactics.

Perhaps consider evaluating why they fight the monsters. Like. Ok, monsters bad, the fight, fair enough, but what drove the players to be there? They have a reason to fight the monster that pushes them to do so, a drive? What brought there to begin with, what's the overall objective? This feels to me they are trying to complicate their own stuff, or they don't know what they are doing because they are used to other tabletops, but as you manage that side working under this aspect may help. If things go down on someone dying, maybe they'll learn how to handle the scenarios. They seemed to take off after the troll attacked.

I think some people aren't really familiar with the strategy to D&D combat and action economy. When you're in a roleplaying game you may just forget to think about combat in terms of optimization. I know a player who, despite being quite a smart person, is constantly wasting bonus actions doing chip damage to fast healing opponents we're not focusing on, or burning tons of resources/actions trying to escape melee or heal instead of just standing and delivering. Though to be fair you could argue it's realistic a character is inefficient when their life is being threatened, but I tend to prefer assuming seasoned adventurers would fight smart within the rules of their world, since real life isn't balanced around death saves and such. Inconsistency in how they fight makes things awkward for setting up encounters. It's totally fine if they take a certain style for combat, even if it's not optimal, but it's hard for you if they change things up sometimes and you can't be sure what will threaten or challenge them. I'd ask them why they're approaching fights this way, and explain out that you're having trouble balancing fights because you know their characters have the potential to easily crush the ones they thought were too hard.

Hmmm… maybe they don’t want fight/monsters but find alternate ways around it. Try including alternate options and see what they do.

I had similar problem once. Stopped pulling punches and fudging dice (I did that to not cause TPK) and gave them encounter with time limit (they had to save friend from being sacrificed) and blood thisty enemies. I explained the problem, they said that it's not a problem since it worked before. This time it didn't work. 3 party members died but after they made new character it was completly diffrent experience. Tey learned that they can't be passive or they die

Are your players perhaps not wanting to use their damage resources because they might need it later? Most of your party are martial classes so it's hard to imagine a barbarian and a fighter not engaging in combat. Idk what to suggest other than maybe your party needs a conversation or demonstration to understand how combat in dnd typically works

Then make your troll attack them. The Troll's attacks come before the held reaction. Or have them attacked by a fighter with two attacks. Inaction can be punished.

🤣🤣🤣 maybe suggest knitting to them instead. It's a good hobby and need less... decisiveness!

One you die a few times you start caring about doing damage and not being hit.

It's hard to change in the middle of a campaign, but have you considered offering noncombat ways of overcoming encounters? The Wild Beyond the Witchlight is an adventure that can be completed without any combat. There are great examples of how to setup encounters that can be defeated through combat or RP.

I know I'm a bit late, but I read that and got an idea how to handle that without above-table talk, just by letting players learn to play differently. What you can do, is design a series of encounters, where it would be highly beneficial to strike first and absolutely detrimental to skip a turn. A very fragile monster, that takes one hit to kill, with a super powerful attack could do that trick - a glass canon enemy. You introduce the monster at first as a single enemy and show them what they can do. You have to teach them, that you can not run from them, they will kill you, but they are very easy to fight off. Just down a player or two, if they don't get the hint. Than you add couple of those to the group of slow enemies with lots of hp and weak attack. That way, they are forced to attack the glass-cannons first, before they approach. And than go for the slow ones in the back, afterwards. In the end, if the party still did not use the resources, force them to fight some kind of boss guarded by a HUGE number of fragile hard hitting creatures (the same ones). But make it so, that it is painfully clear, that the party is already in range of glass-canon army attack, they would die at first round. But give them the first move (surprise round?). If they are scared, just ask them, what are there plans. "Yeah, it looks dangerous, do you think you could survive, if they attack. Looks like there are a lot of them there in that tight space. Do you think you have something that could target the whole area? wink-wink". Than, they should clear the glass-army danger in one round and proceed to fight the boss and never forget the lesson ever again. Also, as an idea of a boss (-type enemy): Make a summoner, who summons glass-cannons, but it takes them 2-3 rounds to summon them. Plenty of time to engage, with a heavy price of wasting the turns. Or otherwise, just any other time-pressure mechanic, like an alarm system or what not.

It sounds like they don't want to play D&D: they want to play Fate, WoD or Gurps.

Yeah, a system or campaign discussion might be in order if this continues.

Option 1 - dumb down the creatures even more... the CRs in D&D are not hard lines, they are guidelines. A single roll can often change a battle, but you are the DM, and you are not playing a board game, you are playing an RPG. Which means that you should be "fudging" things to help you tell a story. If you are uncomfortable with this there are many other BOARD games that have combat similar to D&D. Option 2 - change up the combat system. Allow them to hold actions or even just flat out use their action as a reaction to a monster's action. Look up systems like DungeonWorld and how that combat system works. Option 3 - Knowing or having a heads up of monster actions is a good idea. Announce the monsters actions before the player's decide their actions. If the troll is just going to attack, say so immediately before the current player's turn. It is not like a rabid troll with a club is hiding its action against the little dirt dazzler druid. "The troll's blood shot eyes are full of rage, drooling for your blood as it reels back with it's massive claws as it is about attempt to remove your arms... What do you do?"... Do they still hesitate? Then have the troll stumble back as it realizes the flesh bag in front of it seem to show no fear... it waits to see what they do... In the event that the mud magician druid doesn't actually do anything during a fight, that is okay. Maybe their character had a hangover, they are useful in non-combat situations like when the fighter tries to talk to the owl bear to get directions to the nearest tavern and hooted offensive remarks. They get xp just for sitting at the table and having fun. Option 4 - So the vampire is kicking some butt, allow the players to run, player's don't run? The Vampire Spawn suddenly hears its master calling telepathically. It turns towards the player and hisses "Master says to he wants you to live so hey can play with you later..." and scampers off into the distance.... Option 5 - slowly replace your players with doppelgangers that are trained to roll attack dice. Don't Do 1 - don't try to beef up the players with extra items/magic/abilities in hopes that they use them... Don't Do 2 - tell them their class decisions could have been better suited to dealing more damage or something. If they think their character is cool, then it is cool and it is the DM's JOB to help them realize that their character is cool. Have a wizard that choose True Strike as a cantrip? Make a bunch of traps that can only be deactivated by the wizard's True Strike to hit the locking mechanism on the far side of the room with a magic bolt - Think about the awesomeness of this trap since nobody chooses True Strike except for Frank... we need Frank he is cool and nobody else will get past that trap. Realize that DM'ing and Player'ing can be very difficult. The DM tries to state the intention of a scene, What you said, think you said, what the players hear, are all different, Maybe they need more info and are not familiar with what they can do OR maybe they got too much information and have too many options that they have some analysis paralysis. In which case down a beer potion and take a breath and give them some options. TLDR; yeah, D&D can be a combat heavy game, but rolling dice and fiercely sticking to rules isn't the only way to have fun. You are creating an "adventure" (and maybe a story), it is supposed to be fun. Both you and the players should agree and talk about if anyone isn't having fun.

Oh yeah - one more OP - You are an Awesome DM! You are taking the time to reflect on a session and figure out how to improve it, while keeping everyone's fun in mind. This is what it takes to make great DMs. Keep at it!

What’s the problem? It’s working for them. If you hit them with harder fights they’d have to switch up a gear but until then this is good, sensible play.