Savage DM or just the way it goes?

[Naicz]

Hello GITP!
So I have been playing D&D for most of my life, and about 3 years ago we had a new player join our group. He was also an experienced D&D player and also a very skilled DM. Playing with him has been great and our group has learned a lot from him.

Unfortunately I quickly noticed that he STRICTLY adheres to the RAW and his policy is "if there is a question on any meaning in the book, I always rule AGAINST the players, that way it is always fair." He doesn't allow for any "rule of cool" or even gentle re-fluffing of abilities or spells.
I understand that people have different ways that they like to play the game and have accepted his DMing style for the most part. However recently things have come to a head and some of the decisions he is making during play are beginning to make me wonder if he is simply being over-bearing, or if I need to just toughen up and play the game. Your thoughts?

Level 3 characters, no variant rules allowed at all (ie: no feats/flanking/etc).
The situation:
The party is heading up a river towards a bandit stronghold. My character (Dragonborn Paladin, Oath of Ancients) had subdued a veteran bandit in a previous fight and has him assisting the party until he repays his debt to society. When we arrive at the docks, the bandits attack and the captured bandit (Jones) decides to turn against us and fight. During combat I grapple him and drag him off the boat into the water and try to drown him by knocking him prone under water and using my actions to choke/beat him until he drowns. As all of this is happening, the bandits in the stronghold have all focused their crossbows on the 2 casters in the party. Our TWF ranger is attacking Jones while I hold him under water. Eventually we manage to eek out a victory against their superior numbers. That is, until a second wave of crossbowmen appear on the ramparts and we dive into the river to escape.

My complaints/questions:
1.) Enemies COMPLETELY ignore my character in combat. I think I may have been attacked twice this entire campaign. He claims that the enemies wouldn't target an armored dragon and would rather try to kill off the "squishier" targets first. It doesn't matter that I am smiting people left and right and am blessing the party. He says the enemies don't see me as much of a threat. Note that he targets any character other than me right away and all of the enemies focus fire on single targets until they drop. Are all fighters doomed to chasing after enemies trying to kill them as fast as possible before their casters/healers die? I am immortal in the worst kind of way...

2.) The TWF ranger is attacking Jones as I drown him. Rather than have Jones (a human mercenary) try to escape my grasp, he is having him make "full attacks" with 2 daggers against the ranger. When I drag him away from the ranger, he even has him readying an attack against the ranger rather than attempt the break free or try to attack me. If someone is drowning you wouldn't you try to break free rather than continue to fight optimally?

3.) While I was attempting to drown Jones he said the rules stated it takes 1+CON minutes to drown. I asked him if the fact that I was actively trying to make him drown faster (via punches to the stomach/the ranger attacking him/him actively being in combat) would cause him to drown quicker, he said "Not really. If you want you can make an athletics check but it will just cause him to drown 1 round faster". Is there some ruling that talks about "actively" drowning someone in combat?

4.) Any enemy that we drop low and tell to surrender/run will savagely fight to the death with no regard to their mortality. I understand they are enemies but these are just human bandits. Shouldn't they have some meager sense of self-preservation?

Am I unjustified in complaining that he is being overly aggressive? I realize early levels in 5E are basically a player-blender, I've played through many TPKs trying to get to level 5. This isn't an isolated incident though, and this just happened to irk me to the point that I would post about it. It feels like all of the enemies we fight are these battle-hardened tactical geniuses with no regard for their own lives. They all attack with perfect organization and prioritize their enemies without fault. I understand that there is no "taunt" mechanic in D&D but at some point you would think an enemy would try to stop the iron-clad axe-wielding juggernaut chopping their allies to pieces...

How do you as a DM "play" the enemies? Do they attack/organize themselves optimally? Do you allow things like intelligence and monster type to play a part in their tactics? Where do you draw the line between focusing targets and spreading attacks around like a real battle? Do you think enemies SHOULD target the "tank" or can they dismiss him knowing they won't "hit" him?

Thank you for your thoughts and feedback and I apologize in advance if this comes off as a players butt-hurt whiny rant against a DM that is beating them down.

[MaxWilson]

Sounds like your DM is metagaming against the party. He's got the wrong idea w/rt what D&D is about: he thinks it's his job to "challenge the players". My take on it is different: my job is to "roleplay the monsters."

Your DM's approach is fine for a group that's interested primarily in having mindless fights against tough opposition, such as those that certain posters on these forums advocate. But it's not one I would run at my table.

If you want to find a better DM, or become one yourself, feel free. Not all games are like your current DM's game.

For more info, read posts #1, #5, and #9 of this thread (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?317715-Very-Long-Combat-as-Sport-vs-Combat-as-War-a-Key-Difference-in-D-amp-D-Play-Styles).

[Easy_Lee]

I play enemies by trying to gauge motive. A gelatinous cube attacks what's in front of it, acting as a very rudimentary bacteria. If the players leave, or pelt it with ranged attacks, it doesn't pursue, beacuase it doesn't care, because it can't care. Humans, on the other hand, are likely to attack easy targets first, but only if there isn't a pointy object in their face. As we all know, people react quite strongly to pointy objects.

Your DM sounds like a d*. He's also a hypocrite, as there are no athletics checks for drowning someone faster. If anything, struggling not to inhale ought to be a CON check on the bandit's part, but that's a houserule.

[Stan]

Sounds like your DM is metagaming against the party.

Yea.
Also, if archers are in melee range of a PC, they have disadvantage vs the casters. The PCs up front are also likely to provide half cover to the casters. These are both raw.

How do the bandits know who is the biggest threat until stuff has happened like spells being cast against them? It would think a dragonborn in their face would appear the most threatening.

In addition to what Easy_Lee said, I have smart enemies use very smart tactics only if they are a highly organized team and/or have a leader. How to the archers know who they are supposed to all fire on? I'd consider most bandits to be of only average int so would use basic tactics and stick to pre-made plan for the first couple of rounds, even if it doesn't entirely apply.

[JNAProductions]

Focus firing is a reasonable, basic tactic. That being said, sometimes they should focus fire on you.

In addition, the "always rule against the player" is NOT fair. It's consistent, sure, but also needlessly antagonistic.

[BrianDavion]

agreed a DM's job isn't to "challange the players" a DM's job is to roleplay the NPCs to craft a story for the players. fact of the matter is D&D game mechanics exist mostly to allow you to fairly figure out who hits who etc in fights. Honestly the amount of fixation on mechanics etc I see on this forum baffles me, RP isn't about rules lawyering, your GMs also made some idiotic moves. sure it may take someone a long time to drown but if your head is being held underwater you don't go "ohh I can hold my breath for x long I'll just keep attacking" you thrash and try to get out. that's how we WORK. even if there is no threat of drowning we react on an instinctive level (hence how water boarding works)

the rules as written are mere suggestions, a DM is outright enchouraged to break and modify them as nesscary.

[Ruslan]

Sounds like your DM is having a case of burnout and is taking it out on the Player Characters. A break will do him good.

[Kane0]

Also sounds like more of a 3e or 4e mentality than 5e.
Guy needs to loosen up and not worry about dropping you guys as much. That aint entertainment.

[Biggstick]

The DM is very much so encouraging a combat as war game rather then a combat as sport. Did you take proper precautions to ensure Jones couldn't turn against you? Having a bad guy lead you to his hideout doesn't sound very smart without binding/gagging him first. Even if he's attempting to pay back his debt to society, safety measures should have been taken to prevent him turning on you.

As for the archers focus firing a squishy, that sounds completely reasonable in any combat as war game. Maybe you should attempt something similar. Focus targets down together. I see it all the time in games where players put damage on multiple targets rather then focusing down one at a time.

Considering the situation, I'm not sure why you would have been attempting to drown him rather then stab/beat him with whatever weapon you had rather then drown him. The idea is to kill him quickly, as you and your party have alerted the bandit camp of your arrival and they're being pelted with arrows. Drowning someone is going to take at the very least a few turns, it'd be much more logical to kill them with your weapon.

All that aside, the DM is playing pretty harshly. If the entire group feels the same way you do, open up a dialogue with the DM. Ask him about combat as war and combat as sport, see what he says. Maybe both sides (the DM and the players) need a small adjustment on what type of game is being played so both sides can enjoy the game.

[MaxWilson]

The DM is very much so encouraging a combat as war game rather then a combat as sport. Did you take proper precautions to ensure Jones couldn't turn against you? Having a bad guy lead you to his hideout doesn't sound very smart without binding/gagging him first. Even if he's attempting to pay back his debt to society, safety measures should have been taken to prevent him turning on you.

As for the archers focus firing a squishy, that sounds completely reasonable in any combat as war game.

Perhaps. But it's primarily a Combat As Sport thing. In Combat As Sport, it's reasonable to metagame the monsters to make them a "tougher challenge" for the players, because a fight is what the players are there for--like a game of chess.

In Combat As War, on the other hand, it should be possible to trick the enemy into focus firing a heavily-armored tank as long as the tank uses Disguise Self or similar to look like a squishy wizard. If that trick works on your DM's bad guys, you'll know he's roleplaying them "properly." But if they ignore the illusion and keep treating you like the heavily-armored tank you've been all along, you'll know that he's definitely metagaming based on his own knowledge, and not based on what the monsters know.

To be a good DM, you have to be psychologically prepared to "lose" over and over and over again with good grace, while still making the players think you're doing your best to kill them. If you can't do that, you can't be a good DM. If your DM has gotten burned out on that, it may be time for him to sit back and play for a while instead of DMing.

[smcmike]

It sounds like you have legitimate complaints. However, and take this as constructive criticism . . .

Your actions in the combat you describe don't make much sense.

1. Drowning someone just seems too slow in the middle of a big fight.

2. Targeting the squishes makes total sense for ranged characters if all you are doing is slowly drowning someone. You've taken yourself out of the combat (from their perspective). Why wouldn't they target someone else?

3. The ranger should have focused on someone else, if you had the one guy under control.

4. The drownee was reasonable in full-attacking someone, and picking the person who is trying to stab him makes sense - he's the most immediate threat. Readying an action makes less sense.

In general, though, it's very irritating when every opponent acts like it's purely a strategy game and they are just pieces. On the other hand, fighting to the death does make sense in a fair number of scenarios.

[Drackolus]

It does sound like he's DMing a war campaign and everyone else is playing an adventure campaign. While I could say that, since I prefer allowing the players to metagame (convinced by an Angry DM article), it would make sense to allow the enemies to as well... But it does sounds like a case of being burned by a balance issue and jumping to an extreme to prevent it.

[Pex]

Hello GITP!
So I have been playing D&D for most of my life, and about 3 years ago we had a new player join our group. He was also an experienced D&D player and also a very skilled DM. Playing with him has been great and our group has learned a lot from him.

Unfortunately I quickly noticed that he STRICTLY adheres to the RAW and his policy is "if there is a question on any meaning in the book, I always rule AGAINST the players, that way it is always fair."

I need not read any further. I would never play with such a DM. He is what I facetiously call a DM who hates his players. That is not being "fair" at all. A ruling cares about what's fun and what's balanced. The DM is not supposed to be the players' adversary.

[Slipperychicken]

1) Focus-firing is just tactics that arise from hp. I think it's sketchy from an RP standpoint, but if the players are doing it too, it's fair game for the GM. If players are not focus-firing, then I think the GM should not be doing it either.

2) Maybe. Is he really going to be able to slip away from the giant armored dragon though? As a player, that's what I'd be doing in the same situation

3) Nothing in the rules to make people drown faster. That's just how the cookie crumbles. Drowning people isn't such a great idea during a fight like that.

4) I feel you on this one. The DMG does have morale rules, but I never see DMs who actually use rules to determine when or if enemies flee from combat.

Veteran bandit: I'm putting that one on you. Did you really expect this guy to just start killing his buddies because you beat him up? If it was me, I'd just restrain him, and hand him over to someone who has a jail to hold him in.

Justified in complaining: It sounds like he's playing more of a brutal tactical wargame, which isn't what you're used to. And I think that he may be metagaming to an extent. It seems like he's killing you guys more than he should be, so it's probably not fair. I think you should voice your concerns to the other players before bringing it up with the DM.

[Knaight]

This looks mostly fine, except for the policy of ruling against the players. Sometimes that produces stupid rulings, like active combat not shortening how long you can stay underwater - and to some extent, the suicidal fight to the death tendencies in all enemies is also pulled from this.

[Easy_Lee]

Right. Rulings should be consistent. By the "rule against the players" rule, if someone had tried to drown your character, you would have had to make saves.

The better rule is: Would the players think this was fair if it happened to them?

[Carlobrand]

...

1.) Enemies COMPLETELY ignore my character in combat. I think I may have been attacked twice this entire campaign. He claims that the enemies wouldn't target an armored dragon and would rather try to kill off the "squishier" targets first. It doesn't matter that I am smiting people left and right and am blessing the party. He says the enemies don't see me as much of a threat. ...

A sensible strategy. You are in fact the lesser threat: squishies casting spells are notoriously dangerous, whereas one can run away from melee smiters. And too, killing squishies first reduces the overall damage output of your team more quickly. The real question is whether bandits have the discipline to maintain that strategy while your hulk is busily smashing them, and that's kind of up to the DM.


...
2.) The TWF ranger is attacking Jones as I drown him. Rather than have Jones (a human mercenary) try to escape my grasp, he is having him make "full attacks" with 2 daggers against the ranger. When I drag him away from the ranger, he even has him readying an attack against the ranger rather than attempt the break free or try to attack me. If someone is drowning you wouldn't you try to break free rather than continue to fight optimally?
...

Wait, you are grappling in water, the opponent is prone and using daggers, and he is using two attacks against a third party?

Okay, let's begin with: one of the advantages of 5E is that it is simplified. It leaves to the DM decisions that in other editions were written into rules. However, this does put the onus on the DM to paint the picture in something approaching a realistic fashion.

I consider in this case that the DM is taking advantage of that simplification to impose results that would otherwise not be possible. You and your opponent are grappled. It's pretty tricky for your TWF to hit him without hitting you - let's use the cover rule for that and give the opponent a cover DM. It's just as tricky for your opponent to hit past you at your TWF - I'd use the same cover DM, except that it's even more difficult because your opponent is using daggers and cannot move, being grappled, while your TWF is presumably using a weapon with some reach to it. He could in short poke from out of reach of the grappled party's daggers.


...
3.) While I was attempting to drown Jones he said the rules stated it takes 1+CON minutes to drown. I asked him if the fact that I was actively trying to make him drown faster (via punches to the stomach/the ranger attacking him/him actively being in combat) would cause him to drown quicker, he said "Not really. If you want you can make an athletics check but it will just cause him to drown 1 round faster". Is there some ruling that talks about "actively" drowning someone in combat?...

PHB P. 183: "A creature can hold its breath for a number of minutes equal to 1 + its Constitution modifier (minimum of 30 seconds). When a creature runs out of breath, it can survive for a number of rounds equal to its Constitution modifier (minimum 1 round). At the start of its next turn, it drops to 0 hit points and is dying." Note the word "modifier". He can hold his breath for 1 minute typically, 5 minutes if he has an 18 Con, then survive another round to five. Or, 11 to 55 combat rounds. I'd not have given you credit for trying to drown him faster - you're punching through water, and Jones is doing everything he can to hold onto his precious breathing air - but I'd have penalized Jones by halving his hold-breath time for exerting himself so fiercely while holding his breath (thereby using oxygen faster). On the other hand, I'd have given Jones a chance to draw a quick breath by taking an action and successfully resisting your grapple. That's generally how these attempted drowning things work. Drowning is a rather slow way to kill a resisting person.

Do remember what the DM did, though. What works for Jones should also work for you, should you find yourself in that position, or else your DM is frankly cheating.


...
4.) Any enemy that we drop low and tell to surrender/run will savagely fight to the death with no regard to their mortality. I understand they are enemies but these are just human bandits. Shouldn't they have some meager sense of self-preservation? ...

This is old-school fight-till-they-die D&D. Not at all realistic, but a lotta DMs indulge in it, so it's hard to say he's being out of line in doing the same. It's why one of the older systems tried a morale rule.

[bardo]

The better rule is: Would the players think this was fair if it happened to them?

Best. Rule. Ever.

Would a player focus-fire the squishies whenever possible? Absolutely.
Would a player being drowned stay calm and act according to how many rounds of air they have left? Absolutely.
Would a player being drowned yell "that's not in the rules!" when the DM says they lost rounds of air because an NPC punched them in the stomach? Absolutely.
Would a player fight to the death? Depends on play-style I guess. OP mentioned being in a few TPKs so at least a tentative yes on this one as well. Bandits of the hardened criminal variety have many valid RP reasons to fight to the death.

None of these examples even hint at the DM being unfair.

Bardo.

[krugaan]

Best. Rule. Ever.

Would a player focus-fire the squishies whenever possible? Absolutely.
Would a player being drowned stay calm and act according to how many rounds of air they have left? Absolutely.
Would a player being drowned yell "that's not in the rules!" when the DM says they lost rounds of air because an NPC punched them in the stomach? Absolutely.
Would a player fight to the death? Depends on play-style I guess. OP mentioned being in a few TPKs so at least a tentative yes on this one as well. Bandits of the hardened criminal variety have many valid RP reasons to fight to the death.

None of these examples even hint at the DM being unfair.

Bardo.

I disagree with the bolded. I can't think of very many things a bandit values over his own life. If a paladin said "leave and I'll let you live", I would leave. I mean, provided I wasn't able to beat him up and take his loot.

[Easy_Lee]

Best. Rule. Ever.

Would a player focus-fire the squishies whenever possible? Absolutely.
Would a player being drowned stay calm and act according to how many rounds of air they have left? Absolutely.
Would a player being drowned yell "that's not in the rules!" when the DM says they lost rounds of air because an NPC punched them in the stomach? Absolutely.
Would a player fight to the death? Depends on play-style I guess. OP mentioned being in a few TPKs so at least a tentative yes on this one as well. Bandits of the hardened criminal variety have many valid RP reasons to fight to the death.

None of these examples even hint at the DM being unfair.

Bardo.

Sounds like you've played with a few munchkins. I guess that's the best part about the rule: it depends on the players. I, personally, would expect to make saves if being forcibly drowned.

[R.Shackleford]

Also sounds like more of a 3e or 4e mentality than 5e.
Guy needs to loosen up and not worry about dropping you guys as much. That aint entertainment.

DM versus Players has never been a WotC mentality. One may make a case for 2e and before, so I hear, but in 3e and 4e this is not the case.

This DM just needs to calm down and stop purposely trying to make the game not fun for players (dat rule...).

[Thrudd]

This sounds like the DM is playing the game like a tactical war game, using every unit in the most effective way he can think of, rather than a role playing game. I don't consider it reasonable, realistic, or fair for enemies to always know who should be attacked first, be perfectly coordinated, and always ignore the threatening warrior at the front of the fight? And always fighting to the death is definitely not realistic. Combat as War doesn't mean every enemy is a tactical mastermind that never surrenders and acts with perfect coordination. It means combat is treated more realistically, where morale should play a big role. Yes, it may be more lethal, but it also should often end in one side retreating or surrendering after it is clear they are losing.

There may be in-world reasons that certain groups will fight to the death rather than escape or surrender, but it certainly shouldn't be universal. Are these bandits actually members of some sort of war god death cult, and live only to die in battle? Highly disciplined and proud soldiers of a warrior society that values prowess over all? That would make sense. Otherwise, bandits and your average soldiers and humanoids and most animals would have a stronger self-preservation instinct, if given a chance to escape a lost battle they would do so.

The whole drowning thing is weird, too. I can't imagine someone being held under water trying to do anything other than escape to the surface. At best, he'd be trying to stab the person holding him, thrashing about. The way the DM treated the situation, again, is like a war game, using units to the best of his abilities without regard for role playing or verisimilitude, exploiting rules to his advantage wherever possible.

Unless your "tank" has some ridiculously obvious and impervious armor, I don't see how the enemies would know they can't hurt him. The truth is, they can hit him, 5e's bounded accuracy makes sure of that, they just have a bit lower chance of hitting him than the others. Choosing targets based on that, again, is tactical wargame/meta-game playing; actual people would not do that. It would be reasonable for them to be cautious engaging a clearly powerful opponent, but I'd think they'd focus ranged fire on you, if anyone, since you are the closest and most threatening. They might put a couple people to double team you with long weapons, try to hold you at bay, while the rest go for the less tough looking people, with the intent of surrounding you and finishing you off once your allies are down. But there is no way they could just ignore you, only unrealistic combat mechanics make that even possible.

[Longcat]

Your DM is harsh, but consistent and fair. If all of the players aren't enjoying that style (CAW), have a talk with him.

[bardo]

I disagree with the bolded. I can't think of very many things a bandit values over his own life. If a paladin said "leave and I'll let you live", I would leave. I mean, provided I wasn't able to beat him up and take his loot.

Belief in a bandit-after-life, some sort of indoctrination.

A ruthless bandit boss who takes revenge on those who abandon their posts (and on their friends and their family and their pets if they happen to have any).

Or just not believing the paladin's offer is sincere. So you're saying I just tried to kill you, and you just killed all my buddies, but I can just walk away whenever? I don't know what sort of sick game you're playing, but I'm not falling for it.

The bandit knows what he does to his prisoners, and has no reason to think the paladin would be any kinder. So from his point of view, to surrender means a certain gruesome death. If the bandit has some sort of leverage, something the bandit has, something the bandit knows, something the party needs, then surrender becomes the better option. And of course the bandit will draw it out for as long as possible, because he knows what happens to prisoners who are no longer useful.

Bardo.

[R.Shackleford]

Belief in a bandit-after-life, some sort of indoctrination.

In D&D it isn't just a belief but a fact. Worship the deity of thieves? Get rewarded in some way. Worship another deity and stay within their doctrine (say CN)? Get rewarded.

Fear of death wouldn't be high up there, though the fear of pain might be.

[Knaight]

Your DM is harsh, but consistent and fair. If all of the players aren't enjoying that style (CAW), have a talk with him.

Pretty much none of this can be called straightforward combat as war* play. Going through the list in the OP.
1) Nobody ever targets the character. Part of combat as war is the understanding of what information different entities have, deception, etc. Instead, the opposition consistently behaves as if they have more information than they do, as in a perfect information skirmish game.
2) A large part of war is tactics that take advantage of what makes people panic. Being forcibly drowned is one of those things, and some sort of attempt to take out a peripheral target is debatable at best.
3) This ruling looks more like adherence to rules for rules sake more than anything, which I'd consider a combat as sport* trait, where you need to know the rules. Combat as war should encourage doing smart things not in the rules, and take that into account. Drowning faster on account of heavy exertion is one of those things.
4) The first goal of most of these groups should probably be survival. The bandit group isn't going to get themselves killed so that some unrelated group later is better able to fight the PCs.

More than anything though, the policy of always ruling against the players for rulings is just adversarial for the sake of being adversarial. The rest of this could easily be some sort of deliberate thematic ruthlessness that emphasizes the idea of the PCs versus the world, rather than the PCs within a generally hostile world. That last bit crosses the line into outright adversarial GMing.

*Both of these concepts are dubious models at best, that get pulled in for explanations way too often, but I'll go with them here.

[Mechaviking]

A game without rule of cool or feats so nobody will play a fighter EVER. Sometimes I wish feats weren´t optional or that fighters, rangers, barbarians & paladins had the ability to get the -5/+10 built into them cause without feats some classes are pretty worthless IMO.

The DM taking a break for a bit sounds like a good idea. If he won´t take a break maybe you should or if you want to finish the campaign ask him how many sessions are left(roughly) and make your mind up based on that.

[Longcat]

A game without rule of cool or feats so nobody will play a fighter EVER. Sometimes I wish feats weren't optional or that fighters, rangers, barbarians & paladins had the ability to get the -5/+10 built into them cause without feats some classes are pretty worthless IMO.


There is a good reason that content is optional. Those -5/+10 feats are no-brainer options, especially if you can acquire them via Variant Human, which for many classes is the most optimal race according to the Handbooks.

Races/Classes and monsters are designed with a certain baseline of balance, and introducing those elements really strains the system to the point of breaking.

[Addaran]

Pretty much none of this can be called straightforward combat as war* play. Going through the list in the OP.
1) Nobody ever targets the character. Part of combat as war is the understanding of what information different entities have, deception, etc. Instead, the opposition consistently behaves as if they have more information than they do, as in a perfect information skirmish game.
2) A large part of war is tactics that take advantage of what makes people panic. Being forcibly drowned is one of those things, and some sort of attempt to take out a peripheral target is debatable at best.
3) This ruling looks more like adherence to rules for rules sake more than anything, which I'd consider a combat as sport* trait, where you need to know the rules. Combat as war should encourage doing smart things not in the rules, and take that into account. Drowning faster on account of heavy exertion is one of those things.
4) The first goal of most of these groups should probably be survival. The bandit group isn't going to get themselves killed so that some unrelated group later is better able to fight the PCs.

More than anything though, the policy of always ruling against the players for rulings is just adversarial for the sake of being adversarial. The rest of this could easily be some sort of deliberate thematic ruthlessness that emphasizes the idea of the PCs versus the world, rather than the PCs within a generally hostile world. That last bit crosses the line into outright adversarial GMing.

*Both of these concepts are dubious models at best, that get pulled in for explanations way too often, but I'll go with them here.

That's what i was going to say. Always using the best solution, no matter what kind of enemy and what the enemie should know, that sounds more like a game of chess or Combat as Sport. Mostly though, seems the DM just doesn't care about RP and just view D&D as a combat board game. Some people enjoy that kind of game (no RP Combat as Sport) but it just doesn't make sense to go the Combat as War way if you're in a no RP game and just treat every enemie like mathematic stat blocks.

[JackPhoenix]

I disagree about the GM running CaW campaign. The GM is doing everything to prevent CaW mentality. He block his player's attempts to think outside box. Excessive rules-lawyering serves CaS, not CaW. While focus firing make sense in some circumstances, "forced aggro against casters" doesn't unless they proved they are the biggest threat (which, apparently, in many fights they haven't, compared to the paladin). And saying all rulings will be against the players (in an edition based on GM rulings) is just a bad GMing. It sound's like the GM is trying to play a videogame with "cheat prevention", not TTRPG.

[Longcat]

The DMs strict insistence on RAW and ruling against players might be because he is tired of "creative interpretations" in attempts to game the system. That does not exclude a Combat-as-War gaming style, it merely means that you need to operate within the game rules.

For the targeting example, player characters tend to focus fire heavily on the highest perceived threat. A Paladin who is on the sidelines in a grapple with another character is not exactly a priority threat for the other enemies. In that example, the bandits focusing on the other characters is fair game.

Personally, I like Easy_Lee's "Would the players think this was fair if it happened to them?" approach. Most players would cry foul if the enemies would start to employ the same degree of planning, strategy and tactics as themselves. By the same token, most players who say they want CAW really want more or less fair fights that they can solve through creativity and perfidy.

[dev6500]

I am going to call BS on focus firing the casters being because they are the most dangerous. This is a level 3 party and except for the combat where he tried to ineffectually drown an enemy, the paladin should be one of the most dangerous players in the group. Lvl 3 casters only have 2 2nd level spell slots and 4 1st level spell slots and thus they should be using cantrips most rounds which should be much weaker than any of the martial characters.

[Longcat]

I am going to call BS on focus firing the casters being because they are the most dangerous. This is a level 3 party and except for the combat where he tried to ineffectually drown an enemy, the paladin should be one of the most dangerous players in the group. Lvl 3 casters only have 2 2nd level spell slots and 4 1st level spell slots and thus they should be using cantrips most rounds which should be much weaker than any of the martial characters.

Ever seen what a level 3 caster can do with Shatter, Suggestion or Hold Person? They are definitely more dangerous than a martial character with a single attack each round.

[RickAllison]

In D&D it isn't just a belief but a fact. Worship the deity of thieves? Get rewarded in some way. Worship another deity and stay within their doctrine (say CN)? Get rewarded.

Fear of death wouldn't be high up there, though the fear of pain might be.

Not to mention the fear of capture. Punishment for bandits in medieval-style societies are often awful, and many became bandits because they were already wanted for other crimes. Dying in battle might be far superior to what waited for them in a courtroom.

[JackPhoenix]

Not to mention the fear of capture. Punishment for bandits in medieval-style societies are often awful, and many became bandits because they were already wanted for other crimes. Dying in battle might be far superior to what waited for them in a courtroom.

Sure, but there's a third option better then surrendering or dying in battle: running away. Unlike law enforcers, adventuring parties usualy lack the motivation or means to catch fleeing enemies, especially if they are more numerous than they are.

[R.Shackleford]

Not to mention the fear of capture. Punishment for bandits in medieval-style societies are often awful, and many became bandits because they were already wanted for other crimes. Dying in battle might be far superior to what waited for them in a courtroom.

Courtroom?

I highly doubt they will be judged by a jury of their peers.


Sure, but there's a third option better then surrendering or dying in battle: running away. Unlike law enforcers, adventuring parties usualy lack the motivation or means to catch fleeing enemies, especially if they are more numerous than they are.

Running away works, though if they think the adventurers are specifically after them they would either assume pursuit or that they will need to go faaaar away.

[MrStabby]

What are the intelligence scores of the players? What is the lowest intelligence score of a player who focuses attacks, doesn't automatically attack the person with the pointy thing in front of them or goes after unarmoured targets? That is the role play threshold for the degree of intelligence needed to make that kind of call.

If your intelligence 8 character at the table does this then any 8+ character can reasonably behave in the same way. You could argue that some of this comes from knowledge of combat so your commoners might not do this but NPCs like bandits or wizards that have had a reason to learn offensive spells should.

As the party you set the RP threshold for what is reasonable at each level of intelligence. If the DM isn't reflecting the group's expectation for NPC behaviour then discuss it. If the PCs are not reflecting the behaviour expected of a character with their Int score then that is an issue with the players.

The DM does seem a little adversarial, although not on the worst end of the scale. Ruling against players is actually a pretty safe way to start especially for someone new to the edition. It lacks favouritism, provides consistency and everyone is more open to changing rules later. No one has an incentive to go and try and find new and creative ways to interpret the rules that might break the game.

[R.Shackleford]

The DM does seem a little adversarial, although not on the worst end of the scale. Ruling against players is actually a pretty safe way to start especially for someone new to the edition. It lacks favouritism, provides consistency and everyone is more open to changing rules later. No one has an incentive to go and try and find new and creative ways to interpret the rules that might break the game.

No, this DM seems VERY adversarial, to the point of specifically wanting to be.

Always ruling against the party is not the safe way of doing things and it is an easy way to get people to hate the game very fast.

[Vogonjeltz]

Pretty much none of this can be called straightforward combat as war* play. Going through the list in the OP.
1) Nobody ever targets the character. Part of combat as war is the understanding of what information different entities have, deception, etc. Instead, the opposition consistently behaves as if they have more information than they do, as in a perfect information skirmish game.
2) A large part of war is tactics that take advantage of what makes people panic. Being forcibly drowned is one of those things, and some sort of attempt to take out a peripheral target is debatable at best.
3) This ruling looks more like adherence to rules for rules sake more than anything, which I'd consider a combat as sport* trait, where you need to know the rules. Combat as war should encourage doing smart things not in the rules, and take that into account. Drowning faster on account of heavy exertion is one of those things.
4) The first goal of most of these groups should probably be survival. The bandit group isn't going to get themselves killed so that some unrelated group later is better able to fight the PCs.
More than anything though, the policy of always ruling against the players for rulings is just adversarial for the sake of being adversarial. The rest of this could easily be some sort of deliberate thematic ruthlessness that emphasizes the idea of the PCs versus the world, rather than the PCs within a generally hostile world. That last bit crosses the line into outright adversarial GMing.
*Both of these concepts are dubious models at best, that get pulled in for explanations way too often, but I'll go with them here.
I think I must disagree with your assessment of the situation.
These are professional bandits, yes? Meaning, they waylay travelers fairly often.
In the regular world, it would make sense to target the escorts, guards, anyone who could pose an immediate threat to the attackers.
In the world of D&D men and women dressed only in finery are potentially just as lethal as those in armor, all because Magic is a thing. So everyone in a party or caravan is potentially a life threatening force. That makes it prudent to shoot at those with the fewest obvious defenses (i.e. the worst armor) first.
So, although if this took place in the context of the real world, attackers would target the Paladin and Ranger first, within the context of the D&D world it actually makes more sense to target the unarmored victims first.
I'd also note the Paladin and Ranger were focused on drowning their captive, so they didn't present any kind of immediate threat to the bandits. By that understanding, the casters of the party (who presumably had little to no armor) were the obvious threat. They weren't engaged with anything else, and being being lightly armored would be assumed to pose the highest potential risk if ignored.
The Paladin doesn't make any sense as a primary target when he's back by the boat drowning someone and everyone else is in front slinging spells or whatever.


How do you as a DM "play" the enemies? Do they attack/organize themselves optimally? Do you allow things like intelligence and monster type to play a part in their tactics? Where do you draw the line between focusing targets and spreading attacks around like a real battle? Do you think enemies SHOULD target the "tank" or can they dismiss him knowing they won't "hit" him?
I play it fairly off the cuff.

Who do the opponents in a fight have proximity to? Do they have a good reason not to engage that person, or to engage someone else first?

I would also tend towards using the morale rules in some situations, but not others. i.e. Who is being fought? Do they have loyalty to their fallen? Is it unreasonable for them to run away? Do they think they're winning? Maybe they've lost track of what's going on in the fray, and are just too focused on the person they're fighting. Lot's of reasons for NPCs to act one way or another, and it's all very context driven.

[Naicz]

Thank you everyone for the feedback!

Reading through the replies I really appreciate the support for my complaints, from a players viewpoint. Everyone likes to know that if they feel wronged, others have sympathy for them.

That being said, I find myself agreeing with posts like Bardo's that boil down to: Whatever you do, you have to allow the enemy to do.

We as a party do normally focus attacks on injured targets (obviously the most efficient way for combat to resolve). I justify it as the fact that we are a group of "relatively" trained adventurers that have fought many battles together, we have learned how to coordinate our attacks. I suppose I cannot fault an enemy force for using the same tactics, though I do agree with the post mentioning that their combat discipline seems unnatural. It does seem sketchy to ready actions while being drowned to attack other targets as well; if my character was being held under water, my first instinct would be to break free, but that is beside the point.

The DM is definitely in the mathematical-tactics game of D&D. He has actually scolded us in the past for extensively RPing conversations and "wasting time" that we could be using to accomplish the main quest. We are all allowed to have fun in our own way and I will keep in mind that he obviously prefers the combat/tactical aspect of the game, and to allow him to play his "characters" the same as I play mine. I will initiate a friendly discussion with the group and maybe we can get a little more support for the fantasy/RP aspects that we enjoy.

Thanks again for all of your thoughts and feedback.

P.S.
I know my choice to drown Jones was suboptimal. It was a combination of an RP/meta decision. He turned on us after days on the river together where we allowed him to captain the ship and healed/buffed him in combat, so my paladin was fairly butt-hurt and wanted to personally make sure he paid the price for betrayal. Jones is a giant ball of HP that can parry attacks, so rather than trying to spend many rounds attacking him down while he shredded the casters, my character could simply drag him away from the fight and drown him (which obviously wound up taking much longer than I assumed before I started). The bandits that started combat close by were dropping quickly and the rest of the bandits were shooting crossbows from the walls of the keep so my character didn't have many other targets so I figured I would help as best I could.

[dev6500]

Ever seen what a level 3 caster can do with Shatter, Suggestion or Hold Person? They are definitely more dangerous than a martial character with a single attack each round.

Twice per day a level 3 caster can use shatter and even at level 3 I haven't found it that impressive. 10 ft radius 3d8 blast does ~ 13.5 damage on a failed save ... so twice per day you are able to do at most 1 rounds worth of martial dpr to 3 or 4 targets tops and if you aren't a evocation school wizard, then placing the shatter is going to be restricted as well to avoid friendly fire. A 3rd level paladin who has bless up and GWM has a relatively good chance of doing 2d6 + 14 twice per round.

Suggestion is pretty sweet (although it won't work on orcs and goblins that you can't communicate successfully with) since it can give you a mook who defends your party for 8 hours.

Hold person is pretty weak since they get a save every round and I have experienced 2 basic scenarios with hold person. Either the enemy was too weak and easily failed the save and it turns out the party didn't pick the best target or we picked the bbeg of the low level encounter and they save first round or 2nd round. I have rarely seen a hold person make it past the 2nd round on important targets. 1 round paralysis at low levels seems like something damage could have easily replaced since most enemies at low levels do not have high hp.

So to circle back, all 3 of those options are only slightly better than a low level martial characters attack round but those 3 options can only be used 2 times in 1 day. A paladin like above can do that almost every round all day. A level 3 hunter horde breaker ranger can loose 3 arrows every round that give them d6 +d6 hunters mark + 4 damage (averaging 22 damage on 1 target and 11 damage on another).

As compared to a caster as a target, who may not even unleash a level 2 spell in that encounter, why focus fire a lvl 3 spell caster when they are likely to be dealing d8 or d10 damage per round and occasionally do an extra d8 or doing some minor crowd control.

[R.Shackleford]

Twice per day a level 3 caster can use shatter and even at level 3 I haven't found it that impressive. 10 ft radius 3d8 blast does ~ 13.5 damage on a failed save ... so twice per day you are able to do at most 1 rounds worth of martial dpr to 3 or 4 targets tops and if you aren't a evocation school wizard, then placing the shatter is going to be restricted as well to avoid friendly fire. A 3rd level paladin who has bless up and GWM has a relatively good chance of doing 2d6 + 14 twice per round.

Suggestion is pretty sweet (although it won't work on orcs and goblins that you can't communicate successfully with) since it can give you a mook who defends your party for 8 hours.

Hold person is pretty weak since they get a save every round and I have experienced 2 basic scenarios with hold person. Either the enemy was too weak and easily failed the save and it turns out the party didn't pick the best target or we picked the bbeg of the low level encounter and they save first round or 2nd round. I have rarely seen a hold person make it past the 2nd round on important targets. 1 round paralysis at low levels seems like something damage could have easily replaced since most enemies at low levels do not have high hp.

So to circle back, all 3 of those options are only slightly better than a low level martial characters attack round but those 3 options can only be used 2 times in 1 day. A paladin like above can do that almost every round all day. A level 3 hunter horde breaker ranger can loose 3 arrows every round that give them d6 +d6 hunters mark + 4 damage (averaging 22 damage on 1 target and 11 damage on another).

As compared to a caster as a target, who may not even unleash a level 2 spell in that encounter, why focus fire a lvl 3 spell caster when they are likely to be dealing d8 or d10 damage per round and occasionally do an extra d8 or doing some minor crowd control.

Do note that the game is balanced around the idea of spell slots and cantrips so saying "x/day" isn't a real good defense on why casters are not overpowered.


Edit

Once you hit level 3, 4, or 5 your spell slots are more than enough to deal with what the game expects to throw at you.

[mephnick]

Ever seen what a level 3 caster can do with Shatter, Suggestion or Hold Person? They are definitely more dangerous than a martial character with a single attack each round.

Sure, but why do the enemies automatically know he's a wizard? Is he wearing a Merlin hat that has a "I'M A WIZARD HARRY" sign blinking on top of it? He's probably just a dude in regular clothes and a travelling cloak.

It makes sense to focus fire down a strong caster once you know what you're dealing with, but that realisation probably shouldn't be made until half your friends are fireball ash. Auto-focusing on casters is the DM meta-gaming against his players.

[MrStabby]

Sure, but why do the enemies automatically know he's a wizard? Is he wearing a Merlin hat that has a "I'M A WIZARD HARRY" sign blinking on top of it? He's probably just a dude in regular clothes and a travelling cloak.

It makes sense to focus fire down a strong caster once you know what you're dealing with, but that realisation probably shouldn't be made until half your friends are fireball ash. Auto-focusing on casters is the DM meta-gaming against his players.

They may not know if they are a caster, but it makes sense to neutralise as many enemies as possible as quickly as possible so target those not wearing heavy armour.

If, on top of that they have an arcane focus or holy symbol in hand then that just seals the deal.

[Temperjoke]

The DM is definitely in the mathematical-tactics game of D&D. He has actually scolded us in the past for extensively RPing conversations and "wasting time" that we could be using to accomplish the main quest. We are all allowed to have fun in our own way and I will keep in mind that he obviously prefers the combat/tactical aspect of the game, and to allow him to play his "characters" the same as I play mine. I will initiate a friendly discussion with the group and maybe we can get a little more support for the fantasy/RP aspects that we enjoy.



Yeah, I have to agree that the DM and group are looking for different things from the game, it also seems that the DM views it as him versus your group, as opposed to telling a story together. It's not bad, but it is different.

[krugaan]

Not to mention the fear of capture. Punishment for bandits in medieval-style societies are often awful, and many became bandits because they were already wanted for other crimes. Dying in battle might be far superior to what waited for them in a courtroom.

Yes, but the difference being here that the paladin is saying "go on, get out of here" but the bandit is staying anyway.

As for the whole religious thing, that is indeed a thing (Wall of the Faithless and all that) ... but how many bandits are truly worshippers of whatever lore diety is charge of banditry? It's entirely possible that bandits could worship any number of gods, or none at all. How often to PCs act according to religion?

edit: ...particularly when the PC in question is not a divine caster of some sort. And sometimes even when they ARE.

[Easy_Lee]

Yeah, I have to agree that the DM and group are looking for different things from the game, it also seems that the DM views it as him versus your group, as opposed to telling a story together. It's not bad, but it is different.

It's part of what I believe is a recent trend. Many DMs play D&D like a MUD, with strict application of the game mechanics (except when they feel like it), and a game vs players mentality. This is unique to video games, which can be much more brutal given player ability to reset and try again.

However, given that d&d has consistently gotten less brutal and more player-fiendly over time, I don't believe this mentality is still appropriate. Cooperative story telling is the ideal. The DM should present problems for the party to solve, rather than just throwing monsters at them until they die. In particular, I don't think DMs should kill or punish players for not doing what the DM expects. Setup the encounter or problem, and allow the players to take their own actions. That way, when someone dies, it feels like it's the player's fault, nor the DM's.

[Armored Walrus]

You've already gotten a lot of good answers in this thread to all your points, but I wanted to share a perspective on the last bit - that of enemies always fighting to the death. Some DMs just don't want to have to deal with roleplaying your captives. Taking one of your enemies alive means the DM is going to have to figure out who that character is, what they are likely to know if you question them, under what circumstances might they try to escape or betray you, etc. In short, if the DM hasn't given it thought before the session, and isn't that great in thinking on his feet, a captive might be a complication that he just prefers not to deal with.

Of course, taking a captive also gives the DM lots of opportunities to expand and enrich the story he's telling, so for some DM's it's an answered prayer, instead of having players who simply kill every enemy outright and never make an effort to engage with his carefully crafted and thought-out villain NPCs.

Edit:
The DM is definitely in the mathematical-tactics game of D&D. He has actually scolded us in the past for extensively RPing conversations and "wasting time" that we could be using to accomplish the main quest. I overlooked this. Knowing this, I definitely can see why all of your enemies fight to the death. He likely views captives as a needless distraction.

[Fruitbat1919]

I would only have a team focus fire under command. If they are not under strong command, I would have them attack the nearest threat to themselves, as most would.

I may make different focus fire rules for certain races that may feel more threat from or hatred towards certain races / classes (not thinking of them as a class, but the perceived difference between how they dress and weapon or spell use).

I agree with what many others have said about the DM meta gaming, it really would be better for him to explain his own actions only in real life terms and not rules written.

I always DM under the golden rule of - if it makes sense and is heroic, then I overrule the rules, until players try to use a ruling for an unfair advantage. I find players take less advantage or try to abuse rulings less, when I describe actions as they happen. I avoid talking in game terminology at all costs.

In the example of the guy being drowned, I would describe what he is going through from his perspective as he is drowning. No need to tell the players how long he would last, just that he is still struggling, until he struggles no more!

[Fruitbat1919]

O and to add, surrender, escape etc is usual in my games. Any intelligent creature rarely fights until it's last, unless it has no choice. I sometimes even make some creatures more dangerous when backed into a corner, as they are literally fighting for their lives.

I've played with too many DMs that have not allowed my PC to run away.

[Carlobrand]

...The DM is definitely in the mathematical-tactics game of D&D. He has actually scolded us in the past for extensively RPing conversations and "wasting time" that we could be using to accomplish the main quest. ...

Oh, dear. Your DM is a tactical wargamer. It's not that he's doing anything wrong, necessarily. It's that he sees the combat as a chess match rather than as an unfolding story. Your options really boil down to having a discussion with him about changing his style - and I don't give you good odds for success - or settling into the same mode yourself.

That means you're going to have to start viewing your team as a tactical unit and thinking of ways to counter his strategies. One idea might be to hire shield-bearers to accompany the squishies. A shield bearer would provide half cover (+2 AC bonus, see PHB p. 196) to the squishie behind him, and since his job is to be meat-shield, he keeps his own butt alive by dodging, so attacks against him are at a disadvantage. At 3rd level, there's not really a lotta difference between you guys and zero-level NPC hirelings; they should be able to survive the kinds of challenges you're facing with these tactics, at least long enough to buy you time to kill the attacker. Your DM's running RAW, so there should be no problem with this.

Of course, best would be to persuade him to see the game as a fantasy story and his job as the storyteller. The point of the game is for everyone to have fun. If you're not having fun because the monsters are behaving like video game arcade characters, then he needs to understand that there's a problem and that he could lose his players by being too wedded to his style of play.


Sure, but why do the enemies automatically know he's a wizard? Is he wearing a Merlin hat that has a "I'M A WIZARD HARRY" sign blinking on top of it? He's probably just a dude in regular clothes and a travelling cloak. ...

Me: "You see a group ahead of you, two heavily armored warriors with shields flanked by two archers with bows drawn and aimed at you, and behind them a dude in regular clothes and a travelling cloak."

Players: "KILL THE MAGE!!" :smallbiggrin:

[RickAllison]

You've already gotten a lot of good answers in this thread to all your points, but I wanted to share a perspective on the last bit - that of enemies always fighting to the death. Some DMs just don't want to have to deal with roleplaying your captives. Taking one of your enemies alive means the DM is going to have to figure out who that character is, what they are likely to know if you question them, under what circumstances might they try to escape or betray you, etc. In short, if the DM hasn't given it thought before the session, and isn't that great in thinking on his feet, a captive might be a complication that he just prefers not to deal with.

Of course, taking a captive also gives the DM lots of opportunities to expand and enrich the story he's telling, so for some DM's it's an answered prayer, instead of having players who simply kill every enemy outright and never make an effort to engage with his carefully crafted and thought-out villain NPCs.

Edit: I overlooked this. Knowing this, I definitely can see why all of your enemies fight to the death. He likely views captives as a needless distraction.

Recently, the campaign I am in fought some lycanthropes and we took one captive. Between the fact that I think he tossed the encounter in just to do something besides narrating is playing FarmVille and the fact that we had traditionally been stab-first, question-never, he didn't expect me to drag him along with us to a city to get his lycanthropy cured. Non-murderhoboing is hard for the DM!

[kaoskonfety]

The DM's approach is not mine, but I get where they are coming from. This is a Combat Game stance where he is trying to win using the rules (I assume encounter difficulty has been correct and I assume and you are getting your 2-3 short rests per long with about 8 encounters 'per day' overall?). It can work and I have used it in closed dungeon challenge set ups, but this seems a bit much. It may not be a "me vs you" mentality but enough arguments about playing it fast and loose with the rules might lead to this sort of "all RAW all the time, I don't care" stance.

Your options are

To play to it: Build some flavour of Good AC, Good HP, damage machine. Get some mobility for 'keeping up" and murder/grapple suckers who get too close to your ranged players. Might I suggest some Eagle Totem Barbarian or Frenzy Barbarian and perhaps a dash or 3 of Rogue, go with the Con unarmored defense and wear a wizard robe. Or go the other way and make a new all dwarven party, stick everyone in some medium armor and ask the DM how the enemies know which one is the wizard (bonus points if the answer is : everyone is a wizard, more bonus points if the lone unarmored elven "obviously a wizard" is a defense focused barbarian illusioned up to look like the wizard). If he's never attacking you due to your AC, Hit Points and Half damage, even 2 levels of Barbarian for reckless attack might change his mind - or hey, free reckless attack bonuses.

Address it out of game: either in calm discussion or *while holding your DM's head underwater gut punching them* (I'd highlight the rules are for "holding your breath" and not for "sudden immersion in water during a melee" - an athletics check to shave off 'a couple rounds' from several minutes my ass). "If sitting on them while drowning them isn't enough to get them to attack me what the hell is?" being the central question - as a DM I'd be asking the same question of any player making the choice to throw daggers at the big bad while the pet giant holds their head under water and squeezes.

*....*this parts a joke, do not do this.

Fighting to the death all the time, forever, no matter the cost, is a more ingrained issue as many DM's feel you have not been "challenged" and until every last HP has been ground out you haven't "Earned" the EXP's. As a general solution I suggest awarding Experience points for all the fights the party deliberately and skillfully avoided or overcame by other means - perhaps half or a quarter EXP in a combat focused game, but something. It is a kinda of low grade constant reminder that interesting combat is part of the game, not the goal of the game (unless its totally the goal of the game, then power to you). - I also like and agree with the various points on DM avoiding dealing with prisoners (aka MAOR NPC's, RP time, random name generation and book keeping) this way.

[JakOfAllTirades]

It's part of what I believe is a recent trend. Many DMs play D&D like a MUD, with strict application of the game mechanics (except when they feel like it), and a game vs players mentality. This is unique to video games, which can be much more brutal given player ability to reset and try again.

However, given that d&d has consistently gotten less brutal and more player-fiendly over time, I don't believe this mentality is still appropriate. Cooperative story telling is the ideal. The DM should present problems for the party to solve, rather than just throwing monsters at them until they die. In particular, I don't think DMs should kill or punish players for not doing what the DM expects. Setup the encounter or problem, and allow the players to take their own actions. That way, when someone dies, it feels like it's the player's fault, nor the DM's.

This is hardly a "recent trend." Adversarial DM styles have been an issue since D&D's very beginning. D&D has always been no more player friendly than the DM makes it to be. My advice to the OP: if you're not having any fun in this DM's game, it's best to look to for another one. Don't make a big deal about leaving, but if he asks why, explain it to him.

[Ruslan]

Upon further reflection, I am completely floored that the OP managed to last for three years of this.

[JakOfAllTirades]

Upon further reflection, I am completely floored that the OP managed to last for three years of this.

In some locales it's hard to find another group to join. But yeah, I'd be gone after about three game sessions.

[ChainsawFlwrcld]

It sounds like you have legitimate complaints. However, and take this as constructive criticism . . .

Your actions in the combat you describe don't make much sense.

1. Drowning someone just seems too slow in the middle of a big fight.

2. Targeting the squishes makes total sense for ranged characters if all you are doing is slowly drowning someone. You've taken yourself out of the combat (from their perspective). Why wouldn't they target someone else?

3. The ranger should have focused on someone else, if you had the one guy under control.

4. The drownee was reasonable in full-attacking someone, and picking the person who is trying to stab him makes sense - he's the most immediate threat. Readying an action makes less sense.

In general, though, it's very irritating when every opponent acts like it's purely a strategy game and they are just pieces. On the other hand, fighting to the death does make sense in a fair number of scenarios.

1. I would think that someone actively trying to drown you would be treated as grappling. It would be a good move on a hard to hit high AC target.

2. I do that so why shouldn't the monsters.

3. If the person being drowned was in fact grappled the Ranger may have advantage on melee attacks.

4. Since the the person being drowned should be considered grappled he should need to break the grapple to attack anyone.

[JackPhoenix]

1. I would think that someone actively trying to drown you would be treated as grappling. It would be a good move on a hard to hit high AC target.

2. I do that so why shouldn't the monsters.

3. If the person being drowned was in fact grappled the Ranger may have advantage on melee attacks.

4. Since the the person being drowned should be considered grappled he should need to break the grapple to attack anyone.

That's not how grapple works. Grappled target has ist speed set to 0. That's it, no advantage or disadvantage for anyone involved, and he can attack however he likes. However, trying to drown him would likely involve shoving him prone. THAT would give advantage to anyone attacking him in melee, disadvantage to anyone attacking from more than 5' and disadvantage on the prone enemy's own attacks.

[Essar]

This guy sees the game as him vs the players. A lot of DMs fall into that caveat.

I usually just try to tell a good story.

[Gubbster]

If a bandit saw his buddy get messed up by a dragon in plate armour, he would either rush the guy with his buddies or do a runner. I don't think it is fair on the players the way the guy is dming.

[Sir cryosin]

To the op it sounds like your DM is burned out and turned to a player mentality. My suggestion would to offer to DM for a while. Let him injoy the game the way everyone want to as a player. This will help both of you as you get time DMing and he get to see your style and maybe gets inspired and maybe a little bit more lax on his style.