5e combat system too simple / boring?

[Azurewraith]

Well, my 5e game has folded, at least for the foreseeable future. What had sounded like a temporary hiatus has been clarified (or changed--as I've said, I don't quite "get" how the guy who was DMing thinks) to an indefinite stop. It's a bittersweet thing. On the one hand, I was getting more and more frustrated with the system. On the other, I was trying some character things I'd never done before, and was actually somewhat interested in the story and where it was headed.

So now, as I said in the "5e resolutions" thread, I guess I'm on the lookout for the right conjunction of a good-or-better DM, the appropriate starting level, and more "equitable" distribution of good/bad rolls between the opposition and the PCs. (Though again I'd like to stress that all rolls were made in the open using Roll20, so there was no chance for 'cheating' or 'bad dice' or whatever else--just unusually DM-favoring, party-harming results in a few too many combats.)



Well, if I'm being honest, I consider 4e the gold standard on that subject. I didn't really get to see which edition 5e is more like, though, because 75% or more of my spells went to healing (and literally all but one of the "monster saves" spells I cast--the remaining 25%--the monster ALWAYS made the saves). Not counting cantrips, of course.

4e nailed balance but then it was designed to be I guess

 

[MechaPilot]

4e nailed balance but then it was designed to be I guess

5e tried to get pretty darn close as well. How well they did is certainly up for debate. However, in both instances I recall references to balance indicating that they were attempting to stretch the "sweet spot" of earlier editions across the entire range of levels in the newer editions. Whatever one thinks of the results and the methods used to achieve those results, I think the effort was a laudable one.

 

[Azurewraith]

5e tried to get pretty darn close as well. How well they did is certainly up for debate. However, in both instances I recall references to balance indicating that they were attempting to stretch the "sweet spot" of earlier editions across the entire range of levels in the newer editions. Whatever one thinks of the results and the methods used to achieve those results, I think the effort was a laudable one.

Its not bad its not 4e(every ability was a clone) other than maybe gwm and ss feats bm hunters and wild sorc oh and 4element monk its not 2bad

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Its not bad its not 4e(every ability was a clone) other than maybe gwm and ss feats bm hunters and wild sorc oh and 4element monk its not 2bad

...was the bolded bit really necessary? Couldn't we have avoided saying that another edition was "bad" and made up solely of "clone[d]" abilities?

Though I do agree that, as much as people talk up the balance of 5e, there are a pretty decent number of places where the warts aren't hard to find. They definitely clamped down on some of the bigger, more obvious flaws of 3e, but I feel that people give 5e an unfairly large amount of slack for this stuff. In part because "You're the DM! You fix it!" is the universal 5e reply to requests for advice or help. (It's not the only reply, but you won't see a thread that doesn't get it at least once--and often multiple times, even on the first page.)

5e tried to get pretty darn close as well. How well they did is certainly up for debate. However, in both instances I recall references to balance indicating that they were attempting to stretch the "sweet spot" of earlier editions across the entire range of levels in the newer editions. Whatever one thinks of the results and the methods used to achieve those results, I think the effort was a laudable one.

I know I've seen those statements made by 4e's designers, but I haven't (as far as I remember) seen them about 5e. In fact, I had thought they were specifically NOT going for that. That's why there's 3-5 "apprentice" levels, and then the top 5 levels or so are expected to be a whole other kind of play. (Hence why most modules stop at 15, IIRC.) 4e wanted the general experience to be uniform, and simply more...punctuated as you got into higher tiers (e.g. "Once per day, when you die..." ED features). 5e's tiers seem to be more about changing the "kind" of experience you have, not the "degree" of it.

Edit: Or, as the satirical tongue-in-cheek part of my brain just thought, "Tiers: another thing that 4e and 5e do in completely different ways."

 

[Tony Vargas]

5e tried to get pretty darn close as well. How well they did is certainly up for debate.

I think whether 'balance' was a meaningful objective is pretty well up for debate, too. Sure, if they were aiming for any sort of robust balance, they missed. If they were aiming for balance only among specific mixes of classes on 6-8 encounter days, maybe they hit it. But, if they were just aiming for loose guidelines that DMs could adapt to however they wanted to run their game, while delivering classes and game play that really evoked past editions (that weren't well-balanced at all), and leaving enforced balance to the DM if that's something he wanted to prioritize, then they came 'pretty darn close,' indeed.

5e has been called just a starting place for the game, and balance is a more emergent quality than that, there's little point to designing balance into something when the expectation is that it will be changed, anyway. There's still inevitably things that affect balance, of course, and thus, changes that need to be made advisedly.

However, in both instances I recall references to balance indicating that they were attempting to stretch the "sweet spot" of earlier editions across the entire range of levels in the newer editions. Whatever one thinks of the results and the methods used to achieve those results, I think the effort was a laudable one.

The 4e treadmill and 5e bounded accuracy both stretch the 'sweet spot' as far as they go, which is, primarily, in making combats play out similarly at all levels, while retaining some sense of advancement. The treadmill provided advancement mainly in terms of bonuses to d20 rolls, BA restricted those while providing advancement mainly in terms of damage/hps. Even then, though, there are differences as you level. In 4e, characters become a little more complex at 11th level, when they gain new features, and at several points after 20th. In 5e, spell progression is still dramatic enough to change game play as you level and PCs are very fragile at very low level, but the exp chart is tuned to speed play through those less-sweet very low and higher levels, so that's something, anyway.

Obviously, 4e was 'better balanced' and 'expanded the sweet spot' more than 5e did. The former, though, I'd argue, wasn't even a meaningful goal of 5e, and the latter was necessarily compromised to retain more of the feel of the classic game (which includes having a distinct mid-level sweet-spot), said feel being a very important goal of 5e. The result is thus entirely successful, if we make the right assumptions about what they were trying to do.

...was the bolded bit really necessary? Couldn't we have avoided saying that another edition was "bad" and made up solely of "clone[d]" abilities?

The lies of the edition war were repeated more than enough to become truth to those who wanted to believe them.

I feel that people give 5e an unfairly large amount of slack for this stuff. In part because "You're the DM! You fix it!" is the universal 5e reply to requests for advice or help. (It's not the only reply, but you won't see a thread that doesn't get it at least once--and often multiple times, even on the first page.)

5e's trying to be all D&Ds to all D&Ders. Empowering the DM to not only change/add-to the game but to make rulings to keep his campaign on the rails and w/in his prefered style/theme/tone/etc lets it get just about as close to that unobtainable goal as might be possible. That means that balance is virtually a non-issue from a design standpoint, and one of many things that the DM is going to be supplying, himself.

 

[Azurewraith]

...was the bolded bit really necessary? Couldn't we have avoided saying that another edition was "bad" and made up solely of "clone[d]" abilities

Oh I'm not being negative about it the only way to ensure true balance is copy pasta across the board I think 4e is my fave edition but depends on the day you ask me.

 

[Celtavian]

Oh I'm not being negative about it the only way to ensure true balance is copy pasta across the board I think 4e is my fave edition but depends on the day you ask me.

I don't like balance. Not good for telling stories which is the primary reason I play these games. I've read few stories where balance between the capabilities of the characters was in any way important. I much prefer a focus on appropriate capabilities for a given fantasy role. I think 5E is much closer to this than 3E or 4E. A fighter should be better at fighting than anything a wizard can summon, but his abilities should never work like a wizard's spells. Strong and appropriate differentiation should always be the primary guiding principle in design in true role-playing games where characters are playing roles based on fictional types of characters, not balance.

 

[Azurewraith]

I don't like balance. Not good for telling stories which is the primary reason I play these games. I've read few stories where balance between the capabilities of the characters was in any way important. I much prefer a focus on appropriate capabilities for a given fantasy role. I think 5E is much closer to this than 3E or 4E. A fighter should be better at fighting than anything a wizard can summon, but his abilities should never work like a wizard's spells. Strong and appropriate differentiation should always be the primary guiding principle in design in true role-playing games where characters are playing roles based on fictional types of characters, not balance.

As much as I enjoy a good story I'm a balance nut I think its from my 1
0year WoW addiction. The main reason I like 4e is the tactical depth.

 

[Zardnaar]

I think whether 'balance' was a meaningful objective is pretty well up for debate, too. Sure, if they were aiming for any sort of robust balance, they missed. If they were aiming for balance only among specific mixes of classes on 6-8 encounter days, maybe they hit it. But, if they were just aiming for loose guidelines that DMs could adapt to however they wanted to run their game, while delivering classes and game play that really evoked past editions (that weren't well-balanced at all), and leaving enforced balance to the DM if that's something he wanted to prioritize, then they came 'pretty darn close,' indeed.

5e has been called just a starting place for the game, and balance is a more emergent quality than that, there's little point to designing balance into something when the expectation is that it will be changed, anyway. There's still inevitably things that affect balance, of course, and thus, changes that need to be made advisedly.

The 4e treadmill and 5e bounded accuracy both stretch the 'sweet spot' as far as they go, which is, primarily, in making combats play out similarly at all levels, while retaining some sense of advancement. The treadmill provided advancement mainly in terms of bonuses to d20 rolls, BA restricted those while providing advancement mainly in terms of damage/hps. Even then, though, there are differences as you level. In 4e, characters become a little more complex at 11th level, when they gain new features, and at several points after 20th. In 5e, spell progression is still dramatic enough to change game play as you level and PCs are very fragile at very low level, but the exp chart is tuned to speed play through those less-sweet very low and higher levels, so that's something, anyway.

Obviously, 4e was 'better balanced' and 'expanded the sweet spot' more than 5e did. The former, though, I'd argue, wasn't even a meaningful goal of 5e, and the latter was necessarily compromised to retain more of the feel of the classic game (which includes having a distinct mid-level sweet-spot), said feel being a very important goal of 5e. The result is thus entirely successful, if we make the right assumptions about what they were trying to do.

The lies of the edition war were repeated more than enough to become truth to those who wanted to believe them.

5e's trying to be all D&Ds to all D&Ders. Empowering the DM to not only change/add-to the game but to make rulings to keep his campaign on the rails and w/in his prefered style/theme/tone/etc lets it get just about as close to that unobtainable goal as might be possible. That means that balance is virtually a non-issue from a design standpoint, and one of many things that the DM is going to be supplying, himself.

They could have phrased it a bit better but 4E was kind of clone like in its powers. Every single one across every class was usually 1W+ some effect or a d6 (d8, d10) etc + some effect. Its like trying to read the 3.5 spell compendium but in a PHB. It about as much fun as reading an instruction book.

I learnt the game with BECMI and yeah reading the rule books was half the fun. To this day I can't name a single 4E power above level 8 that does anything but I generally know what Meteor Swarm does (maybe not the exact amount of dice rolled). I would be hard pressed to think of more than a handful of 4E power from the PHBs at lower levels as well off the top of my head.

Villains menace for example IIRC its +2 to hit daily power vs a big bad and some other effect for some amount of time. To me they based 4E off a hybrid of the old 3.5 D&D minis game+ Book of 9 Swords. I even liked the minis game but it was a supplement to 3.5 rather than a replacement for it.

 

[Celtavian]

As much as I enjoy a good story I'm a balance nut I think its from my 1
0year WoW addiction. The main reason I like 4e is the tactical depth.

Video games are different from role-playing games. Video games require balance, role-playing games do not require the same level of balance. And WoW is a bad example to base a role-playing game on. All the stupid names in WoW. Role-playing in WoW was non-existent. I hate the idea of D&D being built like a video game. Video games don't mirror fantasy fiction at all. They are repetitive, limited, and based on the imagination of others, not the imagination of the players. D&D is a game that requires imaginative, engaged players to really shine. Ones that appreciate playing a role and living an imaginary life in a fantastic world. If that level of engagement isn't there, it just becomes a game of numbers. I know some don't mind such games, but I find them painfully boring. Then again I'm not a huge fan of video games. I know the younger generation is and will push D&D in that direction as they replace the older gamer base. Writing is on the wall for that to happen if D&D wants to continue to court the younger generation and their digital addiction.