5e combat system too simple / boring?

[Huntsman57]

Since we're talking about a 2nd edition paladin:

1.) Raise Dead usually had no better than a 75% to 92% chance of working, which means a fair chance of leaving you permanently dead.

2.) It permanently drained 1 point of Constitution even if it worked.

It's not like 5E where every 5th level cleric can Revivify you with no permanent impact and no chance of failure.

I don't remember a chance of failure in 2E. Are you sure? I rather like it though. I do remember the CON or level drain which I'm glad disappeared in 3E. To my thinking you either want your character back whole or you'd simply prefer to roll a new one.

Revivify is just plain stupid. I rather dislike low level res spells since I feel it mucks up the realism of the fiction (nobody ever need ever die since there's got to be 100 folks in any given city that can fix that minor ailment). Would I simply tear revivify out of the game? Maybe not, but it probably wouldn't be a spell I'd let the player simply learn as part of his normal leveling selection process...some quest may need to be involved. Further, the spell should come with some noteworthy drawbacks. Perhaps a chance of failure and perma-death as you mentioned. The character should also come back with a ton of levels of exhaustion which should take a week to recover from.

 

[robus]

...and my current group saw a horse stuck full of arrows, expected it to be an ambush, took cover in and under the wagon while trying to spot said ambush, and ended up chasing off the last of the goblin ambushers in round 3 with the party having taken a collective 10 damage.

It's an encounter that is only difficult if poor choice are made or dice rolls run heavily against the PCs.

I had the first flurry of goblin arrows come hair splittingly close (I.e. A narrative attack rather than a rolled attack) and then rolled initiative from there. But then my group was 80% newbies and I didn't want to have a "gotcha" in the first bit of action. One of the PCs did get a nasty bit of damage because he didn't take cover and I rolled high on damage. But he got the idea after that

They made it through the first chapter but not without sweating a couple of times. Which seemed perfect to me.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Revivify is just plain stupid. I rather dislike low level res spells since I feel it mucks up the realism of the fiction (nobody ever need ever die since there's got to be 100 folks in any given city that can fix that minor ailment). Would I simply tear revivify out of the game? Maybe not, but it probably wouldn't be a spell I'd let the player simply learn as part of his normal leveling selection process...some quest may need to be involved. Further, the spell should come with some noteworthy drawbacks. Perhaps a chance of failure and perma-death as you mentioned. The character should also come back with a ton of levels of exhaustion which should take a week to recover from.

You say revivify is "plain stupid," and then proceed with comments that seem as though you are elaborating on why you think that, but actually seem to indicate you haven't even read the spell:

1) 100 folks in any given city being able to cast revivify doesn't mean 100 folks in any given city available within 1 minute of anyone's unnatural death, nor able to afford the expense at any given time.
2) Anyone that can "simple learn as part of the leveling process" is actually specifically a cleric or a paladin, which don't so much "learn" spells as they are "gifted" them by a higher power (even when it is their own faith, rather than a deity doing the gifting), or is a bard using their very limited magical secrets choices to learn the spell - so it's not really all that simple to grab the spell.
3) Noteworthy drawbacks include the monetary cost of 300 gp, but not just any 300 gp - it has to be in the form of diamonds - and the extremely narrow window of time in which the spell can be cast (1 minute).
4) The character coming back to life doesn't get off that easy by default either, since they return to life with 1 hit point, which is likely to mean the only difference between the character staying dead or coming back to life is whether the party is hiring a new member or just taking a long rest when they get back to safety where they are immediately heading because getting a character from 1 hp to ready to adventure tapped enough of the party's resources that resting is the best course of action.

Of course, all my opinions about character death and recovery from death revolve around my experience that players respond to harsh consequences like random failure to resurrect, ability score reductions, and level loss by abandoning the dead character in favor of a completely new character if that gets them around the penalty, and if they can't avoid the penalty by abandoning their character they either enjoy the campaign less from that point forward (and likely keep dying and suffering more penalties, since the penalties for death are typically things which make you even more likely to die than you already were), or stop participating in the campaign entirely.

 

[Chaosmancer]

So, after reading all of this I think we have two "issues" that explain why the one game with the Bard is going badly, but that has little to do with the combat system of 5e.

The first is starting at level 1. You don't get most of your interesting abilities or really much of anything until level 3, and you are very vulnerable. A team of 4 1st level character fighting 3-4 CR 1/4 gnolls would probably be slaughtered in short order if it was a fair fight. Between 3 and 5 is where I start my groups, and I still have some issue with them surviving but not nearly as much. I actually had a team of six 5th level adventurers fight a horde of gnolls (12 or so I think), a pair of shadow demons, and a Fang of Yeenoghu. After some bad rolls early on they won, but they were sweating the entire time despite most of the enemies being CR 1/4, in a bottleneck, and not having great ranged options.

The second thing, it sounds like you guys just have crappy luck. Consistently rolling low damage and the DM critting more than your entire team consistently... the dice gods are out to get you guys and there is no known cure for that except to slog through until the wind changes. This is the biggest reason you feel the need to constantly heal in my humble opinion. You guys just haven't been firing at full strength yet.


Honestly, for as long as a lot of you guys sound like you've been playing DnD, you all know the tricks and tips to make it more interesting. I can add nothing to that, but as a DM you has been very cautious and nervous about houseruling the system, I wonder a few things.

I wonder how many DM's feel comfortable adding in the optional rules from the DMG, I have a few I like to use but some of them are harder to run with new players involved.

I wonder how many DM's or players remember all of the things you can do. Dash, Disengage, Dodge, Help, breaking up Movement between attacks, Grappling, Shoving, these are all things any character or monster can do at first level. I for example, often forget about the Dodge action unless someone has it as a special ability like the Rogue or the Monk. If you are playing for the first time, it may be hard to remember things in the book that are not on your sheet.

Finally, I wonder if part of the problem is how much experience a lot of you guys already have. I play a lot of video games, and sometimes I'll love a game for the first few hours, but find the experience a bit tedious by hour 30 or 40. I'm sure some of you guys have clocked in 1,000 hours of tabletop gaming. Things that are novel and exciting to me are old hat to you guys. Times when I may be wondering about the combat tactics available, you guys may already have played out the battle and likely moves. It's harder to surprise and excite you guys, not impossible, but harder, meaning what I see as small hiccups in the game, turn into bigger issues for you guys.

 

[Rhenny]

I wonder how many DM's or players remember all of the things you can do. Dash, Disengage, Dodge, Help, breaking up Movement between attacks, Grappling, Shoving, these are all things any character or monster can do at first level. I for example, often forget about the Dodge action unless someone has it as a special ability like the Rogue or the Monk. If you are playing for the first time, it may be hard to remember things in the book that are not on your sheet.

Finally, I wonder if part of the problem is how much experience a lot of you guys already have. I play a lot of video games, and sometimes I'll love a game for the first few hours, but find the experience a bit tedious by hour 30 or 40. I'm sure some of you guys have clocked in 1,000 hours of tabletop gaming. Things that are novel and exciting to me are old hat to you guys. Times when I may be wondering about the combat tactics available, you guys may already have played out the battle and likely moves. It's harder to surprise and excite you guys, not impossible, but harder, meaning what I see as small hiccups in the game, turn into bigger issues for you guys.

Good points.

I often try to remind my players to think narratively rather than mechanically so that they don't "look" for things to do. If they think more about how their PC behaves, there are plenty of options and ways for the DM to adjudicate the outcome. If they "look" for things to do, they often forget what's possible and they usually get stuck in repetitive patterns (and it tends to slow the game down and make each turn more choppy and less organic). Dodge is a great option many times and it is often what a surrounded creature would do if faced by overwhelming odds. Move attack move is also incredibly versatile...probably one of the most important changes made for 5e in relation to prior versions. Even exposing a PC to Opportunity Attack may be worth it to gain better position or cover for the rest of the turn, and shoving to trip a foe can be great especially if there is an rogue ally nearby. Even the help action is often overlooked. In a party where weaker PCs are locked in melee, the help action can be a great choice (especially if a rogue, or Paladin with smite, can clobber the foe before it gets a chance to act).

Also, to your other point about the novelty wearing off, this is another byproduct of focusing too heavily on game mechanics rather than narrative. Game mechanics don't change. They are static. Eventually, knowledge and use of game mechanics will become rote/tedious. Narrative is always changing and has endless permutations. It is harder to burn out when the narrative is always changing and evolving.

 

[MechaPilot]

...and my current group saw a horse stuck full of arrows, expected it to be an ambush, took cover in and under the wagon while trying to spot said ambush, and ended up chasing off the last of the goblin ambushers in round 3 with the party having taken a collective 10 damage.

It's an encounter that is only difficult if poor choice are made or dice rolls run heavily against the PCs.

I wouldn't say that it was a poor choice on their part, so much as it was necessary. When the party pulled up and saw the dead horse blocking the trail with the woods on either side of the trail, they knew that they needed to move the horse to get through. They could have looked for a different way to get to Phandalin, but they were simply given directions on how to get there and had no map. They figured it was a choice between moving the horse and potentially getting lost while trying to find another trail that may not even exist.

Additionally, they did send the two most observant members of the party out to deal with the horse. One of the two, a fighter, was the best-armored member of the group. The second came in third as it relates to AC, the cleric was in second place, but he was only one point behind the cleric. The cleric and the rogue, both of whom stayed with the wagon, were ready with ranged weapons in case bandits came out of the woods and attacked them. They were about as prepared as they could have been.

 

[Huntsman57]

You say revivify is "plain stupid," and then proceed with comments that seem as though you are elaborating on why you think that, but actually seem to indicate you haven't even read the spell:

1) 100 folks in any given city being able to cast revivify doesn't mean 100 folks in any given city available within 1 minute of anyone's unnatural death, nor able to afford the expense at any given time.
2) Anyone that can "simple learn as part of the leveling process" is actually specifically a cleric or a paladin, which don't so much "learn" spells as they are "gifted" them by a higher power (even when it is their own faith, rather than a deity doing the gifting), or is a bard using their very limited magical secrets choices to learn the spell - so it's not really all that simple to grab the spell.
3) Noteworthy drawbacks include the monetary cost of 300 gp, but not just any 300 gp - it has to be in the form of diamonds - and the extremely narrow window of time in which the spell can be cast (1 minute).
4) The character coming back to life doesn't get off that easy by default either, since they return to life with 1 hit point, which is likely to mean the only difference between the character staying dead or coming back to life is whether the party is hiring a new member or just taking a long rest when they get back to safety where they are immediately heading because getting a character from 1 hp to ready to adventure tapped enough of the party's resources that resting is the best course of action.

Of course, all my opinions about character death and recovery from death revolve around my experience that players respond to harsh consequences like random failure to resurrect, ability score reductions, and level loss by abandoning the dead character in favor of a completely new character if that gets them around the penalty, and if they can't avoid the penalty by abandoning their character they either enjoy the campaign less from that point forward (and likely keep dying and suffering more penalties, since the penalties for death are typically things which make you even more likely to die than you already were), or stop participating in the campaign entirely.

The issue with revive in general...you ever read a fantasy novel set in a D&D world and been like...well why didn't they just cast raise dead on the guy? He was a king after all. He could afford it.

At the end of the day raising folks from the dead needs to be a big damn deal, and it hasn't been portrayed as such in recent editions. It should be a rare occurrence, never easy, and never without a price that goes well beyond simple money.

The 1 minute limitation is fine, but my critique goes beyond revivify. That's simply the worst offender because it removes the needful bite from dying even earlier than the other spells.

As far as I can tell you can choose to cast revivify if you're high enough level to do so. I see no restrictions about this unless they're put into place by the DM on behalf of the character's gods for some reason.

In any event, coming back to life with 1 hit point is getting off extremely easy, especially in 5E.

As far as the casting cost, that could be a thing, particularly at lower levels. I suspect most DMs don't make material component acquisition a stumbling block for their players, but even if they do not, this would be a good spell to make an exception.

 

[ZickZak]

Some of the guys in my regular 5e group are becoming a bit bored with the simplicity of 5th edition combat. Not having played through 4th (oldschool returning 2e guy) I don't really have much of a point of reference.Do any other people in here share this problem, and have you any examples of house rules or other methods you use to spice up combats which might otherwise me a bit ploddy?

I loved 4e and I can tell you that it is roughly the same. The only difference was that you could do multiple options, however... most of them were given when to use and so it werent really options but more like a WoW rotation depending on the encounter. It is true though that if you forbid MCing, a lot of martial classes will be a bit bored, because everything "cool" in 5e is a spell.

What I trully dont miss are HealingSurges - the ability to heal yourself several times to full per day during 5 min break.

 

[MechaPilot]

I loved 4e and I can tell you that it is roughly the same. The only difference was that you could do multiple options, however... most of them were given when to use and so it werent really options but more like a WoW rotation depending on the encounter. It is true though that if you forbid MCing, a lot of martial classes will be a bit bored, because everything "cool" in 5e is a spell.

What I trully dont miss are HealingSurges - the ability to heal yourself several times to full per day during 5 min break.

I think you are misstating or transferring your dislike.

5e still basically has healing surges. Every character has potential HP recovery from HDs equal to their HP total. That's roughly equivalent to having two to four healing surges. The only real differences between surges and HDs as game mechanics are that surges gave a static amount of HPs (1/4 of your total) while HDs require a roll, and that HDs cannot be spent in combat. Otherwise, both isolate part of a character's daily HP potential and are usable during a short rest.

Based your statement about surges, what you truly seemed to dislike are 1) the duration of 4e's short rests, and 2) either the number of surges available to characters per day or the amount of HP recovery allowed by each surge.

I think one thing that might have been of benefit to you would have been if 4e explicitly mentioned that healing preferences were easily modable. I know that the 4e DMG had a section that specifically talked about altering the rules, as the DMGs of most editions do (IIRC), but they could have included a few more examples other than just critical fumbles; in particular, a slower overnight healing rate would have appealed to some players/DMs.

For example, it would have been quite easy to declare that short rests must be longer than five minutes, or that each surge granted 1d8 HPs +2 HPs per level above first, or that each character gets half as many surges, or that the Con mod was applied to surge recovery instead of granting other surges. Each of those things would have made for a good potential example of a rule change.

 

[ZickZak]

Based your statement about surges, what you truly seemed to dislike are 1) the duration of 4e's short rests, and 2) either the number of surges available to characters per day or the amount of HP recovery allowed by each surge.

Yes