5e combat system too simple / boring?

[Rhenny]

Whereas, for me, it's a constant reminder that I'm not actually the author of my character--the dice are. And if I can't have authorship of my character, I won't be invested in it.* For you, strict dice-rolled characters liberate you from your preconceptions. For me, the dice constrain me to stuff I don't want to do. It will be a constant reminder of the artificiality of the character--exactly the opposite of what it is to you.

I hear ya. It amazes me how everyone has sometimes similar and sometimes different preferences. I'm glad D&D gives the choice. The variety of preferences and play styles that the game has to cater to, makes me appreciate the challenge the designers had to face when they sifted through playtest comments and surveys to make 5e.

 

[Cristian Andreu]

I love the combat system in 5e. I like it simple; I add the complexity narratively and by including twists to the rules/new mechanics in the moment depending on what the situation requires.

It fits very well with my group's playing style and continous stumbling into "Whip fight on the wing of an ornithopter that's being bombarded by pirates riding a steel-clad flying octopus while inside a volcano"-type situations.

 

[devincutler]

I find stat point buys and standard arrays also tend to churn out cookie cutter PCs. One reason even though I do use the 4d6 drop method (because my players would never allow 3d6 in order), I would never assent to a standard array or point buy...because there are too many optimal allocations for each class and you end up seeing the same dump stats over and over and over and over again.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I find stat point buys and standard arrays also tend to churn out cookie cutter PCs. One reason even though I do use the 4d6 drop method (because my players would never allow 3d6 in order), I would never assent to a standard array or point buy...because there are too many optimal allocations for each class and you end up seeing the same dump stats over and over and over and over again.

Recognizing that your players would rebel if you tried to make them do 3d6-strict: 4d6-L, rearrange to taste, also produced fairly cookie-cutter characters. I've seen a very nicely presented statistical analysis of the expected values for 4d6-L; you can view it yourself here. Long story short: the standard deviations for the first few 'highest dice' are small, and the curves have such a thin left-skewed tail that almost the entirety of the distribution lies in the 12+ range (for the estimate of the highest die, it's something like 90% lies above 14!) And being able to arrange your stats to taste means that you'll always see people put the lowest stat in the thing they need least, and their highest stat in the thing they need most--exactly as would happen in point buy or an array. In fact, the so-called "elite array" used in 3e and (without that name) in 5e (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8) is slightly below the expected output of 4d6-L/rearrange (16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 9), which is itself also slightly below the 4e standard array (16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10).

So...yeah. Allowing stats to be rearranged or modified removes most, though perhaps not all, of the "anti-cookie-cutter" effect of rolling stats. Unless someone gets an utterly fantastic roll (or cheats, which IME is strongly incentivized by asking for rolled stats), you'll still see "the same dump stats over and over and over and over again." And unless someone gets completely shat upon by the dice, you'll still see the same priorities for best stats, over and over and over and over again. And, on average, characters will trend toward the mean--so while no individual character has to look like the expected value of 4d6-L, they'll cluster around those values pretty well over the course of a long gaming career. In a game where stats matter a lot, and where it's very easy for hurt feelings (or guilt) to arise from a noticeable gap between the worst-off character and the best-off one, I just don't see the benefits even remotely outweighing the costs.

Now, technically, you didn't actually say you allow them to rearrange, but I've never heard of 4d6-L that didn't include it so I figured it was a safe assumption--please correct me if I'm wrong on that.

 

[devincutler]

Recognizing that your players would rebel if you tried to make them do 3d6-strict: 4d6-L, rearrange to taste, also produced fairly cookie-cutter characters. I've seen a very nicely presented statistical analysis of the expected values for 4d6-L; you can view it yourself here. Long story short: the standard deviations for the first few 'highest dice' are small, and the curves have such a thin left-skewed tail that almost the entirety of the distribution lies in the 12+ range (for the estimate of the highest die, it's something like 90% lies above 14!) And being able to arrange your stats to taste means that you'll always see people put the lowest stat in the thing they need least, and their highest stat in the thing they need most--exactly as would happen in point buy or an array. In fact, the so-called "elite array" used in 3e and (without that name) in 5e (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8) is slightly below the expected output of 4d6-L/rearrange (16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 9), which is itself also slightly below the 4e standard array (16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10).

So...yeah. Allowing stats to be rearranged or modified removes most, though perhaps not all, of the "anti-cookie-cutter" effect of rolling stats. Unless someone gets an utterly fantastic roll (or cheats, which IME is strongly incentivized by asking for rolled stats), you'll still see "the same dump stats over and over and over and over again." And unless someone gets completely shat upon by the dice, you'll still see the same priorities for best stats, over and over and over and over again. And, on average, characters will trend toward the mean--so while no individual character has to look like the expected value of 4d6-L, they'll cluster around those values pretty well over the course of a long gaming career. In a game where stats matter a lot, and where it's very easy for hurt feelings (or guilt) to arise from a noticeable gap between the worst-off character and the best-off one, I just don't see the benefits even remotely outweighing the costs.

Now, technically, you didn't actually say you allow them to rearrange, but I've never heard of 4d6-L that didn't include it so I figured it was a safe assumption--please correct me if I'm wrong on that.

I do let them arrange. And yeah, I already admitted it was a compromise position. But the difference is that with rolling you at least have the chance for 2 low stats (or 2 high stats) or more. At least it has a chance (and not as miniscule as you seem to imply) to throw some monkey wrenches into precise character design.

As far as "cheats" by rolling stats. That's easy. Have them roll in front of the DM. Problem solved.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In fact, the so-called "elite array" used in 3e and (without that name) in 5e (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8) is slightly below the expected output of 4d6-L/rearrange (16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 9)

One thing I've found with running a lot of low-level 5e is that the edge 4d6-L gives the luckier PC or few in the party over standard array/pre-gens more than makes up for any PCs who are unlucky enough to roll worse than the array - and that 1st level is a little less frustrating/deadly with such PCs in the party (and a really unlucky PC runs a fair chance of dying and being replaced by one with better rolled stats).

 

[Aeradom]

I've only played 5e once, but from that once and speaking from someone who has been out of the loop, I much prefer this system to 3.5. I love how you don't really have to worry about all those bonuses and negatives and instead it's simplified to the "advantage or disadvantage" system. And I feel like you can still be just as creative and complex with how you go about playing your character or solving a problem, but you don't have to worry about all the numbers now.

 

[Jessica]

5e combat is a lot better and more interesting if you stick to playing a caster.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

5e combat is a lot better and more interesting if you stick to playing a caster.

A true and lamentable assessment.

 

[Rhenny]

A true and lamentable assessment.

It is only true for a certain type of player.

Interestingly, I've always loved playing wizards and rogues because in past editions they were the ones with all of the choices and "cool" tricks.

Since 5e has been out, I've played a clerics, wizards and even a battle master fighter and a barbarian.

I thought I would hate playing the battle master and especially hate playing the barbarian. The funny thing was that I really enjoyed both of them. For the barbarian in particular, the lack of choices/options (rage and reckless attack - although the basic combat choices like shove, dodge, grapple, etc actually gave me more choices than I thought I'd have originally) made it very easy for me to think more about the story and the character personality than just making rule choices. I liked it. In addition, I carried a maul along with a battleaxe and shield, so depending on the situation, I could become more offensive or more defensive as desired.

Choices are not only what attack or what spell to cast. Many people derive satisfaction from making choices that align with their character's personality, flaws, bonds and ideals. These aspects of 5e have really breathed some life into PCs. Sure, good players did it in other versions of the game because they created backgrounds and backstories and focused on roleplaying, but 5e has brought these choices into the arena for more people to enjoy.

I've been pretty happy playing all of the PCs I've been playing so far: War Cleric, Tempest Cleric, Light Cleric, Basic Wizard (Evocation), Battle master fighter and Barbarian. Granted, I've only played from levels 1-6, so I don't know what it feels like in the middle to upper levels, but so far, games are only as boring as the DM and the players make it.