5e combat system too simple / boring?

[Consona]

Yep, you can say that instead of saying, "I move up to the nearest monster and attack ::roll d20:: did I hit? ::roll d8:: 12 damage," but, in the end, you still did 12 damage.

No, in the end, my friend described an action that I will remember for the rest of my life and that's the important difference.

Attacks are all one predefined effect, too (that does damage on a hit, more damage on a crit, and nothing on a miss).

But I hope the difference between "using ability XY: range Z, usable when A, B times a day, doing C damage" and "one action - imagine what you are doing and describe it to me" is more than obvious. And it makes vast difference experience-wise.

Maybe I shouldn't be bursting this particular bubble, since it's a nice bubble to be in, but D&D - RPGs in general - have rarely been simple or minimalist in any meaningful sense. 5e has done such a great job of feeling like classic D&D that it's very familiar to us, and familiar can feel simple/natural/right in a way that even a much simpler or more intuitive - but entirely unfamiliar - thing simply cannot (until you've become familiar enough with it, anyway).

I don't consider my statements to be some universal truth or something. It's just the way I play the game. I'm used to DnD and so to me 5e is actually fairly free-form-ish when compared to 3.5e of 4e. And I like that. I play this game in very particular way. When I GM, I try to let my players somewhat forget about the rules, my players don't even know their HP, etc. I want them immersed, I want them speak, not counting numbers. But I still want to play DnD and 5e is the best compromise. It's about ability checks and one action + move, in comparison to other editions. Attack is an ability check, Saving throws are an ability checks, an action economy is really simplified, to me and other guys used to DnD, it's a really easy system to use.

 

[Tony Vargas]

No, in the end, my friend described an action that I will remember for the rest of my life and that's the important difference. But I hope the difference between "using ability XY: range Z, usable when A, B times a day, doing C damage" and "one action - imagine what you are doing and describe it to me" is more than obvious. And it makes vast difference experience-wise.

If you don't happen to imagine anything cool, it makes a vast difference. If you happen to imagine something cool, it doesn't. That description could be used for an attack whether that attack was one of many clearly-defined granular options, an improvised action, or a lone abstract option requiring extensive DM adjudication.

Another thing to consider is that descriptions can get tired. I mean, your friend could run around bouncing off vertical surface and jumping on monsters every round of every combat that has a vertical surface and monster available. It wouldn't be memorable anymore, it'd get old. Everyone else in the party could do the same thing. It wouldn't be memorable anymore, it'd be silly. As a DM, you'd stop that, you'd set higher DCs, say 'no you can't do that,' and just give the players a lecture about displaying a little creativity, you might get some resentment, but it's all in a day's work for the classic DM.

Now, if you a player has a number of defined options, some of them unique to his character, and using limited resources, and one of them could enable a certain really cool description, then he can use that description infrequently, and others can't. It won't get silly, and won't likely get old. And, it will be mechanically meaningful as well as dramatically so.

I'm used to DnD and so to me 5e is actually fairly free-form-ish when compared to 3.5e of 4e. And I like that.

I have a lot of fun running 5e for a similar reason. It's easy because it is so similar to the D&D I ran for decades, but even more so because it does leave so much of the basic flow of play in the DM's court. It really is 'Empowerment' with all that implies. It's definitely not simple, but I can shield my players from some of the complexity.

 

[Consona]

If you don't happen to imagine anything cool, it makes a vast difference. If you happen to imagine something cool, it doesn't. That description could be used for an attack whether that attack was one of many granular options, or a lone abstract option.

Agreed. The way it works for us is that we like to think about our game in terms of actual game world rather than "will I use Spinning sweep or Steel serpent strike?". It can put you into another mindset.

I have a lot of fun running 5e for a similar reason. It's easy because it is so similar to the D&D I ran for decades, but even more so because it does leave so much of the basic flow of play in the DM's court. It really is 'Empowerment' with all that implies. It's definitely not simple, but I can shield my players from some of the complexity.

For a DnD veteran it is simple, IMO. You definitely can shield players from some of the complexity, especially the new ones, I've done that myself, but when you play with other veterans it's quite simple. After all those years DnD is like a second nature to us.

 

[Pickles III]

No, in the end, my friend described an action that I will remember for the rest of my life and that's the important difference.


But I hope the difference between "using ability XY: range Z, usable when A, B times a day, doing C damage" and "one action - imagine what you are doing and describe it to me" is more than obvious. And it makes vast difference experience-wise.

I think it's the difference between telling a story & playing a game & I prefer to emphasise the latter.
I play Feng Shui for the dramatic action stuff & it's fine but wears thing after a while. D&D has always given me more depth than that. I think you can get some depth with 5e but at a more "operational" level aka combat as war (in a good way as I like combat as sport just fine too)

 

[Tony Vargas]

Agreed. The way it works for us is that we like to think about our game in terms of actual game world rather than "will I use Spinning sweep or Steel serpent strike?". It can put you into another mindset.

Here's another example: the party is investigating mysterious murders in a city. A halfling is climbing a building when Gargoyles attack the party. At one point, a gargoyle is flying well out of reach of the halfling's ledge, when suddenly he leaps onto the gargoyle, stabs it fatally, and pushes off it's body to dive through a window of the floor right below that ledge.

Pretty cool, huh?

We can't tell, from that description, what edition was being played, or whether it was an improvised action using system guidelines, a creative description enabled by a favorable DM ruling, a granular process-simulation & some remarkably good rolls, or a mechanically pre-defined (but freely re-skinnable) 'power.' Because an imagination isn't promoted or discouraged by one or another of those, it's part and parcel of our hobby, regardless of system.

For a DnD veteran it is simple, IMO. You definitely can shield players from some of the complexity, especially the new ones, I've done that myself, but when you play with other veterans it's quite simple. After all those years DnD is like a second nature to us.

Sorta my point, except I'm drawing a distinction between 'simple' and 'easy,' because simple is also an antonym of 'complex.' A very complex, very familiar game - D&D in both our cases - can be quite easy. That doesn't make it simple, it's still complex. I know it seems like a pedantic quibble, but it bugs me.

 

[Jessica]

I do the same thing with 4e powers though. I describe how Mind Lock caused a bandit's head to inflate and explode in a very Scanners-esque way. I use Living Missile to lift my dwarf friend up and toss him through a window to get access to the second floor of a locked building. I describe how I shoot forth Force Spheres that smash into the giant mechanical worm and cause it to light up and disintegrate in a shower of light beams. Why is it that a 5e/3e/2e "attack action" is some magical thing that causes people to roleplay but things like "Spinning Sweep" or "Steel Serpent Strike" are just powers that cause people to not roleplay?

 

[Consona]

Here's another example: the party is investigating mysterious murders in a city. A halfling is climbing a building when Gargoyles attack the party. At one point, a gargoyle is flying well out of reach of the halfling's ledge, when suddenly he leaps onto the gargoyle, stabs it fatally, and pushes off it's body to dive through a window of the floor right below that ledge.

Pretty cool, huh?

We can't tell, from that description, what edition was being played, or whether it was an improvised action using system guidelines, a creative description enabled by a favorable DM ruling, a granular process-simulation & some remarkably good rolls, or a mechanically pre-defined (but freely re-skinnable) 'power.' Because an imagination isn't promoted or discouraged by one or another of those, it's part and parcel of our hobby, regardless of system.

Agreed. My original point was, for our group 5e combat is not boring although it is so simple. I agree that you can get that interesting description via various ways or styles of play.

Sorta my point, except I'm drawing a distinction between 'simple' and 'easy,' because simple is also an antonym of 'complex.' A very complex, very familiar game - D&D in both our cases - can be quite easy. That doesn't make it simple, it's still complex. I know it seems like a pedantic quibble, but it bugs me.

No, it's ok, I can see your point, it makes sense and I agree.

Why is it that a 5e/3e/2e "attack action" is some magical thing that causes people to roleplay but things like "Spinning Sweep" or "Steel Serpent Strike" are just powers that cause people to not roleplay?

I don't know whether it makes them roleplay or not but it can put you into a different mindset. One is more "meta-level" thinking more about abilities and grid and mechanics, the other is more immersed in the actual game world, you don't think about mechanics but about actual situation. But YMMV, of course. And you can get interesting situations from both styles of play, one is more like playing Diablo or WoW, more tactical, the other is more cinematic and free-form.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't know whether it makes them roleplay or not but it can put you into a different mindset. One is more "meta-level" thinking more about abilities and grid and mechanics, the other is more immersed in the actual game world, you don't think about mechanics but about actual situation. But YMMV, of course.

Again, you're probably seeing a phenomenon that's more about familiarity with the mechanics than the nature of the mechanics, themselves. We're simply much more viscerally aware of mechanics that we're unfamiliar with, while those that are second-nature can vanish below a sort of threshold of perception. Add a prejudice against one set of mechanics, or laboring against misinformation from those who do hold such a prejudice, and it gets that much worse.

And you can get interesting situations from both styles of play, one is more like playing Diablo or WoW, more tactical,the other is more cinematic and free-form.

It's more accurate to say that one is more cinematic, and the other is more free-form. Evoking a cinematic feel involves calling back genre tropes, and that's something that you can get a lot more of with a system that embraces and models those tropes, instead of leaving a blank space to be filled in, or, in a third extreme that we haven't touched on much in this thread, instead of simulating the processes implied by the set-dressing around them.

Another thing to think about is that 5e combines these two styles in one game. Most of the PC options do present the player with many choices from a wide variety of high-agency, discrete, precisely-defined, resource-managed effects (mostly spells, by a huge margin), and they are, of course, free to add imaginative flourishes or attempt 'creative' uses leveraging the wild range of things those effects can do. The few that do not get such options default to one mechanic, the attack, to make one sort of contribution to the party (DPR) in combat, with whatever spin or imaginative flourishes they care to append to it, and, of course, are free to attempt any 'creative' improvisations that a person might plausibly attempt.

Now, we could say that's 'the best of both worlds' or we could call it 'incoherent,' but it does just happen to be the way D&D shook out back in the day, too, and continued that way for a long time. And that familiarity counts for a lot in making it work.

 

[pepticburrito]

5e doesn't have detailed rules telling you exactly what you can do and when exactly when you're allowed to do it. This allows for far more complex combat than 3.5/3.75 ever allowed.

Imagine that you're on a raised part of a ship deck playing a pirates campaign. There is a rope loosely "tied" to a pole. You want to do what they do in pirate movies. Grab on to the rope (use an object), swing (use movement), attack, keep swinging (use rest of movement), then let go of rope (no action required). In 3.5/3.75, you'd be told you can't do that because the rules force a specific way of playing. At my table, I'd give you an advantage on the roll if the target is currently in combat with someone else.

In 5e, you're limited by your imagination. Some people lack imagination and would prefer to be told what they are allowed to do, thus they complain that 5e is too "simplistic".

 

[Jessica]

In 5e, you're limited by your imagination. Some people lack imagination and would prefer to be told what they are allowed to do, thus they complain that 5e is too "simplistic".

Doing a backflip off a chandelier to land and stab an orc versus walking up and saying "I attack" are definitely differences in flavor, but ultimately both are pretty much mechanically the same darn thing. You can describe the differences however you want but both are 1d20+5 attack for 1d8+3 damage with no extra riders and that is why A LOT of people play spellcasters or Battle Masters.