D&D General GM's are you bored of your combat and is it because you made it boring?

[ClaytonCross]

D&D 5E is pretty bad at tactical combat, and the suggestions you've made don't really improve that, I'd suggest.

You would suggest what? That is the point of the thread... Where are your suggestions. I would love to hear them. I don't see any in the rest of your post.

D&D 4E, on the other hand, was extremely good at tactical combat. That actually was vaguely comparable to the examples given, unlike 5E, where your options, especially for non-casters, are typically extremely limited.

Re: dragons, I don't agree with much of what you've said. That's one approach, and it's not one a lot of D&D products use, in my experience, especially as much of what you're suggesting is entirely outside the rules and up to DM fiat. But the creaky boring old "oh dragons should just strafe the party and never engage and always try and fly away!" thing (which has been around since like, the late '80s) is ridiculous nonsense that I've seen lead to extremely boring sessions, or ones, again, reliant on DM fiat.

As I pointed out, being intelligent doesn't mean much. They're still one person - and people, including smart people, and especially arrogant people (which almost all dragons are), make bad mistakes. Most dragons probably aren't even experienced fighters, simply because almost nothing can face them down.

I don't disagree with anything you said but you missed my point entirely. #1 if your current style of play is not working try different things. #2 if your complaining about dragons being simple easy fights that are not worth their CR and your 100% of the time ignoring that they can fly and fight in rage stupidity then your whats making them easy not the design of the dragon. Sure intelligent creature do dumb things sometimes but isn't making them that way all the time the same mistake? #3 If your doing it with dragons, your likely doing it with just about every thing else.... see #1.

Am I wrong on any of these points?

I didn't list a lot for non-casters? Like "10ft/Pole arm melee, Stealthy attackers, Hit and run melee, (we can add defenders there are number of feats and abilities that allow melee character reactions to redirect or prevent or less damage, we can add Attackers with nets for crowd control which 10ft melee can also do) , Special actions legendary actions, opportunity attacks, shove, grapple, dodge, disengage, voluntarily prone, and simply waiting the right time to attack. Terrain lair actions, hiding spots/visibility/line of sight, cover/lines of fire, Restrictions of movement/separated forces/choke points/hindering terrain. Weather hiding spots/visibility/line of sight, cover/lines of fire, Restrictions of movement/separated forces/choke points/hindering terrain. Motivations and Friendly rivalry apply to them too..

I don't see alot of encouters short melee so its not something thought too much about however I am asking for suggestions.... So if you have more melee options I would LOVE to hear them and add them to the list.

 

[ClaytonCross]

This is the fix, and it's a good one.

Your saying your suggestion for a GM bored of their own combat is DM fiat! ... That makes no since. DM fiat is just the GM running the game and dealing with story and player issues as they arise. It has nothing to do with topic...

 

[ClaytonCross]

Oh yes! I don't disagree, but it relies on the DM having great judgement about how to use said fiat (which usually means great intuition, or a lot of experience, or both), and actually wanting to use it to help the players achieve their goals (which means not having an adversarial play style - and this thread appears to be somewhat encouraging an adversarial play style, albeit with some encouragement the other way, too).

It's encouraging the GM to find away to be as interested in tactical combat as the players are so they don't run from it while the players are a having fun. That has nothing to do with DM fiat. It has to do with GMs not quitting campaigns players are enjoying because the GM finds them painful and instead helping the GM to have as much fun as the players.

The encouragement is of adversarial play is only one suggestion among may listed and was suggested with lower difficulty fights in which the player party is guaranteed to win not with the intent to kill PCs or TPK. Your speaking as though its the topic and intent... its not.

The fact that some encouragement the other way is their is because you not trying to actually make the combat overall harder for players. The whole point of the thread is to make it more interesting and fun to run for the GM. You can do that by maintaining comfortable management, increasing your number of engaging choices, while still maintaining a relative equal difficulty for players. Maintaining difficulty while increasing choices can be achived through a number of suggestions. Turrain effects both sides, Motive mean the NPC may not even be trying to hurt the PCs, reduction in then numbers of enemies can off set the management cost of more choices, and the use of multiple lower powered bosses instead of one maxed out boss can be roughly of equal power but significantly more interesting of the GM to run because they to make more meaningful choices and losing one creates a loss of options which can mean the GM feels the lose but that combat goes on so that the GM doesn't immediately forget it making it more of an impact to the GM.

Rule #1 is that all other rules are suggestions to help not requirements to prevent you from having choices.

 

[ClaytonCross]

The football reference totally lost me. I don't think I've only ever watched one football game in my life. I was pretty young and didn't enjoy it. I do kendo and jiu jitsu. Does the metaphor hold true in those contexts?

Yes. Choosing the appropriate sword length for you and training with it to learn its measure, then that being the sword size you use while your spare in a competition is part of being a swords man. If show up to match having trained with a sword that is to large you will constantly fight out of measure leaving your opponent largly safe because you swing constantly with no chance of hitting your opponent. Training with a sword that is too short will mean you will habitually close aggressively to engage in your standard measure opening you up attacks you could easily avoid if you where using the additional reach your neglecting by pushing your self deep beyond the required measure.

Alternatively, you practice Kendo and jiu jitsu only against small children and are confused when in the tournament all your attacks are low and weak.

How you practice and how well you know your limits and your gear is an important part of how you play the game. You might call it prep and veiw is as meta to the tournament, but a swordsman who does not know what the right sword for them is and how it effects them in a match will almost certainly lose. Your training is part of your fighting even if you consider it separately. You don't train with a bow and arrow then expect to be a beater swordsman. Your training with the sword is as important and as much a part of your tournament fight as the fight itself.

Their is and old expression "practice the way you play". It applies to D&D too in that all the meta you do outside of D&D for D&D effects what you do when you sit at the table and play. Add to that if your making D&D campaign settings and characters and discussing them with your friends I feel like your still playing D&D even though your not playing a session. Just like I consider you a swordsman if you practice every day even if you don't compete in tournaments.

Another example. I am a network engineer. When I do a survey to make a plan to engineer a new part of the network and install it. I am doing networking when I survey, when I engineer it, and when I install it. Some might consider the survey meta but I can't engineer without it. Some might consider the install touch labor but my engineering does matter if its never implemented. I also get paid as a network engineer when I am doing all three because my company understand they are all part of the same thing.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think combat is boring because it often takes so long in RPGs. These days I prefer games that resolve combat in minutes

 

[ClaytonCross]

I think combat is boring because it often takes so long in RPGs. These days I prefer games that resolve combat in minutes

If combat is interesting no one complains about how long it takes because they are having fun. The very fact you are saying combat takes too long implies that its not fun for you and you want it to end. If you don't mind playing D&D your obviously enjoying some part of D&D. If you have ever played other war games and enjoyed them then your aware that combat short or long can be fun without anything else. If your players are enjoying combat and your cutting them short, I highly recommend trying out some of these suggestions to see if you change combat so that its enjoyable enough that its length is not a problem for you. If your players don't like combat ether then making combat as short as possible is not a problem for your table and some of these suggestions. Considering enemy motives that are not about depleting the parties HP can help open up roleplay options to avoid or shorten combat. Where reducing the number of enemies while using a little more terrain and tactics preparation can reduce how long fights take because the HP grind is shorter requiring less damage and their for less turns without sacrificing threat level and story tension for which you put the combat in to create.

Ether way ... these suggestions can be used to help you achieve your tables need. I hope you consider them and find something useful to your table that perhaps you didn't think of, had forgotten, or just had not been using lately. Best wishes for you game.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Your saying your suggestion for a GM bored of their own combat is DM fiat! ... That makes no since. DM fiat is just the GM running the game and dealing with story and player issues as they arise. It has nothing to do with topic...

One effective way to use DM fiat is to add more combat options for monsters. Have giants throw the halfling rogue at the wizard. Have the dragon grab the fighter with its claws, fly up in the air, use the fighter as a shield against the ranger, and drop the fighter from the sky.

 

[ClaytonCross]

One effective way to use DM fiat is to add more combat options for monsters. Have giants throw the halfling rogue at the wizard. Have the dragon grab the fighter with its claws, fly up in the air, use the fighter as a shield against the ranger, and drop the fighter from the sky.

That is very nice list of creative things a GM can do. By all means we are suggesting combat creativity so please do!
See suggestion #4 Special actions, Helldritch mentioned this and Ovinomancer expanded on it with an example of how scary closing a door can be for the party (which is both a special action and use of terrain). Absolutely any oppertunity for creative special actions can make the fight more interesting for the GM and players. Let me clarify that a special action is any action that monster or NPC could take that is not specifically listed in their actions block.

But as I under stand it your using DM Fait incorrectly. Which is why I was confuse.

DM Fiat is when a situation arises that needs the DM to make a decision, generally because there is no clear ruling or mechanic to deal with what the player/s wants to do. DM fiat is part of player arbitration not encounter building as I understand the term. It requires both of the two underlined parts here. GMs don't necessarily need to make decisions for special actions (the dragon grabbing the fighter can be a grapple check, the fighter as cover for the ranger is as standard 1/3 cover for +2AC, Dropping the fighter is 1d6 bludgeoning damage per 10ft they fell.... you can do them differently if you want but the do not require a DM decision your just adding one of your own choice. Also, these are not player choices for the GM to arbitrate but GM creativity in just running the game as GMs do. "Fiat" is Latin for "Let it happen". The term is in reference to letting a players action happen and figuring out how to make it work without an existing rule. GMs don't have to let their actions happen they happen as matter of course.

Its semantics again. Based on your description I understand what your saying as special actions and yes that does help make the game more interesting for the GM. Its not the only answer but its on the list.

 

[Lanefan]

I disagree. Even if character creation/levelling doesn't occur at the table, it's very much part or playing the game. The game has clear rules for when and how leveling occurs -- to do it I have to refer to the rulebook! In this, leveling your character has nothing in common with choosing to keep score in football on the electronic scoreboard. Keeping score is part of the rules of football, though, so you're confusing a choice of method with doing the required play. Your analogy to football scores is more apt for saying that choosing between paper and electronic character sheets isn't part of the rules. Keeping and updating the character is part of the rules, but the specific manner of doing so isn't.

Sorry, can't get behind this one.

Sticking with the football analogy: character creation is like training camp. Between-session sheet maintenance is like practice. Sessions are the actual games, where the play is done by the players and the refereeing/scorekeeping/in-game field maintenance etc. is done by the DM.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Sorry, can't get behind this one.

Sticking with the football analogy: character creation is like training camp. Between-session sheet maintenance is like practice. Sessions are the actual games, where the play is done by the players and the refereeing/scorekeeping/in-game field maintenance etc. is done by the DM.

Might agree with you, except there are rules for character creation and leveling in the rules of the game. There aren't any rules in football governing training camp and pratice.