@iserith made a really good point. You can do a lot to keep combat interesting by narrating things after the player does them then again after calling the next player.
Alice: I attack the elf with....
DM: That's a good hit. Alice you bring that mace around and really smash the heck out of that elf's arm with blood going everywhere
DM: Bob your up, alice just smashed the heck out of
point this elf & your pretty sure you heard bones snapping
Bob: I cast firebolt at the same elf!....
DM: Bob that firebolt streaks off and explodes dead centermass on the orc scorching away a big chunk from his armor
DM: Chuck your up, bob just burned a hole in the orc's armor
Chuck: I attack & smite!
DM: Chuck you bring that sword around & at the very last moment of slicing through the gap blown out of in his armor you unleash that smite really ruining his day & you know that because you are pretty sure you see a lung & those are normally best kept unexposed.. oh yea the elf is bloodied
DM: Alice that elf whips out some kinda trinket & smashes it on the ground just behind you causing flames to explode everywhere ... make a dex save..
Alice: it's 3...
DM:
wince.. 3 was quite a it less than the xx you needed, that fire rises up around you scorching at the flesh through your armor for yy damage. your up too but standing in a pillar of fire....
Alice I move here and swing at the elf with my mace...
so on & so forth. The narration doesn't need to be carefully thought out & tracked, just graphic & filled with some interesting combination of blood drama & action. Once players realize that it's not something they should be trying to use for advantage by doing things like expecting a lower ac because of the scorched hole in the armor or for the baddie to switch to a 1h weapon just because you described the players being pretty sure they broke the bad guy's arm they won't notice if you described elf#3 getting his knee smashed into an angle it's not supposed to bend three times that fight. The only problem you will have is something I've only seen in 5e.... specifically this:
PC: I get three attacks. For my first attack I roll x... is that a hit?...
gm: That's a hit.. gimme some damage
PC: I deal Y damage...
stares at gm
gm: ok *describes some stuff
PC: how is it doing, is he still standing?...
PC: For my seconf attack I roll x... is that a hit?...
gm: That's a hit.. gimme some damage
PC: I deal Y damage...
stares at gm
gm: ok *describes some stuff less enthusiastically
PC: how is it doing, is he still standing?...
PC: For my third attack I roll x... is that a hit?...
gm: That's a hit.. gimme some damage
PC: I deal Y damage...
stares at gm
gm: ok you hit it for 12
PC: how is it doing, is he still standing?...
GM : yea bob your up alice is spending a lot of time staring at the elf in the fight but he got in some good hits
alice: ok I have three attacks so for my first attack....
GM along with everyone but alice:
dies inside
I don't know if it's because 5e changed away from the attack action as a standard action to extra attacks & bonus action offhand, because 5e made the attackroll almost certain & just gave everything a huge sack of hp, because 5e got rid of the penalty on second/third/etc attack to make them more of "maybe I'll get lucky" bonus or whatever... but I never noticed it with such prevalence in 3.5/pf as in 5e. Ultimately I had to houserule that all attack rolls need to be made at once with a target or targets declared before I say how many hit for my own sanity but I still see people trying it every so often
