D&D 5E Too Few Player Options During Combat?

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

Interesting thread.
Some great advice here. It seems to me 5e walks a line with some crunchy class combat actions, and the more open improvisational game which the simpler older editions were designed around.

That said I like the balance 5e has struck here. The advice on rulings not rules is something that the DMG could have given some more focused advice on. Particularly for players used to the crunchier styles of play.

One issue I felt when I came to 5e was that you really needed to familiarise yourself with all the class rules before you could get a handle on making balanced decisions about rulings not rules. Something that wasn’t an issue for older lighter versions of DnD. Still once you do you’re away.

If you’re looking for good advice on adjudicating “rulings”, and playing the scene in front of you, then book 4 (playing the game) of Into The Unknown for 5e, has a great write up on that, that may help. Very good simple advice. I recommend it just for that.

 

[THEMNGMNT]

If characters don't have enough options, you wouldn't be able to tell based on how slowly my players take their turns during combat.

 

[Mort]

If characters don't have enough options, you wouldn't be able to tell based on how slowly my players take their turns during combat.

My group is pretty good now, but I used to do a 5 second countdown and then you take the dodge action.

 

[Umbran]

Assuming good faith effort, who honestly imagines that a DM is making so many bad rulings that it actually becomes an ongoing problem? That doesn't seem like a realistic concern to me.

So, "bad ruling" neglects the idea of context. The ruling could have been just fine in its original use, but turns out to be overpowered when used regularly, or interacts in unexpected ways with spells or abilities not in the original use.

The "shoot them in the leg" thing, for example, can quickly turn into "everyone starts every combat trying to kneecap opponents" maneuver if it is too effective.

None of this matters if the players understand, and are okay with, lack of long-term consistency in rulings. My own players, for example, would not have a problem with it. But lots of players want more consistent structure for combats, especially if you are running a fairly deadly game. For them, once or twice may be enough - you don't need the GM to have made bad calls a dozen times to sour the game for some.

 

[Oofta]

If characters don't have enough options, you wouldn't be able to tell based on how slowly my players take their turns during combat.

Yeah, we used to have a player we called "The Analyzer". On his turn he'd stare at the board for a couple of minutes, ask a few questions, stare for another couple of minutes and then throw his hands up in disgust and say "I guess I'll just attack".

The dude was playing a paladin. Attacking is what they do 95% of the time and if they get a crit they smite. It can be one of the most effective PCs in the game. But no ... every ... single ... turn ... analysis paralysis.

 

[Mort]

Yeah, we used to have a player we called "The Analyzer". On his turn he'd stare at the board for a couple of minutes, ask a few questions, stare for another couple of minutes and then throw his hands up in disgust and say "I guess I'll just attack".

The dude was playing a paladin. Attacking is what they do 95% of the time and if they get a crit they smite. It can be one of the most effective PCs in the game. But no ... every ... single ... turn ... analysis paralysis.

Bluetooth speaker (or phone, but the speaker is louder) - jeopardy theme song. Just Saying.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I would go with the Maneuvers for Everyone! idea.
Maybe with a few ''flavor'' restriction so that the fighter gain access to all of them, but barbarian and rogue gain the ones that makes sense (feinting, riposte, precision, etc for the rogue, cleaving, frightening, pushing, etc for the barbarian).

Half-casters can have a slower progression but with a few special maneuvers:

Paladin - Smite uses Sup. Die instead of spell slot, dealing the Sup. Die radiant damage, and double that against undeads (and fiend?), with a crit range of 19-20 on that attack.

Ranger - Foe-Bane maneuver, deal 2x Sup. Die against Favored Enemies, with a crit range of 19-20 and the creature cant hide from you until the end of your next turn.

Martial bards can have an even slower progression, but the damage die can be thunder damage.

 

[Oofta]

Bluetooth speaker (or phone, but the speaker is louder) - jeopardy theme song. Just Saying.

We seriously considered an egg timer. Unfortunately the guy had this set of metal dice that looked really, really heavy and at one time he was a baseball pitcher.

 

[THEMNGMNT]

I used a 1 minute timer to try to get folks superfocused on resolving their turns quickly. It was fun and funny, but didn't always have the intended effect. The paladin simply could not add up all his smite dice in less than 3 minutes.

 

[Justice and Rule]

So, "bad ruling" neglects the idea of context. The ruling could have been just fine in its original use, but turns out to be overpowered when used regularly, or interacts in unexpected ways with spells or abilities not in the original use.

The "shoot them in the leg" thing, for example, can quickly turn into "everyone starts every combat trying to kneecap opponents" maneuver if it is too effective.

None of this matters if the players understand, and are okay with, lack of long-term consistency in rulings. My own players, for example, would not have a problem with it. But lots of players want more consistent structure for combats, especially if you are running a fairly deadly game. For them, once or twice may be enough - you don't need the GM to have made bad calls a dozen times to sour the game for some.

Exactly this. Something that might not seem bad in the moment can become a go-to if it turns out to be quite effective and if the players start to make plans around it. And what happens if they make a strategy around something without telling you and you suddenly nix it? It's more common than you think, and it's why I try to get my players to be open with me about novel strategies so I can be honest with them on the subject.

And just to reiterate: at a certain level 5E is just meant to be less detailed. It's not really meant for targeted shots because it's an edition that is largely without modifiers. If you have someone who is actively trying to get away from you and combat is almost over, it's better to do that narratively than with an actual game mechanic, like how chases are done.