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

[dave2008]

I'd have to come with a different progression for full martial, half-martial and 1/3 martials.

Full martial would be 4 to 6 uses per SR, d6s up to d10 (d12 for fighters), 2 maneuvers known up to 4 (3 up to 7 known for fighters).

Half-martial would be 2 uses per SR up to 3, d6s up to d8s, 2 maneuvers known up to 3 + their unique one for free.

1/3 martial would 2 uses per SR, d6s, 2 maneuvers known only.

Personally, I am really starting to like the idea that fighters can use more than one maneuver per turn. That really makes them feel like expert fighters IMO. Of course they would need more superiority dice too.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Personally, I am really starting to like the idea that fighters can use more than one maneuver per turn. That really makes them feel like expert fighters IMO. Of course they would need more superiority dice too.

I'd give them the ability to regain 1 spent SD in addition to HP with Second Wind.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I guess that’s what’s confusing me about this. DMs are expected to make rulings to cover all the things not in the rules. Expecting rules to cover every potential situation that might occur in combat is unreasonable. It seems perfectly reasonable for the DM to make a ruling in the moment. And of course every situation is different so it‘s not like the DM is expected to rule the same way every time. Some legs will be too sturdy to hobble. Some creatures too slippery to land a blow. The DM is expected to adjudicate player actions.

This lack of DM adjudication seems to be exactly why combats devolve into boring slugfests because of rigid adherence to the few prescribed actions listed in the rules.

The counter would be: the rules should cover things that are "likely" to come up in the game; the dm should only be making up new rules from time to time, not for stuff that any "reasonable" designer should have seen as coming up in play.

The scare quotes are for the most subjective parts of this, and of course need to be balanced against making a rules system that's not so complete as to be "unwieldy" - but it's a fair criticism to say 'this game doesn't have rules for [thing], which seems like something they should have predicted players would want to do.'

Ergo: 'there's no rule for kneecapping in 5e DnD' is a valid criticism even if you don't agree with it or find it compelling - it's only not a flaw if you think kneecapping falls outside of 'the sort of thing a DnD pc would be likely to do.'

(For some egregious counter-examples: complaining there are no rules for building X-Wing fighters would be a silly complaint. But a fantasy adventure game with wizards and no rules for magic would be really bad design.)

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

@Filthy Lucre , what additional actions would like to see? Not including class specific actions, the general actions available on your turn are below. That is a lot of options. What else are you looking for?


Action:
Overrun (optional rule in DMG)
Tumble (optional rule in DMG)

Nice list!

Note that overrun and tumble can be done as an Action or as a Bonus Action,

 

[robus]

The counter would be: the rules should cover things that are "likely" to come up in the game; the dm should only be making up new rules from time to time, not for stuff that any "reasonable" designer should have seen as coming up in play.

I can see that and of course the counter is what is “likely” for some is “rarely” for others. It seems WotC has drawn the line much earlier than others might and that is frustrating for those looking for more guidance.

As others have noted there is a new game in town that is trying to cater to exactly this market: Pathfinder 2.

Now the disappointment might be that it requires switching systems. But perhaps some hybrid that merges the favorite aspects of each. (I imagine a google might turn up some hits.)

WotC certainly seems to feel like they’ve hit a sweet spot and is unlikely to add more crunch in this area so looking for official support seems fruitless. Paizo would surely love to peel off dissatisfied tables looking for said crunch?

 

[Justice and Rule]

I can see that and of course the counter is what is “likely” for some is “rarely” for others. It seems WotC has drawn the line much earlier than others might and that is frustrating for those looking for more guidance.

I mean, that's the double-edged sword of "Rulings, not rules": You don't have to look in the book as much for stuff... because you'll be making it yourself.

As others have noted there is a new game in town that is trying to cater to exactly this market: Pathfinder 2.


Now the disappointment might be that it requires switching systems. But perhaps some hybrid that merges the favorite aspects of each. (I imagine a google might turn up some hits.)

Spheres of Might and Power? I got my PDF versions from the Kickstarter, though I haven't looked much at it.

WotC certainly seems to feel like they’ve hit a sweet spot and is unlikely to add more crunch in this area so looking for official support seems fruitless. Paizo would surely love to peel off dissatisfied tables looking for said crunch?

I mean, apparently 50+% of their new players are coming from 5E. I know I am.

 

[Emerikol]

I mean, apparently 50+% of their new players are coming from 5E. I know I am.

I liked some of what they did with PF2. I think they are feat crazy but they have some good stuff in there.

The advantage of capitalism is that the market will supply the wants (and needs) of people who see things differently. So PF2 is better for some and 5e is better for others. 5e though is highly successful even by WoTC standards. It may be their most successful D&D ever in terms of sales. I think adjusting for time period that 1e still beats it.

I personally am pursuing the OSR game world these days. I'm liking ACKS. So everyone in terms of games can be really happy. Perhaps one day when I have time I'll just write my own game. Why not? Then if/when I don't like it I can just change it. I really think I mostly like the OSR game world but I do like a few things that are modern. Some sort of proficiency/skill system for me is something I like. It's why ACKS beats out C&C for me. It's also why it beats out a bunch of the true retroclones.

 

[dave2008]

The counter would be: the rules should cover things that are "likely" to come up in the game; the dm should only be making up new rules from time to time, not for stuff that any "reasonable" designer should have seen as coming up in play.

The scare quotes are for the most subjective parts of this, and of course need to be balanced against making a rules system that's not so complete as to be "unwieldy" - but it's a fair criticism to say 'this game doesn't have rules for [thing], which seems like something they should have predicted players would want to do.'

Ergo: 'there's no rule for kneecapping in 5e DnD' is a valid criticism even if you don't agree with it or find it compelling - it's only not a flaw if you think kneecapping falls outside of 'the sort of thing a DnD pc would be likely to do.'

(For some egregious counter-examples: complaining there are no rules for building X-Wing fighters would be a silly complaint. But a fantasy adventure game with wizards and no rules for magic would be really bad design.)

Well, there are rules for kneecaping though (Trip Attack). It is just that only one class is potentially trained in it, so they are the only ones with a reasonable chance to succeed at such an action.

 

[Oofta]

Well, there are rules for kneecaping though (Trip Attack). It is just that only one class is potentially trained in it, so they are the only ones with a reasonable chance to succeed at such an action.

Anyone can do a shove attack which can knock prone in 5E. Admittedly it takes an attack, but can still be useful in some cases. Am I missing something?

 

[dave2008]

Anyone can do a shove attack which can knock prone in 5E. Admittedly it takes an attack, but can still be useful in some cases. Am I missing something?

No, not for me. It just depends what you call kneecapping. I include the shove action in my list upthread.