D&D 5E Is D&D combat fun?

[Oofta]

When 50% of the poll options are negative I'm not sure why you are suprised there are posts supporting those negative opinions.

Or alternately, if you expected to see negative posts and you aren't interested in reading negative posts then perhaps don't follow the thread?

Since when does 80% yes or normally yes equate to 50% negative?

I mean, perhaps I'm also allowed an opinion.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm not sure if that's true, or at least not 100% of the time. For example: I think most of us can agree that D&D has an action economy problem and that it would do better to fix this (possibly by doing something like Pathfinder 2e's Three Action System). That's not a subjective issue, there are serious, objective problems with 5e combat. Some of it is down to a matter of tastes, but some of it can get better without making it worse for other people. That's what I was meant.

My comment was in the context of “liking previous editions”. For me, I liked 1Ed & 2Ed, vastly prefer 3.X over all other variants, found 4Ed playable, and opted not to buy into 5Ed at all as I read the playtest reports and early post-release threads on ENWorld.

(IOW, I have zero opinion of 5Ed’s action economy.)

 

[lingual]

I think you might have made the mistake of assuming everyone here likes 5E. There's been quite a few people heavily pushing for 6E for a long time. I think the first call for it was about a month after the PHB was released...

There's absolutely nothing wrong with this. 5E isn't going to be for everyone, and it's far better to play a game you enjoy, rather than try to pound the current edition into your favorite edition. IMO it usually better just to take the parts of 5E you like and insert them into your favorite edition instead.

"Better" is entirely subjective. 5E was extensively playtested, and for the most part it was made to appeal to the broadest base possible. This means that most people aren't going to be happy with every single aspect of it, however, most people are going to be satisfied with it. IME the hard core gamers, such as those who spend time talking about it on the internet with strangers, have serious issues with it. They (we) have a higher level of expectations, but we need to understand one really important fact: we are the minority. The problems you and I might have with the edition don't matter at all to the vast majority of players. If there's a 5.x edition, it will likely just clean up a few things, rebalance the most obviously problematic issues (ranger, maybe sorcerer), and update them to reflect new policy (races and alignment). A 6E isn't even on the radar at this point.

It seems like a lot of the biggest critics sometimes should just play another game. They fail to realize that DnD is a game for general public (kids included) and 5E has objectively been the most popular edition by far. If they want something less structured or more complex, there are other editions and games that may suit them better. And every campaign I've ever been a part of hand waves stuff and makes custom rules.

 

[R_J_K75]

I didn't vote but if there was a 50/50 option that's the one I'd choose. Sometimes combat is fun as a player and as a DM. Sometimes its not. I've run combats that went great and everyone had fun, and others were just down right bad. As a player I've been in combats that were boring, felt like they were there just to fill time or I wondered why does my character even cared about it. The worst is when the DM doesn't know the rules to a fault, makes up wild inconsistent ones to compensate or is trying to win the battle instead of letting it resolve organically. Other times I've played in great combats, that were exciting, tense and went really quick.

I say yes but I think there are some barnacles that could be removed that would just refine it more. There are a lot of details that aren’t mechanically necessary gumming up the works at times.

I also find that I can get bored in combat very easily because of how long it takes between turns, especially if all we have going back and forth is rolls and numbers that do not directly affect my character.

This is how I feel too as a PC and DM. Seems players have so many options now (started with 3E) that I wish that combat would work more fluidly mechanically. Id be totally fine with RAW returning to a standard action, move and a free action, or full attack or double move with less "if this then that" conditions to what can be done in a turn. I get bored too waiting for a player to resolve their turn, or it takes me 3-5 minutes as a DM resolving the enemies turn. One thing I would like to see removed from the game is the need to cross reference your character sheet for a +1 here, +2 there, looking up class abilities etc., it really can slow the game to a crawl at times. I don't have an answer how to do this or want less player options I just would like a speedier action/turn resolution system in D&D.

 

[R_J_K75]

Or make it simple. You get to do one thing a round. “What do you want to do?” “I want to move over there and attack.“ “That’s two things. You can move this round and attack next round. Next.” It would speed things up a lot. At least in terms of getting around the table. You wouldn’t get to do less in a fight, the round is just a smaller increment of time.

I was just thinking this as I was responding to the post. I think less options per turn is the way to go as well. The RAW aren't necessarily complicated but they just hard to remember and implement quickly in combat to keep a steady flow.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Since when does 80% yes or normally yes equate to 50% negative?

I mean, perhaps I'm also allowed an opinion.

There are 4 poll options.

Two are positive (Yes and Generally Yes)
Two are negative (No and Generally No)

That is 50% negative poll options, no?

 

[niklinna]

It's about how many people chose them, not how many choices there are.

 

[rgoodbb]

Of the three pillars, combat is the least interesting to me but I still like a good combat. It breaks the game up if one thing is going on too long. But as stated before it has to be an interesting combat whether I'm DM'ing or playing. There is nothing more boring to me than a back-and-forth damage slog-fest.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

My comment was in the context of “liking previous editions”. For me, I liked 1Ed & 2Ed, vastly prefer 3.X over all other variants, found 4Ed playable, and opted not to buy into 5Ed at all as I read the playtest reports and early post-release threads on ENWorld.

(IOW, I have zero opinion of 5Ed’s action economy.)

Okay. I'll ammend my statement to be dependent on the people who play 5e and know the system.

My comment wasn't about playing previous editions, that was @Malmuria. I've never played any edition besides D&D 5e (and haven't played any other TTRPG, either). I meant that there were parts of D&D 5e that are objectively imperfect and could be improved to better the system (I think this is true for all systems, but since this is a D&D 5e thread, I was referring specifically to 5e).

 

[TerraDave]

Yes, I like combat in D&D.

I have liked it through many editions with different approaches and options.

Last few sessions, we have some seemingly straight-forward fights that turned out to be very entertaining.

Reading this thread, you can see the issues, as one person wants this, another wants the opposite, and then third person raises something else. 5e is a compromise edition, but you can have some good fights in it.