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

[el-remmen]

That's what I meant. Can you agree with any of this? Because, IMO, these are all problems that make combat less fun for my table, but could be fixed if WotC in 5.5e/or a backwards-compatible 6e did something like Pathfinder 2e's Three-Action System or something else to fix these issues.

Not familiar with PF's Three-Action System (i only dabbled with PF and it seemed no different from 3E to me).

I guess I can't agree that its a problem to worry abut too much? I don't know. Some of those things might be mitigated by house rules that we implemented that had more to do with what made sense to us rather than thinking about an "economy." For example, I allow bonus actions to be completed as actions as long as you don't break the "no two non-cantrip spells in a round rule" because I see no reason why if something can be done as a bonus action it can't be done as an action.

Or like the solo monster issue, if it is just any ole monster sometimes the party stomping them before they get to act twice is fine and fun and feels very accomplished! Or, it is an important monster I give it some legendary actions (I am a very strong believer in every edition - that each monster is potentially unique - and if they seem identical that is because of my shorthand not because they "actually" are in an in-story way. But generally, in my experience, even solo monsters potentially benefit from the environment and the goals/stakes of the fight.

 

[billd91]

I haven't played previous editions, so I won't comment on them and how they're different from/similar to D&D 5e's action economy. However, I will say that D&D 5e's action economy problems are fairly major, like how villains can get swamped out by the shear amount of actions the party gets to do before they get to go again, how clunky it is to try to choose certain bonus action options over others and how it can take a long time to get your stuff working together, and how counterintuitive much of it is (like you can't Ready a Bonus Action, but can an Action, how you can cast a spell that has the casting time of a bonus action and an Action cantrip, but you can't cast a bonus action cantrip and a non-cantrip spell that has the casting time of an action, etc).

That's what I meant. Can you agree with any of this? Because, IMO, these are all problems that make combat less fun for my table, but could be fixed if WotC in 5.5e/or a backwards-compatible 6e did something like Pathfinder 2e's Three-Action System or something else to fix these issues.

It think you'll find there's an enormous amount of disagreement over most of those things you list as problematic or clunky. They may not be perfect but they are the product of years of experience, development, and evolution of the rules. And, in my experience, they work surprisingly well compared to other editions and even games. As much as I like aspects of PF2's 3 action economy and its simplicity, there are definite issues with it that I do not like such as restrictions on actions that can't be performed first in a turn, raising shields every round being necessary, and the tendency of anybody to make multiple attacks even if the chances are low just because they have the actions left and don't want to waste them.

 

[niklinna]

It think you'll find there's an enormous amount of disagreement over most of those things you list as problematic or clunky. They may not be perfect but they are the product of years of experience, development, and evolution of the rules. And, in my experience, they work surprisingly well compared to other editions and even games. As much as I like aspects of PF2's 3 action economy and its simplicity, there are definite issues with it that I do not like such as restrictions on actions that can't be performed first in a turn, raising shields every round being necessary, and the tendency of anybody to make multiple attacks even if the chances are low just because they have the actions left and don't want to waste them.

I briefly tried PF2 and saw all the things you describe here. The 3-action economy is great in principle, but actually felt like a straight jacket to me because of all the provisos, and especially because, with that supposedly general economy, you still had to be able to complete anything you do* on a single turn. If I had the option of casting a 3-action spell, for example, using my last action on my turn, and then finishing it with 2 actions on my next turn, combat would be much more interesting, firstly because that would be an option at all, but also because I'd be risking interruption of the spell, enemies would be motivated to interrupt it (possibly distracting them from doing something worse), and my teammates would have to cover my butt in those moments (or choose not to, of course, depending on what was tactically most important).

* I'd originally written "any action", but then the word "action" is unfortunately reserved for the currency of, erm, actions.

But, this thread is about 5e, so I'll say that an action economy based on distinct categories of actions is definitely annoying, what with some abilities using your action, and others using your bonus action. So, if you have two abilities that use your bonus action, nope, you can't use them both on your turn. Even a minor change like saying you can sub a bonus action for your action (that is, you can do an action and a bonus action, or two bonus actions, but not two actions) would be an improvement—albeit a band-aid on an underlying kludgy action economy. Another band-aid might be class features (or feats, or magic items, or what have you) that grant an extra bonus action or reaction on a turn, the way some classes get an extra attack (maybe with limited uses per short/long rest, maybe not). That's getting out of describing the problems and into the messy area of changing a large, complex system, though (as billd91 alluded to), so I won't take that any further.

 

[tetrasodium]

I haven't played previous editions, so I won't comment on them and how they're different from/similar to D&D 5e's action economy. However, I will say that D&D 5e's action economy problems are fairly major, like how villains can get swamped out by the shear amount of actions the party gets to do before they get to go again, how clunky it is to try to choose certain bonus action options over others and how it can take a long time to get your stuff working together, and how counterintuitive much of it is (like you can't Ready a Bonus Action, but can an Action, how you can cast a spell that has the casting time of a bonus action and an Action cantrip, but you can't cast a bonus action cantrip and a non-cantrip spell that has the casting time of an action, etc).

That's what I meant. Can you agree with any of this? Because, IMO, these are all problems that make combat less fun for my table, but could be fixed if WotC in 5.5e/or a backwards-compatible 6e did something like Pathfinder 2e's Three-Action System or something else to fix these issues.

it's a pf2 thing. This link has a quick summary nutshell explanation. Basically it's like the old 3.5/pf1 action free action swift action move action etc just become an action & some abilities take more than one action to perform while (I think?)some other abilities can reduce the action cost. he pf2 3 action action economy has it's up sides & down sides like 5e's action economy... but 5e's action economy & tactical components are so simplified that the rough edges are all that you have left

 

[TheSword]

So the poll results = overwhelmingly positive score with over 1/3 being unequivocally positive.

So that answers the question right?

 

[Shardstone]

So the poll results = overwhelmingly positive score with over 1/3 being unequivocally positive.

So that answers the question right?

That answers the base discussion. Now we discuss the results, and elaborate more on our personal opinions. Stop trying to shut down conversation

 

[ad_hoc]

Yes, I think combat in 5e is great.

For the people who dislike it, I encourage you to find a reason other than 'it is poorly designed'. It isn't. It works very well for over 50 million people.

It is valid to not like it and if you want to either improve it for yourself or find another game that you like more it is more useful to figure out why you don't like it. The easy way out is to say that 'it is poorly designed' but that actually won't improve anything, and it's also wrong. It's either not well designed for your tastes, or you don't know what you want well enough to make it work for you.


Combat too slow?

Maybe the cause is analysis paralysis which happens in board games too. The solution to that is to just take your darn turn already and stop holding up the game for everyone.

Finding combats to be filler? Maybe the issue isn't the combats but it is the pacing or how they're introduced into the adventure. Lots of people on this board say they only have 1-3 encounters per adventuring day and that sounds like it would lead to some bad combats.

Either those combats are going to be too big and go on too long or they're going to not have any tension because there won't be any stakes.

A 5e combat is designed to last 2-4 rounds. If everyone is ready for their turn and knows the dice they need to roll then most combats can be over in 20 minutes or less.

I find it strange too when people say that they don't have many encounters per adventuring day because they prefer exploration and social interaction. But, having more encounters doesn't limit that. It sounds to me that people are limiting themselves by forcing a long rest every session. In my games we typically have a long rest once per 2 sessions.

There is plenty of tension and excitement in even the smallest combats and they don't take very long. When there are many encounters in an adventuring day the 'big epic' combats can be much smaller too as the party is much weaker by the time they have them.

I'm not saying that if you don't like the combat you're bad at playing the game. Maybe the game isn't for you. And maybe there are ways to approach and play it that you would like more if you looked at things differently.

Sometimes the problem isn't apparent. In the case of 5e it is definitely not that it is poorly designed.

 

[S'mon]

Random encounters are a double edged sword. In a game without xp, they serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever, merely slowing the game down.

The possibility of random encounters goes a long way to create the feeling of a dynamic living world. The risk of running into something in the way to or from the dungeon, or while travelling in the dungeon, strongly affects resource calculations. The GM can run easier combats and the players still feel threatened, because they aren't sure what the final battle pre-long rest will be. And making it random takes a lot of pressure off the GM.

 

[Fenris-77]

Random Encounters drain resources and prevent faffing about. Both useful things even without XP.

 

[MichaelSomething]

If you're looking to add some jazz to your combat; consider Level Up! Brought to you by the guy who runs this website! Just scroll up and click the upper left area to be brought to the hottest Kickstarter of the season!