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

[Shardstone]

It all depends how it's formulated. If it's along the lines of "I don't like it, but I'm still playing it for reasons (my friends play it, or combat is not that important, etc.) and here is what I do to make it better", it's fine, but if it's along the lines of "it sucks, the designers are #####, and everyone who likes it are even greater ##### for liking it and not seeing how bad it is", then the "#### off, why don't you try [another game]" response is, I feel reasonably appropriate. I honestly cannot fathom/abide the people for whom combat is obviously the major part of the game, who still can't find one redeeming feature in the design of 5e, and who take every single opportunity to criticise it.

Just because you can't fathom it doesn't mean you're right in your assumption that its ok to say this depending on how they format it. It just means that you literally don't know what you're talking about and are gatekeeping because you don't know what else to say.

 

[el-remmen]

A 5e combat is designed to last 2-4 rounds.

Combats in my games tend to last 6 to 12 rounds - and we still love it. We've never timed how long a combat takes - but I am curious now and hope to remember to time them starting from when initiative is called. However, many times (about half the time) our sessions end mid-combat - so timing those would be difficult.

 

[guachi]

D&D combat is too long because players take too long to execute their turns so combat needlessly drags. When each player spends 30 seconds on a turn then combat is more fun.

 

[Maxperson]

So I have seen twice in as many days, folks mention how "combat isn't that fun," which reinforced an occasional claim I have seen on these boards that confuses me, that combat is "a slog" or "a waste of time" (the latter usually going along with with discussion of random encounters or combats not directly related to achieving a narrative goal of an adventure).

So, I am asking: Do you find 5E combat fun? I allowed for four possible answers. I know some folks are absolutists, thus the raw yes/no responses - but understanding that even fun things can sometimes be unfun and unfun things occasionally turn out to be fun in certain circumstances, the "generally yes / generally no" responses is what I am most interested in. Yes it can depend on the DM, the specific scenario, the other players at the table, but generally. . .?

Personally, I LOVE combat. I am not a pure hack n' slash guy and definitely not a "optimization" guy though, because I like fights embedded in a narrative (even if that narrative is one that emerges after the fact) or within a context of relationships between and/or among those doing the fighting (including a potential environmental relationship). So while for me just a pure tactical skirmish game will occasionally scratch an itch, tactical combat in an interesting environment with some kind of RP stakes is my sweet spot, and it doesn't matter to me if it is a climactic battle with the BBEG at the end of a weeks long module or a random run in with bandits attacking a merchant caravan.

I do prefer combat with minis and a grid but have run and played in plenty of ToTM stuff.

When D&D combat is not fun for me, it is because it is a "Everyone lines up and fights" kind of combat or a combat where one or two optimized tactics are all that is needed to succeed and it goes on too long - though in generally I do like a longish combat (well, long by standards of what I gather other people think is long).

I think this question also influences people's thoughts on # of encounters per adventuring day thing. Some folks dread 6 or 8 encounters in a day because they dread most combat encounters. Some folks like them because they like kicking ass and taking names (or hightailing it, if necessary - "winning" is not a prerequisite for fun for me) and the system for doing that works for them.

So what say you? And I'd love more detailed thoughts about your answer in the comments.

5e combat for me isn't nearly as much fun as it was in 1e, 2e and 3e. 5e has gimped abilities in the name of balance to the point where they have lost a lot of what made them really, really fun. That and balancing the game around resource management over time and hit points(monsters are mostly bags of hit points with a few abilities that aren't as interesting as prior editions) had reduced my enjoyment of combat. That said, it's still mostly fun, but just not nearly as fun as before where it was tons of fun. So I voted generally, yes.

 

[el-remmen]

(monsters are mostly bags of hit points with a few abilities that aren't as interesting as prior editions)

I see this one a lot too but also not my experience. I see "abilities" as an add on - not the point of the monster. Heck, in a recent session a four hp xvart with some lucky rolls, no special abilities, and taking advantage of his size to retreat back to where the PCs had trouble reaching him, while his allies harried the PCs from another direction - led to a fun-ass combat. The players thought it was hilarious and named him the most vicious xvart of all time.

I guess a 4 hp xvart is a very small bag of hit points - but another fight with a 90+ hp Otyugh was made interesting by its ability to sink into the garbage floor and burrow - which I guess is an "ability" but just a form of movement to use creatively - when nearly defeated it fled - found a place to take a short rest and returned nearly back to full to surprise the PCs while they searched its lair.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

So I have seen twice in as many days, folks mention how "combat isn't that fun," which reinforced an occasional claim I have seen on these boards that confuses me, that combat is "a slog" or "a waste of time" (the latter usually going along with with discussion of random encounters or combats not directly related to achieving a narrative goal of an adventure).

So, I am asking: Do you find 5E combat fun? I allowed for four possible answers. I know some folks are absolutists, thus the raw yes/no responses - but understanding that even fun things can sometimes be unfun and unfun things occasionally turn out to be fun in certain circumstances, the "generally yes / generally no" responses is what I am most interested in. Yes it can depend on the DM, the specific scenario, the other players at the table, but generally. . .?

Personally, I LOVE combat. I am not a pure hack n' slash guy and definitely not a "optimization" guy though, because I like fights embedded in a narrative (even if that narrative is one that emerges after the fact) or within a context of relationships between and/or among those doing the fighting (including a potential environmental relationship). So while for me just a pure tactical skirmish game will occasionally scratch an itch, tactical combat in an interesting environment with some kind of RP stakes is my sweet spot, and it doesn't matter to me if it is a climactic battle with the BBEG at the end of a weeks long module or a random run in with bandits attacking a merchant caravan.

I do prefer combat with minis and a grid but have run and played in plenty of ToTM stuff.

When D&D combat is not fun for me, it is because it is a "Everyone lines up and fights" kind of combat or a combat where one or two optimized tactics are all that is needed to succeed and it goes on too long - though in generally I do like a longish combat (well, long by standards of what I gather other people think is long).

I think this question also influences people's thoughts on # of encounters per adventuring day thing. Some folks dread 6 or 8 encounters in a day because they dread most combat encounters. Some folks like them because they like kicking ass and taking names (or hightailing it, if necessary - "winning" is not a prerequisite for fun for me) and the system for doing that works for them.

So what say you? And I'd love more detailed thoughts about your answer in the comments.

I think it's generally fun, but coming up with a good encounter is a bit of work for the GM. Sometimes they are unimaginative, or (in my case, IMO) they try to set up something interesting and unexpected but it ends going flat for some reason.

I'm not too familiar with 5e, which means I can't optimize all that much, which is probably for the best. While the balance is looser than in 4e, it's nowhere near as over-the-top as 3e, so the GM doesn't have to create broken encounters to keep various players entertained.

Combat involves more movement than in 4e or 5e; WotC came up with a good way to keep opportunity attacks in the game (so fighters can protect squishies) without the "I don't dare move" problem that came up in 3e and 4e.

I prefer it with a grid. If I'm not using one, it doesn't feel like I'm even playing D&D. There are other games that are better at Theatre of the Mind (Fate comes to mind).

I don't find most of the monsters quite as interesting as 4e. I think it's okay if each monster gets an ability like "shifty". It's okay if only complex monsters get more abilities.

 

[tetrasodium]

D&D combat is too long because players take too long to execute their turns so combat needlessly drags. When each player spends 30 seconds on a turn then combat is more fun.

it's not as simple as you are making it out to be I posted a video of a rigged/defectie rockem sockem robtos game earlier

Spoiler: Here it is again

The fights are FAST! It's awesome yes? Who cares if you knw the outcome of any given battle that doesn't literally involve the hand of god reaching down to flick the red robot in some kind of abusive gm fiat analog Adding 3-5 more red robots & maybe even a few blue ones for the team of red players to face off against is not going to make that interesting or fun after everyone notices that the red robots are pretty much incapable of losing even if not paying attention & phoning it in or worse while an entire team f blue robots is on their very best A game while also getting lucky.

Combat in d&d has too many elements to judge it entirely on the almost puerile basis of faster=better. At some point those other elements are damaged by the quest for speed & too many corners have been cut to

 

[Maxperson]

I see this one a lot too but also not my experience. I see "abilities" as an add on - not the point of the monster. Heck, in a recent session a four hp xvart with some lucky rolls, no special abilities, and taking advantage of his size to retreat back to where the PCs had trouble reaching him, while his allies harried the PCs from another direction - led to a fun-ass combat. The players thought it was hilarious and named him the most vicious xvart of all time.

I guess a 4 hp xvart is a very small bag of hit points - but another fight with a 90+ hp Otyugh was made interesting by its ability to sink into the garbage floor and burrow - which I guess is an "ability" but just a form of movement to use creatively - when nearly defeated it fled - found a place to take a short rest and returned nearly back to full to surprise the PCs while they searched its lair.

Sure. Again, though, I didn't say that they weren't fun or that they weren't interesting at all. I'm just saying that the abilities and set-up of prior editions was MORE fun for me.

 

[Jmarso]

Another issue I have with 5E's combat system is the way there's an 'out' every round for abilities and effects. I get that it's an effort to keep players 'in the game', but again, it tends towards this mediocrity where it's hard for anything interesting or truly dangerous to happen.

Case in point: : Last night in our 2E game, the DM presented us with a pair of ghasts that a bad guy let out of cages to come after us. The DM role played the thing so well that initially we didn't even realize the monsters were ghasts, or even undead. A couple rounds into the fight, my superstar 13 WIS cleric (13 being his highest ability score!) got paralyzed and knocked down to 'desperation' HP with auto hits. There was no save at the end of the round- I was paralyzed for more rounds than the fight was going to last, out of action and now a liability to the party if they wanted to try and save me. One ghast was hauling my paralyzed ass away for a live feeding. 50% of the party was down and paralyzed before we eked out a victory. I didn't participate or say a word (except to laugh at my own predicament) the last 4 rounds of the fight. I was actually thinking about what my next character was going to be and wondering if this was going to be a TPK. And make no mistake- just because my character was out of action and I wasn't rolling dice didn't mean that I wasn't having fun or being hugely entertained- I was!

In 5E, you won't have fights like that because you get a save every round to end the effect. It goes back to what another poster was saying about the monsters in 5E just being HP bags with abilities tacked on- and most of these abilities are nerfed. A vampire's drain effect is an HP thing and goes away after a long rest? Well, vampires are no longer a threat to be feared- I'm looking at you, Strahd! Losing two levels permanently (Restoration / Wishes notwithstanding) made earlier versions of this creature something to be feared, respected, perhaps even avoided until you, too, were truly powerful. A couple hits from an old school vamp and you were either dead or so reduced in levels that the entire adventure just became certain doom. Same thing with petrification effects from a basilisk and so forth. In older editions, a basilisk could turn you straight to stone on a failed save and you were dead until the survivors went way out of their way to find a method of bringing you back. In 5E, you get two CON saves on successive turns against a DC12. I don't care who you are, those are nerfed abilities, and although I know not everyone sees it the same way, I feel they detract from the spiciness of DND combat.

 

[TheSword]

Another issue I have with 5E's combat system is the way there's an 'out' every round for abilities and effects. I get that it's an effort to keep players 'in the game', but again, it tends towards this mediocrity where it's hard for anything interesting or truly dangerous to happen.

Case in point: : Last night in our 2E game, the DM presented us with a pair of ghasts that a bad guy let out of cages to come after us. The DM role played the thing so well that initially we didn't even realize the monsters were ghasts, or even undead. A couple rounds into the fight, my superstar 13 WIS cleric (13 being his highest ability score!) got paralyzed and knocked down to 'desperation' HP with auto hits. There was no save at the end of the round- I was paralyzed for more rounds than the fight was going to last, out of action and now a liability to the party if they wanted to try and save me. One ghast was hauling my paralyzed ass away for a live feeding. 50% of the party was down and paralyzed before we eked out a victory. I didn't participate or say a word (except to laugh at my own predicament) the last 4 rounds of the fight. I was actually thinking about what my next character was going to be and wondering if this was going to be a TPK. And make no mistake- just because my character was out of action and I wasn't rolling dice didn't mean that I wasn't having fun or being hugely entertained- I was!

In 5E, you won't have fights like that because you get a save every round to end the effect. It goes back to what another poster was saying about the monsters in 5E just being HP bags with abilities tacked on- and most of these abilities are nerfed. A vampire's drain effect is an HP thing and goes away after a long rest? Well, vampires are no longer a threat to be feared- I'm looking at you, Strahd! Losing two levels permanently (Restoration / Wishes notwithstanding) made earlier versions of this creature something to be feared, respected, perhaps even avoided until you, too, were truly powerful. A couple hits from an old school vamp and you were either dead or so reduced in levels that the entire adventure just became certain doom. Same thing with petrification effects from a basilisk and so forth. In older editions, a basilisk could turn you straight to stone on a failed save and you were dead until the survivors went way out of their way to find a method of bringing you back. In 5E, you get two CON saves on successive turns against a DC12. I don't care who you are, those are nerfed abilities, and although I know not everyone sees it the same way, I feel they detract from the spiciness of DND combat.

It may well be that you have fun listening to the GM narrate what happens to your paralyzed character, round after round as you look on unable to act…

However I suspect the move away from this was very much to make the game more fun and driven by feedback from players.

Personally I can think of nothing worse that one unlucky save killing my character and prefer a fight to the bitter end.

Incidentally, for people who say 5e characters can’t die, my players nearly died 2 times in the last session. Once when they foolishly tried to take on an entire tribe of troglodyte brutes because they thought they had a good defensible position. Secondly because they took a head on approach vs a legendary Cerberus. They were two bad rolls away from at least one or two deaths or a TPK.