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

[Lyxen]

There I suggested that one of the reasons many people don't have 6-8 medium encounters per adventuring day is because that does not make for entertaining gameplay. That is, there is a something of a gap between how designers imagined people might play when they designed the CR system and XP budgets

And, once more, it goes to show that most people who criticise 5e have not really read or understood the rules. Pray tell, where did the designers even advise that there should be 6-8 medium encounters per adventuring day ?

Because it's NOT what is in the DMG neither is it advised in any section of any book.

Critical role and other popular actual plays are really instructive when it comes to how the game is actually played.

I agree, I would just say "how the game is actually played... by some groups." There are apparently groups playing very differently, and if you look around forums, apparently groups playing it fairly competitively for example.

Similarly, I think the existence of Pathfinder 2e and the various 3rd party 5e products (Level Up, various monster books) suggests that involved, varied tactical gameplay across all levels is a niche that core 5e does not do well, hence creating markets for other games or for supplements.

It's also a niche that only appeals to a much smaller population, hence the fact that 3e/4e/PF never really took off.

 

[Musing Mage]

And, once more, it goes to show that most people who criticise 5e have not really read or understood the rules. Pray tell, where did the designers even advise that there should be 6-8 medium encounters per adventuring day ?

Because it's NOT what is in the DMG neither is it advised in any section of any book.

DMG pg 84 suggests that the typical group should be able to handle 6-8 encounters medium or hard encounters per day before taking a long rest. While not a hard and fast rule per se, it's a parameter that's clearly laid out.

I shall return to the shadows now, lurking and observing with my popcorn.

 

[Malmuria]

And, once more, it goes to show that most people who criticise 5e have not really read or understood the rules. Pray tell, where did the designers even advise that there should be 6-8 medium encounters per adventuring day ?

Because it's NOT what is in the DMG neither is it advised in any section of any book.

Yes, I understand, it's what parties can potentially handle. But they could have designed the CR system, XP values, and class abilities per SR/LR in a totally different way if they had different assumptions about how people would play the game. For example, SR classes could have had more abilities per SR, or LR classes more abilities per LR, if they had anticipated a different pace to the "adventuring day," one based around fewer encounters.

 

[Lyxen]

DMG pg 84 suggests that the typical group should be able to handle 6-8 encounters medium or hard encounters per day before taking a long rest. While not a hard and fast rule per se, it's a parameter that's clearly laid out.

It's not a suggestion, it's just a statement of the capabilities of a typical group, especially since the sentence ends with " If the adventure has more easy encounters, the adventurers can get through more. If it has more deadly encounters, they can handle fewer."

And that is all.

Yes, I understand, it's what parties can potentially handle. But they could have designed the CR system, XP values, and class abilities per SR/LR in a totally different way if they had different assumptions about how people would play the game. For example, SR classes could have had more abilities per SR, or LR classes more abilities per LR, if they had anticipated a different pace to the "adventuring day," one based around fewer encounters.

5e is just designed to be open-ended, there are so many classes, so many abilities, so many types of encounters that they preferred to leave it open to the DM to design what he wants, with a few indicative tools. They specifically did not want a repeat of 4e where indeed everything was defined to a point where freedom was indeed stiffled.

I agree that it's not perfect, in particular because it makes it hard for a DM to design encounters, the rules and tools are fuzzy. But in the end, even when trying to be precise, tools will fail because in the end the circumstances of encounters make an even bigger difference in the computation of their difficulty, and these are impossible to quantify in an open world.

 

[Shardstone]

At some tables and-or in some gaming communities they certainly can be; and if the poster you were replying to is used to such non-optimising tables/communities than IMO it's fair comment.

It isn't a fair comment, because its an erroneous and ignorant generalization.

 

[clearstream]

It's not a suggestion, it's just a statement of the capabilities of a typical group, especially since the sentence ends with " If the adventure has more easy encounters, the adventurers can get through more. If it has more deadly encounters, they can handle fewer."

I feel the guidance reflects broader balancing, around the number of uses of features characters will have. For me it is one of the 'misses' of the design. I do run 6 or so encounters per adventuring day in my campaign, but equally feel it would have been better to balance around 3 or 4.

 

[Shardstone]

It's not a suggestion, it's just a statement of the capabilities of a typical group, especially since the sentence ends with " If the adventure has more easy encounters, the adventurers can get through more. If it has more deadly encounters, they can handle fewer."

And that is all.



5e is just designed to be open-ended, there are so many classes, so many abilities, so many types of encounters that they preferred to leave it open to the DM to design what he wants, with a few indicative tools. They specifically did not want a repeat of 4e where indeed everything was defined to a point where freedom was indeed stiffled.

I agree that it's not perfect, in particular because it makes it hard for a DM to design encounters, the rules and tools are fuzzy. But in the end, even when trying to be precise, tools will fail because in the end the circumstances of encounters make an even bigger difference in the computation of their difficulty, and these are impossible to quantify in an open world.

Your argument boils down to since rules can never be perfect, and we have rules that work, we should never innovate or try to find better solutions. With respect to you, that is a very limp and otherwise defeatist argument that, when deconstructed, is no better than an attempt to stop the conversation. If you think that trying to think up new solutions for 5E problems is wrong, or discussing flaws in design is foolish, I think you've made that loud and clear.

 

[Malmuria]

5e is just designed to be open-ended, there are so many classes, so many abilities, so many types of encounters that they preferred to leave it open to the DM to design what he wants, with a few indicative tools. They specifically did not want a repeat of 4e where indeed everything was defined to a point where freedom was indeed stiffled.

The point still stands though--is a game that involves 6-8 medium encounters per adventuring day fun? Are random encounters that are rolled up without context fun or that don't pertain to the main narrative fun? I would say no, for me that kind of gameplay is a slog and is uninteresting. By contrast, interesting fights (in 5e) ought to have some thought put into them by the DM and some narrative stakes.

As a point of reference, I would say almost the opposite is true in a game of Basic dnd. If combat is resolved quickly, with fewer player options, then it doesn't matter as much how many you have. Wandering monsters play well into the economy of dungeon crawling resource management without becoming boring. And a lot of the fun is all the ways you can resolve encounters by not getting into initiative--sneaking around them, getting surprise, stacking things in your favor, etc.

JUST MY 2 CENTS, MY OPINION, IF YOU ARE HAVING FUN KEEP HAVING FUN etc

 

[niklinna]

Thing is you can disagree with something, and be clearly wrong. It's not a mess. Millions of people play it a week. They wouldn't if it's a mess. People tweak things. But it's not a mess, otherwise people in this day and age would abandon it. It's not perfect, buts it good, and we shouldn't lose that goodness in pursuit of the perfect. If it wasn't good people wouldn't play it.

"Messy", like "fun", and even "good/bad", is a subjective idea. My mother used to pester me to tidy up my room; but I knew where everything was, which to my mind was quite well organized. And some people like messy, even those who don't know where everything is (perhaps even because of that).

To Lanefan, 5E is enough of a mess that they don't want to run it, and that has nothing whatever to do with how many people play it, and they aren't wrong for finding it too messy for their tastes. Just like I'm not wrong for finding celery and cilantro absolutely disgusting.

 

[cbwjm]

DMG pg 84 suggests that the typical group should be able to handle 6-8 encounters medium or hard encounters per day before taking a long rest. While not a hard and fast rule per se, it's a parameter that's clearly laid out.

I shall return to the shadows now, lurking and observing with my popcorn.

I think the problem is that people take this as gospel for what's needed in an adventuring day when, what I think, it's saying that if you have 6-8 medium or hard encounters, your players may start to have difficulty progressing. People have taken it to mean that if you don't have 6-8 encounters then you aren't playing dnd the way the designers meant for you to play and, of course, that means you're having trouble with the game.