D&D (2024) Is Combat Tedious on Purpose?

[The Firebird]

Compared to...

Attack for damage
Attack for damage
Attack for damage
Attack for damage
...
Attack for damage, you killed it.

Then yea. Throwing in a bonus action to knock prone now and then is good thing.

But throw in too much and you it becomes convoluted.

If you want the combat to be tactical, sure. But I find that combat is generally the least interesting part of my games. At least in 5e, it is often a foregone conclusion that the PCs will win nearly every encounter. The failure rate is down near 5% or below. That means that the majority of combats end up a lot of waiting for other people to take their turns for something that has very low stakes.

I'd rather emphasize the other parts of the game--who do we engage in combat, what long term plans are we making, who are we allying with, what goals do we want to accomplish. And then I want combats that can get out of the way quickly, so we can get back to the real game.

 

[Incenjucar]

Combat is entirely optional. You can always use skill challenges instead.

 

[Minigiant]

Combat is tedious because other aspects of the game that were designed to be more fun leak into combat and make it tedious.

And 90% of it is due to catering to spell caster fans.

Basically we made spellcasters and magic strong while keeping them complex.

And in turn we had to raise complexity of non-magic casting aspects of the game to make them not be completely drowned out by magic

For example bonus actions were created so that spellcasters can do something else when they cast their spells. But by doing so we created a new action that every character wants to use.

It's not on purpose, it's just pure accidents.

The only reason why other RPGs don't feel this problem is because many of them are new or have small fan bases that true power gaming and mechanical criticism has not pushed them to have to deal with such problems and they haven't entered that phase where they add things to make the game more fun and then accidentally make it more tedious. Many games are still in their second edition honeymoon phase where if no one really has dug in and criticized their game system and suggested adding the game elements which cause the tedium.

 

[bloodtide]

It really depends on the table, DM and players. A great group will breeze through combats quick.....other groups, not so fast.

From watching 1,000's of games, I can say a lot of games goof around too much....and maybe worse...a lot of games are run super slow.

Some games let a single player take 10, 20, 30 minutes or more to do a single round action. This really slows down the game.

But a conspiracy to use online stuff....LOL......WotC is not that soft. When "not 6E" comes out again in a couple years you might see stuff in the rulebook like (blank page) log onto D&DStuff.crom for this content! (blank page)......

 

[Stalker0]

This is one of those classic "complexity vs speed" type scenarios.

Dnd has chosen to stay on the higher side of the complexity spectrum when it comes to combat. Both in the number of combat options, as well as the mechanism to resolve those actions. Now its no where the highest (like a GURPS for example), but its up there.

The price of that is speed, its just not going to run as fast as a more streamline tailored system like Feng Shui which is specifically designed for fast and furious combat.

Now 5e is more streamlined than 3e especially, and its combats run noticeably faster to me than previous editions, but in comparison to other RPGs its still on the chunky slow side.

 

[Deset Gled]

If you don't like combat, it seems like almost any system (RPG, VTT, or otherwise) focused on it would probably qualify as tedious. But given the tread topic, dwelling on that discussion feels like threadcrapping.

FWIW, I can't think of any edition of D&D (or probably any other RPG) that hasn't been called "tedious" at some point. 5e is too simple and doesn't have enough options. 4e is too boardgamey. 3e is too complicated and has too much resource management. 2e has too many subsystems and optional rules. AD&D and earlier systems have too many esoteric and random details to keep track of, and math that doesn't make sense.

OTOH, I find MtG and other CCGs to be tedious. But the simple response to that complaint is that I just don't play the game. RPGs are a bit more unique in that people complain about such a vast section of the rules, yet still continue to play it. And D&D in particular, being the Big Fish in the small pond, gets the butt of the complaints. I think there's a lot to be said about @Minigiant's point that other games simply aren't held to the same standard as D&D in this regard. For any alt-D&D game, you'd just be told to switch to a system that you like more, or make your own house rules. That, combined with the decades of people loudly complaining about what they don't want an RPG to be (rather than a clear statement of what the market actually wants) is what lead to the system we have now.

Now, getting away from the meta-discussion and going all the way back to the OP...

It got me to thinking, is this a deliberate design choice on the part of WotC? An effort to get us to rely on their APP and/or VTT so they can more effectively monetize D&D? I hate to be a Conspiracy Carl here, but I can't help but wonder.

I for one think that VTTs are actually a great way for WotC to add complexity back into D&D. As a 3.5e fan, I would love for a VTT that has built-in tools to handle things like resource management and more simulation-like combat rules. I really hope that using computer assistance becomes a way for D&D to support a higher degree of complexity without sacrificing speed of play.

However, I also think think that this inevitably leads to place where the rules for D&D as a tabletop game and D&D as a VTT game will start to diverge. What's good for theatre-of-the-mind or minis is not necesarily good for VTTS. And there's no easy way to deal with that issue. WotC is currently trying maintain users on all all sides of the fence. Time will tell how much that succeeds, and how long they can successfully straddle.

 

[mellored]

And then I want combats that can get out of the way quickly, so we can get back to the real game.

Then just say something like..

"After a quick skirmish, the goblins lie dead at your feet. You took 10 damage in the exchange and the wizard used one of his slots".

Or use one of the more story oriented games. D&D is the biggest, but not the only one out there.

 

[Umbran]

Since we usually find combat in 5e a lot faster than 3e or 4e, I'm going to go with no - it's not particularly tedious nor, of course, intentionally tedious to get people to rely on their APP or VTT.

I'm with billd91 here. 5e combat less tedious than that of many games I can think of. If they were trying to make it tedious on purpose, they did a bad job of it!

They didn't have a VTT on release, or for years after that release. So, no, they didn't design it to drive you to the VTT.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Bandits usually stop fighting after you've split their leader in two

When in doubt, chop the leader into smaller pieces. That usually gets everyone's attention.

 

[Quickleaf]

@MGibster Have you noticed the 2024 rules leading to more tedious combats than the 2014 rules? (asking because I haven't touched 2024)

More generally... medium influences message. There was a consulting team during 2024 D&D's design that focused on digital integration, and they would give advice about changes to the rules to make it easier to implement in a digital play space. I remember because one member of that team posted about being fired. Sorry, can't remember the link - too many things I'm tracking.

So, even with best of intentions, if the C-suite is saying "go digital, digital, digital" and you have the designers getting feedback to "change X and Y to make it easier for digital coding and play"...it's not a great leap to think that they might be overlooking typical combat times around a physical table with actual bodies, and they might underestimate the mental burden on the GM with tracking conditions, for example.