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

[I'm A Banana]

Yeah, it's a contentious title, but we're living in a post-social media world where click bait titles are how you get views. But let's start from the beginning. Is combat in 5th edition tedious? After a few weeks of running it with the players moving from levels 1 through 4, I can safely say, yes, combat is a bit tedious. Between movement, bonus actions, actions, and keeping track of everything, including spell effects and weapon masteries, I'm finding combat, something that should be the highlight of D&D, to be a grind.

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.

There's a bit of fundamental confusion about D&D that is something of a result of its popularity.

Is it a game primarily about fighting monsters cinematically? If so, and combat is tedious, it needs some more game-system juice. Things like the escalation die, or big, dramatic things that swing the fight in significant ways, ways to combine character efforts, and generally things that add some wahoo.

Is the game primarily about fighting monsters tactically? If so, and combat is tedious, we need to look at how individual decision points can combine effectively or not to create an overwhelming victory. We don't need juice, we need granularity, impactful decision-making, and stacking effects.

Is the game primarily about something other than fighting monsters, even if fighting monsters sometimes features in it? If so, and combat is tedious, we need to look at eliminating time spent in combat. Reduce decisions, reduce the juice, treat monster encounters more like traps (a few rolls and it's over), keep them interesting, but even movement + action is probably too much decision-making.

The answer is that D&D is all of these things, some of the time, and so the combat system right now tries to ride the line a little bit, and doesn't deliver on any of these to a really strong degree (because it wants to be general, not specific). And different games have different biases depending on the style of game we're playing.

My bias tends to be for the third point, because my games are only about fighting monsters some of the time, but I'm well aware that the first two styles are also very popular, and one solution doesn't work for all three.

 

[Voadam]

My experience is D&D's initiative system fails to scale up well for larger groups – even if there's inevitable increase in handling time with more players, the initiative system really exacerbates that.

My read is that the more an initiative system is about individual thinking (as opposed to team thinking) & the more that system actively thwarts teamwork & the more that system is obsessed with rolling for every creature individually & the more that system gets interrupted by reactions... then the more that tedium is exacerbated.

Side initiative CAN work to mitigate, but it won't necessarily work without GM action...and can create its own problems.

Examples of tricks I've used that have mitigated that exacerbation (not prevented it entirely), while still maintaining individual initiative rolls, include...

• Change the needlessly complex 5e surprise rules (where initiative is tracked during "surprise round" such that someone might no longer be surprised if their initiative comes up before an ambusher's initiative)
• Players can opt to combine multiple PCs under single initiative roll (e.g. if they already have a plan in mind)
• Clustering player groups when PCs have no monsters between them – and being willing to intermingle "player turns" when they are clustered together (e.g. fighter rushes away, wizard fireballs, fighter shoots bow)
• Display initiative (visible to all players) showing PC clusters & use color/indents to clearly denote PCs vs monsters
• 1-minute football huddle among players to devise team strategy after initiative is rolled, but before combat starts
• Players always win initiative ties
• Devising "mob" methods of handling/rolling for large groups of monsters
• Saving monsters with Reactions for special combats (and in large groups of monsters either outright removing monster Reactions OR consolidating them into a Group Reaction)
• Limiting opportunity attacks to certain PCs/monster types – NOT a universal ability for all creatures

I suggested two 5e initiative systems for the face to face games i was playing in to speed up turn transition and reduce order tracking time:

1 Everyone rolls init normally but the order goes from highest first then around the table in seating arrangement order starting with them so it is always clear who is next.

2 The DM rolls a die and counts off from themself around the table and that seating arrangement goes first then in order around the table.

Both are quick and low mental load additions compared to the normal figuring out the order 5e system.

 

[Umbran]

I quite agree, but it can be worthwhile if alternatives to the official rules are available, be they 3pp material, homebrew, or different but similar games (or all three). The issue IMO is when there are complaints, but only official changes are acceptable to the complaining party. In that situation I see the argument as pointless outside of venting (which not everyone doing this says is their reason).

So, there's an interesting subtlety in this. If we are given that, at least short term, a game is what it is, then there are a few different useful goals* in discourse:

1) Informing those who are not yet engaged with the game about the game, Siskel and Ebert style.
2) Venting. I get it, but it really helps if folks are up front that this is what they are doing.
3) Finding solutions - as you mention, above.
4) Building other solutions, collaborating with other players to figure out fixes.

Only the first of which is really what we would properly call "critique" or "criticism". The others call for different modes of interaction than criticism provides.

And knowing the audience matters. F'rex: walking into a messageboard that is dedicated to 5e to critique 5e tends to be teaching your grandmother to suck eggs. You aren't generally addressing people who have not engaged with the game, so it is the wrong place for critique, honestly.

And that failure in understanding may lead to some of what EzekielRaiden described, above. Nobody on the 5e boards is the seasoned critic speaking to an uneducated audience. Approaching discussion there like you were is going to fall flat.


*There are engagements in discourse that I do not list, because they are not terribly useful. For example, some folks like to stroke their own egos by sounding cool and sophisticated via not liking popular things. That's not of much value to anyone.

 

[Lanefan]

Conversely, if combat were anything like the "Old School" thing you describe, I would be doing the pantomime in your linked image. I can't stand combat that is literally nothing but "I attack, I hit, damage, NEXT". It's so, so, so goddamn BORING. I'd rather play Solitaire or watch paint dry.

I don't mind it if only because "I attack, I hit, roll damage" takes (or bloody well should take!) a trivial amount of time, meaning the rounds go by fast and the whole combat doesn't take long....unless everyone has bags of hit points you have to chop through.

That's the beauty of early-TSR-era D&D: at low-mid level it's easy to get through three or four or five small-ish combats in a typical session, should that be the situation they're in. Even at very low level, 3e combats took longer; and it quickly got worse as the levels advanced. From what I've read on these forums plus some tales from friends, I'm going to guess things haven't improved much in the editions since.

 

[Lanefan]

It's why I prefer volatility rather than lethality.

Lethality measures how likely it is that your character is going to die in any given situation. Volatility measures how frequently your character changes state, whether or not that state is (specifically) death.

OSR games are extremely lethal in most cases, where literally any combat has a pretty meaningful chance of death until you get several levels under your belt, which you have previously noted may take literal years IRL. But, ironically, they are not actually very volatile, because the state-flip is usually almost binary and happens hard, fast, and (often) without any ability to bounce back. Despite being a radically different kind of game, 3e also ended up in this space too, because its ludicrously powerful spells (particularly save-or-die/save-or-suck spells) meant that either you won spectacularly and thus didn't see much change of state, or you lost spectacularly and thus only saw one change of state.

I get what you're saying, but I'll add that older games had other state-changing effects beyond just death that largely no longer exist: level drain, stat loss, long-term polymorph, etc. etc.

One thing we added in was a (not perfect but it'll do) system to somewhat replicate long-term injuries from which you couldn't recover quickly, and that brings another state-changing effect to the table: yes you're still alive, but you're "incurable", meaning you can't go above just a few hit points until some time (usually a day or two) has passed.

From all I can tell, 5.xe has dialled down the lethality but hasn't added in much (if any) volatility to make up for it and one could argue has even dialled down the volatility as well.

 

[Voadam]

That's the beauty of early-TSR-era D&D: at low-mid level it's easy to get through three or four or five small-ish combats in a typical session, should that be the situation they're in. Even at very low level, 3e combats took longer; and it quickly got worse as the levels advanced. From what I've read on these forums plus some tales from friends, I'm going to guess things haven't improved much in the editions since.

4e was designed to go quicker per person per round than 3e with more depth of combat than 3e or AD&D but to also go more rounds with huge hp on both sides of the PC monster split to lead to epic action movie back and forth combats as a default. In execution this worked pretty well but there was still some fiddliness with one round temporary buffs and debuffs that were sometimes conditional and as levels advanced it was easy to get pile up conditional conditions on a PC or monster that were fiddly to remember. At the end of long fights after encounter and daily powers have been expended it could bog down to lots of rounds with hitting with the same at will powers back and forth to wittle the hp down.

4e had tools for really quick minor combats with their minion rules, but the baseline encounter design with the suggested xp budget was for epic drawn out dynamic significant fights.

 

[overgeeked]

I’m not sure it’s “on purpose” in the sense of a conspiracy or it’s the intended goal, but it’s absolutely true that the more mechanics you point at a thing, the longer it takes to resolve. Everyone’s balancing point of tedious vs not tedious is different. Most D&D and D&D-like combat is tedious for me. You’d have to dial things back to B/X or AD&D for it to be tolerable rather than tedious.

 

[Piperken]

One observation I can make of 5e is that once you reach the tipping point (where it becomes moooostly clear which side will be victorious)...

<3 2d6 Morale checks. I introduced this recently and plan on using it more often!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I agree. This is a thing with every edition of the game that has ever been published - really, any edition of any game that has ever been published in print form.

By the time you have the book, it is too late for criticism looking for substantive change. The publishing timeline is just too darned long and expensive to expect them to change the game as printed.

Like, just above, someone's noting how initiative doesn't scale well. And they may have a point. But there is zero chance that, even if they hear you and kind of agree, they are going to rewrite the entire action economy at this point to handle that issue. It is what it is.

Criticism of the books expecting them to change the game is kind of like criticizing a movie, expecting them to re-shoot and re-edit it and put a new version into theaters. It isn't happening.

See, this is extremely frustrating.

Because I did this. All throughout both the "D&D Next" and "One D&D" play tests. I voiced my criticisms, I pointed out issues, I correctly predicted many of the things that actually ended up happening.

You know what I was told? "It's just a play test, you can't expect them to fix everything." Or, worse, "It's too early. You can't actually know things are a problem. Wait for the next packet, you'll get your stuff." Then it was "wait for the end of the public play test." Then it was "wait for release." Then, and I am 100% not joking, someone actually told me this on another forum with absolute sincerity, "Wait a couple years after launch." I was in fact slippery-sloped; every time a boundary came where I had been told I was finally allowed to have a critical opinion, I was told to wait longer because I couldn't truly understand the game until more info came out.

And now? Now that 5.5e is out and with us? "Well, it's way too late to actually do anything, so your criticism is irrelevant and unproductive, so you should just stop doing it."

No. Absolutely the Nine Hells not. Screw that noise.

 

[AlViking]

See, this is extremely frustrating.

Because I did this. All throughout both the "D&D Next" and "One D&D" play tests. I voiced my criticisms, I pointed out issues, I correctly predicted many of the things that actually ended up happening.

You know what I was told? "It's just a play test, you can't expect them to fix everything." Or, worse, "It's too early. You can't actually know things are a problem. Wait for the next packet, you'll get your stuff." Then it was "wait for the end of the public play test." Then it was "wait for release." Then, and I am 100% not joking, someone actually told me this on another forum with absolute sincerity, "Wait a couple years after launch." I was in fact slippery-sloped; every time a boundary came where I had been told I was finally allowed to have a critical opinion, I was told to wait longer because I couldn't truly understand the game until more info came out.

And now? Now that 5.5e is out and with us? "Well, it's way too late to actually do anything, so your criticism is irrelevant and unproductive, so you should just stop doing it."

No. Absolutely the Nine Hells not. Screw that noise.

It could also be that your personal opinion didn't make a dent compared to the number of people who wanted a different direction. Even if the designers take every single comment into consideration they still have to weigh opinions that are popular and their own vision. If you can only accept perfection in a game you are going to be doomed to disappointment. All you can do is decide whether any specific game or version is worth playing for you.

I happen to like 5E and the majority of new rules even if I do continue to make some very minor house rules. Is your opinion somehow more important than mine or the opinion of my players? Because if it's not then you're just venting which as @Umbran pointed out is perfectly fine. It's just not going to change anything.