D&D 5E 5E and Sense of Accomplishment

[Blackwarder]

I can see shorter combats being a huge advantage in a session that only lasts for 2 hours or so.

Overall, I am heartened by what you guys have had to say. I am intrigued to see what effects this will have on 5e OP adventures. As much as I really liked 4e and LFR, it felt like most of the adventures followed a very similar pattern: 3 combats broken up by 1-2 skill challenges. I hope we get some really innovative adventures for the new system.

Well, if the sundering adventures are any indication we can expect some realy cool ones, not to mention the fact that Tyranny of Dragons is written by Kobold Press who are known for their excellent adventure design.

Warder

 

[amerigoV]

I can see shorter combats being a huge advantage in a session that only lasts for 2 hours or so.

Overall, I am heartened by what you guys have had to say. I am intrigued to see what effects this will have on 5e OP adventures. As much as I really liked 4e and LFR, it felt like most of the adventures followed a very similar pattern: 3 combats broken up by 1-2 skill challenges. I hope we get some really innovative adventures for the new system.

Short combats and adventure design are not necessarily linked automatically. In playing other, faster systems I think the sense of accomplishment is much higher. Its simply because you tend to get to better highlight points faster (ie, a great adventure may not be memorable if it takes forever to finish).

But to me the issue of WoTC improving their adventures is a separate issue than just speed of play.

 

[Blackbrrd]

For our playtests, yes.

My group likes combat - not to the exclusion of non-combat, but enough that they want it to play a role most sessions.

When we were playing both 4e and 3e, combat could take up to 2 hours. We only play for 2-3 hours each session. So if combat was to play a role, it would sometimes mean it was the only thing we did for a session.

Now, with combat taking 10-30 minutes, there is time enough to choose to do both combat and non-combat things in each session. And that seems to give my players more of a sense of accomplishment.

Well said!

Btw, is 5e really that much faster than 3e? Is it because of the more limited character creation options in the 5e test rules, lower levels in the playtest or is the system just faster? In other words, I am curious to what you think makes the system faster.

With combats only lasting 10-30 minutes, you don't feel you are wasting time if you end up in a little fight. In 4e a random encounter can quickly take up the whole session if you have 2-3 hour sessions and a slow DM and a bazillion interrupts, minor actions, action points and conditions.

Personally, if the story hasn't moved on, or some story related mob been killed, I don't feel I have accomplished anything. This often happens in 4e, especially in the original H1-E3 modules. I am running some homebrew and basicaly only use important encounters which works out nicely. On the flip side, most encounters involve using all your dailies / action points, so it feels a bit weird.

 

[gweinel]

I am a person that I like the 3rd edition combat but the 4th's edition bore me to death.

I would like to paraphrase a bit the original poster with a similar question:


Now that the combats are quicker does one get the sense of accomplishment after the encounters?

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Btw, is 5e really that much faster than 3e? Is it because of the more limited character creation options in the 5e test rules, lower levels in the playtest or is the system just faster? In other words, I am curious to what you think makes the system faster.

I don't believe that the options are "limited" in the test rules. I believe that all the options are in there already and anyone hoping that the final rules will be somehow more complex are fooling themselves.

But, yes, that's why it's faster. During a round of combat you have so few options that you come up with an action very quickly. You also don't have to worry about a bunch of rules that get in the way of resolving your action.

As an example:

3.5e: Alright, I move over here, by moving to this square, then this square, then this square, That provokes an attack of opportunity but I make a Tumble check DC 26 so I make it. Then I move to this square which provokes from this guy. He makes an attack roll and hits AC 28. That hits, I take 27 damage. Alright, now when I get to here I have flanking. I have a feat that allows me to add an extra d6 against targets I'm flanking. I'm then going to use another feat to use a level 5 spell to add +5 to hit and +5d4 points of damage to my next again. I then cast a swift action spell to make my attacks this round touch attacks. I then Power Attack for -10. I get to make my full round of attacks because I get pounce from this PrC here. Now, time to make my 5 attacks this round since I'm dual wielding and have improved two weapon fighting. Oh, that monster gets a free attack against me because I'm attacking his friend and he has a feat that lets him take an opportunity attack against someone who attacks his charge? Alright, he attacks me and hit AC 17 but misses. Back to my attacks. Attack #1...and so on.

5e: Hmm, I can...either make an attack or...no, that's my only real option. I make at attack against AC 19. I hit for 15 damage.

It's not just the amount of options, however. It's also the TYPE of options. Options that can be used to interrupt other people's turns take longer to resolve. Abilities that require specific activation and adding of numbers also take longer to resolve. A feat that permanently adds +2 to damage takes almost no time to resolve. An ability that allows you to use a spell slot to add +hit and +damage takes a while because now you have to consider whether you have the actions in a combat to use the feat, which spell slot you think you can lose without causing a problem, and whether it is worth it to add the extra damage.

With combats only lasting 10-30 minutes, you don't feel you are wasting time if you end up in a little fight. In 4e a random encounter can quickly take up the whole session if you have 2-3 hour sessions and a slow DM and a bazillion interrupts, minor actions, action points and conditions.

I admit that both in 2e when battles used to be very fast and in 5e sometimes minor battles can feel a little bit like a chore. The monsters aren't going to win and half the time they aren't even going to hit the PCs at all. Or if they do, they are going to cause so little damage that it isn't significant. However, the battles take so little time that I get over it very quickly and move on. Which is precisely why it feels more fulfilling. Sure, there was a kind of useless battle against skeletons in one room and zombies in another. However, during the session we managed to explore 15 rooms, find a bunch of treasure, defeat the lich ruling the complex, solve a riddle, and get past about 10 nasty traps. It feels like things get done.

Especially in contrast to some of my sessions in 3.5e or 4e. We'd literally fight 2 battles in a session. In between we would have opened one door.

 

[Mistwell]

We have not played beyond 4th level (though they've faced up to 7th level creatures) so I cannot speak to mid to high level.

That said, the combats seem to go faster and are deadlier. We just saw a Wyvern taken down in a single surprise round by the party. I've also seen the entire party routed and in full retreat (with two people unconscious, and a wizard lock scroll used to delay pursuit) in just two rounds of combat with some souped-up lizardmen.

I do not think it's because of lack of options, though there are fewer options I think in general. I think it's just faster, with fewer hit points involved, lower armor classes, and a lot fewer bonuses and penalties to work out. I never hear my players trying to work out any math, or juggle multiple similar choices to nail down the most efficient attack, when it's their turn. It just...goes. It's their turn, and they are declaring attacks as they roll dice and tell me what the damage is if they hit, and then it's the next person's turn. And even when they do something odd that calls for a skill check or something similar, it's really fast to adjudicate as just an ability check with or without proficiency.

 

[Rhenny]

I am a person that I like the 3rd edition combat but the 4th's edition bore me to death.

I would like to paraphrase a bit the original poster with a similar question:


Now that the combats are quicker does one get the sense of accomplishment after the encounters?

Different types of encounters have different ways to make you feel like you've accomplished something.

If the group likes longer combats...the DM can create a longer more difficult combat encounter. Victory will feel like an accomplishment if it is challenging enough.

For shorter combats, there are different ways to feel accomplishment. Fighting an easy or moderately difficult encounter feels satisfying if the party can avoid taking damage. It seems weird, but in our group, the players breathe a sigh of relief when they can get through an encounter without taking damage or when they minimize the damage they take. Additionally, for shorter combats, the result of combat becomes more important than the combat itself. For example, if the PCs are sneaking into a lair and there are two guards outside. The feeling of accomplishment comes from taking out the guards quickly and quietly so that they can gain entrance to the lair undetected - not by the length and complexity of the combat. There are countless examples where the goal of an encounter is really to find something, or gain access to something, or to steal something, or to save someone, etc. It is very satisfying when a party can accomplish these goals quickly without spending over 45 minutes in combat.

That said, there is nothing stopping a DM or group from having 1 hour combats. This can be achieved if that is what a group enjoys.

Also, as to complexity and options....there will be plenty of them for those who want them. I feel it in my bones.

 

[Rhenny]

I don't believe that the options are "limited" in the test rules. I believe that all the options are in there already and anyone hoping that the final rules will be somehow more complex are fooling themselves.

But, yes, that's why it's faster. During a round of combat you have so few options that you come up with an action very quickly. You also don't have to worry about a bunch of rules that get in the way of resolving your action.

I agree that limiting options does speed up turns.

On the other hand, I am quite sure that there will be many more options available in the player's handbook and the DMs guide when it is launched. (probably more feats, more maneuvers, optional tactical rules, etc.)

I am interested to find out if using the options will slow down the game.

Also, we haven't really seen the final math for monsters. If ACs and HP go up, we might see a little slow down. How much? Can't tell. Generally, I've been adding HP to the monsters in my sessions and sometimes I give them better armor. If it has slowed down the game, we haven't really noticed.

 

[Shiroiken]

I'll be honest. I've never felt a sense of accomplishment from a combat. Ever. I've had moments that I couldn't believe we managed to pull it off, or a sense of relief afterwards, but accomplishment... no. You can win just about every combat simply by rolling a 20 every time. If we made an encounter meaningless due to a well implemented plan, we might feel satisfaction, but not accomplishment.

I feel a sense of accomplishment from completing a goal. If completing that goal requires a combat, then I'll feel accomplishment, but not from the combat itself. To me, combat is just a means to an end.

 

[Blackbrrd]

[MENTION=5143]Majoru Oakheart[/MENTION], [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] thanks for your responses.

I was going to mention that the 3.0 PHB wasn't too fiddley when I remembered all the hour-long buffs, minute-long buffs and x-round-long buffs. Then I remembered all the +1/-1 bonuses or penalties you could stack up and the grappling rules. The touch AC stuff. And a lot more of those weird things that just slows the game down.

Last I looked at the 5e play test, it looked like they had it under control. The amount of fiddley bits like the ones above are much smaller. Instead of all those buff mechanics, you have one, requiring concentration and you can only have one. Instead of adding/subtracting all those small bonuses, you just check for advantage/disadvantage. If I remember correctly, there isn't any touch AC either?

Another good point that [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] mentioned where the ratio between AC, to-hit bonus and hp. Much less hp than 4e, and a much flatter AC range than 3e. I remember some 3e with monsters (roper!) that you could barely hit. Or undead that couldn't be sneak attacked or critted, or monsters with huge damage reduction in many cases.

I really liked 3e, except for the fiddley bits, mostly because the rest of the group used such a long time, I never used a long time, except when I cast quickened Divine Power, Rightous Might and used my Heroic effort to get an attack in, I just needed to recalculate the whole character with +6 enhancement bonus to strength, change my BAB to my character level, and a +4 size bonus to strength and a +2 size bonus to con, recalculate hp, add the -1 size bonus to attack rolls, -1 size bonus to AC and look up what the dice progression for a 1d10 weapon. Would it be 2d6 or 2d8? Oooh, and I would have to factor in that I already had a +2 enhancement bonus to strength, so I would only add +4 of the +6 enhancement bonus. I usually had some of this pre-calculated and did the rest of the calculation out-of-turn on a piece of paper giving me the complete full round attack routine, but seriously, none of the other players would have used less than a couple of minutes.

In short, I think 5e will do very well when it comes to sense of accomplishment, but with much less time doing a primary school math test every 10-20 minutes.