Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 6306276" data-attributes="member: 18">Yes, actually, and based on my group's 5E playtesting (admittedly most of it from the early playtest stages, but if anything, the game was moving further away from tactical combat as it went on, it seemed), the simple answer is no, the players do not get the same sense of accomplishment as they do from 3.XE/4E.However, that's not necessarily the end of the world, because you have more time for other things, many of which players love just as much.In 2E and similar editions (which I played and ran since 2E came out), the only real combat-related "sense of accomplishment" tended to come from one of two things:1) We totally ambushed those dudes, they didn't stand a chance! - The accomplishment was entirely from the preparation, essentially, with little from the execution. Still, people loved it. Unfortunately due to the way 2E worked, 90% of the accomplishment tended to be due to the Wizard, Magic Items and Cleric, in that order (simply a mechanical issue).2) "HOLY HELLS WE LIVED!" - Usually because we blew a bunch of spells and magic items, not did anything particularly clever, unless it involved spells (again, a mechanical issue - non-casters simply could not turn battles by cleverness unless DM fiat or Magic Items were also involved).That was cool and all, but late 3.XE and 4E had a very different situation - "We won through clever tactics and working together, yay!". Sometimes we thought that was true in other editions, but in 4E it was the default - failure to play smart and work together IN COMBAT in 4E was very very obvious. In previous editions, it tended to be something of an illusion, or a minor issue in the grand scheme of things.HOWEVER!Much of the fun of a session isn't from combat, and 3.XE and 4E's combat length (often an hour) did bog sessions down a fair bit - many of the best sessions we had in every edition had relatively little combat, and much of what the players felt smartest about was from non-combat stuff.HOWEVER!There are exceptions - I know at least two of my players derive a great deal of pleasure from the tactical elements of 4E combat - they've said so repeatedly - including one who prior to 4E seemed like a bit of an idiot, tactics-wise, but it turned out he just liked playing classes which, prior to 4E, were incapable of doing much to change the course of a battle without lucky rolls (Thief, I'm looking at you - scouting is prep, not in-battle stuff, note), and is actually very tactically smart now.So I'm not sure what the general reaction will be to 5E combat. 5E combat is much more like 2E, certainly in every playtest I've seen - most combats are "nothing" combats, i.e. over in 1-2 rounds with very little impact on the resources of the party - often a single AoE is enough to end them - just as in 2E, pretty much no-one in my group feels accomplishment from this as an adult (as kids, we loved this - frying 9 kobolds with one spell was amazing - as a grown-up, yeah, that thrill is long gone). The combats which aren't "nothing", and have a bigger impact on resources, still tend to be "blow all your things!" rather than "Play smart and work together!". That's not dire, but it is different, very definitely different.It's for this reason I think I'm unlikely to give up my 4E game any time soon (not until we see the full tactical combat rules for 5E, and probably not then), because I don't 5E pleasing my group as much.Now, it's just possible that the post-playtest 5E, which we've not seen, has managed to create some kind of "best of both worlds" situation, where combats feel tactical, but tend to top out at 30 minutes or less, rather than 45 minutes+. I have no reason to believe that, but I really hope it's the case, because such a thing could happen, and it could be better than 4E's combat.One big test for me, of course, will be, "In an actual combat, do the Rogue's choices matter as much as those of the Wizard?". In every edition prior to 5E, for characters above about level 5, the answer tended strongly (not absolutely, but very strongly) to be an all-caps NOPE. Preparation-wise, both could matter (with the Rogue scouting, the Wizard prepping the right spells, and so on), but in combat, Wizard decisions mattered hugely, and Rogue ones were barely there (late 3.XE complicated this with all sorts of odd multiclasses, quasi-Rogues, gestalts and so on, so it was sometimes closer to 4E than other editions). Anyway, in a few months we'll know, but right now, based on my group's experiences, in-combat sense of accomplishment is pretty much gone (albeit not without some upsides).EDIT - Wow that was a lot longer than it seemed like it was!TLDR: 5E replaces the sense of accomplishment from good tactics and smart play that 4E offered with the weaker sense of accomplishment from a good ambush or a lucky/resource-blowing survival from 2E, but shorter combat allows for more sense of accomplishment from clever non-combat stuff (esp. as 5E retains a functional skill system).</blockquote>

Verification