5e combat system too simple / boring?

[Azurewraith]

Video games are different from role-playing games. Video games require balance, role-playing games do not require the same level of balance. And WoW is a bad example to base a role-playing game on. All the stupid names in WoW. Role-playing in WoW was non-existent. I hate the idea of D&D being built like a video game. Video games don't mirror fantasy fiction at all. They are repetitive, limited, and based on the imagination of others, not the imagination of the players. D&D is a game that requires imaginative, engaged players to really shine. Ones that appreciate playing a role and living an imaginary life in a fantastic world. If that level of engagement isn't there, it just becomes a game of numbers. I know some don't mind such games, but I find them painfully boring. Then again I'm not a huge fan of video games. I know the younger generation is and will push D&D in that direction as they replace the older gamer base. Writing is on the wall for that to happen if D&D wants to continue to court the younger generation and their digital addiction.

See I'm 50/50 on balance as I feel combat needs some semblance of balance as casters and kadys isn't fun for me

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Video games are different from role-playing games. Video games require balance, role-playing games do not require the same level of balance. And WoW is a bad example to base a role-playing game on. All the stupid names in WoW. Role-playing in WoW was non-existent. I hate the idea of D&D being built like a video game. Video games don't mirror fantasy fiction at all. They are repetitive, limited, and based on the imagination of others, not the imagination of the players. D&D is a game that requires imaginative, engaged players to really shine. Ones that appreciate playing a role and living an imaginary life in a fantastic world. If that level of engagement isn't there, it just becomes a game of numbers. I know some don't mind such games, but I find them painfully boring. Then again I'm not a huge fan of video games. I know the younger generation is and will push D&D in that direction as they replace the older gamer base. Writing is on the wall for that to happen if D&D wants to continue to court the younger generation and their digital addiction.

*ahem*

I spent a good 3-4 years doing that. From late-BC to late-Cata. Good to know those years I spent and friends I made were non-existent!

Or, less flippantly: What you say never existed did, in fact, exist. I spent more time roleplaying (and writing for) WoW than I've spent on any tabletop roleplaying game, with a far greater number of people too. You didn't engage with it; that's fine. But it DID exist--and, I'm sure, it still exists now.

And I'm with Azurewraith here. "Casters and caddies" is @#$%ing bull&+!*. That I (or anyone) should have a dramatically more limited set of tools, simply because this time, I choose to play a gritty mercenary or retired gladiator instead of an academic in a dress, is stupid. If I am meant to be an equal participant--and all players should be equal participants--then I bloody well better be equipped to participate equally! Equal participation, of course, does not and should not be taken to mean uniform participation. I can engage the world with an equally powerful/broad/enabling set of tools, without using the exact same tools. And if both of us have "the power of imagination" in our back pocket--so what? That just means it's something we can assume is present--indeed, uniform--on both sides, and move on to the places where the sides are non-uniform but still equal.

 

[Azurewraith]

Rp in WoW was a thing had to know where to look. It wasn't standard but it was there if you found the correct server/guild.

 

[Sage Genesis]

I don't like balance. Not good for telling stories which is the primary reason I play these games. I've read few stories where balance between the capabilities of the characters was in any way important. I much prefer a focus on appropriate capabilities for a given fantasy role. I think 5E is much closer to this than 3E or 4E. A fighter should be better at fighting than anything a wizard can summon, but his abilities should never work like a wizard's spells. Strong and appropriate differentiation should always be the primary guiding principle in design in true role-playing games where characters are playing roles based on fictional types of characters, not balance.

Roleplaying games are not stories. Stories have pre-defined narratives which exist to satisfy only an audience, not the participants of the story itself. So let us just say that I for one reject your definition of "true" roleplaying games.


Edit:
I suppose you could also say there are improv make-it-up-as-you-go-along types of stories. Which is fair, but even there you usually don't have one participant who gets to add more and better parts to the story than others just because he wrote "wizard" on his name badge.


Edit2:
Actually let's take this one step further. What do we all mean when we talk about "balance"? I'm copy-pasting this from elsewhere, but there's several different kinds.

Numerical Balance: Ensuring that most characters' raw numeric outputs (bonuses, damage, etc.) are roughly on par when averaged out over a range of typical gameplay scenarios.
Narrative Balance: Ensuring that all player characters' abilities are roughly equal in narrative scope (as distinct from being equal in mechanical scope).
Spotlight Balance: Furnishing mechanical incentives for all player characters to receive approximately equal "screen time".
Contributory Balance: Structuring the game's major player character archetypes so that, for a given set of assumptions about the shape of play, each archetype is equally able to contribute to the group's success.
Build Balance: Preserving interest in player-driven character creation as a discrete minigame by ensuring that the process of character-building isn't dominated by obvious "no brainer" choices.
Tactical Balance: Preserving interest in mechanically mediated conflict - which may or may not boil down to combat - by ensuring that turn-to-turn decision making isn't dominated by obvious "no brainer" choices.
Logistical Balance: Ensuring that the game's mechanical resource economy presents interesting choices during play, such that success is dependent on effective management of mechanical resources.
PVP Balance: Preserving interest in player-versus-player conflict by ensuring that the various player character archetypes can fight each other on reasonably even mechanical footing.


In a "true" roleplaying game, which of these is bad? Which of these is good? Which of these are outright ignored? People throw the word "balance" around too often without specifying what they actually mean with that.

 

[Xeviat]

As it stands now, the spellcasters, especially the 1-9 spellcasters, have more toys than the other classes. Their players have more decisions to make, and thus take more time to weigh those decisions, and thus take up more spotlight time. Their spells can solve problems that noncasters can't hope to, unless they're very good at the "DM may I" required by 5E's wide open skill system. The battle master tries to give the fighters some toys to play with in combat, but the assassin and thief lack them, and the barbarian lacks a lot.

5E fights are too fast; they're over in 3 or 4 rounds, tops, even for hard fights. The monsters are boring; all of the dragons are basically the same thing, for instance. Too many monsters are just "a ton of HP and an attack". To top it off, having 6 to 8 "fair" fights a day, to ensure that the noncasters get to use their fabled "endurance" and to tap out the noncasters, is a chore; the fights have to be too easy and then the casters don't even need to use their spells, and can just use them to ride all over the exploration and social scenes.

I fundamentally believe that 4E's problem was 75% presentation. I bet if the powers hadn't been presented as cards, and if the classes were obfuscated to look different in structure from each other, or if we had gotten something more like Essentials first, more people would have loved it. Book of Nine Swords was popular in 3E, and there were plenty of powers in there that would feel right on a "fighter".

5E is great for a quick system. I want an Advanced upgrade.

 

[Azurewraith]

And adnd 5e would be very nice indeed the system is a Tad to light for my tastes but this is a blessing and a curse as I can add as appropriate just takes time I'm currently expanding the weapon list to make each weapon special so its more than a choice of 2d6 vs 1d12

 

[EzekielRaiden]

As it stands now, the spellcasters, especially the 1-9 spellcasters, have more toys than the other classes. Their players have more decisions to make, and thus take more time to weigh those decisions, and thus take up more spotlight time. Their spells can solve problems that noncasters can't hope to, unless they're very good at the "DM may I" required by 5E's wide open skill system. The battle master tries to give the fighters some toys to play with in combat, but the assassin and thief lack them, and the barbarian lacks a lot.

5E fights are too fast; they're over in 3 or 4 rounds, tops, even for hard fights. The monsters are boring; all of the dragons are basically the same thing, for instance. Too many monsters are just "a ton of HP and an attack". To top it off, having 6 to 8 "fair" fights a day, to ensure that the noncasters get to use their fabled "endurance" and to tap out the noncasters, is a chore; the fights have to be too easy and then the casters don't even need to use their spells, and can just use them to ride all over the exploration and social scenes.

I fundamentally believe that 4E's problem was 75% presentation. I bet if the powers hadn't been presented as cards, and if the classes were obfuscated to look different in structure from each other, or if we had gotten something more like Essentials first, more people would have loved it. Book of Nine Swords was popular in 3E, and there were plenty of powers in there that would feel right on a "fighter".

5E is great for a quick system. I want an Advanced upgrade.

Can't click XP enough for this. Is there some kind of secret, hidden super-XP button available?

More seriously, the only major disagreement I have is that, in my experience as I said earlier in the thread, the combats haven't actually been so quick. A lot of it is simply because much of 5e's answer to making monsters "interesting" seems to be either (a) give them a resistance or super-high HP or AC so they take forever to kill (unless you know how to get around their resists), or (b) give them a horribly nasty awful ability that makes you scared to get anywhere near them. (All the monsters my 5e DM ran were 100% by the book--a mixture of undead, brigands, and demons.) When combat slows down, it's a pain; when it's quick, which I have yet to see, it's hard to see it as more than a speedbump.

It would be cool if they made an "Advanced 5e," perhaps as a replacement for the never-quite-delivered "tactical combat module." Heavier, crunchier, mathier. The same core system, but with more bits and bobs woven in as "assumed" parts rather than as hidden or obscure options.

 

[TwoSix]

Video games are different from role-playing games. Video games require balance, role-playing games do not require the same level of balance. And WoW is a bad example to base a role-playing game on. All the stupid names in WoW. Role-playing in WoW was non-existent. I hate the idea of D&D being built like a video game. Video games don't mirror fantasy fiction at all. They are repetitive, limited, and based on the imagination of others, not the imagination of the players. D&D is a game that requires imaginative, engaged players to really shine. Ones that appreciate playing a role and living an imaginary life in a fantastic world. If that level of engagement isn't there, it just becomes a game of numbers. I know some don't mind such games, but I find them painfully boring. Then again I'm not a huge fan of video games. I know the younger generation is and will push D&D in that direction as they replace the older gamer base. Writing is on the wall for that to happen if D&D wants to continue to court the younger generation and their digital addiction.

I hope the kids didn't damage the flowers too much before you got them off of your lawn.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't like balance. Not good for telling stories which is the primary reason I play these games.

It's good for collective storytelling.

I've read few stories where balance between the capabilities of the characters was in any way important.

Most stories are written by a single author. If the author creates an ensemble cast instead of a lone hero, though, there's likely some 'spotlight balance' among them. Each will have a specialty or a moment to shine, even if the author 'forces' the latter.

I much prefer a focus on appropriate capabilities for a given fantasy role. I think 5E is much closer to this than 3E or 4E.

I can't agree. D&D characters deviate pretty substantially from the sorts of capabilities displayed by protagonists in the fantasy genre. In part to make archetypes playable as part of a team, while fiction tends towards the lone hero or hero + sidekicks (and, perhaps, a mentor). Though also in part just due to the perpetuation of system eccentricities as sacred cows.

Strong and appropriate differentiation should always be the primary guiding principle in design in true role-playing games where characters are playing roles based on fictional types of characters, not balance.

In a game (even a storytelling game), rather than a single-author story, balance keeps everyone on the same page and helps them avoid accidentally stepping on or overshadowing eachothers' characters. No degree of balance is sufficient to prevent intentionally wrecking the game for others, though decent balance makes that intent pretty obvious.

For any FRPG campaign to be successful for more than one of the participants, some balance is required. It can be supplied in part by the system as a baseline, it can be enhanced by player restraint and consideration for eachother, and it can be engineered and even outright forced by the DM.

If a group is on the same page to begin with and considerate of eachothers' enjoyment, they'll naturally seek balance, that balance won't need to come from the system and may even seem 'invisible' since it's coming naturally. Similarly, if a group has a single dominant personality leading it, lack of balance is essentially invisible as long as it favors the dominant participant. 5e works extremely well in both sorts of cases - the latter, particularly, when the group's dominant personality is the DM.

I think whether 'balance' was a meaningful objective is pretty well up for debate, too...
5e's trying to be all D&Ds to all D&Ders. Empowering the DM to not only change/add-to the game but to make rulings to keep his campaign on the rails and w/in his prefered style/theme/tone/etc lets it get just about as close to that unobtainable goal as might be possible. That means that balance is virtually a non-issue from a design standpoint, and one of many things that the DM is going to be supplying, himself.

They could have phrased it a bit better but 4E was kind of clone like in its powers. Every single one across every class was usually 1W+ some effect or a d6 (d8, d10) etc + some effect. Its like trying to read the 3.5 spell compendium but in a PHB. It about as much fun as reading an instruction book.

That is a bad phrasing, yes. Sticking to a format and defining jargon terms improves clarity, and it does result in a book that's a better reference than a read. D&D spell lists have always been like that, for instance, with a distinct format that spells(npi) out basic stats like range/area/save/components/etc. Storyteller was a good example of the opposite extreme: the books were pleasant to read cover-to-cover and even inspiring at times, but were nearly useless when you tried to look up anything specific.

5e's penduluum-swing toward natural language makes it more pleasant to browse through, though I doubt it'd make much of a cover-to-cover read the way oWoD could be. But natural language also makes it more problematic to interpret 'RAW' - which dovetails neatly with it's emphasis on DM-rulings over rules(as-written). That's also consistent with any theoretical balance built into system being largely moot. The system is what the DM makes of it - including balanced or otherwise - at his discretion.

Actually let's take this one step further. What do we all mean when we talk about "balance"?

One of the best and most straightforward definitions of 'balance' in the context of games that I've heard is: a game is balanced if it presents the players with enough choices that are both meaningful and viable.

People will often hold up a game with no choices or where all choices are essentially identical as a strawman of extreme 'balance' gone too far, but one choice or no meaningful choices are just as extremely imbalanced as many choices, only one of which is the obvious-best choice.

In a "true" roleplaying game, which of these is bad? Which of these is good? Which of these are outright ignored? People throw the word "balance" around too often without specifying what they actually mean with that.

Those are fair examples of areas or ways in which an RPG might display some balance. 5e leans heavily on a DM-moderated version of "spotlight balance" from your list, for instance. 3.5/PF balance is submerged in a ocean of sub-par choices making for a deep, system-mastery meta-game, with balance an emergent quality among the Tier 1 classes and builds, so what you're calling "build balance," and, incidentally, some PvP balance. 4e delivered all but that last, PvP, form of balance, the roles it used to support narrative/spotlight/contributory balance being antithetical to PvP.

More seriously, the only major disagreement I have is that, in my experience as I said earlier in the thread, the combats haven't actually been so quick. A lot of it is simply because much of 5e's answer to making monsters "interesting" seems to be either (a) give them a resistance or super-high HP or AC so they take forever to kill (unless you know how to get around their resists), or (b) give them a horribly nasty awful ability that makes you scared to get anywhere near them. (All the monsters my 5e DM ran were 100% by the book--a mixture of undead, brigands, and demons.) When combat slows down, it's a pain; when it's quick, which I have yet to see, it's hard to see it as more than a speedbump.

As in another thread, I honestly think your DM is just "missing the point" of 5e in running it that way. By-the-book & above-board is a good way to test a game, and a good way to play a game that has clear, consistent, balanced mechanics. But, the playtest is over, and 5e chose natural language over clarity, differentiation over consistency, and tradition over balance. The result is wonderfully evocative of classic D&D, and wide-open for DMs to get creative and have fun with. But running it RAW as if it were 3.5 or above-board as if it were 4e can result in some really negative play experiences.

It would be cool if they made an "Advanced 5e," perhaps as a replacement for the never-quite-delivered "tactical combat module." Heavier, crunchier, mathier. The same core system, but with more bits and bobs woven in as "assumed" parts rather than as hidden or obscure options.

That could deliver a more 3.5 sort of experience. Maybe they figure there's no point with PF already catering to that audience?

As it stands now, the spellcasters, especially the 1-9 spellcasters, have more toys than the other classes.

Then again, all classes cast spells. OK, Monks & Barbarians don't exactly literally /cast/ them, per se, and yes, there are a handful of entirely non-casting sub-classes. But, if you don't have the toys, it's because you decided not to play with them, not just because of your choice of class.

Video games are different from role-playing games. Video games require balance, role-playing games do not require the same level of balance.

Video games and RPGs need to be balanced in different ways. RPGs, if anything, require more and more robust balance than video games - but, they also have GMs who can compensate when mechanical balance fails.

D&D is a game that requires imaginative, engaged players to really shine. Ones that appreciate playing a role and living an imaginary life in a fantastic world. If that level of engagement isn't there, it just becomes a game of numbers.

And nothing kills that engagement faster than severe imbalance. The moment you realize that what your character does doesn't matter, *pop*, it's gone.

The 'engagement' that is, not the character, though it might as well be.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

More seriously, the only major disagreement I have is that, in my experience as I said earlier in the thread, the combats haven't actually been so quick. A lot of it is simply because much of 5e's answer to making monsters "interesting" seems to be either (a) give them a resistance or super-high HP or AC so they take forever to kill (unless you know how to get around their resists), or (b) give them a horribly nasty awful ability that makes you scared to get anywhere near them.

Huh. Kids these days.

5E simply doesn't have really scary things any more. Why, back in my day, merely touching a Sphere of Annihilation was enough to kill you, no saving throw and no possibility of resurrection. Now it just does 4d10 Force damage--barely a love tap.