I find 5e is boring with certain aspects of the game. For me it is the gap between certain classes in regards to the choices they have. The only system that tried to address that across the board was 4E but it went to far, and 5E took the traditional choice that casters are more flexible. Add simple combat and martial classes like the fighter are lef behind. Casters have the same effect in regards to 2e or 3E in regards to complexity but they are better with more meaningful choices that start at 1st level versus 3rd level.
5e combat system too simple / boring?
empireofchaos
First Post
I've heard it said (in certain quarters) that when combat gets boring in this system is when the characters get to 5th level. Because of the multiple attacks per round, combat becomes a slog, kind of like the two previous editions.
My group is on the cusp of 4th, so combat tends to be fairly short, and I haven't seen much of a problem - yet. I wonder what people's experience is with combat at higher levels relative to low.
My group is on the cusp of 4th, so combat tends to be fairly short, and I haven't seen much of a problem - yet. I wonder what people's experience is with combat at higher levels relative to low.
pming
Legend
Hiya!
If by "bored with the simplicity" you mean that there are limited game-mechanics to min/max, crunch and exploit by combining them with a myriad of spells, feats, abilities, etc...then, yeah, I guess 5e is "boring".
If by "bored with the simplicity" you mean because your players look at the combat section of the PHB and say All I can do is attack, basically, unless I want to do something useless that doesn't grant me any specific numerical advantage I can exploit for something else...attack, damage, attack, damage, attack, damage, etc... then all I can say is that the boredom isn't coming from the rules...
Using the rules from 5e gives you ALL the choices you've ever had in any other version of D&D...if you DM is doing his job and your players have any sort of imagination and capability to extrapolate. Want to push someone back so that your allies can get some kind of bonus to hit? Tell your DM your characters intention and let him figure out how to handle it. Want to have your archer hit two opponents in line with each other, using a single arrow? Tell your DM you characters intention and let him figure out how to handle it. Want to have your Wizard use Freezing Ray and a waterskin to make some kind of cooling-device to keep some fresh fish cold for the day's travel so you can eat it later that night? Tell your DM your characters intention and let him figure out how to handle it.
In short, and I've said this many-a-time before... stop thinking in 3.x/4e/PF terms. If your players are really having difficulty, hand them the 3.5e PHB and tell them they can 'use anything in that book' and that you will figure out how to implement it in the game as needed. If they get all huffy about it "not working the way it should in 5e" (e.g., your ruling on how to implement it isn't letting them create a never-ending "I Win!" button, like they were expecting), well, again... the 5e rules are not the problem.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
If by "bored with the simplicity" you mean that there are limited game-mechanics to min/max, crunch and exploit by combining them with a myriad of spells, feats, abilities, etc...then, yeah, I guess 5e is "boring".
If by "bored with the simplicity" you mean because your players look at the combat section of the PHB and say All I can do is attack, basically, unless I want to do something useless that doesn't grant me any specific numerical advantage I can exploit for something else...attack, damage, attack, damage, attack, damage, etc... then all I can say is that the boredom isn't coming from the rules...
Using the rules from 5e gives you ALL the choices you've ever had in any other version of D&D...if you DM is doing his job and your players have any sort of imagination and capability to extrapolate. Want to push someone back so that your allies can get some kind of bonus to hit? Tell your DM your characters intention and let him figure out how to handle it. Want to have your archer hit two opponents in line with each other, using a single arrow? Tell your DM you characters intention and let him figure out how to handle it. Want to have your Wizard use Freezing Ray and a waterskin to make some kind of cooling-device to keep some fresh fish cold for the day's travel so you can eat it later that night? Tell your DM your characters intention and let him figure out how to handle it.
In short, and I've said this many-a-time before... stop thinking in 3.x/4e/PF terms. If your players are really having difficulty, hand them the 3.5e PHB and tell them they can 'use anything in that book' and that you will figure out how to implement it in the game as needed. If they get all huffy about it "not working the way it should in 5e" (e.g., your ruling on how to implement it isn't letting them create a never-ending "I Win!" button, like they were expecting), well, again... the 5e rules are not the problem.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
ccs
41st lv DM
Just because I'm used to it doesn't mean I LIKE it. Or want it.
Seriously, I love the PF game im playing in. I'm playing interesting character(s), we're doing interesting things, & I'm playing with good friends.
But we've got soon much going on mechanics wise on any given turn.....
I fully agree that combat can become boring if you have limited options.
I am a 4th level Bard with Vicious Mockery as my only spell with damage (Disguise Self, Detect Magic, Longstrider, Cure Wounds at 1st, Invisibility, Calm Emotions and Silence at 2nd) and, unfortunately, I am very unsuccessful with attack rolls (In my first session I used 3 attacks, 1 rapier and 2 crossbow attacks, and missed all 3. So, in essence, I'm kind of useless in combat... except I have Inspiration and Cutting Words.
Combat is only as interesting as you choose to make it - players who are only excited by their own turn will always suffer. Having reaction abilities to use with other people, being able to take an interest in what they do is definitely an important part of making 5th edition combat more interesting (aside from narrating it properly). My last session I spend 1 combat making a single attack, then invisibility to run away and make medicine checks to stabilise 3 wounded victims. Did it feel less exciting? Not really, because I enjoyed the Ranger chasing down a fleeing gnoll in the thick scrub. I also get to enjoy when my Bardic Inspiration makes a monumental difference (I gave it to the Fighter and Ranger, who both rolled a 6 on it to turn misses into 20 point strikes) and I love it when Vicious Mockery turns high damage hits into nothing.
So to get the most out of 5th edition combat, you either need your reaction to matter... or you need to learn to appreciate what other people do in combat to keep yourself interested in the outcome.
I am a 4th level Bard with Vicious Mockery as my only spell with damage (Disguise Self, Detect Magic, Longstrider, Cure Wounds at 1st, Invisibility, Calm Emotions and Silence at 2nd) and, unfortunately, I am very unsuccessful with attack rolls (In my first session I used 3 attacks, 1 rapier and 2 crossbow attacks, and missed all 3. So, in essence, I'm kind of useless in combat... except I have Inspiration and Cutting Words.
Combat is only as interesting as you choose to make it - players who are only excited by their own turn will always suffer. Having reaction abilities to use with other people, being able to take an interest in what they do is definitely an important part of making 5th edition combat more interesting (aside from narrating it properly). My last session I spend 1 combat making a single attack, then invisibility to run away and make medicine checks to stabilise 3 wounded victims. Did it feel less exciting? Not really, because I enjoyed the Ranger chasing down a fleeing gnoll in the thick scrub. I also get to enjoy when my Bardic Inspiration makes a monumental difference (I gave it to the Fighter and Ranger, who both rolled a 6 on it to turn misses into 20 point strikes) and I love it when Vicious Mockery turns high damage hits into nothing.
So to get the most out of 5th edition combat, you either need your reaction to matter... or you need to learn to appreciate what other people do in combat to keep yourself interested in the outcome.
Huntsman57
First Post
I find 5E combat rather fun given its faster pacing over prior systems, focus on flavorful abilities over the stat ladder, and bonus actions and reactions that make a combat round feel a bit more organic.
The boring parts of 5E to me are more in regards to the significantly reduced risk compared to 2E or 3E. It's rare in 5E that I fear for my character's life unless the group has been put up against a threat so great that it could result in a TPK. The amount of damage a character would have to take to be killed outright is ludicrously improbable in most cases, particularly at higher levels, and the death rolls mechanic is incredibly carebear compared to the -10 mechanic. With the -10 mechanic you can't recover without teamwork, and if you dropped at -9 your team has a very short window to patch you up. With death rolls the average time it takes for you to die is tough to calculate because the fact is that you will more likely than not simply stabilize on your own even if the rest of the group ignored you entirely...because that's what folks suffering from massive hemorrhaging do. Of course, no matter that your arm is hanging off..just give it a good night's sleep and in 8 hours of long resting, you'll be right as rain!
Many encounters can feel like you're just going through the motions because there's little to no actual risk. As much as I overall like 5E's combat system, I consider this to be it's most grievous flaw, and one that has led me to more than one sad/bored little internalized yawn at the beginning of a fight, or when venturing into the unknown. These are situations in which I would have felt tension in 2E or 3.5...but not in 5E.
The boring parts of 5E to me are more in regards to the significantly reduced risk compared to 2E or 3E. It's rare in 5E that I fear for my character's life unless the group has been put up against a threat so great that it could result in a TPK. The amount of damage a character would have to take to be killed outright is ludicrously improbable in most cases, particularly at higher levels, and the death rolls mechanic is incredibly carebear compared to the -10 mechanic. With the -10 mechanic you can't recover without teamwork, and if you dropped at -9 your team has a very short window to patch you up. With death rolls the average time it takes for you to die is tough to calculate because the fact is that you will more likely than not simply stabilize on your own even if the rest of the group ignored you entirely...because that's what folks suffering from massive hemorrhaging do. Of course, no matter that your arm is hanging off..just give it a good night's sleep and in 8 hours of long resting, you'll be right as rain!
Many encounters can feel like you're just going through the motions because there's little to no actual risk. As much as I overall like 5E's combat system, I consider this to be it's most grievous flaw, and one that has led me to more than one sad/bored little internalized yawn at the beginning of a fight, or when venturing into the unknown. These are situations in which I would have felt tension in 2E or 3.5...but not in 5E.
S
Sunseeker
Guest
There's almost none of the tactical gameplay from previous editions. Combats are often very immoble. If you want mobile combats and tactics you really have to make an effort to include them, the system does not lend or push you towards them at all and the feats and abilities that emulate some of the more tactical gameplay of previous editions are highly limited and substantially less powerful than competing options.
Generally, I find 5E combat quick, which I like...but not very interesting, which I don't like.
Generally, I find 5E combat quick, which I like...but not very interesting, which I don't like.
werecorpse
Adventurer
I have a rule that if you fail a death save you have a chance of getting a lingering wound. (Not as horrific as some of those in the DMG just stuff like "broken ribs: vulnerable to bludgeoning damage until fixed). That means there is consequence to falling to 0 so people care. Risk doesn't have to be risk of death.
Edit: but in any event in my experience the risk of death is real. I do tend to run games with the gloves on but you can take them off. If you are struck in melee while unconscious (advantage to hit) you fail two death saves - meaning on your next turn you have a 45% chance of dying. Plus because it's an autocrit if the crit damage equals your hit points you die - very real chance at low level.
edit2: I didn't respond to the heal everything overnight. I agree this suggests that there is a lack of consequence to injury. Just play gritty. Or some other carry over damage system. (Ie each failed death save and crit suffered reduces your maximum hit points by 1 until you have had a weeks rest)
Last edited:
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
Risk of death in D&D 5e comes from attrition. The more challenges you face do in an adventuring day, the more the difficulty increases as resources dwindle.
This is less a failure of the rules and more a failure to adequately describe the effects of damage as it is discussed in the Basic Rules. As well, a long rest only restores half a character's hit dice which is not quite as right as rain in my view.
I see this as either a challenge design issue (which is a DM issue) or a failure to adhere to the guidelines with regard to the adventuring day.
And it's not threatening enough, especially as you gain levels. Getting the proper level of attrition is extremely difficult in 5E.
It is failure of the rules. It's a failure that has existed in every version of D&D unless you incorporate optional rules. You can describe a broken arm in an amazing fashion, but if it has no game effect it is meaningless. The player won't notice or care. That's hardly a 5E problem unless you count the short time you can survive at negative hit points in 3E as a great way to show your character is hammered. D&D has usually be you're either at full strength or your down, very little in between.
Always has been. Always will be. Each group is different. The DM has to figure out how to challenge his particular group and premade monsters in the MM and adventures are usually made for a relatively inexperienced group of suboptimal characters.
Similar Threads
