5e combat system too simple / boring?

[Celtavian]

And, despite having taken community advice on the kind of character to play as a 4e-fan+5e-skeptic trying to give 5e a chance, I still feel like I have far too few choices. We've only gotten up to level 3, but combats are still mostly meat-grinder-y, leaving me terrified for my character's survival--a non-ideal situation when I'd specifically made the character for being decent-to-good at melee (a grappling Valor Bard). Unlike most people, I don't find a constant substantial risk of death to be exciting, I find it harrowing and unpleasant, a constant specter hanging over my head.* I habitually describe my character's actions, so there's no improvement to be gained there, though I'm afraid I'm not quite clever/funny enough to come up with real zingers for vicious mockery every turn. Which, incidentally, vicious mockery the vast majority of what I do, because I have so few spells to work with, I feel compelled to hoard them until they're truly needed--mostly cure wounds, or the occasional faerie fire.

The bard is annoying the hell out of me too. I don't have any idea what round after round of vicious mockery would look like in an adventure. Every bard is a quick-witted comedian? I don't know what inspiration would like either. In 3E/Pathfinder I knew what the bard's powers looked like. It isn't the same in 5E.

I know lots of people are pleased with the simplicity of 5e, but I just straight up haven't seen most of the good things people talk about, and the bad things seem significantly worse than how most people sell them. I'm still invested in the 5e campaign my group is playing, but the system has thus far proven a frustration I tolerate, not a facilitator of anything positive.

You may not be the target audience. 5E is more a throwback edition of D&D aimed at bringing back the people that left because they didn't like 4E. When you're coming from Pathfinder, 5E is much, much faster, especially at higher levels.

 

[Celtavian]

Given the latitude the DM has, not /that/ difficult. Maybe difficult to do without feeling like a jerk or stretching credulity, but you can always throw another/tougher encounter at the party until you've attritted them to your satisfaction.

It has been difficult for me. The CRs aren't much help. Some high CR creatures are pushovers, some lower CR creatures very tough. Encounter guidelines in the DMG aren't very helpful. Getting the right level of challenge has been difficult in this edition since monsters seem to fall into the too weak to too deadly category that doesn't seem to have a great deal to do with CR.

That's a failure of hps if hps are meant to model broken arms, if you accept that they're meant to model the 'plot armor' of genre fiction, it's a success.

It's a failure for anyone that wants to model a grittier wound system. That's why it's always required optional rules to incorporate those concepts. I don't think hit points model 'plot armor.' I think hit points were chosen to create a simple system for a death mechanic to keep combat from becoming overly bogged down with wound tracking and making the game too deadly.

 

[Celtavian]

I played D&D 3.Xe for 8 years, followed by 7 years of D&D 4e. (I still play the latter on occasion.) Now I chiefly play D&D 5e. I've killed my fair share of 5e characters, including higher-level ones. My 11th-level campaign ended with the death of two PCs. (It ended because it was done, not because they died.) I'd say my body count is consistent across editions.

I'd love to see those numbers, but I imagine no way to get them other than memory. My death count is far higher in past editions. Spike damage and burst damage were much, much higher in 3E. The harsh tactics you could employ to snuff characters much more vicious than anything I've seen in 5E. That could lead to quick, surprising character death. In 1E and 2E getting snuffed was one missed saving throw away.

In 5E past the low levels, say 1-4 or 5, death is rather rare so far.

I must admit I've ony DMed one group to level 6 or 7 and another group to level 5 so far. I'm about to unleash an encounter on my group I'm a bit worried will kill some of them. We shall see. A CR 17 legendary creature against seven level 5 PCs. I'm a little worried I've went too far, but at the same time I want them to feel fear when they face this creature.

 

[Celtavian]

It is always strictly true that the DM controls the difficulty of the challenge. I see nothing "over the top" about a CR 10 monster versus 1st-level characters. In fact, I've just written a Planescapesque (that's a word) adventure where the primary antagonist is a Yochlol (CR 10) and the PCs are 1st level. The risk of death is serious and it can still be defeated. It just requires the players to go about it in clever ways of their own devising.

I also have no issue attacking unconscious PCs. I encourage my players to create backup characters so we're prepared for this sort of thing.

Level 1 characters can die very easy. I'd be more interested in seeing something like a MM vampire against level 4 or 5 characters. Or a MM Beholder against level level 5 to 7 characters.

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

People frequently tout the speed of combats, but I have yet to see a 5e combat run meaningfully faster than 4e would. Out of a 3-4 hour session, we still spend 1-2 hours in combat. If we only get a single combat in a session, it might drop down to half an hour, but certainly no less than that. We use a grid (via Roll20, so all the math stuff, distances, and grid positions are handled for us), but AFAICT no variant rules.

This surprised me quite a bit. Mostly because of the seaming similarity between our games. We are also a lvl 3 group of 4, and our play sessions last 3-4 hours on average. Actual combat also averages on 1.5 hours. We also use grid at times, not always, but around 2/3rds of the time. What is very different is that we "breeze" through at least 3 encounters at that time. On the average a fight doesn't last more then 20 minutes. Only boss fights can exceed this limit, but they are not that often and even they ended within 40 minutes so far. It's not like we play some uber optimized PCs or have it easy on us either. So far we've had 3-4 KO's and one near death.
In comparison our 4E equivalent campaign at this level, we could play 2 encounters on average, maxing at 3 if they were really easy. Right now, the DM often can't prepare enough encounters for us, so we stall and limit our selves at 3-4 per night. But it's not a problem a it leaves us more time for role playing. Obviously we are having extremely different experiences with this one.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It has been difficult for me. The CRs aren't much help. Some high CR creatures are pushovers, some lower CR creatures very tough. Encounter guidelines in the DMG aren't very helpful. Getting the right level of challenge has been difficult in this edition since monsters seem to fall into the too weak to too deadly category that doesn't seem to have a great deal to do with CR.

It's nice to hear a fan echo my (mostly reading-based, but now partially play-experience-based) criticisms, though I wish it didn't have to be part and parcel with "and thus things are unnecessarily difficult."

This surprised me quite a bit. Mostly because of the seaming similarity between our games. We are also a lvl 3 group of 4, and our play sessions last 3-4 hours on average. Actual combat also averages on 1.5 hours. We also use grid at times, not always, but around 2/3rds of the time. What is very different is that we "breeze" through at least 3 encounters at that time. On the average a fight doesn't last more then 20 minutes. Only boss fights can exceed this limit, but they are not that often and even they ended within 40 minutes so far. It's not like we play some uber optimized PCs or have it easy on us either. So far we've had 3-4 KO's and one near death.
In comparison our 4E equivalent campaign at this level, we could play 2 encounters on average, maxing at 3 if they were really easy. Right now, the DM often can't prepare enough encounters for us, so we stall and limit our selves at 3-4 per night. But it's not a problem a it leaves us more time for role playing. Obviously we are having extremely different experiences with this one.

Technically, we always use the battlemap, and mine is a group of five rather than four (Devotion Paladin, Moon Druid, Tempest Cleric, probably-but-not-yet-decidedly Beast Master Ranger, and my own Valor Bard). That's a 25% increase in the number of players, so 20*1.25 = 25 minutes, plus some slowdown because two of our players are new to D&D and another hasn't played a TTRPG in over a decade, gives a rough length of 30 minutes for a normal combat. But my experience with 4e at similar levels has been pretty much exactly the same.

If I had to guess, it's a difference of preparation. Every 4e player I've played with has either known their character sheet very well, or (in one case) had the DM prepare some simple advice for what to do at any given time (the two were old friends, but the player had never played 4e before). In my case, my "character sheet" is often just names + highly condensed details; I keep a separate file with a full, precise list of abilities (effectively my own form of "power cards") so I can quick-reference during play. I also find that my mind wanders a lot more while playing 5e, because I've found I don't actually need to pay much attention to anything but the flowery descriptions when it's anyone else's turn.* With 4e, things felt too dynamic and interactive (between party members, mostly), so it was uncommon for me not to have an idea of what I wanted to do next the moment my turn came up, and my co-players' reaction times seemed to reflect the same thing. *shrug*

*This happens a lot when a system's mechanics fail to keep me engaged. Dungeon World--a game I adore--is even worse than 5e on that front. I basically zone out, analytically, whenever it's anyone else's turn. I remain plenty engaged with the fiction, but the combat needs only the barest fraction of my attention and the rest just sort of churns on itself. At an actual gaming table, I fear it would become a real problem; since I do all my gaming over the internet at present, I have things to keep me occupied instead.

 

[dmnqwk]

When it comes to the Bard, if you choose to play every Bard as a comedian, that is a choice. I am playing my Bard as slightly more serious (though I cannot fully resist the lure of insiuating their lineage contains hamster dna or that a certain smell lingers on their parent's breath).

Currently playing as a 4th level Bard I get the most out of combat when I see my Inspiration Dice matter - allowing our hunter to sharpshooter because he rolled a 6 on the inspiration dice means, suddenly, all the damage from a colossus slayer arrow is down to me, not him. Or when I inspire our Battlemaster to attack, then sweep as a result of hitting, I take credit for all of his damage. As a Bard I have to tactically assess the battlefield to determine who, if anyone, would benefit from inspiration the most. After that I then don't often see anyone I can kill at this low level (though in other games where my stats were not rolled I would let off a crossbow bolt for serious damage) I see which creature is better off being mocked, and I use a more crazed psycho inflection to my tone as I inform the giant spider the worthless spawn of lolth is about to get washed down a drainpipe.

I do agree the illusion of choice can be missing, as in the belief that if you choose option a) they get a -1 here, +1 there and -1/2 point on their mileage while option b) is a +2, -1 and a pillowcase but, to me, those options were rarely different from each other in 3rd edition. If I played my Bard without considering what other people are doing on their turn, I would probably also agree I have nothing to contribute, but then I'd probably choose not to play a Bard (since they lack a lot of bonus action spells and are stuck with a poor choice of damage options until 6th level, when they get extra attack or magical secrets). Their reaction options are absolutely great as a lore bard, however, which still puts them firmly in the place where they have to pay attention the entire round. And if you're the kind of person who only cares what you can do, personally, on your turn then I don't think Bard is right for you in the slighest and it might be why you are getting bored.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

When it comes to the Bard, if you choose to play every Bard as a comedian, that is a choice. I am playing my Bard as slightly more serious (though I cannot fully resist the lure of insiuating their lineage contains hamster dna or that a certain smell lingers on their parent's breath).

In combat, my Bard engages in vicious mockery quite frequently, but out of combat he's in the running for the most serious party member.

I do agree the illusion of choice can be missing, as in the belief that if you choose option a) they get a -1 here, +1 there and -1/2 point on their mileage while option b) is a +2, -1 and a pillowcase but, to me, those options were rarely different from each other in 3rd edition.

I...don't actually want illusion of choice, though. My experience with 4e hasn't felt like an "illusion" of choice. I have enough variety of options from level-up powers that I can actually have meaningfully different options each turn, like a single-target spike, a whirlwind attack, etc. I honestly didn't play that much of 3e, in part because of the illusory "choices" you mention (particularly since specialization was the only way to make one of them good...unless you were a caster, of course. )

If I played my Bard without considering what other people are doing on their turn, I would probably also agree I have nothing to contribute, but then I'd probably choose not to play a Bard (since they lack a lot of bonus action spells and are stuck with a poor choice of damage options until 6th level, when they get extra attack or magical secrets). Their reaction options are absolutely great as a lore bard, however, which still puts them firmly in the place where they have to pay attention the entire round. And if you're the kind of person who only cares what you can do, personally, on your turn then I don't think Bard is right for you in the slighest and it might be why you are getting bored.

Kay so...I'm playing a Valor Bard, rather than Lore...and even if I weren't, I would only have just gotten it last session. So that's not super helpful, just from the get-go. (And, before it's asked: the DM insisted on beginning at level 1. I did ask, once, politely.)

Secondly, I never said I don't care at all what other people are doing. I do care. But with only two uses of Bardic Inspiration per day, and at the moment *zero* things I can do with my reaction (not counting OAs), I don't really have a whole lot of options there. I had hoped that I could initiate some combos by grappling enemies, but my character is so fragile that trying to engage in melee has proven a death sentence (in one case, literally). I've handed out my BI dice...and then they typically go unused, even though I made every effort to remind people about them.

I'm not sure what else I can be doing. I wanted to be providing a form of battlefield control by Grappling enemies (the Moon Druid typically takes Wolf form, so we have ample sources of Prone already), but as stated before, I got so thoroughly screwed up for trying, multiple times, I'm afraid to risk my character's life again. I wanted my spells to be clever battlefield-manipulations (my character sees himself as a budding blademaster), but instead they end up going almost purely to healing because combats have pasted us multiple times (in the span of...6 or 7 sessions, we've rolled at least 15 death saves between the five of us).

My point about the "enjoying other peoples' turns" was not that I don't care what they do, but rather that what others do doesn't define my engagement with the rules. Whether I have to exert cognitive effort to participate in the fight is completely orthogonal to whether I care about the things other people are doing during their turns. As it stands, I feel like I have too few tools to work with, too few opportunities to use the tools I have, and too much pressure to conserve extremely precious resources because most every fight is a harrowing, barely-survived-with-some-people-bleeding-out experience. Most of the time, there's either too little material to engage with, or I don't get the chance to engage at all (like the combat where I dropped from full to 0 HP in the middle of the first round, because it's totally cool for a CR 2 enemy to have three attacks and thus do more average damage than I have health as a level 2 Bard).

 

[Azurewraith]

My usual game tomorrow night is off so I'll b running my on off game 4lvl 3pcs ill track CR n combat times see how it goes

 

[Celtavian]

My point about the "enjoying other peoples' turns" was not that I don't care what they do, but rather that what others do doesn't define my engagement with the rules. Whether I have to exert cognitive effort to participate in the fight is completely orthogonal to whether I care about the things other people are doing during their turns. As it stands, I feel like I have too few tools to work with, too few opportunities to use the tools I have, and too much pressure to conserve extremely precious resources because most every fight is a harrowing, barely-survived-with-some-people-bleeding-out experience. Most of the time, there's either too little material to engage with, or I don't get the chance to engage at all (like the combat where I dropped from full to 0 HP in the middle of the first round, because it's totally cool for a CR 2 enemy to have three attacks and thus do more average damage than I have health as a level 2 Bard).

As a DM I'd let you write a cantrip that better suits what you want the power to be like as long as it fit the parameters of the equivalent spell. I'm hoping they come out with more cantrip attack options for classes like bard and cleric. Their options are so limited right now it's frustrating. The nice thing about 5E is it allows you to customize abilities for an individual without breaking the game as long you stay in the parameters of similar abilities. You can pretty much let a player write flavor text or slightly modify abilities to suit their vision of what they want the character to do.