5e combat system too simple / boring?

[Tony Vargas]

I don't think 5th edition is actually quite as "weirdly lethal" as it seems to someone who has some prior knowledge of D&D versions besides 5th

Sure. To completely new players it might just seem lethal (that first impression thing) and even when they realize it gets very survivable at higher level, well that's just how it is. It's only when you examine it as longtime gamer and compare it to other editions and to presumed design objectives that it seems 'weird' that it'd mechanically be at it's most lethal when played at a level you'd expect novices to start with.

 

[devincutler]

So I think I see the issue at play here.

You don't want to attack dying PCs, so you imagine reasons why monsters won't do it.

I do want to attack dying PCs, so I imagine reasons why they might.

Which approach makes the game deadlier and imparts a greater sense of risk to the players?

Let me try to rephrase what you are saying:

Me: I try to play my NPCs and monsters as if they are not cardboard props for my PCs and try to have them react intelligently. That results in a high degree of non-lethality and not attacking downed PCs usually.

You: I want to kill my PCs and so I am willing to forego realism in order to do that.

There....does that clarify it for you?

 

[iserith]

Let me try to rephrase what you are saying:

Me: I try to play my NPCs and monsters as if they are not cardboard props for my PCs and try to have them react intelligently. That results in a high degree of non-lethality and not attacking downed PCs usually.

You: I want to kill my PCs and so I am willing to forego realism in order to do that.

There....does that clarify it for you?

Perhaps that clarifies how you see things, but it is inaccurate as far as my viewpoint goes. "Rephrasing" means expressing the same idea in an alternate way, so should I take that to mean I got your viewpoint correct in the post you quoted?

As to clarifying my viewpoint, given it is a game based on imagination, I can come up with any number of reasonable fictional justifications for my NPCs and monsters to attack dying PCs. On the fly even. This helps me achieve a goal of imparting that feeling of risk that some suggest is lacking in D&D 5e.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Sure. To completely new players it might just seem lethal (that first impression thing)...

Or, the alternative I was actually presenting: It might not seem that lethal at all because their 1st level characters are facing off against individually weak enemies (i.e. kobolds) and if there is one side outnumbering the other it is the PCs outnumbering their opponents rather than the other way around, and it's statistically probable that they reach 2nd level without anyone having died yet (though some characters are likely to have found themselves on their backs here and there).

 

[Huntsman57]

So I think I see the issue at play here.

You don't want to attack dying PCs, so you imagine reasons why monsters won't do it.

I do want to attack dying PCs, so I imagine reasons why they might.

Which approach makes the game deadlier and imparts a greater sense of risk to the players?

Your job as the DM isn't to try to kill or to try to save your players character. Your job as a dm is to create a living breathing world while being an impartial adjudicator. If you are doing your job correctly in 5e, then the system isn't threatening enough.

 

[iserith]

Your job as the DM isn't to try to kill or to try to save your players character. Your job as a dm is to create a living breathing world while being an impartial adjudicator. If you are doing your job correctly in 5e, then the system isn't threatening enough.

You didn't answer my question though. I'll ask it a different way: Which approach makes for a more threatening game?

 

[Huntsman57]

You didn't answer my question though. I'll ask it a different way: Which approach makes for a more threatening game?

Clearly if you're dming in a way that most would criticize as incorrect by trying to kill your players..of course it will be more lethal. There's no need to ask questions with obvious answers. The question is if we're unhappy with the system's lethality, how do we respond? Your answer is that you prefer a sadistic rather than impartial style of dming and don't put a premium on realistic NPC behavior. For my part I would prefer to retain the integrity of the DM's role and instead amend the healing and dying aspect of the rules of what is otherwise a great system.

 

[iserith]

Clearly if you're dming in a way that most would criticize as incorrect by trying to kill your players..of course it will be more lethal.

I wasn't aware there was an incorrect way to DM (edit: short of the group not achieving the goals of play - having a good time together and creating an exciting, memorable story during play). And I'm not trying to kill my players - my monsters are trying to kill their characters. I as DM make sure the monsters want to do that so as to bring about the threat that some of you are saying is lacking. And I'm using the tools the game gives us to do it.

The question is if we're unhappy with the system's lethality, how do we respond? Your answer is that you prefer a sadistic rather than impartial style of dming and don't put a premium on realistic NPC behavior.

Incorrect. My answer is to use the tools they gave us to keep the game lethal. The same tools you seem to take off the table, then in the same post complain that the system isn't threatening. And I would argue that the DM's impartiality is in regard to the application of the rules. Monsters do as we please for whatever fictional reason we can imagine.

For my part I would prefer to retain the integrity of the DM's role and instead amend the healing and dying aspect of the rules of what is otherwise a great system.

I see nothing about the "integrity of the DM's role" being diminished by making use of the tools we're given to threaten the characters.

 

[The Human Target]

Yes, yes it is.

 

[Argyle King]

Thus far, I've only regularly been on the player side of the table, but my perception is this:

HP being the primary way for enemies to advance results in some battles dragging at high levels.

At mid to high tier play, 5E combat appears very swingy; either a combat is a cakewalk or the enemy trounces the PCs.

Ranged combat seems to benefit greatly from the low AC & high damage output style of 5E foes; you take advantage of a weakness rather easily while avoiding an enemy's strength completely.

There are a lot of options for a caster to bypass HP entirely and end a fight very quickly.


Boring? That's hard for me to answer. I'd say that I enjoy 5E, but it's a lot more shallow than I'd prefer. I'm starting to feel a little burned out, and that seems a bit odd so early. Maybe part of it is the lack of granularity and choice; occasionally, combat seems to highlight that.