5e combat system too simple / boring?

[EzekielRaiden]

There are now 14 pages to say - "you wrote 'boring' but you meant 'monotonous', i.e. simple in a bad way". And, "here, let me help..."

Well, uh..."monotonous" ("lacking in variety; tediously unwavering") is a synonym of "boring" (gerund of the verb "to bore," meaning "to weary by dullness, tedious repetition, unwelcome attentions, etc.")...

Have you ever played a tabletop war game?

'fraid not.

Your assignment is to play 3 different systems, pick 1 you like the best, then play against one of the players in your game. In that game, name the members of your warband/army, describe the stuff they do each round, narrate and react to the results. Then, bring that energy back to your D&D game.

If that doesn't work - play without HP.

If neither solves your combat woes, quit and spend that time reading instead.

So...my(?) assignment is now to play another three game systems (of a completely different type that I may not enjoy in the first place) long enough to form a meaningful opinion of each, convince one of my coplayers to also play one of those systems with me, apply a technique I'm already using to a whole army instead of a single character, and then re-apply that same technique back to D&D? I hope you'll understand that lots of people are going to consider this far too much effort just to improve one area of a particular game system. Particularly when, for some of us, we already have played other D&D games that had no such problems in this area.

Playing without HP is a DM choice, not a player choice--a bit hard for me to apply it to the game I'm playing in.

 

[Jester David]

Right now I'm doing some mini campaigns after ending my Pathfinder campaign but before I go balls deep into 5e. Some FATE, some Shadows of Esteren, and some Icons. None of which give combat more than a smidgen more detail than other conflict resolution. Compared to them, the character advancement and combat system of 5e looks incredibly complex.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's possible--my 4e games have never gotten to particularly high level, only like 6th I think, so perhaps I just haven't had a chance to see what the system can really do if "pushed" (in a good way, that is).

Level should barely matter. At very low level, the first time you play, it's a little slower as you get used to it. The first time you reach Paragon it can get jammed up a bit. If your group at some point skews heavily to off-turn actions, that can have an effect.

But, overall, the system is as stable, balanced & playable at high level as low. Only time you could say that about D&D.

I hope it will. Going from 1->2 felt like almost no difference at all. Sure, we no longer had to fear being knocked to 0 by a single zombie's attack, but essentially at-level threats (a CR 2 Bandit Captain plus his four like CR 1/4 cronies) wiped the floor with us

There's really no such thing as 'at level' in 5e. CR is more ballpark, and you can take on much higher CRs or be trounced by lower level ones, especially if you're outnumbered.

I have to play through 6+ levels just to "give it a fair chance"?

Yes. And you have to find the right class for the experience, too.

The game experience is intentionally sub-par unless you specifically choose to start above first level?

I'm not so sure. It's intentionally evocative of low-level play in the classic game, which may not be to a more modern gamer's taste.

I guess if I'm legit trying to give 5e its fair shot, I should try to be open-minded about this sort of thing. But my gut tells me "ain't never gonna happen, don't even think of dreaming about it."

Heroes should listen to their guts. IRL, some loratadine might help.

That could be it. I don't really know. See my below info about the combat that almost TPK'd us. But yeah, I really genuinely do feel like if I'm not conserving at least 50% of my spells for healing, somebody's going to die die, not merely roll a death save or two.

That could turn self-fulfilling. If you'd been more profligate with your spells, you might have saved the party a lot of damage. Facile, I know, but not entirely without merit.

Not sure what else to do or say, then--how can I actually get a "fair chance to see 5e"? Do I have to start interviewing my DMs before I join a game? If nothing else, that seems like a pretty serious flaw...

5e leans heavily on the human aspect of play rather than the mechanical, and you might be losing some of that playing on-line. In person play, whether you can be certain of a 'good' (enough) DM or not, might be a better way to get a fair impression of the system.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Only time you could say that about D&D.

It can be said about BECMI and 2nd edition too.

 

[S'mon]

Just for reference: the combat that killed my character (he got better, with some DM kindness) was a Bandit Captain (CR 2) and his four mookish buddies (Bandits, CR 1/8, from what I can tell--you can find their stats on page 6 of the HotDQ supplement). We were a little worse for wear at that point--just finished a combat with spiders, and were starting a short rest in a place we thought was deserted, so I'm sure that didn't help the situation at all. So springing a multiplier-adjusted 900 XP fight on us (halfway between Hard and Deadly for five 2nd-level PCs) may have been a bit unwise...but, as I've said, our DM has frequently talked of how difficult his other 5e group is to challenge, and how surprised he is that our group is so much more
fragile.

You do seem to be an unusually weak group - the newbies I GM 5e for would have easily
slaughtered that bandit captain & his mooks with their 2nd level PCs. I can understand why your GM is a bit frustrated, I guess the best thing would be if he gave you the chance to fight weaker
encounters - treat you as a level or two below your actual level, say.

 

[MechaPilot]

The first set of encounters in LMoP are interesting but I don't think they're particularly hard. The PC deaths from that chapter I'd wager are pretty minimal? And they only need 300 XP to get to level 2.

But sure, if the DM is not prepared to ease players in at level 1 then yeah it's instant death. But why would a DM do that?

When I ran LMoP for my current group, they were almost killed by the first encounter. The two PCs left the two NPCs with the wagon to guard it, and the two PCs were hit by surprise by the first barrage from the ranged attackers. One of the PCs was a drow, and he had disadvantage because of the sunlight. They took another barrage while trying to figure out where the archers were, and it was only the cleric pulling up the wagon for the two PCs to take cover behind that prevented both of the PCs from being killed.

After some healing from the cleric npc and a couple critical hit rolls from the halfling rogue npc, the party was able to regroup enough to win the day. However, they had to go straight to town and rest up before following the goblin trail.

 

[MechaPilot]

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.

I agree with you that 5e is at its most lethal in the early levels, but I can't say that it's more so than other editions. I no longer have my AD&D 2e DMG to look at, but I recall it having random encounter tables for different terrains, and they did not care about the level of the PCs. You could end up rolling a random encounter with multiple enemies having substantially more HPs and damage potential than the PC party.

I also recall AD&D 2e monster entries having a "number appearing" line. For goblins it was 4D6, which is an average of 14 goblins.

 

[MechaPilot]

So putting these three points of data together, am I correct in deducing that a typical 4E combat for you runs half an hour? If so, I think your 4E experience is faster than most people's. (Which wouldn't surprise me; you of all people probably know how to keep 4E combat humming along, since you both love the system and have played a lot of it.)

My 4e encounters also did not generate the "slog" experience that I have seen others describe. I was actually taken aback the first time I heard someone describe it that way, because my group had never had that experience.

After enough time of hearing others describe their experiences, I think I was able to pinpoint the differences that led to my 4e combats being faster:

1) Most enemies have a survival instinct. This is naturally untrue with regard to mindless undead, zealots, etc. However, most creatures that get into a fight want to escape with their lives when it turns substantially against them. To simulate this in the game, I used the bloodied condition as the trigger for them wanting to flee or surrender. In retrospect, doing this was effectively the same as halving the HPs of most enemies.

2) Monsters improvise. Basically what it says on the tin. Smart monsters think outside the box, just like the PCs should, using the environment to their advantage, and actively trying to get the most of their abilities. I recall one encounter where an enemy dove between a PC's legs and then went total defense just so its allies would get the benefit of doing extra damage when flanking an enemy.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

When I ran LMoP for my current group, they were almost killed by the first encounter. The two PCs left the two NPCs with the wagon to guard it, and the two PCs were hit by surprise by the first barrage from the ranged attackers. One of the PCs was a drow, and he had disadvantage because of the sunlight. They took another barrage while trying to figure out where the archers were, and it was only the cleric pulling up the wagon for the two PCs to take cover behind that prevented both of the PCs from being killed.

After some healing from the cleric npc and a couple critical hit rolls from the halfling rogue npc, the party was able to regroup enough to win the day. However, they had to go straight to town and rest up before following the goblin trail.

...and my current group saw a horse stuck full of arrows, expected it to be an ambush, took cover in and under the wagon while trying to spot said ambush, and ended up chasing off the last of the goblin ambushers in round 3 with the party having taken a collective 10 damage.

It's an encounter that is only difficult if poor choice are made or dice rolls run heavily against the PCs.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Until he was raised, which was fairly readily available at that level, of course.

Since we're talking about a 2nd edition paladin:

1.) Raise Dead usually had no better than a 75% to 92% chance of working, which means a fair chance of leaving you permanently dead.

2.) It permanently drained 1 point of Constitution even if it worked.

It's not like 5E where every 5th level cleric can Revivify you with no permanent impact and no chance of failure.