5e combat system too simple / boring?

[iserith]

I think my players enjoy 5E combat. They miss some of the Pathfinder options on occasion, but mostly seem to enjoy figuring out ways to make use of their 5E abilities.

My main gripes are based on DMing 5E. Creatures are very weak, especially creatures like fiends which are often big bags of hit points that the party easily carves through. It's the Bounded Accuracy effect. Just makes it too easy to do a ton of damage. The creatures don't have enough hit points to make fights interesting. They rarely get to use their abilities. If you were watching a movie with some of these 5E battles the fearsome demon or undead would jump out growling and seeming like a scary enemy, the party would kill it in six or twelve seconds leaving the audience underwhelmed. Since most of my players play this game to live out the fantasy stories they've read or watched, it makes for underwhelming battles that leave the imagination unsatisfied.

I used a lot of demons in my Summer at the Lake campaign (10th- to 11th-level PCs). I found the battles they had with these monsters to be very engaging. Some examples:

• A lake battle with a hezrou as it sought to destroy the PCs' keel boat - the party cleric made excellent use of control water here.
• A running combat with vrocks through a trap-filled area of the dungeon which split the party.
• An intense fight between the PCs and a glabrezu, battling near prismatic walls. One PC went down and another was almost pushed in before turning the tables on the demon.
• An awesome battle between a succubus and her wight consorts. The elf rogue was seriously drained after this fight, maximum hit points in the single digits. She later became their ally for a time before the PCs betrayed her.
• A fight with a chasme and some mummies as the PCs were either trying not to fall off a huge demonic statue or struggling to climb out of the pit of bones at its feet. The halfling fighter/rogue leaped onto the back of the chasme and crash landed it.
• The climactic battle was with a balor on a fiery battlefield with a horde of dretches roaming about. Two PCs died in this fight, but they managed to save the day.

There were others, but these were the ones that I recall off the top of my head. You can read the transcripts from the game, including mechanics, in the link I provided above. They were all great scenes with a good level of difficulty. So I'm beginning to wonder if either my expectations are different from other folks or whether I'm designing challenges in an entirely different fashion.

 

[Mephista]

Well...I kind of am playing a full caster? The Bard is a full caster in 5e, isn't it...?

Sort of. You have full spell casting progression, but the bard isn't what I'd call a dedicated spellcaster. Even the Lore Bard tends to rely more on skill tricks and Cutting Words and the Vicious Mockery cantrip than on pure magic. I can draw more parallels to the paladin and ranger than I can to the wizard or cleric for the bard here.

You have a lot of neat tricks, but you really still a play like a hybrid type instead of pure caster.

 

[Celtavian]

I used a lot of demons in my Summer at the Lake campaign (10th- to 11th-level PCs). I found the battles they had with these monsters to be very engaging. Some examples:

• A lake battle with a hezrou as it sought to destroy the PCs' keel boat - the party cleric made excellent use of control water here.
• A running combat with vrocks through a trap-filled area of the dungeon which split the party.
• An intense fight between the PCs and a glabrezu, battling near prismatic walls. One PC went down and another was almost pushed in before turning the tables on the demon.
• An awesome battle between a succubus and her wight consorts. The elf rogue was seriously drained after this fight, maximum hit points in the single digits. She later became their ally for a time before the PCs betrayed her.
• A fight with a chasme and some mummies as the PCs were either trying not to fall off a huge demonic statue or struggling to climb out of the pit of bones at its feet. The halfling fighter/rogue leaped onto the back of the chasme and crash landed it.
• The climactic battle was with a balor on a fiery battlefield with a horde of dretches roaming about. Two PCs died in this fight, but they managed to save the day.

There were others, but these were the ones that I recall off the top of my head. You can read the transcripts from the game, including mechanics, in the link I provided above. They were all great scenes with a good level of difficulty. So I'm beginning to wonder if either my expectations are different from other folks or whether I'm designing challenges in an entirely different fashion.

You do most likely have different expectations. I come from Pathfinder. I'm accustomed to the fiends having potent spell-like abilities and summoning as well as outright immunity to major attacks. From your descriptions it sounds like the environmental conditions had more to do with the challenge of the battles than the enemies. I want the actual creatures themselves to be a powerful challenge without adding any odd environmental effects or conditions. Just a powerful demon that can fight the characters in a straight up battle and really challenge them without any strange environmental challenges for them to face. If the balor shows up alone, he can go toe to toe with the party on a flat, open surface because he is a balor, a creature of such immense power that legions of demons bow to him. I don't want this to be something I narrate. I want a balor to mechanically be able to make a legion of demons bow. If 10 glabrezu, a 1000 dretches, 100 vrocks, and whatever they can summon up attacks the balor, he rips the entire group apart. That's my expectation.

In game terms that means if a group of level 15 characters show up to fight this guy, they better have some powerful magic and bring their A game to even have a chance of downing him alone. This was something that I knew how to build in Pathfinder and I don't quite have a handle on yet in 5E. I'll get there, but these kinds of monsters aren't an inherent part of the game and the tools I have to make them are different. So it's going to take some work to get the proper feel.

When I unleash a certain monster I built, I'll direct you to it to see an example of what I'm trying to build. I'll provide a summary of the encounter, since this will be a test run of a powerful legendary creature built closer to how I want it to be. My design goal is the ability with minimal support and environmental advantage to take on a party of six level 5 characters in brutal battle. I hope they don't die, but I won't be pulling punches.

As an aside, let me ask:
1. Was Protection from Evil and good on main tank?
2. Do you allow feats like Sentinel or Great Weapon Master?
3. Did you have a caster using banishment?
4. Did you have a dedicated healer? Prferably a cleric or bard with buffing and countering abilities?
5. Did you have a wizard or other dedicated caster?
6. Did you have a powerful ranged striker?

My group in general always includes those types of effects. Banishment is especially useful against fiends. They are very uncomfortable without a dedicated healer and usually won't play without one. Though they have learned that a dedicated wizard isn't as necessary in 5E.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

I used a lot of demons in my Summer at the Lake campaign (10th- to 11th-level PCs). I found the battles they had with these monsters to be very engaging. Some examples

Actually, I think your post makes the opposite point to what you were intending. You, the GM, made the battles very engaging, despite the fact that the monsters were not particularly so. Let me be really clear -- this is a good thing, and it is far preferable to have a GM who makes engaging fights with boring monsters, than autopilot combat with fun monsters. But as far as it pertains to this thread, the nature of the monsters and the 5E combat system does not seem to have helped you. Your statements about how fun the combat are have everything to do with your skill as a GM and nothing to do with the system. They read just as well as:

• A lake battle with an orc as it sought to destroy the PCs' keel boat - the party cleric made excellent use of control water here.
• A running combat with orcs through a trap-filled area of the dungeon which split the party.
• An intense fight between the PCs and an orc, battling near prismatic walls. One PC went down and another was almost pushed in before turning the tables on the orc.
• An awesome battle between an orc and her goblin consorts. The elf rogue was seriously drained after this fight, maximum hit points in the single digits. She later became their ally for a time before the PCs betrayed her.
• A fight with a orc and some goblins as the PCs were either trying not to fall off a huge demonic statue or struggling to climb out of the pit of bones at its feet. The halfling fighter/rogue leaped onto the back of the orc and crash landed it.
• The climactic battle was with n orc on a fiery battlefield with a horde of goblins roaming about. Two PCs died in this fight, but they managed to save the day.

As is always the case, a good GM trumps system. But I think, if you were to run the same fights in AD&D, they would have been much the same. In 3.5 or 4E they would have been more complex -- which can either be a good thing or a bad thing; allowing players to do more cool stuff or monsters to have differentiating abilities, or bogging the game down into standard attack pattern nova-1.

Is 5E's combat too simple? My general feeling is that the monsters are a little too simple -- I way, WAY prefer 13th Age's take on monster design. For rules, I'm not sure. I haven't really experienced enough. But I do like to have monsters which I cannot just swap out for a generic one and have essentially the same combat.

 

[iserith]

You do most likely have different expectations. I come from Pathfinder. I'm accustomed to the fiends having potent spell-like abilities and summoning as well as outright immunity to major attacks. From your descriptions it sounds like the environmental conditions had more to do with the challenge of the battles than the enemies. I want the actual creatures themselves to be a powerful challenge without adding any odd environmental effects or conditions. Just a powerful demon that can fight the characters in a straight up battle and really challenge them without any strange environmental challenges for them to face. If the balor shows up alone, he can go toe to toe with the party on a flat, open surface because he is a balor, a creature of such immense power that legions of demons bow to him. I don't want this to be something I narrate. I want a balor to mechanically be able to make a legion of demons bow. If 10 glabrezu, a 1000 dretches, 100 vrocks, and whatever they can summon up attacks the balor, he rips the entire group apart. That's my expectation.

I think a scene with just a monster and nothing else going on is lacking, both in terms of challenge and engagement. I try to turn the volume up on all counts. That was true in both D&D 3.Xe and D&D 4e as well. It's never just the monster for me. I don't see why it should be.

Based on your comments, I'm thinking it's not expectations - it's how I design challenges that differs.

In game terms that means if a group of level 15 characters show up to fight this guy, they better have some powerful magic and bring their A game to even have a chance of downing him alone. This was something that I knew how to build in Pathfinder and I don't quite have a handle on yet in 5E. I'll get there, but these kinds of monsters aren't an inherent part of the game and the tools I have to make them are different. So it's going to take some work to get the proper feel.

When I unleash a certain monster I built, I'll direct you to it to see an example of what I'm trying to build. I'll provide a summary of the encounter, since this will be a test run of a powerful legendary creature built closer to how I want it to be. My design goal is the ability with minimal support and environmental advantage to take on a party of six level 5 characters in brutal battle. I hope they don't die, but I won't be pulling punches.

It's less about the monster in my view and more about everything - including the monster - that goes into the challenge. The monster is just part of it. Perhaps even central to it, but not the end all be all.

As an aside, let me ask:
1. Was Protection from Evil and good on main tank?
2. Do you allow feats like Sentinel or Great Weapon Master?
3. Did you have a caster using banishment?
4. Did you have a dedicated healer? Prferably a cleric or bard with buffing and countering abilities?
5. Did you have a wizard or other dedicated caster?
6. Did you have a powerful ranged striker?

My group in general always includes those types of effects. Banishment is especially useful against fiends. They are very uncomfortable without a dedicated healer and usually won't play without one. Though they have learned that a dedicated wizard isn't as necessary in 5E.

1. I don't recall.
2. Yes. I don't prohibit anything in my games.
3. I don't recall. Maybe.
4. For part of the campaign until a scheduling issue caused the player to drop.
5. For part of the campaign until a scheduling issue caused the player to drop.
6. Yes, an elf rogue who had respectable sneak attack dice.

The party generally consisted of a human barbarian, halfling fighter/rogue, a paladin (with a holy avenger sword), and an elf rogue. The two players who had to drop ran a human fighter/cleric and human fighter/wizard if I remember correctly. Respectable damage especially the paladin with the holy avenger and smites (mostly undead and fiends in this game), good staying power even without a dedicated healer. My guess is that this will be seen as "not optimized enough," but my counter to that is simply to add more difficulty in the form of additional monsters, traps, and hazards. As I mentioned upthread, the DM is in all respects in control of the difficulty of a challenge.

 

[iserith]

Actually, I think your post makes the opposite point to what you were intending. You, the GM, made the battles very engaging, despite the fact that the monsters were not particularly so. Let me be really clear -- this is a good thing, and it is far preferable to have a GM who makes engaging fights with boring monsters, than autopilot combat with fun monsters. But as far as it pertains to this thread, the nature of the monsters and the 5E combat system does not seem to have helped you. Your statements about how fun the combat are have everything to do with your skill as a GM and nothing to do with the system. They read just as well as:

• A lake battle with an orc as it sought to destroy the PCs' keel boat - the party cleric made excellent use of control water here.
• A running combat with orcs through a trap-filled area of the dungeon which split the party.
• An intense fight between the PCs and an orc, battling near prismatic walls. One PC went down and another was almost pushed in before turning the tables on the orc.
• An awesome battle between an orc and her goblin consorts. The elf rogue was seriously drained after this fight, maximum hit points in the single digits. She later became their ally for a time before the PCs betrayed her.
• A fight with a orc and some goblins as the PCs were either trying not to fall off a huge demonic statue or struggling to climb out of the pit of bones at its feet. The halfling fighter/rogue leaped onto the back of the orc and crash landed it.
• The climactic battle was with n orc on a fiery battlefield with a horde of goblins roaming about. Two PCs died in this fight, but they managed to save the day.

As is always the case, a good GM trumps system. But I think, if you were to run the same fights in AD&D, they would have been much the same. In 3.5 or 4E they would have been more complex -- which can either be a good thing or a bad thing; allowing players to do more cool stuff or monsters to have differentiating abilities, or bogging the game down into standard attack pattern nova-1.

Is 5E's combat too simple? My general feeling is that the monsters are a little too simple -- I way, WAY prefer 13th Age's take on monster design. For rules, I'm not sure. I haven't really experienced enough. But I do like to have monsters which I cannot just swap out for a generic one and have essentially the same combat.

I disagree. The monsters' abilities played a significant role in the specific challenges I created. Typically, I see what the monsters can do and then fit the environment around them to suit them. The hezrou's ability to swim and its poisonous stench made it difficult to get to for melee types and dangerous to pursue in turbulent waters because checks would be at disadvantage. The vrocks could fly which made it easier for them to avoid the traps, plus their speed meant they could easily keep ahead of pursuing PCs. The glabrezu's spell-like abilities made things difficult for the party, leading to PC incapacitation and nearly death. And so on. Not to mention the advantage on saving throws against magic. (This of course came into play less as two of the main spellcasters dropped from the game.)

So I see it as the thinking the monster should be the whole challenge when that's really just not how it is in my view.

 

[Celtavian]

I used a lot of demons in my Summer at the Lake campaign (10th- to 11th-level PCs). I found the battles they had with these monsters to be very engaging. Some examples:

There were others, but these were the ones that I recall off the top of my head. You can read the transcripts from the game, including mechanics, in the link I provided above. They were all great scenes with a good level of difficulty. So I'm beginning to wonder if either my expectations are different from other folks or whether I'm designing challenges in an entirely different fashion.

Hmm. I read some of those transcripts. What an oddly built party. I couldn't see my group building a party like this. They would feel too lacking.

Someone cast guardian of faith? What an odd spell to cast. Was bless not used very often with a cleric and paladin? I'm perusing the sessions. Their tactics are odd.

I think I see some of the problem between our perspectives. I think you play with a wider variety of people. I play with the same group I've been playing with for twenty plus years. There is little variation in what we do. We build a group a certain way incorporating types of characters we deem important. Every group usually has an optimized ranged striker, arcane caster, dedicated healer, and tank. We play with five or six. The last two spots are usually occupied by an optimized damage dealer or two. We don't test a lot of spells. We want someone casting bless. We want someone with banishment since it works against non-fiends against charisma, usually a weak save. We employ wall of force to break up battlefields or seal someone off (not as easy now with concentration). We have one or two characters with fly. These types of things are planned and negotiated during the leveling up process. Even who wears what magic items is usually a discussion of how to optimize the group with items. We don't usually change players much, so each group is the same with different players playing different roles using the same optimal tactics with moderate variation. That would definitely lead to very different play experiences between someone that played with different people on a campaign by campaign basis.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

When you always use cookie cutters, your cookies will always come out the same shape...

 

[iserith]

Hmm. I read some of those transcripts. What an oddly built party. I couldn't see my group building a party like this. They would feel too lacking.

Someone cast guardian of faith? What an odd spell to cast. Was bless not used very often with a cleric and paladin? I'm perusing the sessions. Their tactics are odd.

I think I see some of the problem between our perspectives. I think you play with a wider variety of people. I play with the same group I've been playing with for twenty plus years. There is little variation in what we do. We build a group a certain way incorporating types of characters we deem important. Every group usually has an optimized ranged striker, arcane caster, dedicated healer, and tank. We play with five or six. The last two spots are usually occupied by an optimized damage dealer or two. We don't test a lot of spells. We want someone casting bless. We want someone with banishment since it works against non-fiends against charisma, usually a weak save. We employ wall of force to break up battlefields or seal someone off (not as easy now with concentration). We have one or two characters with fly. These types of things are planned and negotiated during the leveling up process. Even who wears what magic items is usually a discussion of how to optimize the group with items. We don't usually change players much, so each group is the same with different players playing different roles using the same optimal tactics with moderate variation. That would definitely lead to very different play experiences between someone that played with different people on a campaign by campaign basis.

Sure, but that doesn't change the DM's control of the difficulty of challenges at all or how the monsters are just a part of a well-designed challenge. It would be no trouble for me to challenge the party you're talking about without ever changing a single monster's stat block. At any level of play.

 

[Celtavian]

I think a scene with just a monster and nothing else going on is lacking, both in terms of challenge and engagement. I try to turn the volume up on all counts. That was true in both D&D 3.Xe and D&D 4e as well. It's never just the monster for me. I don't see why it should be.

Based on your comments, I'm thinking it's not expectations - it's how I design challenges that differs.

It seems like expectations to me. I expect a powerful monster to be able to take the party on alone. That is my expectation. Whereas you prefer to design challenges where the expectations are that the party take on the monster, the environmental challenge, and whatever else you've thrown in as a sort of combination to overcome the environmental hazard while fighting a monster you believe they have a chance of victory against with perhaps some other goal thrown in. That can be fun now and again as an encounter.

To me a powerful demon lord shouldn't need environmental factors to pose a challenge. And a high level group should have little trouble eliminating environmental challenges as well as creating their own to use against the monster.

It's less about the monster in my view and more about everything - including the monster - that goes into the challenge. The monster is just part of it. Perhaps even central to it, but not the end all be all.

My view is that certain things should be able to take on a party in battle without any bells and whistles. Powerful demons like balors or pit fiends, dragons, archwizards, and other creatures that might be considered legendary. They should be so powerful in my opinion that they can devastate armies by themselves. That is why you need high level adventurers to put an end to them. As players like Hemlock have shown, skeleton archers or an army of human lvl 1 or 2 archers can end an adult or higher dragon or a balor due to Bounded Accuracy and the lack of adequate defenses due to probabilities and hit point attrition. This was not the case in Pathfinder/3E. Those creatures were powerful enough that the chance of a low level creature hitting them was next to nothing. If you hit them with a weapon that wasn't built to harm them, it did nothing. In 5E a Balor isn't immune to attacks from normal weapons and can be killed by a group of skeleton archers with mundane weapons by a necromancer. That doesn't meet my expectations for a demon lord like a balor.

The party generally consisted of a human barbarian, halfling fighter/rogue, a paladin (with a holy avenger sword), and an elf rogue. The two players who had to drop ran a human fighter/cleric and human fighter/wizard if I remember correctly. Respectable damage especially the paladin with the holy avenger and smites (mostly undead and fiends in this game), good staying power even without a dedicated healer. My guess is that this will be seen as "not optimized enough," but my counter to that is simply to add more difficulty in the form of additional monsters, traps, and hazards. As I mentioned upthread, the DM is in all respects in control of the difficulty of a challenge.

Strange party.

At the end of the day I agree that fun is the primary goal. If you and your group had fun, then you did it right.

We differ on what we want creatures to be able to do. It doesn't mean either of us are playing the game wrong or that 5E is a bad game. As I've stated before, I've had to increase the power of things in every edition of D&D using the available tools. I had reached a point of system mastery in 3E/Pathfinder where I could do this quite easily. I haven't reached that point in 5E yet where I know how to make the mechanics fit the play-style I'm going for. You seem to have found the right way to implement your play-style. I'll get there, but at the moment the game is too soft for my tastes.