5e combat system too simple / boring?

[Jester David]

The challenge already isn't the same. For example, goblins are harder than orcs in a typical dungeon environment (lots of dim light and hiding places), but the orcs are CR 1/2 and the goblins are CR 1/4. The CR is already 'wrong' from a difficulty perspective, so you already have to know your party and the monster stats instead of relying on CR.

Goblins are only easier than orcs if someone knows Sleep.

Right so they shouldn't be CR 1 creatures with varying xp values, as was being suggested.

 

[Rhenny]

Contrary to some, I actually like how difficult it is to design perfectly challenging encounters. I find it more thrilling when some encounters are easier than expected and others are harder than expected. For over 30 years, I've been running games and designing encounters not so much based on predetermined challenge levels, but more on story appropriateness. Random rolls that change the tone/direction of an encounter can be very exciting. Using the CR and xp budget as a guideline doesn't have to be exacting for my gaming experiences.

I've also experienced my fair share of deadly encounters as a DM and player over the past few years (although most of our experiences have been from level 1-8). Death is very real in 5e. The death saves are definitely tension building especially when a player rolls a "1" or the foes deal damage to unconscious PCs. If a DM uses the death save as a threat, the players play their PCs much more carefully.

Party size and number of foes is really the number 1 determinant of encounter difficulty with 5e, and to me that makes perfect sense. Small party will have more swinginess in combat. Larger parties will be much more competent if combat is the chief obstacle. Not that D&D has to emulate real world, but this is completely intuitive based on real world experience.

For my own preferences, and excitement in combat, I prefer playing with 3-4 players rather than 5 or more.

 

[MechaPilot]

Not sure if it's been addressed, but 4E wouldn't have a party of level 5 characters fight a level 14 opponent, even if it fit the XP Budget; 4E used solo monsters, who were x5 stronger than normal, instead of having you fight something so much higher. A level 14 opponent would have a +9 attack, AC, and Defense bonus over the level 5 characters, and be nearly impossible to hurt or hit.

While I agree with you that solos were typically what would be thrown at an entire party, DMs were free to design whatever encounters they desired and the range that was suggested in the DMG was something like this: creatures more than eight levels apart from the level of the party are not an appropriate challenge for the characters. Creatures more than eight levels below provided no experience, and the general assumption was that creatures more than eight levels above would just wipe the party and are not intended to be placed in a combat encounter with the party, though a social encounter with one could absolutely work.

 

[Uchawi]

Contrary to some, I actually like how difficult it is to design perfectly challenging encounters. I find it more thrilling when some encounters are easier than expected and others are harder than expected. For over 30 years, I've been running games and designing encounters not so much based on predetermined challenge levels, but more on story appropriateness. Random rolls that change the tone/direction of an encounter can be very exciting. Using the CR and xp budget as a guideline doesn't have to be exacting for my gaming experiences.

I've also experienced my fair share of deadly encounters as a DM and player over the past few years (although most of our experiences have been from level 1-8). Death is very real in 5e. The death saves are definitely tension building especially when a player rolls a "1" or the foes deal damage to unconscious PCs. If a DM uses the death save as a threat, the players play their PCs much more carefully.

Party size and number of foes is really the number 1 determinant of encounter difficulty with 5e, and to me that makes perfect sense. Small party will have more swinginess in combat. Larger parties will be much more competent if combat is the chief obstacle. Not that D&D has to emulate real world, but this is completely intuitive based on real world experience.

For my own preferences, and excitement in combat, I prefer playing with 3-4 players rather than 5 or more.

I don't think anyone would disagree that variance in encounter challenge makes for a more interesting and lest predictable experience. And designing encounter challenges with more predictable results is a tool versus the end goal. If I can create an easy versus hard challenge, then it is less likely I will fudge or change things on the fly when the results would contradict what I wanted to occur as part of the story. With 5E there is more variance so it is harder to master. In regards to simple combat, there are less options on the table for the party to control the combat environment so the solutions tend to be repeated or there are none (unless you have high level magic).

 

[Azurewraith]

Encounter variance is also great way to make PCs blow resources for no reason like when the 3rd lvl cleric blows a first lvl spell to kill a giant snake its priceless. His deity had a word with him in a dream about invoking his power for such a minor task was amusing.

 

[Malshotfirst]

Experienced "Tactical" players coming from Pathfinder might find it refreshing that classes other than WIZARD/CLERIC/BARBARIAN/PALADIN actually do well in combat by comparison, though it may seem "tactically" shallow.

 

[Azurewraith]

Experienced "Tactical" players coming from Pathfinder might find it refreshing that classes other than WIZARD/CLERIC/BARBARIAN/PALADIN actually do well in combat by comparison, though it may seem "tactically" shallow.

Not pathfinder per-say but 3.5 and you are right the fact that martial characters are a thing without requiring a whole toddlers xmas of goodies to be effective is great on top of they then can do more than just hit stuff sans barbarian and champions.

 

[Malshotfirst]

Not pathfinder per-say but 3.5 and you are right the fact that martial characters are a thing without requiring a whole toddlers xmas of goodies to be effective is great on top of they then can do more than just hit stuff sans barbarian and champions.

In my experience both 3.5 and Pathfinder have that issue, though Pathfinder less so (MINUTELY). I wasted a TON of money and time on both and that demanding specificity was what killed it for me.

 

[Azurewraith]

In my experience both 3.5 and Pathfinder have that issue, though Pathfinder less so (MINUTELY). I wasted a TON of money and time on both and that demanding specificity was what killed it for me.

It was annoying how as a martial you had to be optimized to the hilt just to match the weakest caster in the party

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Well, my 5e game has folded, at least for the foreseeable future. What had sounded like a temporary hiatus has been clarified (or changed--as I've said, I don't quite "get" how the guy who was DMing thinks) to an indefinite stop. It's a bittersweet thing. On the one hand, I was getting more and more frustrated with the system. On the other, I was trying some character things I'd never done before, and was actually somewhat interested in the story and where it was headed.

So now, as I said in the "5e resolutions" thread, I guess I'm on the lookout for the right conjunction of a good-or-better DM, the appropriate starting level, and more "equitable" distribution of good/bad rolls between the opposition and the PCs. (Though again I'd like to stress that all rolls were made in the open using Roll20, so there was no chance for 'cheating' or 'bad dice' or whatever else--just unusually DM-favoring, party-harming results in a few too many combats.)

It was annoying how as a martial you had to be optimized to the hilt just to match the weakest caster in the party

Well, if I'm being honest, I consider 4e the gold standard on that subject. I didn't really get to see which edition 5e is more like, though, because 75% or more of my spells went to healing (and literally all but one of the "monster saves" spells I cast--the remaining 25%--the monster ALWAYS made the saves). Not counting cantrips, of course.