5e combat system too simple / boring?

[jackal917]

Coming from 4th edition, very much yes. I am glad its fast, because its not very interesting.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It is only true for a certain type of player.

Interestingly, I've always loved playing wizards and rogues because in past editions they were the ones with all of the choices and "cool" tricks.

Since 5e has been out, I've played a clerics, wizards and even a battle master fighter and a barbarian.

I thought I would hate playing the battle master and especially hate playing the barbarian. The funny thing was that I really enjoyed both of them. For the barbarian in particular, the lack of choices/options (rage and reckless attack - although the basic combat choices like shove, dodge, grapple, etc actually gave me more choices than I thought I'd have originally) made it very easy for me to think more about the story and the character personality than just making rule choices. I liked it. In addition, I carried a maul along with a battleaxe and shield, so depending on the situation, I could become more offensive or more defensive as desired.

Choices are not only what attack or what spell to cast. Many people derive satisfaction from making choices that align with their character's personality, flaws, bonds and ideals. These aspects of 5e have really breathed some life into PCs. Sure, good players did it in other versions of the game because they created backgrounds and backstories and focused on roleplaying, but 5e has brought these choices into the arena for more people to enjoy.

I've been pretty happy playing all of the PCs I've been playing so far: War Cleric, Tempest Cleric, Light Cleric, Basic Wizard (Evocation), Battle master fighter and Barbarian. Granted, I've only played from levels 1-6, so I don't know what it feels like in the middle to upper levels, but so far, games are only as boring as the DM and the players make it.

Sounds like just a huge difference in our mental spaces. I never, ever lack for space to think about the story. When combat becomes hypersimplified, I find myself with a large and completely unused mental space, which then leaves me antsy and grasping for something to fill it. Ironically, filling it (since I usually play over the internet, with stuff like Minesweeper) can easily cause me to be distracted. So I'm either bored out of my mind because I don't have to exert any cognitive effort at all, or (frequently) I'm scatterbrained instead, slowing things down.

Making "choices that align with [my] character's personality, flaws, bonds, and ideals" comes as natural to me as breathing. The only times I need to really think about those things are when the characters themselves need to really think about them. And having spent a good year and a half playing Dungeon World, I'm well-versed in those sorts of mechanics. I guess I just have a somewhat...skeptical perspective on 5e making it so "more people" can enjoy this stuff. BIFTs had plenty of forerunners, some of which were quite popular in 4e (Backgrounds and Themes), and nobody made a splash about them back then. Sure, 4e BGs weren't in the PHB1, but they did appear in the PHB2, which was equally "core" and less than a year into release.

The only 5e character I've meaningfully played was a Valor Bard, geared for grappling. Which was completely useless and got him killed (he got better, with significant DM lenience). We only just barely reached level 3 before the DM called off the game, both because he's busy and because he was getting frustrated at how fragile our party was compared to the other 5e group he DMs for.

 

[discosoc]

The only problem I've had is with players that approach the game from a tactical perspective. Those types generally aren't satisfied with "it's up to the GM" style answers to the many vague or undefined rules in 5e. This generally means there's an adjustment period for anyone who's coming straight from Pathfinder, 4e, or something like Warhammer 40k, where the rules are hardline and there's little room for interpretation.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The only problem I've had is with players that approach the game from a tactical perspective. Those types generally aren't satisfied with "it's up to the GM" style answers to the many vague or undefined rules in 5e. This generally means there's an adjustment period for anyone who's coming straight from Pathfinder, 4e, or something like Warhammer 40k, where the rules are hardline and there's little room for interpretation.

A pedantic urge within me wants to correct this to "where there's less room for interpretation." 4e and Pathfinder (I've never played WH40k) still have moments of interpretation and adjudication. Certainly in 4e, all improvisational actions are an adjudication of some kind. It's just that with 4e (IMO unlike 5e), there is a set of clear, well-balanced advice for how to adjudicate, if you wish to use it.

 

[Pickles III]

The only problem I've had is with players that approach the game from a tactical perspective. Those types generally aren't satisfied with "it's up to the GM" style answers to the many vague or undefined rules in 5e. This generally means there's an adjustment period for anyone who's coming straight from Pathfinder, 4e, or something like Warhammer 40k, where the rules are hardline and there's little room for interpretation.

If only 40k left little room for interpretation. But I take your point if you'd said Warmachine with exhaustive & literal rules for everything you can do in that game. Or any board game you played ever.

The trouble is I paraphrase that as it's OK if you just want to roll dice & see what happens. I am not much of a fan of slot machines myself.

If you want to do one of the many things not covered you have to enter the metagame of DM mind reading & wheedling.

I have had fun playing 5e mostly due to the people involved & bits of out of combat stuff & a couple of really fun encounters. As I survey the future of my melee Ranger in the campaign I am about to start tonight I wonder if there is anything mechanically that I am looking forward to doing in the game.

 

[discosoc]

A pedantic urge within me wants to correct this to "where there's less room for interpretation." 4e and Pathfinder (I've never played WH40k) still have moments of interpretation and adjudication. Certainly in 4e, all improvisational actions are an adjudication of some kind. It's just that with 4e (IMO unlike 5e), there is a set of clear, well-balanced advice for how to adjudicate, if you wish to use it.

Obviously no complicated ruleset is going to be without room for interpretation. That's why we have judges and stuff. Even Magic The Gathering has to clarify card rulings from time to time, and until the ruling is "official" the judges have to make a call. I brought 40k up specifically because several of my players also play that (I used to, but not for a few years). Yes, there's room for interpretation -- especially when dealing with terrain, measurements, or facing -- but the rules themselves are rarely unclear. And when there are unclear or poorly-worded rules, it's nearly always possible to pull up an official FAQ or errata.

With 5e, there are very few "official" answers for questions, outside of clarifying actual misprints or trying to make a wording clearer. Instead, the closest we get is communication from the writers on how they would personally handle the rule and maybe mention if that's different from how the rule was intended. And in nearly every case, it's prefaced with "it's up to the GM, but...".

Now, I'm OK with that, and actually I really like how they are handling it. Pathfinder, for example, just got to be too much over the years because the rules were like a hyrdra. They'd clarify one thing and break two others. I just find that not every player is quickly on board with the "it's up to the GM" thing, possibly because they're used to games where players are against each other. The player I've had the most problem with would get frustrated with me when I'd make a rules call knowing full well that it probably wasn't the most accurate one, but it was the one that would keep the pacing fun for the time being until I had a chance to sit down and think it over later on. He was completely ready to argue the point, leaving me in a position of either giving into him for the sake of not causing drama at the table at the expense of letting players be the GM, or argue with him until he finally realizes that being a GM is way more than just getting all the rules right. Every time we went through that, it got better after a few minutes, but it's definitely an attitude I've seen with other people over the years -- typically 40k or MtG players.

 

[Jessica]

Sounds like just a huge difference in our mental spaces. I never, ever lack for space to think about the story. When combat becomes hypersimplified, I find myself with a large and completely unused mental space, which then leaves me antsy and grasping for something to fill it. Ironically, filling it (since I usually play over the internet, with stuff like Minesweeper) can easily cause me to be distracted. So I'm either bored out of my mind because I don't have to exert any cognitive effort at all, or (frequently) I'm scatterbrained instead, slowing things down.

Making "choices that align with [my] character's personality, flaws, bonds, and ideals" comes as natural to me as breathing. The only times I need to really think about those things are when the characters themselves need to really think about them. And having spent a good year and a half playing Dungeon World, I'm well-versed in those sorts of mechanics. I guess I just have a somewhat...skeptical perspective on 5e making it so "more people" can enjoy this stuff. BIFTs had plenty of forerunners, some of which were quite popular in 4e (Backgrounds and Themes), and nobody made a splash about them back then. Sure, 4e BGs weren't in the PHB1, but they did appear in the PHB2, which was equally "core" and less than a year into release.

The only 5e character I've meaningfully played was a Valor Bard, geared for grappling. Which was completely useless and got him killed (he got better, with significant DM lenience). We only just barely reached level 3 before the DM called off the game, both because he's busy and because he was getting frustrated at how fragile our party was compared to the other 5e group he DMs for.

The first two paragraphs are similar to how I am. If I'm not engaged by the mechanics(which generally means combat) then either the DM or the people I'm playing with better be absolutely positively amazing to be around because otherwise I zone out, get bored, covertly find something else to do at the table(usually surf Facebook online but in person I'll sometimes read a relevant rulebook or something), and eventually stop attending. The DM didn't have to be as good in 4e because the system could carry quite a fair bit of the load of the game. In 5e, with a minimalist system, a lot of pressure falls on the DM to perform.

 

[Consona]

Some of the guys in my regular 5e group are becoming a bit bored with the simplicity of 5th edition combat.

To me the simplicity is a substantial key to great and exciting combats. Because you don't rely on some pre-defined attacks or special abilities or whatever and instead you use your imagination. And that's the reason we don't use grid in our games either. Instead of counting squares and using "ability XY", I like when people around the table describe their actions, when they come up with something interesting and really cool, "I run towards him, bounce off the altar, jump and thrust my sword into the demon's chest while landing at him" (a friend of mine playing his beloved Barbarian attacking a Balor ), when they are curious about the world around them, not thinking about which specific ability to use but rather how to use an environment and things around them to their advantage, to make actions more awesome, etc., and whenever somebody tries something cool but difficult you can always call for an Ability check.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The DM didn't have to be as good in 4e because the system could carry quite a fair bit of the load of the game.

Sure, 4e was very easy to run, I've seen relative newbies run it with little effort or trouble. And, a DM is always free (whether the tone of the system overtly encourages it or not) to take on that 'load' or 'pressure' if he has something he wants to do with it. But, as in the RAW zietgiest of 3.5, the attitude of the players can also be a factor. 4e played well 'above board,' how it worked was obvious and consistent, so players were pretty likely to spot when you deviated from it. If you were confident enough and had their trust, you could still do it with no issues, but it was a hurdle. 5e constantly calls on the DM to make rulings for playability, so when you make a ruling for an 'ulterior' reason, it's easy to slip it by.

In 5e, with a minimalist system, a lot of pressure falls on the DM to perform.

To me the simplicity is a substantial key to great and exciting combats.

Maybe I shouldn't be bursting this particular bubble, since it's a nice bubble to be in, but D&D - RPGs in general - have rarely been simple or minimalist in any meaningful sense. Whether you're comparing RPGs in general to other sorts of games, or D&D to other RPGs, or different eds of D&D to eachother, they all come out pretty complex or complicated, one way or another. But, 5e has done such a great job of feeling like classic D&D that it's very familiar to us, and familiar can feel simple/natural/right in a way that even a much simpler or more intuitive - but entirely unfamiliar - thing simply cannot (until you've become familiar enough with it, anyway).

Because you don't rely on some pre-defined attacks or special abilities or whatever and instead you use your imagination.

Spells are predefined effects, and every class design uses them in some way. Attacks are all one predefined effect, too (that does damage on a hit, more damage on a crit, and nothing on a miss). Sure, you can use your imagination and visualize or re-skin that stuff all you want, whether you're re-skinning one attack mechanic or myriad spell mechanics.

"I run towards him, bounce off the altar, jump and thrust my sword into the demon's chest while landing on him"

Yep, you can say that instead of saying, "I move up to the nearest monster and attack ::roll d20:: did I hit? ::roll d8:: 12 damage," but, in the end, you still did 12 damage. If that was a declared action, rather than a description after the fact, then the DM might let you make some sort of check, probably STR (or two, maybe DEX for bouncing off the altar), to land on the monster's chest. The DC might be 12 of 35, or you might not get a check at all, because you're getting into that whole "DM may I?" paradigm in trying to make something of your character's one mechanical option.

 

[BryonD]

DM didn't have to be as good in 4e because the system could carry quite a fair bit of the load of the game. In 5e, with a minimalist system, a lot of pressure falls on the DM to perform.

Yep

This was a both a strength and a flaw in 4e, depending on the group and circumstances