D&D 5E 5e--combats are too "same-y"?

[The Grassy Gnoll]

One of my players visited the town blacksmith to sharpen his sword before heading out. It didn't give any tactical advantage but when rolled a 1 and his extra sharp sword got stuck in a crypt sarcophagus it did make a more memorable encounter! *evil laugh*

 

[Tony Vargas]

I've been playing one game and running another. Both parties are quite martial in nature (barbarian, ranger, fighter, warlock and barbarian, rogue, warlock, monk) and I'm finding that the fights seem to fall into a pretty standard pattern. Most have been a lot of fun, but at some point, everyone has no decisions to make, just dice to roll. Both parties are level 3.

Well, yeah: fast combat. Mission accomplished.

As you continue to gain levels, all the characters with spells or similar magical abilities will get more stuff to do. Even the fighter can avail himself of that by going EK. It's a matter of choice - you have to pick from a very few sub-classes to avoid the versatility and interest that casting brings to a character.

One thing I liked about 4e was the tactical choices. The really long combats I liked a lot less. 3e was somewhere in between. I've not hit the same problems in other systems quite as much (Hero, GURPs, etc.)

Really? Hero System combats were notoriously slow. GURPs 1-second rounds - roll attack, roll active defense, roll passive defense - didn't bog things down for you at all?

I'm just curious if others have hit this in 5e and how to avoid it.

It happens, yes. The way to avoid it is to cut to the chase if a combat gets boring (just hadwave the remainder, fudge the monsters hps down or something), and move on to something more interesting than combat.

 

[Uchawi]

I agree that systems like GURPS offered limited choices for martial characters just like 5E, unless the class is a EK or similar spell casting hybrid. I would probably go back to GURPS if it is had a maneuver system. The martial arts system was pretty complicated and limited compared to GURPS spells. But I guess that discussion is best reserved for a GURPS thread.

But overall, martial combat does appear to be more limited in choice, or the same, in comparison to spells. Not even feats help close that gap in 5E.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I agree that systems like GURPS offered limited choices for martial characters just like 5E, unless the class is a EK or similar spell casting hybrid. I would probably go back to GURPS if it is had a maneuver system. The martial arts system was pretty complicated and limited compared to GURPS spells. But I guess that discussion is best reserved for a GURPS thread.

But overall, martial combat does appear to be more limited in choice, or the same, in comparison to spells. Not even feats help close that gap in 5E.

Wait, what? If 5E combat were 1/10 as tactically intricate as GURPS: Martial Arts I would jump for joy. D&D has maybe five pages on crunch on maneuvers and combat options; GURPS: Martial Arts has 98 pages. (I'm not counting fluff like real-world martial arts styles statted up for play using those combat options.)

I agree that 5E tactics are primarily about spell-use; I think that makes it different from GURPS, not similar to it.

-Max

 

[brehobit]

Thanks all for the thoughts. I believe I've reached the same conclusions largely--just keep things interesting in combat with good descriptions and focus on the roleplaying. The game I'm playing in has a great DM who does a good job with that 90% of the time. It just takes more work as a DM and can be hard for *me* to keep in mind.

Thanks again!

(And yes, Hero bogs down tough, I was referring to not being quite so tactically limited as 5e, but it's as slow as 4e (or slower). GURPs I've had good luck with, but again I had a good GM.

 

[Chocolategravy]

Easy enough problem to solve.

They will start getting it after their 5th or 6th character.

You may think that is more likely than whining and complaining about the "killer DM" because they think level 1 characters should be able to take down the ancient red dragon meant to be the quest give and would rather switch to a less "unfair" DM, but you may be wrong.

 

[Tony Vargas]

(And yes, Hero bogs down too, I was referring to not being quite so tactically limited as 5e, but it's as slow as 4e (or slower).

Oh, sorry I misunderstood. Yes, Hero had a lot of combat options, even base-line, and you could add as many more to your character as you could afford, even if he was just 'martial.'

 

[Erik42]

So far I've found the mechanics pretty easy and able to produce exciting combats.

As a brief example, in our last session the party (5 3rd level characters) was trying to track down a gargoyle, both because it had a bounty on its head, and the PC's had a buyer for gargoyle horn.

The finally found it perched on the top of a warehouse converted into a tavern. The monk and the rogue had point and were a ways ahead of the other and they decided to find a way up without waiting. The warehouse had a ladder around back, opposite the side that the gargoyle was on. However, it was cold, wet, and slippery that day and the rogue slipped as he got to the top, alerting the gargoyle.

As there were only two PCs apparent, the gargoyle decided to fight and was giving pretty good. He took some damage, but neither character had magic weapons, so it was halved. Still, he probably would have flew off, but the monk managed to get a rope around him, hoping to keep him there, till the others arrived.

The other three characters reached the building, which was 30' high and were in the front. They decided that the fighter, with his strength enhanced (I forget what they used) would climb up a drain pipe with the smaller characters on his back. They found the pipe too slippery and probably too fragile, so they had to try to get around to the pack.

In the meantime, the gargoyle had two friends in the form of a pair of gray dwarves who arrived to meet up with him and were approaching from the rear. The characters on the roof could see them, but not the ones on the ground.

After a few rounds the rogue is almost to 0 hp, the monk is hurt, the gargoyle has not been able to free himself, the gray dwarves realized something was up and go invisible, and the three PC's on the ground are just below the combat.

The monk gets the end of the rope to the fighter, who tries to pull the gargoyle to the ground, but only succeeds part of the way. The dwarves attack, now enlarged, the characters on the ground.

The next round, the monk jumps off the roof and manages to land on the gargoyle's back and they are able to get him grounded. Now with some spellcasters available, they knock the gargoyle out and one of the dwarves. The other dwarf flees into the tavern, presumably for reinforcements. Before the reinforcements can get there. The characters scoop up the gargoyle, leave the unconscious dwarf alone, and high tail it to the closest place the gargoyle can be held and they can get the bounty paid.

So this was not an earth shattering, epic combat, but the combination of description, some weather factors, the location, and saying yes when the PC's want to try maneuvers like lassoing the gargoyle and leaping off the building onto his back made it exciting for everyone. And it was fast moving as well.

 

[Celtavian]

Wait, what? If 5E combat were 1/10 as tactically intricate as GURPS: Martial Arts I would jump for joy. D&D has maybe five pages on crunch on maneuvers and combat options; GURPS: Martial Arts has 98 pages. (I'm not counting fluff like real-world martial arts styles statted up for play using those combat options.)

I agree that 5E tactics are primarily about spell-use; I think that makes it different from GURPS, not similar to it.

-Max

GURPS Martial Arts was such an awesome book. If the only game had better adventure support to make it easier to play. GURPS prep time was insane compared to D&D, especially if playing a spec ops game.