D&D 5E Has D&D Combat Always Been Slow?

[el-remmen]

I do the same for any other task that takes a good percentage of time - eating, sleeping, working, etc. It needs to be the best or else I'm not building the best life I can.

I am definitely more of a satisficer than a maximer - so this is not really my approach to life or games. The question for a happy life is not "Is this the best?" but rather "Is this good enough for my needs?"

 

[iserith]

I am definitely more of a satisficer than a maximer - so this is not really my approach to life or games. The question for a happy life is not "Is this the best?" but rather "Is this good enough for my needs?"

We're getting away from the thread here quite a bit, but I would consider happiness to be an occasional byproduct, not an end goal since it is so fleeting. I'm more interested in a meaningful life. To that end, I want to make sure things in which I find meaning which includes storytelling with friends in the form of D&D to be as good as it can be. Which is not to say that my games are very serious business - in fact, quite the opposite - but the game play itself is solid and produces quality entertainment. Enough so that there's never a week when I'm not looking forward to it and that I don't walk away from it with great satisfaction.

To bring it back to the thread topic, if D&D 5e combat isn't getting it done for you, I recommend looking to your players and your process first, then the rules. If you can't fix the players, consider getting new ones. If it's not the players but the rules, adjust the rules to produce the sort of experience you want - 5e is very easily hacked. But if that's a hassle, requiring more work that it's worth, check out other games who might be better at achieving your desired goals. There are a lot of them out there.

 

[el-remmen]

I think we agree about the facets that may influence the sense of pace to D&D combat but disagree about the interpersonal aspects to addressing it. That's fine. Agree to agree and disagree.

 

[TwoSix]

Maybe I've always been lucky, or it's just self-selecting or excluding people because they don't game exactly like I want them to seems odd. In my current group I have some people who are really in to RP, some that are just enjoying themselves during the RP but only really get excited in combat. I've had people that were bad at math, people that were brilliant tacticians.

There have been times when I complain to my wife after the game how bad certain players are at tactics, but that just means I adjust the threat level to compensate. For the guy bad at math, we worked up a cheat sheet. There are all sorts of options. It's incredibly rare that I'll disinvite (or cease to invite) someone and even then it was because of being abrasive, anti-social or continuously challenging DM rules.

I guess if I had all the time in the world to game maybe I'd have an A-Team, but I'd still keep the B-Team around. Well, except for the guy who thought he was a werewolf. There's only so much crazy I want in the house.

Here's a relatively simple question to try and expand on this.

Ignoring the caveats that everyone has strengths and weaknesses, and that some play styles mesh better with your own than others (both things I acknowledge and agree with), are some D&D players simply better at D&D than others, in your experience?

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I dont know if if would be better to increase the danger on monsters by decreasing their HP by a lot while augmenting their AC and attack stats?

Something like: Minimum HP, +2 AC and saves, +150% stat mod to damage instead of just +mod.

So an Ogre would be something like this:

AC 13, 28 HP, Spd 40, Darkvision
Saves: Str +6, Con +5, Dex +1, Cha 0, Wis 0, Int -1
Attack: Greatclub +6, 2d8+6, Javelin +6, 2d6+6

 

[el-remmen]

Here's a relatively simple question to try and expand on this.

Ignoring the caveats that everyone has strengths and weaknesses, and that some play styles mesh better with your own than others (both things I acknowledge and agree with), are some D&D players simply better at D&D than others, in your experience?

My answer to this question would be "sure," but I guess I judge a person's position at my table based more on how much I enjoy playing with them and being around them than how well they technically play the game (with the caveat that the latter can influence with former of course, depending on how egregiously and specific manifestation of "playing not as well."

That is the problem with judging a game with such a huge social aspect. A player can be great about paying attention, being ready, knowing the rules, etc but if they are a boor I still don't want to play with them. I'd much rather play with the person who struggles with math but bring snacks to share or gives another player a ride b/c they don't have a car, and so on.

In other words, "better at D&D" includes (to me) the interpersonal aspects.

 

[tetrasodium]

Something like: Minimum HP, +2 AC and saves, +150% stat mod to damage instead of just +mod.

So an Ogre would be something like this:

AC 13, 28 HP, Spd 40, Darkvision
Saves: Str +6, Con +5, Dex +1, Cha 0, Wis 0, Int -1
Attack: Greatclub +6, 2d8+6, Javelin +6, 2d6+6

because of the ~maxHP 1 -currentHP absorb shield & ease of healing at range, it's not dangerous unless it has ~4 attacks 1 to drop them to zero, three more to trigger first & second death save then the fourth to cause death.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

because of the ~maxHP 1 -currentHP absorb shield & ease of healing at range, it's not dangerous unless it has ~4 attacks 1 to drop them to zero, three more to trigger first & second death save then the fourth to cause death.

Well, we are talking about a CR 2 here, at the level that ogre is supposed to be encountered, 2d8+6 should be enough.
Maybe go with + prof to damage instead? That dont do much for low CR, but with high CR, we are talking +6-7 damage per hit.

Now, that dont help much with the whole ''at 0 hp, any damage, no matter the amount cause only 1 saving throw''. At least in melee, is an auto-crit, so its 2 failed saves. I personally think that there's should be more effect that deals the good ol' ''a creature dropped to 0 hp with this effect dies instantly'' like with Disintegrate: Dragon Breaths, Giants' boulder throw, Circle of Death, Enervation,

 

[iserith]

In other words, "better at D&D" includes (to me) the interpersonal aspects.

Sure, it doesn't need to be mutually exclusive. I can have both great D&D players who are also great people at my table. And I do! But that wasn't by accident.

 

[TwoSix]

My answer to this question would be "sure," but I guess I judge a person's position at my table based more on how much I enjoy playing with them and being around them than how well they technically play the game (with the caveat that the latter can influence with former of course, depending on how egregiously and specific manifestation of "playing not as well."

That is the problem with judging a game with such a huge social aspect. A player can be great about paying attention, being ready, knowing the rules, etc but if they are a boor I still don't want to play with them. I'd much rather play with the person who struggles with math but bring snacks to share or gives another player a ride b/c they don't have a car, and so on.

In other words, "better at D&D" includes (to me) the interpersonal aspects.

Oh, absolutely. Good attitude and interpersonal skills are a critical part of the D&D skill set, certainly even more so than rules expertise.