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

[tetrasodium]

Also, has anyone noticed how quiet combats are if taking a perspective relative to character time. Like, a fight lasts for roughly half a minute and nobody says anything to anyone? No "you'll pay for that!" Or "Catch me if you can!" Or "By the power of the moon, I will punish you!"

My point is that roleplay and story movement should be a part of combat.

In fact, I feel people might try to divide the pillars when they weren't meant to be played separately. Give the player wiggle-room to describe how exactly they want to stab the orc and let them be the action hero they imagined themselves to be.

And when you roleplay as a DM, make sure the monsters talk to the players. "How dare you make me bleed?!" "Men, focus your fire on the spellcaster!" "Foolish witch, your charms will not hold me." "I...I see stars." Also have them physically react to their actions. If they are insulted, let your monsters snarl. If they're excited, let them smirk.

Someone said its about the feeling of hopelessness and I agree, but I don't think HP/AC dynamics is the most important aspect. What's important is that your players feel like they're making an impact. Within 3-5 rounds of combat, they don't get a great idea of their hit-chance or damage percentage but they're hoping their attacks had some sort of affect on the creature, even if its more psychological than physical.

5e can be blamed for this. There is nothing remaining of the tactical game and no need to bother with it because the pcs are so insulated from risk/antylong term consequences

 

[DND_Reborn]

It's not the missing that's frustrating - it's the powerlessness. The feeling that your actions don't matter. Adding hit points and increasing hit chance actually feeds into that same powerlessness to an extent. At a certain point it becomes worse - If I have a 25% Hit chance but will take out the enemy on a single hit - then there's some tension. If have a 95% hit chance, but know that it will take 4 hits to knock it out then there's no tension.

One reason that hit chance has been raised is that flanking has been lost. Flanking is something you can do to mitigate against missing - it potentially puts you in a dangerous position yourself - so you have a meaningful decision to make.

I think the big thing that matters in rpgs is "Can I do something meaningful on my turn?". This is tuned slightly differently to crpgs because it takes longer per turn.

Basically, 70% hit chance is probably what you do want - but if you don't have to work to get it, then the game balancing itself around that renders it somewhat moot.

Yeah, this is a lot of it. Combining our houserules (40-45% hit) with flanking (advantage) bumps the chances to 65-70% roughly. This makes it so thinks like flanking are more meaningful.

 

[iserith]

I know it probably didn't happen like this, but I am now imagining the 'termination interview', where you explained to your friends that you weren't going to play D&D with them anymore due to their "insufficiently excellent provision of gaming experience" and that you were replacing them with a more rigorously-selected group of D&D-exclusive friends.

I moved, then built a new group. When I would come back for visits, at first we'd get the gang back together to play, but then I realized how much the sessions were lacking, comparatively, to the point where it wasn't worth my time and effort. So now I don't schedule any sessions in favor of just getting together to do other stuff. I've since told some of the players individually why and they get it.

 

[el-remmen]

5e can be blamed for this. There is nothing remaining of the tactical game and no need to bother with it because the pcs are so insulated from risk/antylong term consequences

We must be playing a different game because this is not my experience in the slightest. But less sarcastically, I chalk this up more to group style and expectations and engaging to make the game "feel" like you want it, than the particular D&D ruleset.

 

[Guest User]

I have not found players "whiffing" in combat to be so endemic, in 5e as to require enabling the Flanking Rules.

3e and PF style combat rules just no longer appeal to me. I like the dynamic feel of constant movement in combat.

 

[tetrasodium]

We must be playing a different game because this is not my experience in the slightest. But less sarcastically, I chalk this up more to group style and expectations and engaging to make the game "feel" like you want it, than the particular D&D ruleset.

I'm going to assume that you aren't referencing the near complete removal of the tactical grid components from 5e is not the part you are talking about but in past editions that missing tactical component resulted in a lot of strategy planning between turns so players could coordinate things that took effort & risk to gain significant benefits like area denial/zone of control/extra accuracy/safety for an ally/etc.

In past editions you either simply died at zero and were completely dead or you started bleeding out until you stabilized fell to negative 10, and/or got healed back to positive hp by healing through every one of those negative hp.... If you hit negative 10 by bleeding or through damage you were completely dead. In 5e when a level 2 fighter with zero con (16hp) is at 1hp & gets crit for 10 damage 9 of that damage goes away & a healing word (or any number of other spells/abilities) brings that fighter from zero hp to having 1d4+casting mod, this can go on until a bad guy hits that fighter for 16 or more damage. If every spell slot is extended it doesn't really matter because "we take a long rest" recovers all missing hit points & spell slots no matter if everyone is at some ridiculous 1/999hp hypothetical. Combined with the ay non-spontaneous spells worked in the past there was a real cost to throwing healing spells n every slot making sure the healing types would use a rolled up newspaper on reckless players not working with the group while 5e allows a player has both every unused spell slot devoted to healing as well as cool spells to do cool things until a need for one or the other comes up... When the spell slots are low, oh look lets take a long rest because 5e tuned itself to adventuring days loaded up like the battle of helms deep.

 

[Oofta]

I'm going to assume that you aren't referencing the near complete removal of the tactical grid components from 5e is not the part you are talking about but in past editions that missing tactical component resulted in a lot of strategy planning between turns so players could coordinate things that took effort & risk to gain significant benefits like area denial/zone of control/extra accuracy/safety for an ally/etc.

In past editions you either simply died at zero and were completely dead or you started bleeding out until you stabilized fell to negative 10, and/or got healed back to positive hp by healing through every one of those negative hp.... If you hit negative 10 by bleeding or through damage you were completely dead. In 5e when a level 2 fighter with zero con (16hp) is at 1hp & gets crit for 10 damage 9 of that damage goes away & a healing word (or any number of other spells/abilities) brings that fighter from zero hp to having 1d4+casting mod, this can go on until a bad guy hits that fighter for 16 or more damage. If every spell slot is extended it doesn't really matter because "we take a long rest" recovers all missing hit points & spell slots no matter if everyone is at some ridiculous 1/999hp hypothetical. Combined with the ay non-spontaneous spells worked in the past there was a real cost to throwing healing spells n every slot making sure the healing types would use a rolled up newspaper on reckless players not working with the group while 5e allows a player has both every unused spell slot devoted to healing as well as cool spells to do cool things until a need for one or the other comes up... When the spell slots are low, oh look lets take a long rest because 5e tuned itself to adventuring days loaded up like the battle of helms deep.

Having DMed multiple groups over multiple editions, tactics have always and continue to be a big deciding factor in how difficult the encounters are that I throw at the group. Same options, same size group, similar builds, same levels, big difference in groups. What would be an easy encounter for one group would be potential TPK for another. Tactics matter.

As for your typical complaints, it's the same old stuff. The DM has multiple levers and dials to affect difficulty, I can't help it if you don't want to use them.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I suppose someone could assume that every DM in the world should run the game exactly like every other DM, but that would be...odd, to say the least. More likely, a person playing several games under several different DM's would see the beauty that is RPG's: Diversity in tone, style, attitude, rules, substance, humour, seriousness, and everything else. Eventually, over time, a Player will understand what they know they like and what they don't, and then seek out DM's that provide that "style" of play...or be bold enough to take up the reigns of DM'ing themselves.

Like most things it's a balance. The clearer and more consistent the world the better the players can interact with it. The more rulings the more you can make things your own. When you say "Rulings not rules" you are making the quite explicit statement that you don't care about any such balance - and that everything is DM fiat.

But no matter how you slice it, DM'ing isn't formulaic. It's MUCH more "art" than "science" (when being run; when doing all the leg work behind the scenes, it's more or less equal). No player needs to 'read the mind of the DM' unless that Player is under the impression that his job as a player is to "outsmart and foil the DM". That's fine if that's the tone of that particular table, but, for most tables I'd guess, that's not the base attitude of a Player. That attitude tends to be "All right! Lets roll some dice and do some roleplaying!".

Roleplaying requires being able to visualise yourself as being in a given world. Knowing what the rules of that world are and the likely outcomes of your actions make it far, far easier to roleplay. A "Rulings not rules" - in other words an attitude that the players can't actually know about the setting other than through what the DM condescends to drip-feed them and setting constants might not be is actively inimical to roleplaying.

So is being utterly rulebound and trying to use the rules as a physics mode. I'm not saying "Rules not rulings" is better than "Rulings not rules". I'm saying if you want to play freeform go and play freeform and discard all the advantages that rules give you and stop weighing people down with rulebooks. Or if you want rules light go rules light (and leave any version of D&D with a PHB at home).

Dungeon Mastering, at it's core, hasn't changed since the beginning, IMNSHO, at lest not very much at all. The Players expectations of their 'role' in the game most certainly have, however. Players used to expect to die. Often and repeatedly. Players saw playing the game as a challenge and a test of their intellect and ability to work together and 'think outside the box' in order to keep their PC's alive.

First, I'd say that if player expectations have changed then so has dungeon mastering. A big part of the role of the dungeon master is table dynamics.

Second it depends what you mean by "Dungeon mastering". I don't run 4e the way I run Rules Cyclopaedia D&D (I refer to RC as "Dungeons" D&D and 4e as "Dragons" D&D with other editions being in many ways somewhere in between, although oddly enough it's at these two extremes where skill is most important the way I run it). And I certainly don't run either the way I run Apocalypse World; the role of the MC is very different.

Alas, I think this is a situation where your idea of a "good game" and mine are not lining up. This is fine, even good, actually. It means that RPG's can be interpreted and played by a HUGE range of people with different desires and preferences.

Possibly, although I've a wide range of preferences.

I've never played Fate, although I did do some "solo playtesting" of it when the guy was writing it waaaaay back when (yes, I'm old; in fact, I probably have the text file on a floppy disk somewhere!). I thought it had potential, I just wasn't sold on the 'simplicity' of the ranges (at least in those early drafts, iirc). Maybe I'll look into the latest version to check it out... a sort of "blast from the past" for me.

Are you thinking Fate or Fudge? Fate 1e was published in 2003; floppies had almost disappeared even by then. Fudge (from which it borrowed the dice and the ranges) was developed on Usenet and published in the early 90s and will have been when the ranges and the ladder was talked about. The big tech in Fate isn't the Fudge dice and ladder, it's the aspects.

I initially thought I wouldn't like Dungeon World (just bought the PDF first), but eventually I dove into it for a third time and something just 'clicked' with me. So I bought a half dozen hard copies for the table. Every game I've played of it (as DM), have ALWAYS been memorable and fun! Then again...I run most of my RPG's "fast and loose", so Dungeon World wasn't so jarring as I've heard from DM's who are used to something like 4e or Pathfinder! LOL!

I don't find Dungeon World anywhere near as good as its Apocalypse World progenitor, so if you liked Dungeon World I'd recommend giving it a look (although Vincent Baker's prose can be overwrought). And the way I run 4e it's faster and looser than any other version of D&D that either has a DMG or uses a battlemap.

I don't honestly think we're as far apart as you think in many ways. I just consider the "Rulings not rules" mantra to be toxic and at best a response to poor game design where the rules are not fit for purpose - whether because the game is rulebound or the rules themselves are broken.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Also, has anyone noticed how quiet combats are if taking a perspective relative to character time. Like, a fight lasts for roughly half a minute and nobody says anything to anyone? No "you'll pay for that!" Or "Catch me if you can!" Or "By the power of the moon, I will punish you!"

My point is that roleplay and story movement should be a part of combat.

In fact, I feel people might try to divide the pillars when they weren't meant to be played separately. Give the player wiggle-room to describe how exactly they want to stab the orc and let them be the action hero they imagined themselves to be.

No I haven't noticed that - this is very much group specific and I'd get bored in a group where combat was quiet (unless we were deliberately quiet; my current rogue doesn't talk that much in combat and is much more likely to "flamboyantly assassin").

It's also possibly one of the things that caused the disconnect between those who love and those who despise 4e - whether you roleplay in combat. If you're roleplaying in combat then marking monsters and getting in their faces, deliberately provoking opportunity attacks for the fighter to exploit, immediate interrupts to rescue each other, inspiring words, taking your second wind, etc. are all amazing opportunities and inspiration for roleplaying.

If on the other hand you (admittedly like too many film makers) put the fight in as filler that happens and the plot progresses after the fight ends then this is an issue. And I agree that you should do something about it, especially as DM.

 

[dmhelp]

I could see that more in video games, but in RPGs hitting that much is BORING in the extreme, tedious, and drags things out. Personally, I prefer about a 35-40% hit rate.

As I wrote with the house-rules we've been using, it drops the % by 20 so we are around 40%, give or take 5%. We like it. It makes hitting more meaningful and exciting when it happens. It makes it more "special".

If you hit (what seems like) nearly all the time, it loses its luster and appeal IMO. I blame people's need for instant satisfaction (or whatever) nowadays.

I missed it, what is your rule that drops the hits by 20%?

AD&D hit rates varied greatly by level. I ran an old module a couple of years ago at 1st-3rd level and it ended up being multiple rounds of whiffing against the platemail boss. It was kind of frustrating. At high level there is a major difference between classes. Fighters auto hit ac -10 (esp w giant strength) while other classes auto miss (and only get 1 attack).

I much prefer the high hit rates and less class variance of 5e.

I think side based initiative is the easiest way to speed things up (it makes things more lopsided though, but maybe less so if you drop hit % by 20%). I was doing that but I’m currently just using an initiative roller on the ipod.

I think dead at -10 hp (or 0 hp) is the easiest way to bring back tension. And also losing 1 point of CON every time you come back from the dead. You can also do a variant on the rest rules (halfway gritty realism):
Short rest resets short rest powers but no healing
Long rest resets all rest powers and grants hit dice healing (minimum 1d8)
One week of rest regains all hp and restores hit dice