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

[el-remmen]

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.

<snipped a lot of stuff to save space>

All I can speak to us my experience running D&D from the Red Box set through 1E to 2E to 3E and now 5E (never ran 4E and only played in one trial game to try the rules) and in every single one of those (to varying degrees that have to do more with my players or my experience as DM than any given ruleset) strategy has been important, being worried about failure/death. has been a concern for PCs (not every fight's losing condition is death).

It might also be that terms like "area denial" and "zone of control" are not in my normal gaming vocabulary. I think about higher ground, clear shots, crowded conditions, ducking behind cover, environmental hazards - and while I know those overlap and the former is a way to describe some of that stuff in strategic game terms, me and my groups tend to examine things on an immersive level.

As I said in another thread (maybe even to you, tet) I lead by example, and the PCs see what their intelligent or crafty opponents do and emulate it. They see and hear the environment I describe and they try to make the best use of it (as do their canny opponents).

 

[DND_Reborn]

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

It is one page 1, post #5. Here is the excerpt:

1. Decrease all NPC/monster HP by half (round down).
2. Bump AC for everything (including PCs) by 4 or 5. Personally, we started with 5, but 4 works better for us.
3. PCs get max HP and CON mod at level 1. After that, just HD, no more CON mod.
4. Have the DM (and players if they want) use average damage for things instead of rolling all the time. You standard fireball, for instance, would do 28 damage (14 on a save).
5. EDIT: forgot to include all creatures are proficient in all saves, but there is no longer a save each turn to end effect for many spells. If a PC selects a save (as defined by your class) or a creature has saves listed in their stat block, you gain advantage on those saves.

IMO, this makes the game much more like AD&D. You miss more often, but because HP is generally half (#1 above) it has a lot more impact.

For example, here is our orc with 7 HP and 17 AC (half HP and AC +4) compared to RAW 15 and 13, respectively:

Suppose you have a +5 attack and deal 7 damage. You hit on a 12 or higher (45%) but a single hit will take the orc down. Before you would need a 8 or higher (65%), but would need three hits (maybe two...) to take it down.

Meanwhile, the orc is still a good threat because it's damage and attack isn't changed. True, your AC is higher, but your HP are less as well (not half, IME about 60-70% since most PCs have a CON mod).

I did a bunch of comparisons. In general, my system results in a creature going down 1-2 rounds faster. Less than 10% of the creatures I looked at (about 100 most common monsters) resulted in the same time or maybe a round more. shrug

 

[tetrasodium]

All I can speak to us my experience running D&D from the Red Box set through 1E to 2E to 3E and now 5E (never ran 4E and only played in one trial game to try the rules) and in every single one of those (to varying degrees that have to do more with my players or my experience as DM than any given ruleset) strategy has been important, being worried about failure/death. has been a concern for PCs (not every fight's losing condition is death).

It might also be that terms like "area denial" and "zone of control" are not in my normal gaming vocabulary. I think about higher ground, clear shots, crowded conditions, ducking behind cover, environmental hazards - and while I know those overlap and the former is a way to describe some of that stuff in strategic game terms, me and my groups tend to examine things on an immersive level.

As I said in another thread (maybe even to you, tet) I lead by example, and the PCs see what their intelligent or crafty opponents do and emulate it. They see and hear the environment I describe and they try to make the best use of it (as do their canny opponents).

Those terms are probably military terms going back hundreds of years describing an area somehow denied to an enemy and an area somehow controlled. I think it's probably less not having those terms in your "gaming vocabulary than not remembering/skipping 3.x & 4e where doing pretty much anything other than making an attack or moving five feet/1 square would trigger an opportunity attack. 2e also had some tactical rules in "player options combat & tactics" but like much of 2e they were clunky even by the standards of the day... It's also possible you ran/joined a group in 3.x/4e days that made up a houserule consisting of "we are just going to remove all of the tactical AoO stuff" like 4e should have done as an optional rule instead of actually removing it & giving a couple optional rules that miss the mark by an absurd degree to check the tactical box by strict letter without actually doing anything that could be considered suitable for that badwrongfun.

a fighter/barbarian/whatever who knows that any monster wanting to pass him or her is going to get smacked by an AoO if they move more than 5 feet & if not going to spend a turn or two getting smacked back & forth moving 5 feet/1 square before they can go curbstomp the squishy casters means that the fighter and the barbarian and the whatever are likely to at least make some general plans for the approach & arrangement around bad guys in order to make sure squishier types are not left fleeing for their lives when faced with an angry critter that could have been trivially handled with simple strategy... 5e lacks all of the rules needed for that & the optional flanking/facing rules in the dmg are a farce that fail so hard that it's difficult to believe that wotc could have done it accidentally

 

[el-remmen]

It's also possible you ran/joined a group in 3.x/4e days that made up a houserule consisting of "we are just going to remove all of the tactical AoO stuff"

Nope. I am am having a hard time imagining how what your describing (in 3E) didn't lead to more creative tactics on both sides. Tactics is how you work with and around both the environment and the rules to work towards a winning condition (whatever that might be, from killing the opponent, to getting away, to smashing the magic gem on the pedestal, and so on).

 

[Zsong]

All I can speak to us my experience running D&D from the Red Box set through 1E to 2E to 3E and now 5E (never ran 4E and only played in one trial game to try the rules) and in every single one of those (to varying degrees that have to do more with my players or my experience as DM than any given ruleset) strategy has been important, being worried about failure/death. has been a concern for PCs (not every fight's losing condition is death).

It might also be that terms like "area denial" and "zone of control" are not in my normal gaming vocabulary. I think about higher ground, clear shots, crowded conditions, ducking behind cover, environmental hazards - and while I know those overlap and the former is a way to describe some of that stuff in strategic game terms, me and my groups tend to examine things on an immersive level.

As I said in another thread (maybe even to you, tet) I lead by example, and the PCs see what their intelligent or crafty opponents do and emulate it. They see and hear the environment I describe and they try to make the best use of it (as do their canny opponents).

This is something that has no appeal to me. Although it is cool that it works for you. And great there are rules for players that love playing like that. The game I like to push is should we fight it and why do we fight it. Those are the decisions. I just don’t want a complex system for the fight. I just love how the same game draws so many different types of players.

 

[el-remmen]

This is something that has no appeal to me. Although it is cool that it works for you. And great there are rules for players that love playing like that. The game I like to push is should we fight it and why do we fight it. Those are the decisions. I just don’t want a complex system for the fight. I just love how the same game draws so many different types of players.

Cool. I think this is the first time I've come across someone who does not care for that kind of action in a D&D game - at least explicitly. I personally can't imagine enjoying a game that didn't have that element in its battles, but just goes to show there are as many different ways to play this game as there are gaming groups. .. heck, more even!

In the past I have even screened the first fight with the orcs in Moria (with the cave troll) from the Fellowship of the Ring for my players to get us psyched up and demonstrate how I imagine the battles to be.

 

[Argyle King]

It is one page 1, post #5. Here is the excerpt:

IMO, this makes the game much more like AD&D. You miss more often, but because HP is generally half (#1 above) it has a lot more impact.

For example, here is our orc with 7 HP and 17 AC (half HP and AC +4) compared to RAW 15 and 13, respectively:

View attachment 130184
Suppose you have a +5 attack and deal 7 damage. You hit on a 12 or higher (45%) but a single hit will take the orc down. Before you would need a 8 or higher (65%), but would need three hits (maybe two...) to take it down.

Meanwhile, the orc is still a good threat because it's damage and attack isn't changed. True, your AC is higher, but your HP are less as well (not half, IME about 60-70% since most PCs have a CON mod).

I did a bunch of comparisons. In general, my system results in a creature going down 1-2 rounds faster. Less than 10% of the creatures I looked at (about 100 most common monsters) resulted in the same time or maybe a round more. shrug

I'm not sure how this would play out, but a houserule I've considered using when/if I GM D&D 5E again is to bring back a +N bonus for flanking. I know that's at odds with the usual advantage/disadvantage approach of 5E, but here's my basic idea:

+1 bonus for each set of flanking allies around a target, to a max bonus of +4.

Examples:
....+1.........+2.........+3........+4......
...OOO.....OAO.....AAO.....AAA...
....AEA.......AEA......AEA......AEA...
...OOO.....OAO.....OAA.....AAA...

This would be applied independently of conditions for advantage/disadvantage.
So, let's say that two barbarian allies surround a foe and reckless attack. They would roll 2d20, keep the highest roll, and add 1.
Alternatively, let's say two allies surround a foe which has some ability to cause disadvantage in melee. The two allies would roll 2d20, take the lowest roll, and add 1.

I've also considered a simpler version: the initial flank grants +1, and you gain an additional +1 per additional ally engaging the target (max +4).

More recently, I've considered the idea of spending advantage (similar to FFG Star Wars) to gain more dice. In this case, I would not use the flat bonuses above. In this method, two instances of advantage could add +1d4 to the roll (which now be roll 2d20, keep the high roll, and add 1d4). Disadvantage could be used by the DM the same way, but be negative dice instead of positive.

I haven't tested either one, and both are just very rough sketches of ideas right now, so I have little to no idea about how it would change play. But, I think it may work well in conjunction with you HP and AC changes.

Edit: I forgot to finish some thoughts about the initial flanking idea. Part of my thought process was that advantage/disadvantage (while a good idea, which is quick and easy) is a little too generic for certain situations. Also, I think allowing a growing flank bonus (of some sort) helps to make hordes of mooks more dangerous. On the other side of the table, it helps to give a logical explanation for a why a dragon (or some other powerful creature) needs minions and followers: even the strongest creature can be overwhelmed by numbers.

 

[tetrasodium]

This is something that has no appeal to me. Although it is cool that it works for you. And great there are rules for players that love playing like that. The game I like to push is should we fight it and why do we fight it. Those are the decisions. I just don’t want a complex system for the fight. I just love how the same game draws so many different types of players.

Luckily this is all that is needed for you to play a system with those tactical rules baked in "hey guys, lets throw out the tactical stuff with AoOs for moving doing this that or the other while in s threatened square" or if you want it like 5e is they could have written it into the core system and replaced

Spoiler: all if this wasted page space

with "optionally you could remove all opportunity attacks except when a creature makes a ranged attack while in reach of a hostile creature & when a creature moves out of reach from a hostile creature" and both camps get to have the cake they want

@el-remmen you don't need to have much imagination to extrapolate how the ability to hit an opponent doing any of the highlighted things with an opportunity attack could lead to players with a class that can take advantage of those things (ie a martial class) or be hindered by them could lead to players communicating even the most basic of strategy. While the table might look complex, that's because of the 3.5 action economy and how different things used different types of actions. The list itself pretty much amount to "move more than 5 feet, cast most any spell, attack with a ranged weapon, ordo almost anything other than attack " for a thing that was very simple thing to remember. The only time the rulebook ever really came out was things like "does such and such feat yours let you do that without provoking an AoO bob" if bob didn't remember what his feat did.

Spoiler: table 8-2 actions in combat

 

[Asisreo]

It is one page 1, post #5. Here is the excerpt:

IMO, this makes the game much more like AD&D. You miss more often, but because HP is generally half (#1 above) it has a lot more impact.

For example, here is our orc with 7 HP and 17 AC (half HP and AC +4) compared to RAW 15 and 13, respectively:

View attachment 130184
Suppose you have a +5 attack and deal 7 damage. You hit on a 12 or higher (45%) but a single hit will take the orc down. Before you would need a 8 or higher (65%), but would need three hits (maybe two...) to take it down.

Meanwhile, the orc is still a good threat because it's damage and attack isn't changed. True, your AC is higher, but your HP are less as well (not half, IME about 60-70% since most PCs have a CON mod).

I did a bunch of comparisons. In general, my system results in a creature going down 1-2 rounds faster. Less than 10% of the creatures I looked at (about 100 most common monsters) resulted in the same time or maybe a round more. shrug

The problem comes in the form of spells. This does nothing for spells that do damage on successful saves. Suddenly, the wizard is downing orcs with only 2 magic missile darts while they'd have to usually do 2 whole castings just to take one down.

This problem is exasperated at higher levels. If suddenly Ogre have 20AC but 20HP for example, well the martial might be killing the same "effective DPR" but the wizard's DPR has increased dramatically by proxy. Even if the Ogre has higher saves, the wizard is just more effective at dealing damage than the martial is.


You could try to remove the half-at-save property, but while its still effectively the same, you run the psychology of a spellcaster possibly using a resource for basic damage and doing absolutely nothing. Damage is worth less than the control options they have already. Now they either have to increase the damage of spells like fireball even more which could get out of hand or just keep the system with an unsatisfactory feeling for any blasting-type casters.

 

[tetrasodium]

The problem comes in the form of spells. This does nothing for spells that do damage on successful saves. Suddenly, the wizard is downing orcs with only 2 magic missile darts while they'd have to usually do 2 whole castings just to take one down.

This problem is exasperated at higher levels. If suddenly Ogre have 20AC but 20HP for example, well the martial might be killing the same "effective DPR" but the wizard's DPR has increased dramatically by proxy. Even if the Ogre has higher saves, the wizard is just more effective at dealing damage than the martial is.


You could try to remove the half-at-save property, but while its still effectively the same, you run the psychology of a spellcaster possibly using a resource for basic damage and doing absolutely nothing. Damage is worth less than the control options they have already. Now they either have to increase the damage of spells like fireball even more which could get out of hand or just keep the system with an unsatisfactory feeling for any blasting-type casters.

magic missile is self correcting, just change two letters