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

[billd91]

saying that in a book published years after 5e was released doesn't change the fact that the math does not support that claim & certainly does not support it to the extent that it was the case in past editions. The math does not support it because 5e was designed to make magic items and feats so "optional" that the math does not consider them resulting in bounded accuracy melting down when you start using them because it's rying to model a spherical cow .

Or they correctly recognize that an additional bonus here and there doesn't really break bounded accuracy.

 

[Asisreo]

saying that in a book published years after 5e was released doesn't change the fact that the math does not support that claim & certainly does not support it to the extent that it was the case in past editions. The math does not support it because 5e was designed to make magic items and feats so "optional" that the math does not consider them resulting in bounded accuracy melting down when you start using them because it's rying to model a spherical cow .

You keep asserting Magic Items and Feats are equally optional, but they are not.

Feats are explicitly a variant rule to playing the game, just as variant as Skills with different Abilities, Encumberance, or playing on a grid. No matter how frequently these things come up in tables, the system was designed to work just fine without them.

Magic items are not optional. Its an assumed part of the game. Its equivalent to stealth checks, cover, or combat in-and-of itself. A DM has full reign on when and where these mechanics appear, but that doesn't mean the exclusion of the mechanics overall might not have an effect on the game.

 

[Marc_C]

These days we play 5e using theatre of the mind on Skype. It's faster than using miniatures and a grid.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Yep. But none of the jargon is necessary to know to be a good tactician - just like the narrative description is technically not necessary to imagine the story.

Jargon isn't necessary - but understanding the abilities available to yourself and your teammates is. A tactician with poor knowledge of what their side can do is a poor tactician.

The jargon is there so that you can don't have to name the specific rules that make things work every time. Instead it's faster and simpler once you understand it to mention the jargon.

The question is whether you think Legolas should be able to do things with his bow that Gimli can possibly not even attempt with a crossbow. Such as my example of Legolas, because he's such a good archer, being able to focus on an area and take a shot at every orc that tries to come through. There's no way that Gimli should even be able to attempt that (in part because reloading a crossbow takes just too long). Me, I'd say Legolas absolutely should be able to do this and more than a few other stunts that Gimil can't with a crossbow including snap an emergency shot off when someone is being crept up on when starting with an unloaded bow.

If Legolas can do these things then you can either go through the mechanics every time they are needed or you can speed everything up by calling it a "rescue shot" rather than "a shot triggered by someone creeping up on my ally" every time you actually get to use the thing.

And for a battle tactician speed matters. A good answer now is a lot more useful than the right answer ten seconds too late. So using the long description in character rather than either using the official jargon or working out jargon for the group (and you also need jargon for teamwork) is objectively bad tactics. It's of course normally easier to use the official jargon rather than invent your own.

So if the difference between Legolas and Gimli in combat is anything other than a number of dice rolled and a plus or two, and you have both Legolas and Gimli in the group, knowing the jargon is necessary. If you don't know what you and your group can do after only a little working together then you are demonstrably a poor tactician. If you don't see a need to communicate fast in combat you are demonstrably a poor tactician. And if you see a fixable need like that and decide it's not worth bothering to try and fix then you are, if not a poor tactician, then a poor strategist.

 

[NotAYakk]

Archer
You are an expert archer.

• When you deal damage with a longbow or shortbow, you can add both your strength and your dexterity to the damage roll
• When a creature within your first range increment hits a creature with an attack, you may expend a reaction to attack them with a ranged weapon attack. If this attack hits, the creature must reroll their attack, and the reroll cannot score a critical hit.
• When a creature within your first range increment moves towards you, you may expend a reaction to attack them with a ranged weapon attack. If this attack hits, they cannot make opportunity attacks on you until the end of your next turn.
• You can expend your action to gain an additional reaction until the start of your next turn. This reaction may only be spent on attacks with a longbow or shortbow, and you may not spend it to attack the same creature as another reaction.

I think a feat like that would cover a bunch of what Legolas does. Well, not the "ride an oliphant" but...

 

[el-remmen]

Jargon isn't necessary - but understanding the abilities available to yourself and your teammates is. A tactician with poor knowledge of what their side can do is a poor tactician.

The jargon is there so that you can don't have to name the specific rules that make things work every time. Instead it's faster and simpler once you understand it to mention the jargon.

I never said anything about naming or explaining rules or knowing them well or not. In fact, I've lost track of how we got here. I just think narrative descriptions of the combat by the DM and/or players can make combat more lively and not drag, as do actual stakes in the combat, and interesting environments. Three things that have made running combats in some of my past games into on the edge of your seat experiences - including once a long protracted combat/escape that took an entire 6 hour session and over 50 rounds in initiative.

 

[tetrasodium]

I never said anything about naming or explaining rules or knowing them well or not. In fact, I've lost track of how we got here. I just think narrative descriptions of the combat by the DM and/or players can make combat more lively and not drag, as do actual stakes in the combat, and interesting environments. Three things that have made running combats in some of my past games into on the edge of your seat experiences - including once a long protracted combat/escape that took an entire 6 hour session and over 50 rounds in initiative.

I know exactly how... I used the words zone of control & area denial to describe things that were possible in past editions that sometimes encouraged players to communicate strategy across the table during a fight without needing to go into detail on how the fact that creatures provoked an AoO for doing a ton of things other than attacking with a melee weapon or taking a five foot step/shifting one square because how that applied seemed obvious. That was back at the top of page ten & prompted this from you. I don't know if I've ever heard a player use those specific groupings of words at the table, but they clearly convey meaning of concepts that 5e is sorely lacking in

 

[Jack Daniel]

I haven't read through this whole thread yet (I'll get around to it), but for now I can at least answer the OP's questions.

So, my question is three parts:

1) Do you feel D&D combat is slow (or "drags")?

2) If yes, how do you address this in 5E?

3) Has it always been that way? I'm not familiar with very much of 1E or 2E.

1) Yes, combat in 5th edition D&D drags on far longer than it needs to. It's repetitive, unexciting, and made worse by the tilt of the math in favor of nigh-inevitable PC victory. Anything that's tedious, time-consuming, and has no stakes is bound to be a drag on the game.

2) I address it by not running 5e at all and by playing 5e as little as possible, given the fact that I'm acquainted with numerous Critical Role fans who all feel the need to "play like Matt Mercer."

3) In terms of combat speed, the difference between TSR D&D and the three WotC D&Ds is night-and-day. The first thing that needs to be pointed out is that even though TSR D&D has many versions (Original D&D, Classic D&D, 1st edition AD&D, 2nd edition AD&D), they all share the same basic "game engine" at heart and could be considered different games but aren't different systems. Whereas each of the three WotC editions are all different systems. (The 3e/3.5/d20 System, the 4e system, and the 5e system are all incompatible with each other and with the TSR D&D system.) Each of these four systems has different characteristics which factor into the speed of a typical combat at any given level of play. TSR D&D is fairly rapid because there are few options to manage and small hit point totals. 3rd edition is similar enough to TSR D&D at low levels but becomes either a slow slog or nuclear rocket-tag at very high levels. 4th edition is slow by design because each encounter is "supposed" to follow the arc of players adjusting their tactics until they hit upon the strategy that leads to winning. And 5th edition is slow because of hit point scaling (bounded accuracy on the d20 modifiers… unbounded bloat on the hit point totals).

 

[Don Durito]

I think I know what happened. People whined and whined about attacks of opportunity for so many years, that they overcorrected.

God knows there were some that did need removing. Attacks of opportunity for tripping and the like tended to discourage people from trying maneuvers unless they took a feat and became specialised in them (at which point it became boring and predictable - except when it didn't work at all). Attacks of opportunty for standing up from prone wasn't too bad if you were fighting just one person - but when you were surrounded it was too much of a penalty (and was ridiculous if they could send you back down again on the attack of opportunity).

But attacks of opportunity for ranged attacks and melee and spellcasting served a clear purpose. If anything 3E was too generous when it came to spellcasting, making defensive casting too easy. It's not a complexity thing really either. 13th Age has a simpler combat engine then 5e but it kept these (and took away rules for defensive casting).

Ranged Attacks​

Any ranged attack (weapon, spell, power, ability, or whatever) draws opportunity attacks from enemies engaged with you that you don’t target with the attack.

Spell Attacks​

Most spells draw opportunity attacks from enemies engaged with you, even the enemies you target with the spell. Close-quarters spells are the exception; they don’t draw opportunity attacks.

Plus it added this:

Other Actions when it’s Not Your Turn​

In certain circumstances, characters can intercept foes moving past them, make opportunity attacks, or otherwise act out of turn. These actions are usually free actions.

Behind​

If you’re behind an unengaged ally, and an enemy moves past that ally to get to you, your ally has the option to move and intercept.

Intercepting​

You intercept a creature when you move to stop an enemy attempting to rush past you to attack someone else. You must be near the enemy and the person that enemy is trying to reach.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

For those who would like benefits from flanking but find that Advantage is too strong, why not use the Facing rules instead? There would be benefits from getting behind a creature to avoid its AC bonus from shields, which is not nothing. At the start and at the end of its turn, a creatures can decide where it is facing.

Add to that the Mark option from the DMG, with the specific addition that a marked creature that moves without disengaging, even when staying within attack range, triggers an AoO.

This would add a little tactic, without too much rules.