D&D 5E (2014) Has D&D Combat Always Been Slow?

[TwoSix]

Sometimes yes, sometimes no in my experience. As long as the player can articulate a course of action, I can handle any rules. As for math, Roll20 takes care of all that. But prior to Roll20, I sometimes would get a player who struggled with math and it was problematic enough to stop inviting that player to games.

The problem, I've found, is players who are unable to articulate a course of action because they don't have a firm grasp of the rules, and then get bogged down in the action economy minutiae. I'm not usually the DMs in these games, so I generally have to grit my teeth over it.

 

[iserith]

The problem, I've found, is players who are unable to articulate a course of action because they don't have a firm grasp of the rules, and then get bogged down in the action economy minutiae. I'm not usually the DMs in these games, so I generally have to grit my teeth over it.

Hmm, I've always managed to get at least a course of action out of a player regardless of rules knowledge. Generally I find people who know the rules the least are actually the fastest to act since they're relying on the fiction and not thinking about mechanics as much.

 

[iserith]

This is why I said it depends on the player and the circumstances - as I never say never or "the player/DM should always" or "should never." Some players want to describe that and some don't. I fill in the gap rather than insist they do it one way or another.

If I have a player who is not holding up their end of the conversation with a reasonable amount of description (goal and approach is all that is required), that players gets replaced with someone who can. I don't like performing the player's role for them.

 

[el-remmen]

If I have a player who is not holding up their end of the conversation with a reasonable amount of description (goal and approach is all that is required), that players gets replaced with someone who can. I don't like performing the player's role for them.

I am not gonna replace my friend at the table just because they have a slightly different play style than me that otherwise changes nothing of the gaming experience - esp. if I am happy to do it.

 

[iserith]

I am not gonna replace my friend at the table just because they have a slightly different play style than me that otherwise changes nothing of the gaming experience - esp. if I am happy to do it.

I would say that such a thing actually does change the gaming experience and for the worse. The player and I can still be friends, but they just aren't a match for the sort of game I want. No big deal.

 

[el-remmen]

I would say that such a thing actually does change the gaming experience and for the worse.

Not in my experience as a GM. Working towards being a little more easy-going and meeting players (esp. new players) where they are at rather than expecting them to be exactly where and how I want them to be has led to much more pleasant interpersonal experiences of play, and let's players' approaches evolve into something cohesive and that the whole group comes to organically.

Edit to add: I am not saying there are not conflicts in style that can disrupt the game or cause me to suggest finding another game that fits better, but such a minor thing to me would not be it. It would have to be on the social level: cheating, bullying, racist/sexist/homophobic behavior, and the like - and at the game level: expecting something totally out of the bounds of what my game can offer while still being fun for me (like a high degree of magic, for example).

 

[TwoSix]

The problem, I've found, is players who are unable to articulate a course of action because they don't have a firm grasp of the rules, and then get bogged down in the action economy minutiae. I'm not usually the DMs in these games, so I generally have to grit my teeth over it.

You've never had fun conversations like this?

Player: "I want cast bless on the myself and my 3 friends here, here, and here."
DM: "Ok, that's 4 people, you'll need to spend a 2nd level slot for that."
Player: "Oh, wait....I don't have any more 2nd level slots."
DM: "Well, you can use a 1st level slot, and just bless 3 people."
Player: <thinks for 10 seconds>
Player: "Can I use a 3rd level slot instead? I have those."
DM: "Sure, if you use a 3rd level slot you can bless 5 people."
Player: "5 people, OK." <thinks, looks around at board>
Player: "I'll bless her, the PC over there".
DM: "Well, actually, she's out of range. Needs to be within 30'."
Player: <thinks for 10 more seconds>
Player: "Well, I can't bless everyone, so I guess I'll just bless 3 people for a first level slot."
DM: "Ok, sounds good. Just remember it's concentration if you get hit.
Player: "Oh, it's concentration? That's not good, I have a concentration spell up already. I'm going to do something else..."

 

[NotAYakk]

Oh, indeed. I was specifically objecting to the 2-3 times longer that you claimed in the post I was replying to - not to the principle that it's longer.

I will say the ascending AC sped things up a bit. But not enough for the multiple attacks.

Here I disagree slightly. The change in state between the two mechanics isn't quite the same - smites are a limited resource and I think that's where the extra d8 comes from.

That was "improved smite", a free d8 rider paladins get at level 11.

I was comparing it to a fighter that auto-hits, which starts around name level.

I've commented and stand by my comment that after 4e's levels of forced movement going back to systems that use battlemaps but no worthwhile forced movement feels like acting against a green screen rather than actually on set.

Sure. Forced movement and status boosts fiction units. Tracking status and making position matter costs seconds.

On the other hand having them there can be pretty serious changes to the game state. Especially ones that involve leaping in the way of an attack or blocking an attack for a friend. There's a cost, but a significant benefit.

Ayep. I loved disrupting strike, it really made the ranger more dynamic.

I would say I was pretty happy with the result of five damage dice off a single tap encounter power in my 4e session last week - but I'm playing a level 4 character. The dominance of multi-attacks doesn't come in until later.

Even at level 4 it can start. Get +1 feat focus, a +1 weapon, and +2 item bonus and 20 attack stat and your static damage is already +9.

If [W] is 1d8, 5[W]+9 is 31.5.
3 1[W]+9 attacks is 40.5.

And 4e is far more likely to give you 3 1[W] attacks than give you a 5[W] attack in heroic. Yet the 3 1[W] attacks are way stronger.

The problem comes when you run it the other way. The hit points recommended by the CR charts for a given level are ridiculous. And in practice I don't want to calculate the CR for existing monsters, I want to use the CR charts to help build my own monster.

You can make a monster, and use the chart to find its CR, and it works.

You cannot use the chart to determine what HP and damage you should give a monster.

Because if you do that, you'll have a feature-less brute.

I mean, let's play. I want a CR 8 monster. I'll use the CR table.

Spoiler

16 AC +3 proficiency bonus 175 HP +7 ATK 53 damage per round.

Give it 2 attacks. I'll make it require 2 different targets. The first will consume 2/3 of the budget, the 2nd 1/3.

The monster will be a golem with a flaming hammer and an ice cannon on its shoulder.

35 damage and 18 damage.

+7 ATK means +4 strength. So

Large construct
16 AC (armor plating)
175 HP
18 strength
Actions:
Jet Powered Flamehammer Smash: +7 vs AC, 4d10+4+2d6 fire damage (33)
Ice Gun: DC 16 dex save or take 4d8 cold damage and fall prone. The ground in a 10' radius freezes, becoming difficult terrain.
Multiattack: Attack with the flamehammer, and shoot a different target with the ice gun.

If we compare this to a TRex, the TRex has a similar DPR, +3 ATK, a bite that restrains, 3 less AC and 3 lower CRs of HP.

That restrain is worth a lot compared to the ice gun rider above (which is mainly fluff; foes at range rarely care if they are prone or surrounded by difficult terrain; they can just stand up).

3 AC and 3 ATK balance each other out. The restrained with a high ATK bonus is worth a good boost in its offensive CR, 2 spots easily.

So offensive CR 10 (+1.5 from ATK), defensive 5 (-1.5 from AC), sum to 15, average is 7.5, within 0.5 of its official 8 CR.

---

If you try this on non-brutes, you'll run into the problem that the extra stuff you are doing ends up dominating over the raw HP and damage and AC and stuff.

A CR-first system would start off with a few templates (Artillery, Brute, Soldier, Skirmisher), have baseline stats for it, rules for special ability budgets, and how to adjust the resulting CR based on decisions. This was how 4e worked. The downside is that it led to a bit of uniformity in monster design.

I mean, ancient dragons have legendary resists, lots of saves, lots of immunities, high AC. These all massively boost their defensive CR.

Their DPR comes from legendary actions and their attack routine and breath weapon, plus high ATK bonuses.

So that CR chart is going to be way, way off what their baseline damage routine looks like, and what their HP/AC looks like.

...

Writing a forward-instead-of-backward system isn't that tricky. I should do it.

 

[Zaukrie]

You've never had fun conversations like this?

Player: "I want cast bless on the myself and my 3 friends here, here, and here."
DM: "Ok, that's 4 people, you'll need to spend a 2nd level slot for that."
Player: "Oh, wait....I don't have any more 2nd level slots."
DM: "Well, you can use a 1st level slot, and just bless 3 people."
Player: <thinks for 10 seconds>
Player: "Can I use a 3rd level slot instead? I have those."
DM: "Sure, if you use a 3rd level slot you can bless 5 people."
Player: "5 people, OK." <thinks, looks around at board>
Player: "I'll bless her, the PC over there".
DM: "Well, actually, she's out of range. Needs to be within 30'."
Player: <thinks for 10 more seconds>
Player: "Well, I can't bless everyone, so I guess I'll just bless 3 people for a first level slot."
DM: "Ok, sounds good. Just remember it's concentration if you get hit.
Player: "Oh, it's concentration? That's not good, I have a concentration spell up already. I'm going to do something else..."

About a week ago......and I tried to see where I could move my token to get one more in a few times......to me, though, this is just part of the game.

 

[TwoSix]

About a week ago......and I tried to see where I could move my token to get one more in a few times......to me, though, this is just part of the game.

Yes, just a frustrating part.