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

[Guest User]

I love how people site optional rules that very few to next to nobody ever used as an example of ad&d

Dude..I said this:

It depends what your definition of 1e includes.

I love it when people don't read disclaimers that literally are the First Sentence of the post they quoted.

Just because you have never used a rule, does not equate to No One Has ever used said rule.

As kids, my friends and I played at least 3 campaigns that used those very rules.
(AD&D didn't make an "optional rule distinction).

I find it a bit presumptuous to assume that what doesn't match my direct experience
somehow doesn't exist at all.

Then again rejecting others, and other people's reality, seems to be in vogue.
I apologize if my lived experience, conflicts with your confirmation bias.

 

[Oofta]

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?

Define "better". I mean, in general I'm a better tactician than most. Other people really get into role playing. Some people are just plain fun to play with and entertaining. I've played with people that were brilliant tactically but were solely focused on tactics. Other people try to hog the spotlight while role playing. Some people are just kind of boring. Most people are a mix.

But if someone has weaknesses I'll either accept those weaknesses or try to help them overcome them. Unless there are social issues once you join my game you're welcome to stay as long as we're having fun playing the game. Which I guess is a non-answer, but about the best I can give.

 

[Oofta]

@TwoSix concerning the "better" player, different people play for different reasons. A lot of people would find my games boring because we do a lot of out-of-combat stuff. Whether that's just straight RP (yes, even occasionally while doing shopping), investigation, exploration and things that don't really fall into a neat category.

It seems that someone who is into old school dungeon crawls and location based adventures (and there's nothing wrong with that) would be more likely to categorize people as "good" and "bad" gamers.

 

[TwoSix]

Define "better". I mean, in general I'm a better tactician than most. Other people really get into role playing. Some people are just plain fun to play with and entertaining. I've played with people that were brilliant tactically but were solely focused on tactics. Other people try to hog the spotlight while role playing. Some people are just kind of boring. Most people are a mix.

But if someone has weaknesses I'll either accept those weaknesses or try to help them overcome them. Unless there are social issues once you join my game you're welcome to stay as long as we're having fun playing the game. Which I guess is a non-answer, but about the best I can give.

Fair, I won’t push the issue. I just think it would be fun to play at a table with several players who are creative, fun to play with, and rules savvy all at the same time.

I’m not kicking any friends out for being not great at rules stuff.

 

[tetrasodium]

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,

no really. The ogre has one attack

Lets say it downs Alice during a fight & that alice has 3 other players in the group with her (Bob Cindy & Dave) If any of them uses a heal kit on her, casts cure wounds from touch range, casts healing word within 60feet, uses paladinLay on hands, uses celestial warlock healing light, or uses the spare the dying cantrip from within 30 feet because nobody but a grave cleric who gets the improved version free would take that cantrip... the PC is back to 1 or more hp or at worst no failed death saves.

Also & possibly most importantly there's a world of difference between "it killed you with that attack because you were too low on hp & still in its face" and "The gm made the monster attack your body to ensure you were dead"

 

[Zsong]

I don't disagree that there were rarely actually used, but my group did happen to use them in both 1e AND 2e.

We used speed factor for awhile. And dropped armor versus weapon type fast. As that really slowed game down fast.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Alternatively you, instead of being able to do what you know you should, need to read the DM's mind to see if something which one DM would reward will be rewarded or penalised by another DM. This leads to analysis paralysis and frustration on behalf of the player - and it leads to frustration and irritation on behalf of the DM who needs to ass-pull a new set of rulings each time the players come up with a set of wacky stunts. And for consistency a good DM will remember what they did last time.

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.

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!".

Consistency...ABOLUTELY! This comes with experience and time. As I've said many times before, after a couple years of DM'ing, every DM develops their own "style". Some DM's are great at storytelling, some are amazing at combat handling, some are experts at creating interconnecting Machiavellian webs of intrigue, and some are just good, but not great, at a bit of everything. Consistency, a sense of Fairness, and a focus on trying to maintain Neutrality in regards to PC's success or failure are the three key components of a good DM.

Even in D&D 3.X you didn't actually need to flip through three separate books to adjudicate something like that, and both 4e and 5e are actively simpler. Meanwhile AD&D is larded with rules (such as the helmet rules). You just don't know which set the DM is using.

Er...that's why you talk to the DM first, or have a "Session Zero" where everyone talks about what they like/dislike and expect/desire out of the coming campaign/game.

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.

This, IN MY EXPERIENCE AND OPINION, expectation has changed over the decades where now, it's almost the opposite. Players tend to expect to not 'loose' unless it's an 'important encounter', and many see death as an annoying bump in the road to their ultimate goal of hitting Level 20. A Player that has played 4 characters in two months, with none of them getting past level 2 will see this as a "failure on the DM's part to run a 'fun' or 'fair' game". They don't look at it as it being even remotely possible that they keep dying because of their OWN choices and/or bad luck. It's almost always "the DM's fault". Then the excuses come in "Well, I wouldn't die so much if I could play a [class/race] that you won't let me", or "I would live longer if we were using Feats", or "You're supposed to build encounters we can at least have a chance of winning".

All of that can be avoided on the fabled "Session Zero" info day.

An actually fast game is something like Fate - which has a framework rather than relying on DM ass-pulls. That way, instead of having to ask the DM "If I were to try this" the player has a much clearer way of making the calling themselves and doesn't have to stop to ask the DM for a 30 second ruling which they then need to figure out and then figure out if it's something that their character would take the risk for - or something that there's a misunderstanding behind.

Rulings slow things down every time they are needed while players can learn rules. Good game design isn't "rulings, not rules", it structures using powerful rules and rulings just fill in the gaps; the idea you want "rulings not rules" is an excuse for shipping games that are not fit for purpose. (This is entirely independent of the big thing slowing 5e combat down - "bullet sponge" enemy design where an AD&D ogre had 19hp and an 5e one has 59 by default).

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.

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.

A game that I think has found the "sweet spot" between DM Adjudication and Rules to Follow/Use is Dungeon World. It still involves the DM "making choices" for the world as it unfolds, but it allows the Players to choose the basics of how they want to accomplish something (most of the time). When we played it, yes, I was the DM, we ended up falling into a groove of where the Player would have a specific 'idea' of what his character was going to do. Said Player would then use the "move name" in his description (e.g., "I'm going to...[insert descriptive roleplaying]...and use the [insert Move]". I almost always just went with what the player choose...even though I think it's supposed to be more of the DM choosing the Move to use. My reasoning for this approach was that the Player had a specific "method of accomplishment" playing out in his brain...and if I suddenly said "No, use the [whatever Move] in stead", they would have to do a complete re-think and imagining of what their character is doing to fit that "moves narrative".

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!

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Flamestrike]

I dont get what makes it slow for you?

Presuming everyone is paying attention (and if they're not, thats the DMs fault) and everyone knows their characters (and if they dont, that's usually also the DMs fault) a PCs turn should go like this (even at mid to high level):

DM: (Checks notes) OK Bob, it's your turn. What do you do?
Bob: I'll shift Hunters Mark to the Fire Giant Boss and attack with my Longbow; I'll toggle Sharpshooter 'on'. I'm at +6 to hit. (Rolls a D20 twice). 15 and a 19.
DM: The 19 hits. The Giant is at less than Max HP so your Giant Slayer activates.
Bob: Cool; I'll also spam Menacing Strike from my Martial Adept feat (rolls 1d8+1d8+1d6+1d6+15). Thats.. 34 damage and you need to make a DC 15 Wisdom save or be Frightened.
DM: (Notes damage and rolls save). He made it.
Bob: I'll now move 35' rearwards to cover of the trees behind us.
DM: Cool. Ok Terry, it's now your turn.

etc

That shouldn't take more than a minute or two (even with extra attack, multiple dice rolling, a saving throw, feats in use, multiple decision points in targets, resource usage, sharpshooter etc etc). Presuming 5 PCs (plus the monsters turn... say 2-3 minutes to resolve) this adds up to 10-15 minutes per combat round (max) even at mid to high level.

With most combats lasting around 3 rounds you're looking at around 30-40 minutes for a longish combat encounter, or enough time in your average evening session for around 3-4 such encounters.

 

[tetrasodium]

Hiya!

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.

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!".

Consistency...ABOLUTELY! This comes with experience and time. As I've said many times before, after a couple years of DM'ing, every DM develops their own "style". Some DM's are great at storytelling, some are amazing at combat handling, some are experts at creating interconnecting Machiavellian webs of intrigue, and some are just good, but not great, at a bit of everything. Consistency, a sense of Fairness, and a focus on trying to maintain Neutrality in regards to PC's success or failure are the three key components of a good DM.


Er...that's why you talk to the DM first, or have a "Session Zero" where everyone talks about what they like/dislike and expect/desire out of the coming campaign/game.

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.

This, IN MY EXPERIENCE AND OPINION, expectation has changed over the decades where now, it's almost the opposite. Players tend to expect to not 'loose' unless it's an 'important encounter', and many see death as an annoying bump in the road to their ultimate goal of hitting Level 20. A Player that has played 4 characters in two months, with none of them getting past level 2 will see this as a "failure on the DM's part to run a 'fun' or 'fair' game". They don't look at it as it being even remotely possible that they keep dying because of their OWN choices and/or bad luck. It's almost always "the DM's fault". Then the excuses come in "Well, I wouldn't die so much if I could play a [class/race] that you won't let me", or "I would live longer if we were using Feats", or "You're supposed to build encounters we can at least have a chance of winning".

All of that can be avoided on the fabled "Session Zero" info day.


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.

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.

A game that I think has found the "sweet spot" between DM Adjudication and Rules to Follow/Use is Dungeon World. It still involves the DM "making choices" for the world as it unfolds, but it allows the Players to choose the basics of how they want to accomplish something (most of the time). When we played it, yes, I was the DM, we ended up falling into a groove of where the Player would have a specific 'idea' of what his character was going to do. Said Player would then use the "move name" in his description (e.g., "I'm going to...[insert descriptive roleplaying]...and use the [insert Move]". I almost always just went with what the player choose...even though I think it's supposed to be more of the DM choosing the Move to use. My reasoning for this approach was that the Player had a specific "method of accomplishment" playing out in his brain...and if I suddenly said "No, use the [whatever Move] in stead", they would have to do a complete re-think and imagining of what their character is doing to fit that "moves narrative".

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!

^_^

Paul L. Ming

I agree fully with what @Neonchameleon wrote, but have a ton of experience with running fate to put what he was saying about 3.5 into the frame I think was being drawn around it. Sure 3.5 could get complicated with cross referencing splatbooks and such, but that's something else. Fate is an absurdly simple system with a 310 page rulebook explaining a set of rules you can literally hand write on a 3x5 index card (I know cause I've done it for a player once). The other 3xx pages are mostly explaining how to use that rules framework for... everything. to the point where you have stuff like the fate fractal. 3.5 may not have taken it to the same extreme, but with +2/-2 circumstance/situation/magic/itsonfire*/whatever you as a player can have a rough estimation of how much doing something beneficial or allowing something negative to happen will affect a given action & you as a gm have a good framework for deciding the same when pcs or a monster does something unexpected that doesn't include magic. Because bonuses of the same type did not stack you'd need to find ways of adding a circumstance environment magic & whatever bonus if you wanted to really stack the odds. In 3.5 a wizard saying "I have a bag of salt worth XXgp can I use that to help enhance my magic circle's strength?" the player could reasonably assume that a yes probably meant +2 in his favor...

5e doesn't have that because you have (dis)advantage, expertise, and whatever DC the DM decides. in 5e the player can ask that same question about the bag of salt & magic circle spell but does not have any clue what sort of mechanical impact a yes will have & the result will be all over the map because the gm has no structural framework to use as a yardstick.


* fate fractal frequently uses its on fire for demonstration

 

[Doc_Klueless]

Presuming everyone is paying attention (and if they're not, thats the DMs fault)

No. If an individual player isn't paying attention, that's the inattentive player's fault. The DM has enough on their plate than to hold the hands of each individual player. Now, if the group is bored and not paying attention, then it's possibly the DMs fault.

and everyone knows their characters (and if they dont, that's usually also the DMs fault)

No. That's the player's fault. They have ONE thing they need to know how to run. Their character. The DM has the whole world to run including engaging with the other players.