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

[DND_Reborn]

technically longsword does d8+strengthmod, with d8/d10 being average 4.5/5.5 you could almost say that a longword does 2d8 compared to a d8 cantrip like shocking grasp & in the hands of a fighter gets an extra 2d8 equivalent at the same levels a wizard gets abn extra 1d8 on that shocking grasp. Toss in a +1 +2 or +3 longsword and multiply the +n by the number of attacks while a +1/+2/+3 wand only applies once

Sure, and other features allow casters to add modifiers to cantrips.

But pointing out by default martials get to add modifiers and casters don't, only strengthens the argument in favor of casters.

It would be a playstyle preference for me. Sometimes, I feel as though magic is almost too prevalent in D&D. If there was a way to make it feel more special and not quite so readily available and everywhere, I'd prefer that.
(Which also requires rewriting a lot of other areas of the game, but I digress.)

Oh, I TOTALLY agree with this! But I think it is more due to every other class and subclass getting spells or spell-like features thrown in! What a horrible design choice. Let's just make magic so prevalent that it is nothing special anymore...

However, I do see the reasoning for making cantrips easier to use. That's why I'd prefer Proficiency bonus + spellcasting mod (as opposed to only being prof mod).

My only concern is if you give too many, then in effect they will rarely, if ever, run out. You'll have to test it out to find a good balance probaby.

Thematically, I like the idea of being able to spend HD to recharge slots because it can indicate the strain of trying to push beyond limits when necessary.

Yep, spending HD is an under-utilized mechanic IMO. Maybe as an action spend 1 HD per spell level of the slot recovered? It would be limited, probably to 5th level slots or lower.

It's an off the top of my head idea. It's something I may play around with.

You'll do a lot of that I'm sure. I've been tinkering with 5E for two years now LOL!

I've also been tinkering with having short rests, medium rests, and long rests. Short would be more 4E style: 5-10 minutes; medium would be similar to the current 1-hour 5E shorts; long would be as currently defined. I'm still working on sketching it out and defining the differences.

I'm not sure if 5E needs another rest period, but if it works for you and you're happy with it, please share when you're ready.

If I did something like you suggest, I would probably go to a grittier rest system as well. But, personally, I favor a grittier system so that would work for me.

 

[Asisreo]

The section you reference on xge135/136 has very little if anything to do with the topic of bounded accuracy being tuned to a garbage standard of no magic items & no feats not leaving room in the crunch to fit +N gear because it's still tuned to no feats & no magic items.

The D&D game is built on the assumption that magic items appear sporadically and that they are always a boon, unless an item bears a curse.

Characters and monsters are built to face each other without the help of magic items, which means that having a magic item always makes a character more powerful or versatile than a generic character of the same level. As DM, you never have to worry about awarding magic items just so the characters can keep up with the campaign's threats. Magic items are truly prizes. Are they useful? Absolutely. Are they necessary? No.

Magic items can go from nice to necessary in the rare group that has no spellcasters, no monk, and no NPCs capable of casting magic weapon. Having no magic makes it extremely difficult for a party to overcome monsters that have resistances or immunity to nonmagical damage. In such a game, you'll want to be generous with magic weapons or else avoid using such monsters.

Does this answer why magic items are not included in the monster calculations? Its so that a DM is not required to hand out magic items to characters, so that they feel more powerful than a generic character. These boons, however, are still quite limited by bounded accuracy.

The biggest bonus you should be seeing at tier one is a +2. This turns a +5 to-hit fighter with 11 damage into a +7 to-hit fighter with 13 damage. Its good, but its also extremely rare to get this from the tables and isn't even on the budget. Realistically, we're looking at a +6 with 12 damage which is a good boost but you aren't suddenly killing orcs in a single blow due to a good magic item.

Again, magic items are boons to improve a character. They are not a survival list where going to tier 4 without a holy avenger or luck blade will get you killed because the game assumes you should have already had one.

 

[tetrasodium]

Does this answer why magic items are not included in the monster calculations? Its so that a DM is not required to hand out magic items to characters, so that they feel more powerful than a generic character. These boons, however, are still quite limited by bounded accuracy.

The biggest bonus you should be seeing at tier one is a +2. This turns a +5 to-hit fighter with 11 damage into a +7 to-hit fighter with 13 damage. Its good, but its also extremely rare to get this from the tables and isn't even on the budget. Realistically, we're looking at a +6 with 12 damage which is a good boost but you aren't suddenly killing orcs in a single blow due to a good magic item.

Again, magic items are boons to improve a character. They are not a survival list where going to tier 4 without a holy avenger or luck blade will get you killed because the game assumes you should have already had one.

Sometimes I wish there were a reaction. I actually lowballed the numbers for you by giving the 5e rfighter a +2 in some stat other than strength to start with only a 15str. I'm not sure how you can read a post showing that the addition of magic items to 5e's bounded accuracy expedites the breakdown & collapse of the core d20ish engine because bounded accuracy is tuned in a bizarre paradox of no magic items no feats and claim that it somehow shows bounded accuracy is doing good things when the whole point of ba was to extend the range of workable levels.

You can say that the "biggest bonus you should be seeing at tier one is a +2" but 15+2 is obtainable by nearly every race at level 1 & with an asi at 4 you can bump that to 19 for +4 on top of the +2 proficiency bonus for a total of +6. That wasn't some super secret ninja punpun combo to put a 15 & strength & pick a race or use tasha's that lets you add a racial+2 to strength. If the fighter were optimized he only needs a 9 to hit with a mundane +0 weapon compared to the 3.5 optimized fighter's 12 under those under geared. conditions the +2 weapon your suggesting is suitable for a tier one character like that brings it to an absurd seven.

 

[DND_Reborn]

You can say that the "biggest bonus you should be seeing at tier one is a +2"

I think they meant about magic items. That is why @Asisreo said you go from +5 to-hit fighter (tier 1, +3 mod, +2 prof) to a +7 to-hit fighter (with the +2 weapon).

Anyway, I agree bounded accuracy is not a great thing. They capped it too much at 30, and I think 40 would work better personally.

 

[tetrasodium]

I think they meant about magic items. That is why @Asisreo said you go from +5 to-hit fighter (tier 1, +3 mod, +2 prof) to a +7 to-hit fighter (with the +2 weapon).

Anyway, I agree bounded accuracy is not a great thing. They capped it too much at 30, and I think 40 would work better personally.

that's even worse & exposes another negative of how 5e does it. Not only does a +2 weapon take that nine or better for a level f4 fighter to hit a cr5 large air elemental down to seven or better but it continues to throw off the math & be a problem if a PC somehow gets a +2 weapon at 4 when in 3.5 the gm could hold off on giving a +strength item to offset it or just give them both & let the expectations of the system's curve catch up to the player's gear in a few levels. in 5e the system will still be pegged to no feats no magic items in a few levels if the pc gets something too nice.

 

[DND_Reborn]

that's even worse & exposes another negative of how 5e does it. Not only does a +2 weapon take that nine or better for a level f4 fighter to hit a cr5 large air elemental down to seven or better but it continues to throw off the math & be a problem if a PC somehow gets a +2 weapon at 4 when in 3.5 the gm could hold off on giving a +strength item to offset it or just give them both & let the expectations of the system's curve catch up to the player's gear in a few levels.

That really isn't an issue IMO. Even in AD&D as a DM I've always run the game as whatever magic items I rolled up were what the players discovered and I do the same in 5E. At level 4 I had a barbarian get a +3 greatsword. Did it make the PC more powerful? Certainly, but the player also became a target for every villain and warlord who wanted that sword!

in 5e the system will still be pegged to no feats no magic items in a few levels if the pc gets something too nice.

THIS is the problem. IME and in every source I've seen online, 90%+ of tables use feats and even more use magic items!

Designing the game with the intent that such things aren't in play is naive in the extreme.

 

[el-remmen]

<snipped a lot of stuff and kept the "sum up">

To sum up immersion depends on who you are immersed as. I find having to see combat the way I would have, with only first order terms as described, seriously harmful to immersion as a D&D character rather than as myself in a D&D world. And just as in the kitchen the advanced technical vocabulary exists but I don't have to use it if RPing a novice even if I was a veteran.

I wasn't criticizing people who use that language but I do think what you are describing is as idiosyncratic as what I was describing as what was needed for my own group's immersion. However, Aragorn or any fantasy hero of literature or film or comics, is more likely to say "We need to keep them out of that room!" rather than "We need someone to use their 'denial of area' ability over there!" That may or may not emulate actual trained warriors, but I don't care.

 

[tetrasodium]

I wasn't criticizing people who use that language but I do think what you are describing is as idiosyncratic as what I was describing as what was needed my own group's immersion. However, Aragorn or any fantasy hero of literature or film or comics, is more likely to say "We need to keep them out of that room!" rather than "We need someone to use their 'denial of area' ability over there!" That may or may not emulate actual trained warriors, but I don't care.

Which does nothing to change the fact that 5e removed the system of movement/action based AoOs that allowed a melee character to fill that role to some degree instead of always needing a wizard to web/wall of fire/etc because only move out of reach of a hostile creature & make a ranged attack still provoke an AoO or the fact that the no longer present system contributed some level of strategy discussion during a fight from time to time.

 

[tetrasodium]

That really isn't an issue IMO. Even in AD&D as a DM I've always run the game as whatever magic items I rolled up were what the players discovered and I do the same in 5E. At level 4 I had a barbarian get a +3 greatsword. Did it make the PC more powerful? Certainly, but the player also became a target for every villain and warlord who wanted that sword!


THIS is the problem. IME and in every source I've seen online, 90%+ of tables use feats and even more use magic items!

Designing the game with the intent that such things aren't in play is naive in the extreme.

the self correcting item churn was a happy side effect of having +N attribute/weapon bonuses expected by the system at various breakpoint levels. It's notable because the "naive in the extreme" choice to peg ba to no feats no magic items gets rid of it while failing at the one thing it's supposed to accomplish through the use of a garbage baseline almost nobody uses.

 

[el-remmen]

Which does nothing to change the fact that 5e removed the system of movement/action based AoOs that allowed a melee character to fill that role to some degree instead of always needing a wizard to web/wall of fire/etc because only move out of reach of a hostile creature & make a ranged attack still provoke an AoO or the fact that the no longer present system contributed some level of strategy discussion during a fight from time to time.

All this means to me is that the exact forms of strategy and tactics need to be different because the rules are different. Those goals (like block the way to the room) and ways to try to reach them still exist, even if five foot steps and AoOs are not the default way in the latest edition. They weren't in 1E or 2E either.