D&D 5E How Often Do You Rinse and Repeat?

[Stormonu]

As a DM, I probably have the monsters doing the same thing 75%-90% of the time if there's a handful of them. Solos or uniques are often doing many different things throughout the combat. This is entirely fine for me; when I'm running a larger group of monsters I don't need a complex stat block or action economy for them - they need to be straight-forward so I can get through the combat quickly. With solos and uniques, I can focus on their characteristics and how different and unique they truly are.

Conversely, as a PC I'm rarely doing the same action twice as I tend to run characters with access to spells and you generally have to build up combos. Even between fights it is different as spell slots get used up and you have to use different combinations - quite often different tactics from fight to fight.

 

[ezo]

Yeah. The poll doesn't give an option that really fits the answer I'd give. It really all depends on the creature(s) and type of encounter. It really is a case-by-case basis for me, regardless of whether I'm running a PC or DMing.

I know you might have one answer for one PC or creature, but a different one for another, so use your best judgement and vote what happens most often for you.

Yes, I addressed this in the OP and purposefully left out that option because anecdotally people say that, but IME when I watch games it is rarely the case.

I think most of those people want to believe that is how they are playing, but in reality it often isn't.

Regardless, even in a case-by-case basis, do more of your cases fall into one option than another? IME if you really examine how you play you'll find you do. Perhaps you are an exception to that, only you can know, but the vast majority of the time when I sit and talk to people about it eventually an answer comes out.

The battle went on for 4-5 rounds and by that time, firing off spells, shield bashing, and hitting with my mace got boring. So, I grabbed the marlin off the wall, ran the person I was fighting through, and pinned him to the wall. Much more fun and memorable than "I hit with my mace for 8 hp of damage".

So, "attacking via spells" (firing off?) or attacking (mace/shield bash) was your rinse and repeat for 4-5 rounds before you did something "different" by attacking with an improvised weapon (which in most games is the less effective option)?

What if you weren't playing a cleric or other spellcaster, so spells aren't even an option?

 

[ezo]

I'll add before people jump on this concept: Yes, "attacking" in some fashion is often the action in combat. Defeating your foes is sort of the point most of the time.

My point is more often that even when attacking, you do so the same way the majority of the time as well.

We don't see warriors who are walking arsenals switching weapons each round, for example. You use (quite literally) what is on hand.

Spamming cantrips is a similar occurance, of course.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I think between 1/3 and 1/2.

 

[R_J_K75]

Yes, I addressed this in the OP and purposefully left out that option because anecdotally people say that, but IME when I watch games it is rarely the case.

I think most of those people want to believe that is how they are playing, but in reality it often isn't.

Does it happen that I do the same thing, of course, but it's certainly not the norm or even all that common. If it was I would have said that to begin with.

So, "attacking via spells" (firing off?) or attacking (mace/shield bash) was your rinse and repeat for 4-5 rounds before you did something "different" by attacking with an improvised weapon (which in most games is the less effective option)?

Doing those 3 things over the course of 4-5 rounds doesn't constitute doing the same thing every round. Attacking with the same weapon or using the same spell each round, yes, is doing the same thing. Who cares if an improvised weapon is less effective, I want to make the game fun and memorable for the people I play with, I don't worry about min-maxing my damage.

What if you weren't playing a cleric or other spellcaster, so spells aren't even an option?

No idea how you came to this conclusion. But to answer your question, I wouldn't play a spell caster if I wasn't going to cast spells. Though just because you're playing a spell caster doesn't mean that's your only option in combat, or other areas of the game for that matter.

 

[ezo]

Does it happen that I do the same thing, of course, but it's certainly not the norm or even all that common. If it was I would have said that to begin with.

As I said, most people believe this, but rarely is it the case IME. It's always possible you're an exception (as I said before).

Doing those 3 things over the course of 4-5 rounds doesn't constitute doing the same thing every round.

How often do you do those things in each combat? It is about the overall feel for what you do, not in a single combat.

But, it is still attack, attack, attack (which is understandable and the point as I said upthread).

Attacking with the same weapon or using the same spell each round, yes, is doing the same thing.

How many rounds do you attack with a spell or your mace?

Who cares if an improvised weapon is less effective, I want to make the game fun and memorable for the people I play with, I don't worry about min-maxing my damage.

So, you're in combat, fighting for your life, and you don't want to do the most effective thing to defeat your enemy?

It isn't about min-maxing, but effectiveness. Grab a marlin and making an attack without proficiency (unless you had Tavern Brawler... you were in a tavern, after all) and you somehow managed to "pin" your foe to a wall?

No idea how you came to this conclusion.

No idea what conclusion you're referring to since there isn't one being quoted.

But to answer your question, I wouldn't play a spell caster if I wasn't going to cast spells. Though just because you're playing a spell caster doesn't mean that's your only option in combat, or other areas of the game for that matter.

I asked if you aren't playing a spellcaster, what would you do?

What if you weren't playing a cleric or other spellcaster, so spells aren't even an option?

 

[R_J_K75]

As I said, most people believe this, but rarely is it the case IME. It's always possible you're an exception (as I said before).

Simplest answer is this. As a player and DM I make a conscious effort when creating my PC's. NPC, selecting monsters for encounters that there are multiple options from round to round, so combats don't get repetitive. Am I always successful obviously not, There's more things to do in an encounter than just attack.

How often do you do those things in each combat? It is about the overall feel for what you do, not in a single combat.

But, it is still attack, attack, attack (which is understandable and the point as I said upthread).

Perhaps my definition of doing the same thing in a combat, or over the course of PCs career is different than yours. If I'm mixing up using different melee weapons, spells, etc, that's not doing the same thing IMO. Doing the same thing to me would be spamming the same cantrip or constantly using the same weapon all combat, every combat. Lets say a creature has one attack per its stat block. It can do the same attack every round until its dead, or it can take a round to reposition itself, flee to ambush later, stop fighting and parlay, hide, surrender, etc. As long as the encounter is fluid there are many more options to explore than just two combatants exchanging attacks until one is dead.

How many rounds do you attack with a spell or your mace?

In 7 levels of play I attacked with my mace 732 times and cast 401 spells. All kidding aside, I honestly don't know. Did I use my mace in 2 consecutive rounds ever, you bet I Did.

So, you're in combat, fighting for your life, and you don't want to do the most effective thing to defeat your enemy?

I didnt say that but sometimes dealing one more round of damage is the lesser option. As was the case here, instead of reducing the enemy by a few more hit points, I incapacitated him, giving the option for players to get free shots on him and eventually killing him.

It isn't about min-maxing, but effectiveness. Grab a marlin and making an attack without proficiency (unless you had Tavern Brawler... you were in a tavern, after all) and you somehow managed to "pin" your foe to a wall?

I'd say it was quite effective. Regardless, I'd don't think any of us at the table cared that there was a tavern brawler feat, and no I didnt have it. I told the DM what I wanted to do, rolled and succeeded in my improvised attack. My DM had the common sense not to let some fiddly rule get in the way of a good idea and let it succeed.

I asked if you aren't playing a spellcaster, what would you do?

I did quote your message, but sorry I misread it. If I wasn't playing a spell caster, I'd try to utilize the abilities granted by the class in a non-repetitive way.

 

[Chaltab]

Strongly depends on the creature, but I marked the 51-70% option. Mooks usually only have one or two attacks so I'm obviously going to be repeating those.

 

[aco175]

I can see most of my characters doing the same thing 3 out of 4 rounds. If a fight is about 4 rounds, then some sort of basic attack, even for casters. I do not think many people want to use their biggest stuff unless it looks like the right time.