log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 5E Is D&D combat fun?

(generally speaking) Is D&D combat in 5E "fun" ?


  • Total voters
    177

Fenris-77

Small God of the Dozens
And I completely agree, you know. As long as it's formulated as constructive criticism, and trying to find solutions. Otherwise, what's the point, exactly ? It's just venting frustration that the game is not different (which, by the way, I can understand, some people were much happier with previous edition's stance, which were much more crunchy, for example), using outrageous and therefore totally unconvincing arguments. And where it goes over the line is when, as in a few posts in this thread, it goes in the "you must be idiots not to realise that it stinks" mode, barely veiled.
Well, that really is a matter of opinion I guess. Anyone who bought the rules gets a pass to complain about them, and I'm not here to badwrongfun someone's well earned bitch session. You needed reply when we're shouting at clouds...
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lyxen

Great Old One
Well, that really is a matter of opinion I guess. Anyone who bought the rules gets a pass to complain about them, and I'm not here to badwrongfun someone's well earned bitch session. You needed reply when we're shouting at clouds...

As long as it's at clouds, it's fine, but it is actually badwrongfun to make people who happen to like 5e seem like idiots for liking it, whereas I hardly see a bitching session (especially when it's really doubtful that it's earned) being "right" fun anyway. Of course, YMMV, but bitching is not playing.
 

Fenris-77

Small God of the Dozens
As long as it's at clouds, it's fine, but it is actually badwrongfun to make people who happen to like 5e seem like idiots for liking it, whereas I hardly see a bitching session (especially when it's really doubtful that it's earned) being "right" fun anyway. Of course, YMMV, but bitching is not playing.
So, this a forum where we discuss the games we play right? We aren't playing the game here for the most part, we're just talking. Some of that will be complaints, and those complaints are under no guidelines about needing to constructive design cruticism to be, IDK, valid. Sure, that kind of critique is useful for fostering discussion, I agree, but its not a requirement of some sort.
 

Lyxen

Great Old One
So, this a forum where we discuss the games we play right? We aren't playing the game here for the most part, we're just talking. Some of that will be complaints, and those complaints are under no guidelines about needing to constructive design cruticism to be, IDK, valid. Sure, that kind of critique is useful for fostering discussion, I agree, but its not a requirement of some sort.

What is a requirement is to be polite and not badwrongfun anyone, and explaining that people are idiots for playing 5e with all its flaws is clearly an example of this, and therefore frowned upon.
 

Fenris-77

Small God of the Dozens
What is a requirement is to be polite and not badwrongfun anyone, and explaining that people are idiots for playing 5e with all its flaws is clearly an example of this, and therefore frowned upon.
Ok, sure, we can agree that people shouldn't be jerks. You obviously have some specific posters or posts in mind. I was speaking more generally.
 

Imaro

Legend
That's the point. It used to be around 2-4 or 3-5 or so in past editions & people remember how being able to realistically push that limit in normal gameplay accomplished a few things that 5e is sorely lacking in. For example:
  • It forced players to step up & work together as a team rather than a bunch of "wangrods" soloing near each other in order to mitigate risk & maximize effectiveness of the group.
A little confused about this... the fact that focusing fire is till the quickest way to end an enemy along with many buff spells working better when cast upon someone who is already good in a skill/combat/etc. makes me question your assertion. I mean don't get me wrong, I believe a party could individually solo parts of an encounter in 5e but to claim teamwork in 5e isn't rewarded and doesn't mitigate risk and maximize effectiveness is not what I've seen when running or playing the game ever... Have you actually seen a combat where not working together and every character doing their own thing with separate enemies was an actual better choice than the group using teamwork?
 

Shardstone

Hero
Publisher
I think the point is that 5e is objectively and unequivably a success. That might upset some people but the financials are the only truly objective standard of measure. Does it mean that the game is perfect for everyone? Of course not! It does mean that they did something right though.

Some people actively profess to dislike the design of the game, but still play the game? I honestly think some of us are just upset that we are not official game designers. So criticizing the professional designers validates us.
This is straight nonsense man, don't put that kind of energy on me or the rest of us.

No one said the game wasn't successful or a financial success. You people in this thread need to really stop putting words into our mouths.
 

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
A little confused about this... the fact that focusing fire is till the quickest way to end an enemy along with many buff spells working better when cast upon someone who is already good in a skill/combat/etc. makes me question your assertion. I mean don't get me wrong, I believe a party could individually solo parts of an encounter in 5e but to claim teamwork in 5e isn't rewarded and doesn't mitigate risk and maximize effectiveness is not what I've seen when running or playing the game ever... Have you actually seen a combat where not working together and every character doing their own thing with separate enemies was an actual better choice than the group using teamwork?
There are missing pieces & parts that have been corroded into a no longer quite functional position now.

  • Players(and monsters) are no longer sticky so can just walk right up to the prime target with few if any consequences & little of value that can be done. There is no longer any meaningful reason to look at the battlefield & coordinate with others on how to approach or what to approach.
  • The buff/debuff/control spells you note are almost universally concentration so casting a buff on someone who is "good at combat" means the caster cant also cast debuff & control spells resulting in a net loss or resource expenditure that does little to nothing. As a wizard who gravitates to spells like web & slow why they don't cast haste... he could & the barbarian or whatever would get an extra attack because of what should be a great spell... but it comes at the cost of slow & web. For that note ask why he never casts slow on the big bad while he's got web on the mooks.
  • The control/buff/debuff abilities that do exist tend to be crippled with pointless & almost petty strings like free no action cost save to end/ignore every round and concentration... Those same saves and a short duration... A pointlessly long duration & no ability to move the spell to another monster/the next fight plus concentration & maybe even a free save every round.
  • Nobody really looks or feels squishy anymore. This is partly monster design & partly the design of PCs themselves. There's not really any need for the crunchy types to protect or even consider the squishies any more
Here are some examples:
  • An ogre might be the biggest threat sure, but if all of the crunchy types ignoring the five goblins to focus fire means the casters will be ganked when there is nobody in the way to create a sticky zone of control by being there the controller is going to be running for his life instead of controlling the bottlenecked cluster of goblins now close enough to each other to get a good chunk in the web. Now the controller might more 30ft to not risk concentration sure, but he's never really at risk & to be honest it doesn't really matter if web breaks after a couple rounds.
  • The party's really not comfortable with being close to the ogre at this level yet. No big deal drop web & cast ray of enfeeblement so the 5 goblins can gank the squishies as concentration moves oops.
  • A second ogre or a few more goblins arrives just um.. run.. yea run or maybe soak up a ton of healing word/healing light from the bard/cleric/druid/celestial warlock whatev' no need to pull out all the stops.
Th party can't stack force multipliers upon force multipliers because they can pretty much never use more than one at a time & they as characters can't really do anything more than "focus fire" when the unexpected or unsafe happens
 

Imaro

Legend

There are missing pieces & parts that have been corroded into a no longer quite functional position now.

  • Players(and monsters) are no longer sticky so can just walk right up to the prime target with few if any consequences & little of value that can be done. There is no longer any meaningful reason to look at the battlefield & coordinate with others on how to approach or what to approach.

Well I think this is blatantly false... there is the possible consequence of opportunity attacks due to movement, terrain hinderances, ranged attacks, AoE attacks and so on. The meaningful reason to look at the battlefield and coordinate is (as it has always been) to minimize total damage taken and maximize opponents being taken out.

  • The buff/debuff/control spells you note are almost universally concentration so casting a buff on someone who is "good at combat" means the caster cant also cast debuff & control spells resulting in a net loss or resource expenditure that does little to nothing. As a wizard who gravitates to spells like web & slow why they don't cast haste... he could & the barbarian or whatever would get an extra attack because of what should be a great spell... but it comes at the cost of slow & web. For that note ask why he never casts slow on the big bad while he's got web on the mooks.

I'm not sure we are looking at this in the same way as this seems to be an assertion that supports my position. Does the caster upon affecting creatures with slow rush in and dispatch them... or does he instead coordinate with the fighter to attack the creatures he has debuffed?? In other words Slow and Web when used with teamwork work better, they make the fighter more effective against said enemies while the caster rushing in to fight them solo is sub-optimal at best.

  • The control/buff/debuff abilities that do exist tend to be crippled with pointless & almost petty strings like free no action cost save to end/ignore every round and concentration... Those same saves and a short duration... A pointlessly long duration & no ability to move the spell to another monster/the next fight plus concentration & maybe even a free save every round.

thus creating a situation where it is best to coordinate in taking those monsters out as quickly as possible... teamwork.

  • Nobody really looks or feels squishy anymore. This is partly monster design & partly the design of PCs themselves. There's not really any need for the crunchy types to protect or even consider the squishies any more

Huh?? This hasn't been my experience at all... The casters (with exception of some druids and clerics) are pretty squishy unless they are expending resources that could actually optimize their party in combat on their own personal protection. I'm not seeing wizards, bards, sorcerers rushing into melee combat, I'm seeing them keep their distance and help the frontline fighters end the fights as quickly as possible.

Here are some examples:
  • An ogre might be the biggest threat sure, but if all of the crunchy types ignoring the five goblins to focus fire means the casters will be ganked when there is nobody in the way to create a sticky zone of control by being there the controller is going to be running for his life instead of controlling the bottlenecked cluster of goblins now close enough to each other to get a good chunk in the web. Now the controller might more 30ft to not risk concentration sure, but he's never really at risk & to be honest it doesn't really matter if web breaks after a couple rounds.

I'm not understanding this example... so there is risk that the controller, without teamwork and positioning will be ganked, but he's never really at risk??

  • The party's really not comfortable with being close to the ogre at this level yet. No big deal drop web & cast ray of enfeeblement so the 5 goblins can gank the squishies as concentration moves oops.

What squishies... you claimed no one was really squishy anymore in 5e. Also, what is a concentration move? And who are the spells being cast upon and aren't these both concentration spells??

  • A second ogre or a few more goblins arrives just um.. run.. yea run or maybe soak up a ton of healing word/healing light from the bard/cleric/druid/celestial warlock whatev' no need to pull out all the stops.

Having to cast all the spells you are assuming this party has access too, without having actually killed anything, honestly seems to be pulling out all the stops for one encounter.

Th party can't stack force multipliers upon force multipliers because they can pretty much never use more than one at a time & they as characters can't really do anything more than "focus fire" when the unexpected or unsafe happens
What does whether they can stack multiple force multipliers have to do with whether teamwork would help an encounter or not. And teamwork can involve positioning, strategy on what enemies to cast spells upon and subsequently attack, what maneuvers should be used for a BM fighter and so on. You're definition of teamwork either seems very limited or narrowly specific, I'm honestly not sure yet which it is, or maybe I just don't understand your above examples...
 

niklinna

Looking for group
Th party can't stack force multipliers upon force multipliers because they can pretty much never use more than one at a time & they as characters can't really do anything more than "focus fire" when the unexpected or unsafe happens
Your phrasing shines light on a problem some people had with earlier editions, and 5E's approach to handling it (as I understand things): PCs could apply multiple modifiers (buff/debuff/control spells) without limit, risk, or tradeoff, so in 5E let's shut it down completely—per character, at any rate. I understand the reasoning, but the obviously "gamist" approach to concentration is what has always irked me to bits. At least give me some motivation for why a completely inert wall of stone needs me to concentrate on it!

Adding force mulipliers could have been done with escalating cost or risk. I'm currently in a Torg Eternity campaign, and for every concentration power you have active, you accumulate a -2 to all spellcasting (you have to make a skill check to cast a spell in Torg), and if you blow the roll, all your concentration spells go poof. So it's possible to have 2 or more concentration effects if you want, but you're taking a risk! Torg is definitely on the other side of this question with regard to force multiplers, and things can get very gonzo indeed. But this thread is not about Torg, so onward!

Now, 5E also has a goal of reducing numeric modifiers in favor of the nice & simple advantage/disadvantage within a system of bounded accuracy, so boundless stacking isn't viable, but I just made a suggestion last night in another thread about this:
I'd like to see Concentration have even a little wiggle room, and would be willing to take this tradeoff (possibly granted at some level or via feat): If you are concentrating on a spell, you can cast another Concentration spell, but must make a Concentration check or lose both spells. If you are concentrating on more than one spell, all Concentration checks are at disadvantage, and you cannot cast any other leveled spells (or must make a Concentration check at disadvantage to do so).
It's just a spitball idea, and as with all such things, potentially a first step on a slippery slope. Concentration spells are currently tuned for just one per character, too. But, this change might work for allowing some stacking of force multipliers, and make this aspect of combat more fun for some people. Of course, it might make this aspect of combat less fun for some people too. Best not to even consider it! #nochanges 😉
 
Last edited:

billd91

Hobbit on Quest (he/him)
Your phrasing shines light on a problem some people had with earlier editions, and 5E's approach to handling it (as I understand things): PCs could apply multiple modifiers (buff/debuff/control spells) without limit, risk, or tradeoff, so in 5E let's shut it down completely—per character, at any rate. I understand the reasoning, but the obviously "gamist" approach to concentration is what has always irked me to bits. At least give me some motivation for why a completely inert wall of stone needs me to concentrate on it!
Honestly, considering a wall of stone is permanent if you concentrate on it for the full 10 minutes, it's not that hard to rationalize it in-character. It just takes a while for the magic creating the wall to bake into permanency. Alternatively, if you compare it with Fabricate with its 10 minute casting time, it's very similar in that it takes 10 minutes to create something that lasts. It just has the perk of being available initially during the cast, giving it some combat applicability.
 

niklinna

Looking for group
Honestly, considering a wall of stone is permanent if you concentrate on it for the full 10 minutes, it's not that hard to rationalize it in-character. It just takes a while for the magic creating the wall to bake into permanency. Alternatively, if you compare it with Fabricate with its 10 minute casting time, it's very similar in that it takes 10 minutes to create something that lasts. It just has the perk of being available initially during the cast, giving it some combat applicability.
That's a good argument, for that spell. (I shall refrain from digging up other spells and saying "well what about X, huh???" It could be a whole thread of its own. 😉)
 

cbwjm

Hero
Concentration is also one of those things that annoys me a little, it seems somewhat haphazardly assigned to buffs/debuffs. Like, why does blur have concentration, but mirror image does not. There doesn't seem to be any real consistency across the board.
 

Imaro

Legend
Concentration is also one of those things that annoys me a little, it seems somewhat haphazardly assigned to buffs/debuffs. Like, why does blur have concentration, but mirror image does not. There doesn't seem to be any real consistency across the board.

My off the cuff guess would be because Mirror Image can be dispelled by 3 attacks and requires a secondary roll to affect the attacker... while Blur doesn't have any of those limiters...
 

cbwjm

Hero
My off the cuff guess would be because Mirror Image can be dispelled by 3 attacks and requires a secondary roll to affect the attacker... while Blur doesn't have any of those limiters...
But the thing is, it's still a buff, something that has a duration, but it doesn't need concentration. I don't think it should matter how it can be defeated, rather if it is something with a duration it should require concentration. If the designers thought that it wouldn't be powerful enough at 2nd level then they could have also bumped it down to 1st level.
 

What is a requirement is to be polite and not badwrongfun anyone, and explaining that people are idiots for playing 5e with all its flaws is clearly an example of this, and therefore frowned upon.
And, once more, it goes to show that most people who criticise 5e have not really read or understood the rules. Pray tell, where did the designers even advise that there should be 6-8 medium encounters per adventuring day ?

It's sort of impolite to say that "most people who criticise 5e have not really read or understood the rules," IMO.
 

Imaro

Legend
But the thing is, it's still a buff, something that has a duration, but it doesn't need concentration. I don't think it should matter how it can be defeated, rather if it is something with a duration it should require concentration. If the designers thought that it wouldn't be powerful enough at 2nd level then they could have also bumped it down to 1st level.

Does every spell with a duration require concentration? If not I'm not sure why you would assume it should be a conditional that forces concentration...

I think how something can be defeated should definitely matter, especially when it's a simple as hitting it 3 times... it's essentially a sub-duration attached the spell that could (depending on the number of attacks that target an individual could cause the spells practical effect to last less than a round... In other words for most practical situations it's a short term buff.
 

cbwjm

Hero
Does every spell with a duration require concentration? If not I'm not sure why you would assume it should be a conditional that forces concentration...

I think how something can be defeated should definitely matter, especially when it's a simple as hitting it 3 times... it's essentially a sub-duration attached the spell that could (depending on the number of attacks that target an individual could cause the spells practical effect to last less than a round... In other words for most practical situations it's a short term buff.
I just think concentration is so inconsistently applied that it either shouldn't be a thing or should perhaps be revised in its use.
 

billd91

Hobbit on Quest (he/him)
I just think concentration is so inconsistently applied that it either shouldn't be a thing or should perhaps be revised in its use.
Depends on what consistency you're looking for. I haven't delved too deeply, but I have noticed that other buffs that get ablated away like Aid have a set duration rather than work off concentration. Mirror Image might be grouped under the same principle.
 

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
Your phrasing shines light on a problem some people had with earlier editions, and 5E's approach to handling it (as I understand things): PCs could apply multiple modifiers (buff/debuff/control spells) without limit, risk, or tradeoff, so in 5E let's shut it down completely—per character, at any rate. I understand the reasoning, but the obviously "gamist" approach to concentration is what has always irked me to bits. At least give me some motivation for why a completely inert wall of stone needs me to concentrate on it!

Adding force mulipliers could have been done with escalating cost or risk. I'm currently in a Torg Eternity campaign, and for every concentration power you have active, you accumulate a -2 to all spellcasting (you have to make a skill check to cast a spell in Torg), and if you blow the roll, all your concentration spells go poof. So it's possible to have 2 or more concentration effects if you want, but you're taking a risk! Torg is definitely on the other side of this question with regard to force multiplers, and things can get very gonzo indeed. But this thread is not about Torg, so onward!

Now, 5E also has a goal of reducing numeric modifiers in favor of the nice & simple advantage/disadvantage within a system of bounded accuracy, so boundless stacking isn't viable, but I just made a suggestion last night in another thread about this:

It's just a spitball idea, and as with all such things, potentially a first step on a slippery slope. Concentration spells are currently tuned for just one per character, too. But, this change might work for allowing some stacking of force multipliers, and make this aspect of combat more fun for some people. Of course, it might make this aspect of combat less fun for some people too. Best not to even consider it! #nochanges 😉
Nbody is saying that it could not lead to problems when taken to extremes f a gm was unprepared for handling that kind of thing. 5e goes beyond just changing it though & actually takes steps to make it difficult for a gm or group who wants that back to do so. For example... back in 3.5 abilities were tagged with one of these.

  • (Ex)trordinary: These were things like sneak attack. Not everyone could do them & they tended to be gained from a class rather than just something anyone could do
  • (Sp)ell like: These were treated like casting a spell & often were a spell. They didn't work in an antimagic field & would provoke an attack of opportunity
  • (Su)pernatural: These were not the result of extrodinary training & ability. There was some magical element & they usually wouldn't work in an antimagic field or provoke an attack of opportnity.
IT was literally 4 characters attached to abilities* that served as simple hooks to identify if a particular ability would provoke an AoO or not... 5e lacks those simple hooks but still was not yet finished making it difficult to put AoOs back in Out of sheer pettiness PHB190 "interacting with objects around you" lists a bunch of stuff that explicitly does not provoke an AoO with more than one of them formerly being things that would provoke more than one AoO. Not yet satisfied they wasted a good page or so in the dmg with facing & flanking rules that were written as if intentionally designed to combat the very idea that anyone should be forced to endure the sort of badwrongfun that relies on these kind of things.
Writing the rules to enable robust AoOs & such does not exclude the style of "I don't want any of that stuff" 5e was built for" like the 5e style does for more involved. You could pretty much put 5e style AoOs in 3.5 with a sentence or two "ok guys we are going to ignore all of the AoOs except cast a spell while threatened fire ranged weapon while threatened & move out of reach of a hostile opponent without disengaging." The same simple rule change does not work the other way around & certainly doesn't work when additional rules elements are written to combat such attempts with confusion & one off conflict.

*Odds are good that the 5e PHB & MM could even fit them without changing any page numbers.
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top