D&D 5E Is D&D combat fun?

[billd91]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Malmuria]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.