Some people prefer sushi but personally I'd rather have chicken fingers.some of us like previous editions better
There's nothing wrong with either preference.
D&D 5E Is D&D combat fun?
- Thread starter el-remmen
- Start date
There's nothing wrong with either preference.
I think you might have made the mistake of assuming everyone here likes 5E. There's been quite a few people heavily pushing for 6E for a long time. I think the first call for it was about a month after the PHB was released...
There's absolutely nothing wrong with this. 5E isn't going to be for everyone, and it's far better to play a game you enjoy, rather than try to pound the current edition into your favorite edition. IMO it usually better just to take the parts of 5E you like and insert them into your favorite edition instead.some of us like previous editions better
"Better" is entirely subjective. 5E was extensively playtested, and for the most part it was made to appeal to the broadest base possible. This means that most people aren't going to be happy with every single aspect of it, however, most people are going to be satisfied with it. IME the hard core gamers, such as those who spend time talking about it on the internet with strangers, have serious issues with it. They (we) have a higher level of expectations, but we need to understand one really important fact: we are the minority. The problems you and I might have with the edition don't matter at all to the vast majority of players. If there's a 5.x edition, it will likely just clean up a few things, rebalance the most obviously problematic issues (ranger, maybe sorcerer), and update them to reflect new policy (races and alignment). A 6E isn't even on the radar at this point.
I agree
Um no. No one is saying that combat in 5e can sometimes be boring in order to be "edgy and progressive." They are pointing out aspects of the game that, in certain situations, are not fun and could be improved.
Is it ok to talk about how 5e games could be improved?
I quite like D&D's combat when it's done well, but it could certainly use some work, in my opinion, at least.
If there were a good method for making actions in-combat more simultaneous (i.e. breaking down turn structure and offering greater room for reactionary actions) which was officially implemented into the game, and developed by WotC, I'd certainly be on board.
My homebrew rules work for my own table, but I'm sure there would be gripes with a system that requires every participant to be ready to react at any point in combat, given that the only precedent for this is something as simple as a saving throw or a quick reaction (to my knowledge).
If there were a good method for making actions in-combat more simultaneous (i.e. breaking down turn structure and offering greater room for reactionary actions) which was officially implemented into the game, and developed by WotC, I'd certainly be on board.
My homebrew rules work for my own table, but I'm sure there would be gripes with a system that requires every participant to be ready to react at any point in combat, given that the only precedent for this is something as simple as a saving throw or a quick reaction (to my knowledge).
JiffyPopTart
Bree-Yark
This is a tough topic ...
To a certain extent I feel that the way 5e forces your character into a "build" as you progress the joy and fun of combat is lost because you are mostly going to keep doing your "thing" whenever you can.
I am currently playing a swashbuckler rogue....and literally 90% of every combat is me going fast, rushing in to hit an opponent, then either rushing back behind my party line or over to some area where it's hard to get to me. Rinse and repeat ... over and over .. same damage everytime when I hit or nothing when I miss.
Once in a blue moon I will use a bow from stealth, but the entire reason I made a swashbuckler rogue was because I was already tired of hidey sniper rogues of which we have had 3 previously.
Combat is a pure snoozefest for me, but because of the few times something original happens I rated it a mostly bad, not a pure bad.
To a certain extent I feel that the way 5e forces your character into a "build" as you progress the joy and fun of combat is lost because you are mostly going to keep doing your "thing" whenever you can.
I am currently playing a swashbuckler rogue....and literally 90% of every combat is me going fast, rushing in to hit an opponent, then either rushing back behind my party line or over to some area where it's hard to get to me. Rinse and repeat ... over and over .. same damage everytime when I hit or nothing when I miss.
Once in a blue moon I will use a bow from stealth, but the entire reason I made a swashbuckler rogue was because I was already tired of hidey sniper rogues of which we have had 3 previously.
Combat is a pure snoozefest for me, but because of the few times something original happens I rated it a mostly bad, not a pure bad.
Blue
Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
Generally I like combat. But I also used to play Battletech, SFB (Star Fleet Battles) and other low-unit-count war games. I enjoy the crunch.
I also find that I can get bored in combat very easily because of how long it takes between turns, especially if all we have going back and forth is rolls and numbers that do not directly affect my character.
I also may like it, but a pointless random encounter that didn't have a chance to kill us I would like a whole lot less than that 45 minutes spent doing other things, such as a solid RP scene. So while liking it, it can be a poor investment of our time.
I have a better chance of liking combats more that are meaningful to the characters or plot and we know it, that are suitable challenging that loss (up to our death or campaign losses) is on the table for stupid play, or average but unlucky play, moves quickly and is dynamic enough to hold my interest between turns. Allows me to be clever (terrain, hazards, monster interlocking powers, whatever), including among my own party (good synergy if we take advantage of it). Where we feel excitement and tension for our characters.
Some of those are primarily under the DM, others the players need to contribute to.
So, do I like combat. Yeah. But there are times it loses out to other activities, and it takes effort to make it sing.
I also find that I can get bored in combat very easily because of how long it takes between turns, especially if all we have going back and forth is rolls and numbers that do not directly affect my character.
I also may like it, but a pointless random encounter that didn't have a chance to kill us I would like a whole lot less than that 45 minutes spent doing other things, such as a solid RP scene. So while liking it, it can be a poor investment of our time.
I have a better chance of liking combats more that are meaningful to the characters or plot and we know it, that are suitable challenging that loss (up to our death or campaign losses) is on the table for stupid play, or average but unlucky play, moves quickly and is dynamic enough to hold my interest between turns. Allows me to be clever (terrain, hazards, monster interlocking powers, whatever), including among my own party (good synergy if we take advantage of it). Where we feel excitement and tension for our characters.
Some of those are primarily under the DM, others the players need to contribute to.
So, do I like combat. Yeah. But there are times it loses out to other activities, and it takes effort to make it sing.
Last edited:
Mod Note:
You’re skating close to the edge of “political” with your words, here.
One person’s “better” is another’s “worse”.
cbwjm
Seb-wejem
I find it fun, though I will admit that sometimes it can get a bit slow and bogged down by low rolls. Sometimes encounters I've made haven't quite gone as well as I've wanted making the encounter a slog or just a speed bump kind of encounter. Other encounters are lots of fun though and it can be as simple as the terror of a dozen giant rats popping out of garbage piles to attack the low-level PCs and the players scrambling to get through the battle.
Similar Threads
- Poll
