D&D 5E Is D&D combat fun?
Imaro
Legend
Honestly I haven't really thought about it much, but unless we know what the criteria is for it... well it's hard to claim whether it's inconsistent or not throughout the game.
Oh totally! I always like to read about ppl's home brew ideas and use some myself! Some of the concentration ideas later down this thread seem pretty cool. I didn't mean it that way at all. Ideas are great and that flexibility is one of the basic features of the game.
The thing about the popularity of the game was in response to someone who said that there is no objective "best" edition. I'm just saying the popularity of this edition means that they did do something right.
I would also have voted for 50/50 if that were possible on the poll.
The fact is, I love the idea of D&D combat. And I have always been disappointed by it. In 1e AD&D we quit playing halfway through the module The Gauntlet because there was this fort full of medium-level humanoids (5 to 7 HD) barring the way of the party, and the fight lasted FOREVER to the point where the players just gave up.
Now, in 5e, I am still not happy with combat, not when I run it, not when another DM runs it while I am a PC. There are moments where it's fun - the well-placed crit, the final blow that takes down a scary threat, etc. But mostly, it's a slog. Players almost always fall back on the same approaches (ranger: sharpshooter + dread ambusher, fighter: I hit it with my sword, Barbarian: I get mad and hit it REALLY hard with my axe, Cleric: here come the spirit guardians!, artificer: here's my turret blasting everybody to smithereens etc.). So every fight is approached in exactly the same way - and not doing so would be stupid.
I also have come to the conclusion that the generic actions (shove etc.) are almost never used even though it's good that they are explicitly present in the ruleset. Also, the AoO rule now basically ensures that no one runs away from their opponent because that either means a free attack on you or a Disengage which means you do nothing 'cool' (which really means 'violent') this turn.
Then there's the strange phenomenon that many fights start out with a feeling that the PCs are going to get stomped really bad, and then hafway through it changes: victory becomes inevitable. But because of the hit point bloat and not enough options to take opponents out of the fight in a non-lethal way, the fight drags on and on and loses most of its excitement. In real life, pointing your sword at the chest or head of a disarmed opponent would be enough to make them reconsider their options; in D&D, they 'know' they can take 'just a flesh wound if even that' and have no reason not to continue the fight.
Personally, I think the rules need to stimulate the visual aspects of the fight (hit locations, called shots, detailed crits, specific moves) - that's what I would call cinematic combat. Many of these options are present as optional rules in the DMG but rarely if ever used.
The fact is, I love the idea of D&D combat. And I have always been disappointed by it. In 1e AD&D we quit playing halfway through the module The Gauntlet because there was this fort full of medium-level humanoids (5 to 7 HD) barring the way of the party, and the fight lasted FOREVER to the point where the players just gave up.
Now, in 5e, I am still not happy with combat, not when I run it, not when another DM runs it while I am a PC. There are moments where it's fun - the well-placed crit, the final blow that takes down a scary threat, etc. But mostly, it's a slog. Players almost always fall back on the same approaches (ranger: sharpshooter + dread ambusher, fighter: I hit it with my sword, Barbarian: I get mad and hit it REALLY hard with my axe, Cleric: here come the spirit guardians!, artificer: here's my turret blasting everybody to smithereens etc.). So every fight is approached in exactly the same way - and not doing so would be stupid.
I also have come to the conclusion that the generic actions (shove etc.) are almost never used even though it's good that they are explicitly present in the ruleset. Also, the AoO rule now basically ensures that no one runs away from their opponent because that either means a free attack on you or a Disengage which means you do nothing 'cool' (which really means 'violent') this turn.
Then there's the strange phenomenon that many fights start out with a feeling that the PCs are going to get stomped really bad, and then hafway through it changes: victory becomes inevitable. But because of the hit point bloat and not enough options to take opponents out of the fight in a non-lethal way, the fight drags on and on and loses most of its excitement. In real life, pointing your sword at the chest or head of a disarmed opponent would be enough to make them reconsider their options; in D&D, they 'know' they can take 'just a flesh wound if even that' and have no reason not to continue the fight.
Personally, I think the rules need to stimulate the visual aspects of the fight (hit locations, called shots, detailed crits, specific moves) - that's what I would call cinematic combat. Many of these options are present as optional rules in the DMG but rarely if ever used.
I would also have voted for 50/50 if that were possible on the poll.
The fact is, I love the idea of D&D combat. And I have always been disappointed by it. In 1e AD&D we quit playing halfway through the module The Gauntlet because there was this fort full of medium-level humanoids (5 to 7 HD) barring the way of the party, and the fight lasted FOREVER to the point where the players just gave up.
Now, in 5e, I am still not happy with combat, not when I run it, not when another DM runs it while I am a PC. There are moments where it's fun - the well-placed crit, the final blow that takes down a scary threat, etc. But mostly, it's a slog. Players almost always fall back on the same approaches (ranger: sharpshooter + dread ambusher, fighter: I hit it with my sword, Barbarian: I get mad and hit it REALLY hard with my axe, Cleric: here come the spirit guardians!, artificer: here's my turret blasting everybody to smithereens etc.). So every fight is approached in exactly the same way - and not doing so would be stupid.
I also have come to the conclusion that the generic actions (shove etc.) are almost never used even though it's good that they are explicitly present in the ruleset. Also, the AoO rule now basically ensures that no one runs away from their opponent because that either means a free attack on you or a Disengage which means you do nothing 'cool' (which really means 'violent') this turn.
Then there's the strange phenomenon that many fights start out with a feeling that the PCs are going to get stomped really bad, and then hafway through it changes: victory becomes inevitable. But because of the hit point bloat and not enough options to take opponents out of the fight in a non-lethal way, the fight drags on and on and loses most of its excitement. In real life, pointing your sword at the chest or head of a disarmed opponent would be enough to make them reconsider their options; in D&D, they 'know' they can take 'just a flesh wound if even that' and have no reason not to continue the fight.
Personally, I think the rules need to stimulate the visual aspects of the fight (hit locations, called shots, detailed crits, specific moves) - that's what I would call cinematic combat. Many of these options are present as optional rules in the DMG but rarely if ever used.
The fact is, I love the idea of D&D combat. And I have always been disappointed by it. In 1e AD&D we quit playing halfway through the module The Gauntlet because there was this fort full of medium-level humanoids (5 to 7 HD) barring the way of the party, and the fight lasted FOREVER to the point where the players just gave up.
Now, in 5e, I am still not happy with combat, not when I run it, not when another DM runs it while I am a PC. There are moments where it's fun - the well-placed crit, the final blow that takes down a scary threat, etc. But mostly, it's a slog. Players almost always fall back on the same approaches (ranger: sharpshooter + dread ambusher, fighter: I hit it with my sword, Barbarian: I get mad and hit it REALLY hard with my axe, Cleric: here come the spirit guardians!, artificer: here's my turret blasting everybody to smithereens etc.). So every fight is approached in exactly the same way - and not doing so would be stupid.
I also have come to the conclusion that the generic actions (shove etc.) are almost never used even though it's good that they are explicitly present in the ruleset. Also, the AoO rule now basically ensures that no one runs away from their opponent because that either means a free attack on you or a Disengage which means you do nothing 'cool' (which really means 'violent') this turn.
Then there's the strange phenomenon that many fights start out with a feeling that the PCs are going to get stomped really bad, and then hafway through it changes: victory becomes inevitable. But because of the hit point bloat and not enough options to take opponents out of the fight in a non-lethal way, the fight drags on and on and loses most of its excitement. In real life, pointing your sword at the chest or head of a disarmed opponent would be enough to make them reconsider their options; in D&D, they 'know' they can take 'just a flesh wound if even that' and have no reason not to continue the fight.
Personally, I think the rules need to stimulate the visual aspects of the fight (hit locations, called shots, detailed crits, specific moves) - that's what I would call cinematic combat. Many of these options are present as optional rules in the DMG but rarely if ever used.
pming
Legend
Hiya!
(Quick note to @mrswing ; I think your DM ran "UK3 - The Gauntlet" incorrectly; it's basically a "siege" where the PC's are sort of caught in the middle; the 'arriving forces' want something from the 'defending forces' in the Keep and ask the PC's to do it for them...if they do it, the 'arriving forces' leave; so, basically, the PC's aren't really supposed to try and massacre everyone in the Keep...or outside the Keep; anyway, this is just my interpretation, as I never DM'ed it...got close, but the PC's chose other paths)
Now... 5e Combat is "Generally OK". The biggest problem we had/have is once PC's even get close to 'mid level' (for us, that's 5th), the "solo" bad guys HP pool is just way to much with very little 'actual' threat from them....and it can easily turn into a slog. I have toyed with simply lowering HP's, but think simply adding some more "deadliness" to combat would be better. Which is... you get a Critical if you hit your opponent by MORE than 5 points. If you do that, double damage. If you do that AND the roll is a Natural 20, you maximum double damage. This may cut down on the HP's faster...and make the creature a bit more deadly! But...never tried it yet. Maybe next time I DM.
I prefer Hackmaster 4th Edition combat the best out of all the "D&D systems"...with BECMI coming in a very close second. I have 'simplified' HM4 combat in some minor respects (Armor HP's only go down by the amount of dice damage minimum; e.g., 2d6 weapon takes of 2hp and only on a Critical, for example). But the "Penetration Damage", "Follow-through Damage", "Threshold of Pain", "Fatigue", "Spell Mishap", "Fumbles" and those lovely "Critical Hit Tables" make combat so fun and often unpredictable!
Compared to HM4 combat, 5e combat is watered-down gruel. But then again, it isn't called HACKmaster for nothing! With 5e, the combat is supposed to be 'exciting, but not any more important than anything else'; meaning the PC's are generally "supposed to win in a few rounds" except for the 'major' fights. Different design goal. Not bad, but, well, "Generally OK".
^_^
Paul L. Ming
(Quick note to @mrswing ; I think your DM ran "UK3 - The Gauntlet" incorrectly; it's basically a "siege" where the PC's are sort of caught in the middle; the 'arriving forces' want something from the 'defending forces' in the Keep and ask the PC's to do it for them...if they do it, the 'arriving forces' leave; so, basically, the PC's aren't really supposed to try and massacre everyone in the Keep...or outside the Keep; anyway, this is just my interpretation, as I never DM'ed it...got close, but the PC's chose other paths)
Now... 5e Combat is "Generally OK". The biggest problem we had/have is once PC's even get close to 'mid level' (for us, that's 5th), the "solo" bad guys HP pool is just way to much with very little 'actual' threat from them....and it can easily turn into a slog. I have toyed with simply lowering HP's, but think simply adding some more "deadliness" to combat would be better. Which is... you get a Critical if you hit your opponent by MORE than 5 points. If you do that, double damage. If you do that AND the roll is a Natural 20, you maximum double damage. This may cut down on the HP's faster...and make the creature a bit more deadly! But...never tried it yet. Maybe next time I DM.
I prefer Hackmaster 4th Edition combat the best out of all the "D&D systems"...with BECMI coming in a very close second. I have 'simplified' HM4 combat in some minor respects (Armor HP's only go down by the amount of dice damage minimum; e.g., 2d6 weapon takes of 2hp and only on a Critical, for example). But the "Penetration Damage", "Follow-through Damage", "Threshold of Pain", "Fatigue", "Spell Mishap", "Fumbles" and those lovely "Critical Hit Tables" make combat so fun and often unpredictable!
Compared to HM4 combat, 5e combat is watered-down gruel. But then again, it isn't called HACKmaster for nothing!
With 5e, the combat is supposed to be 'exciting, but not any more important than anything else'; meaning the PC's are generally "supposed to win in a few rounds" except for the 'major' fights. Different design goal. Not bad, but, well, "Generally OK". ^_^
Paul L. Ming
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Heh - I'm running that one right now and, as written, if the PCs are taking on the whole lot of monsters at once (rather than taking them on piecemeal in a controlled fashion) they've really messed up somehow; yes it would be a long combat, and unless the PCs are quite powerful would probably wipe them out.
Agreed. I noticed this more with 3e than 1e, and have anecdotally heard it to be even more prevalent in 4e and perhaps 5e.
The designers likely heard complaints during 3e that combat was too swingy, hence the removal of most save-or-die/suck effects in 4e and 5e in favour of having everything go to hit points.
Hit locations and called shots etc. are nice ideas in theory but the practice is that they can really bog things down in play. If you're looking to speed up combat they might not be the answer.
Swarmkeeper
Hero
Very much this.Hit locations and called shots etc. are nice ideas in theory but the practice is that they can really bog things down in play. If you're looking to speed up combat they might not be the answer.
That said, an optional rule with hit locations/called shots available on a limited-per-long-rest basis might scratch the itch for some. IMO, though, it would end up like the 5e optional flanking rule in that many would abandon it after dabbling.
Related question: what makes a monster fun or not fun in combat?
Thinking about newly announced statblock format and looking at various 3rd party ideas (tome of beasts, "action-oriented" monsters), it seems that people like monsters to have several special abilities that have a discrete tactical effect--imposing a condition, area of effect vs single target, teleportation/movement, enabling allies (giving extra turns, using reactions), particular damage types, legendary/lair actions.
What sort of abilities make a monster inherently more interesting when it comes to combat? Conversely, what's the minimum viable monster? AD&D statblocks were very simple, and generally a monster had one special thing that they did at most. Same with osr games obviously. So what kind of monster design makes combat fun, for you?
Thinking about newly announced statblock format and looking at various 3rd party ideas (tome of beasts, "action-oriented" monsters), it seems that people like monsters to have several special abilities that have a discrete tactical effect--imposing a condition, area of effect vs single target, teleportation/movement, enabling allies (giving extra turns, using reactions), particular damage types, legendary/lair actions.
What sort of abilities make a monster inherently more interesting when it comes to combat? Conversely, what's the minimum viable monster? AD&D statblocks were very simple, and generally a monster had one special thing that they did at most. Same with osr games obviously. So what kind of monster design makes combat fun, for you?
jmartkdr2
Hero
Fun abilities is tough: I think novelty is probably the best you can do, but that's very relative. What's new to me may be old hat to you. This is why monsters with one signature ability tend to be more fun than ones with no special ability, or ones who use standard features. The stick out.
Unfun is a little easier to nail down: enemies that either remove pc's from the fight, or take too much of the same action to defeat.
Bags of hit points are only bad if they have too many hit points. If the best option is to just attack, it should take about three rounds of that to take the monster down. If it's round six and the players are still just attacking because nothing else is worth doing, it's a boring fight and you should probably wrap it up. (4e was really bad at this, but 5e largely avoids this issue.)
Features that cause players to lose turns (as in multiple turns, though even losing one turn can be annoying) are almost always un-fun, and monsters that are immune to a class's core feature are almost always bad design. That's why so few things are generally immune to Sneak Attack these days. Features/spells can be situational, but pc's should almost always be able to contribute. Once in a while is fine, but keep it to a minimum.
Similar Threads
