Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 8038052" data-attributes="member: 87792">A key problem is that the current model is a different form of boring. Right now we have &quot;bullet sponge&quot; enemies, so named after the FPS (and third person shooter) approach to difficulty where you need to empty an entire clip into the enemy to get them to drop. Technically it's harder to win than with less tough enemies, but it's just a different sort of defense. A different sort and an even more boring one because it's so predictable and so inevitable - it just takes time. Even if the DPR is the same rolling to hit, rolling to damage, and then taking the damage off the monster's current hp total physically takes longer than rolling to hit and missing. This means that if you hit three hits in four the physical process takes longer than if you hit only one hit in four but the monster has one third of the hp - and the total excitement difference is very slight. (Hypothetical example is very close to our AC5, 19 hp AD&amp;D ogre vs a&nbsp; 2nd level party average THAC0 of 19 for the AD&amp;D ogre and AC11, 59hp vs an average 2nd level party attack bonus of +5 (3 stat, 2 proficiency)).This also combines badly with 5e managing to make tactical positioning almost irrelevant other than for focus fire due to monsters having the same attack rolls with melee and ranged combat (either they use finesse weapons and ranged weapons or thrown weapons and normal melee weapons), due to the lack of flanking, and due to there being no penalty for casting a spell in melee as long as it doesn't use attack rolls (and most use saving throws). Of course AD&amp;D didn't have substantially different ranged and melee attacks but 3.X and 4e both did which offset slowing things down by providing engagement.I've literally never heard anyone praise 5e's combat.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 8038052, member: 87792"] A key problem is that the current model is a different form of boring. Right now we have "bullet sponge" enemies, so named after the FPS (and third person shooter) approach to difficulty where you need to empty an entire clip into the enemy to get them to drop. Technically it's harder to win than with less tough enemies, but it's just a different sort of defense. A different sort and an even more boring one because it's so predictable and so inevitable - it just takes time. Even if the DPR is the same rolling to hit, rolling to damage, and then taking the damage off the monster's current hp total physically takes longer than rolling to hit and missing. This means that if you hit three hits in four the physical process takes longer than if you hit only one hit in four but the monster has one third of the hp - and the total excitement difference is very slight. (Hypothetical example is very close to our AC5, 19 hp AD&D ogre vs a 2nd level party average THAC0 of 19 for the AD&D ogre and AC11, 59hp vs an average 2nd level party attack bonus of +5 (3 stat, 2 proficiency)). This also combines badly with 5e managing to make tactical positioning almost irrelevant other than for focus fire due to monsters having the same attack rolls with melee and ranged combat (either they use finesse weapons and ranged weapons or thrown weapons and normal melee weapons), due to the lack of flanking, and due to there being no penalty for casting a spell in melee as long as it doesn't use attack rolls (and most use saving throws). Of course AD&D didn't have substantially different ranged and melee attacks but 3.X and 4e both did which offset slowing things down by providing engagement. I've literally never heard anyone praise 5e's combat. [/QUOTE]

Verification