D&D 5E Too Few Player Options During Combat?

[The-Magic-Sword]

This was a major struggle that we had when we were still on 5e, our solution was to curate a large collection of homebrew, and most of the players in our guild game (kinda like a west marches) who cared ended up leaning into casters. In fact now that I think back on it, a lot of the homebrew our players actually played with involved adding a variety of gish options that were more mechanically involved than the actual martials. I also did a lot of top of my head rulings for some players who didn't have the rules chops to buy themselves more interesting mechanics, though that could be kind of taxing in the middle of the session for me, and was eventually at odds with our desire for a balanced system.

Switching to Pathfinder 2e was a complete cure for us in the end, but that would obviously be a pretty extreme solution for you OP.

 

[iserith]

I mean, part of the reason there is a GM instead of just the players running bad guys via behavior scripts is there is (hopefully) some decision-making going on to what’s viable and not as well as who’s doing what. Players shouldn’t get outraged when the DM “makes stuff up” because that’s part of the job description.

Yeah, pretty sure a game going sour from a few changed rulings is just a forum argument "concern" that doesn't much happen in the wild. Most people get that something done in the moment may have to be changed later. People who don't are probably a vanishingly small population of unforgiving players not worth staking a position in an argument over. A DM will get some stuff "wrong" from time to time. You fix it and move on. That's how you get better at it. The system can't account for everything.

 

[Umbran]

Yeah, pretty sure a game going sour from a few changed rulings is just a forum argument "concern" that doesn't much happen in the wild.

That's an interesting assertion, right in the face of the OP, who says, "Exactly - my player's cannot stand fiat rulings."

Thank you for your personal estimations on the issue, though.

 

[iserith]

That's an interesting assertion, right in the face of the OP, who says, "Exactly - my player's cannot stand fiat rulings."

Thank you for your personal estimations on the issue, though.

You're welcome. I don't think a few people in one thread is really going to lead me to believe this is a widespread issue. And even if the players can't stand "fiat rulings," that's an issue of adjusting their own expectations given that no system covers all areas. The DM has to do it from time to time. That is simply in the nature of the game.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

I think most players are reasonable as Iserith said, though it can take away from the experience if the players never 'really' know what they can do or how it works, its hard to make tactical decisions in a completely narrative way. For me it was always my own energy that it was taxing, of trying to do whatever well, absent rules guidance.

 

[auburn2]

Howdy All,

Has anyone else found that player's don't really have all that many meaningful or interesting options/abilities during combat? (Obviously setting aside full time caster types). When COVID finally blows over I want to get back into in-person DMing but I can't help but feel like combat in 5e is way too 'bleh' and static.

Does anyone else feel this way? Has anyone else found a solution if they indeed see it as a problem?

Absolutely not.

Including the options in the DM guide, there are I think 18 different actions you can take as actions besides cast a spell, and that includes improvising an action. Not all of them are always available but most of them generally are. If your players do not have meaningful options they are not being creative. On top of that a lot of characters get bonus actions.

 

[Scott Christian]

1.) I personally don't use, and have never used, any 3PP because I find their quality, in general, falls well below WotC
2.) If I'm making up rules on the spot, then the game has become too narrative for my players and the question immediately becomes why have any rules at all.

But there is a rule for anything. Shoot someone in the leg? Disadvantage on the attack roll. Success they fall prone. You just cut their movement in half next round.

 

[robus]

Because, what seems okay at the spur of the moment may later be a source of many balance issues.

I think expectations of balance in D&D is the source of many issues.

 

[robus]

While consistency is an important thing at the table in my view (so players can make informed decisions), a ruling with unintended consequences can just be fixed later. No big deal. It's not like it must be a permanent precedent.

I guess that’s what’s confusing me about this. DMs are expected to make rulings to cover all the things not in the rules. Expecting rules to cover every potential situation that might occur in combat is unreasonable. It seems perfectly reasonable for the DM to make a ruling in the moment. And of course every situation is different so it‘s not like the DM is expected to rule the same way every time. Some legs will be too sturdy to hobble. Some creatures too slippery to land a blow. The DM is expected to adjudicate player actions.

This lack of DM adjudication seems to be exactly why combats devolve into boring slugfests because of rigid adherence to the few prescribed actions listed in the rules.

 

[Ragmon]

I would say, we lack mechanics that back-up options during combat.