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

[FireLance]

Here's a quick and dirty fix which I have not playtested and hence have no idea whether or not it is balanced.

See all the lovely Battle Master maneuvers in the Fighter section of the PH? Open up all the maneuvers that involve making a melee attack on the character's turn to any character with Extra Attack or a similar ability. Using the maneuver requires the character to spend two attacks, so if character only had two attacks, the character must spend both to use the maneuver.

Where the maneuver says add the superiority die to the damage, the character rolls weapon damage twice (static damage bonuses and damage dice from other sources, e.g. a paladin's smite, are not doubled). Otherwise, use the character's proficiency bonus in place of the superiority die roll.

Have fun!

 

[Dausuul]

Okay, so you have a fleeing enemy who's out of melee range and you want to stop them moving.

Fighter: Shoot them and use the Trip Attack maneuver.
Ranger: Cast entangle, a 1st-level spell.
Paladin: Cast command, also a 1st-level spell.
Barbarian: This is why you get a speed bonus.

Each class has its own array of tricks. Now, are there general rules for "stop an enemy moving at range?" No. One of the lessons of 3E was that trying to create general-purpose rules for every situation backfires: You spend more time looking up the rule than you would just improvising something on the fly.

 

[fearsomepirate]

Here's a quick and dirty fix which I have not playtested and hence have no idea whether or not it is balanced.

See all the lovely Battle Master maneuvers in the Fighter section of the PH? Open up all the maneuvers that involve making a melee attack on the character's turn to any character with Extra Attack or a similar ability. Using the maneuver requires the character to spend two attacks, so if character only had two attacks, the character must spend both to use the maneuver.

Where the maneuver says add the superiority die to the damage, the character rolls weapon damage twice (static damage bonuses and damage dice from other sources, e.g. a paladin's smite, are not doubled). Otherwise, use the character's proficiency bonus in place of the superiority die roll.

Have fun!

A more consistent approach would be to let you substitute one of your attacks to do whatever it is the Battle Master ability is, using an ability check, and not doing damage. I actually tried this, but as with grapple and shove, most players would rather do damage.

The basic "problem" with 5e is movement is largely unrestricted, there are no positional advantages, and modifiers are pretty limited. Not only is your chance to hit is typically high, you rarely spend resources on a missed attack roll. In 4e, by contrast, positioning matters quite a bit, to-hit bonuses are not all that high, and you absolutely can waste your tiny number of daily abilities. Much of 4e combat revolves around achieving position and applying statuses so that somebody can fire off a big daily ability with minimal chance to miss. This makes combat incredibly interesting and engaging, but also very, very slow. Every encounter is almost like a chess game.

 

[FireLance]

A more consistent approach would be to let you substitute one of your attacks to do whatever it is the Battle Master ability is, using an ability check, and not doing damage. I actually tried this, but as with grapple and shove, most players would rather do damage.

My proposed approach does change the trade-off a little in that you still get two attacks worth of weapon damage dice, so you're trading static damage and nonweapon damage dice for the effect. But yes, as characters get magic weapons and other damage bonuses, it does get less attractive.

 

[robus]

published rules to adjudicate special situations or maneuvers. For example, the ranger in my game can't shoot someone in the leg to hobble them without me coming up with a ruling on the spot.

I would say that just because we’re using the combat specific action economy doesn’t mean we throw the rest of action adjudication out the window.

Does the declared action have a chance of success? Sounds to me like it does. So simply say that if the PC lands the blow (beats the AC) and does at least X amount of damage then their action will succeed as intended.

Why are we trying to overthink it?

 

[Justice and Rule]

I would say that just because we’re using the combat specific action economy doesn’t mean we throw the rest of action adjudication out the window.

Does the declared action have a chance of success? Sounds to me like it does. So simply say that if the PC lands the blow (beats the AC) and does at least X amount of damage then their action will succeed as intended.

Why are we trying to overthink it?

Setting a bad precedent can lead to more arguments and adjudication, so it's not bad to sometimes hesitate on those sorts of things. Let's be honest: D&D 5E is not the sort of game that really works well with more specific combat actions like called shots. You kind of have to take its limitations in stride.

 

[Stattick]

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?

The way I run, anyone can attempt things like the Battlemaster Maneuvers or special moves granted by feats (Charger). They typically roll at disadvantage if they lack the subclass or feat, nevertheless, anyone can attempt stuff like that.

I use 4e style critical hits. Take maximum damage, and then roll the dice and add. So, if your attack is normally 1d8+7, you do 15 points of damage, +1d8. On a critical, I'll also allow someone to do normal damage, plus a strategic benefit: for instance, moving the opponent 15', knocking them prone, disarming them, etc. Player's choice.

 

[Minigiant]

Again I think part of it comes down to the DM or system giving good options.

If the DM makes improvised options visibly weaker, players will only use them sparingly no matter how many set ups for them are given.

If the system makes no attack or rider options weak or have big requirements, players will only use I Attack.

 

[Blue]

I think the implicit answer coming from the forum right now is that there isn't a core solution to my problem and I need to pray that 6th edition has more complex rules.

Considering that 5e explicitly streamlined combat (and other systems as well) over recent WotC editions and that's been a popular choice (read: 5e sells better) than more complex rules, I wouldn't expect a next generation's core rules to reverse it. Combat is one of the most mechanically lengthy parts of the game - what I mean that is a scene of combat interacts with the rules more than any other scene. Adding complexity will lengthen it, even if just in time choosing actions. There are crunchier systems out their like PF2, that's a niche that 5e has occupied in the past (3.x & 4e) and has moved away from. I don't see them returning to it, especially when it would mean more overlap with the second largest gorilla who had taken the #1 selling RPG title for a number of years.

This isn't saying you're wrong to want crunchier combat - that's perfectly valid. Just saying that I wouldn't expect it in the core D&D landscape in this edition or the next.

 

[jasper]

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?

No, It think there are too many options. In fact I think we should cut have the class builds and half the races. And it should be legal to tazer any player who takes more than 30 seconds to declare their option on their turn.