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

[Li Shenron]

So, that's the problem then, exactly as I stated: a lack of meaningful options.

The only straightforward offensive options available to everyone in combat are Attack, Grapple, Shove and (from DMG) Disarm.

You can get creative with the environment or equipment and try to find ways to restrain, entangle, slow, blind, trip, or distract your opponents (or even set them on fire) but these aren't codified in the rules, presumably because having fixed rules might have accidentally made one option too convenient at the detriment of all others (even Disarm was hidden in the DMG just in case), while leaving them rules-free means they are environment-dependent and thus more controllable by the DM, but it doesn't mean they don't exist. But leave called shots alone, as they are like opening a can of worms.

Beyond these, there are feats and class features behind a paywall.

 

[Umbran]

So, that's the problem then, exactly as I stated: a lack of meaningful options.

So I have to ask, is the fight you're presenting them particularly dynamic?

If you present them with a big bag of hit points that does melee attacks, yes, they may tactically feel that "walk up and hit it repeatedly" is really the only thing to do. And they probably aren't wrong.

Do you have things other than combat going on in the scene? Objectives other than "kill the orc"? Is the combat area a static and basically clear floor?

 

[Laurefindel]

It certainly wouldn't hurt if there were more alternate uses for the Attack action than Push and Grapple

Actually, players have many options in combat. Push and grapple being some of them.

The problem is that 99% of the time, none of these options compare to "making an attack", so in essence it comes down to having few options...

You can push the enemy down the top of the tower. That's 30 feet down, a heck of a fall! The enemy takes 10 damage and gets up. Might as well attack it for 15 damage and it might not get up at all. Killing your enemy faster is usually the most efficient way to win the fight.

That however is in itself tributary to the fact that "killing all your opponents" is usually the only way to win a fight in D&D. Especially since the enemy will likely fight to the death. So the issue is in part due to our ineptitude as DMs at varying the goals and objectives of a fight.

[edit] What @Umbran said...

 

[The Green Hermit]

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?

My players still haven't explored all the options available during combat. Our overland trek hasn't offered much combat at all, but when we start fighting a bunch again, I am going to have to challenge them to learn (and use) one new option. I've done this before, but it has been a while.

 

[jgsugden]

You're shackled into a perspective that is limiting you.

This is an RPG - the characters play a role in a story. They can try to do anything that their characters should have the ability to do. We figure out how to best represent that in the rules as the DMs. Then we describe the action in an engaging way.

I've had PCs swing from chandeliers, wrestle the gun out of the bad guy's hand, juggle combatetitively, jump in the mine cart, ski, zip line, etc... The rules are there as a convenience and a framework - the DM is thereto take it up a notch.

 

[jayoungr]

I don't have any core or 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'd consider that a feature, not a bug.

Personally, I'd tell the ranger to make an attack roll as normal. If it hits by 5 or more, the character hits the exact spot s/he was aiming for. If it hits by less than 5, then it still did damage but didn't hit the right spot.

Or I could just tell the ranger to attack, say it hits the right spot on a successful roll, and then make a constitution save for the target to see whether s/he is hobbled.

Those are just two examples off the top of my head.

 

[Minigiant]

The issues isn't really the lack of options.

The issue is more what do you what those options to do and how successful they are compared to each other.

Unfortunately this differs from player to player and DM to DM. The system might need to change. Or the DM might.

 

[Helldritch]

Your mind is the best option you can have. Want to trip someone without being a BM? Use an athletics opposed check. Want to swing from the hanged chandelier on the ceiling to jump into melee down below? Use acrobatics.

The rules in 5ed are so simple and easy tjat a lot of people forget that the BM ate usable on an attack, that is its strength but that does not mean that others can't do the same with their action. They would just be less efficient at doing them.

1ed, BCEMI and OSR do not have the codified rules of PF or 3.5ed but they are still used a lot.

Also, as Umbran said, what about the environment the fight is happening on? Is there a pit that players could take advantage of? Is thw room on fire? Mono type encounters are a sure way to get mono response/play. 5ed is not lacking in options, it is lacking in hard codifications. This is an advantage and quite a strength for some. A weakness for others. I find it to be a very strong feature od 5wd as players will not stop at the character sheet and say I can't do it. They will say I can! Less effectively than some but I can!

 

[Oofta]

First: no game is right for everyone. I can't tell you if some of the others have suggested or that I can give you will make a difference. Maybe PF or a previous edition of D&D would work for you, something from the DmsGuild or 5E level up.

Because my combats are rarely boring. Other people have covered a lot of the ground including tactics, but also consider the goals of the encounter. Just being on an open field beating each other up? Kind of boring. Running into a building that's on burning down because there's fire elementals? You have to worry about smoke inhalation burning debris, collapsing floors? There's someone screaming for help, but you also see the BBEG trying to escape with the McGuffin? You kick in a door and it let's oxygen into the room causing a backdraft explosion? Now we're talking.

I try to switch things up. Split the party, drag PCs off, have tentacles grab people from the impenetrable mist, have enemies come in waves, have that dragon strafe and fly off behind the trees, it's all good. Just remember that the terrain should favor the PCs sometimes too.

Personally, I don't think the mechanics of how people beat each other up are intrinsically interesting, it's the mood, the set dressing, the stakes. Then again I like 5E's relatively simple and streamlined combat and my style may not work for you.

 

[Mort]

As others have said, I find presenting variable situations in combat (terrain, hazards, obstacles etc.) works best.

Without constant change from the DM, players don't really have lots of options even if it looks like it on paper.

It's an illusion of choice because players very quickly figure out what the '"best" options are and just use those.