D&D General Why are we fighting?

[Vaalingrade]

I believe in letting combats be dramatic set pieces meant to tell part of the story instead of being a thing you are forced to do 8 times a day in order to continue to justify resource atrition.

I've never had a problem with boring combats because every combat I present serves an actual purpose and is there specifically to be fun.

 

[Greg Benage]

"Folks often complain that combat in 5th Edition isn't fun." I really haven't heard any "folks" say this tbh. I mean, I'm sure some have? But I don't feel that is a common complaint about 5E.

Thank you! When I saw the video title, I was expecting an edition war bit, so I was surprised when... Actually, maybe it was an edition war bit.

 

[Lord Shark]

If you want morale rules to work, there has to be an incentive for the players to not just continue every fight to the death. If enemies who run away alert everyone for miles around and come back with massive reinforcements, then of course players are going to want to fight to the death. Likewise, if accepting surrender means the players have the hassle of dealing with prisoners who will shiv them the moment they let their guard down, players will be less likely to let enemies surrender.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

In the last game I played, we had a couple of chase scenes. One running after an assassin, another where we ran with the McGuffin.

If I'm DMing there will often be multiple ways to get away or chase after a party. I use the chase rules in the DMG as an inspiration and starting point. Doesn't always apply of course, but if the pursued can even break line of sight it often opens up possibilities.

I am almost ashamed to say I have not fully grasped them upon more than one reading. Something is not clicking. I have played tactical wargames etc so am not naive to all complexity but still…

I am thinking about doing what you are saying and cobbling a system together that feels a bit clearer for my use on the fly

 

[MGibster]

The players largely set their own goals, though.

This is true, but I can't help but think the rules and custom play a large role in how players set their own goals. I will start by saying I don't generally find D&D combat to be boring. Given how many pages of rules and how much game time is dedicated to combat, I probably wouldn't play D&D at all if I found it boring. But while there are times when combat turns into a slog, that's the exception rather than the rule. Players don't exist in a vacuum, and if they're slaughtering all opponents in their path there's probably a good reason they're doing it. (Or maybe not. Some players just want to watch the NPCs burn.)

• Fleeing combat using the rules as written is nearly impossible. That pretty much makes every battle a battle-to-the-death. (Even if PCs have the choice to deal non-killing blows.)
• What do you do with prisoners? This is partially a logistical problem, but I suspect at some in the past a vindictive DM made the party regret letting their enemies live.

 

[J.Quondam]

Everyone knows that there are only two possible activities possible in D&D: fighting and shopping. So you have to choose one or the other, and "The first rule of Shopping Club is you don't talk about Shopping Club" just doesn't have the right ring to it.

 

[collin]

"Folks often complain that combat in 5th Edition isn't fun." I really haven't heard any "folks" say this tbh. I mean, I'm sure some have? But I don't feel that is a common complaint about 5E.

For my part, as DM I definitely do not have enemies continue to fight to the death to the last creature if they would logically choose to surrender or flee instead. I also find that most non-climactic combat encounters very rarely last longer than 3 rounds, nor should they. As a designer, I definitely include story objectives and environmental challenges in my combat encounters.

I feel like 5E supports all this pretty well, and he's trying to pin a "problem" on system design that probably has mostly to do with a combination of adventure design, DMing, and, yes, sometimes, player choices.

I agree with your assessment here. I suspect Matt is the one who is finding combat in 5th ed. is boring and assuming, or projecting, that sentiment to the majority of the D&D community.

I watched this video last night and I was a little surprised it came from Matt Colville - the guy who has repeatedly stated in other videos the reason we play D&D is (paraphrasing) "to kill monsters and take their s***, which is what makes it fun."

He does bring up some good points in terms of how to address this issue if you are finding a problem with your players leaning towards combat being boring - tie something more to the combat than just killing all the monsters. Seems simple enough, and based on the replies to this thread, it appears quite a few DMs have done that or found other ways to make combat more than just bringing hit point bags to zero.

I remember the morale rules from AD&D, but I also remember them not being used very much in the groups I played in. I personally don't think formal morale rules are necessary. If I'm the DM, I can make such judgments based on the situation, or I'll borrow some rules from a non-5e D&D system if I'm desperate.

 

[iserith]

I remember the morale rules from AD&D, but I also remember them not being used very much in the groups I played in. I personally don't think formal morale rules are necessary. If I'm the DM, I can make such judgments based on the situation, or I'll borrow some rules from a non-5e D&D system if I'm desperate.

One thing I did in my last campaign was add a Morale trait to every monster stat block. "[The monster]" tries to flee when reduced to half hit points or less" or "[The monster] tries to flee when reduced to half hit points if its Fear of Flame trait is activated" or "[The monster] tries to flee when the alpha of the pack is slain."

Players learned these over time and then used the information to their benefit, which was cool.

 

[HaroldTheHobbit]

Imho attrition style combat in 5e becomes a boring slog long before the game breaks at lvl 10-12. That's the main reason why me and my table has gone to Savage Pathfinder for D&Dish fantasy. More build diversity, social conflict rules, dramatic task etc are cherries on top. We focus on roleplay, social drama, political intrigue and so on, but when it's time for combat it is way more satisfying.

 

[tetrasodium]

I agree with your assessment here. I suspect Matt is the one who is finding combat in 5th ed. is boring and assuming, or projecting, that sentiment to the majority of the D&D community.

I watched this video last night and I was a little surprised it came from Matt Colville - the guy who has repeatedly stated in other videos the reason we play D&D is (paraphrasing) "to kill monsters and take their s***, which is what makes it fun."

He does bring up some good points in terms of how to address this issue if you are finding a problem with your players leaning towards combat being boring - tie something more to the combat than just killing all the monsters. Seems simple enough, and based on the replies to this thread, it appears quite a few DMs have done that or found other ways to make combat more than just bringing hit point bags to zero.

I remember the morale rules from AD&D, but I also remember them not being used very much in the groups I played in. I personally don't think formal morale rules are necessary. If I'm the DM, I can make such judgments based on the situation, or I'll borrow some rules from a non-5e D&D system if I'm desperate.

I don't think it's an issue where you can blame the person pointiong the spotlight to dismiss it. D&d 5e is designed with math that gives PCs odds that literally put them

Spoiler: standing shoulder to shoulder with a twilight zone episode plot

You can even see the math supporting that proximity here.

5e deliberately designs the problem into the system & removed ways the GM could mitigate it mechanically along with hooks like a need for gold & treasure that would provide ways for the GM to entice players into caring.