D&D 5E Why Has D&D, and 5e in Particular, Gone Down the Road of Ubiquitous Magic?

[Azurewraith]

Maybe it's just my group managing some wildly abnormal game-play speed, maybe it's just a different threshold for the term "slog"... but, 5th edition never becomes a "slog", with or without picking the highest damage-dealing options available.

To me it becomes a slog usually after 5rounds or if it's a forgone conclusion as to the winning side. Now I do have 6pcs thus larger encounters, more turns so combat is longer by default. Oh and I hate waiting.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

To me it becomes a slog usually after 5rounds or if it's a forgone conclusion as to the winning side. Now I do have 6pcs thus larger encounters, more turns so combat is longer by default. Oh and I hate waiting.

5 rounds of combat usually takes my group less than 20 minutes with 5 PCs, and I've not seen any encounters which were reach the point of being a forgone conclusion more than an action or two before actually concluding (do you not have combat end in any way but one side being unconscious/dead? I tend to have retreat or surrender once its obvious that actually winning is out of the question, so maybe that's the difference).

As for hating waiting, I'm a patient person (until about the fourth cup of coffee, at least) so I don't notice the smattering of minutes that might pass between my turns as the monsters (also, the frequent descriptive flourishes added during everyone's turns like alters the feeling of the time from "waiting" to "playing" even though I'm not the one making decisions and rolling dice.

...or it could just be that you don't have as much experience with slower-running systems that my group also plays, so what seems fast to us by comparison to other games (where we spend 4 hours resolving just one thing) could seem slow to you.

 

[Azurewraith]

5 rounds of combat usually takes my group less than 20 minutes with 5 PCs, and I've not seen any encounters which were reach the point of being a forgone conclusion more than an action or two before actually concluding (do you not have combat end in any way but one side being unconscious/dead? I tend to have retreat or surrender once its obvious that actually winning is out of the question, so maybe that's the difference).

As for hating waiting, I'm a patient person (until about the fourth cup of coffee, at least) so I don't notice the smattering of minutes that might pass between my turns as the monsters (also, the frequent descriptive flourishes added during everyone's turns like alters the feeling of the time from "waiting" to "playing" even though I'm not the one making decisions and rolling dice.

...or it could just be that you don't have as much experience with slower-running systems that my group also plays, so what seems fast to us by comparison to other games (where we spend 4 hours resolving just one thing) could seem slow to you.

I tend to have the monsters flee/surrender if there's no reason for them to die heck even an int 3 animal will run of it has no reason to fight. Our combat usually takes around 40mins-1hour

I think most of the issue stems from Meta reasons such as lack of focus fire etc.

 

[pemerton]

In 4E and 5E both, I've seen very few multiclass characters

That's surprising about 4e, given how effective most multi-classing feats are (skill training plus another goody or two). Or did you mean hybrid, in which case that makes sense - 4e hybrids are fiddly.

 

[pemerton]

I think most of the issue stems from Meta reasons such as lack of focus fire etc.

Personally I find focus fire very boring. I prefer fantasy RPG combats to be a bit more like comic book superheroics, in which each team member faces off against the appropriate foe.

That's not to say that pacing isn't important, but maybe there can be other ways of addressing it.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I think most of the issue stems from Meta reasons such as lack of focus fire etc.

Up through the word "focus" I was about to agree, since players not being focused on playing the game is obviously going to make playing the game not as fluid...

But then I saw "fire", and you lost me again. My group rarely does the "focus fire" (or "piranha tactics" as we've heard it called) thing because if you try to dedicate all your effort to dealing with one of multiple baddies you put yourselves in an easier position (tactically speaking, not geographically) for your enemies to focus upon your team's weak-link. Instead, they divide their attentions among their enemies to encourage those enemies to likewise spread their offense around.

It's a lot easier to survive, and recover, when everyone in the party is a little bit down in hit points than when one or two characters are way down and everyone else is fine.

 

[pemerton]

My group rarely does the "focus fire" (or "piranha tactics" as we've heard it called) thing because if you try to dedicate all your effort to dealing with one of multiple baddies you put yourselves in an easier position (tactically speaking, not geographically) for your enemies to focus upon your team's weak-link. Instead, they divide their attentions among their enemies to encourage those enemies to likewise spread their offense around.

It's a lot easier to survive, and recover, when everyone in the party is a little bit down in hit points than when one or two characters are way down and everyone else is fine.

Our 4e game is more like what you describe here. The fighter and paladin, in particular, may often find themselves engaging particular foes to lock them down and soak their attacks, while I'm then using some other foe to try and get at the invoker/wizard, sorcerer or cleric/ranger.

I couldn't say with any confidence whether or not it ends up being mathematically more efficient, although I know my group can get through many encounters without an extended rest. (The game is now at level 30, and I doubt there have been many more than 30 extended rests over the course of the campaign.) But I think it makes the game more interesting, and helps highlight the different capabilities of the PCs.

A couple of examples I can recall: at around 11th level, the PCs were fighting Bane-ites in a village. While the fighter (and his entourage of dwarven minions) were fighting hobgoblins, the ranger was taking control of the hobgoblins' behemoth, the paladin was (for some reason I can't remember any longer - maybe a rescue?) charging into a burning building, and the sorcerer was tens of squares away fighting some bugbears.

An at 29th level, having invaded Orcus's palace in Thanatos, the sorcerer was fighting a marilith, the invoker/wizard was running away from the balor and getting pummelled by Orcus's wand, the fighter was dealing with a different demon, and the cleric/ranger was trying to take down Orcus's lich offsider. There was eventually a team-up on Orcus - the cleric/ranger stunned him and then the invoker/wizard dominated him - but that emerged reasonably organically rather than via a deliberate tactic of focused fire.

As well as the variety of foes, I think the terrain of the situation can help produce these sorts of non-focus-fire scenarios.

 

[CapnZapp]

[MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION], one does not need to take hunter's mark nor eldritch blast to be effective.

That is a distorted perception by which the best option from many suitable options falsely appears to be the only option and all options not at least as good, no matter how slightly they might be behind, falsely appear as useless - the reality is that there is a very wide margin of effective enough, even if not the most effective between having these particular options and being actually ineffective.

Still, even if these hallmark spells were class features, you would still be able to select ANY option and use ANY option you use today.

The only effect would be that newbies have no trap to walk in, and nobody would feel forced into a particular choice.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

The only effect would be that newbies have no trap to walk in, and nobody would feel forced into a particular choice.

There is no trap. Those that feel "forced" into that choice would probably start feeling "forced" into another choice (i.e. whatever is currently considered the 2nd best choice would then be the new 1st best choice and thus "required" to the same degree as the current option feels - but in the meantime removing the choice that people have to not have those spells and take something else instead).

 

[TwoSix]

There is no trap. Those that feel "forced" into that choice would probably start feeling "forced" into another choice (i.e. whatever is currently considered the 2nd best choice would then be the new 1st best choice and thus "required" to the same degree as the current option feels - but in the meantime removing the choice that people have to not have those spells and take something else instead).

I can't say I agree with this as a powergamer. There's a numerical range where options can sit to be "good enough" that I don't feel forced to take one or the other. If hex or hunter's mark added 1 or 1d2 damage, maybe even 1d3, I wouldn't feel that it's so good it's worth the loss of another spell plus the bonus action to cast it. A 1d6 per attack, though...that adds up pretty quick. That's probably a 20-30% damage increase for most common low-level scenarios. Hex and hunter's mark, to me, feel like 4e striker class mechanics masquerading as spells.