I’ve run into the same problem in both my DnD-campaigns. It occurred sometimes after level 5 and was definitely there at level 7. The problem is that combat gets quite boring. The increase in powers and possibilities for the players, means that it starts to get really difficult to create interesting combats that doesn’t take ages.
I’m quite new to DnD, but have been playing RPG for ages. I know this is an issue in a lot of systems. When the players start to get hold of a lot of powers, things will take time. Part of the problem is that while each player “only” has to know his/her powers, the GM is supposed to know all the powers for all his adversaries. That is an almost impossible task, and you basically have just two options: 1. Spend a lot of time checking rules during combat or 2. freeform something.
I usually go for the second option in other games, but in DnD this isn’t as easy. The system is so rigid that it’s difficult to freeform, and you soon end up with combats that either A: takes for ages or B: is very easy.
So I guess my question is: Have I just “hit the roof” in DnD where I should round up the campaign and start a new one, and the next time simply plan for a level 1-7 campaign, or do someone have any ideas for how to make combats interesting without taking ages and without me having to learn a ton of rules and powers by heart.
Final note: I’ve understood from this forum that we play RPG very differently. Me and my players are deeply rooted on the roleplaying side. Combat is not very important, and the campaign is very storydriven.
If combat is not that important (and I do not think you are "different" because of this -- many groups focus more on RP, mine being one), then why would you care that much how long it takes when it occasionally occurs? I could see if you are running a combat heavy campaign, worrying about the mechanics of combat... but if it only happens rarely, it shouldn't matter to you all that much that it takes a long time to resolve, and you certainly shouldn't be considering ditching a whole campaign with developed story and RP just because of the combat mechanics.
There are a variety of methods that work to speed up combat. You can try videos on YouTube by the Dungeon Dudes or try Matt Colville's "Running the Game" series. Do a YouTube search and you will find them. Examples are things like, setting a 1 minute timer on each player. Maybe also have them pre-declare "default" actions for their characters so if they can't make up their time and the timer runs out, they just do the default. Another method someone mentioned, but I don't recall the specifics because I don't use it (so I didn't bother to take notes on it) was a mechanism whereby everyone declares what they are doing at the top of the round, and then you just resolve it in order, only giving someone time to adjust if the declared action becomes invalid (for instance, Player B says he was going to shoot an orc who by the time his turn comes, is already dead). You'll have to do some searching in Google to figure out this mechanism because I don't remember who said it (might've been Colville or the Dungeon Dudes, but I've watched others so it might not be them).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I’ve run into the same problem in both my DnD-campaigns. It occurred sometimes after level 5 and was definitely there at level 7. The problem is that combat gets quite boring. The increase in powers and possibilities for the players, means that it starts to get really difficult to create interesting combats that doesn’t take ages.
I’m quite new to DnD, but have been playing RPG for ages. I know this is an issue in a lot of systems. When the players start to get hold of a lot of powers, things will take time. Part of the problem is that while each player “only” has to know his/her powers, the GM is supposed to know all the powers for all his adversaries. That is an almost impossible task, and you basically have just two options: 1. Spend a lot of time checking rules during combat or 2. freeform something.
I usually go for the second option in other games, but in DnD this isn’t as easy. The system is so rigid that it’s difficult to freeform, and you soon end up with combats that either A: takes for ages or B: is very easy.
So I guess my question is: Have I just “hit the roof” in DnD where I should round up the campaign and start a new one, and the next time simply plan for a level 1-7 campaign, or do someone have any ideas for how to make combats interesting without taking ages and without me having to learn a ton of rules and powers by heart.
Final note: I’ve understood from this forum that we play RPG very differently. Me and my players are deeply rooted on the roleplaying side. Combat is not very important, and the campaign is very storydriven.
Spice up the combats by putting some role play elements into them. Hostage rescues. Enemy NPCs willing to switch sides, or coerced into action that can defect, etc etc etc.
aside from that, welcome to why I don’t like playing with power gamers who only check in for combats. Combat is essential, but combat is also usually, usually, the least exciting parts of a campaign.
i can say with good conscience that my favorite moments of campaigns do not include a combat situation in them. Although I recall one epic thing a buddies’ char died doing, was running through a sewers, single handedly jail breaking 11 prisoners, while being chased by the slavers, and ran out of rages 1 rage too soon for an epic escape and was overtaken at the escape ladder by 3 of them while 10/11 of the prisoners successfully escaped.
*technically* that’s combat.... but that felt more like an escape mixed with a chase mixed with some skill checks that just didn’t work as hoped.
I've found that D&D Beyond's Encounter Builder is invaluable for solving the problem of not knowing what all of the monsters can do. Using it solves that problem very nicely. Before they rolled it out I wasted a lot of paper by printing out the stat blocks on each monster that I planned on using ahead of time so I still only had to look through a couple of pieces of paper instead of looking through an entire book.
I have a couple of comments and/or suggestions.
First, sometimes combat encounters are meant to be easy, especially at higher levels. It's unrealistic that the town guard will be a serious threat to a party of 5th level PC's except in huge cities like Waterdeep for example. There are times when I design encounters that can turn into combat that are incredibly lopsided that only take 1-2 rounds for the PC's to win. That's fine, it's part of the role playing aspect of the game and it gives the players that sense of, "Wow! We really are powerful." that they don't get in balanced and challenging combat encounters.
Second, I use a variety of techniques to challenge my players at higher levels. I'm starting to play smart opponents as if they're smart right now. For example, the pair of evil wizards that they recently faced who attacked them and then escaped, avoided getting into melee and when they were close to being trapped in melee they used teleportation magic and illusion magic to move out of melee, hide, and attack with advantage. I also use lots of minions. Sure, each minion get's killed in one round, but there are a lot of them so it takes the PC's time to get through them. Plus a cleric with Mass Healing Word can bring a few minions who are at 0 HP back to life to hinder the PC's again while the big gun monsters are attacking them with impunity. Of course those tactics only work when the opponents have high intelligence scores, when they're facing opponents with low intelligence scores I play them stupid which is not much of a challenge for my players.
If combat is not that important (and I do not think you are "different" because of this -- many groups focus more on RP, mine being one), then why would you care that much how long it takes when it occasionally occurs? I could see if you are running a combat heavy campaign, worrying about the mechanics of combat... but if it only happens rarely, it shouldn't matter to you all that much that it takes a long time to resolve, and you certainly shouldn't be considering ditching a whole campaign with developed story and RP just because of the combat mechanics.
Haha. I didn't try to say I'm different, but I've noticed here on the board that some people play DnD/roleplaying games very differently from how I play. Some seems to almost play it like a tactical board game. I just tried to say that I'm quite far from that camp. That being said, I've certainly noticed that quite a few here also plays in what I suppose is quite similar to me.
But to answer your question. Combat is "important" in that it is a way to solve situations. One of the reasons to choose DnD before a lot of other systems is the combat system. What players get better at when they go up a level is basically combat. Of course they sometimes want to try out that new spell or power or what ever. It's not that I dislike that, it all worked fine on the lower levels, but somewhere in tier 2 combat just stopped being very interesting because it started to either take very long time or being far too easy. When my players decides they want to have a fight, I want to make it a challenging and interesting fight they might win or might loose. But I don't want that fight to take like 2 hours to solve.
I've found that D&D Beyond's Encounter Builder is invaluable for solving the problem of not knowing what all of the monsters can do. Using it solves that problem very nicely. Before they rolled it out I wasted a lot of paper by printing out the stat blocks on each monster that I planned on using ahead of time so I still only had to look through a couple of pieces of paper instead of looking through an entire book.
I have a couple of comments and/or suggestions.
First, sometimes combat encounters are meant to be easy, especially at higher levels. It's unrealistic that the town guard will be a serious threat to a party of 5th level PC's except in huge cities like Waterdeep for example. There are times when I design encounters that can turn into combat that are incredibly lopsided that only take 1-2 rounds for the PC's to win. That's fine, it's part of the role playing aspect of the game and it gives the players that sense of, "Wow! We really are powerful." that they don't get in balanced and challenging combat encounters.
Second, I use a variety of techniques to challenge my players at higher levels. I'm starting to play smart opponents as if they're smart right now. For example, the pair of evil wizards that they recently faced who attacked them and then escaped, avoided getting into melee and when they were close to being trapped in melee they used teleportation magic and illusion magic to move out of melee, hide, and attack with advantage. I also use lots of minions. Sure, each minion get's killed in one round, but there are a lot of them so it takes the PC's time to get through them. Plus a cleric with Mass Healing Word can bring a few minions who are at 0 HP back to life to hinder the PC's again while the big gun monsters are attacking them with impunity. Of course those tactics only work when the opponents have high intelligence scores, when they're facing opponents with low intelligence scores I play them stupid which is not much of a challenge for my players.
Thanks. I'm using Improved initiative and Kobold Fight Club which does more or less the same as the encounter builder here. It has some features the encounter builder is still missing, but I agree 100% that that is a life saver.
I also thinks it's completely fine that some fights are easy. That's just part of growing into a hero, my "problem" is the fights that are not supposed to be easy.
I think your last paragraph has some sound advice, but my "problem" is that this soon turns very time consuming unless I have 100% control of all the powers of each single NPC.
Terrain can make an otherwise easy fight more interesting. Put a couple archers behind a think wall with narrow slots and see how the party manages to get up to them. Large chasms with thin bridges to the other side. My DM loves to hit us with rooms that have lair actions. A pillar that will pulse and do a d6 damage to everyone at the top of every round. It’s not much damage, but it’s persistent and inescapable, so it adds another tactical layer of do we try to smash the thing that’s doing a little damage but will hit or go for the enemies who do a lot of damage, but might miss.
Also, and I’m not trying to say you are playing wrong, it’s more of a flaw in the system when it comes to low combat campaigns, the game assumes multiple combats between long rests. If you only have one fight in a day, the PCs will have all their resources (spell slots, hp, etc.) and they’ll know they don’t have to save anything for another fight later in the day. It lets them start every fight by blowing their highest level spells, and all their limited use abilities, since they know they won’t be fighting something even tougher later that day. So maybe look for ways to get them to spend those resources in non-combat encounters before they fight. If the wizard is casting charm person and the cleric is casting zone of truth, that’s fewer magic missles and cure wounds they have once the fight starts. If the paladin is finding his steed, that’s less smiting. If the Druid needs to wildshape to scout ahead a couple times then she can’t in combat. Or surprise them with a second or third fight. You may only need to do it once or twice to put the idea in their heads that it could happen, and they need to save some resources for it.
So I guess my question is: Have I just “hit the roof” in DnD where I should round up the campaign and start a new one, and the next time simply plan for a level 1-7 campaign, or do someone have any ideas for how to make combats interesting without taking ages and without me having to learn a ton of rules and powers by heart.
The most common stopping point in campaigns is somewhere around 11th level. Stopping at 7th level is perfectly fine. After a few 1-7 campaigns, you and your players may want to push farther, but if you're most comfortable it that range right now there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Also, and I’m not trying to say you are playing wrong, it’s more of a flaw in the system when it comes to low combat campaigns, the game assumes multiple combats between long rests. If you only have one fight in a day, the PCs will have all their resources (spell slots, hp, etc.) and they’ll know they don’t have to save anything for another fight later in the day. It lets them start every fight by blowing their highest level spells, and all their limited use abilities, since they know they won’t be fighting something even tougher later that day. So maybe look for ways to get them to spend those resources in non-combat encounters before they fight. If the wizard is casting charm person and the cleric is casting zone of truth, that’s fewer magic missles and cure wounds they have once the fight starts. If the paladin is finding his steed, that’s less smiting. If the Druid needs to wildshape to scout ahead a couple times then she can’t in combat. Or surprise them with a second or third fight. You may only need to do it once or twice to put the idea in their heads that it could happen, and they need to save some resources for it.
You are 100% correct that the long/short rest is part of the problem. In my campaign they might only encounter a fight once in a week, so they are usually always fully "beefed" up on spell slots and the like. I've already thought about changing to a much more restricted long/short rest system because of this, and you just made me think again that I might should do that. I will not be the most popular DM the session I introduce that, but it could actually really benefit the game. If I don't do it in this campaign, I will certainly consider that in the next one. Thanks :-)
The variant rule in the DMG for gritty realism would work for you. 1 long rest/week, 1 short rest/day.
Yes, I'm going to change to something like that. Not sure if I do it in this campaign, but next time I start up, I'll do it for sure. I've also learned that next time I'll probably keep the players longer on tier 1 and be more ready for the finale when they reach level 6/7 :-)
The variant rule in the DMG for gritty realism would work for you. 1 long rest/week, 1 short rest/day.
Yes, I'm going to change to something like that. Not sure if I do it in this campaign, but next time I start up, I'll do it for sure. I've also learned that next time I'll probably keep the players longer on tier 1 and be more ready for the finale when they reach level 6/7 :-)
Some players will get annoyed by this. If so, non-xp rewards can help.
The variant rule in the DMG for gritty realism would work for you. 1 long rest/week, 1 short rest/day.
Yes, I'm going to change to something like that. Not sure if I do it in this campaign, but next time I start up, I'll do it for sure. I've also learned that next time I'll probably keep the players longer on tier 1 and be more ready for the finale when they reach level 6/7 :-)
Some players will get annoyed by this. If so, non-xp rewards can help.
Thanks for the warning, but I think we'll be OK. We've played together for a long time, and actually my players also have noted this as a problem :-) But that's why I'm hesitating to do this switch in long/short rests in the middle of the campaign. This is one of the "limitations" I am quite confident in will make play better for everyone in our group in the long run, but I know will feel limiting when I implement it. We are however closing in on the ending, so I don't think I will mind in the current campaign, but I will certainly do some changes next time I run DnD.
You could always say you want to try it for 2-3 sessions as a sort of pilot program, to see how it works for your group. Then tweak it as necessary for the next campaign.
BigLizard Thank you for your long and thorough answer. From what you write, I can only say we probably are on the same page here :-) Perhaps slightly depressing if there is no really good answer to my initial question, but there's a lot of other RPG's I also can play. Part of what I wanted to know was the limitations of DnD (compared to other RPG's), and you really spelled that out.
The quote from Gygax is actually very interesting, and points directly to at least part of my "problem". The "openness" of the rules of 5e actually makes it difficult for me as a DM to create engaging situations. What I'm kind of "asking" for in the OP is what leeway I have with NPC's. In DnD that feels very limited by "this spell works like this" etc. Thanks for sharing that quote. That made me think :-)
No hard feelings for telling me I'm playing the wrong game. I'm might be doing that. I've played tons of RPG systems, but not much DnD. I like a lot about 5e, and think it works quite well on the lower levels, but I've hit this "wall" in both campaigns I've been running, so just wanted to see if there is some workarounds or not. I must admit that the advice so far will incline me to either stay on low levels or switch to another system.
You are unlikely to find another system that does interesting combats meaningfully faster than D&D, most systems have combat that is either very slow or very low detail. Often much slower than D&D. However, if you want to run D&D fights that are both challenging and relatively fast, use glass cannons; for example a mage can do plenty of damage to a party, but it's unlikely to be a long fight no matter how it goes.
For what its worth, as strange as it may sound, the biggest failure in D&D (4th edition) had some of the most provocative and interesting answers to this problem in terms of how to make tactical combat in a role-playing game interesting with a bit of staying power. Its still along the lines of trying to fix the problem by using the broken tools that created the problem in the first place, but as far as jury rigging the game goes, 4e did some things that we had not see before or since in D&D.
Viewed as a tactical wargame, 4e was well done; it had solid mechanics, well-written rules, and competent balance. Its problem was that it didn't really feel like D&D.
You are unlikely to find another system that does interesting combats meaningfully faster than D&D, most systems have combat that is either very slow or very low detail. Often much slower than D&D. However, if you want to run D&D fights that are both challenging and relatively fast, use glass cannons; for example a mage can do plenty of damage to a party, but it's unlikely to be a long fight no matter how it goes.
There certainly are a lot of systems that can make interesting and fun combat much faster than DnD, but you are right that you then loose some of the details and has to go for a more narrative style of combat. There are certainly also more detailed systems I feel are as "quick" as DnD, but this might be because I know them better, and as I said in the first post: most of these systems have kind of the same issue. They work smoothly on the lower "levels" of the game, but as players get more powerful, especially combat start to bog down.
I think one of my "problems" with DnD ironically is that it is very well put together. Every spell, power, feature etc gives you some kind of advancement in combat. It is quite well balanced as well. However it kind of "forces" a DM to use more "rules" than he necessarily wants. Take speed as an example. I usually (in other games) almost never care about a characters movement in combat. It simply usually isn't relevant, so to speed up the game, you can easily disregard it. Then if an enemy tries to flee, it suddenly is relevant. That's when you start to compare movement, because now this is a chase and not a combat. However in DnD movement is kind of "hardcoded" into every combat because some classes and features actively supports it. I don't know if that's understandable, but I've played a lot of different RPG-systems, and DnD 5E (which I'm quite new to) has some kind of "rigidity" that makes it difficult to freeform as a DM. Every small rule seems to pop back into the game because some player has some power that makes it necessary. It's actually quite fascinating.
4e also touched a bit on the concept of action oriented monsters, which I think is as close to an evolution of 1e you will see in modern D&D as you can get. This is kind of a more complicated subject, but you can listen to Matt C. talk about it, he lays it out really well. This is definitely one thing you can do to keep your players on their toes and it actually functions on the premise and philosophy that Gygax talked about (aka players shouldn't know the rules). It's likely that if Gygax continued to be in charge of D&D after 1e, he would have eventually evolved the game into this direction.
07:25 MC: "We're DM's, we want options, but too many options, we sit there wasting time trying to find the optimal choice. And nobody got time for that. A CR10 guardian naga knows 15 spells! Yeah, that's great if I'm going to run a guardian naga PC for the next 20 hours and 10 encounters. But for one battle I can't be looking up all these spells to figure out exactly what they do so I'm making sure I'm casting the right one in the right moment!"
Oh! This! Couldn't agree more. This goes straight to my initial question. I think my "frustration" comes partly from that when the players reached some level, the only way to challenge them was that critter with far too many options to be actually "runnable" in a smooth combat. Usually I would fudge something, but as BigLizard has pointed out, by giving the PC's full insight into all rules, you then get "caught" by players for "breaking" the rules.
Looking forward to the rest of the video. I'm usually not that a big fan of MC, but here he has some really good points.
I've played and run both roleplay heavy groups and with ones the like combat. I've run combats with dozens of creatures through tier 2 and participated in large combats through tier 3. Sometimes these are against a small number of creatures sometimes augmented with legendary or lair actions and sometimes these are against hordes of weak creatures. Combat feels onerous when there is a long time between player turns, when it moves slowing, when the DM has to look up all sorts of rules during the combat. People want to play, they want to decide what their character does, they want cause and effect and they want it at a reasonable pace.
These are not impossible to achieve. There are two primary causes in my experience. First, players who love to "roleplay" their characters but can't be bothered to learn the mechanics of their characters. "I am a rogue, I act like a rogue, that is all I need to know." How many dice of sneak attack do I have? What about uncanny dodge, cunning action, evasion? Am I proficient with a skill, what does that mean, what do I roll?
If you have players that love a character concept and don't want to know about mechanics (and don't pick it up over time) then D&D may not be the best game system to choose. The challenge with players who don't know what their character can do is that it slows down their turn and as a result everyone else's turn making combat go slower, making it less interesting, more boring. If things are happening in the game then it is neither un-interesting nor boring. It is possible for a turn to go very quickly when players and DM know what they are doing.
e.g,
Slow ... player turn comes around, player searches for their d20, player stares at the map, player decides to move and attack a particular enemy, DM points out that if they move there they will take an opportunity attack from the creature beside them, player thinks some more, player changes their mind and attacks adjacent creature, player rolls their d20, looks to DM and asks if it hits, DM replies, player searches for damage die, player rolls it, player then searches their character sheet for how much to add, player reports damage to DM, player decides to make an off hand (or extra attack), player finds d20 again after last roll, player rolls it - it is higher than last roll, player asks DM if it hits (even though the die roll was higher and it is likely to hit), player searches for damage die, player rolls damage and looks at character sheet to figure how much to add, player reports damage to the DM. Player sits there. DM asks the player if they have anything else they would like to do, player says no. [I have watched this happen more times than I care to count]
Fast ... player's turn comes around, they know they have two attacks, they have decided which target to attack, they say to DM I am attacking a specific creature, (player either attacks adjacent or moves ... DM mentions op attack and player says roll it since they already decided whether it was worth it for them to take the opportunity attack or not). Player has two attacks, no advantage, rolls 2d20 and damage die at the same time (chooses colour coordinated die), Reports both to hit numbers to the DM asking if they hit, adds damage reports to DM, says turn done since they don't have anything else they want to do. Next turn. [This type of turn where the player has already decided what the character will do, know what dice need to be rolled, has them ready and rolls when needed - takes 1/3 the time of the other turn and you are on to the next one. Combat isn't supposed to be that onerous ... the players and DM can make it that way]
A second reason for slow combat can be a lack of DM preparation or knowledge. The DM is running the game. Before running it, they should pull out the creatures, have a good idea how to role play them for the encounter, have a good idea of what they can do - read over the stat block, look at the spell lists, look up spells if the DM isn't familiar with - decide what the creature would likely do if faced with combat. What spells they would go to, would they flee, would they send in minions, would they try to get behind cover? An experienced DM already knows most of this before playing so will have less preparation. A new DM actually needs to read all this stuff before running it or the entire combat will bog down as the DM tries to look up rules in the middle of the encounter leaving everyone sitting around waiting. Combine lack of DM preparation with lack of player preparation and you have a recipe for slow and boring combat encounters.
Finally, combat encounters can be spiced up with roleplaying but that is often on the shoulders of the players. Do they describe their movement as "move 15 feet, attack" or is it "run towards the opponent, dodging, swing my <weapon> across the opponent trying to slash them in half" (die roll determines how effective it is). Alternatively, do folks try to swing from the chandelier and drop on top of the most challenging opponent in the middle of the melee? (Might be a bad idea if you are surrounded, might be a good idea if you are a barbarian and want to attract a lot of attention). The drama and fun of combat are again up to the players and the DM. Slow, boring and uninteresting combat encounters are avoidable.
Anyway, take a look at your particular group, if they display any of these tendencies then try to gently guide them towards making combat go quicker. If a DM needs to do more prep as they are learning the game then the DM needs to invest that time to make the game go more smoothly in the future.
-----------------
One last comment, one of the reasons that the combat systems in D&D are so developed/structured compared to everything else is because D&D has its roots in table top medieval/fantasy miniatures wargaming. Games like Chain Mail from the 1970s. were direct predecessors of the original D&D. 5e has moved away from the "simulationist" roots but captured a lot of the feel of D&D from 1e to 3.5e. However, the streamlined rule set (compared to earlier editions), the concept of bounded accuracy, significant work on class balance, creates a role playing game that is more popular and accessible than ever. People can play the game however they like, focus on roleplaying or on any of the pillars the game is based on social/exploration/combat. The rules for combat are the most developed due to the roots of the game and because the other areas can easily be adjudicated by the DM - rules for exploration and social interactions beyond the skill system given really aren't needed since the DM is given enough tools to resolve most encounters.
Anyway, it is possible to have combats that are streamlined, fun, challenging, and involve lots of roleplaying but it does take an investment on the part of both players and DM to achieve it.
Hi hive mind!
I’ve run into the same problem in both my DnD-campaigns. It occurred sometimes after level 5 and was definitely there at level 7. The problem is that combat gets quite boring. The increase in powers and possibilities for the players, means that it starts to get really difficult to create interesting combats that doesn’t take ages.
I’m quite new to DnD, but have been playing RPG for ages. I know this is an issue in a lot of systems. When the players start to get hold of a lot of powers, things will take time. Part of the problem is that while each player “only” has to know his/her powers, the GM is supposed to know all the powers for all his adversaries. That is an almost impossible task, and you basically have just two options: 1. Spend a lot of time checking rules during combat or 2. freeform something.
I usually go for the second option in other games, but in DnD this isn’t as easy. The system is so rigid that it’s difficult to freeform, and you soon end up with combats that either A: takes for ages or B: is very easy.
So I guess my question is: Have I just “hit the roof” in DnD where I should round up the campaign and start a new one, and the next time simply plan for a level 1-7 campaign, or do someone have any ideas for how to make combats interesting without taking ages and without me having to learn a ton of rules and powers by heart.
Final note: I’ve understood from this forum that we play RPG very differently. Me and my players are deeply rooted on the roleplaying side. Combat is not very important, and the campaign is very storydriven.
Ludo ergo sum!
I'm a little confused.
If combat is not that important (and I do not think you are "different" because of this -- many groups focus more on RP, mine being one), then why would you care that much how long it takes when it occasionally occurs? I could see if you are running a combat heavy campaign, worrying about the mechanics of combat... but if it only happens rarely, it shouldn't matter to you all that much that it takes a long time to resolve, and you certainly shouldn't be considering ditching a whole campaign with developed story and RP just because of the combat mechanics.
There are a variety of methods that work to speed up combat. You can try videos on YouTube by the Dungeon Dudes or try Matt Colville's "Running the Game" series. Do a YouTube search and you will find them. Examples are things like, setting a 1 minute timer on each player. Maybe also have them pre-declare "default" actions for their characters so if they can't make up their time and the timer runs out, they just do the default. Another method someone mentioned, but I don't recall the specifics because I don't use it (so I didn't bother to take notes on it) was a mechanism whereby everyone declares what they are doing at the top of the round, and then you just resolve it in order, only giving someone time to adjust if the declared action becomes invalid (for instance, Player B says he was going to shoot an orc who by the time his turn comes, is already dead). You'll have to do some searching in Google to figure out this mechanism because I don't remember who said it (might've been Colville or the Dungeon Dudes, but I've watched others so it might not be them).
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Spice up the combats by putting some role play elements into them. Hostage rescues. Enemy NPCs willing to switch sides, or coerced into action that can defect, etc etc etc.
aside from that, welcome to why I don’t like playing with power gamers who only check in for combats. Combat is essential, but combat is also usually, usually, the least exciting parts of a campaign.
i can say with good conscience that my favorite moments of campaigns do not include a combat situation in them. Although I recall one epic thing a buddies’ char died doing, was running through a sewers, single handedly jail breaking 11 prisoners, while being chased by the slavers, and ran out of rages 1 rage too soon for an epic escape and was overtaken at the escape ladder by 3 of them while 10/11 of the prisoners successfully escaped.
*technically* that’s combat.... but that felt more like an escape mixed with a chase mixed with some skill checks that just didn’t work as hoped.
Watch me on twitch
I've found that D&D Beyond's Encounter Builder is invaluable for solving the problem of not knowing what all of the monsters can do. Using it solves that problem very nicely. Before they rolled it out I wasted a lot of paper by printing out the stat blocks on each monster that I planned on using ahead of time so I still only had to look through a couple of pieces of paper instead of looking through an entire book.
I have a couple of comments and/or suggestions.
First, sometimes combat encounters are meant to be easy, especially at higher levels. It's unrealistic that the town guard will be a serious threat to a party of 5th level PC's except in huge cities like Waterdeep for example. There are times when I design encounters that can turn into combat that are incredibly lopsided that only take 1-2 rounds for the PC's to win. That's fine, it's part of the role playing aspect of the game and it gives the players that sense of, "Wow! We really are powerful." that they don't get in balanced and challenging combat encounters.
Second, I use a variety of techniques to challenge my players at higher levels. I'm starting to play smart opponents as if they're smart right now. For example, the pair of evil wizards that they recently faced who attacked them and then escaped, avoided getting into melee and when they were close to being trapped in melee they used teleportation magic and illusion magic to move out of melee, hide, and attack with advantage. I also use lots of minions. Sure, each minion get's killed in one round, but there are a lot of them so it takes the PC's time to get through them. Plus a cleric with Mass Healing Word can bring a few minions who are at 0 HP back to life to hinder the PC's again while the big gun monsters are attacking them with impunity. Of course those tactics only work when the opponents have high intelligence scores, when they're facing opponents with low intelligence scores I play them stupid which is not much of a challenge for my players.
Professional computer geek
Haha. I didn't try to say I'm different, but I've noticed here on the board that some people play DnD/roleplaying games very differently from how I play. Some seems to almost play it like a tactical board game. I just tried to say that I'm quite far from that camp. That being said, I've certainly noticed that quite a few here also plays in what I suppose is quite similar to me.
But to answer your question. Combat is "important" in that it is a way to solve situations. One of the reasons to choose DnD before a lot of other systems is the combat system. What players get better at when they go up a level is basically combat. Of course they sometimes want to try out that new spell or power or what ever. It's not that I dislike that, it all worked fine on the lower levels, but somewhere in tier 2 combat just stopped being very interesting because it started to either take very long time or being far too easy. When my players decides they want to have a fight, I want to make it a challenging and interesting fight they might win or might loose. But I don't want that fight to take like 2 hours to solve.
Ludo ergo sum!
Thanks. I'm using Improved initiative and Kobold Fight Club which does more or less the same as the encounter builder here. It has some features the encounter builder is still missing, but I agree 100% that that is a life saver.
I also thinks it's completely fine that some fights are easy. That's just part of growing into a hero, my "problem" is the fights that are not supposed to be easy.
I think your last paragraph has some sound advice, but my "problem" is that this soon turns very time consuming unless I have 100% control of all the powers of each single NPC.
Ludo ergo sum!
Terrain can make an otherwise easy fight more interesting. Put a couple archers behind a think wall with narrow slots and see how the party manages to get up to them. Large chasms with thin bridges to the other side. My DM loves to hit us with rooms that have lair actions. A pillar that will pulse and do a d6 damage to everyone at the top of every round. It’s not much damage, but it’s persistent and inescapable, so it adds another tactical layer of do we try to smash the thing that’s doing a little damage but will hit or go for the enemies who do a lot of damage, but might miss.
Also, and I’m not trying to say you are playing wrong, it’s more of a flaw in the system when it comes to low combat campaigns, the game assumes multiple combats between long rests. If you only have one fight in a day, the PCs will have all their resources (spell slots, hp, etc.) and they’ll know they don’t have to save anything for another fight later in the day. It lets them start every fight by blowing their highest level spells, and all their limited use abilities, since they know they won’t be fighting something even tougher later that day.
So maybe look for ways to get them to spend those resources in non-combat encounters before they fight. If the wizard is casting charm person and the cleric is casting zone of truth, that’s fewer magic missles and cure wounds they have once the fight starts. If the paladin is finding his steed, that’s less smiting. If the Druid needs to wildshape to scout ahead a couple times then she can’t in combat. Or surprise them with a second or third fight. You may only need to do it once or twice to put the idea in their heads that it could happen, and they need to save some resources for it.
The most common stopping point in campaigns is somewhere around 11th level. Stopping at 7th level is perfectly fine. After a few 1-7 campaigns, you and your players may want to push farther, but if you're most comfortable it that range right now there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
You are 100% correct that the long/short rest is part of the problem. In my campaign they might only encounter a fight once in a week, so they are usually always fully "beefed" up on spell slots and the like. I've already thought about changing to a much more restricted long/short rest system because of this, and you just made me think again that I might should do that. I will not be the most popular DM the session I introduce that, but it could actually really benefit the game. If I don't do it in this campaign, I will certainly consider that in the next one. Thanks :-)
Ludo ergo sum!
The variant rule in the DMG for gritty realism would work for you. 1 long rest/week, 1 short rest/day.
Yes, I'm going to change to something like that. Not sure if I do it in this campaign, but next time I start up, I'll do it for sure. I've also learned that next time I'll probably keep the players longer on tier 1 and be more ready for the finale when they reach level 6/7 :-)
Ludo ergo sum!
Some players will get annoyed by this. If so, non-xp rewards can help.
Thanks for the warning, but I think we'll be OK. We've played together for a long time, and actually my players also have noted this as a problem :-) But that's why I'm hesitating to do this switch in long/short rests in the middle of the campaign. This is one of the "limitations" I am quite confident in will make play better for everyone in our group in the long run, but I know will feel limiting when I implement it. We are however closing in on the ending, so I don't think I will mind in the current campaign, but I will certainly do some changes next time I run DnD.
Ludo ergo sum!
You could always say you want to try it for 2-3 sessions as a sort of pilot program, to see how it works for your group. Then tweak it as necessary for the next campaign.
BigLizard Thank you for your long and thorough answer. From what you write, I can only say we probably are on the same page here :-) Perhaps slightly depressing if there is no really good answer to my initial question, but there's a lot of other RPG's I also can play. Part of what I wanted to know was the limitations of DnD (compared to other RPG's), and you really spelled that out.
The quote from Gygax is actually very interesting, and points directly to at least part of my "problem". The "openness" of the rules of 5e actually makes it difficult for me as a DM to create engaging situations. What I'm kind of "asking" for in the OP is what leeway I have with NPC's. In DnD that feels very limited by "this spell works like this" etc. Thanks for sharing that quote. That made me think :-)
No hard feelings for telling me I'm playing the wrong game. I'm might be doing that. I've played tons of RPG systems, but not much DnD. I like a lot about 5e, and think it works quite well on the lower levels, but I've hit this "wall" in both campaigns I've been running, so just wanted to see if there is some workarounds or not. I must admit that the advice so far will incline me to either stay on low levels or switch to another system.
Ludo ergo sum!
You are unlikely to find another system that does interesting combats meaningfully faster than D&D, most systems have combat that is either very slow or very low detail. Often much slower than D&D. However, if you want to run D&D fights that are both challenging and relatively fast, use glass cannons; for example a mage can do plenty of damage to a party, but it's unlikely to be a long fight no matter how it goes.
Viewed as a tactical wargame, 4e was well done; it had solid mechanics, well-written rules, and competent balance. Its problem was that it didn't really feel like D&D.
There certainly are a lot of systems that can make interesting and fun combat much faster than DnD, but you are right that you then loose some of the details and has to go for a more narrative style of combat. There are certainly also more detailed systems I feel are as "quick" as DnD, but this might be because I know them better, and as I said in the first post: most of these systems have kind of the same issue. They work smoothly on the lower "levels" of the game, but as players get more powerful, especially combat start to bog down.
I think one of my "problems" with DnD ironically is that it is very well put together. Every spell, power, feature etc gives you some kind of advancement in combat. It is quite well balanced as well. However it kind of "forces" a DM to use more "rules" than he necessarily wants. Take speed as an example. I usually (in other games) almost never care about a characters movement in combat. It simply usually isn't relevant, so to speed up the game, you can easily disregard it. Then if an enemy tries to flee, it suddenly is relevant. That's when you start to compare movement, because now this is a chase and not a combat. However in DnD movement is kind of "hardcoded" into every combat because some classes and features actively supports it. I don't know if that's understandable, but I've played a lot of different RPG-systems, and DnD 5E (which I'm quite new to) has some kind of "rigidity" that makes it difficult to freeform as a DM. Every small rule seems to pop back into the game because some player has some power that makes it necessary. It's actually quite fascinating.
Ludo ergo sum!
07:25 MC: "We're DM's, we want options, but too many options, we sit there wasting time trying to find the optimal choice. And nobody got time for that. A CR10 guardian naga knows 15 spells! Yeah, that's great if I'm going to run a guardian naga PC for the next 20 hours and 10 encounters. But for one battle I can't be looking up all these spells to figure out exactly what they do so I'm making sure I'm casting the right one in the right moment!"
Oh! This! Couldn't agree more. This goes straight to my initial question. I think my "frustration" comes partly from that when the players reached some level, the only way to challenge them was that critter with far too many options to be actually "runnable" in a smooth combat. Usually I would fudge something, but as BigLizard has pointed out, by giving the PC's full insight into all rules, you then get "caught" by players for "breaking" the rules.
Looking forward to the rest of the video. I'm usually not that a big fan of MC, but here he has some really good points.
Ludo ergo sum!
Hi!
I guess I can take devils advocate on this one.
I've played and run both roleplay heavy groups and with ones the like combat. I've run combats with dozens of creatures through tier 2 and participated in large combats through tier 3. Sometimes these are against a small number of creatures sometimes augmented with legendary or lair actions and sometimes these are against hordes of weak creatures. Combat feels onerous when there is a long time between player turns, when it moves slowing, when the DM has to look up all sorts of rules during the combat. People want to play, they want to decide what their character does, they want cause and effect and they want it at a reasonable pace.
These are not impossible to achieve. There are two primary causes in my experience. First, players who love to "roleplay" their characters but can't be bothered to learn the mechanics of their characters. "I am a rogue, I act like a rogue, that is all I need to know." How many dice of sneak attack do I have? What about uncanny dodge, cunning action, evasion? Am I proficient with a skill, what does that mean, what do I roll?
If you have players that love a character concept and don't want to know about mechanics (and don't pick it up over time) then D&D may not be the best game system to choose. The challenge with players who don't know what their character can do is that it slows down their turn and as a result everyone else's turn making combat go slower, making it less interesting, more boring. If things are happening in the game then it is neither un-interesting nor boring. It is possible for a turn to go very quickly when players and DM know what they are doing.
e.g,
Slow ... player turn comes around, player searches for their d20, player stares at the map, player decides to move and attack a particular enemy, DM points out that if they move there they will take an opportunity attack from the creature beside them, player thinks some more, player changes their mind and attacks adjacent creature, player rolls their d20, looks to DM and asks if it hits, DM replies, player searches for damage die, player rolls it, player then searches their character sheet for how much to add, player reports damage to DM, player decides to make an off hand (or extra attack), player finds d20 again after last roll, player rolls it - it is higher than last roll, player asks DM if it hits (even though the die roll was higher and it is likely to hit), player searches for damage die, player rolls damage and looks at character sheet to figure how much to add, player reports damage to the DM. Player sits there. DM asks the player if they have anything else they would like to do, player says no. [I have watched this happen more times than I care to count]
Fast ... player's turn comes around, they know they have two attacks, they have decided which target to attack, they say to DM I am attacking a specific creature, (player either attacks adjacent or moves ... DM mentions op attack and player says roll it since they already decided whether it was worth it for them to take the opportunity attack or not). Player has two attacks, no advantage, rolls 2d20 and damage die at the same time (chooses colour coordinated die), Reports both to hit numbers to the DM asking if they hit, adds damage reports to DM, says turn done since they don't have anything else they want to do. Next turn. [This type of turn where the player has already decided what the character will do, know what dice need to be rolled, has them ready and rolls when needed - takes 1/3 the time of the other turn and you are on to the next one. Combat isn't supposed to be that onerous ... the players and DM can make it that way]
A second reason for slow combat can be a lack of DM preparation or knowledge. The DM is running the game. Before running it, they should pull out the creatures, have a good idea how to role play them for the encounter, have a good idea of what they can do - read over the stat block, look at the spell lists, look up spells if the DM isn't familiar with - decide what the creature would likely do if faced with combat. What spells they would go to, would they flee, would they send in minions, would they try to get behind cover? An experienced DM already knows most of this before playing so will have less preparation. A new DM actually needs to read all this stuff before running it or the entire combat will bog down as the DM tries to look up rules in the middle of the encounter leaving everyone sitting around waiting. Combine lack of DM preparation with lack of player preparation and you have a recipe for slow and boring combat encounters.
Finally, combat encounters can be spiced up with roleplaying but that is often on the shoulders of the players. Do they describe their movement as "move 15 feet, attack" or is it "run towards the opponent, dodging, swing my <weapon> across the opponent trying to slash them in half" (die roll determines how effective it is). Alternatively, do folks try to swing from the chandelier and drop on top of the most challenging opponent in the middle of the melee? (Might be a bad idea if you are surrounded, might be a good idea if you are a barbarian and want to attract a lot of attention). The drama and fun of combat are again up to the players and the DM. Slow, boring and uninteresting combat encounters are avoidable.
Anyway, take a look at your particular group, if they display any of these tendencies then try to gently guide them towards making combat go quicker. If a DM needs to do more prep as they are learning the game then the DM needs to invest that time to make the game go more smoothly in the future.
-----------------
One last comment, one of the reasons that the combat systems in D&D are so developed/structured compared to everything else is because D&D has its roots in table top medieval/fantasy miniatures wargaming. Games like Chain Mail from the 1970s. were direct predecessors of the original D&D. 5e has moved away from the "simulationist" roots but captured a lot of the feel of D&D from 1e to 3.5e. However, the streamlined rule set (compared to earlier editions), the concept of bounded accuracy, significant work on class balance, creates a role playing game that is more popular and accessible than ever. People can play the game however they like, focus on roleplaying or on any of the pillars the game is based on social/exploration/combat. The rules for combat are the most developed due to the roots of the game and because the other areas can easily be adjudicated by the DM - rules for exploration and social interactions beyond the skill system given really aren't needed since the DM is given enough tools to resolve most encounters.
https://dnd.wizards.com/dungeons-and-dragons/what-dd/history/history-forty-years-adventure
https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/not-so-secret-origin-dd
-----------------------------
Anyway, it is possible to have combats that are streamlined, fun, challenging, and involve lots of roleplaying but it does take an investment on the part of both players and DM to achieve it.