Well, I think that it's not the idea, but the fine details, that are the problem. I like the concept that creatures will anticipate what is going to happen next if a character does the same thing round after round. However, this idea (1) discourages builds that are based on repetition, and (2) slows the game to a halt. Here's my new version of this concept (which, by the way, I WILL actually try and implement in my own games). You can use mine - or meet it halfway.
I know your tricks! Intelligent PCs and monsters will notice when an attacker repeatedly does the same thing to injure them. If a creature makes an attack against another creature identical to an attack it made against that creature last round, both creatures make a special ability check contest which adds both their DEX and INT modifiers. If the attacker loses, they have Disadvantage on their attack roll(s) against that target. Targets with a DEX and INT modifier total that is 5 or more greater than the attacker's can make the check with Disadvantage if the attack was made last round against a creature they can see. The attacker has Advantage on their ability check if they have moved 15ftor more since last making the attack (if it is a ranged attack), or to the other side of the target (if it is a melee attack). Similarly, the contest is made with the same rules if a creature uses an effect that calls for a STR or DEX save to take partial or no damage two rounds in a row. If the target wins, they gain Advantage on their saving throw.
By the way, a note on mobs: in the case of identical monsters making identical attacks (such as 20 orcs making greataxe attacks repeatedly), only call for the PC to make a contest once. The result affects the attacks of all the monsters in the mob.
This version of the rule encourages creative thinking and dynamic fighting, doesn't hurt warlocks or fighters too badly, and can affect monsters as well as PCs. If you're a warlock, you can move to keep eldritch-blasting (or be an intelligent, dexterous warlock. It's your choice). I hope that this post was helpful and built well on what everyone else passed off as a bad idea.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Panda-wat (I hate my username) is somehow convinced that he is objectively right about everything D&D related even though he obviously is not. Considering that, he'd probably make a great D&D youtuber.
"If I die, I can live with that." ~Luke Hart, the DM lair
Well, I think that it's not the idea, but the fine details, that are the problem. I like the concept that creatures will anticipate what is going to happen next if a character does the same thing round after round. However, this idea (1) discourages builds that are based on repetition, and (2) slows the game to a halt. Here's my new version of this concept (which, by the way, I WILL actually try and implement in my own games). You can use mine - or meet it halfway.
I know your tricks! Intelligent PCs and monsters will notice when an attacker repeatedly does the same thing to injure them. If a creature makes an attack against another creature identical to an attack it made against that creature last round, both creatures make a special ability check contest which adds both their DEX and INT modifiers. If the attacker loses, they have Disadvantage on their attack roll(s) against that target. Targets with a DEX and INT modifier total that is 5 or more greater than the attacker's can make the check with Disadvantage if the attack was made last round against a creature they can see. The attacker has Advantage on their ability check if they have moved 15ftor more since last making the attack (if it is a ranged attack), or to the other side of the target (if it is a melee attack). Similarly, the contest is made with the same rules if a creature uses an effect that calls for a STR or DEX save to take partial or no damage two rounds in a row. If the target wins, they gain Advantage on their saving throw.
By the way, a note on mobs: in the case of identical monsters making identical attacks (such as 20 orcs making greataxe attacks repeatedly), only call for the PC to make a contest once. The result affects the attacks of all the monsters in the mob.
This version of the rule encourages creative thinking and dynamic fighting, doesn't hurt warlocks or fighters too badly, and can affect monsters as well as PCs. If you're a warlock, you can move to keep eldritch-blasting (or be an intelligent, dexterous warlock. It's your choice). I hope that this post was helpful and built well on what everyone else passed off as a bad idea.
Intriguing. I might try this out as a dry-run (just a single encounter). One downside I would expect is that there will be a lot more rolls for the contests, which could slow down the game. One part of my (admittedly not perfect) idea was to avoid doing extra rolls or more dice. But definitely worth trying out.
I like your idea of "contests" for combat, as I think it's a more accurate reflection of the real world.
I was once toying with a similar concept to make every attack a contested roll - based on a limited pool of attack/defense dice per round (which scales with level). So this would more naturally allow you to chose between many multi-attacks, or fewer/single concentrated strikes - even at a lower level. So if you slash out at some weak zombies, you'd use one dice for each attack/contest; but for a dragon you would use all at the same time). Similarly for defence you would get a pool of dice or points, so that 1 attack against you is easy to defend but if you want to parry 10 at the same time your chances get much worse. I thought this would add a more realistic dimension to combat and add more balance to allow lower-level monsters to still pose a threat to PCs, or lots of PCs to more easily overpower a single opponent. However, that would be a massive change to the rules as it would essentially replace proficiency/hit/ability modifiers as well as AC. So it would really be like a whole new RPG system and would need every monster/adventure/etc to be carefully redesigned and rebalanced.
To be more constructive then my previous comments, one thing you can do is to design a more dynamic battle space, and then tell your players in specific game terms how they might interact with the space. For example, point to a 10’ tall statue, and explain that if someone were to knock that over, it will do x damage, save for half, to the 2 adjacent squares, and the rubble will create difficult terrain. In this scenario, x= about as much damage as they’d do with a normal weapon/cantrip attack, usually a couple d8’s. And make sure they know the enemies can do this, too.
Now you’ve given them an option that’s about as good as a normal attack, and they make a tactical decision about if they want to risk standing next to it, and another layer of tactical decision about creating terrain, which could be good or bad.
But you have to tell them, very explicitly. If there’s a chance that the statue will only do a d4 damage, most people won’t take the risk. They need to know it’s worth it.
That also is a good idea I think. In Solastra, which is probably as faithful a computer 5E implementation as I have come across, they do exactly this and the system highlights interactive items. So it often pays to shoot at the chandelier/statue/barrel instead of directly at the monster standing below it. But it does require specifically designed environments, really good battle maps, etc. So this works great in Solastra's PC-game version, but would be a bit more challenging for the average party playing around their sofa table.
Not a fan of this houserule, while i understand the reasoning behind it, i don't see a problem with repetitive actions aside from being boring to some people, it's otherwise the bread and butter of some build and messing up with these would force players to either limit what they want to do and do something else or be penalised for doing so. It's taking away options and punishing player's choice. This would make D&D worse so a big NO for me.
To me, this is actually a wonderful side-effect. There are far too many articles and forum-posts about optimising some specific build, and lots of PCs seem to be built around a single action (like the invocation-optimised Eldritch Blast). Even the term "build" annoys me, as it implies optimised targets rather than just chosing options that are fun and fit the character. To me, this is the equivalent of buying a computer game and immediately looking up the walkthroughs and cheat codes instead of just playing it for the fun of it as intended - yes, lots of people enjoy doing it, but it's not my preference. So if this rule would force people to stop optimising builds, encouraged multi-classing or other creative characters, then this would all be a bonus from my perspective.
Not a fan of this houserule, while i understand the reasoning behind it, i don't see a problem with repetitive actions aside from being boring to some people, it's otherwise the bread and butter of some build and messing up with these would force players to either limit what they want to do and do something else or be penalised for doing so. It's taking away options and punishing player's choice. This would make D&D worse so a big NO for me.
To me, this is actually a wonderful side-effect. There are far too many articles and forum-posts about optimising some specific build, and lots of PCs seem to be built around a single action (like the invocation-optimised Eldritch Blast). Even the term "build" annoys me, as it implies optimised targets rather than just chosing options that are fun and fit the character. To me, this is the equivalent of buying a computer game and immediately looking up the walkthroughs and cheat codes instead of just playing it for the fun of it as intended - yes, lots of people enjoy doing it, but it's not my preference. So if this rule would force people to stop optimising builds, encouraged multi-classing or other creative characters, then this would all be a bonus from my perspective.
The issue is, that’s what’s fun for some people. Apparently, it’s not fun for you, and that’s cool, people like what they like and don’t have to apologize for or explain it. Just, before you implement a big change, make sure your players on on board; in an effort to make things more fun for you, you might make it less fun for them. Also, this doesn’t seem like a mid-campaign thing (I’m unclear on the timing from the OP) make sure they know about this rule before they generate their characters, so they can make things that work under this system.
Well, I think that it's not the idea, but the fine details, that are the problem. I like the concept that creatures will anticipate what is going to happen next if a character does the same thing round after round. However, this idea (1) discourages builds that are based on repetition, and (2) slows the game to a halt. Here's my new version of this concept (which, by the way, I WILL actually try and implement in my own games). You can use mine - or meet it halfway.
I know your tricks! Intelligent PCs and monsters will notice when an attacker repeatedly does the same thing to injure them. If a creature makes an attack against another creature identical to an attack it made against that creature last round, both creatures make a special ability check contest which adds both their DEX and INT modifiers. If the attacker loses, they have Disadvantage on their attack roll(s) against that target. Targets with a DEX and INT modifier total that is 5 or more greater than the attacker's can make the check with Disadvantage if the attack was made last round against a creature they can see. The attacker has Advantage on their ability check if they have moved 15ftor more since last making the attack (if it is a ranged attack), or to the other side of the target (if it is a melee attack). Similarly, the contest is made with the same rules if a creature uses an effect that calls for a STR or DEX save to take partial or no damage two rounds in a row. If the target wins, they gain Advantage on their saving throw.
By the way, a note on mobs: in the case of identical monsters making identical attacks (such as 20 orcs making greataxe attacks repeatedly), only call for the PC to make a contest once. The result affects the attacks of all the monsters in the mob.
This version of the rule encourages creative thinking and dynamic fighting, doesn't hurt warlocks or fighters too badly, and can affect monsters as well as PCs. If you're a warlock, you can move to keep eldritch-blasting (or be an intelligent, dexterous warlock. It's your choice). I hope that this post was helpful and built well on what everyone else passed off as a bad idea.
Intriguing. I might try this out as a dry-run (just a single encounter). One downside I would expect is that there will be a lot more rolls for the contests, which could slow down the game. One part of my (admittedly not perfect) idea was to avoid doing extra rolls or more dice. But definitely worth trying out.
I like your idea of "contests" for combat, as I think it's a more accurate reflection of the real world.
I was once toying with a similar concept to make every attack a contested roll - based on a limited pool of attack/defense dice per round (which scales with level). So this would more naturally allow you to chose between many multi-attacks, or fewer/single concentrated strikes - even at a lower level. So if you slash out at some weak zombies, you'd use one dice for each attack/contest; but for a dragon you would use all at the same time). Similarly for defence you would get a pool of dice or points, so that 1 attack against you is easy to defend but if you want to parry 10 at the same time your chances get much worse. I thought this would add a more realistic dimension to combat and add more balance to allow lower-level monsters to still pose a threat to PCs, or lots of PCs to more easily overpower a single opponent. However, that would be a massive change to the rules as it would essentially replace proficiency/hit/ability modifiers as well as AC. So it would really be like a whole new RPG system and would need every monster/adventure/etc to be carefully redesigned and rebalanced.
It would only actually call for a few extra rolls. The fighter would only make one roll to determine whether they could attack without Disadvantage, or could alternate between targets to avoid triggering this at all. Similarly, the monsters wouldn't each rolls separately if their attacks, like I said, were identical. Finally, not every character would end up rolling at all - wizards, for example, can cast multiple different spells.
I haven't actually tried it, but will the next time I play.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Panda-wat (I hate my username) is somehow convinced that he is objectively right about everything D&D related even though he obviously is not. Considering that, he'd probably make a great D&D youtuber.
"If I die, I can live with that." ~Luke Hart, the DM lair
Not a fan of this houserule, while i understand the reasoning behind it, i don't see a problem with repetitive actions aside from being boring to some people, it's otherwise the bread and butter of some build and messing up with these would force players to either limit what they want to do and do something else or be penalised for doing so. It's taking away options and punishing player's choice. This would make D&D worse so a big NO for me.
To me, this is actually a wonderful side-effect. There are far too many articles and forum-posts about optimising some specific build, and lots of PCs seem to be built around a single action (like the invocation-optimised Eldritch Blast). Even the term "build" annoys me, as it implies optimised targets rather than just chosing options that are fun and fit the character. To me, this is the equivalent of buying a computer game and immediately looking up the walkthroughs and cheat codes instead of just playing it for the fun of it as intended - yes, lots of people enjoy doing it, but it's not my preference. So if this rule would force people to stop optimising builds, encouraged multi-classing or other creative characters, then this would all be a bonus from my perspective.
But EB spam isn't just an optimization thing, it's built into the class design of the warlock. They get fewer spell slots than other primary casters, so they've been given a slightly better cantrip to fill those actions where other full casters would be casting leveled spells.
Also, the repetitive nature of warlocks and fighters is entirely intentional. Some players face severe decision paralysis, and builds that have a strong default were designed with those types of players in mind. This is why Battlemaster is a subclass that you opt into rather than a class feature.
There's a lot of subtle but very effective design baked into 5e. I think your idea has further-reaching negative implications than you may realize. I'm going to say it again - incentivizing creativity by offering positive alternatives is far and away better than trying to force creativity by penalizing certain actions.
I have at least one player who would absolutely break down if they were told their fighter will receive a penalty for taking the Attack action. It will feel like a punishment, because it is a punishment. This will not spark creativity, it will encourage players to find the path of least effort to get around the restrictions and then spam that instead. Alternatively, dangling new situational options in front of them makes them feel awesome. My players eat that up every time, and half the time they feel like it was their idea all along.
I system I've seen used in other game systems is a card deck that produces a 'favored' action every turn. You're not required to do it, but there are significant bonuses for doing so.
There is already a penalty for using the same action all the time. It is boring for the person doing so, too. That is the penalty. For some, that is a bonus since they would rather think on other things rather than micromanaging combats.
As others have said, if you want variety, set up situations where variety is rewarded. Actually have interesting terrain, partial cover, staggered combatants (so the fighting is at multiple ranges), situations where lighting the torches on the walls, or extinguishing the torches on the walls or otherwise doing something to change the environment affects the combat.
True. I guess it can be left up to players at some tables.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Panda-wat (I hate my username) is somehow convinced that he is objectively right about everything D&D related even though he obviously is not. Considering that, he'd probably make a great D&D youtuber.
"If I die, I can live with that." ~Luke Hart, the DM lair
Really horrible idea. I would leave a campaign if this was implemented after session zero.
unless….
You created additional features, actions, “legendary actions” etc that are completely new to each class and builds on their already established features.
Dint want your warlock to spam eldritch blast? Well how about give them an alternate where the can cast “EB” but this turn it is a single target mega blast or a AOE EB “fireball”.
Then if all agreed on these changes it might not be a horrible horrible horrible idea, just a bad one.
Not a fan of this houserule, while i understand the reasoning behind it, i don't see a problem with repetitive actions aside from being boring to some people, it's otherwise the bread and butter of some build and messing up with these would force players to either limit what they want to do and do something else or be penalised for doing so. It's taking away options and punishing player's choice. This would make D&D worse so a big NO for me.
To me, this is actually a wonderful side-effect. There are far too many articles and forum-posts about optimising some specific build, and lots of PCs seem to be built around a single action (like the invocation-optimised Eldritch Blast). Even the term "build" annoys me, as it implies optimised targets rather than just chosing options that are fun and fit the character. To me, this is the equivalent of buying a computer game and immediately looking up the walkthroughs and cheat codes instead of just playing it for the fun of it as intended - yes, lots of people enjoy doing it, but it's not my preference. So if this rule would force people to stop optimising builds, encouraged multi-classing or other creative characters, then this would all be a bonus from my perspective.
Ok, so don’t make optimized characters under the default 5E rules, optimize your build based on your house rule. Got it!
I honestly think if anyone or anyone's group doesn't like repetitive combat, more work has to be put into setting up combat, more than likely with lots of "environment triggers" that they can set off to cause effects in battle...
The problem is 5e isn't entirely set up, with regards to the basics, "for non-repetitive combat", especially if you are playing at the lower levels (which is where most play happens anyways). It's because the game only has so many options at level 1, etc. Also, and were just going to take warlocks as an example again, some classes play the way they do because of not optimization but availability. From 4th to 10th level (and a good portion of games don't go higher than that) Warlocks get 3 cantrips (as was previously stated), even if you gave them access to one you're still limiting what cantrips they should take (which can make how they play out of combat vastly different) due to having less cantrip slots and needing to think of battle. Also, let's say you're facing something that is vulnerable to whatever cantrip they just used any person (and I'm talking in character at this point, not mechanically) would want to use what just hit that monster/creature again... and yet this system is designed to discourage such things (even though it's not why the system was designed but is a side effect of the systems design).
Not a fan of this houserule, while i understand the reasoning behind it, i don't see a problem with repetitive actions aside from being boring to some people, it's otherwise the bread and butter of some build and messing up with these would force players to either limit what they want to do and do something else or be penalised for doing so. It's taking away options and punishing player's choice. This would make D&D worse so a big NO for me.
To me, this is actually a wonderful side-effect. There are far too many articles and forum-posts about optimising some specific build, and lots of PCs seem to be built around a single action (like the invocation-optimised Eldritch Blast). Even the term "build" annoys me, as it implies optimised targets rather than just chosing options that are fun and fit the character. To me, this is the equivalent of buying a computer game and immediately looking up the walkthroughs and cheat codes instead of just playing it for the fun of it as intended - yes, lots of people enjoy doing it, but it's not my preference. So if this rule would force people to stop optimising builds, encouraged multi-classing or other creative characters, then this would all be a bonus from my perspective.
So basically you don't want your players to play anything except full casters. Since fighters, rogues, monks, barbarians, rangers, and paladins will get penalized for "optimizing" the attack action and warlocks will default to weapon or eldritch blast almost immediately.
Like I said, don't penalize every non-full casting class for only having 1 good option. Instead encourage diversity with buffs.
Would maybe designing combat scenarios that you can implement things like skill challenges help keep things fresh instead of nerfing classes? Mix it up with regular combats.
My next session is already going to lead into a battle (unless some really amazing dice rolls happen, but even than it's going to have to be a series due to what their current foe is) and one of the members has recently gotten hold of Stonky's ring. Based off that I actually turned this next encounter (and possibly future ones if he goes that) into a more dynamic landscape than I set up, so that if he wants to waste his action using things as improvised weapons more power to him. I'm not doing this because the way any of the character's are fighting is repetitive but more to the fact I'm trying to give the guy interesting options if he would like to go that route.
Sometimes that's all it needs to be, especially due to how this system is "set up" there are lots of routes that most characters are going to do every round, not even just because it's optimized but because its really something that makes sense to do. Sometimes folks need help being creative and if that's what anyone is looking for it can just require a bit more effort to set up and perhaps even offer hints somehow if you think that could be done in a decent way without doing it for the players themselves.
I'm in the "No" camp. This doesn't seem like a fun addition to the game, to be completely honest.
I think the issue with the combats devolving into repeat-action-fests is a lack of dynamics in the fight. a bunch of people meet in a field and hit each other until one side dies, it's always going to be dull.
Instead, give the monsters motives - they want to steal the shiny thing and escape, or stab someone with a dagger to curse them for a deity, or they want to steal the parties food, or eat their horse, or any number of things. Set the fight on a moving carriage such that they have 3 turns to stop the horses before it kareens off the cliff. Have the monsters evacuating a sinking dungeon as the party tries to reach the treasure chamber.
The only reason combats devolve into the same thing every round is because they don't give the PCs something else to do - your best bet is to take your combats and traps, and combine them - fight off a pack of dire wolves who are also fleeing from the rolling boulder. Try to open a door to escape the powerful (but too large for the door) iron golem. Try to get the two different monsters to fight each other so you can get away.
I'd lean more towards creating situations within the encounters which make it advantageous do something else.
Someone mentioned environmental features people can take advantage of, which is a perfect example of this. Put the battle on a cliff side, next to a dam, in a room with explosive barrels, in a shipyard with cranes holding heavy objects, etc.
Try to design encounters where there are win conditions other than, "hit them until they die," and a lot of this concern goes away. Surrender, hostage rescue, escape, preventing escape, getting the magic item, stopping the ritual, etc. all encourage actions that aren't eldritch blast.
Another option is smarter enemies. If an enemy is getting blasted repeatedly by eldritch blasts, what *decisions* can that enemy make to lessen the effectiveness of that tactic? Taking cover, casting a spell to protect itself from magic, getting in the warlock's face, using human shields, threatening one of the warlock's allies in a way that forces the warlock to change their approach, changing the situation using environmental hazards (such as breaking the dam you're fighting next to), fleeing to get more allies, etc.
Running out of resources and being restricted to auto attacks/cantrips enough is punishing enough. No reason to make it worse for players. Make it more interesting instead by getting them to decide another course of action is better.
I tried out this concept in my game, and in practice, it is completely unfair to specific classes. It didn't make anyone at the table enjoy the game more, and most of us enjoyed it less.
Here's a suggestion: make your combat more interesting instead of forcing players to act in ways they don't want to.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Panda-wat (I hate my username) is somehow convinced that he is objectively right about everything D&D related even though he obviously is not. Considering that, he'd probably make a great D&D youtuber.
"If I die, I can live with that." ~Luke Hart, the DM lair
I think I'm on board with the problem you're trying to solve but don't like the implementation you've recommended. Penalties feel bad, while bonuses feel good (this is why video games provide a rested bonus instead of a tired penalty).
I'd suggest trying to find some way of making variety feel like a good action to take. This can be done in lots of ways:
- Give more options. Provide a fighter with whirlwind attack, power attack, charge, etc. action options; bonus points if you make it so these can't be used on back to back turns so the player can still weave in normal attack, dash, dodge, etc. actions.
- Give bonuses to the "standard" action on the turn after a different action was taken. You dodged last turn, get advantage on attacks this turn. You disengaged last turn, move 10 feet between attacks this turn. etc.
- Give objectively superior options that go on cooldown much like the monsters you're looking to emulate. Advantage on all attacks this round (cooldown 5-6), Extra d10 damage to all hits this round (cooldown 6).
The Big Glaring, Be Careful, Note - We're talking about adjusting the way repetitive turn classes play and either giving them stronger more fun options (the right way) or penalizing them. Make sure you don't either make them feel not worth playing because of the penalties or feel like you have to play them because of the bonuses. I know I'd be disappointed if my buddy suddenly out shown me in every encounter because of all his cool bonuses to avoid repetitive attacks when I rolled a wizard who was never going to cast the same spell two rounds in a row anyway.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Not much love for this system, huh?
Well, I think that it's not the idea, but the fine details, that are the problem. I like the concept that creatures will anticipate what is going to happen next if a character does the same thing round after round. However, this idea (1) discourages builds that are based on repetition, and (2) slows the game to a halt. Here's my new version of this concept (which, by the way, I WILL actually try and implement in my own games). You can use mine - or meet it halfway.
I know your tricks! Intelligent PCs and monsters will notice when an attacker repeatedly does the same thing to injure them. If a creature makes an attack against another creature identical to an attack it made against that creature last round, both creatures make a special ability check contest which adds both their DEX and INT modifiers. If the attacker loses, they have Disadvantage on their attack roll(s) against that target. Targets with a DEX and INT modifier total that is 5 or more greater than the attacker's can make the check with Disadvantage if the attack was made last round against a creature they can see. The attacker has Advantage on their ability check if they have moved 15ftor more since last making the attack (if it is a ranged attack), or to the other side of the target (if it is a melee attack). Similarly, the contest is made with the same rules if a creature uses an effect that calls for a STR or DEX save to take partial or no damage two rounds in a row. If the target wins, they gain Advantage on their saving throw.
By the way, a note on mobs: in the case of identical monsters making identical attacks (such as 20 orcs making greataxe attacks repeatedly), only call for the PC to make a contest once. The result affects the attacks of all the monsters in the mob.
This version of the rule encourages creative thinking and dynamic fighting, doesn't hurt warlocks or fighters too badly, and can affect monsters as well as PCs. If you're a warlock, you can move to keep eldritch-blasting (or be an intelligent, dexterous warlock. It's your choice). I hope that this post was helpful and built well on what everyone else passed off as a bad idea.
Panda-wat (I hate my username) is somehow convinced that he is objectively right about everything D&D related even though he obviously is not. Considering that, he'd probably make a great D&D youtuber.
"If I die, I can live with that." ~Luke Hart, the DM lair
Intriguing. I might try this out as a dry-run (just a single encounter). One downside I would expect is that there will be a lot more rolls for the contests, which could slow down the game. One part of my (admittedly not perfect) idea was to avoid doing extra rolls or more dice. But definitely worth trying out.
I like your idea of "contests" for combat, as I think it's a more accurate reflection of the real world.
I was once toying with a similar concept to make every attack a contested roll - based on a limited pool of attack/defense dice per round (which scales with level). So this would more naturally allow you to chose between many multi-attacks, or fewer/single concentrated strikes - even at a lower level. So if you slash out at some weak zombies, you'd use one dice for each attack/contest; but for a dragon you would use all at the same time). Similarly for defence you would get a pool of dice or points, so that 1 attack against you is easy to defend but if you want to parry 10 at the same time your chances get much worse. I thought this would add a more realistic dimension to combat and add more balance to allow lower-level monsters to still pose a threat to PCs, or lots of PCs to more easily overpower a single opponent. However, that would be a massive change to the rules as it would essentially replace proficiency/hit/ability modifiers as well as AC. So it would really be like a whole new RPG system and would need every monster/adventure/etc to be carefully redesigned and rebalanced.
That also is a good idea I think. In Solastra, which is probably as faithful a computer 5E implementation as I have come across, they do exactly this and the system highlights interactive items. So it often pays to shoot at the chandelier/statue/barrel instead of directly at the monster standing below it. But it does require specifically designed environments, really good battle maps, etc. So this works great in Solastra's PC-game version, but would be a bit more challenging for the average party playing around their sofa table.
To me, this is actually a wonderful side-effect. There are far too many articles and forum-posts about optimising some specific build, and lots of PCs seem to be built around a single action (like the invocation-optimised Eldritch Blast). Even the term "build" annoys me, as it implies optimised targets rather than just chosing options that are fun and fit the character. To me, this is the equivalent of buying a computer game and immediately looking up the walkthroughs and cheat codes instead of just playing it for the fun of it as intended - yes, lots of people enjoy doing it, but it's not my preference. So if this rule would force people to stop optimising builds, encouraged multi-classing or other creative characters, then this would all be a bonus from my perspective.
The issue is, that’s what’s fun for some people. Apparently, it’s not fun for you, and that’s cool, people like what they like and don’t have to apologize for or explain it. Just, before you implement a big change, make sure your players on on board; in an effort to make things more fun for you, you might make it less fun for them. Also, this doesn’t seem like a mid-campaign thing (I’m unclear on the timing from the OP) make sure they know about this rule before they generate their characters, so they can make things that work under this system.
It would only actually call for a few extra rolls. The fighter would only make one roll to determine whether they could attack without Disadvantage, or could alternate between targets to avoid triggering this at all. Similarly, the monsters wouldn't each rolls separately if their attacks, like I said, were identical. Finally, not every character would end up rolling at all - wizards, for example, can cast multiple different spells.
I haven't actually tried it, but will the next time I play.
Panda-wat (I hate my username) is somehow convinced that he is objectively right about everything D&D related even though he obviously is not. Considering that, he'd probably make a great D&D youtuber.
"If I die, I can live with that." ~Luke Hart, the DM lair
But EB spam isn't just an optimization thing, it's built into the class design of the warlock. They get fewer spell slots than other primary casters, so they've been given a slightly better cantrip to fill those actions where other full casters would be casting leveled spells.
Also, the repetitive nature of warlocks and fighters is entirely intentional. Some players face severe decision paralysis, and builds that have a strong default were designed with those types of players in mind. This is why Battlemaster is a subclass that you opt into rather than a class feature.
There's a lot of subtle but very effective design baked into 5e. I think your idea has further-reaching negative implications than you may realize. I'm going to say it again - incentivizing creativity by offering positive alternatives is far and away better than trying to force creativity by penalizing certain actions.
I have at least one player who would absolutely break down if they were told their fighter will receive a penalty for taking the Attack action. It will feel like a punishment, because it is a punishment. This will not spark creativity, it will encourage players to find the path of least effort to get around the restrictions and then spam that instead. Alternatively, dangling new situational options in front of them makes them feel awesome. My players eat that up every time, and half the time they feel like it was their idea all along.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I system I've seen used in other game systems is a card deck that produces a 'favored' action every turn. You're not required to do it, but there are significant bonuses for doing so.
True. I guess it can be left up to players at some tables.
Panda-wat (I hate my username) is somehow convinced that he is objectively right about everything D&D related even though he obviously is not. Considering that, he'd probably make a great D&D youtuber.
"If I die, I can live with that." ~Luke Hart, the DM lair
Really horrible idea. I would leave a campaign if this was implemented after session zero.
unless….
You created additional features, actions, “legendary actions” etc that are completely new to each class and builds on their already established features.
Dint want your warlock to spam eldritch blast? Well how about give them an alternate where the can cast “EB” but this turn it is a single target mega blast or a AOE EB “fireball”.
Then if all agreed on these changes it might not be a horrible horrible horrible idea, just a bad one.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Ok, so don’t make optimized characters under the default 5E rules, optimize your build based on your house rule. Got it!
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I honestly think if anyone or anyone's group doesn't like repetitive combat, more work has to be put into setting up combat, more than likely with lots of "environment triggers" that they can set off to cause effects in battle...
The problem is 5e isn't entirely set up, with regards to the basics, "for non-repetitive combat", especially if you are playing at the lower levels (which is where most play happens anyways). It's because the game only has so many options at level 1, etc. Also, and were just going to take warlocks as an example again, some classes play the way they do because of not optimization but availability. From 4th to 10th level (and a good portion of games don't go higher than that) Warlocks get 3 cantrips (as was previously stated), even if you gave them access to one you're still limiting what cantrips they should take (which can make how they play out of combat vastly different) due to having less cantrip slots and needing to think of battle. Also, let's say you're facing something that is vulnerable to whatever cantrip they just used any person (and I'm talking in character at this point, not mechanically) would want to use what just hit that monster/creature again... and yet this system is designed to discourage such things (even though it's not why the system was designed but is a side effect of the systems design).
So basically you don't want your players to play anything except full casters. Since fighters, rogues, monks, barbarians, rangers, and paladins will get penalized for "optimizing" the attack action and warlocks will default to weapon or eldritch blast almost immediately.
Like I said, don't penalize every non-full casting class for only having 1 good option. Instead encourage diversity with buffs.
Would maybe designing combat scenarios that you can implement things like skill challenges help keep things fresh instead of nerfing classes? Mix it up with regular combats.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
My next session is already going to lead into a battle (unless some really amazing dice rolls happen, but even than it's going to have to be a series due to what their current foe is) and one of the members has recently gotten hold of Stonky's ring. Based off that I actually turned this next encounter (and possibly future ones if he goes that) into a more dynamic landscape than I set up, so that if he wants to waste his action using things as improvised weapons more power to him. I'm not doing this because the way any of the character's are fighting is repetitive but more to the fact I'm trying to give the guy interesting options if he would like to go that route.
Sometimes that's all it needs to be, especially due to how this system is "set up" there are lots of routes that most characters are going to do every round, not even just because it's optimized but because its really something that makes sense to do. Sometimes folks need help being creative and if that's what anyone is looking for it can just require a bit more effort to set up and perhaps even offer hints somehow if you think that could be done in a decent way without doing it for the players themselves.
Well, on the plus side: While most people don't like the idea, it has certainly sparked an impassioned debate!
I'm in the "No" camp. This doesn't seem like a fun addition to the game, to be completely honest.
I think the issue with the combats devolving into repeat-action-fests is a lack of dynamics in the fight. a bunch of people meet in a field and hit each other until one side dies, it's always going to be dull.
Instead, give the monsters motives - they want to steal the shiny thing and escape, or stab someone with a dagger to curse them for a deity, or they want to steal the parties food, or eat their horse, or any number of things. Set the fight on a moving carriage such that they have 3 turns to stop the horses before it kareens off the cliff. Have the monsters evacuating a sinking dungeon as the party tries to reach the treasure chamber.
The only reason combats devolve into the same thing every round is because they don't give the PCs something else to do - your best bet is to take your combats and traps, and combine them - fight off a pack of dire wolves who are also fleeing from the rolling boulder. Try to open a door to escape the powerful (but too large for the door) iron golem. Try to get the two different monsters to fight each other so you can get away.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
I'd lean more towards creating situations within the encounters which make it advantageous do something else.
Someone mentioned environmental features people can take advantage of, which is a perfect example of this. Put the battle on a cliff side, next to a dam, in a room with explosive barrels, in a shipyard with cranes holding heavy objects, etc.
Try to design encounters where there are win conditions other than, "hit them until they die," and a lot of this concern goes away. Surrender, hostage rescue, escape, preventing escape, getting the magic item, stopping the ritual, etc. all encourage actions that aren't eldritch blast.
Another option is smarter enemies. If an enemy is getting blasted repeatedly by eldritch blasts, what *decisions* can that enemy make to lessen the effectiveness of that tactic? Taking cover, casting a spell to protect itself from magic, getting in the warlock's face, using human shields, threatening one of the warlock's allies in a way that forces the warlock to change their approach, changing the situation using environmental hazards (such as breaking the dam you're fighting next to), fleeing to get more allies, etc.
Running out of resources and being restricted to auto attacks/cantrips enough is punishing enough. No reason to make it worse for players. Make it more interesting instead by getting them to decide another course of action is better.
I tried out this concept in my game, and in practice, it is completely unfair to specific classes. It didn't make anyone at the table enjoy the game more, and most of us enjoyed it less.
Here's a suggestion: make your combat more interesting instead of forcing players to act in ways they don't want to.
Panda-wat (I hate my username) is somehow convinced that he is objectively right about everything D&D related even though he obviously is not. Considering that, he'd probably make a great D&D youtuber.
"If I die, I can live with that." ~Luke Hart, the DM lair
I think I'm on board with the problem you're trying to solve but don't like the implementation you've recommended. Penalties feel bad, while bonuses feel good (this is why video games provide a rested bonus instead of a tired penalty).
I'd suggest trying to find some way of making variety feel like a good action to take. This can be done in lots of ways:
- Give more options. Provide a fighter with whirlwind attack, power attack, charge, etc. action options; bonus points if you make it so these can't be used on back to back turns so the player can still weave in normal attack, dash, dodge, etc. actions.
- Give bonuses to the "standard" action on the turn after a different action was taken. You dodged last turn, get advantage on attacks this turn. You disengaged last turn, move 10 feet between attacks this turn. etc.
- Give objectively superior options that go on cooldown much like the monsters you're looking to emulate. Advantage on all attacks this round (cooldown 5-6), Extra d10 damage to all hits this round (cooldown 6).
The Big Glaring, Be Careful, Note - We're talking about adjusting the way repetitive turn classes play and either giving them stronger more fun options (the right way) or penalizing them. Make sure you don't either make them feel not worth playing because of the penalties or feel like you have to play them because of the bonuses. I know I'd be disappointed if my buddy suddenly out shown me in every encounter because of all his cool bonuses to avoid repetitive attacks when I rolled a wizard who was never going to cast the same spell two rounds in a row anyway.