It could just be that my groups aren't very imaginative. Or it could just be the nature of the table top game and it's meant to revolve more around story and RP than the combat.
But I've noticed (and I don't know if this is just 5e or not) but combat feels very flat, and very bland.
For example, lets say the players are fighting a dragon. It feels like all we do is go around the table and each player does their thing and hopes to deal some damage. The dragon has X HP and they just need to keep smacking it until the HP is gone. Sure, the dragon gets legendary actions to try and make it more exciting... but it always comes down to how much damage you're taking, or how much damage you're dealing.
Now again, it could be that my group just isn't imaginative. But there's never anything interesting about an encounter. It's just numbers. Damage and AC. or Healing. No one ever thinks "hm, maybe I can blast that stalactite off the ceiling and crush the dragon!" or trying to use their spells together, like maybe a druid using some kind of spell to create water beneath the dragon, and the wizard using a frost spell to freeze it around his claws and immobilize him. Things like that.
Is that a flaw of the system or a flaw of my group? Are there any suggestions people might have that I can use to try and encourage that kind of stuff? Both as a player and a DM. Maybe just try and encourage and suggest it in my own campaign and see if my DM (who plays in my campaign) starts to do the same?
Hey, share with me the most interesting/creative thing you or your group have done in combat!
Is that a flaw of the system or a flaw of my group? Are there any suggestions people might have that I can use to try and encourage that kind of stuff? Both as a player and a DM. Maybe just try and encourage and suggest it in my own campaign and see if my DM (who plays in my campaign) starts to do the same?
Hey, share with me the most interesting/creative thing you or your group have done in combat!
Combat can be very dry if the players and the DM are just going through the motions of roll dice, compare AC value to the roll, assign damage. Repeat. This is not the fault of the 5E mechanic as I can recall some very dry combats going back through the editions.
It really comes down to the players and the GM. Combat should be about taking the metagame and adapting it into narrative. When a player rolls and just misses, I make sure to describe the armour deflected the blow or the evil cleric glowed briefly with a hellfire of shield of faith. When they hit, I attempt to describe the extent of damage to encourage the players to be more descriptive in their attacks. "I attack with my mace" is pretty darn dull, but "feinting to the left, I duck to the right and bring my mace up behind the hobgoblin's shield attempting to nail his elbow and funny bone" gets the visuals going and gets the players thinking of what they could do too. Spellcasting should be fantastic in combat; ask how the magic missile force bolts appear, describing how the "shimmering golden eagles lance through the air and swirl the steam from the hag's kettle as each strikes with force to make the hags understand their mortality is clearly in jeopardy".
Perhaps I am biasing my opinion here, but I notice that the DM/GM that came from the "reading generation" have a much better way to give narrative than those from the "video game generation". It's one thing to read and get the mental visuals and translating it to the tabletop, it's another when things go boom in HD on a screen. I'd recommend picking up one of the fantasy-fiction classics of R.A. Salvatore or the Weis/Hickman books and focus on how the combats are narrated. Plenty of inspiration can be had there.
I agree with most of what Rexx has said above, specifically regarding that combat - like all the other parts of the game - is only as engaging as the people playing the game make it. Getting descriptive, and even making sure that no combat happens without the involvement of scenery and someone or something using that scenery (knocking things over to make difficult terrain, environmental sources of damage or disabling conditions) can easily make combat feel worth spending session time on.
Where I disagree with Rexx is on the supposed generational separation - being from the "video game generation" is not mutually exclusive with being an avid reader, and neither activity is actually required in order for someone to have imagination and ability to express imagined images, though both help (one by showing you the words to use - the other by showing the motions visually and letting you use your own vocabulary to describe them).
One problem we've run into, while running a campaign with a teenager, is that some people go into D&D with a video game mindset. It's not about the abilities. It's how you use them. The personal flair you add to everything your character does. The spells are there to inspire you. A little creativity can take
I concentrate for a moment, holding my hand before me. My fingers begin to glow, as a bit of flame takes root there. The flame grows and eventually forms a decent shaped ball, which I throw at the dragon.
Where I disagree with Rexx is on the supposed generational separation - being from the "video game generation" is not mutually exclusive with being an avid reader, and neither activity is actually required in order for someone to have imagination and ability to express imagined images, though both help (one by showing you the words to use - the other by showing the motions visually and letting you use your own vocabulary to describe them).
I chose my wording poorly, generation suggests age. What I should have wrote was "background". Someone with a good reading background tends to narrate better from what I've noticed. But not always! Really, the crux of the matter is having a good imagination and the words to express it.
Swinging it back to Synieth's original query "are combats bland", everyone is in consensus (thus far) that is not the case with good imagination and the words to express it. All it takes is one player to take the lead and the others will generally follow. It may be the case that Synieth's group is just generally bored with the game which is exacerbated by "bland" combats. I hope thon will take the initiative to get more descriptive during combats and see if things get "spicier". Good luck, Synieth!
A good way to make combat not so bland is to incorporate the terrain into the fight. If the PCs have to not only contend with actually doing dmg to whatever creature you threw at them but also obstacles on a battlefield they will start incorporating more creativity. Like for instance they may try to burn down a structure to collapse and fall onto the 3 ogres that are following them. Or maybe their encampment has been struck by a drive-and-by fire breath attack and their tent/belongings are about to go up in smoke so they have to not only repel the drake/dragon but also try and save their stuff. The choice between potentially dying or living but without their gear can be a tough one for players to make.
This is just my take on how to spice up battle a bit because you all are completely right. I've found combat with my group to be boring when they are just rolling dice and trying to dmg down a creature. Though this really doesn't help with random encounters as much during travel, if you play that way. I know that I don't have the creative ability to come up with sweet battlefields every time.
A good way to make combat not so bland is to incorporate the terrain into the fight. If the PCs have to not only contend with actually doing dmg to whatever creature you threw at them but also obstacles on a battlefield they will start incorporating more creativity. Like for instance they may try to burn down a structure to collapse and fall onto the 3 ogres that are following them. Or maybe their encampment has been struck by a drive-and-by fire breath attack and their tent/belongings are about to go up in smoke so they have to not only repel the drake/dragon but also try and save their stuff. The choice between potentially dying or living but without their gear can be a tough one for players to make.
This is just my take on how to spice up battle a bit because you all are completely right. I've found combat with my group to be boring when they are just rolling dice and trying to dmg down a creature. Though this really doesn't help with random encounters as much during travel, if you play that way. I know that I don't have the creative ability to come up with sweet battlefields every time.
Funny enough, this reminded me of one of my last campaigns, very first game. We were in a burning city, full of skeletons. I was playing a ranger, and my dice were cursed. I tried to shoot at a skeleton and rolled a nat 1. DM made me roll again and nat 20! He weaved a tale of my arrow completely missing the skeleton, and striking a support beam for the burning building behind the skeleton. It destroyed the beam, and sent the building collapsing down on the group of 4-6 skeletons we were facing. He made it intense and we were all left speechless.
Weave a great story, and I'm inspired to do the same. I can't speak for everyone, though.
A good DM is a storyteller, with the players being their assistants.
I always keep this in mind, when telling the tale of a combat - it's not about the fighter rolling a 20, followed by damage dice - either let the player describe what happens themself, or the DM can do it (I do the latter), "You swing a broad blow with your sword, the noon sun reflecting from it's brilliant blade, temporarily blinding the ogre with a flash of light, moments before your blow slashes into it's groin and up, spilling it's intestines on the floor infront of it. The ogre looks down dumbfounded before roaring in pain and swinging wildly at you with his club" *rolls dice for ogre attack*
Try taking some time at the start of every other session to get a pulse with your players on it. I do this and it helps take assumptions out of the picture.
What I've found is that is comes down to party composition. If you have 4 players and they are big achievement focused people, it becomes a lot like 4th edition in the ever creeping power curve to keep that hunger at bay. Give them other things to achieve, even in combat. Things like 'have to hold this cup of water without spilling it' and suddenly its less about who you whack over the head and more about keeping the cup holder safe. Dice rolling occurs, but the decision making shifts to keep it interesting. Numbers can only be interesting for so long.
If you have socializers, make sure they are acting out those hits, misses, crits, and botches. The story becomes more the point than the battle.
Give explorers some sort of exploitable terrain where it makes sense. A dead tree that can be felled with a well placed whack from a barbarian friend. A beam of light to manipulate into a chance to End of Turn blind someone off the cuff.
It could just be that my groups aren't very imaginative. Or it could just be the nature of the table top game and it's meant to revolve more around story and RP than the combat.
But I've noticed (and I don't know if this is just 5e or not) but combat feels very flat, and very bland.
For example, lets say the players are fighting a dragon. It feels like all we do is go around the table and each player does their thing and hopes to deal some damage. The dragon has X HP and they just need to keep smacking it until the HP is gone. Sure, the dragon gets legendary actions to try and make it more exciting... but it always comes down to how much damage you're taking, or how much damage you're dealing.
Now again, it could be that my group just isn't imaginative. But there's never anything interesting about an encounter. It's just numbers. Damage and AC. or Healing. No one ever thinks "hm, maybe I can blast that stalactite off the ceiling and crush the dragon!" or trying to use their spells together, like maybe a druid using some kind of spell to create water beneath the dragon, and the wizard using a frost spell to freeze it around his claws and immobilize him. Things like that.
Is that a flaw of the system or a flaw of my group? Are there any suggestions people might have that I can use to try and encourage that kind of stuff? Both as a player and a DM. Maybe just try and encourage and suggest it in my own campaign and see if my DM (who plays in my campaign) starts to do the same?
Hey, share with me the most interesting/creative thing you or your group have done in combat!
Synieth,
The advice I am going to give you is probably going to contradict with advice others have given you and it is generally at odds with most things you read on the internet. First, if your combat encounters seem flat and dull then they are flat and dull and as a DM that is your fault. Period, end of story. Pacing is your job so you need to learn how to improve the flow. I will tell you asking people to do their own narration will not improve things it will only make things worse. Most people are really bad at improvising narration and they will stammer and stutter and destroy whatever flow you have. You doing all the narration will make things only slightly less worse than having your players do it. Even adding one or two lines of narration per action is a lot for a group of players to slog through. They will get bored and start turning on their phones. Don't do it. Instead do things like: 1) Actually try to kill your players! I am serious here, play the opposition to the max. Read the monster's stat block, learn it, know it, and use it. The game favors the players so don't be afraid to go hard at them. 2) Know what the opposition's goals are. Conflict comes from when two sides have opposing goals. You, in the role of the monsters, are one of the opposing sides. You have to know what the goal is in order for it to be in conflict. This will also let you know when the encounter is truly over. Once side A is no longer capable of stopping side B from achieving its goals the encounter is over. Wrap it up, now! 3) Increase the pace, when you ask a player what his character is going to do give him exactly 0 seconds to think about it and respond. I mean no more time than "said player should start talking immediately". I mean they have had all the time the other players are resolving their actions to figure out what they are going to do. 4) And this one is one I see a lot of veteran DMs do...never start any scene or encounter with "roll initiative" because as soon as you do that you have set in your player's mind that combat is the only way to resolve the conflict and it may stifle a creative idea that a player had. If you want details or examples just drop me a line and I will be happy to elaborate but I am told that I tend to be loquacious.
J
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
As for me, I choose to believe that an extinct thunder lizard is running a game of Dungeons & Dragons via Twitter!
The advice I am going to give you is probably going to contradict with advice others have given you and it is generally at odds with most things you read on the internet. First, if your combat encounters seem flat and dull then they are flat and dull and as a DM that is your fault. Period, end of story. Pacing is your job so you need to learn how to improve the flow. I will tell you asking people to do their own narration will not improve things it will only make things worse. Most people are really bad at improvising narration and they will stammer and stutter and destroy whatever flow you have. You doing all the narration will make things only slightly less worse than having your players do it. Even adding one or two lines of narration per action is a lot for a group of players to slog through. They will get bored and start turning on their phones. Don't do it. Instead do things like: 1) Actually try to kill your players! I am serious here, play the opposition to the max. Read the monster's stat block, learn it, know it, and use it. The game favors the players so don't be afraid to go hard at them. 2) Know what the opposition's goals are. Conflict comes from when two sides have opposing goals. You, in the role of the monsters, are one of the opposing sides. You have to know what the goal is in order for it to be in conflict. This will also let you know when the encounter is truly over. Once side A is no longer capable of stopping side B from achieving its goals the encounter is over. Wrap it up, now! 3) Increase the pace, when you ask a player what his character is going to do give him exactly 0 seconds to think about it and respond. I mean no more time than "said player should start talking immediately". I mean they have had all the time the other players are resolving their actions to figure out what they are going to do. 4) And this one is one I see a lot of veteran DMs do...never start any scene or encounter with "roll initiative" because as soon as you do that you have set in your player's mind that combat is the only way to resolve the conflict and it may stifle a creative idea that a player had. If you want details or examples just drop me a line and I will be happy to elaborate but I am told that I tend to be loquacious.
J
I like a lot of what you are saying (and props for loquacious, good word) but I definitely disagree on some points. I think the flavour and narration can be really useful, especially in groups that are not comfortable inserting their own. It adds extra layers to the imagery they create in their minds and can really help draw them in, helping them get passed "I attack with my axe". Overdoing can absolutely result a loss of flow/interest though, it requires a bit of a balance.
The points you make about goals are excellent. When your goal in combat is always "kill the enemies", then unless the combat is particularly challenging or flavourful, it will always lead to just rolling dice and piling damage. If you want to make combat dynamic it needs to have more happening. There are many ways to do this: fighting while escaping some sort of disaster, trying to stop a ritual, saving civilians, preventing an escape, etc. Combat with the same goal will start to become stale, DMs need to be creative, mix things up. That's not to say that you can't have an encounter where killing the enemies is the only goal, you just need to do it in creative ways sometimes. I recently did a battle where the players were on top of a tower and their enemies were on flying mounts (a modification of part of the PotA campaign), at one point the monk literally leapt off the tower and down onto the back of a wyvern behind it's rider. It could have gone terribly wrong in many ways but they took an interesting risk and it worked. It was a challenging encounter and the party had a good time figuring out how to get the melee characters (most of the party) into the fight.
I completely agree on the "roll initiative" statement, that almost always comes across as a signal to the players that fighting is what's going to happen. Though I would argue that it has it's place sometimes, it can have excellent dramatic effect at times when the players did not realize that had initiated combat (to the point that the enemy was clearly going to attack. I also often use initiative in my groups during tense situations where one character's actions can easily (and clearly to the party) lead to being attacked (EDIT: or some other clearly undesirable effect). I find it helps to reinforce the idea that combat isn't the solution to everything, and initiative does not equal combat.
Dissenting opinion is the start of a useful conversation. :)
1) Actually try to kill your players!
I always say that "As a DM I dont need to try to kill my players, they tend to kill themselves." Primarily because an adversarial DM is not fun. A DM that "wins" by TPK is a vengeful self-gratifying deity and its important to set those expectations before things go off rails. That said, I agree with you. Know what challenges your players. The whole CR and whatnot... its training wheels. If pacing dictates some challenge, know what challenging is for your group and throw it at them.
2) Know what the opposition's goals are.
This. So much this.
3) Increase the pace, when you ask a player what his character is going to do give him exactly 0 seconds to think about it and respond.
And this. I have an hourglass timer for events that require 'some' critical thinking. And others are 'immediate reaction, go'. And if they have no response? Then in character they are stunned or have analysis paralysis. It happens. It works wonders for pacing.
4) And this one is one I see a lot of veteran DMs do...never start any scene or encounter with "roll initiative"
I'll pay more attention to this, but I think it comes down to 'how' you use a mechanic. Another way around this is to have 'roll initiative' be a way of starting a social conflict. Who speaks first. Order. And then allow it to be the combat order should it need be. This when tied with your #2 starts to break away that 'a round you are not swinging is a wasted turn'.
The advice I am going to give you is probably going to contradict with advice others have given you and it is generally at odds with most things you read on the internet. First, if your combat encounters seem flat and dull then they are flat and dull and as a DM that is your fault. Period, end of story. Pacing is your job so you need to learn how to improve the flow. I will tell you asking people to do their own narration will not improve things it will only make things worse. Most people are really bad at improvising narration and they will stammer and stutter and destroy whatever flow you have. You doing all the narration will make things only slightly less worse than having your players do it. Even adding one or two lines of narration per action is a lot for a group of players to slog through. They will get bored and start turning on their phones. Don't do it. Instead do things like: 1) Actually try to kill your players! I am serious here, play the opposition to the max. Read the monster's stat block, learn it, know it, and use it. The game favors the players so don't be afraid to go hard at them. 2) Know what the opposition's goals are. Conflict comes from when two sides have opposing goals. You, in the role of the monsters, are one of the opposing sides. You have to know what the goal is in order for it to be in conflict. This will also let you know when the encounter is truly over. Once side A is no longer capable of stopping side B from achieving its goals the encounter is over. Wrap it up, now! 3) Increase the pace, when you ask a player what his character is going to do give him exactly 0 seconds to think about it and respond. I mean no more time than "said player should start talking immediately". I mean they have had all the time the other players are resolving their actions to figure out what they are going to do. 4) And this one is one I see a lot of veteran DMs do...never start any scene or encounter with "roll initiative" because as soon as you do that you have set in your player's mind that combat is the only way to resolve the conflict and it may stifle a creative idea that a player had. If you want details or examples just drop me a line and I will be happy to elaborate but I am told that I tend to be loquacious.
J
I like a lot of what you are saying (and props for loquacious, good word) but I definitely disagree on some points. I think the flavour and narration can be really useful, especially in groups that are not comfortable inserting their own. It adds extra layers to the imagery they create in their minds and can really help draw them in, helping them get passed "I attack with my axe". Overdoing can absolutely result a loss of flow/interest though, it requires a bit of a balance.
The points you make about goals are excellent. When your goal in combat is always "kill the enemies", then unless the combat is particularly challenging or flavourful, it will always lead to just rolling dice and piling damage. If you want to make combat dynamic it needs to have more happening. There are many ways to do this: fighting while escaping some sort of disaster, trying to stop a ritual, saving civilians, preventing an escape, etc. Combat with the same goal will start to become stale, DMs need to be creative, mix things up. That's not to say that you can't have an encounter where killing the enemies is the only goal, you just need to do it in creative ways sometimes. I recently did a battle where the players were on top of a tower and their enemies were on flying mounts (a modification of part of the PotA campaign), at one point the monk literally leapt off the tower and down onto the back of a wyvern behind it's rider. It could have gone terribly wrong in many ways but they took an interesting risk and it worked. It was a challenging encounter and the party had a good time figuring out how to get the melee characters (most of the party) into the fight.
I completely agree on the "roll initiative" statement, that almost always comes across as a signal to the players that fighting is what's going to happen. Though I would argue that it has it's place sometimes, it can have excellent dramatic effect at times when the players did not realize that had initiated combat (to the point that the enemy was clearly going to attack. I also often use initiative in my groups during tense situations where one character's actions can easily (and clearly to the party) lead to being attacked (EDIT: or some other clearly undesirable effect). I find it helps to reinforce the idea that combat isn't the solution to everything, and initiative does not equal combat.
Fred,
It is okay to have differing opinions, an opinion by its nature cannot be either right or wrong only well-informed or not as well-informed. However, I think you missed my point on goals. I meant it is important to know what the monster's goals are. A monster that is defending its young, is hungry and wants to eat, or protecting its territory will act differently than any of the other goals. This will also allow PCs ways to "defeat" the monster without actually having to kill it. Example, a group of PCs that figure out a monster is merely defending its young could skirt the monster, giving it a wide berth to avoid actually having to fight, then they could still earn the XP, especially if they used several applicable skills such as Nature, Investigation, and Perception to deduce what the monsters actual goal was. As a side note, if the PCs just avoided the monster just to avoid a possible fight then no XP for them!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
As for me, I choose to believe that an extinct thunder lizard is running a game of Dungeons & Dragons via Twitter!
I want to jump in on the topic of trying to kill the player characters:
I think it is important to phrase that sentiment very carefully, because I've seen people say the same words and mean two entirely different things:
A) Play the monsters/NPCs you pick out as opposition to their strengths as best as you can; figure out how to maximize the effectiveness of the abilities each has.
B) Set up the challenges in your campaign so that the most likely outcome is a slew of dead player characters.
A is a way to ramp up the fun of combat while still keeping the DM and players on the same "side" working towards the goal of a fun and engage game-play experience. That means A is a good piece of advice and a good practice for a DM to use.
B is making the game into an adversarial DM vs. players experience. That means B is bad advice and should be avoided because adversarial DMing isn't sustainable - at some point the players, realizing the DM can literally do whatever it takes to make their character dead whenever they desire, will give up on trying to "win" and spend their time doing something other than gaming with the adversarial DM.
My two cents. If you want interesting encounters, make interesting encounters. Have the dragon use his breath weapon to take out a support beam (and possibly some PCs).
Have the dragon bite down on a pc (grapple) and toss the PC into the air. Bite damage + falling damage. (even worse if the dragon can fly)
At some point hopefully the PCs learn they can do those same things.
4) And this one is one I see a lot of veteran DMs do...never start any scene or encounter with "roll initiative" because as soon as you do that you have set in your player's mind that combat is the only way to resolve the conflict and it may stifle a creative idea that a player had. If you want details or examples just drop me a line and I will be happy to elaborate but I am told that I tend to be loquacious.J
I like a lot of what you said. I do use some narration myself. For example I enjoy describing what happens when an NPC dies. Example: last night a player got the killing shot on a skeleton with a thrown dagger. I describe the dagger going right into the skull's eye socket and the momentum tearing the skull off. But I agree with you (no offense everyone else!) that trying to make my players describe in almost novel-like details when they cast a spell seems a bit much. On occasion perhaps, for effect. Example: one of my players describe holding up their hand and it being engulfed in flame as the build a spell, and then attempting an intimidate check. I secretly gave them a bit of a boost to their roll because of their description of adding the flames to aid their intimidating words. But describing that every time you use firebolt or burning hands will get boring fast.
As a new DM I do realize a lot of the problem rests on me. I suppose I should have worded my question more succinctly to ask "what can *I* do to improve combat and make it more interesting?" I do think some of the suggestions of narration can help, and it also made me realize that I am probably not describing the terrain well enough. I need to paint a better picture for them so they know what they might be able to use besides just spells and weapons.
As for your advice, I do think it is all great, I've made some notes (of other's advice too) and will certainly apply it. I don't think you meant "try to kill your players" in a mean and vindictive way as some others might suggest. I do think I might be going a bit too easy on them. Partly because a couple of my players are more experienced DMs, one of which who gives me a bit of stink eye when I do something they disagree with (like mess with standard stat blocks of monsters so the two DMs don't know "oh, this is a skeleton. 13 AC 16 HP, got it" and know when it'll die).
I gather from you and from the others commenting that I'm not doing enough to breathe life into the opposition (my NPCs/monsters). That I am just treating them as almost nameless/faceless stat blocks that challenge the players. I feel dumb but I honestly didn't notice that, and if I'm playing combat like it's just numbers, I can't expect my players to get creative. I'm the DM so it's gotta start with me.
Lastly, I have a question about the quote snippet above. You say don't start an encounter with "roll initiative" and I might already be doing that. For example, last night the party found themselves in a cave, and in the center of the cave was a necromancer standing behind an altar, the floor was littered with skeletons. I knew that the necromancer would raise half a dozen skeletons to attack them and there wasn't a way out of it, he was insane. But I allowed the players to chat with him first. I let them chose in this case when combat started (kind of) because the necromancer said "I'm done talking!" and began to chant. "You hear the necromancer begin to chant in a foul arcane tongue!" It wasn't until they decided to attack that I told them to roll initiative. Is that what you mean, or is there more to it than that? Is it simply that I gave them the opportunity to talk, and that I said that he starts chanting then asked what they are doing—they could have kept trying to talk to him, or they could have left, or they could have looked around for something creative to do, and only when they chose to fight did I say "roll initiative"?
What about scenarios that are like an ambush? Like the party is traveling, and bandits leap out from the sides of the road and attack! "Roll initiative!" or do I still give them time to react or do something different before rolling initiative?
ALSO! this leads me to a question about perception checks. Perception checks, in my mind, are the worst give away of surprise things ever. If I just had bandits jump out, some party members would be pissed. "I was on guard!? Why didn't I get to roll perception!" I mean, I assumed that is what passive perception is for, but what if someone is actively on guard? But how do I ask "are you on guard"? without the answer automatically being "yes!" because they know if I ask something is coming. At the same time if I say "everyone roll perception" they know there is something there to notice and the surprise is gone.
Also also! Any advice for getting past shyness to be able to do things like different voices for NPCs and stuff? I've managed to get out of my shell here and there. Like last night, the necromancer was totally insane, believe himself the reincarnation of a god. He cackled a lot and I tried to cackle, and then at one point I managed to be "in the zone" enough to actually shout something like "you cannot defeat a god AHAHAHAHA!" and I literally shouted, and laughed super loud, and I could tell my eyes were like wide and bugging out of my head. And I saw everyone around the table jump and their eyes were wide, and I ducked behind my screen in embarrassment, but one of them was like "that was awesome!" I want to do that kind of thing more, but I've got anxiety, and I'm so shy, I dunno how to get comfortable doing that.
In regards to perception and ambushing, consider the party is traveling and that is not a quiet affair with armour clanking, horses clopping, boots thumping, insects buzzing around the face and ears. Compare your adversaries Stealth versus the highest Passive Perception of the party. If the adversaries beat them out, let the bad guys get their surprise round actions off. At this point ask the party if they intend to throw a curve ball at the adversaries by calling for parlay or some other thing. If the answer is "no", ask for initiative. Combat commences.
While on guard duty during the rest period, if the rest of the party is asleep, there's no rain or wind to mute noises, the bugs have had their fill of blood, roll the character's Perception for them in secret. The players may know something is up but then you could misdirect them with something else. If secret roll does not exceed the Passive Perception value at a +2 bonus (all IS quiet), then use the enhanced "all is quiet" Passive P. Compare Stealth to Passive/Active P, adjudicate in a logical manner, likely similar to the above statement.
Finally, find an NPC in the party for you to give some voice to that isn't your normal voice. Practice with that. Imagine the innkeeper at the next roadside inn sounds like the Swedish Chef from the Muppets. A little light-heartedness allows the anxiety of the situation to melt and builds the confidence you need to continue the voice acting as you much as you want. Heck, bring props. My DM last session I was a player in pulled out a black, bushy wig for the hag we were encountering. It was a hoot. Don't dive feet-first into method acting until you've worked yourself up to that. The more you DM, the more you'll realize your players like the antics. You know you've "graduated" when you have four NPCs arguing with each other, you have a unique voice for each, and the players can follow who is talking and the kernel of the argument.
Good luck, Synieth. You've got this and when in doubt, someone here will have some sage advice to help you along.
I think what he meant by the don't roll initiative at the start of an encounter is exactly what you are doing.
Essentially you always roll initiative the second combat starts, but not necessarily the second the encounter starts. Basically encounter starts when the PCs or the NPCs notice each other. Combat starts the second one of the two make an attack.
So your example is good. Even if the PCs weren't going to be able to prevent combat it's still good to let them try.
But this is where there should be a warning. While its okay to have some encounters happen no matter what the PCs say, if every single encounter ends with combat no matter what the PCs say eventually they will stop trying and just attack everything.
As for perception give players a chance to spot the bad guys. Unless they are on watch or specifically state they are keeping an eye out, use passive perception. (granted this can be a benefit to the PCs as passive perception often ends up higher.) If you want a surprise have some of them hang back and not attack the PCs until after combat begins.
Its okay if not every attack ends up a surprise even if you meant it to be.
It might just be me here, but I like giving the players a chance to ambush as much as the enemies. It seems to creep away from the DMs time to time. 'Let me add some tension' or 'create something more challenging' etc etc.
Then you look at the scorecard and see:
Times enemies ambushed the player: 10, Times players ambushed an enemy: 1.
Slightly off topic but its something I've noticed a lot more since the Assassin Rogue subtype gets it jollys off of Surprise rounds and its a feature that gets buried.
It might just be me here, but I like giving the players a chance to ambush as much as the enemies. It seems to creep away from the DMs time to time. 'Let me add some tension' or 'create something more challenging' etc etc.
Then you look at the scorecard and see:
Times enemies ambushed the player: 10, Times players ambushed an enemy: 1.
Slightly off topic but its something I've noticed a lot more since the Assassin Rogue subtype gets it jollys off of Surprise rounds and its a feature that gets buried.
The number of times the players are ambushed depends on how the DM roleplays the encounter.
Who has been spotted first, the Characters or the NPCS? The Characters or the NPCs are scouting somehow? Someone is camping? NPCs are expecting the characters coming?
Those are some of the questions to roleplay an encounter. (or at least to add some flavour to it)
It could just be that my groups aren't very imaginative. Or it could just be the nature of the table top game and it's meant to revolve more around story and RP than the combat.
But I've noticed (and I don't know if this is just 5e or not) but combat feels very flat, and very bland.
For example, lets say the players are fighting a dragon. It feels like all we do is go around the table and each player does their thing and hopes to deal some damage. The dragon has X HP and they just need to keep smacking it until the HP is gone. Sure, the dragon gets legendary actions to try and make it more exciting... but it always comes down to how much damage you're taking, or how much damage you're dealing.
Now again, it could be that my group just isn't imaginative. But there's never anything interesting about an encounter. It's just numbers. Damage and AC. or Healing. No one ever thinks "hm, maybe I can blast that stalactite off the ceiling and crush the dragon!" or trying to use their spells together, like maybe a druid using some kind of spell to create water beneath the dragon, and the wizard using a frost spell to freeze it around his claws and immobilize him. Things like that.
Is that a flaw of the system or a flaw of my group? Are there any suggestions people might have that I can use to try and encourage that kind of stuff? Both as a player and a DM. Maybe just try and encourage and suggest it in my own campaign and see if my DM (who plays in my campaign) starts to do the same?
Hey, share with me the most interesting/creative thing you or your group have done in combat!
We all leave footprints in the sands of time.
I agree with most of what Rexx has said above, specifically regarding that combat - like all the other parts of the game - is only as engaging as the people playing the game make it. Getting descriptive, and even making sure that no combat happens without the involvement of scenery and someone or something using that scenery (knocking things over to make difficult terrain, environmental sources of damage or disabling conditions) can easily make combat feel worth spending session time on.
Where I disagree with Rexx is on the supposed generational separation - being from the "video game generation" is not mutually exclusive with being an avid reader, and neither activity is actually required in order for someone to have imagination and ability to express imagined images, though both help (one by showing you the words to use - the other by showing the motions visually and letting you use your own vocabulary to describe them).
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
InsidersOne problem we've run into, while running a campaign with a teenager, is that some people go into D&D with a video game mindset. It's not about the abilities. It's how you use them. The personal flair you add to everything your character does. The spells are there to inspire you. A little creativity can take
I cast Fireball at the dragon.
to
I concentrate for a moment, holding my hand before me. My fingers begin to glow, as a bit of flame takes root there. The flame grows and eventually forms a decent shaped ball, which I throw at the dragon.
A dwarf with a canoe on his back? What could go wrong?
We all leave footprints in the sands of time.
A good way to make combat not so bland is to incorporate the terrain into the fight. If the PCs have to not only contend with actually doing dmg to whatever creature you threw at them but also obstacles on a battlefield they will start incorporating more creativity. Like for instance they may try to burn down a structure to collapse and fall onto the 3 ogres that are following them. Or maybe their encampment has been struck by a drive-and-by fire breath attack and their tent/belongings are about to go up in smoke so they have to not only repel the drake/dragon but also try and save their stuff. The choice between potentially dying or living but without their gear can be a tough one for players to make.
This is just my take on how to spice up battle a bit because you all are completely right. I've found combat with my group to be boring when they are just rolling dice and trying to dmg down a creature. Though this really doesn't help with random encounters as much during travel, if you play that way. I know that I don't have the creative ability to come up with sweet battlefields every time.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
InsidersA dwarf with a canoe on his back? What could go wrong?
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersA good DM is a storyteller, with the players being their assistants.
I always keep this in mind, when telling the tale of a combat - it's not about the fighter rolling a 20, followed by damage dice - either let the player describe what happens themself, or the DM can do it (I do the latter), "You swing a broad blow with your sword, the noon sun reflecting from it's brilliant blade, temporarily blinding the ogre with a flash of light, moments before your blow slashes into it's groin and up, spilling it's intestines on the floor infront of it. The ogre looks down dumbfounded before roaring in pain and swinging wildly at you with his club" *rolls dice for ogre attack*
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
Try taking some time at the start of every other session to get a pulse with your players on it. I do this and it helps take assumptions out of the picture.
What I've found is that is comes down to party composition. If you have 4 players and they are big achievement focused people, it becomes a lot like 4th edition in the ever creeping power curve to keep that hunger at bay. Give them other things to achieve, even in combat. Things like 'have to hold this cup of water without spilling it' and suddenly its less about who you whack over the head and more about keeping the cup holder safe. Dice rolling occurs, but the decision making shifts to keep it interesting. Numbers can only be interesting for so long.
If you have socializers, make sure they are acting out those hits, misses, crits, and botches. The story becomes more the point than the battle.
Give explorers some sort of exploitable terrain where it makes sense. A dead tree that can be felled with a well placed whack from a barbarian friend. A beam of light to manipulate into a chance to End of Turn blind someone off the cuff.
As for me, I choose to believe that an extinct thunder lizard is running a game of Dungeons & Dragons via Twitter!
I like a lot of what you are saying (and props for loquacious, good word) but I definitely disagree on some points. I think the flavour and narration can be really useful, especially in groups that are not comfortable inserting their own. It adds extra layers to the imagery they create in their minds and can really help draw them in, helping them get passed "I attack with my axe". Overdoing can absolutely result a loss of flow/interest though, it requires a bit of a balance.
The points you make about goals are excellent. When your goal in combat is always "kill the enemies", then unless the combat is particularly challenging or flavourful, it will always lead to just rolling dice and piling damage. If you want to make combat dynamic it needs to have more happening. There are many ways to do this: fighting while escaping some sort of disaster, trying to stop a ritual, saving civilians, preventing an escape, etc. Combat with the same goal will start to become stale, DMs need to be creative, mix things up. That's not to say that you can't have an encounter where killing the enemies is the only goal, you just need to do it in creative ways sometimes. I recently did a battle where the players were on top of a tower and their enemies were on flying mounts (a modification of part of the PotA campaign), at one point the monk literally leapt off the tower and down onto the back of a wyvern behind it's rider. It could have gone terribly wrong in many ways but they took an interesting risk and it worked. It was a challenging encounter and the party had a good time figuring out how to get the melee characters (most of the party) into the fight.
I completely agree on the "roll initiative" statement, that almost always comes across as a signal to the players that fighting is what's going to happen. Though I would argue that it has it's place sometimes, it can have excellent dramatic effect at times when the players did not realize that had initiated combat (to the point that the enemy was clearly going to attack. I also often use initiative in my groups during tense situations where one character's actions can easily (and clearly to the party) lead to being attacked (EDIT: or some other clearly undesirable effect). I find it helps to reinforce the idea that combat isn't the solution to everything, and initiative does not equal combat.Dissenting opinion is the start of a useful conversation. :)
I always say that "As a DM I dont need to try to kill my players, they tend to kill themselves." Primarily because an adversarial DM is not fun. A DM that "wins" by TPK is a vengeful self-gratifying deity and its important to set those expectations before things go off rails. That said, I agree with you. Know what challenges your players. The whole CR and whatnot... its training wheels. If pacing dictates some challenge, know what challenging is for your group and throw it at them.
This. So much this.
And this. I have an hourglass timer for events that require 'some' critical thinking. And others are 'immediate reaction, go'. And if they have no response? Then in character they are stunned or have analysis paralysis. It happens. It works wonders for pacing.
I'll pay more attention to this, but I think it comes down to 'how' you use a mechanic. Another way around this is to have 'roll initiative' be a way of starting a social conflict. Who speaks first. Order. And then allow it to be the combat order should it need be. This when tied with your #2 starts to break away that 'a round you are not swinging is a wasted turn'.
As for me, I choose to believe that an extinct thunder lizard is running a game of Dungeons & Dragons via Twitter!
I want to jump in on the topic of trying to kill the player characters:
I think it is important to phrase that sentiment very carefully, because I've seen people say the same words and mean two entirely different things:
A) Play the monsters/NPCs you pick out as opposition to their strengths as best as you can; figure out how to maximize the effectiveness of the abilities each has.
B) Set up the challenges in your campaign so that the most likely outcome is a slew of dead player characters.
A is a way to ramp up the fun of combat while still keeping the DM and players on the same "side" working towards the goal of a fun and engage game-play experience. That means A is a good piece of advice and a good practice for a DM to use.
B is making the game into an adversarial DM vs. players experience. That means B is bad advice and should be avoided because adversarial DMing isn't sustainable - at some point the players, realizing the DM can literally do whatever it takes to make their character dead whenever they desire, will give up on trying to "win" and spend their time doing something other than gaming with the adversarial DM.
My two cents. If you want interesting encounters, make interesting encounters. Have the dragon use his breath weapon to take out a support beam (and possibly some PCs).
Have the dragon bite down on a pc (grapple) and toss the PC into the air. Bite damage + falling damage. (even worse if the dragon can fly)
At some point hopefully the PCs learn they can do those same things.
In regards to perception and ambushing, consider the party is traveling and that is not a quiet affair with armour clanking, horses clopping, boots thumping, insects buzzing around the face and ears. Compare your adversaries Stealth versus the highest Passive Perception of the party. If the adversaries beat them out, let the bad guys get their surprise round actions off. At this point ask the party if they intend to throw a curve ball at the adversaries by calling for parlay or some other thing. If the answer is "no", ask for initiative. Combat commences.
While on guard duty during the rest period, if the rest of the party is asleep, there's no rain or wind to mute noises, the bugs have had their fill of blood, roll the character's Perception for them in secret. The players may know something is up but then you could misdirect them with something else. If secret roll does not exceed the Passive Perception value at a +2 bonus (all IS quiet), then use the enhanced "all is quiet" Passive P. Compare Stealth to Passive/Active P, adjudicate in a logical manner, likely similar to the above statement.
Finally, find an NPC in the party for you to give some voice to that isn't your normal voice. Practice with that. Imagine the innkeeper at the next roadside inn sounds like the Swedish Chef from the Muppets. A little light-heartedness allows the anxiety of the situation to melt and builds the confidence you need to continue the voice acting as you much as you want. Heck, bring props. My DM last session I was a player in pulled out a black, bushy wig for the hag we were encountering. It was a hoot. Don't dive feet-first into method acting until you've worked yourself up to that. The more you DM, the more you'll realize your players like the antics. You know you've "graduated" when you have four NPCs arguing with each other, you have a unique voice for each, and the players can follow who is talking and the kernel of the argument.
Good luck, Synieth. You've got this and when in doubt, someone here will have some sage advice to help you along.
We all leave footprints in the sands of time.
I think what he meant by the don't roll initiative at the start of an encounter is exactly what you are doing.
Essentially you always roll initiative the second combat starts, but not necessarily the second the encounter starts. Basically encounter starts when the PCs or the NPCs notice each other. Combat starts the second one of the two make an attack.
So your example is good. Even if the PCs weren't going to be able to prevent combat it's still good to let them try.
But this is where there should be a warning. While its okay to have some encounters happen no matter what the PCs say, if every single encounter ends with combat no matter what the PCs say eventually they will stop trying and just attack everything.
As for perception give players a chance to spot the bad guys. Unless they are on watch or specifically state they are keeping an eye out, use passive perception. (granted this can be a benefit to the PCs as passive perception often ends up higher.) If you want a surprise have some of them hang back and not attack the PCs until after combat begins.
Its okay if not every attack ends up a surprise even if you meant it to be.
It might just be me here, but I like giving the players a chance to ambush as much as the enemies. It seems to creep away from the DMs time to time. 'Let me add some tension' or 'create something more challenging' etc etc.
Then you look at the scorecard and see:
Times enemies ambushed the player: 10, Times players ambushed an enemy: 1.
Slightly off topic but its something I've noticed a lot more since the Assassin Rogue subtype gets it jollys off of Surprise rounds and its a feature that gets buried.