This topic came up among some of my players yesterday; they liked 5e's simplicity compared to Pathfinder, but lamented how bare bones combat options were, reducing them to basically being a robot every turn. It was interesting seeing this perspective, as he also saw it as a way to distinguish his character and emphasize his roleplay aspects. Without those options, his ability to express his character was limited.

So what's your take on it? Do you prefer combat options per class/subclass to be rich and fleshed out, or simple and straightforward? Is it boring when all you can do is "attack" again every time?

Is it a lack of surface complexity, or a lack of deep complexity?
Because 5E doesn't really have either. There's very little depth to be found in "roll 1d20, add modifiers, and hope for a high number", so you have to pile on surface complexity to find any satisfaction.

What do you mean surface complexity VS deep complexity?

As for the specific player, it was not being challenged in combat and being unable to customize their character because all they can do is attack, essentially, over and over, unless you're a wizard or battle master. That makes it boring to them and doesn't let them be any different than any other random fighter, mechanically.

Most features you get on leveling tend to be subtle or passive so they don't make a big difference either. At least, according to him.

For me, who always played freeformish games like Amber at first, this never bothered me -- but I can understand the complaint if you look to mechanics to represent your character.

One of the reasons I love GURPS is that everyone has access to just about every combat option, exempting things with the "Trained By A Master" prerequisite.  They might suck at arm locks, deceptive attacks, sweeping a leg or what have you but they can always try it.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1011364What do you mean surface complexity VS deep complexity?

For myself, specific options are on the surface, while emergent properties are deep.

So, specifically, fighters in my game can attack, attack with parry, cleave, or stunt. That's the surface.

A (hopefully) deep part is that the fighters can use those abilities to come up with whatever maneuver they wish, in conjunction with the actions of the other party members, to have a variable and engaging experience at the table. Hopefully, these few options combine to create an emergent property that makes it seem that there are either more options than there are, or that there actually are given the circumstances at the time.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1011364As for the specific player, it was not being challenged in combat and being unable to customize their character because all they can do is attack, essentially, over and over, unless you're a wizard or battle master. That makes it boring to them and doesn't let them be any different than any other random fighter, mechanically.

D&D, outside of 3e and 4e, have always had a relatively low what-I-will-call 'special maneuver' capacity. Most characters spend most of combat 'just fighting*,' with most of their decisions being whether or not to move out of the front ranks because their hp are low**. The dominant combat decision is, for the most part, whether to fight--which side has more troops, which is more beaten up, which can afford to suffer battle losses more, etc. This represents the mindset of the early game, where the most important parts of the entire rulebook are the reaction and morale rules.
*Certain classes (mostly the spellcasters, but also others if they happen to have, say, an intelligent longsword which gives them a 1/day web spell, or the like, or now feats/battlemaster abilities, etc.) also have limited use resources that they have to decide if and when to use, but this is an exception to the general norm.
**and corollary decisions like whether to use your polearm or bow or sword, which is mostly also a feature of what rank you are fighting in, but may also represent some more choice, if you use a WvsAC table and or suspect your opponent might be especially vulnerable to a silver dagger or warhammer when you would normally use your sword.

It's fairly realistic. Battles are won and lost by choosing when and where to fight, with what troops at what level of injury/morale, with what tactical/situational advantage, and so on and so forth. Sure, there are some formation arrangements, flanking etc. that might be better emulated (when moving from squad battles to the individual actor battles of D&D) by 'special moves' or the like instead of just into/out-of front line. But for the most part, the special move people make in combat is evading a shield/parry and scoring a hit (a successful to-hit roll), while at the same time not getting hit themselves.

Is it boring? Well, it depends on whether you find the 'when to fight' part and the 'will the goblin lines break and they all flee?' part and the 'did we make the right choice by fighting instead of negotiating more?' part exhilarating. By no means should 'this is how D&D started' be a reason for it to be the same all the way into 5e, but by the same token, 'this is how my players learned to do it in Pathfinder' isn't as well. 5e is nice in that you can dial up or down the choices. I'm sure some people consider 5e with all the vents open not to burn hot enough for their tastes, much like some OSR-types consider it with all the vents closed still too warm (warm in this analogy not being good or bad). But you cannot build a system which covers every range well (IMO), and this one seeks to hold a large swath of the middle, not anywhere near the extremes.

QuoteSo what's your take on it?

My take is that I understand why it happened that subsequent systems included more combat options, and I understand why 5e took a step back. People generally do like the added options... but there doesn't seem to be a great way to do it without incentivizing an arms race/optimization mini-game that most people eventually get sick of (and then go back to a 'simpler' game like OSR/5e, and then miss, and then go back to a 3e/4e/PF/etc., and then get sick of... and so on and so forth).

I love playing a Champion Fighter in 5e. I think it works great. OTOH, my go-to feats are Skilled, Healer, and Ritual Caster. So I do like to have options... I just don't feel that I need special maneuvers in-combat to garner that feeling.

Surface complexity to me is D&D combat, no matter the edition. Roll 1d20, add and subtract modifiers, try to beat a target number. It doesn't matter what your character fluff says you are doing mechanically it is the same. Add to that most D&D lacks any real rules for feint, disarm, parry, dodge, shield bash, etc, in a word close combat tactics... Playing a fighter is kind of boring.

Look to something like The One Ring and combat while mechanically simple has more engaging depth to it. A character has a choice of stances in battle which determine which opponents can attack him, and with what weapons and modifiers. You can declare a protective stance to shelter a companion. There is more to do.

Take it as far as Fate of the Norns: Ragnarok and combat becomes an all on experience. Every round each combatant draws runes with determine what actions and powers they have access to that round. Runes may be chained together to alter their effects. Damage removes runes and there for otions from play until healed.

I do find it boring when all you can di is "roll to hit" each round. But sometimes the solution to this is for the players and GM to learn to see beyond the mechanics.  Do you allow your players to hide behind cover in melee, throw sand in their opponents' eyes, pull ropes tight to try to trip them, and make combat a dynamic environment?  It is a bit more work in D&D. Especially when hit point totals get high, but damage inflicted is low. It becomes a grind.

Quote from: David Johansen;1011372One of the reasons I love GURPS is that everyone has access to just about every combat option, exempting things with the "Trained By A Master" prerequisite.  They might suck at arm locks, deceptive attacks, sweeping a leg or what have you but they can always try it.

Every game that has a combat system I consider consistently enjoyable and quasi-realistic is like this. D&D would be better if you just drew up a list of all the shit you can do with your combat action, and assign each a difficulty penalty. If you want to accept the penalty to your roll you can give it a try. The whole thing would take 1-2 pages in rule book and speed up play because you don't have to figure out which combatant has which idiosyncratic options. I'm pretty much sick to death of the endless lists of powrrrzzz that are how 3E, 4E and 5E discriminate characters.

As with any system that goes for the simple take, especially one that invests most of its complexity in abstraction, D&D demands that the GM put some thought into the environment in which the combats take place.  Don't get me wrong--interesting environments are great in any game.  It's just in D&D, they are practically required to have any tactical interest.  If for no other reason, they prompt even more of those operational decisions that Willie discussed, which will invest the minimal tactical decisions with more weight.  Some people will never enjoy that.

Quote from: Larsdangly;1011380Every game that has a combat system I consider consistently enjoyable and quasi-realistic is like this. D&D would be better if you just drew up a list of all the shit you can do with your combat action, and assign each a difficulty penalty. If you want to accept the penalty to your roll you can give it a try. The whole thing would take 1-2 pages in rule book and speed up play because you don't have to figure out which combatant has which idiosyncratic options. I'm pretty much sick to death of the endless lists of powrrrzzz that are how 3E, 4E and 5E discriminate characters.

:confused: 2e and 3e had almost exactly that. Not 1-2 pages and in 2e it was split between core and Complete Fighters, then later Player's options, and in 3e the without-feat penalties are prohibitive to reasonably attempting (given the combat benefit of the outcome compared to the decreased chance of success). But both of them have that.

When I first started playing D&D, I assumed "attack" meant "attack" and that's it. Now I understand that it's a little more abstract than a literal "stick sword in target" and encompasses whatever theatrical description you want to put on it.

Moreover, I also came to realize that less is more when it comes to combat options. In games like B/X D&D and WFRP 1e (where "attack" is pretty much it) my players get clever about their actions: flipping over tables, hurling chairs, cutting chandeliers loose, whatever. In games like D&D 4e that list out more specific combat options, the players turn into robots, counting squares and more rigidly adhering to the more defined (and thus more limiting) written actions.

Rolling a percentile die, which is basically what a D20 is, impairs the player from the get go. The rest is just hot glue accoutrements.

5e hits my sweet spot; it has a default option plus other stuff like bullrush & grapple. Lots of players can't cope with compulsory complexity.

Depends on the game and genre. I don't want a fiddly combat for courtly intrigue, but I do for military engagements.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1011386:confused: 2e and 3e had almost exactly that. Not 1-2 pages and in 2e it was split between core and Complete Fighters, then later Player's options, and in 3e the without-feat penalties are prohibitive to reasonably attempting (given the combat benefit of the outcome compared to the decreased chance of success). But both of them have that.

That is definitely not the structure of 3E, which regulated actions in combat using a huge number and diversity of feats. I don't recall off hand how without-feat penalties worked, but it's not relevant because the reality is the game was organized around knowing which complex chains of feats each combatant knew. I don't think I ever met anyone who treated these as a generic list of things everyone could try with various penalties.