Busy Characters Make For Better Combat

[MarkVIIIMarc]

Recently I've seen players sho enjoy the quicker rounds of lower level combat. Even then some will sneak in the restroom break right aftet their turn. One complains when his one swing is over about how short his turn was.

I'm thinking having an a busy character with bonus actions and even competing reactions makes for more compelling combat.

Bonus Actions I guess could be seen as complicating turns and slowing down combat.

Reactions might slow things down also but things like Counterspell and Shield come off quickly and sure do make being "on defense" more active.

[Psyren]

I personally find maximizing a character's action economy (Action, Bonus, Reaction, Move, and an OI) every turn to be inherently satisfying. But I don't expect to do that right from level 1 on every character, and some characters only get to do that once or twice per combat even at high levels.

If you want to jazz things up for your low level players who don't have a suite of buttons they can press yet, consider letting them pull of stunts with their move + a check of some kind.

[PhoenixPhyre]

In my experience, lots of short turns for everyone is WAY better than fewer, longer but more involved turns for everyone and especially better than fewer and longer turns for some people.

The original design was that bonus actions and reactions would be rare and if you didn't do them, that's fine. Everyone should be basically doing their one action/movement and that's it. 5e combat works really well when everything's snappy--when everyone takes really short turns and has to react on turn to what others do, instead of planning out the perfect turn that ends everything. Act, don't think about it.

[stoutstien]

Recently I've seen players sho enjoy the quicker rounds of lower level combat. Even then some will sneak in the restroom break right aftet their turn. One complains when his one swing is over about how short his turn was.

I'm thinking having an a busy character with bonus actions and even competing reactions makes for more compelling combat.

Bonus Actions I guess could be seen as complicating turns and slowing down combat.

Reactions might slow things down also but things like Counterspell and Shield come off quickly and sure do make being "on defense" more active.

Shot clocks. Without serious Homebrewing it's about the only way to keep combat from becoming sluggish after around lv 5 and especially anything after lv 10.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Shot clocks. Without serious Homebrewing it's about the only way to keep combat from becoming sluggish after around lv 5 and especially anything after lv 10.

It starts to get slower on the DM side at about that point too with some foes: additional abilities, Legendary Actions, Lair Actions.

Generally I'm not loving the number of decisions that have to be made after some one attacks or casts a spell. All the potential reactions really slow things down. As the DM you're always checking to see if a player wants to mitigate something you've done, then you may have to re-roll. Even on the player side things like Smite or BM maneuvers that can be added after an attack increase decisions that are being made during a turn. These things tend to keep piling up as players level so that a round just takes too long.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It starts to get slower on the DM side at about that point too with some foes: additional abilities, Legendary Actions, Lair Actions.

Generally I'm not loving the number of decisions that have to be made after some one attacks or casts a spell. All the potential reactions really slow things down. As the DM you're always checking to see if a player wants to mitigate something you've done, then you may have to re-roll. Even on the player side things like Smite or BM maneuvers that can be added after an attack increase decisions that are being made during a turn. These things tend to keep piling up as players level so that a round just takes too long.

Yeah. Which is why I prefer simple monsters that basically have one "big thing" and mostly regular attacks. And few, if any, actual spells. Especially when I'm running a mass encounter (ie more than 1-3 monsters)--being able to quick roll attacks is nice (roll a handful of d20s and just count hits instead of monster by monster, one at a time). I like Kobold Press's monster books...but they love to lard things up with conditional effects (if someone X while Y is happening, then Z, except when...) that bog things down.

[stoutstien]

It starts to get slower on the DM side at about that point too with some foes: additional abilities, Legendary Actions, Lair Actions.

Generally I'm not loving the number of decisions that have to be made after some one attacks or casts a spell. All the potential reactions really slow things down. As the DM you're always checking to see if a player wants to mitigate something you've done, then you may have to re-roll. Even on the player side things like Smite or BM maneuvers that can be added after an attack increase decisions that are being made during a turn. These things tend to keep piling up as players level so that a round just takes too long.

On the DM side it definitely takes hours of experience to keep the pacing adequate. There is a fine line between an interesting NPC/environment combo and a burdensome one. I use the 3x5 index card rule. If it doesn't fit in that then it's probably not streamline enough.

One thing I've been experimenting with is limiting rerolls to one total per action for everyone. Who ever act quicker gets to apply theirs and it locks out any additional option.

[Yakmala]

I've always enjoyed playing Battle Masters for this very reason.

Plenty of maneuvers that use a bonus action, or use your bonus action to give the party rogue or paladin another sneak attack or smite via Commander's Strike. And then with various maneuvers and feats, you can set yourself up to have a reaction for almost every situation. Got hit? Defensive Duelist or Parry. Enemy missed? Riposte. Enemy tries to run or hit an ally next to you? Sentinel.

[Amechra]

I honestly feel like martial characters should get Extra Attack at a much earlier stage for exactly this reason — it makes your Attack action a lot less all-or-nothing.

[kazaryu]

Recently I've seen players sho enjoy the quicker rounds of lower level combat. Even then some will sneak in the restroom break right aftet their turn. One complains when his one swing is over about how short his turn was.


to me this sounds like a relative problem.

it sounds like the pleyer is saying
my turn is short

when the problem is actually:
my turn is short compared to other peoples which...yeah, i mean that can feel bad, when it feels like everyone else is doing more than you.

[Skrum]

I have mixed and competing feelings on this. On one hand, keeping combat moving is one the best skills a DM can have, and knowing your own limits in terms of how complicated you can make combat while still keeping the pace up is extremely important to running a successful game.

But - I hesitate to advocate cutting player options or getting too aggressive with a "shot clock." Making mechanically balanced combat is hard enough as it is, and I would *hate* to loose the ultra-deadly combats that really push the players to make optimal choices. On paper, you could reduce the deadliness a little, knowing the players only have a few seconds to take their turn will lead to suboptimal moves....but that's a lot of bank shots.

If the players and DM aren't really into mechanics and really just want to get back to RP, than sure, make speedy combats. But I would associate that with a low-op game where players aren't making Destroyer of Worlds characters that maximize their every action anyway. I however like making op'd characters, and would hate to be robbed of the opportunity to use my abilities to their fullest.

[stoutstien]

I have mixed and competing feelings on this. On one hand, keeping combat moving is one the best skills a DM can have, and knowing your own limits in terms of how complicated you can make combat while still keeping the pace up is extremely important to running a successful game.

But - I hesitate to advocate cutting player options or getting too aggressive with a "shot clock." Making mechanically balanced combat is hard enough as it is, and I would *hate* to loose the ultra-deadly combats that really push the players to make optimal choices. On paper, you could reduce the deadliness a little, knowing the players only have a few seconds to take their turn will lead to suboptimal moves....but that's a lot of bank shots.

If the players and DM aren't really into mechanics and really just want to get back to RP, than sure, make speedy combats. But I would associate that with a low-op game where players aren't making Destroyer of Worlds characters that maximize their every action anyway. I however like making op'd characters, and would hate to be robbed of the opportunity to use my abilities to their fullest.

If you need more than 30seconds(barring vitrify information from DM) to figure out what your character is doing in a fraction of a second then you are already in way over your head and are going to make poor decisions regardless of the clock just by the nature of how our brains work. You want feeling forward responses not calculated sheets of numbers driving them. 5e combat is supposed to be dramatic and Drama needs tension.
The shot clock for most is hypothetical and just acts as soft motivation to not stall to weigh 30 different options that realistically won't effect the outcome anyways.

**I definitely have a subjective shot clock based on experience of player, the exact challenge at hand, and their general response to adding tension In this fashion.**

[Skrum]

If you need more than 30seconds(barring vitrify information from DM) to figure out what your character is doing in a fraction of a second then you are already in way over your head and are going to make poor decisions regardless of the clock just by the nature of how our brains work. You want feeling forward responses not calculated sheets of numbers driving them. 5e combat is supposed to be dramatic and Drama needs tension.
The shot clock for most is hypothetical and just acts as soft motivation to not stall to weigh 30 different options that realistically won't effect the outcome anyways.

**I definitely have a subjective shot clock based on experience of player, the exact challenge at hand, and their general response to adding tension In this fashion.**

I mean I basically agree with that. I'm not advocating for 5m turns or anything. I strongly encourage people to consider their turns when it's not their turn, and they should have a good idea what they're going to do. The group I play with has a "soft clock" that kicks in more when someone is hemming and hawing, and not when they're making a bunch of moves (even if the bunch of moves take a minute). It also kicks in a lot sooner on the people that are really strong with the rules.

What this really comes down to is I greatly enjoy tactical combat - as a player I like using everything my character has to offer, and as a DM I like making combats that push the players to "pull out all the stops." I'd be hesitant, or at least cognoscente, of making rules that might work against that kind of combat.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

I mean I basically agree with that. I'm not advocating for 5m turns or anything. I strongly encourage people to consider their turns when it's not their turn, and they should have a good idea what they're going to do. The group I play with has a "soft clock" that kicks in more when someone is hemming and hawing, and not when they're making a bunch of moves (even if the bunch of moves take a minute). It also kicks in a lot sooner on the people that are really strong with the rules.

What this really comes down to is I greatly enjoy tactical combat - as a player I like using everything my character has to offer, and as a DM I like making combats that push the players to "pull out all the stops." I'd be hesitant, or at least cognoscente, of making rules that might work against that kind of combat.

I like that also. I get out my 10 D20's if I've Animated Objects or make sure I have my weapon bonus ready if I'm attacking. Sometimes the turn before mine or something the DM says causes a change in plans but I try.

A little random, but next time I DM I'm going to concentrate on having the environment mean more in combat even if it complications things because player engagement is important.

Going back to busy, I think if a player is waiting to drop Cutting Words or Counterspell when its not their turn then they are more likely to be engaged and paying attention. Thus they'll be ready for their turn.

[Tanarii]

The original design was that bonus actions and reactions would be rare and if you didn't do them, that's fine. Everyone should be basically doing their one action/movement and that's it. 5e combat works really well when everything's snappy--when everyone takes really short turns and has to react on turn to what others do, instead of planning out the perfect turn that ends everything. Act, don't think about it.
I agree except for the on turn thing. IMO it works best if everyone's turn is snappy and other players are thinking about what they're going to do ahead of time, adjusting as events occur. Folks that wait to start considering their turn until it comes up just slows things down. I've been a player in enough games in which phones were allowed "because character sheets & spells" and experienced first hand another player looking up on their turn with a "Huh, what's going on?" and trying to assess the situation enough to even start deciding on the most basic action.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I agree except for the on turn thing. IMO it works best if everyone's turn is snappy and other players are thinking about what they're going to do ahead of time, adjusting as events occur. Folks that wait to start considering their turn until it comes up just slows things down. I've been a player in enough games in which phones were allowed "because character sheets & spells" and experienced first hand another player looking up on their turn with a "Huh, what's going on?" and trying to assess the situation enough to even start deciding on the most basic action.

I probably phrased that poorly. You should know what you can do and what (generally) you want to do and pay attention, so that when your turn comes you can act immediately. If your preferred action isn't useful anymore, either have a backup or choose something, anything. Don't bring play to a halt while you leaf through your sheet or hem and haw about placement or sequence. Do thing, even if not then most optimal, then let someone else go.

[da newt]

If you can't make your decision before the shot clock goes off, you have to take a shot. Great games ensue.

Yeah - I really like to try to figure out how to make the most out of my turn - action, movement, BA, reaction, item interaction, ... but it's also really important that I do my heavy pondering before it's my turn to act.

As DM, there's nothing that frustrates me more than players who don't try to think until after you remind them that it's their turn now, and I also dislike running combats with 3+ complex NPC/monsters and multiple other types of minions and ... so many things that I can't fight them all well and efficiently because my crappy little memory bank doesn't work all that well.

I've got a regular game with some great people but it's a party of 8 plus minions and the DM absolutely loves to create combats with a dozen or more different baddies that all have their own turn in initiative plus legendary actions and layer actions - a single round of combat can literally take more than an hour. It can be frustrating.

[Tanarii]

I probably phrased that poorly. You should know what you can do and what (generally) you want to do and pay attention, so that when your turn comes you can act immediately. If your preferred action isn't useful anymore, either have a backup or choose something, anything. Don't bring play to a halt while you leaf through your sheet or hem and haw about placement or sequence. Do thing, even if not then most optimal, then let someone else go.
Oh agreed. Squares on a battlemat aside, combat shouldn't feel like chess (or other board game of choice). If I want that I'll go play Gloomhaven.

Which is also why I prefer to avoid battlemats unless necessary. They slow combat down too much, so aren't worth using until you cross the point where things are slowed and complicated worse by the inability to visualize the situation.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Oh agreed. Squares on a battlemat aside, combat shouldn't feel like chess (or other board game of choice). If I want that I'll go play Gloomhaven.

Which is also why I prefer to avoid battlemats unless necessary. They slow combat down too much, so aren't worth using until you cross the point where things are slowed and complicated worse by the inability to visualize the situation.

Which with my almost aphantasia and general no working memory, isn't very big at all. I'm great with words, but spacial relationships? Yeah, no. Not while I'm trying to also pay attention to they players and narrate the fiction.

[Tanarii]

Which with my almost aphantasia and general no working memory, isn't very big at all. I'm great with words, but spacial relationships? Yeah, no. Not while I'm trying to also pay attention to they players and narrate the fiction.
I found out it was a low bar for most players compared to me the DM. In retrospect it's hardly surprising, the DM has the action in their mind, and has to translate it sufficiently for general positioning and ranges to be judged. And 5e doesn't use zones (eg Close/Near/Far) or similar that many other games use to help enable TotM combat. A simple white board diagram can help up to a certain point of course.

Otoh after playing without them at all after years of exclusively using them (from 2e C&T throughout 4e) and then trying 5e without, I now find the various negative effect of battlemats to be high enough cost that it's worth avoiding them as much as possible.

[stoutstien]

Which with my almost aphantasia and general no working memory, isn't very big at all. I'm great with words, but spacial relationships? Yeah, no. Not while I'm trying to also pay attention to they players and narrate the fiction.

I feel yea. I have severe APD so I have about the perfect opposite of that.

[Telok]

I have mixed and competing feelings on this. On one hand, keeping combat moving is one the best skills a DM can have, and knowing your own limits in terms of how complicated you can make combat while still keeping the pace up is extremely important to running a successful game.

But - I hesitate to advocate cutting player options or getting too aggressive with a "shot clock." Making mechanically balanced combat is hard enough as it is, and I would *hate* to loose the ultra-deadly combats that really push the players to make optimal choices. On paper, you could reduce the deadliness a little, knowing the players only have a few seconds to take their turn will lead to suboptimal moves....but that's a lot of bank shots.

If the players and DM aren't really into mechanics and really just want to get back to RP, than sure, make speedy combats. But I would associate that with a low-op game where players aren't making Destroyer of Worlds characters that maximize their every action anyway. I however like making op'd characters, and would hate to be robbed of the opportunity to use my abilities to their fullest.

It is all complicated. If the players face critters that are all just attack/save for damage and/or a class-subclass without significant reaction options then there's typically nothing for them to do off turn except occasionally take damage. If the only known way to win combat is by doing lots of damage then there's no reason to do anything but spam damage. But options are complexity that slows people down. If things are too complicated people take longer and the better players are stuck waiting around getting bored while someone counts squares and checks their lists or recalculates a standard bonus yet again. If things are too simple you get players shutting off while waiting for their turn to come back around because they just don't have meaningful choices to make.

And the terrible thing is that the limits are all specific to each individual. My group has people in our group who basically can't take fast turns when anything in the fight isn't just attack/damage. Then there are a couple people like me, without hard choices the fight is a boring time sink between the actual fun game parts. Throw in a DM who doesn't "do" complicated stuff by default (no fancy environments, no special interactive scenery, no NPCs setting up combos or zones or doing positioning manipulation) and half our group could (and a very few times have) nodded off waiting for our turn before glancing at the board, calling a move, throwing a few dice, and still finishing their turn faster than half the other people at the table.

I mean, I'm actually participating around 6 minutes out of every hour of combat in a game where it varies from 3 to 6 players (averaging about mid-high 4s as 3 players is less common than 6 but the most common number is 4) and despite having actual options because I run a caster I'm pretty bored most of the time because there just isn't anything going on except standard attacks & damage that barely require any attention. Combat's just boring being only hit point junk, but anything else slows it to a crawl as some of the players can't cope with the "complexity" that comes with more going on than basic attacks & damage. Counterspell and enemy casters with actual spells are the only things that are worth paying attention to.

[Chronos]

Ultimately, if you have four players in the party, then each player is going to spend 1/5 of the combat time "doing stuff". If one player is spending more than that, then it inevitably means someone else is spending less. There's no way around that. So then the question is just whether that's short turns followed by (4 times) short waiting times, or long turns followed by (4 times) long waiting times.

Maybe there's something to be said for the long-turns option. For one thing, it does make it possible to take a quick bathroom break between your turns. On the other hand, though, it also makes it possible to check your phone between your turns, or other things that end up being distracting.

[Telok]

Maybe there's something to be said for the long-turns option. For one thing, it does make it possible to take a quick bathroom break between your turns. On the other hand, though, it also makes it possible to check your phone between your turns, or other things that end up being distracting.

I think the ideal would be for everyone to have 2-4 fairly straight forward, meaningful, & fast to resolve options at any time, including off turn options.

As it is there are characters with effectively no options outside "hit it" and maybe one often meaningless opportunity attack. And multi-attack takes flippin time for how simple it is. Move a bit, roll attack, hit?, damage, save? killed?, move more, opp attack, hit?, save?, finish move, 2nd attack, hit?, damage, etc., etc. Then there are characters with 10-20 applicable spells+misc. available each turn plus four possible useful off turn reactions to being attacked (but no useful opportunity attacks).

Weirdly some spells are far simpler and faster than mundane actions. Simply by being a single action with save+damage or one effect. Almost all the perceived complexity comes from bad/missing formatting in stat blocks, lack of prep from players, or just overcomplicated multi-step effects.

[KorvinStarmast]

In my experience, lots of short turns for everyone is WAY better than fewer, longer but more involved turns for everyone and especially better than fewer and longer turns for some people. There are some people who are not prepared when it is their turn. It is for me a frustration as a player and a DM.

5e combat works really well when everything's snappy--when everyone takes really short turns and has to react on turn to what others do, instead of planning out the perfect turn that ends everything. Act, don't think about it. IMO that needed to be written in bold in the DMG and in the PHB in the 'how to play' guidance.

I probably phrased that poorly. You should know what you can do and what (generally) you want to do and pay attention, so that when your turn comes you can act immediately. I do my best to meet this standard as a player (with the 'fell asleep because it is late and it's an on line game' exceptions accepted with egg all over my face).
If you can't make your decision before the shot clock goes off, you have to take a shot. Great games ensue. My RoE in the last three years is: "make a decision, or you dodge" and I still have to use this with a couple of players.

but it's also really important that I do my heavy pondering before it's my turn to act. Yes, it is crucial to pay attention to what the others are doing.

As DM, there's nothing that frustrates me more than players who don't try to think until after you remind them that it's their turn now,


I've got a regular game with some great people but it's a party of 8 plus minions and the DM absolutely loves to create combats with a dozen or more different baddies that all have their own turn in initiative plus legendary actions and layer actions - a single round of combat can literally take more than an hour. It can be frustrating. That's my brother's game, almost to a T. Are you in our group?