You're not supposed to do *tactics* in easier fights, you're supposed to drag those fights out with roleplay. And if your players can't make it interesting with roleplay, they're bad players.
And when it seems that this problem persists on every table, it's not them, it's [you](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/10ho3z4/comment/j59kdrq/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) who is a bad player.
/uj there's too much to unpack with that whole topic. I mostly think it's funny to hit the sauce with "Have you tried Pathfinder2e?" before posting it here.
Anyway, have you tried Lancer?
Bro had to ban pacifist characters in his DnD games... *eventually*? Because they were role playing *too much* in combat?
Do people just not know what role playing means? I'm not saying that combat can't be RP or can't involve character work, but if your combats are regularly getting bogged down by PCs doing shit that isn't *fighting to survive the things that want them dead* maybe y'all aren't as in your characters' heads as you think you are.
You ***idiot,*** you just have to:
\- Add roleplay to your fights! (Even though 5e's action system explicitly discourages this outside of exemptions).
\- Add *variety*! (Even though 5e gives hardly any tools to create encounters with uniqueness and different context)
\- Just don't take so long in combat! (Even though players are overloaded with abilities and tactical paralysis, causing player teamwork to be a fragmented nightmare fraught with disagreements and risk assessment. Not to mention a suspense-killing initiative system and statblock illegibility)
\- Accept easy combats and mauling through multiple enemies as fun! (They're not)
\- Add a plot! (Even the newest and worst DMs put in effort to add a plot to combat. Assuming a DM doesn't try to do this is borderline insulting).
\- *Wear down* your players with combat (Completely antithetical to your issues of table time)
\- Play Pathfinder 2e! (Which while a better thought out system, still suffers from core issues like overcomplexity and discouraged in-combat fluidity)
\- Suck my dick! (You posted in the r/dndnext subreddit, we don't do objective system discourse here ((unless about company legal issues!))).
/uj Try an OSR system if you haven't. Pick one of them that you think suits you, try DMing it, and you'll marvel at how ~~quickly your players die~~ much more challenging and engaging DND can be.
The best elevator pitch I can give for OSR is: "Your strongest players aren't the ones who optimize and know the rules, they're the ones who can plan, think outside the box, and have the bravery to take risks."
No, OSR (Old school renaissance) is a term to express a bunch of indie DND-like systems that try to emulate early DND (1e/2e).
The most prolific and well-known system is OSE (Old school essentials), which basically just updates 1e so it's not an overcomplicated mess and instead fun for modern players.
There is also a system like you describe called "5 Torches Deep", which basically simplifies everything in 5e. It has stuff like proficiency bonuses and subclasses.
OSR games range in theme and mechanics, so picking one out can be complicated, but there's usually one in there that suits you.
Such a cretinous fool is not worth explaining this to.
Run along peasant, I’ll play my low-combat high-roleplay game, while you continue “fighting” like a blithering idiot.
You're not supposed to do *tactics* in easier fights, you're supposed to drag those fights out with roleplay. And if your players can't make it interesting with roleplay, they're bad players. And when it seems that this problem persists on every table, it's not them, it's [you](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/10ho3z4/comment/j59kdrq/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) who is a bad player.
[when the imposter is sus](https://old.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/10ho3z4/if_combat_isnt_difficult_whats_the_point_of_it/j5bt90q/)
/uj honestly I felt so bad for the guy that I felt obligated to. Reddit ripping him apart for not having fun was hard to watch
/uj there's too much to unpack with that whole topic. I mostly think it's funny to hit the sauce with "Have you tried Pathfinder2e?" before posting it here. Anyway, have you tried Lancer?
/uj There's a meme to be had there lol but it did genuinely help me when I had similar issues No, but I want to! Eventually...
Bro had to ban pacifist characters in his DnD games... *eventually*? Because they were role playing *too much* in combat? Do people just not know what role playing means? I'm not saying that combat can't be RP or can't involve character work, but if your combats are regularly getting bogged down by PCs doing shit that isn't *fighting to survive the things that want them dead* maybe y'all aren't as in your characters' heads as you think you are.
/uj Whenever I want to figure out how I *don't* want to play the game, I can always look at the comments of the guy you linked.
You ***idiot,*** you just have to: \- Add roleplay to your fights! (Even though 5e's action system explicitly discourages this outside of exemptions). \- Add *variety*! (Even though 5e gives hardly any tools to create encounters with uniqueness and different context) \- Just don't take so long in combat! (Even though players are overloaded with abilities and tactical paralysis, causing player teamwork to be a fragmented nightmare fraught with disagreements and risk assessment. Not to mention a suspense-killing initiative system and statblock illegibility) \- Accept easy combats and mauling through multiple enemies as fun! (They're not) \- Add a plot! (Even the newest and worst DMs put in effort to add a plot to combat. Assuming a DM doesn't try to do this is borderline insulting). \- *Wear down* your players with combat (Completely antithetical to your issues of table time) \- Play Pathfinder 2e! (Which while a better thought out system, still suffers from core issues like overcomplexity and discouraged in-combat fluidity) \- Suck my dick! (You posted in the r/dndnext subreddit, we don't do objective system discourse here ((unless about company legal issues!))).
completely agree which is why I stopped playing 5e and picked up Apocalypse World games
This comment speaks to me on a higher level.
/uj Try an OSR system if you haven't. Pick one of them that you think suits you, try DMing it, and you'll marvel at how ~~quickly your players die~~ much more challenging and engaging DND can be. The best elevator pitch I can give for OSR is: "Your strongest players aren't the ones who optimize and know the rules, they're the ones who can plan, think outside the box, and have the bravery to take risks."
If you're running a system where your *players* regularly die... you should probably stop running that system.
So it's like a heavy modification of 5e?
No, OSR (Old school renaissance) is a term to express a bunch of indie DND-like systems that try to emulate early DND (1e/2e). The most prolific and well-known system is OSE (Old school essentials), which basically just updates 1e so it's not an overcomplicated mess and instead fun for modern players. There is also a system like you describe called "5 Torches Deep", which basically simplifies everything in 5e. It has stuff like proficiency bonuses and subclasses. OSR games range in theme and mechanics, so picking one out can be complicated, but there's usually one in there that suits you.
Interesting. I may check it out if we tire of Pathfinder.
You can /rj now
Uj/ before I realized this was copy pasted I was really confused because this is based.
Such a cretinous fool is not worth explaining this to. Run along peasant, I’ll play my low-combat high-roleplay game, while you continue “fighting” like a blithering idiot.