Switch Theme:

D&D 5th Edition Combat is Boring  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






IMO, Battlemaster is not just the best designed Fighter archetype, it's one of the best designed archetypes in 5e period. It gives you plenty of meaningful choices, and the ability to really do more than just "I swing, hit, x damage, rinse repeat". The Unearthed Arcana with expanded class features even allowed you to utilize your maneuver dice outside of combat for certain skill checks.

Although as usual none of that matters once you start getting to certain (5th somewhat, 7th definitely) levels where the magic curve just goes completely out of the atmosphere.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/19 16:07:19


 
   
Made in de
Terrifying Doombull






Nuremberg

5e tames mages somewhat, but they are still a lot more powerful than fighters. Personally, I think they should have dropped all the full casters down a hit dice category to make them more fragile and therefore a bit more on par with fighters etc.

   
Made in us
Member of the Ethereal Council




USA

I don't think fighters are really any weaker than magic users. Magic users have more flexibility, but Fighters absolutely beast the damage charts unless they're built really badly.

Just last week one of my party fighters dished out 280 damage in one turn and we're only level nine (basically killed a hydra all by himself). Not one of the party magic users is capable of that kind of output, and they definitely don't get the ability to do it again with just a short rest. No other class except Paladin/Warlock/Sorc combos can pump out damage like Fighters can.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/19 16:30:39


   
Made in us
Dominating Dominatrix






 Da Boss wrote:
5e tames mages somewhat, but they are still a lot more powerful than fighters. Personally, I think they should have dropped all the full casters down a hit dice category to make them more fragile and therefore a bit more on par with fighters etc.


Unfortunately, durability does not equal offensive output 1 for 1. Consider 3rd ed fighters who with the best armor, a good sheild, and lots of HP (and the right feats) was the tankiest you could get, and completely incapable of contributing meaningfully to end a fight. The rogue, the barbarian, the wizard... doing damage is/was always more important.

Taking away 2 potential HP per level won't negate the difference in damage potential or the diversity of tools available to them vs a guy with a sword.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in de
Terrifying Doombull






Nuremberg

True, but it would go some way to addressing it. It seems to me that the trend has been to boost HP on casters without any conmeasurate boost for the fighters.

Durability does not matter 1v1, but since Dungeons and Dragons is a team game, the durable fighter has a role to play in protecting the spellcasters from enemies. I agree it is perhaps not the glorious role the fighter might prefer.

5e is better than many versions of the game I have played in putting reasonable limits on spellcasters in terms of available spell slots and limiting spells with durations through the concentration mechanic. But I can see that mages are still the most popular archetype, and spells the most interesting system to interact with in the game.

   
Made in us
Dominating Dominatrix






 Da Boss wrote:
True, but it would go some way to addressing it. It seems to me that the trend has been to boost HP on casters without any conmeasurate boost for the fighters.

Durability does not matter 1v1, but since Dungeons and Dragons is a team game, the durable fighter has a role to play in protecting the spellcasters from enemies. I agree it is perhaps not the glorious role the fighter might prefer.


In order for that to be true they have to actually be capable of protecting everyone. Very few versions of the melee classes have any capability of doing that besides getting in somethings face and taking hits. And then they are reliant on others keeping them alive in the middle of that. VS a breath weapon or other AOEs the fighter can do nothing and the only thing that saves the team is to kill it asap so it stops causing damage.

5e is better than many versions of the game I have played in putting reasonable limits on spellcasters in terms of available spell slots and limiting spells with durations through the concentration mechanic. But I can see that mages are still the most popular archetype, and spells the most interesting system to interact with in the game.


I agree 5th is better than previous versions of DnD. Being better hasn't quite made it good yet.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in de
Terrifying Doombull






Nuremberg

That is a fair cop, yeah.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






 Lance845 wrote:
 Da Boss wrote:
True, but it would go some way to addressing it. It seems to me that the trend has been to boost HP on casters without any conmeasurate boost for the fighters.

Durability does not matter 1v1, but since Dungeons and Dragons is a team game, the durable fighter has a role to play in protecting the spellcasters from enemies. I agree it is perhaps not the glorious role the fighter might prefer.


In order for that to be true they have to actually be capable of protecting everyone. Very few versions of the melee classes have any capability of doing that besides getting in somethings face and taking hits. And then they are reliant on others keeping them alive in the middle of that. VS a breath weapon or other AOEs the fighter can do nothing and the only thing that saves the team is to kill it asap so it stops causing damage.

5e is better than many versions of the game I have played in putting reasonable limits on spellcasters in terms of available spell slots and limiting spells with durations through the concentration mechanic. But I can see that mages are still the most popular archetype, and spells the most interesting system to interact with in the game.


I agree 5th is better than previous versions of DnD. Being better hasn't quite made it good yet.


Both of these issues (tank/melee types being able to protect against more than weapon swings and melee/caster option balance) were addressed pretty well in the edition everyone loves to poop on.

Edit: I also disagree 100% with dropping caster HP as a balancing effort. It didn't work well in 3.pf and it wouldn't work now.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/19 18:15:39


 
   
Made in us
Dominating Dominatrix






Yeah, they did balance out everyone pretty well with 4th. The game itself wasn't super balanced in terms of monsters vs players but class to class the balance was tighter then it has ever been.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in de
Terrifying Doombull






Nuremberg

As a game, 4e is alright, especially if you use the later monster design rather than the first few monster manuals. As a simulation, it is pretty poor, and that can be immersion breaking for people. It is arguable that it was not THAT much more immersion breaking than any other version of the game though.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






 Lance845 wrote:
Yeah, they did balance out everyone pretty well with 4th. The game itself wasn't super balanced in terms of monsters vs players but class to class the balance was tighter then it has ever been.

I kinda agree. By MM3 the monster vs player balance was back on, but I never really had an issue with the early MMs either. It encouraged flanking and team work, as well as really feeling those power bonuses a lot of At-Will power gave out. I think the main issue was their encounter design notes not really pushing minions as much as I think they should have. The HP bloat issue a lot of combat encounters ran into melts away when you have a bunch of 1HP mooks in.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Da Boss wrote:
As a game, 4e is alright, especially if you use the later monster design rather than the first few monster manuals. As a simulation, it is pretty poor, and that can be immersion breaking for people. It is arguable that it was not THAT much more immersion breaking than any other version of the game though.


Yeah, I didn't have any more or less issues with immersion than I did in 3.pf. Like a lot of groups, we played on a grid already in 3.5 and even though everything was officially "feet", we counted everything in squares anyway. ("You can move 30 feet, 6 squares") I don't really get the simulation argument, if I'm being honest. Or how 3.pf was a better 'simulation' than 4e was.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/19 18:27:29


 
   
Made in us
Dominating Dominatrix






I think 4th, as a TTRPG, still fails as Da Boss points out. The fluff and story of it was paper thin and the game sat front and center which is why it felt like a TT video game. But arguably the only difference between 4th and the other editions is that the others hid it better. None of the DnD editions are anything more than TT video games. Levels, Classes, the way HP and Healing is handled etc... all builds more towards a massive beat um up more then it does an actual RPG.

I still think the hate for 4th comes more from the immersion breaking then the mechanics. Some of 4ths better ideas are in 5th and some of 3rds worse ideas are in 5th too just to replace the parts of 4th people didn't like because it felt too gamey.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in de
Terrifying Doombull






Nuremberg

steamdragon: Honestly I think it comes down to some fairly superficial stuff overall. But sometimes that is enough to put people off. I ran several campaigns in 4e and don't mind it at all.

   
Made in us
Exalted Beastlord




 Da Boss wrote:
True, but it would go some way to addressing it. It seems to me that the trend has been to boost HP on casters without any conmeasurate boost for the fighters.

Durability does not matter 1v1, but since Dungeons and Dragons is a team game, the durable fighter has a role to play in protecting the spellcasters from enemies. I agree it is perhaps not the glorious role the fighter might prefer.


The problem is there isn't any capability to do it.* It always comes down to a gentlemen's agreement that that the monsters won't attack the casters while the fighters are on the field.
Which is literally the opposite of what intelligent monsters would do.


*no, not even in 4e. There were theoretical mechanics for it, but the penalties and damage weren't high enough for monsters to actually care. It was still mathematically better to ignore the tanks and kill the squishies.
Like most 4e mechanics, the designers' math was simply incorrect.

From a party point of view, is was better to go without tanks. (or 'controllers'). DPS and leaders were the way to go, especially multiple warlords, so everyone is handing out extra actions all the time. It was one of the few effective ways to plow through the HP bloat that 4e doubled down on from 3rd edition.

Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in us
Member of the Ethereal Council




USA

The only class with tanking mechanics I actually like is the Barbarian, bonus points if you go for the Spirits subclass that gives you lots of tools for tanking. Barbs can actually make attacking them directly enticing.

   
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

You guys know that the phb and the dmg both have a rule saying "if your players want to attempt something cool, find the best skill check/difficulty to see if they succeed, and come up with a reasonable outcome for it", right? I mean, the actual combat options seem limited, but ability/skill checks to do out-of-the-box things are still completely valid and in the rules.

The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
 
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN

Which I frequently try to do.....

Throwing torches at things, entangling, flat of the blade hits, called shots, knock downs, disarming, body slams, shield bashing, trips, martial arts/wrestling throws, Pommel slams, head butts, clotheslines, cross guard parry, quick draw strikes, thumbs to the eyes, throwing sand, glare off the blade, etc.

I am sure my DM hates me!

Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in nl
Wolf Guard Bodyguard in Terminator Armor




 Lance845 wrote:
I think 4th, as a TTRPG, still fails as Da Boss points out. The fluff and story of it was paper thin and the game sat front and center which is why it felt like a TT video game. But arguably the only difference between 4th and the other editions is that the others hid it better. None of the DnD editions are anything more than TT video games. Levels, Classes, the way HP and Healing is handled etc... all builds more towards a massive beat um up more then it does an actual RPG.

I still think the hate for 4th comes more from the immersion breaking then the mechanics. Some of 4ths better ideas are in 5th and some of 3rds worse ideas are in 5th too just to replace the parts of 4th people didn't like because it felt too gamey.


Pretty sure that's a weird chicken/egg thing, as D&D predates RPG videogames by quite a bit, and in fact the genre was built on it and its ilk's bones.
Then 4th emulated its cousins for some reason
   
Made in us
Dominating Dominatrix






Bran Dawri wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
I think 4th, as a TTRPG, still fails as Da Boss points out. The fluff and story of it was paper thin and the game sat front and center which is why it felt like a TT video game. But arguably the only difference between 4th and the other editions is that the others hid it better. None of the DnD editions are anything more than TT video games. Levels, Classes, the way HP and Healing is handled etc... all builds more towards a massive beat um up more then it does an actual RPG.

I still think the hate for 4th comes more from the immersion breaking then the mechanics. Some of 4ths better ideas are in 5th and some of 3rds worse ideas are in 5th too just to replace the parts of 4th people didn't like because it felt too gamey.


Pretty sure that's a weird chicken/egg thing, as D&D predates RPG videogames by quite a bit, and in fact the genre was built on it and its ilk's bones.
Then 4th emulated its cousins for some reason


The point is that 3rd and 5th ALSO do that. They just hide it better. What are cantrips if not at will abilities? Look at all the class abilities in 5th that only refresh after a long rest. 4th hasnt emulated its cousins any more than the others already did.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in de
Terrifying Doombull






Nuremberg

That is why I think some of it was aesthetic rather than substantive. The art style was quite different, and a bit more computer gamey. The layout style was significantly different, much more colourful and not this faux parchment style.

And the vocabulary made the mechanics and game elements more obvious. At Will abilities and Encounter Powers are named in a way that acknowledges they are options in a game, whereas calling them Cantrips and Warlock Powers is slightly more "in world" language, which as you say hides it better.

The thing is, for a game like Dungeons and Dragons, how it 'feels' to play is pretty important for a lot of peoples enjoyment. Small things like that can be enough to break peoples immersion, and sour them on the game especially in comparison with what they were used to. It is not that common for people to look at it with a critical eye for game design (and even then, there were some mechanical changes to 4e that were not very well thought out in the first pass).

I enjoyed it, and I think it has something going for it as a tactical game, but I can see why people did not like it.

   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps






Personally my favorite edition is still 4E, for many reasons. Not obscuring the actual mechanics is just one of them.
   
Made in us
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought





The Beach

/shrug

Everything about D&D 5E is boring. Why call out the combat system?

But yeah, it feels like playing Gauntlet. Every time I run low on hit points, I feel like saying "Red Warrior needs food, badly."

But that's just RPGs today.

But I disagree that D&D was ever, aside from 4th Abortion, supposed to be "tactical." Combat in D&D has always been really simple and abstracted.

4th and 5th have just turned it into a hybrid of video game and really simple grid based board game.

Marneus Calgar is referred to as "one of the Imperium's greatest tacticians" and he treats the Codex like it's the War Bible. If the Codex is garbage, then how bad is everyone else?

True Scale Space Marines: Tutorial, Posing, Conversions and other madness. The Brief and Humorous History of the Horus Heresy

The Ultimate Badasses: Colonial Marines 
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN

The things is, I find rules-lite games better at combat than the D&D version. Abstraction isn't the issue. It is the wrong level of detail... or something....

Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in es
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps






 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
/shrug

Everything about D&D 5E is boring. Why call out the combat system?

But yeah, it feels like playing Gauntlet. Every time I run low on hit points, I feel like saying "Red Warrior needs food, badly."

But that's just RPGs today.

But I disagree that D&D was ever, aside from 4th Abortion, supposed to be "tactical." Combat in D&D has always been really simple and abstracted.

4th and 5th have just turned it into a hybrid of video game and really simple grid based board game.

You might say that about OD&D, maybe. At some tables. 3.x? Ohohohoh nope.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Easy E wrote:
The things is, I find rules-lite games better at combat than the D&D version. Abstraction isn't the issue. It is the wrong level of detail... or something....
Agreed. A good game is good, no matter if it's rules-light or rules-heavy regarding combat.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/04/05 07:16:56


 
   
Made in us
Esteemed Veteran Space Marine




My secret fortress at the base of the volcano!

I'm going to say that my own experiences with D&D 5th edition combat have been boring as well.

I played out party's cleric, I went healing/life domain (or whatever they call them this time) but had decent enough stats to fight on the front line. Unfortunately, because of how critical hits are handled in game, combat is far more swingy than before. Any natural 20 is a critical hit. Due to the action economy, PC's get swung at more often than PCs get to swing back at the monsters, so PCs suffer more crits than they inflict, statistically. This means any combat can suddenly turn against the party when a key PC takes a crit they weren't anticipating. With this in mind, I kept all of my spells in reserve to cast as healing spells. I would not and did not cast any spell that didn't restore hitpoints. Doing otherwise would be a waste of my time and would endanger the party. The one fight that I tried casting what few offensive spells I had nearly ended in a TPK (with over half the party down and making death saves by the skin of their teeth) because we ran out of healing and took too many crits.

This meant that for any combat that popped up during the campaign, I would ask if anyone needed healing. If they didn't, I would swing my axe at something. Rinse, repeat, for every round of combat. Every combat. For a whole campaign.

"Anyone need healing? No? Then I swing my axe at the goblin."
"Anyone need healing? No? Then I swing my axe at the orc."
"Anyone need healing? Yes? Then I cast a level 2 cure spell on the wizard."

It's easy to say that my problem was my choice of class, since as a healing cleric, I was pigeon-holing myself into being the healer and nothing else.

OK, that's fine. Except, everyone should be able to do something fun in combat, even if they are the healer. I'm playing a cleric in a Pathfinder game, and I'm the healer, and I have a lot more fun during combat, because I have a lot more options. I can hit things with my scythe. I can make trip attacks with my scythe. I can (thru a domain power) throw my scythe as a ranged attack. Because of channeling positive energy, I can heal the party without using spells, so I can use spells to affect the combat by casting buffs, debuffs, and damage inflicting attacks. I don't have to save everything for casting some variation of Cure.

In comparison, 5th Edition combat is a snooze fest.

Emperor's Eagles (undergoing Chapter reorganization)
Caledonian 95th (undergoing regimental reorganization)
Thousands Sons (undergoing Warband re--- wait, are any of my 40K armies playable?) 
   
Made in us
Yellin' Yoof




5th edition is the most boring edition I've played, having started in AD&D. Very little options in character building, very little tactical decisions in combat either. Rules wise. I still have fun playing DnD 5th ed, as most games the rules facilitate the game, and a good group/story trumps poor rules.

4th edition fixed so many issues of previous editions, with all classes being relatively balanced to each other, reigning in the constant rift in options between spell casters and mundane characters. Its a shame the edition was so unpopular, it had many great ideas (like minions/elite/solo monsters, every class getting similarly powered abilities, rules for balanced magic item distribution).

5th edition is a lazy edition that reintroduced many faults of older editions, but its also insanely popular so I'm sure will be around for ever now.
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN

Okay, perhaps my boredom with combat was more of a lack of gelling with the group. Now, they understand me and my style a bit better. In the last few sessions I have been able to.....

1. Pull a carpet out from under an attacker, causing them to go prone- Gave everyone else advantage to attack him, and spend half their turn getting up.

2. Use a whip to entangle the legs of a golem, Battle of Hoth style. Again, it ended up going prone similar to above.

3. Flying tackle a guy and restrain them via grappling

4. Slide down a zip line and land on a flying creature and grapple with it

I do think my style of play and approach to "solving" combat encounters is different from what my group is used to. They are more accustomed to using mechanics to handle combat, while I am more accustomed to using narrative (gimmicky movie tropes) first, and then mechanics to back it up. I think it was a big style change for my DM and fellow players when I started melee. Now, they are starting to get use to it, and have even gotten a bit more creative in their own combat styles.

Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






I'm quite new to D&D - I started playing in November, having never done more than say "I really want to try D&D".

My experience is that combat is what you make it.

I have mostly played the Barbarian Thoruk, Duck Slayer. I run into combat with a greatsword and a complete and unshakable disregard for my own survival.

I have played games where all the players were trying to do cool things in combat, and the combat was greatly entertaining. Things were done with a plan, and that plan was conveyed to the DM for the DM to decide if he was going to go along with it, or make the NPC's scupper it. I used a cursed sword (which flung anyone who touched it away like 40 feet) to launch myself at a water elemental and attack it. The water elemental had sucked up another players weapon, and I asked if I could attempt to snatch it instead of making any attempt to soften my landing. I demolished a market stall, and took some damage, but I got the guys hammer back!

In other games, I have found the other players losing any and all interest when you stray beyond the boundaries of the combat rules. Nothing says you can attack whilst in mid-air. nothing says you can destroy an alter and accidentally summon a dwarven goddess. those games were much less fun, and I felt like I had to stop having fun for their sake, which no-one should have to feel.

squidhills wrote:
I'm going to say that my own experiences with D&D 5th edition combat have been boring as well.

I played out party's cleric, I went healing/life domain (or whatever they call them this time) but had decent enough stats to fight on the front line. Unfortunately, because of how critical hits are handled in game, combat is far more swingy than before. Any natural 20 is a critical hit. Due to the action economy, PC's get swung at more often than PCs get to swing back at the monsters, so PCs suffer more crits than they inflict, statistically. This means any combat can suddenly turn against the party when a key PC takes a crit they weren't anticipating. With this in mind, I kept all of my spells in reserve to cast as healing spells. I would not and did not cast any spell that didn't restore hitpoints. Doing otherwise would be a waste of my time and would endanger the party. The one fight that I tried casting what few offensive spells I had nearly ended in a TPK (with over half the party down and making death saves by the skin of their teeth) because we ran out of healing and took too many crits.

This meant that for any combat that popped up during the campaign, I would ask if anyone needed healing. If they didn't, I would swing my axe at something. Rinse, repeat, for every round of combat. Every combat. For a whole campaign.

"Anyone need healing? No? Then I swing my axe at the goblin."
"Anyone need healing? No? Then I swing my axe at the orc."
"Anyone need healing? Yes? Then I cast a level 2 cure spell on the wizard."

It's easy to say that my problem was my choice of class, since as a healing cleric, I was pigeon-holing myself into being the healer and nothing else.

OK, that's fine. Except, everyone should be able to do something fun in combat, even if they are the healer. I'm playing a cleric in a Pathfinder game, and I'm the healer, and I have a lot more fun during combat, because I have a lot more options. I can hit things with my scythe. I can make trip attacks with my scythe. I can (thru a domain power) throw my scythe as a ranged attack. Because of channeling positive energy, I can heal the party without using spells, so I can use spells to affect the combat by casting buffs, debuffs, and damage inflicting attacks. I don't have to save everything for casting some variation of Cure.

In comparison, 5th Edition combat is a snooze fest.


Here's the issue:


I kept all of my spells in reserve to cast as healing spells. I would not and did not cast any spell that didn't restore hit-points. Doing otherwise would be a waste of my time


This is a choice, and one you made based solely on the cold hard maths of the game and not on having fun. Consequently, you "won" the game, but didn't have fun. Perhaps suggest that anyone who can learn some healing spells on their next level so that you can be freed up to enjoy yourself a bit. You shouldn't spend the whole time as a safety net. Also perhaps ask the DM to feature things except for combat ,so combat isn't everything.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/04/12 13:41:08


12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!

I'm Selling Infinity, 40k, dystopian wars, UK based!

I also make designs for t-shirts and mugs and such on Redbubble! 
   
Made in us
Esteemed Veteran Space Marine




My secret fortress at the base of the volcano!

Here's what you missed:

squidhills wrote:
The one fight that I tried casting what few offensive spells I had nearly ended in a TPK (with over half the party down and making death saves by the skin of their teeth) because we ran out of healing and took too many crits.


I didn't base my actions on math, I based my actions on the one time I tried it your way, half the party nearly died. I examined the math after the debacle of our first combat encounter and realized what the problem was. From that point on, the only sane thing to do was keep all spells in reserve for healing.

You also missed the part about how, in another D20 game (Pathfinder) I am playing the same class (cleric) but having much more fun, due to having more options for my character. I've been gaming since AD&D 2nd Edition. I've played every flavor of D20, as well as five editions of Shadowrun and 2 editions of D6 star Wars. Hell, I even willfully inflicted the insanity that is Palladium on myself for several years. I am familiar with a wide variety of games and combat systems. 5th Edition is the only one I find genuinely boring.

Emperor's Eagles (undergoing Chapter reorganization)
Caledonian 95th (undergoing regimental reorganization)
Thousands Sons (undergoing Warband re--- wait, are any of my 40K armies playable?) 
   
Made in us
Exalted Beastlord




That really sounds like the DM is throwing fights at you that the party can't handle.

If you're blowing all your spells on healing constantly, something is seriously wrong, and I've seen enough 5e combat to know that isn't a system expectation.

In fact cleric spells are good enough that they usually tilt encounters so less healing is required, not more.

Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
 
Forum Index » Board Games, Roleplaying Games & Card Games
Go to: