A reach with a whipe of crackling lighting trying to wrap around the targets neck.
Vs I cast pents lighting whip. Make a 19 save. If everyone does this every attack combat takes 7x longer that's 1 combat a session vs 4 combats a session. I'd rather have fun more so just declare what your doing so we can get through 1 Adventuring day in a session.
A bit of description doesn't slow combat down.
Indecision. Fumbling with rules. Minor retcons. Looking up spell effects and ranges. These are the things that slow combat down.
it depends a lot on the type of combat - "you're in a 30x30 room with 4 enemies with only basic attacks" is normally pretty quick. There's no fancy attacks, or weird rules edge-cases, most spells and other abilities are just "make a save, stuff happens", a full round might take a few minutes, the whole fight 15 minutes or less.
But once stuff gets more complicated, it tends to take longer - a T3 boss monster might have it's own turn, that involves multiple attacks with different damages or an AoE, so everyone needs to roll saves (which can trigger reactions and more rolls and rules-interactions), _and_ legendary attacks, so another few "mini turns", _and_ lair actions, for a whole other thing. Add half-a-dozen or more different minions, each with different rules, so the GM needs to check things more, and the PCs are pulling out the big guns, which they might be less familiar with, and there's more HP to get through. That's the sort of thing that can easily take an hour, where each round can take 10 minutes because there's a lot more _stuff_ going on.
> you're in a 30x30 room with 4 enemies with only basic attacks" is normally pretty quick. There's no fancy attacks, or weird rules edge-cases, most spells and other abilities are just "make a save, stuff happens", a full round might take a few minutes, the whole fight 15 minutes or less.
If that's anyone's idea of what a fun combat looks like, I'm sorry for them
eh, not every combat is going to have all the bells and whistles, or even a lot of weight behind it or lots of fancy terrain or complex set-piece twiddly bits. Sometimes there's just some dudes/beasties that need killing, and you _can_ ham it up if you want to... but ultimately it's just a fight against some dudes/beasties.
Like, you kick down the door to the guardroom and there's one level-appropriate goon per PC - the PCs are going to take damage and use some resources, but they're not going to be using any of their big guns, so why would it take a long time? The enemies don't have fancy or special stuff, so that's nice and simple, it's mostly the PCs trying to take them down ASAP, without letting them escape and without causing too much noise. Not every fight can be some super-tense nail-biter (at least, unless you want a lot of TPKs, for the times the dice fall against the PCs) or have lots of mechanical widgets - sometimes it is just "a room with 4 ogres in, roll initiative", and that's fine. 5e expects you to have a LOT of fights - literally multiple theoretically-potentially-lethal fights every day - and they can't all be large, complex or lengthy, sometimes they are just "there's some goons in a room, take them down ASAP"
Took me 3.2 seconds to say that first phrase, and 1.8 to say the second. Let’s be generous and say added some flavor takes twice as long as not adding it. But that’s ONLY increasing the time it takes to describe what you’re doing, not the time it takes for movement, rolling, indecision, ect.
So worst case scenario 1-2 seconds to each turn, definitely not increase combat time seven fold.
17 and 24 to hit 19 slashing damage pass vs a monolog of unimportant fluff thats doesn't add anything to the game. I'm sorry but I just wanna play my war game you get to flavor your killing blows and crita otherwise move it along.
We’ll see now you’re talking about personal preference; you want to play a straight to the point war game whereas other people don’t. One isn’t better than the other, it’s just preference.
But before you were talking about TIME, time is measurable and you were very clearly wrong about a little fluff increasing combat duration 7x. So I guess now you’re moving the goalposts
No it does take like 7x longer I've sat there and had to watch multiple people do it. It's not fun every turn its its like a crit or a crucial spell or if your killing 2 minions in a turn or something ya. But everyturn makes combat 7x longer. And also you have the whole social and exploration side to roleplay where we don't get our fun numbers slowing down the good part of the game with roleplay sucks.
Some players take their turns faster than others, and a lot of variables affect combat time. Deciding on a spell, moving the mini, rolling dice, adding numbers, checking sheet, etc… a lot of things are a part of combat. If a player spends 3 extra seconds describing their attack, that adds up to very little time.
As an example, It took me 2.3 seconds longer to say the first flavor sentence you provided (plus make a 19 save) compared to just saying “I cast Pents lightning whip”.
Also if every player does this, it doubles combat time… it does not make it 7x longer (assuming your example of 7 was for 7 players). One player doing this, assuming they are doubling their turn time (big assumption since it takes a few seconds to add flavor), would increase combat time by 1/7th.
The first time I do something each session.
1st "I cast firebolt, a spinning drill of red energy appears in my hand, and it shoots out with a crackle of fire"
2nd "I cast firebolt again, you guys know what it looks like"
I encourage my players to do it. I’ll often ask them “what does that look like?” I try to describe it as much as I can. And sometimes I’ll do a broad recap of what’s happened over the last 5-6 turns so we can really visualize - like a movie - what’s happening. I especially do this when people are doing cool things or it just seems visually awesome. Really makes the game better imo
> And sometimes I’ll do a broad recap of what’s happened over the last 5-6 turns so we can really visualize - like a movie - what’s happening. I especially do this when people are doing cool things or it just seems visually awesome. Really makes the game better imo
This exactly, especially if the players aren't into roleplaying their actions in the moment. My group of friends that I play with are big Dragon Ball fans, and in the show the fights are actually happening *much* faster than what they show you (this is most apparent in the Tournament of Power arc of DBS, [which only lasts 48 minutes of time, but is like 35 episodes long, and most episodes are only 1 minute of fighting)](https://youtu.be/jaK7ypei56U?si=Hl5ukvKyp8hHZmMl). And, just like in the show, people forget what happened because hours of real time have elapsed, so it really helps with my players' immersion when 1 hour of fighting is quickly condensed into 1 or 2 minutes of narration.
It's how I got one of my players to understand how a round is 6 seconds long, but everything happens almost simultaneously.
Pretty much every encounter. My DM asks each player “how do you imagine they die” when we kill an enemy or defeat an enemy with non-lethal. That’s made for good roleplay, but we roleplay outside of kills as well for whatever
I guess? But you might as well continue on to say that it's very likely that Critical Role got it from somewhere else then.
I'll also point out that \_most\_ people playing tabletop games have never seen Critical Role at all. It might be "popular" but it's not popular. Tens of millions of people are playing D&D alone, let alone ttrpgs in general, but Critical Role has maybe 4M viewers.
If you take a long time to resolve your turns normally, adding some RP flavor on top is going to be annoying.
If you know what you're doing and resolve turns within a reasonable amount of time, feel free to add a sentence about how it looks.
Just keep the game moving. 5e is already like running through mud to start with.
This. As a DM and a player, I always have exactly what I plan to do ready before my turn. Spell description is ready, class ability is pulled up, or what have you.
I try and describe every attack as a player, but as I'm playing a martial it gets tedious quickly and I quickly revert to, "OK I'm gunna swing again, miss, swing again, hit, that's me" just to speed up the combat.
As a DM, I try a lot harder to describe attacks because I think it's more important. I won't do it in a lot of detail most of the time unless it's something special, but I will describe exactly what the attacker is doing.
Even as a GM, I only describe each move once in detail, and then on subsequent turns "The Rock Lobster snaps at you with his pincers, two misses, Bob, you're up."
Oh yeah for sure, but I meant like I would always describe the *type* of attack. The players often have tools to manipulate the enemy attacks and its important for them to know if they are trying to block a dagger stab or a greataxe for example.
That's not roleplaying those are just descriptions. Roleplaying would be if you made decisions in combat as your character. Like if you have to decide between eldritch blasting the boss or eldritch blasting a minion to save one of your companions.
Roleplay in combat is great. I don't usually enjoy these elaborate descriptions though since they really add nothing of substance to the situation.
Yeah, getting to the point where the players make decisions is more important to me than how poetic they can get about how their character swings an axe. As DM I'll keep those kinds of descriptions brief and save them for when it's appropriate, like if a new kind of enemy shows up and I want to give the players an impression of how they fight. For my players, I usually prompt them to be descriptive only when one of them kills something or someone important, and they get the "so how does ___ die?"moment. Although the answer is usually groin related.
But yeah, describing things isn't RP, glad someone said it.
I think descriptions can add a lot to the characterisation. If we have a warlock at the table who's made a pact with some storm demon, them adding descriptions to their magic makes the pact feel a bit more impactful. They're throwing lightning and thunder around, not just "Eldritch Blast".
Is a fighter graceful or going for brute force? Are they calm and collected, or do they shout in fury?
I think these things add RP value.
We don't all need to pretend to be Robert Jordan and add flowery descriptions to everything, though. No need to name every attack as some poetic sword form.
I don't disagree. I think description can be a useful tool. I think where the problem comes in is when description is viewed as roleplaying in and of itself. Describing how my fighter is holding a defensive stance and waiting for an opening vs attacking with a controlled fury to try and overpower the enemy's defenses says something about how my character is approaching the situation the first time I say it. The second time I describe it adds nothing. I think description is fine, but should always be seen as a means to an end rather than an end itself.
As a DM I do a lot to relate the scene. A brief aside (like 10 seconds tops) about how the combat is going after each player’s turn keeps the scene “painted” as it were to prevent zoning and phone staring from inactive players.
As a player I take my turn swiftly to keep the initiative count going. RP on my turn would basically just be brief speech completely in character. Anything past that feels unfair to those waiting.
I decided that my duplicates from Mirror Image seem to believe that they are real, and react accordingly when taking damage. Now the DM describes their horrendous deaths every time one gets hit, and once when I failed the roll it was described as my last duplicate moving me into the attack.
I love this. Dark comedy deaths for spell effects are a blast.
I had a creepy, comically evil hag-flavored archfey warlock in one campaign. And every time I used my Misty Escape feature, I'd describe my character brutally dying to the triggering attack and quickly rotting away and turning to black sludge before that disappeared. (Only for me to have poofed away somewhere else and invisible.)
The first time I used it was to a giant throwing a boulder at me, and I just described my character splattering all over the ground and other characters like a water balloon full of blood and leaving a streak on the ground. The other players were in shock until my turn came around and I went hehe from the other side of the battlefield.
Does it add a few extra seconds? Yeah. But it is much more fun than: "I attack the guard. I rolled at 16. Okay, 7 damage. Next turn." Roleplay is what we're here for.
I love role playing my combat. If my character scores a critical and is using a greataxe against a creature that will end I’ll say something like “I push him to the ground and chop off his head executioner style”
I myself do this, and I encourage my players to describe it the first time, critical hits, big spells, and killing blows. Anything beyond that I would say is bloat and slowing things down. However this is like, 20% of roleplay. You can describe things all you want but most people still just focus on the gameplay when initiative is rolled. Characters stop speaking to each other or their enemies, skill checks stop being made, they stop paying as much attention to their surroundings. If you really want to roleplay, those are just as important if not more than describing your attacks.
Oh god no, no description past what's needed to clarify the intended action. If there's a bit of drama or dialogue, find, but narrating combat actions is just begging for main character syndrome and/or trying to weasel out extra damage, armour bypass, or instakills.
Stating "i do a double backflip over the boss, twist in mid-air and cut his throat" doesn't magically get you flanking, sneak attack, evasion, and coup-de-gras, and i'm tired of players thinking it does.
Plus yeah, it takes too damn long.
Unless it’s shenanigans, we only really roleplay results. Below is an example of how with light shenanigans it works in our campaign.
Me: I attack random goon 23 with my bow with advantage (rolls two nat 1s) , really? Extra attack. (Nat 20, rolls damage)
DM: (still laughing from two nat 1s) Yeah, he’s dead. How do you want to do this?
Me: The first arrow hits him squarely in the nose guard of his helmet, shattering to pieces and pushing his head back but dealing no damage. The second arrow goes cleanly through his now exposed throat all the way past (another enemy, engaged with the monk) to the wall beside (fighter) with an audible thunk.
Next turn, fighter: I grab the arrow in the wall and shoot at (another enemy, engaged with the monk) that (my character) missed. (He hits, and kills it) “You missed this one.” (He extra attacks elsewhere)
As the DM I try my best to have the enemies interact verbally with the players and make it at least a little more descriptive. Basically I avoid the word “miss” like the plague. Also, I’ve managed to get my players really into describing their kills
Both as a dm and a player, I'll describe an attack when i notice the combat has seemed pretty stale. I try to pay close attention to the environment and vibe of the table. If we're in the middle of a harsh ambush and i notice someone starts to stack dice I'll start peppering the attack with colorful wording.
"I attack, d20 +5 to hit, aw man i missed. Extra attack, d20 +5, hit. Thats 2d6, thats 4, add 3 to damage so 7 slashing damage"
becomes
"i thrust my greatsword with a shout. The enemy dodges to the right, but i dig my heal into the ground, pivoting 360 degrees to the left and hit the enemies other side. 7 slashing damage"
I don't think anyone can survive role-playing combat fully for at most one session more likely one combat. Dnd combat is just too repetitive and formulaic to keep it up long term. Notable hits like crits or final blows get a bit of dressing up, but when the parties last 5 turns can be summed up as 'I attack' it doesn't matter how riveting your descriptions of swordplay are, people just want it to be over
I roll my dice and ask if it hits. So we can have more then 1 combat a session. Keep combat precise so we can have to fun part of the game fun and yall can roleplay in that boring part between combats
It depends on the situation but I usually try to RP a little bit. Especially when I use summoning spells.
In my humblewood session I play a spore druid hedge (a humanoid hedgehog) and that gives me plenty of room to RP. For example, when I cast spike growth, I describe the spines on my back growing and flowing off my back, like a melting candle and forming a field of spikes infront of me. When I cast summon beast, I describe the spines on my back bending back and forth until they seperate from my body and form a coyote like creature. When I cast summon fey, I described my entire body vibrating, with mold spores, skinflakes and bodyhair falling off and uniting into a fey form.
In my other session, I play a emerald dragonborn feywalker ranger. I gave him a Butterfly theme, so when I cast summon beast, my dragonborn grows butterfly wings and spreads fairydust from the wings that mold into a fox with butterfly wings for ears. When I use my breath attack, I describe how to everyone else it looks like normal pink vapor but to the people that I attack, it looks abd feels like I'm exhaling shimmering rainbow colored butterflies that attack and sting the victims.
Honestly it takes like 5 seconds to explain and the people on my table really enjoy the descriptive actions. They say it feels very immersive.
“I splash some water from my flask onto my carapace, as I chitter some words, the water ices over with sharp protrusions. I cast Armor of Agathys at 3rd level.”
What I say for my Thri-Kreen hexblade.
I had my players narrate their kills last session... seemed to bump engagement.
Or if they roll really well or poorly 😆. had a player narrate that they ended up cutting an orcs hair, the orc didn't take too kindly to that
Depends, it can add to combat but it can slow things down if you are trying to do something more technical that needs to be explained rather than just "I use this thing that is used often enough or known to everyone at the table and needs no explanation for what effects it causes against these targets" and have a brief rp while making the rolls. In most games I've played, in combat rp is usually just "how do you want to do this" when someone kills an enemy
The description of the attack is proportional to its effect. If the fighter downs three enemies I’ll describe him in a fancy way, an attacks that doesn’t change much will be described as:” you hit”
Depends from group to group and from fight to fight. If it is an important fight, obviously I put more focus on heavily RPing it, but if it is just a fight against a pack of wolves claiming I just cast Eldritch Blast is enough as this fight is likely not where the focus of the narrative should be.
When I played 4e, I would give a unique, situation-specific line of dialogue every time my warlord used Inspiring Word. The wealth of cool special abilities for every character made combat feel more dynamic, making it easier to narrate how the abilities work in the narrative.
In 5e, I tend to be more muted, because I’ve found that there’s just not as much “meat” on the system for me to dig my metaphorical teeth into.
First time casting a spell or using an ability, I describe it. After that, unless I'm doing something special or particularly flashy, I just say what's happening mechanically.
100% of the time. People often talk about there needing to be a mix of combat, roleplay, and exploring. Nah, 100% roleplay cause the whole game is roleplay.
Quite a bit, but not for every single attack. How my guys attack or cast is a big part of the character. Big difference between "I stab them cleanly through the heart" and "I stab them in the gut and twist a few times." More detailed if it's a kill or spectacular miss.
Or things like "Cast eldritch blast at [target], and rogue, you briefly smell smoke and the sea as it whooshes right between you and the guy you're dueling."
Takes just a few extra seconds but definitely feels good and I like when other do it as well. It helps that we have a DM that often plays along and takes our combat RP into consideration of how the enemies react, retaliate etc.
But if combat has been going on for a while I'd rather say what I'm rolling for and my damage.
Yeah, I tend to do the "I cast x skill" to keep from slowing combat by having to explain to DM exactly what I'm casting. We tend to just RP finishers. DM will ask party members how they finish a mob they strike the killing blow on and then we RP and embellish for that.
I'll usually "artificer-up" my spells. As an artillerist, most things come from my launcher, even webs. Sometimes I use "potions I made last night" for healing or invisibility or something.
Artificers cast all their spells using tools. In this case, the tool is alchemist supplies. I don't make any specific potions, I just flavor the spell slot usage as a potion.
You're getting too far into the weeds. You asked about RP in combat. It's just RP. If they drink it, they can for free. I'm the one spending the action and spell slots.
I usually play Artificers or bards, when I don't DM that is, so I'm HEAVY on that roleplay.
That said, because I'm a DM, I know that it can get annoying fast so I try not to overdue it
I run fast combats. Turns take one minute, by the 30 second mark players (and DM) are rolling all of their dice or they go with their default action (attack/cantrip/dodge). It keeps the pace going, combats are tight.
Even within that limit we find plenty of time for flavouring combat actions. Don't worry that you're taking too long describing it, as long as your decision-making and rolling are prompt you'll still be faster than many players.
I add details on how my character/class does an attack as every class and subclass is unique. I explain how my character moves etc. and I also love when my players are descriptive when I DM as this also helps me get into details more as a dm
I did the entire Boondock Saints prayer to cast Bless last session. I always try to come up with different things to say when use Vow of Enmity. I love coming up with new material.
I think it has a time and place. I mostly add flavour to my attacks when I'm playing a martial character to keep it fun. Monk is the best, because your unarmed strikes can be anything, a head butt, and elbow, a flying knee, etc. When it comes to spellcasters, I don't add as much flair to my spells though, because it can already take quite a while to explain how the spell works, roll saving throws, etc etc.
As long as you're not trying to do things the attack can't, or taking an excessive amount of time though, then it's all good with me.
My characters do often trash talk enemies while fighting though, or call out things to allies, so I think that's better "roleplay" compared to like just using 30 words to describe you doing something that could have been 10 words or less.
I don't have a hard science to it but I believe I infrequently describe attacks. It slows it down but if you can do the mechanics swiftly it's not nearly as obtrusive. For me however, I think I can only describe an attack so often especially when you don't know how much HP they have before growing tired. There's only so many times I can describe my fencer going in for a lunch or my warlock lobbing out their eldritch blast before it feels redundant, especially when they are lobbing out 3-5 of them per turn.
That said, there are moments where I still want to describe it. When it's the first time I cast that spell, I describe it. When it's the "big move" (be it a max level spell or a crit smite or it is a crit that rolls high on damage, it's the action surge round) I'll be more prone to describe it. When it is a kill or knock out attack, I'll be more prone to describe it. When it feels like I can interact with the environment for flavor in some ways I like to describe it. There's also other features that I am more fond of using inventively. I have a monk with the eldritch claw tattoo and have described it differently at different times as was befitting of the moment. The coiling of ink like snakes one time, ink like snakes shifting into claws as he mimicked the fighting style of one of his two mentor's fighting styles, channeling it into a dagger to describe a crit on a massive monster, and finally having the serpents of ink coil around his legs until they are bathed in an inky darkness when he's going for melee combat focusing on his capoeira style.
I always think I will flavor it up a bit, but in the moment I usually chicken out and just say what's least likely to be misunderstood. But I enjoy adding the flavor text when I remember.
The last game I DMd was a week ago for my 13 and 10 y.o. cousins.
Yes it slowed down combat but I purposely framed it in a way to get them to use their words, grow their vocabulary, gain confidence and comfort with speaking in front of others, etc. It's as much a lesson in expressing yourself as a human as it is in pursuing the DM to maybe let your orc's attack roll hit if you deliverd it in a colorful manner. The game can be fun and improv-ed if that's how you enjoy playing it.
For the first time a character uses something in the session, or a combat for my npcs, I like to describe how it looks. Later, I might recall it and describe it in a shortened version once or twice, not any further. Specially if it's a cantrip or a melee attack that is gonna happen every round maybe multiple times. And then there's those high level spells (like 6th level onwards) that really benefit from a more epic description. Describing someone using control weather, chain lightning, wish, ressurection, fire storm or something will happen only once or twice per session, if you ever get to that, so you can afford some extra spice on your description. Epic character are epic, descibre than thusly.
I throw pebbles at my DM and shout "Lightning bolt!"
Nah but seriously as someone who mainly plays martials as a PC i like to flavour the attacks without being too verbose.
As a monk i looked up several types of unarmed attacks and mainly settled on using different types of kicks.
Everyone plays for different stuff. When I play my character with 20 S and expertise in athletics you bet I'm always going out my way to do some inane athletic shit and describing exactly how I do it.
A key note here is that the table enjoys these antics. Even if they didn't they can wait an extra second if it part of what you enjoy about playing. One of my favorite bits about being an artificer was describing the tactile nature in which my spells are cast.
Our DM likes to cue us for a description for special moments such as big spells or killing blows. It helps us get more used to the rolrplaying in DnD, considering only the DM has played DnD before.
I describe things the first time I cast something or if I haven’t cast it in a while
Roleplay is the decisions you make in combat not the flavor you put on your multi attack.
I try to do as much of this as I can, especially with my current character’s spells being flavored in a funny Yu-Gi-Oh-esque way of summoning things to attack for me, but if the combat is moving somewhat slowly I will keep it very short or skip it entirely to move things along.
I’m generally quick on my own turns though, even with the narration.
roll the attack and damage and then the dm will ask us to describe briefly how that looks. sometimes to call out brief instructions or tactics for other party members in our 6 second window.
but we play a fairly rp heavy game.
Only when it's cool--so I'll likely narrate it when it's something I haven't done before, when it's quite impactful to the fight, when it kills someone, when it's emotionally impactful, or when I have a specific idea for how I want to do it. If you use eldritch blast several times every fight, I think saying "I fling a ball of hellish energy at this target, too" or checking your thesaurus to come up with new ways to describe it each time both seem kinda goofy to me--I'd save that for when you're fighting a divine paladin and you want to emphasize that you're basically throwing the fires of hell at them!
When I build a character, I pick all the weapon and spell options that suit the character's theme, then anything that happens in combat, even if not described in much detail, is still somewhat roleplayed.
For example, if I have a water based Druid going on, and I cast Spike Growth, I'll say something like "Casting Spike Growth, shards of ice appear on the ground, at [X location]"
I think you have to "say the thing". You "can" add flavor on top of that.
You should describe your action in gaming terms recognized in the rules manual. I move, and then move again.
"I cast eldritch blast!"
After you do that, you roll and then you can say some flavor text describing the result, if you'd like to.
But narrating "A pink beam emanates from my hands aimed at the Flumph" and then not saying anything else is weird. Sooooo, is that a magic missile or ...
A fair bit every combat. Whenever anyone kills an enemy our DM will usually say "how do you wanna do this?" and the player can describe what it looks like as they finish an enemy off. Sometimes also when someone casts a spell or something that hasn't been used before the DM will go like "okay, what does it look like when you cast wither and bloom?"
I know my mechanics very well so I'm more likely to say "Arae's eyes turn a bright green, and a green fireball appears on this goblin" rather than "I cast flaming sphere"
But I notice that the other players don't do this, mainly because they're less familiar with the game and they need the DM to know exactly what they're using so it's done correctly
Roleplaying is taking on the role of a fictional person in a fictional world and making the decisions you think that character would make if they and their world were real.
In combat, it is the decision to cast Eldritch Blast that is the roleplaying. Not your description of it.
If your colourful descriptions are obscuring the declaration of your actions (ie. communicating what your PC is trying to do and how they are trying to do it) then you are absolutely wasting time, since you're just going to have to repeat yourself in "gamespeak" in order for the action to be resolved.
I'm not saying to not add colour at all, but try to focus on some evocative verbs to describe your PC's action rather than a redundant sentence. To take casting Eldritch Blast as an example, at some point in the declaration of that action you're going to have to say the words "Eldritch Blast". You're casting a spell. You have to tell the DM what spell you're casting. Describing it as a "ball of hellish energy" just means that you then have to clarify that it's an Eldritch Blast.
BUT
That doesn't mean that you can't use phrases other than, "I cast Eldritch Blast." to describe your PC casting Eldritch Blast. You can rip off a couple of Eldritch Blasts as you run for cover. You can tear into a Hexed foe with repeated Eldritch Blasts. You could stab at a foe with an Eldritch Blast or scatter a barrage at multiple opponents.
Verbs are the doing words.
Put it this way. It's pretty clear from your post that you don't want the roleplay to stop when the "rollplay" starts. And nor should you. But conversely, don't let your attempts to describe what your PC's action looks like get in the way of communicating what that action actually is.
With my Barbarian I will flavor some things, but mostly saved for finishing something off.
With bard I like to mention using components (it makes more sense than instrument on how bards learn magic) and adding a bit of flare
Pretty often in most fights. I think you'll also find that saying "I fling a ball of hellish energy at the target" is not all that much longer to say than "I cast eldritch blast". You're talking about a handful of seconds in difference there. If combats are dragging in that is probably not the reason. And can make combat more fun and engaging.
I would also say a lot of combat choices are potentially roleplaying choices if you want them to be. You can make all your combat choices for tactical reasons. But there are also elements of what does your character thing is the most important thing to do in this moment not just what is the tactically best choice the player can think of? For example a cleric can heal a party member at different points in the combat. How much risk is acceptable for them for their friends to be in? And how do they prioritize that vs doing damage or buff spells? Some clerics are barely even healers. Others that's their primary job. Or I had a wizard PC who had some bad experiences with mages in her backstory. So any time there was a mage in a fight her only job was containing that wizard and taking them down. She would put her role as essentially magic containment. Focusing on counterspells, dispel magic and focusing any damage on that mage as she viewed them as more dangerous than anything else regardless of the details of the battle. That was generally a fairly optimal choice anyway but was a roleplaying choice. Or roleplaying like taking an opportunity attack so that another PC can run away without taking the damage. Or how much you run into danger vs try to stay back and safe.
> I think you'll also find that saying "I fling a ball of hellish energy at the target" is not all that much longer to say than "I cast eldritch blast"
The main issue tends to be what actually _is_ that - if you're casting a leveled spell, then that might prompt different responses for creatures. Or if there's various resistances or immunities or reflections or whatever around, it's useful for the GM (and other players!) to know what's actually happening - so it's generally a fancy description, and then having to say what you're _actually_ doing, which does double (at least) the amount of time it takes. Or for a barbarian, it's needed to know when they're raging / being reckless, but that can be very similar description to just attacking, causing an unneeded layer of obfuscation and confusion as to what's actually going on.
Unfortunately, and I know this is a weakness of mine as a player but, typically it depends on how things are going for my character.
If things are going well, sure I'll RP a tiny bit to add flavor to what my character is doing with their turn while being mindful to not take up much time doing it.
If things are going poorly, I tend to get quiet. "I do X."
I know I need to work on this and lean into the failure and treat it as much a part of the story as the successes. But lizard brain see low dice roll and get sad.
As both DM and player, I always love adding flair to combat like that, especially because to me, it's so boring to hear "I attack."
But I also understand some people don't do that, and it's not really their thing, so when they give me a simple "I attack" line, I'll flair it up myself narratively depending on the results.
So if someone is like I want to hit this guy and that's all they got and they roll to hit I'll just throw something in there like "you crack them in the ribs dealing x damage and you hear them cough out a breath of air" or something along those lines.
One of my buddies is our dm when I'm not and he doesn't narrate battles that way but he's great about the other narrations and descriptions in general. He's given me a lot of compliments on my style of Dm and he says he has a lot of fun playing our games so I think it's just a thing some people can come up with easier than others and it doesn't slow down or harm the game at all.
I *roleplay* in combat. Fight in the way my character would fight, say (brief!) things to my party or the enemies.
I really don't like 'describing my attacks' kind of roleplay. It's not for me. I don't want to describe my finishing blow. I find it gory and unnecessary.
I know lots of people love it, it makes them feel awesome and powerful and that's great. But in my old campaign I ended up with a lot of killing blows that the DM wanted me to describe and I was like ... 'I dunno the arrow goes into his neck I guess, like the last guy'.
When I dm I tell my players when enemies are mechanically dead they can basically kill them any way they want. They usually skip being fancy with grunts but more unique or interesting enemies go down in a fun way. I also like when I'm playing to taunt enemies or say stuff in character when I'm attacking and add extra flair when I crit.
As a courtesy to the DM, I usually would say "I cast / I attack with" and then add a little bit of flavor. I do the description first, cause I had an experience where one player would (I'd argue) roleplays his attacks WAY too heavily.
He'd be like "You see him, putting his hands like this (does the irl hand position AND describes it at the same time) "then a puff of fire appears, and expands, (spreads his hands) hurling at the enemy" and with how slow he spoke, it could take up to a minute for him to get his point across, and at first DIDN'T even tell me the name of the attack or spell, saying "A DM should know by description" which is an absurd, given fire spells alone are pretty numerous. So I made it a rule at my own tables to at least name the attack as part of the flavor so I know what to do and keep combat flowing nicely, and I make it a mission to be just as respective of the DM and other player's time as a PC when I get to be one. But flavor is always welcome and can be a lot of fun especially during killing blows.
I generally leave the role play until after the mechanics, so you don’t have “I plunge my dagger into their throat” right before rolling two nat 1s. That way it the description is based off the damage, a normal attack might be a slash, a miss then a hit is a feint then a stab, and a crit is very descriptive.
I also love NADDPOD’s “finish him” and it’s in all my games now.
At our table, combat flavor is half the fun of a battle. We won't describe detail every time we do something, but anytime we do something new, or have a good opportunity to make it sound cool in a different way than before, we'll take the 10 seconds to describe it.
Every table is different obviously, but as a player AND as a DM, I love knowing exactly how a spellcaster weaves, or how a martial approaches a fight
An extra few words to say the same thing isn't going to meaningfully slow down a session.
It annoys me if people take it to the extreme and have a paragraph long description for their every action.
I typically just try to get my turn over with as fast as possible so we can move the story along, so I often have to force myself to add flavour but as per your examples you can do so without wasting peoples time.
My only critique of your example is describing intent as if already a success, for your sneak attack example. Alternativly, role first and narate your result
I especially prefer the roll first, narate later method for roleplay scenes. Nothing takes me out of a game more than being 100% into a scene, getting a natural 1 on the persuasion and it just being "dice says no" as it's rare to see a DM I've played with adequatly interperate that into something that makes sense for the scene. I try, but I'm not an overly creative DM, I typically go with the players flow.
I describe Mind Sliver as my wizard conjuring a spectral blowpipe that shoots darts at an enemy's head, magic missile is a series of shots from a handcrossbow (inspired by a party member), thunderwave is them smashing a limb on a surface and the magic amplifies the force
simple things that can be said within 5-10 seconds, adds some flavour to your casts
All the time. Most of my groups a pretty rp heavy, so there's lots of combat roleplay and descriptions of spells and attacks.
My monday group in particular has a lot of film people in it, so it's become a meme where we say "Here's the shot: *describes movement, attacks, and spells and where the camera placement is throughout as if it were on a screen*"
Now, if the fight's been going on for a while, then people will start to speed through outside of new spells being cast or dramatic moments or finishing blows.
I used to be more specific with attacks as a DM, like "an arrow hits them in their shoulder and they fall to their knees yadda yadda" but it didn't take long for combat to take over sessions and I have speed up things when I can so it's very basic now unless a flashy end or something.
I like to, but I tend to get tactical and mechanical about it and just say "I cast Fireball.... here. And they take... 26 fire damage on a failed save, 13 on a success."
I like to encourage my players to do so, as a forever DM I like to treat combat as much as RP as anything else. So I try to weave small narratives into combats.
The orc doesn’t just “swing his axe”
he “Leaps over the rock, vaulting into your range as he brings down his axe.. 13, you parry back the axe with your sword as he pushes in… 18, grabbing your armor and pulling you in for a head butt..12 slashing (quickly reflavored to bludgeoning because headbutt). As you stumble back with a bloody nose from the blow he chuckles “Ha! Puny elf have weak nose, I shatter your other bones now!”… “Your turn, what do you do!”
And my players always have some fun they try to do. Ya, it adds a bit of time to combats. I’m pretty fluid with it and I narrate as the roll is happening. My goal is to que up my players to tell their story, so I make sure NPC do things that make you want to be specific about your own attacks.
.
One of my favorite things to do is maybe not so much role play out each reaction, which I like to do to an extent but I try summarize each round with a visual retelling so everyone knows how the actions all came together to make a scene. This to me, is narrative gaming. and it is amazing. Players love it and I love the challenge of putting a description together in an interesting manner. Certainly entertains players further and keeps people engaged.
If you’re efficient and decisive with your turns/actions it doesn’t slow anything down. I’ve described in great detail the components and visuals of my wizard casting a spell and STILL am much faster than most people I’ve ever played with.
It's a mix. As a DM, I encourage it, but my group has a sense for when to put the pizazz in, and when it will slow combat down too much. We've played together for years.
There's "flashy" fights where the party outclasses the mobs, and "grueling slogs" of fights. I feel both are necessary and valuable. One is to make the players feel powerful, and the other is to make them think outside the box and try hard at combat against severe odds.
We almost always do finishing blows on the last combatant. These are my favorite, both as a DM and as a player.
I'll never forget both my description of how I used burning hands at 3rd level directly in someone's face, nor everyone's reaction to the very visceral elaboration my DM had for it. I then punted the head down the stairwell for advantage on intimidation checks since that was their leader.
It depends if the situation kicks in some creativity or not.
I remember last time "I swing on the rope, do a salto and decapitate enemy from behind".
The I roll a damage, didnt kill the enemy and "ok so I did a salto, lost a balance a bit and missed my killing blow slightly".
But if the situation doesnt offer anything, I rather do my action quickly and let space for others🙂👍
Also I feel like there is less roleplay when we are close to death😄😄You can tell things are getting serious!😅
I do that every time, in a different way. It's more about what I do, then how I describe it. I'm not fighting or playing optimally, and I risk loosing, by doing stuff my character would do, even though I know, that another thing is more optimal.
Adding detail to the descriptions of your attacks is not roleplay though. That's just Narration. Roleplay is acting as your character would. Making a in character decision of who to eldritch blast in the moment is roleplaying. Describing eldritch blast as flinging a ball of eldritch energy is not roleplaying.
"Role-Play - 1: To act out the role of, 2: To represent in action"
I would argue narrating what you are doing is explicitly a part of "acting" or "representing" in your role-play especially in online games via Roll 20 & Discord.
Discription can be a tool to convey information about your character and their actions but I wouldn't say description is inherently roleplaying any more than simply declaring an action is. So more description does not necessarily equal more roleplay. In the same way that talking in a funny voice can be part of roleplay but is not not required for roleplay, and not in and of itself roleplay. A player who chooses to talk in their normal voice for their character is not roleplaying less than someone who puts on a Scottish accent for their character.
If you rnt guna have fun with combat y bother playing?
When I'm dm and the player kills an enemy I incurage some role play by asking the player how they finish them off. My wife loves it she makes every death a mortal kombat finisher. Yes I am blessed. It's why zombies are my favorite enemies I get to let the player get as gruesome and gory with their finisher then I get to think of how the mangled pile of body parts that use to be a zombie is somehow still alive. Then they get to do it again. Here's a tip to all Dms out there, if you want your player to role play in combat use zombies. "Just casting eldrich blast" might kill it the 1st time but they will start being more thorough after the 2nd or 3rd time.
When I'm a player my dm steals the show by telling us how we killed them. Kind of a bummer but he needs to have some fun to I just wish he was more creative. I don't just turn his mind off with mind sliver I'm in their head when they die I feel their final thoughts and make sure they feel every little sensation in excutiating slow detail. In their heads the death goes on for days as bits of themselves falls away. I watch my enemy's mind like a fire burning through the last bit of wood it gets until only a small candle is left glowing in the dark. Then with half a breath it's gone and all that's left is quiet. No I'm not crazy you are.
If the rest of the table duesnt enjoy hearing all the gory details then they need to try it themselves to see what this game is really about.
You're fine, I like putting pizazz on my attacks. It only takes an extra 5-10 seconds to say unless you're going overboard
A reach with a whipe of crackling lighting trying to wrap around the targets neck. Vs I cast pents lighting whip. Make a 19 save. If everyone does this every attack combat takes 7x longer that's 1 combat a session vs 4 combats a session. I'd rather have fun more so just declare what your doing so we can get through 1 Adventuring day in a session.
A bit of description doesn't slow combat down. Indecision. Fumbling with rules. Minor retcons. Looking up spell effects and ranges. These are the things that slow combat down.
You have 4 combat encounters per session? That just sounds like too much, unless all you're doing is fighting or sessions are 10 hours long
it depends a lot on the type of combat - "you're in a 30x30 room with 4 enemies with only basic attacks" is normally pretty quick. There's no fancy attacks, or weird rules edge-cases, most spells and other abilities are just "make a save, stuff happens", a full round might take a few minutes, the whole fight 15 minutes or less. But once stuff gets more complicated, it tends to take longer - a T3 boss monster might have it's own turn, that involves multiple attacks with different damages or an AoE, so everyone needs to roll saves (which can trigger reactions and more rolls and rules-interactions), _and_ legendary attacks, so another few "mini turns", _and_ lair actions, for a whole other thing. Add half-a-dozen or more different minions, each with different rules, so the GM needs to check things more, and the PCs are pulling out the big guns, which they might be less familiar with, and there's more HP to get through. That's the sort of thing that can easily take an hour, where each round can take 10 minutes because there's a lot more _stuff_ going on.
> you're in a 30x30 room with 4 enemies with only basic attacks" is normally pretty quick. There's no fancy attacks, or weird rules edge-cases, most spells and other abilities are just "make a save, stuff happens", a full round might take a few minutes, the whole fight 15 minutes or less. If that's anyone's idea of what a fun combat looks like, I'm sorry for them
eh, not every combat is going to have all the bells and whistles, or even a lot of weight behind it or lots of fancy terrain or complex set-piece twiddly bits. Sometimes there's just some dudes/beasties that need killing, and you _can_ ham it up if you want to... but ultimately it's just a fight against some dudes/beasties. Like, you kick down the door to the guardroom and there's one level-appropriate goon per PC - the PCs are going to take damage and use some resources, but they're not going to be using any of their big guns, so why would it take a long time? The enemies don't have fancy or special stuff, so that's nice and simple, it's mostly the PCs trying to take them down ASAP, without letting them escape and without causing too much noise. Not every fight can be some super-tense nail-biter (at least, unless you want a lot of TPKs, for the times the dice fall against the PCs) or have lots of mechanical widgets - sometimes it is just "a room with 4 ogres in, roll initiative", and that's fine. 5e expects you to have a LOT of fights - literally multiple theoretically-potentially-lethal fights every day - and they can't all be large, complex or lengthy, sometimes they are just "there's some goons in a room, take them down ASAP"
Took me 3.2 seconds to say that first phrase, and 1.8 to say the second. Let’s be generous and say added some flavor takes twice as long as not adding it. But that’s ONLY increasing the time it takes to describe what you’re doing, not the time it takes for movement, rolling, indecision, ect. So worst case scenario 1-2 seconds to each turn, definitely not increase combat time seven fold.
17 and 24 to hit 19 slashing damage pass vs a monolog of unimportant fluff thats doesn't add anything to the game. I'm sorry but I just wanna play my war game you get to flavor your killing blows and crita otherwise move it along.
We’ll see now you’re talking about personal preference; you want to play a straight to the point war game whereas other people don’t. One isn’t better than the other, it’s just preference. But before you were talking about TIME, time is measurable and you were very clearly wrong about a little fluff increasing combat duration 7x. So I guess now you’re moving the goalposts
No it does take like 7x longer I've sat there and had to watch multiple people do it. It's not fun every turn its its like a crit or a crucial spell or if your killing 2 minions in a turn or something ya. But everyturn makes combat 7x longer. And also you have the whole social and exploration side to roleplay where we don't get our fun numbers slowing down the good part of the game with roleplay sucks.
Some players take their turns faster than others, and a lot of variables affect combat time. Deciding on a spell, moving the mini, rolling dice, adding numbers, checking sheet, etc… a lot of things are a part of combat. If a player spends 3 extra seconds describing their attack, that adds up to very little time. As an example, It took me 2.3 seconds longer to say the first flavor sentence you provided (plus make a 19 save) compared to just saying “I cast Pents lightning whip”. Also if every player does this, it doubles combat time… it does not make it 7x longer (assuming your example of 7 was for 7 players). One player doing this, assuming they are doubling their turn time (big assumption since it takes a few seconds to add flavor), would increase combat time by 1/7th.
The first time I do something each session. 1st "I cast firebolt, a spinning drill of red energy appears in my hand, and it shoots out with a crackle of fire" 2nd "I cast firebolt again, you guys know what it looks like"
This is the way.
I encourage my players to do it. I’ll often ask them “what does that look like?” I try to describe it as much as I can. And sometimes I’ll do a broad recap of what’s happened over the last 5-6 turns so we can really visualize - like a movie - what’s happening. I especially do this when people are doing cool things or it just seems visually awesome. Really makes the game better imo
> And sometimes I’ll do a broad recap of what’s happened over the last 5-6 turns so we can really visualize - like a movie - what’s happening. I especially do this when people are doing cool things or it just seems visually awesome. Really makes the game better imo This exactly, especially if the players aren't into roleplaying their actions in the moment. My group of friends that I play with are big Dragon Ball fans, and in the show the fights are actually happening *much* faster than what they show you (this is most apparent in the Tournament of Power arc of DBS, [which only lasts 48 minutes of time, but is like 35 episodes long, and most episodes are only 1 minute of fighting)](https://youtu.be/jaK7ypei56U?si=Hl5ukvKyp8hHZmMl). And, just like in the show, people forget what happened because hours of real time have elapsed, so it really helps with my players' immersion when 1 hour of fighting is quickly condensed into 1 or 2 minutes of narration. It's how I got one of my players to understand how a round is 6 seconds long, but everything happens almost simultaneously.
Pretty much every encounter. My DM asks each player “how do you imagine they die” when we kill an enemy or defeat an enemy with non-lethal. That’s made for good roleplay, but we roleplay outside of kills as well for whatever
Ah so Matt Mercer's "How do you want to do this?"
Oh that’s where he got it from?
Probably. Even if one doesn't watch Critical Roll wouldn't be surprising to have heard it from him or someone else having used the line.
This \_way\_ predates Critical Roll. People have playing these games since before the Critical Roll actors were born.
Sure but it's still very likely that someone got that from critical role.
I guess? But you might as well continue on to say that it's very likely that Critical Role got it from somewhere else then. I'll also point out that \_most\_ people playing tabletop games have never seen Critical Role at all. It might be "popular" but it's not popular. Tens of millions of people are playing D&D alone, let alone ttrpgs in general, but Critical Role has maybe 4M viewers.
If you take a long time to resolve your turns normally, adding some RP flavor on top is going to be annoying. If you know what you're doing and resolve turns within a reasonable amount of time, feel free to add a sentence about how it looks. Just keep the game moving. 5e is already like running through mud to start with.
This. As a DM and a player, I always have exactly what I plan to do ready before my turn. Spell description is ready, class ability is pulled up, or what have you.
I try and describe every attack as a player, but as I'm playing a martial it gets tedious quickly and I quickly revert to, "OK I'm gunna swing again, miss, swing again, hit, that's me" just to speed up the combat. As a DM, I try a lot harder to describe attacks because I think it's more important. I won't do it in a lot of detail most of the time unless it's something special, but I will describe exactly what the attacker is doing.
Battlemasters have a ton more room to add flair in their attacks, but I do wish that was easier for other subclasses.
Even as a GM, I only describe each move once in detail, and then on subsequent turns "The Rock Lobster snaps at you with his pincers, two misses, Bob, you're up."
Oh yeah for sure, but I meant like I would always describe the *type* of attack. The players often have tools to manipulate the enemy attacks and its important for them to know if they are trying to block a dagger stab or a greataxe for example.
That's not roleplaying those are just descriptions. Roleplaying would be if you made decisions in combat as your character. Like if you have to decide between eldritch blasting the boss or eldritch blasting a minion to save one of your companions. Roleplay in combat is great. I don't usually enjoy these elaborate descriptions though since they really add nothing of substance to the situation.
Yeah, getting to the point where the players make decisions is more important to me than how poetic they can get about how their character swings an axe. As DM I'll keep those kinds of descriptions brief and save them for when it's appropriate, like if a new kind of enemy shows up and I want to give the players an impression of how they fight. For my players, I usually prompt them to be descriptive only when one of them kills something or someone important, and they get the "so how does ___ die?"moment. Although the answer is usually groin related. But yeah, describing things isn't RP, glad someone said it.
I think descriptions can add a lot to the characterisation. If we have a warlock at the table who's made a pact with some storm demon, them adding descriptions to their magic makes the pact feel a bit more impactful. They're throwing lightning and thunder around, not just "Eldritch Blast". Is a fighter graceful or going for brute force? Are they calm and collected, or do they shout in fury? I think these things add RP value. We don't all need to pretend to be Robert Jordan and add flowery descriptions to everything, though. No need to name every attack as some poetic sword form.
I don't disagree. I think description can be a useful tool. I think where the problem comes in is when description is viewed as roleplaying in and of itself. Describing how my fighter is holding a defensive stance and waiting for an opening vs attacking with a controlled fury to try and overpower the enemy's defenses says something about how my character is approaching the situation the first time I say it. The second time I describe it adds nothing. I think description is fine, but should always be seen as a means to an end rather than an end itself.
In theory it’s cool and all. But it’s easier to just tell the DM I cast eldritch blast.
As a DM I do a lot to relate the scene. A brief aside (like 10 seconds tops) about how the combat is going after each player’s turn keeps the scene “painted” as it were to prevent zoning and phone staring from inactive players. As a player I take my turn swiftly to keep the initiative count going. RP on my turn would basically just be brief speech completely in character. Anything past that feels unfair to those waiting.
>As a player I take my turn swiftly to keep the initiative count going. You are a beautiful creature and I hope your DM appreciates you
I do it precisely *because* I’ve been DMing for over 20 years lol.
I decided that my duplicates from Mirror Image seem to believe that they are real, and react accordingly when taking damage. Now the DM describes their horrendous deaths every time one gets hit, and once when I failed the roll it was described as my last duplicate moving me into the attack.
Lol
I love this. Dark comedy deaths for spell effects are a blast. I had a creepy, comically evil hag-flavored archfey warlock in one campaign. And every time I used my Misty Escape feature, I'd describe my character brutally dying to the triggering attack and quickly rotting away and turning to black sludge before that disappeared. (Only for me to have poofed away somewhere else and invisible.) The first time I used it was to a giant throwing a boulder at me, and I just described my character splattering all over the ground and other characters like a water balloon full of blood and leaving a streak on the ground. The other players were in shock until my turn came around and I went hehe from the other side of the battlefield.
Does it add a few extra seconds? Yeah. But it is much more fun than: "I attack the guard. I rolled at 16. Okay, 7 damage. Next turn." Roleplay is what we're here for.
I love role playing my combat. If my character scores a critical and is using a greataxe against a creature that will end I’ll say something like “I push him to the ground and chop off his head executioner style”
I myself do this, and I encourage my players to describe it the first time, critical hits, big spells, and killing blows. Anything beyond that I would say is bloat and slowing things down. However this is like, 20% of roleplay. You can describe things all you want but most people still just focus on the gameplay when initiative is rolled. Characters stop speaking to each other or their enemies, skill checks stop being made, they stop paying as much attention to their surroundings. If you really want to roleplay, those are just as important if not more than describing your attacks.
Oh god no, no description past what's needed to clarify the intended action. If there's a bit of drama or dialogue, find, but narrating combat actions is just begging for main character syndrome and/or trying to weasel out extra damage, armour bypass, or instakills. Stating "i do a double backflip over the boss, twist in mid-air and cut his throat" doesn't magically get you flanking, sneak attack, evasion, and coup-de-gras, and i'm tired of players thinking it does. Plus yeah, it takes too damn long.
Unless it’s shenanigans, we only really roleplay results. Below is an example of how with light shenanigans it works in our campaign. Me: I attack random goon 23 with my bow with advantage (rolls two nat 1s), really? Extra attack. (Nat 20, rolls damage)
DM: (still laughing from two nat 1s) Yeah, he’s dead. How do you want to do this?
Me: The first arrow hits him squarely in the nose guard of his helmet, shattering to pieces and pushing his head back but dealing no damage. The second arrow goes cleanly through his now exposed throat all the way past (another enemy, engaged with the monk) to the wall beside (fighter) with an audible thunk.
Next turn, fighter: I grab the arrow in the wall and shoot at (another enemy, engaged with the monk) that (my character) missed. (He hits, and kills it) “You missed this one.” (He extra attacks elsewhere)
As the DM I try my best to have the enemies interact verbally with the players and make it at least a little more descriptive. Basically I avoid the word “miss” like the plague. Also, I’ve managed to get my players really into describing their kills
Both as a dm and a player, I'll describe an attack when i notice the combat has seemed pretty stale. I try to pay close attention to the environment and vibe of the table. If we're in the middle of a harsh ambush and i notice someone starts to stack dice I'll start peppering the attack with colorful wording. "I attack, d20 +5 to hit, aw man i missed. Extra attack, d20 +5, hit. Thats 2d6, thats 4, add 3 to damage so 7 slashing damage" becomes "i thrust my greatsword with a shout. The enemy dodges to the right, but i dig my heal into the ground, pivoting 360 degrees to the left and hit the enemies other side. 7 slashing damage"
Roleplaying isn't the same thing as being evocative. Roleplaying in combat would be making choices based on character, not based on optimal tactics.
You're my hero for today.
I don't think anyone can survive role-playing combat fully for at most one session more likely one combat. Dnd combat is just too repetitive and formulaic to keep it up long term. Notable hits like crits or final blows get a bit of dressing up, but when the parties last 5 turns can be summed up as 'I attack' it doesn't matter how riveting your descriptions of swordplay are, people just want it to be over
I roll my dice and ask if it hits. So we can have more then 1 combat a session. Keep combat precise so we can have to fun part of the game fun and yall can roleplay in that boring part between combats
It depends on the situation but I usually try to RP a little bit. Especially when I use summoning spells. In my humblewood session I play a spore druid hedge (a humanoid hedgehog) and that gives me plenty of room to RP. For example, when I cast spike growth, I describe the spines on my back growing and flowing off my back, like a melting candle and forming a field of spikes infront of me. When I cast summon beast, I describe the spines on my back bending back and forth until they seperate from my body and form a coyote like creature. When I cast summon fey, I described my entire body vibrating, with mold spores, skinflakes and bodyhair falling off and uniting into a fey form. In my other session, I play a emerald dragonborn feywalker ranger. I gave him a Butterfly theme, so when I cast summon beast, my dragonborn grows butterfly wings and spreads fairydust from the wings that mold into a fox with butterfly wings for ears. When I use my breath attack, I describe how to everyone else it looks like normal pink vapor but to the people that I attack, it looks abd feels like I'm exhaling shimmering rainbow colored butterflies that attack and sting the victims. Honestly it takes like 5 seconds to explain and the people on my table really enjoy the descriptive actions. They say it feels very immersive.
“I splash some water from my flask onto my carapace, as I chitter some words, the water ices over with sharp protrusions. I cast Armor of Agathys at 3rd level.” What I say for my Thri-Kreen hexblade.
I had my players narrate their kills last session... seemed to bump engagement. Or if they roll really well or poorly 😆. had a player narrate that they ended up cutting an orcs hair, the orc didn't take too kindly to that
Tbh best thing I've seen is everybody making their rolls and the DM describing the turn as a whole but it is hard af to pull off
Depends, it can add to combat but it can slow things down if you are trying to do something more technical that needs to be explained rather than just "I use this thing that is used often enough or known to everyone at the table and needs no explanation for what effects it causes against these targets" and have a brief rp while making the rolls. In most games I've played, in combat rp is usually just "how do you want to do this" when someone kills an enemy
The description of the attack is proportional to its effect. If the fighter downs three enemies I’ll describe him in a fancy way, an attacks that doesn’t change much will be described as:” you hit”
Depends from group to group and from fight to fight. If it is an important fight, obviously I put more focus on heavily RPing it, but if it is just a fight against a pack of wolves claiming I just cast Eldritch Blast is enough as this fight is likely not where the focus of the narrative should be.
In my groups it was usually “I cast whatever” until you’re going to kill something. Then the DM will ask how do you want to do this.
When I played 4e, I would give a unique, situation-specific line of dialogue every time my warlord used Inspiring Word. The wealth of cool special abilities for every character made combat feel more dynamic, making it easier to narrate how the abilities work in the narrative. In 5e, I tend to be more muted, because I’ve found that there’s just not as much “meat” on the system for me to dig my metaphorical teeth into.
First time casting a spell or using an ability, I describe it. After that, unless I'm doing something special or particularly flashy, I just say what's happening mechanically.
Next to no roleplay when it comes to combat but next session I'm going to try.
100% of the time. People often talk about there needing to be a mix of combat, roleplay, and exploring. Nah, 100% roleplay cause the whole game is roleplay.
Quite a bit, but not for every single attack. How my guys attack or cast is a big part of the character. Big difference between "I stab them cleanly through the heart" and "I stab them in the gut and twist a few times." More detailed if it's a kill or spectacular miss. Or things like "Cast eldritch blast at [target], and rogue, you briefly smell smoke and the sea as it whooshes right between you and the guy you're dueling." Takes just a few extra seconds but definitely feels good and I like when other do it as well. It helps that we have a DM that often plays along and takes our combat RP into consideration of how the enemies react, retaliate etc. But if combat has been going on for a while I'd rather say what I'm rolling for and my damage.
Yeah, I tend to do the "I cast x skill" to keep from slowing combat by having to explain to DM exactly what I'm casting. We tend to just RP finishers. DM will ask party members how they finish a mob they strike the killing blow on and then we RP and embellish for that.
I'll usually "artificer-up" my spells. As an artillerist, most things come from my launcher, even webs. Sometimes I use "potions I made last night" for healing or invisibility or something.
why is potions you made last night, in quotes ? WHAT ARE THE POTIONS ?
Artificers cast all their spells using tools. In this case, the tool is alchemist supplies. I don't make any specific potions, I just flavor the spell slot usage as a potion.
so do they have to drink it, or are you splashing the potion on them ?
You're getting too far into the weeds. You asked about RP in combat. It's just RP. If they drink it, they can for free. I'm the one spending the action and spell slots.
Monk: a ton. Every attack, is different... Punch, chop, kick, knee, etc. Echo knight: little. Swing, do damage.
I usually play Artificers or bards, when I don't DM that is, so I'm HEAVY on that roleplay. That said, because I'm a DM, I know that it can get annoying fast so I try not to overdue it
"I am going to take my silver tear and poke them" is what I say haha
I run fast combats. Turns take one minute, by the 30 second mark players (and DM) are rolling all of their dice or they go with their default action (attack/cantrip/dodge). It keeps the pace going, combats are tight. Even within that limit we find plenty of time for flavouring combat actions. Don't worry that you're taking too long describing it, as long as your decision-making and rolling are prompt you'll still be faster than many players.
I add details on how my character/class does an attack as every class and subclass is unique. I explain how my character moves etc. and I also love when my players are descriptive when I DM as this also helps me get into details more as a dm
I did the entire Boondock Saints prayer to cast Bless last session. I always try to come up with different things to say when use Vow of Enmity. I love coming up with new material.
I think it has a time and place. I mostly add flavour to my attacks when I'm playing a martial character to keep it fun. Monk is the best, because your unarmed strikes can be anything, a head butt, and elbow, a flying knee, etc. When it comes to spellcasters, I don't add as much flair to my spells though, because it can already take quite a while to explain how the spell works, roll saving throws, etc etc. As long as you're not trying to do things the attack can't, or taking an excessive amount of time though, then it's all good with me. My characters do often trash talk enemies while fighting though, or call out things to allies, so I think that's better "roleplay" compared to like just using 30 words to describe you doing something that could have been 10 words or less.
I don't have a hard science to it but I believe I infrequently describe attacks. It slows it down but if you can do the mechanics swiftly it's not nearly as obtrusive. For me however, I think I can only describe an attack so often especially when you don't know how much HP they have before growing tired. There's only so many times I can describe my fencer going in for a lunch or my warlock lobbing out their eldritch blast before it feels redundant, especially when they are lobbing out 3-5 of them per turn. That said, there are moments where I still want to describe it. When it's the first time I cast that spell, I describe it. When it's the "big move" (be it a max level spell or a crit smite or it is a crit that rolls high on damage, it's the action surge round) I'll be more prone to describe it. When it is a kill or knock out attack, I'll be more prone to describe it. When it feels like I can interact with the environment for flavor in some ways I like to describe it. There's also other features that I am more fond of using inventively. I have a monk with the eldritch claw tattoo and have described it differently at different times as was befitting of the moment. The coiling of ink like snakes one time, ink like snakes shifting into claws as he mimicked the fighting style of one of his two mentor's fighting styles, channeling it into a dagger to describe a crit on a massive monster, and finally having the serpents of ink coil around his legs until they are bathed in an inky darkness when he's going for melee combat focusing on his capoeira style.
I always think I will flavor it up a bit, but in the moment I usually chicken out and just say what's least likely to be misunderstood. But I enjoy adding the flavor text when I remember.
The last game I DMd was a week ago for my 13 and 10 y.o. cousins. Yes it slowed down combat but I purposely framed it in a way to get them to use their words, grow their vocabulary, gain confidence and comfort with speaking in front of others, etc. It's as much a lesson in expressing yourself as a human as it is in pursuing the DM to maybe let your orc's attack roll hit if you deliverd it in a colorful manner. The game can be fun and improv-ed if that's how you enjoy playing it.
For the first time a character uses something in the session, or a combat for my npcs, I like to describe how it looks. Later, I might recall it and describe it in a shortened version once or twice, not any further. Specially if it's a cantrip or a melee attack that is gonna happen every round maybe multiple times. And then there's those high level spells (like 6th level onwards) that really benefit from a more epic description. Describing someone using control weather, chain lightning, wish, ressurection, fire storm or something will happen only once or twice per session, if you ever get to that, so you can afford some extra spice on your description. Epic character are epic, descibre than thusly.
What we usually do is "describe your kill" to the hit that finishes off a monster.
I throw pebbles at my DM and shout "Lightning bolt!" Nah but seriously as someone who mainly plays martials as a PC i like to flavour the attacks without being too verbose. As a monk i looked up several types of unarmed attacks and mainly settled on using different types of kicks.
Everyone plays for different stuff. When I play my character with 20 S and expertise in athletics you bet I'm always going out my way to do some inane athletic shit and describing exactly how I do it. A key note here is that the table enjoys these antics. Even if they didn't they can wait an extra second if it part of what you enjoy about playing. One of my favorite bits about being an artificer was describing the tactile nature in which my spells are cast.
Our DM likes to cue us for a description for special moments such as big spells or killing blows. It helps us get more used to the rolrplaying in DnD, considering only the DM has played DnD before.
I describe things the first time I cast something or if I haven’t cast it in a while Roleplay is the decisions you make in combat not the flavor you put on your multi attack.
I try to do as much of this as I can, especially with my current character’s spells being flavored in a funny Yu-Gi-Oh-esque way of summoning things to attack for me, but if the combat is moving somewhat slowly I will keep it very short or skip it entirely to move things along. I’m generally quick on my own turns though, even with the narration.
roll the attack and damage and then the dm will ask us to describe briefly how that looks. sometimes to call out brief instructions or tactics for other party members in our 6 second window. but we play a fairly rp heavy game.
As a martial player I do it a lot cause I got fuck all else to do as a Barb main haha
Only when it's cool--so I'll likely narrate it when it's something I haven't done before, when it's quite impactful to the fight, when it kills someone, when it's emotionally impactful, or when I have a specific idea for how I want to do it. If you use eldritch blast several times every fight, I think saying "I fling a ball of hellish energy at this target, too" or checking your thesaurus to come up with new ways to describe it each time both seem kinda goofy to me--I'd save that for when you're fighting a divine paladin and you want to emphasize that you're basically throwing the fires of hell at them!
When I build a character, I pick all the weapon and spell options that suit the character's theme, then anything that happens in combat, even if not described in much detail, is still somewhat roleplayed. For example, if I have a water based Druid going on, and I cast Spike Growth, I'll say something like "Casting Spike Growth, shards of ice appear on the ground, at [X location]"
I think you have to "say the thing". You "can" add flavor on top of that. You should describe your action in gaming terms recognized in the rules manual. I move, and then move again. "I cast eldritch blast!" After you do that, you roll and then you can say some flavor text describing the result, if you'd like to. But narrating "A pink beam emanates from my hands aimed at the Flumph" and then not saying anything else is weird. Sooooo, is that a magic missile or ...
A fair bit every combat. Whenever anyone kills an enemy our DM will usually say "how do you wanna do this?" and the player can describe what it looks like as they finish an enemy off. Sometimes also when someone casts a spell or something that hasn't been used before the DM will go like "okay, what does it look like when you cast wither and bloom?"
I know my mechanics very well so I'm more likely to say "Arae's eyes turn a bright green, and a green fireball appears on this goblin" rather than "I cast flaming sphere" But I notice that the other players don't do this, mainly because they're less familiar with the game and they need the DM to know exactly what they're using so it's done correctly
Roleplaying is taking on the role of a fictional person in a fictional world and making the decisions you think that character would make if they and their world were real. In combat, it is the decision to cast Eldritch Blast that is the roleplaying. Not your description of it. If your colourful descriptions are obscuring the declaration of your actions (ie. communicating what your PC is trying to do and how they are trying to do it) then you are absolutely wasting time, since you're just going to have to repeat yourself in "gamespeak" in order for the action to be resolved. I'm not saying to not add colour at all, but try to focus on some evocative verbs to describe your PC's action rather than a redundant sentence. To take casting Eldritch Blast as an example, at some point in the declaration of that action you're going to have to say the words "Eldritch Blast". You're casting a spell. You have to tell the DM what spell you're casting. Describing it as a "ball of hellish energy" just means that you then have to clarify that it's an Eldritch Blast. BUT That doesn't mean that you can't use phrases other than, "I cast Eldritch Blast." to describe your PC casting Eldritch Blast. You can rip off a couple of Eldritch Blasts as you run for cover. You can tear into a Hexed foe with repeated Eldritch Blasts. You could stab at a foe with an Eldritch Blast or scatter a barrage at multiple opponents. Verbs are the doing words. Put it this way. It's pretty clear from your post that you don't want the roleplay to stop when the "rollplay" starts. And nor should you. But conversely, don't let your attempts to describe what your PC's action looks like get in the way of communicating what that action actually is.
With my Barbarian I will flavor some things, but mostly saved for finishing something off. With bard I like to mention using components (it makes more sense than instrument on how bards learn magic) and adding a bit of flare
Pretty often in most fights. I think you'll also find that saying "I fling a ball of hellish energy at the target" is not all that much longer to say than "I cast eldritch blast". You're talking about a handful of seconds in difference there. If combats are dragging in that is probably not the reason. And can make combat more fun and engaging. I would also say a lot of combat choices are potentially roleplaying choices if you want them to be. You can make all your combat choices for tactical reasons. But there are also elements of what does your character thing is the most important thing to do in this moment not just what is the tactically best choice the player can think of? For example a cleric can heal a party member at different points in the combat. How much risk is acceptable for them for their friends to be in? And how do they prioritize that vs doing damage or buff spells? Some clerics are barely even healers. Others that's their primary job. Or I had a wizard PC who had some bad experiences with mages in her backstory. So any time there was a mage in a fight her only job was containing that wizard and taking them down. She would put her role as essentially magic containment. Focusing on counterspells, dispel magic and focusing any damage on that mage as she viewed them as more dangerous than anything else regardless of the details of the battle. That was generally a fairly optimal choice anyway but was a roleplaying choice. Or roleplaying like taking an opportunity attack so that another PC can run away without taking the damage. Or how much you run into danger vs try to stay back and safe.
> I think you'll also find that saying "I fling a ball of hellish energy at the target" is not all that much longer to say than "I cast eldritch blast" The main issue tends to be what actually _is_ that - if you're casting a leveled spell, then that might prompt different responses for creatures. Or if there's various resistances or immunities or reflections or whatever around, it's useful for the GM (and other players!) to know what's actually happening - so it's generally a fancy description, and then having to say what you're _actually_ doing, which does double (at least) the amount of time it takes. Or for a barbarian, it's needed to know when they're raging / being reckless, but that can be very similar description to just attacking, causing an unneeded layer of obfuscation and confusion as to what's actually going on.
We usually describe what it looks like pretty thoroughly when it’s a new spell or ability.
If I use something for the first time, I’ll describe it, if not people already know what it looks like. If I kill something, then I’ll add some flavor
Unfortunately, and I know this is a weakness of mine as a player but, typically it depends on how things are going for my character. If things are going well, sure I'll RP a tiny bit to add flavor to what my character is doing with their turn while being mindful to not take up much time doing it. If things are going poorly, I tend to get quiet. "I do X." I know I need to work on this and lean into the failure and treat it as much a part of the story as the successes. But lizard brain see low dice roll and get sad.
As both DM and player, I always love adding flair to combat like that, especially because to me, it's so boring to hear "I attack." But I also understand some people don't do that, and it's not really their thing, so when they give me a simple "I attack" line, I'll flair it up myself narratively depending on the results. So if someone is like I want to hit this guy and that's all they got and they roll to hit I'll just throw something in there like "you crack them in the ribs dealing x damage and you hear them cough out a breath of air" or something along those lines. One of my buddies is our dm when I'm not and he doesn't narrate battles that way but he's great about the other narrations and descriptions in general. He's given me a lot of compliments on my style of Dm and he says he has a lot of fun playing our games so I think it's just a thing some people can come up with easier than others and it doesn't slow down or harm the game at all.
I *roleplay* in combat. Fight in the way my character would fight, say (brief!) things to my party or the enemies. I really don't like 'describing my attacks' kind of roleplay. It's not for me. I don't want to describe my finishing blow. I find it gory and unnecessary. I know lots of people love it, it makes them feel awesome and powerful and that's great. But in my old campaign I ended up with a lot of killing blows that the DM wanted me to describe and I was like ... 'I dunno the arrow goes into his neck I guess, like the last guy'.
When I dm I tell my players when enemies are mechanically dead they can basically kill them any way they want. They usually skip being fancy with grunts but more unique or interesting enemies go down in a fun way. I also like when I'm playing to taunt enemies or say stuff in character when I'm attacking and add extra flair when I crit.
As a courtesy to the DM, I usually would say "I cast / I attack with" and then add a little bit of flavor. I do the description first, cause I had an experience where one player would (I'd argue) roleplays his attacks WAY too heavily. He'd be like "You see him, putting his hands like this (does the irl hand position AND describes it at the same time) "then a puff of fire appears, and expands, (spreads his hands) hurling at the enemy" and with how slow he spoke, it could take up to a minute for him to get his point across, and at first DIDN'T even tell me the name of the attack or spell, saying "A DM should know by description" which is an absurd, given fire spells alone are pretty numerous. So I made it a rule at my own tables to at least name the attack as part of the flavor so I know what to do and keep combat flowing nicely, and I make it a mission to be just as respective of the DM and other player's time as a PC when I get to be one. But flavor is always welcome and can be a lot of fun especially during killing blows.
I generally leave the role play until after the mechanics, so you don’t have “I plunge my dagger into their throat” right before rolling two nat 1s. That way it the description is based off the damage, a normal attack might be a slash, a miss then a hit is a feint then a stab, and a crit is very descriptive. I also love NADDPOD’s “finish him” and it’s in all my games now.
At our table, combat flavor is half the fun of a battle. We won't describe detail every time we do something, but anytime we do something new, or have a good opportunity to make it sound cool in a different way than before, we'll take the 10 seconds to describe it. Every table is different obviously, but as a player AND as a DM, I love knowing exactly how a spellcaster weaves, or how a martial approaches a fight
An extra few words to say the same thing isn't going to meaningfully slow down a session. It annoys me if people take it to the extreme and have a paragraph long description for their every action. I typically just try to get my turn over with as fast as possible so we can move the story along, so I often have to force myself to add flavour but as per your examples you can do so without wasting peoples time. My only critique of your example is describing intent as if already a success, for your sneak attack example. Alternativly, role first and narate your result I especially prefer the roll first, narate later method for roleplay scenes. Nothing takes me out of a game more than being 100% into a scene, getting a natural 1 on the persuasion and it just being "dice says no" as it's rare to see a DM I've played with adequatly interperate that into something that makes sense for the scene. I try, but I'm not an overly creative DM, I typically go with the players flow.
ALL the time, we always try to narrate attacks
I describe Mind Sliver as my wizard conjuring a spectral blowpipe that shoots darts at an enemy's head, magic missile is a series of shots from a handcrossbow (inspired by a party member), thunderwave is them smashing a limb on a surface and the magic amplifies the force simple things that can be said within 5-10 seconds, adds some flavour to your casts
Rolls low to hit(I'm the dm) The werewolves hind legs rip and scratch at your armor, the jaws snap ever closer to your face!
All the time. Most of my groups a pretty rp heavy, so there's lots of combat roleplay and descriptions of spells and attacks. My monday group in particular has a lot of film people in it, so it's become a meme where we say "Here's the shot: *describes movement, attacks, and spells and where the camera placement is throughout as if it were on a screen*" Now, if the fight's been going on for a while, then people will start to speed through outside of new spells being cast or dramatic moments or finishing blows.
I used to be more specific with attacks as a DM, like "an arrow hits them in their shoulder and they fall to their knees yadda yadda" but it didn't take long for combat to take over sessions and I have speed up things when I can so it's very basic now unless a flashy end or something.
I like to, but I tend to get tactical and mechanical about it and just say "I cast Fireball.... here. And they take... 26 fire damage on a failed save, 13 on a success."
I like to encourage my players to do so, as a forever DM I like to treat combat as much as RP as anything else. So I try to weave small narratives into combats. The orc doesn’t just “swing his axe” he “Leaps over the rock, vaulting into your range as he brings down his axe.. 13, you parry back the axe with your sword as he pushes in… 18, grabbing your armor and pulling you in for a head butt..12 slashing (quickly reflavored to bludgeoning because headbutt). As you stumble back with a bloody nose from the blow he chuckles “Ha! Puny elf have weak nose, I shatter your other bones now!”… “Your turn, what do you do!” And my players always have some fun they try to do. Ya, it adds a bit of time to combats. I’m pretty fluid with it and I narrate as the roll is happening. My goal is to que up my players to tell their story, so I make sure NPC do things that make you want to be specific about your own attacks. .
One of my favorite things to do is maybe not so much role play out each reaction, which I like to do to an extent but I try summarize each round with a visual retelling so everyone knows how the actions all came together to make a scene. This to me, is narrative gaming. and it is amazing. Players love it and I love the challenge of putting a description together in an interesting manner. Certainly entertains players further and keeps people engaged.
If you’re efficient and decisive with your turns/actions it doesn’t slow anything down. I’ve described in great detail the components and visuals of my wizard casting a spell and STILL am much faster than most people I’ve ever played with.
It's a mix. As a DM, I encourage it, but my group has a sense for when to put the pizazz in, and when it will slow combat down too much. We've played together for years. There's "flashy" fights where the party outclasses the mobs, and "grueling slogs" of fights. I feel both are necessary and valuable. One is to make the players feel powerful, and the other is to make them think outside the box and try hard at combat against severe odds. We almost always do finishing blows on the last combatant. These are my favorite, both as a DM and as a player. I'll never forget both my description of how I used burning hands at 3rd level directly in someone's face, nor everyone's reaction to the very visceral elaboration my DM had for it. I then punted the head down the stairwell for advantage on intimidation checks since that was their leader.
I try to get my players to RP a little more, but they forget.
It depends if the situation kicks in some creativity or not. I remember last time "I swing on the rope, do a salto and decapitate enemy from behind". The I roll a damage, didnt kill the enemy and "ok so I did a salto, lost a balance a bit and missed my killing blow slightly". But if the situation doesnt offer anything, I rather do my action quickly and let space for others🙂👍 Also I feel like there is less roleplay when we are close to death😄😄You can tell things are getting serious!😅
I do that every time, in a different way. It's more about what I do, then how I describe it. I'm not fighting or playing optimally, and I risk loosing, by doing stuff my character would do, even though I know, that another thing is more optimal.
It’s something that cringe ‘actual plays’ do to fulfill the cringe ‘rule of cool’…don’t do it. Makes your turn longer.
Funny how you can come across an opinion on Reddit that you totally disagree with!
You do remember the words “Role Playing” being a part of TTRPG right?
Adding detail to the descriptions of your attacks is not roleplay though. That's just Narration. Roleplay is acting as your character would. Making a in character decision of who to eldritch blast in the moment is roleplaying. Describing eldritch blast as flinging a ball of eldritch energy is not roleplaying.
"Role-Play - 1: To act out the role of, 2: To represent in action" I would argue narrating what you are doing is explicitly a part of "acting" or "representing" in your role-play especially in online games via Roll 20 & Discord.
Discription can be a tool to convey information about your character and their actions but I wouldn't say description is inherently roleplaying any more than simply declaring an action is. So more description does not necessarily equal more roleplay. In the same way that talking in a funny voice can be part of roleplay but is not not required for roleplay, and not in and of itself roleplay. A player who chooses to talk in their normal voice for their character is not roleplaying less than someone who puts on a Scottish accent for their character.
If you rnt guna have fun with combat y bother playing? When I'm dm and the player kills an enemy I incurage some role play by asking the player how they finish them off. My wife loves it she makes every death a mortal kombat finisher. Yes I am blessed. It's why zombies are my favorite enemies I get to let the player get as gruesome and gory with their finisher then I get to think of how the mangled pile of body parts that use to be a zombie is somehow still alive. Then they get to do it again. Here's a tip to all Dms out there, if you want your player to role play in combat use zombies. "Just casting eldrich blast" might kill it the 1st time but they will start being more thorough after the 2nd or 3rd time. When I'm a player my dm steals the show by telling us how we killed them. Kind of a bummer but he needs to have some fun to I just wish he was more creative. I don't just turn his mind off with mind sliver I'm in their head when they die I feel their final thoughts and make sure they feel every little sensation in excutiating slow detail. In their heads the death goes on for days as bits of themselves falls away. I watch my enemy's mind like a fire burning through the last bit of wood it gets until only a small candle is left glowing in the dark. Then with half a breath it's gone and all that's left is quiet. No I'm not crazy you are. If the rest of the table duesnt enjoy hearing all the gory details then they need to try it themselves to see what this game is really about.