Playtest Update

Interesting article. I'm 100% in the wait-and-see camp and just look forward to whatever additional playtest materials come out.

john112364 said:

But wouldn't that be the case with any mechanic introduced? Does it really take that much extra time to roll two dice? The same could be said for flanking, higher elevation, cover etc. Players will always look for something to give them an edge. And frankly I don't recall seeing hundreds of abilities, spells, powers, monsters, etc to grant flanking, higher elevation or cover in either 3e or 4e. By your logic nothing 5e does would make you play because there's always the possibility that hundreds of abilities, spells, powers, monsters, etc may be created to take advantage of a particular in-game mechanic.

Colored me confused.

Click to expand...

My issue is only with the roll an extra die mechanic. Less dice not more. There are already too many ways to get advantage/disadvantage in the play test. There will be hundreds more. And it wouldn't surprise me to see the mechanic carried even further with allowing another d20 roll with certain spells and abilities. Now you're rolling 3 d20s to hit and taking the highest/lowest. Just make it a +2/-2 and lets move on.

And 3e and 4e had tons of ways to get flanking, cover, concealment and every other mechanic. But it was still a single die roll to hit.

If it makes you feel better I also have issue with increasing damage and HP as a way to flatten math that only leads to increased math, just in a different place. It's just not as big an issue for me as rolling multiple dice to hit. The one thing all editions have in common is roll a single d20 to hit. There were exceptions to this for certain classes and powers and spells, etc, but it was an exception and not core rules.

But I've already said all this in other threads dealing with the issue. It's a crappy core mechanic and I'll have no part in it. Thankfully there are plenty of other editions and gaming systems that I enjoy. As always, I reserve the right to see the final product before saying I'll never play the game, but I'm out of the play tests. It's clear I'm in a minority and I'm fine with that. There are plenty of games I don't play, why shouldn't D&D be one of them . . .

One thing about surprise that's bothered me for a while now is that those who are surprised are flatfooted/disadvantaged/whatever until their first non-surprised action comes up even if they've already been attacked and thus know an enemy is present.

It occurs to me a simpler way to handle surprise (well, assuming they don't want to use the obvious free action for the surprisers) might be to roll initiative as normal but make things work differently in the first round only: if you are surprised you may not attack and may defend and-or move only after you have been attacked (this does not change your rolled init.), if you are surprising you roll all physical (not magical) attacks at +4.

Gets rid of init. clumping and seems just a bit more realistic.

Oh, and a smaller initiative die that allows for ties too, please.

Lanefan

DNH said:

Is that not the point of surprise?

Click to expand...

As others have mentioned, the issue is with "clumping" - whereas in both 3E and 4e, the "surprise round" is a bonus action in the regular initiative sequence - so the people with the benefit of surprise get to go first, but then their actions are spread out in the regular initiative sequence.

DNH said:

I concede that being surprised may well mean that the enemies could, in theory, take someone out before they get a chance to act, but my response to that is a) that goes both ways (ie the players can do this just as readily as the monsters can)

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is saying it's particular unfair to the PCs. The point is that it can make for boring play if surprise produces a "clumping" situation that can lead to a single PC being hosed before the player even gets to do anything in combat.

DNH said:

For me and my group, we would absolutely prefer to do the former (a series of skill checks to hide and get the drop on the guard) even if it makes no difference mechanics-wise. The story is the thing.

Click to expand...

In that case you may not need actual surprise mechanics at all - if the GM declares that the PCs are surprised your players can just not use their actions for the first round - RPing out the story of their surprise - without regard to what the mechanics say. And the GM can do the same for the monsters when relevant.

On the other hand, for those who prefer to use the mechanics, and see them as the principal engine for generating both fiction and play experience, getting things right is important.

what if instead of a -20 to penalty, if you're surprised you have disadvantage (to represent not being quite ready). ?

fba827 said:

what if instead of a -20 to penalty, if you're surprised you have disadvantage (to represent not being quite ready). ?

Click to expand...

That would be fine if you need to roll a d20. What if your a wizard who casts a spell that doesn't require a roll? What if he rogue desires to use his action to hide. Sure, he has disadvantage but he can't roll lower than a "10" no matter what, so that doesn't hurt as much.

You could say that the target of the wizard's spell would then have advantage on the save. Or that the rogue couldn't use one of his class features (!) when surprised. It just keeps getting more and more complicated as you try to cover each contingency and we all know you'll never get all of them plus the list of exceptions would be enormous.

BTW, I'm not a fan of the -20 surprise penalty either. It seems to weak for surprise. Surprise should be awesome and cool whether surprising or being surprised. A -20 is very....meh.

CasvalRemDeikun said:

Wow, only 60% is happy with the direction DDN is headed. And they are spinning this as a GOOD thing. Less than two thirds.

Click to expand...

If 60% of people were happy with any of the other editions, we wouldn't have a 5th. The fanbase is so fractured that this really isn't a bad number. If they'd said anything higher, I'd find it pretty suspicious.

I would be willing to bet a good portion of that 40% is 4E fans. So much for unification. They seem to be trying to unify with an axe.

Click to expand...

Not sure where this rather divisive conclusion comes from, and I'm pretty skeptical of it.
Certainly I am not thrilled with what we've seen so far, and I am not in that crowd.

Ahnehnois said:

If 60% of people were happy with any of the other editions, we wouldn't have a 5th. The fanbase is so fractured that this really isn't a bad number. If they'd said anything higher, I'd find it pretty suspicious.

Click to expand...

That is 60% of the people who downloaded the playtest materials and provided feedback.

It is pretty much guaranteed that, in general, the people who participated in the playtest AND were sufficiently satisfied to provide feedback are going to be more enthusiastic than those who didn't.

No idea how much more enthusiastic, of course. But the actual numbers of potential customers who like the current direction is pretty much bound to be LESS than that 60%

pauljathome said:

That is 60% of the people who downloaded the playtest materials and provided feedback.

It is pretty much guaranteed that, in general, the people who participated in the playtest AND were sufficiently satisfied to provide feedback are going to be more enthusiastic than those who didn't.

No idea how much more enthusiastic, of course. But the actual numbers of potential customers who like the current direction is pretty much bound to be LESS than that 60%

Click to expand...

True. Nonetheless, what is a realistic goal in this context?

That total customer base includes kids and people old enough to be their grandparents, people from all over the world with all sorts of different ideas about what should be, and many people who are strongly partisan with regards to a particular edition or style or mechanic. There's definitely plenty of room to make a game less divisive and exlusionary than the one on the market right now, but 100% consensus or anything close to it is not a realistic goal.

pauljathome said:

That is 60% of the people who downloaded the playtest materials and provided feedback.

It is pretty much guaranteed that, in general, the people who participated in the playtest AND were sufficiently satisfied to provide feedback are going to be more enthusiastic than those who didn't.

No idea how much more enthusiastic, of course. But the actual numbers of potential customers who like the current direction is pretty much bound to be LESS than that 60%

Click to expand...

Exactly. If those polled were an accurate sample of D&D fans worldwide and 60% were pleased, THAT would be a pretty good sample. This, on the other hand, is people who are actually interested in 5E and potential buyers. They only have made 60% happy with the direction 5E is going. That 60% isn't necessarily composed entirely of people that preach the gospel of 5E either. Whereas the 40% is composed of people that, if 5E continues in the direction it is headed, they are likely NOT to buy it.

The reason I call 4E fans out as being a good portion of the 40% of people disatisfied with the direction 5E is headed is because Mike Mearls specifically stated that 4E fans are not feeling the love yet. It stands to reason those that are not feeling the love are also ones not pleased with the direction 5E is headed.