Playtest Update

DNH · Jun 25, 2012

DEFCON 1 said:
I look at it this way with an example of a typical situation... a ranger tries to stealth up to a guard protecting a door, making skill checks to remain in hiding. He gets up to the guard and then attacks with Surprise, meaning he goes first since the guard's initiative drops by 20. But because the ranger had a +4 DEX mod and the guard had a -1... chances are good that even if the ranger just WALKED up to the guard in plain sight... he was going to roll higher on initiative anyway. So all the efforts to stealth up and get Surprise gained nothing. And thus the ranger is less likely to try something cool like sneaking up on a guard if there is barely any appreciable advantage to doing so. Why go through the effort? You aren't really getting rewarded for clever play, because you're getting something you already would have had more often than not.

Well, this comes down to play styles and having players that game the system. 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. I agree (and have said elsewhere) that perhaps gaining advantage as well as surprise would work better.

Herschel · Jun 25, 2012

Charwoman Gene said:
The only thing wrong with the surprise rules is that a lot of people don't understand that -20 on initiative doesn't matter after the first round. Seriously.

Actually it does. A lot.

It's not about when you (singly) go, it's that sides are most likely all going at once. They gang up, you gang up, they gang up, you gang up. It really throws the balance out-of-whack when, if surprised, one of your PCs can simply be eliminated before he ever has a chance to go.

Mustrum_Ridcully · Jun 25, 2012

Herschel said:
Actually it does. A lot.

It's not about when you (singly) go, it's that sides are most likely all going at once. They gang up, you gang up, they gang up, you gang up. It really throws the balance out-of-whack when, if surprised, one of your PCs can simply be eliminated before he ever has a chance to go.

That's a good observation. It can be problematic that the two sides are automtically going to be grouped together. And that is not just a thing in the first round, it will be in every round. It means people have less opportunity to react and both sides can optimize their actions on their turn, but they are standing around helpless the other half of the time.

I'm A Banana · Jun 25, 2012

What, no one is excited that fighters are going to get a Mystery Mechanic?

The -20 Initiative is narmed for a few reasons. I don't understand what was so insanely complex or unbalanced about "you get a surprise round to act before initiative is rolled." I don't know why the -20 is "better."

It's cool to see clerics getting some "you don't have to blow your powers on healing" love, and I'm really looking forward to this narrative combat maneuver stuff they're talking about.

I think we all know that time-shifting rests is a good first place to start addressing the concerns of rests.

Mmmm, one week timescale....

CM · Jun 25, 2012

Herschel said:
Actually it does. A lot.

It's not about when you (singly) go, it's that sides are most likely all going at once. They gang up, you gang up, they gang up, you gang up. It really throws the balance out-of-whack when, if surprised, one of your PCs can simply be eliminated before he ever has a chance to go.

Yet another problem with the playtest initiative rules, but I can't XP you yet.

If I switch to 5e and if the initiative rules remain unchanged, I'm just going to continue to use 4e initiative. It works fine.

DNH · Jun 25, 2012

Herschel said:
Actually it does. A lot.

It's not about when you (singly) go, it's that sides are most likely all going at once. They gang up, you gang up, they gang up, you gang up. It really throws the balance out-of-whack when, if surprised, one of your PCs can simply be eliminated before he ever has a chance to go.

Ganging up on a single target is good tactics and happens anyway, at least with parties that think about things. Spreading the party's damage output over several targets will prolong the fight and make things harder and more dangerous. 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), and b) then take steps to avoid it. You know that being surprised can be bad news, so don't allow it to happen. Scout ahead. Dim your light source. Move quietly. And to quote from Sun Tzu: Emerge to their surprise.

ren1999 · Jun 25, 2012

Mike, we're bored now. Give us a monthly play-test update. Let us test stuff for you as you come up with the ideas.

Let's test multiple actions since you mentioned the Cleric getting to heal and attack in one turn.

erleni · Jun 25, 2012

Bedrockgames said:
I think mearls essentially gets the problem: for some there isn't enough, for others there is too much (and for another group it is just right). It is also an essential piece of the game. How healing works impacts the way the game plays and how people see the in game events. After being in a number of debates here on healing I think the best solution is to make it fully customizable (say three options for healing).

I'm with you here. The DM and Players should agree on the mood of the campaign and the game should not set a general pace for it. Tried to XP you but must spread some love first.

the Jester · Jun 25, 2012

ren1999 said:
Mike, we're bored now. Give us a monthly play-test update. Let us test stuff for you as you come up with the ideas.

Let's test multiple actions since you mentioned the Cleric getting to heal and attack in one turn.

You already can: the basher cleric has a spell that heals + lets him attack.

Kobold Avenger · Jun 25, 2012

My issues seem to be other things covered, even if I was mostly satisfied with how the rules were.

Though I think in some cases there should be an optional blanket rule to make advantage/disadvantage into +3/-3 in situations where there's a lot of dice rolled.

I feel there were issues with the Rogue and Wizard but nothing was mentioned about them. But I'll be interested in seeing Fighter maneuvers, as Fighters were generally a class I ignored since they didn't have the complexity of Wizards and other such classes I prefer.