Playtest Update

GSHamster said:

Let's say it's the 5th round of combat. If there was no surprise, you might see an initiative order like:

Enemy 1
Player 1
Player 2
Enemy 2
Player 3
Enemy 3

The players and enemy actions are interleaved. However, if there was surprise in the first round, the fifth round would still look like

Enemy 1
Enemy 2
Enemy 3
Player 1
Player 2
Player 3

This means that the three enemies can hit a single player before any player has a chance to respond, and vice versa, even deep into the combat. Combat becomes very swingy,

Basically, interleaved actions leads to more interesting combat, and the surprise rules makes it very likely that the resulting combat will not be interleaved, but rather group sides together.

Click to expand...

It is a fair concern, but many DMs will not feel the additional overhead of having managing multiple enemy initiatives will be worth it. IME it is very common in all versions of D&D for DMs to just have the enemy go on a single initiative step most of the time.

There is also another view point which says smart combatants will work together for advantage and combats ARE 'swingy'. Some see this as desirable. I do not agree that interleaved actions are more interesting. They are different. What is interesting to me is mixing it up; some interleaved, some not. Each might require different tactics to be successful, or might evoke a different feel for combat. For example, interleaved might feel more chaotic and be more appropriate for conditions where the DM wants a bit of confusion spawned chaos. While bunched initiative might better represent an organized combat fought by trained soldiers.

baradtgnome said:

It is a fair concern, but many DMs will not feel the additional overhead of having managing multiple enemy initiatives will be worth it. IME it is very common in all versions of D&D for DMs to just have the enemy go on a single initiative step most of the time.

There is also another view point which says smart combatants will work together for advantage and combats ARE 'swingy'. Some see this as desirable. I do not agree that interleaved actions are more interesting. They are different. What is interesting to me is mixing it up; some interleaved, some not. Each might require different tactics to be successful, or might evoke a different feel for combat. For example, interleaved might feel more chaotic and be more appropriate for conditions where the DM wants a bit of confusion spawned chaos. While bunched initiative might better represent an organized combat fought by trained soldiers.

Click to expand...

Totally understandable if a group prefers side-to-side combat.

The issue here is that some combats end up side-to-side, and some combats are interleaved. The single determining factor is the surprise roll. That is not the role which surprise should be playing. I think most of us expect surprise to give an advantage in the first round of combat, but not have continuing effects deep into a fight.

Whether or not a combat is side-to-side or interleaved should not depend on the surprise roll. It should depend on group preference or even group tactics.

Lanefan said:

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.

Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying, but remember that all of those attacks are taking place in the same 6 second period. In actuality, those mutiple surprise attacks are coming right on the heels of eachother...like a one-two punch (or one-two-three punch). I see it as the defender is flat-footed from surprise, and the attacks come so quickly, that they really aren't able to respond until their brain finally catches up to the situation...which is when they reach their initiative.

The disconnect is that it's a turn based system attempting to model virtually simultaneous actions (the staggering of when combatants actually act is in reality, anywhere from a few seconds down to a fraction of a second). It ain't perfect, but I think the alternative would be scary complicated. Like the possibility of "20 minutes to resolve one round" type of complicated.

Viking Bastard said:

I really like the surprise rules (simple and straightforward; me likey), but my players found them lacking. They felt they should get advantage on surprise. But then, it's quickly become apparent that they feel that everything should give them advantage.

Click to expand...

Concur... I find the new fight with, "I'm doing something cool, give me advantage" for even the tiniest little thoughts. It's another situation where if you give an inch, they take a mile.

I think they need more concrete examples of what gives and what doesn't give advantage (or disadvantage). That list could have 20 examples and I may need more to "clarify" things with my group (of 22 year + veterans).

Aluvial

I know it's not as apparent now but I see the more options included with the game the more time it's going to take the DM to actually create and run a game.

I want there to be a medium with 5th edition and it's looking more and more like there won't be.

So I won't hi-jack this thread, I am going to create a new thread.

GSHamster said:

Whether or not a combat is side-to-side or interleaved should not depend on the surprise roll. It should depend on group preference or even group tactics.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I did not like the feel of the surprise rule. If a DM wants simplicity of initiative and always has the enemy go on the same count it will never matter. For the DM who wants interleaved it will not give that result - and they would have to resort to some house rule to address, which is not what we are seeking.

erf_beto said:

I fail to see why 60% in the first round of a public playtest is not enough...

Click to expand...

I think the consternation stems from the fact that the EXACT QUOTE is NOT "60% of people really like our first attempt and we're moving in a direction to get those other 40% on board..."...BUT...




"60% of people [are] happy with the way D&D Next is headed".



That kind of statement needs some room to breathe! Since I didn't participate in the playtest, luckily I read a few posts HERE first and MAYBE that's just unfortunately worded. Hmm...

Because if you just read it (and I'm thinking it's meant to be read - yeah?), what he's actually saying is only 60% of the people like the DIRECTION they're heading--the other 40% don't like anything about the new edition; they've tried it once and decried even the very spirit of the thing. To me it's an incredibly strong comment. It smacks of the kind of bald face rationalizing you get out of corporations or (even more prevalently) politicians. Spin; to put it succinctly. I don't know about you, but there are enough words in my vocabulary that if I MEANT "60% of people had a great time, and EVERYBODY gave us valuable feedback for Rd. #2 ", I would just say that.

Otherwise, you're just left w/a PR rep saying, "this was awful, we're admitting it's awful...but we're pretending it's great". Run that next annc. by somebody please B4 you 'hit submit', Mr. Mike! Yikes!

The thing is, Mearls was under no obligation to give any numbers at all. If they were unhappy with the 60%, he had no need to spin it. He could just not mention it.

Disclaimer: I'm going to make up some numbers here to illustrate my point so don't take them to heart.

What if in addition to the 60%, what if, say 20% said I would like it if you had more tactical play. Then by introducing the tactical module they may get those 20%. Now they've got 80%. Looks better doesn't it.

The thing to remember is that we don't have all the numbers. But WotC seemed happy with them, so there has to be other factors involved otherwise M. Meals probably wouldn't have mentioned them. I say take it as a positive and let's all wait and see.

I'm a big fan of Mike Mearls, but something about his latest update left me feeling a little concerned. Keep in mind that I'm part of the 60% that likes the direction of D&D Next... well, up until Mearl's post. A few points stuck out to me in particular:

In addition, we have a narrative combat module and a tactical combat module in the works.

Click to expand...

Are these modules going to be separate products? If so, then we technically have THREE different combat systems we have to choose from, and likely purchase to run through them or try with our groups. Maybe a few gamers with early strong opinions will know what products to avoid, but a lot of us like options and want to read and test them out. So why do I say three products?

1. Tactical combat module
2. Narrative combat module
3. Standard Combat (PHB)

It just feels like we are NOT going to get a complete game out of the Players Handbook, and that all the cool options are going to be held back for other purchases. It also feels like they aren't really sure what kind of game they are designing, other than one with so many options (purchasable, likely) that it's a game that everyone will have no reason to hate.

Notice that I didn't say every reason to love.

One approach gives you a skill bonus that replaces your ability bonus when you use the skill. That's one way to make training important without having a low score undermine it. We're looking at those rules, but it's not clear yet if they are satisfying in play.

Click to expand...

So skills aren't tied to abilities? Or just some skills won't be tied to abilities? Or some characters will have some skills that aren't tied to abilities? It sounds like they are finding problems and then are trying to patch work a solution. Something as simple as a skill check shouldn't involve all sorts of work around rules.

Mearls just isn't filling me with a bunch of confidence here. I really try to not pass judgment, especially when a person or company is brave enough to open up their work-in-progress file and let us play and comment. It's a brave thing to do, and I admire that. Still, I kind of felt that things would be a little further along than they are now.

If these "modules" they are talking about are all included in the PHB then I might sit up and take notice. However, if we get a basic book that nobody's really that impressed with, but then all sorts of cool rules are spread around a bunch of add on purchases (I mean "books"), then I'll be concerned.

I can sum all of this up by saying that I've been more excited over the impending Dungeon World release than I am about seeing more of D&D Next.