nicholasgeorg
First Post
OOC why didn't you run the B2 module?
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Questions from our sessions (updated for 9/7 session)
- Thread starter howandwhy99
- Start date
howandwhy99
Adventurer
Thanks VannaATLC. I think that's the way I'll go for the rest of the playtest. Easy DM's call.
[MENTION=73891]nicholasgeorg[/MENTION] I'm running Gary Gygax's revisioning of the Caves of Chaos called the Mouths of Madness (both authored by him). It isn't all that different and most of the monsters cross over nicely. In the rare case when the module calls on material that isn't in the Bestiary document, I simply create it like with the goblin shaman. You can read the storyhour thread linked in the first post.
[MENTION=73891]nicholasgeorg[/MENTION] I'm running Gary Gygax's revisioning of the Caves of Chaos called the Mouths of Madness (both authored by him). It isn't all that different and most of the monsters cross over nicely. In the rare case when the module calls on material that isn't in the Bestiary document, I simply create it like with the goblin shaman. You can read the storyhour thread linked in the first post.
ThAlEdison
First Post
I was the one who brought that up, and I missed the never getting lost part. The maze power is too strong, the lack of finding stone features was missed. Although being able to get cultural and age information is neat.
ThAlEdison
First Post
5e doesn't need the ruling for magic missile, the spell explicitly says it requires you to select a target creature.
howandwhy99
Adventurer
We got a second playtest in this past Friday. There were a few more remarks by players on what they liked and didn't like.
1. Of the pre-gen characters, all of the minor spells available to other casters are better than the only minor spell available to the Moradin cleric. That would be Death Ward.
2. As a DM I dislike knowledge skills and abilities. The Sage background with all Lore skills and the Researcher feat are essentially making the memory (and therefore strategic) aspect of the game irrelevant.
3. AC and HP of the PCs are far too high compared to their standard opponents. Every once in awhile they run into a "Boss Monster" who has 10x as many HP as their underlings and it makes the whole setting comical and like traditional videogame level design rather than generative or, well, any other kind of design desired.
4. As the game stands, when everyone has optional full cover and the basic option of attacking during any part of their move then all targets quickly become unavailable. For cover a player could take 1/2, 3/4 (they move further around the corner, crouch, etc.) or full. With Move-Attack-Move it behooves one to take full and then pop out only on their turn. When everyone is only popping out on their turn because full cover is available to all, then none of the creatures can be targeted. Due to single initiative every one is hidden whenever anyone pops out.
- I believe it's possible to be out of cover and set a Reaction to fire at the first visible opponent and also move action into full cover. That's one way around this, but I'm not sure it's very obvious.
5. Dodge declarations for the PCs (who already have ungodly high ACs) make them night unhittable. They can pretty much do the Dodge Dance in front of every enemy and they can't hit without a natural 20. Please lower ACs, but perhaps you could lower this too? +2 or +3?
6. The Thief has Skill Mastery. This was considered bad design as any traps DCs would simply be automatic for DC: 10+mod and below. This undercuts Adventure Design rules by offering challenges that cannot be failed at (i.e. not challenges at all). 3.x say "Taking 10" can only be done when no negative effects are possible upon a failure and trap searching was specifically denied. As it stands it simply means the average trap DCs will be inflated making all other classes irrelevant, if they wish to try.
7. The players enjoyed having so many different spells they could cast at 1st level as well as the frequency at which they could cast spells.
8. It was mentioned that casters should be linear in their advancement progression and not quadratic... as the popular saying goes.
1. Of the pre-gen characters, all of the minor spells available to other casters are better than the only minor spell available to the Moradin cleric. That would be Death Ward.
2. As a DM I dislike knowledge skills and abilities. The Sage background with all Lore skills and the Researcher feat are essentially making the memory (and therefore strategic) aspect of the game irrelevant.
3. AC and HP of the PCs are far too high compared to their standard opponents. Every once in awhile they run into a "Boss Monster" who has 10x as many HP as their underlings and it makes the whole setting comical and like traditional videogame level design rather than generative or, well, any other kind of design desired.
4. As the game stands, when everyone has optional full cover and the basic option of attacking during any part of their move then all targets quickly become unavailable. For cover a player could take 1/2, 3/4 (they move further around the corner, crouch, etc.) or full. With Move-Attack-Move it behooves one to take full and then pop out only on their turn. When everyone is only popping out on their turn because full cover is available to all, then none of the creatures can be targeted. Due to single initiative every one is hidden whenever anyone pops out.
- I believe it's possible to be out of cover and set a Reaction to fire at the first visible opponent and also move action into full cover. That's one way around this, but I'm not sure it's very obvious.
5. Dodge declarations for the PCs (who already have ungodly high ACs) make them night unhittable. They can pretty much do the Dodge Dance in front of every enemy and they can't hit without a natural 20. Please lower ACs, but perhaps you could lower this too? +2 or +3?
6. The Thief has Skill Mastery. This was considered bad design as any traps DCs would simply be automatic for DC: 10+mod and below. This undercuts Adventure Design rules by offering challenges that cannot be failed at (i.e. not challenges at all). 3.x say "Taking 10" can only be done when no negative effects are possible upon a failure and trap searching was specifically denied. As it stands it simply means the average trap DCs will be inflated making all other classes irrelevant, if they wish to try.
7. The players enjoyed having so many different spells they could cast at 1st level as well as the frequency at which they could cast spells.
8. It was mentioned that casters should be linear in their advancement progression and not quadratic... as the popular saying goes.
Last edited:
howandwhy99
Adventurer
ONe more I didn't write down, but was mentioned:
9. It was strange to have Dwarf characters who did not have darkvision, but rather lowlight only.
9. It was strange to have Dwarf characters who did not have darkvision, but rather lowlight only.
ThAlEdison
First Post
This one I only partially agree with (I would also balance it the opposite play, buff the monsters vs nerf the characters), basically we've been fighting standard humans & goblins. For those to be a worthy encounter (as in 13 encounters per level), there has to be a minimum of 9 humans or goblins present (we have 6 players, otherwise it would be 8 enemies for 5 players).
Given the party member ACs are 11 (wizard), 15 (fighter 1), 15 (rogue), 15 (cleric 1), 17 (fighter 2), 18 (cleric 2); even if the enemies have no bonus, that's just over 2.5 hits/round.
For Goblins, if we kill 3/round they'll do an average of 21 points of damage to the party. That's just under 1/5th of the party's total HP (which is a bit under powered on their side, they should be doing 1/3rd to 1/4th). If instead we only kill 2/round, the damage jumps to 29, which is 1/4 the party's health.
In order to kill only 2/round they're AC should be about 16 and hit points should be about 13. That doesn't seem to be the case from when we've played, so that part isn't balanced (unless the intent is to level up faster, because about 12 goblins will actually do 1/4 damage to the party; meaning about 10 encounters/level).
Although the hitpoint/AC shield is confusing, and I wouldn't put it past someone to have mixed those up at least once.
PinkRose
Explorer
Still disagree with you on the AC. But I'm glad you're playtesting and your posts are well thought out and well written.
My group has done about 8 playtests and we get owned as often as we own.
I'm interested to see what you are fighting and what you are rolling.
The fighter only has an AC 15. A gnoll just needs a 12 or higher to hit.
My group has done about 8 playtests and we get owned as often as we own.
I'm interested to see what you are fighting and what you are rolling.
The fighter only has an AC 15. A gnoll just needs a 12 or higher to hit.
howandwhy99
Adventurer
My players are smart, veteran gamers and are instinctively using good tactics, but they have yet to run into anything they couldn't just demolish if they pressed long enough.
Their ACs are: 11, 15, 15, 17, 17, & 18.
Hit Points are: 16, 16, 20, 15, 20, & 17 (by the same order)
The foes they face are routinely 15 or less ACs and 4-5 HPs each.
I wanna say the PCs do an average damage / hit of 1d8 +2-5. Some are even higher.
The NPCs are frequently doing 1d6+1
Basically, if the PCs can get 1-2 hits on the NPC, it dies. In the very rare event an NPC hits a PC it just doesn't matter. The bonuses are screwing it up. If they had no bonus to damage it might take 3-4 rounds for the same NPC hit point totals. Hack & Slash is boring to me as it relies on grinding and no tactics needed. However, it appears to be the only play style supported with the odds heavily leaning to the players.
Frankly, the game continues to feel like the PCs are about 3 levels higher than every challenge. That may be fun for others, a kind of Supers vs. Normals game, but not for me.
EDIT: I figured it out. The remember the "sweet spot" is supposed to be about 70%. Stop making that the baseline. 50%, then let the players strategize on how to raise this for each and every unique situation. Or just not fight coin flip battles.
EDIT2: Got the new storyhour post up too.
Their ACs are: 11, 15, 15, 17, 17, & 18.
Hit Points are: 16, 16, 20, 15, 20, & 17 (by the same order)
The foes they face are routinely 15 or less ACs and 4-5 HPs each.
I wanna say the PCs do an average damage / hit of 1d8 +2-5. Some are even higher.
The NPCs are frequently doing 1d6+1
Basically, if the PCs can get 1-2 hits on the NPC, it dies. In the very rare event an NPC hits a PC it just doesn't matter. The bonuses are screwing it up. If they had no bonus to damage it might take 3-4 rounds for the same NPC hit point totals. Hack & Slash is boring to me as it relies on grinding and no tactics needed. However, it appears to be the only play style supported with the odds heavily leaning to the players.
Frankly, the game continues to feel like the PCs are about 3 levels higher than every challenge. That may be fun for others, a kind of Supers vs. Normals game, but not for me.
EDIT: I figured it out. The remember the "sweet spot" is supposed to be about 70%. Stop making that the baseline. 50%, then let the players strategize on how to raise this for each and every unique situation. Or just not fight coin flip battles.
EDIT2: Got the new storyhour post up too.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
Level Up (A5E)
Bladechanter and Booming/Green-Flame Blade Question