So its all about combat again?

[Agamon]

I agree.

A 5e conversion of L1 would be a great way to test all three pillars. There is a complete town (Restenford) with all sorts of stuff going on (and every important place and npc statted up!), so tons to explore/interact with... there is a temple to the god of gambling, there are several adventure areas (including the eponymous Bone Hill), there's a complete outdoor area- it's just about a perfect sandbox, IMHO.

If L1 isn't the next playtest adventure, I'm making it one!

 

[hafrogman]

Maybe it is my fault for expecting something from D&D it does not want to be, but so far I only see talk about combat.

Maybe it's your fault for expecting something from D&D (the game) that at it's heart has to be supplied by the players instead.

My players crept up on the goblins, hacked and slashed their way through the caves until they arrived at the back door to the hobgoblin caves and . . . then they knocked. From there the rest of the session was devoted to negotiating their way in to see the hobgoblin leader, arranging an alliance against the evil cultists, and the cleric of Pelor seducing the Warlord and then joining the ranks of her consorts.

This was accomplished by no more than a handful of charisma and wisdom checks back and forth between the two sides. The rest of the time I was winging it. The system didn't aid or hinder the results in any way. It could have happened with any edition of D&D, or probably any RPG that's ever been published.

Most of the talk about the rules is about the combat applications of the rules, because that's where the rules matter the most. In my opinion, the three pillars each have a different balance between rules and improvisation. Combat is mostly rules, interaction is mostly improvisation and exploration is somewhere in between.

 

[Stormonu]

I wanna see some N1 - Cult of the Reptile God, or perhaps U1 - Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh*. It'd be REALLY cool if 5E can handle N4 - Treasure Hunt.

Please, no Forest Oracle though - I think I'd die a little inside.

* U1 - Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh/U2 - Danger at Dunwater/U3 - The Final Enemy would be, in my opinion, a GREAT playtest AP to cover all three pillars and advancement rules (up to 5th level) at the same time.

 

[jshaft37]

I wanna see some N1 - Cult of the Reptile God, or perhaps U1 - Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh*.

I was just looking at converting these, but my group is pretty content with playing B/X at the moment, so it'll probably have to wait until later

 

[Tony Vargas]

I come from 3E and, while still very combat heavy, this edition supported "other" parts of the game by having out of combat skills and spells which ,instead of being improved (which would have been necessary) were completely missing..

There's a distinction between non-combat and non-adventuring. You don't normally pick a lock in combat, for instance, but you may do so quite often while exploring a dungeon. You don't normally make jewelry or bake a cake in combat, and you're also pretty unlikely to do either while exploring a dungeon.

AD&D had 'secondary skills' that could be distinctly non-adventuring (like cooper), and 3.5 had several open-ended skill groups that could be used to devote precious ranks to non-adventuring skills. 5e seems likely to continue that tradition, since skills seem to be prettymuch wide-open. If your background is 'blacksmith,' for instance, I'm sure you'll have a +3 to making horse shoes and so forth.

how much of the next edition will be devoted to non combat interactions?

It remains to be seen, of course, but given the modular approach, you have to expect there will at least be extensive optional rules for baking or macrame or ferret juggling or whatever it is you want to do when you're not adventuring...


One thing I noticed is that, functionally, by the numbers, the 5e skill system and 4e skill system are very similar. Anyone can attempt to use any skill and being 'trained' only gives you a static bonus. The difference is the 4e advancement treadmill vs 5e non-advancement, and that difference is pretty minimal, mathematically. In 4e, if your trained in a skill, you have a +5 and if you have a very high stat you're +4 or 5 or so, depending on level. In 5e, if you have a good stat, you're +3 or so, and if you're trained you're +3. In 5e, if you go up in level, you don't get any better; in 4e, if you go up in level, you don't get any better relative to a level-appropriate challenge.

The big difference is that 4e uses a finite skill list and 5e doesn't. So, in 4e, if you want a character who's a good diplomat, you look at the skill list and take high CHA and training in the skills that seem most applicable - like Diplomacy and Insight. In 5e, you'd want high CHA, and then you'd try to pick a theme that gave you a +3 in diplomaticky situations - like Diplomacy and Insight and Heraldric Lore and Politics and Conversation and Etiquette and Dance: Pavane and whatever else you might think of or your DM might call for. You could spend a whole adventuring career collecting +3 diplomatish bonuses and still find yourself without a +3 in one diplomatic incident after another. You don't have "Hobgoblin Tea Ceremony?" ooh, you're at a Disadvantage for this negotiation...

That's the thing about open-ended skill systems, they create incompetence each time you add a new skill.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Its because combat is usually the hardest to balance in an RPG. There are a lot more factors in combat that you have to consider than there are in the other aspects of RPGs.

 

[Hussar]

Well, they had three pillars to test out. They started with combat because, well, most of us play D&D which means that typically, most games do feature at least a small amount of combat.

The next playtest is due out at the end of this month or maybe middle of July, so, I imagine we'll see a broadening.

I'd vote to use Isle of Dread for the next module. After all, if you follow the old B/X series, the playtest doc's line up almost perfectly. Basic (Moldvay) had pretty much zero in it that wasn't killing stuff in dungeons. There were no wilderness adventure rules (that was in Expert) and overland travel stuff. If all you played was Basic D&D, you had a dungeon, you had a town (where adventures generally weren't happening) and that was about it.

So, yeah, I'd love to see either Isle of Dread or The Lost City as the next playtest module. Isle of Dread for the Exploration pillar or The Lost City for Interaction.

 

[tlantl]

After looking at the character sheets and adding my own outpost to the adventure I think the worst offender in the inadequate for use category is the perception based on wisdom vs dexterity. If you have a character that needs good numbers in three abilities to be effective, wisdom is going to be pretty low on the list. Town guards are going to be fountains of wisdom or really suck at their jobs.

Requiring someone to use their background choice to beef up their ability to notice someone trying to sneak up on or past them seems wrong. Requiring a rogue to put a significant number in his wisdom to do his job isn't my idea of good design.

At least the rogue could have perception as a class skill that uses his skill mastery the way his other trained skills do. Or maybe add it to all of the rogue schemes.


As for focus on combat during this playtest I feel it is appropriate. The other pillars should be much easier to nail down but we also need more information on our characters to really get a feel for the interaction rules. The exploration rules are probably more DM intensive in that they need robust rules for different terrains, dungeons, traps and puzzle design. The average player will only need to be able to interact with and overcome them.

The spotting, searching, and disabling mechanics are questionable. All a character really needs to do, though, is make sure he has decent numbers in the appropriate abilities. Perhaps a mechanic to train those skills slightly wouldn't hurt.

 

[Derren]

Maybe it's your fault for expecting something from D&D (the game) that at it's heart has to be supplied by the players instead.

My players crept up on the goblins, hacked and slashed their way through the caves until they arrived at the back door to the hobgoblin caves and . . . then they knocked. From there the rest of the session was devoted to negotiating their way in to see the hobgoblin leader, arranging an alliance against the evil cultists, and the cleric of Pelor seducing the Warlord and then joining the ranks of her consorts.

This was accomplished by no more than a handful of charisma and wisdom checks back and forth between the two sides. The rest of the time I was winging it. The system didn't aid or hinder the results in any way. It could have happened with any edition of D&D, or probably any RPG that's ever been published.

Most of the talk about the rules is about the combat applications of the rules, because that's where the rules matter the most. In my opinion, the three pillars each have a different balance between rules and improvisation. Combat is mostly rules, interaction is mostly improvisation and exploration is somewhere in between.

I disagree. You seem to confuse non combat interaction with role playing. You can role play in any system by "winging it", but that doesn't mean that it supports things besides combat.

You said it yourself, the system did not help you in any way. But it certainly does help you with combat. And this is the problem. So what makes D&D different than a tabletop like Necromunda with permanent character sheets? The only things older editions supported was combat. Everything else was reduced to "roll some fitting skill checks and make it up" (with different editions having a more or less complex skills). But as far as the rules are written they expect you to spend most of the game time in combat.
And I disagree also that combat "matters most". It does when you write your adventures combat heavy (hacking through a dungeon). In a political adventure combat matters a lot less and social interaction decides over your success or even live and dead. In a thief campaign it becomes more about stealth, etc.

Why must planning an epic heist (D&D version of Ocean's 11) be done by free forming with a few skill checks while combat receives dozens or even more than a hundred of pages of attention? Why shouldn't interaction with the game world apart from combat not also get some attention from the rules?

The D&D rule books were always full of combat rules, so guess what players and DM do in the game. 3E had, for D&D, a pretty high % of non combat rules in it (mostly spells though but also a bigger skill system). Sadly instead of improving that system it got slashed. How detailed will the non combat interaction be in 5E?

So far it looks better than feared (more detailed than 4E). But in the end it is too early to judge it.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I'm thinking that combat is getting covered first because it's the easiest. If they're expanding exploration and interaction to have equal space in the mechanics with combat, then there's going to be a lot of brand new stuff. It makes sense to get the things people have more experience with out of the way first.

For an exploration playtest I'd like to see Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan. I really enjoyed it and it's all about overcoming environmental challenges.