D&D 5E Another Critical Hits 5E Report

[Herschel]

A climactic battle should be long enough to actually evoke a feeling of grandeur and culmination. 5 minutes is about everybody sets up and the Wizard casts a Save or Die, which the save is failed, and then the looting commences.

 

[Plane Sailing]

A climactic battle should be long enough to actually evoke a feeling of grandeur and culmination. 5 minutes is about everybody sets up and the Wizard casts a Save or Die, which the save is failed, and then the looting commences.

I'm sorry that you feel so negative about that article. This thread might not be a terribly productive one for you; you might find some of the other threads less incendiary.

Just mentioning it because I'd hate you to get sucked into an argument here and end up with a ban.

Regards

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

A climactic battle should be long enough to actually evoke a feeling of grandeur and culmination. 5 minutes is about everybody sets up and the Wizard casts a Save or Die, which the save is failed, and then the looting commences.

Excellent point, a climactic battle should last long enough to evoke a feeling of grandeur and culmination. I can stand by that statement.

Can you tell me what happened in the five minute boss battle that was described in the article that did not meet your expectations?

 

[Herschel]

Yes, it was over too quickly with the information we were given. 5 minutes left with a "boss battle" to go? That implies the actual battle was about a minute, maybe two. In that 5 minutes there's teh description, the set up, the battle, the looting and the wrap up. If everyone has their dice and actions ready to go you're lucky if everyone even gets a turn in that battle. I suppose you could truncate the ending all to heck but if one of the things they're trying to do is get the flavor of the whole thing conveyed that's not exactly the way to go about it either.

 

[Hassassin]

A climactic battle should be long enough to actually evoke a feeling of grandeur and culmination. 5 minutes is about everybody sets up and the Wizard casts a Save or Die, which the save is failed, and then the looting commences.

Think of a climactic combat scene in a movie. Those are frequently shorter than 5 minutes. If 5e allows us to play out roughly the actions of such a scene in less that 5 minutes, I'm sold.

It may take 5 minutes just to get to the wizard's turn in edition X, but that doesn't have to be the case in 5e.

Edit: This here is an assumption where you hopefully are wrong:

That implies the actual battle was about a minute, maybe two.

 

[avin]

Do you guys remember how long took The Unforgiven's final match to end? What Clind did?

There are times for The Good, The Bad and the Ugly... and there are times for The Unforgiven or even Watchmen's ending style.

 

[harlokin]

The article takes an edition war cheap shot with the "4e entitlement" comment and then Shea has comments turned off to avoid edition wars? I'm disappointed in you, Mike.

You could say that a 4e player may have certain "assumptions" about encounter balance based on how such things were handled in 4e. And they found those assumptions were mistaken when playing 5e.

But to use the term "entitled" is derogatory. It implies they are naive or stupid, expecting something they don't "deserve". If that truly is the attitude of your players, SlyFlourish, then thats YOUR failure as their DM.

I played old school. I crushed B1 back in the day through clever play and tactics. I survived original Tomb of Horrors. I have TPKed parties in 4e as well. I assure you, none of my 4e players feel "entitled" to anything.

My enjoyment of 4e doesn't come because I feel "entitled" to anything other than having a good time with my friends. I like 4e because I like playing a well-designed balanced game that encourages cinematic heroics and smart tactical game play. I expect I will enjoy 5e as well. But I don't need to tear down another edition or the people who like it to say that.

I couldn't agree more with this.

I also feel the the entitlement snipe was both derogatory and unnecessary for an otherwise informative peek.

I wouldn't play a Runequest campaign and expect it to be Exalted. 4e is high fantasy, and those who play it tend to approach from that standpoint.

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

Yes, it was over too quickly with the information we were given.

The information given is too little to form any kind of impression based on the event itself. Some questions

• What level were the characters?
• How many PCs were in the fight?
• How many enemies?
• What were the goals of the PCs?
• What were the goals of the enemies?
• What were the conditions under which the fight ended?
• Did the players enjoy the fight (or did they think it was rushed)?
• How many rounds did the combat last?
• How many critical hits did the PCs score?
• Who won initiative?
• Was there a pit of lava on the battlefield?

Simply put, there is not enough information provided by the article to determine if the fight was a success or not, whether the players enjoyed it or not, or if it was climactic or not.

 

[Grazzt]

The information given is too little to form any kind of impression based on the event itself. Some questions

• What level were the characters?
• How many PCs were in the fight?
• How many enemies?
• What were the goals of the PCs?
• What were the goals of the enemies?
• What were the conditions under which the fight ended?
• Did the players enjoy the fight (or did they think it was rushed)?
• How many rounds did the combat last?
• How many critical hits did the PCs score?
• Who won initiative?
• Was there a pit of lava on the battlefield?

Simply put, there is not enough information provided by the article to determine if the fight was a success or not, whether the players enjoyed it or not, or if it was climactic or not.

Also, the exact quote was

“No problem, I only have one boss battle to run.”

How do we know that the "boss battle" wasn't simply mopping the floor with the biggest/last one standing Hobgoblin or something? Doesn't say it was the be all end all last battle of the addy.

 

[shmoo2]

Flattening Power Progression

As described in the charting the course seminar, D&D’s new math is flatter. This means that these 5% bonuses might be farther and fewer across levels. Now lower level monsters can still hit you and you might miss them. It means that skill checks no longer seem impossible at lower levels and stupid easy at higher levels.

This flattening of the math not only helps ensure a greater balance across levels in the game, but opens up a much wider range of choices for players since they don’t feel stuck using only the things in which they specialized.

Since everything I've heard about the DDXP playtest implies that it was conducted at only one or two (low) levels, how can anyone who was there know enough to comment how this aspect of the new rules will work, or state with confidence that the changes successfully meet those design goals for greater balance across levels?

Every version of D&D played well at lower levels but in six versions of D&D, high level play seems to fall apart. Only later will we see whether high level play keeps player challenge balanced, the game running fast, and remains fun for both players and DMs.

Especially since Mike does not seem to have seen high level play at all at DDXP.