D&D 5E Another Critical Hits 5E Report

[Ichneumon]

My conclusions: DDN still looks peachy, and Mike Shea plugged in the Slightly Facetious module before composing his article.

I think he was just trying to make the point that DDN relies more on player input than intrinsic character potency. but it came off as a dig at 4e. No worries, I'm sure he still plays it. In a non-entitled manner.

 

[DonTadow]

Way faster combats? This game is going to have to suck hard in all other aspects to turn me off....

If combat is reduced to one roll a player, and the dm rolls the same dice for all creatures, still a 5 minute "boss" combat feels impossible. Unless they have auto attack/hits (STR 15, u auto hit). Maybe the game becomes more about tactics?

 

[Piratecat]

Everything I've read says that D&D Next is in pre-Alpha and no one has seen anything above 3rd or 4th level. None of the modules that allow for more tactical combat have been written, never mind tested. DDXP involved seeing whether the game's core was fun and solid. Most reports I've read indicate it is.

Everything else, including all the higher level stuff to come? Totally a crapshoot.

So there's literally no way to judge what the game is going to feel like, or how long combat will be, once more tactical options are plugged in. It's pure speculation. I'd be cautious of forming any lasting opinions based on (apparently fun) 1st level play.

 

[Kaodi]

I welcome the return of our Ten Foot Polverlords.

 

[Scribble]

I just hope they got the monster to combat length ratio correct...

3e Monsters took to damn long to stat up, and combats went really quickly.

4e Monsters were quick to stat up but fights took too damn long to use a lot of them.


We need monsters that are quick to stat up and quick to fight again.

 

[thedungeondelver]

I welcome the return of our Ten Foot Polverlords.

How soft your fields so green
can whisper tales of gore
of how we come
in times of war
we are your...POLVERLORORORORDS

 

[blargney the second]

How long should the climactic battle last? Four rounds? An hour? A session?

A climactic battle works because of everything leading up to it, not the duration.

I'll try that line on my wife. I'll let you know how it goes.
-blarg

 

[DonTadow]

a climatic combat should last a strong portion of the session. 30 to 45 minutes. i'd be diappointed with a boss battle that was 5 minutes. One time i wrapped up a dragon fight in 5 minutes, that failed miserably.

 

[Rechan]

Meh re: going back to town for ten foot poles et al. I was in a 4e game this weekend where those would have been useful, and that sort of "let's be cautious and tred carefully" irritated the hell out of me. Because it slowed play down. I wanted to get to the action, get to the story, get to the point, and instead everyone was acting like timid virgins because danger was afoot. My bold action got my character killed, but at least I died because I did something. Had I not done so, we likely would have spent 20-30 minutes being coy.

Not even going to address the entitlement business.

 

[M.L. Martin]

Meh re: going back to town for ten foot poles et al. I was in a 4e game this weekend where those would have been useful, and that sort of "let's be cautious and tred carefully" irritated the hell out of me. Because it slowed play down. I wanted to get to the action, get to the story, get to the point, and instead everyone was acting like timid virgins because danger was afoot. My bold action got my character killed, but at least I died because I did something. Had I not done so, we likely would have spent 20-30 minutes being coy.

For most of the 'old school' group, the exploration is the point and the caution is smart game play. 'Action', if by that you mean combat, is generally to be avoided in favor of cunning plans and easier ways to get to the treasure. 'Story' is a non-element. At least, that's how I understand it as an outsider looking in.

But after this article, I'm worried that I'm going to continue preferring even-numbered editions to odd-numbered in a D&D context.